Disposed

Sakkier Hussain v. the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Kerala HC19 Aug 2022WP(C)/7552/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petitioner challenged the rejection of his Environmental Clearance application for a granite quarry on grounds of arbitrariness and discrimination. The Court found an efficacious alternate remedy at the National Green Tribunal under the NGT Act, 2010, and disposed of the petition without granting relief while permitting the petitioner to approach the NGT.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without granting any relief; petitioner permitted to approach National Green Tribunal for redressal.

Sakkier Hussain Vs the State Environment Impact… — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 7552 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

SAKKIER HUSSAIN AGED 41 YEARS S/O RAJAN,PANACKAL HOUSE,VAZHOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686504. BY ADVS. K.R.SUNIL KUM.SABI C SHAJI SMT.AISWARYA VENUGOPAL

¶7

RESPONDENTS

¶8

1 THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA), PALLIMUKKU-KANNAMMOOLA ROAD,OVER BRIDGE, VELAKUDI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695024, REPRESENTING THROUGH ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶9

2 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE,DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM,PIN-686002.

¶10

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAKKUNNAM VILLAGE OFFICE, EDAKKUNNAM,PIN-686512.

¶11

SRI.SYAMANTHAK B S, GP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P(C) No.7552 of 2021 ]

¶14

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

Dated this the 19^th day of August, 2022

¶17

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to call

¶18

for the records pursuant to Ext.P2 and quash the same.

¶19

The petitioner states that he submitted an application before the 1^st respondent along with all requisite documents for issuance of Environmental Clearance for the proposed Quarry. The application was considered by the 1^st respondent. The petitioner was required to produce certain documents. The petitioner provided the same.

¶20

However, the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P2 order, stating that the hazard potential of the site is very high. The petitioner states that Ext.P2 is highly illegal and arbitrary. The reasons for rejecting Ext.P1 application are the proximity to the High Hazard Zone. No landslides were reported in the area of the proposed Quarry for the last more than 50 years. There are no

¶21

W.P(C) No.7552 of 2021 3 ] residential buildings in the prohibitory distance either.

¶22

The 1^st respondent, in fact, in their 105^th meeting, had granted sanction for Environmental Clearance to one Jerry Jacob for Granite Building Stone Quarry. The 1^st respondent cannot discriminate the petitioner. Ext.P2 is therefore liable to be set aside.

¶23

The 1^st respondent entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. A statement dated 17.08.2022 was filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent stated that the reasons led to rejection of the petitioner’s application for Environmental Clearance are that (1) The hazard potential of the site is very high as the proposed site is in medium hazard zone, which is in continuation with the high hazard zone. The distance to high hazard zone on the North-West direction is 2.48 Km. and to North-East direction is 1.95 Km.; (2) There is a thickly vegetated overhung portion to the northern side of the site which can cause landslide, once the lower area is disturbed due to the induced seismic activities. The State

¶24

W.P(C) No.7552 of 2021 4 ]

¶25

Level Expert Appraisal Committee which is a committee designated for making recommendations for grant or rejection of Environmental Clearances, has made recommendations to the 1^st respondent that the project is not viable in view of the above reasons. The 1^st respondent is bound to accept the same and act upon the same in the better interest of the environment and the safety of the people. There is no power granted by any statute to SEIAA/SEAC to review its own decision.

¶26

The 1^st respondent submitted that Ext.P2 is passed legally after observing mandates under the EIA Notification, 2006. The contention of the petitioner that no landslides were reported in the area of the proposed quarry recently or for more than 50 years and hence the petitioner is liable to be granted with an Environmental Clearance is not correct. The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee has found that there is a thickly vegetated overhung portion on the northern side of the site. There is a possibility of landslide, once the lower

¶27

W.P(C) No.7552 of 2021 5 ]

¶28

area is disturbed due to the inducted siesmic activities.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶30

the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 2 and 3.

¶31

The application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the 1^st respondent on the ground that hazard potential of the site is very high as the proposed site is in medium hazard zone, which is in continuation with the high hazard zone. The distance to high hazard zone on the North-West direction is 2.48 Kilometres and to North-East direction is 1.95 Kilometres. There is a thickly vegetated overhung portion to the northern side of the site. There is a possibility of landslide, once the lower area is disturbed due to the induced seismic activities.

¶32

The counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 1^st respondent has granted sanction for Environmental Clearance to another applicant for Granite Building Stone

¶33

W.P(C) No.7552 of 2021 6 ]

¶34

Quarry in a nearby area which is only 500 metres far from the proposed quarry site. Clearance has been given to yet another applicant located in an area in Koottickal Village near Kottayam District. The petitioner alone is subjected to hostile discrimination, contended the counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

The 1^st respondent has considered location of the property and the nature of the area. The 1^st respondent found that the hazard potential of the site is very high as the proposed site is in medium hazard zone. It is in continuation with the high hazard zone. The 1^st respondent has specifically stated that there is a thickly vegetated overhung portion to the northern side of the site which can cause landslide, once the lower area is disturbed due to the induced seismic activities. Ext.P2 order has been passed taking into consideration the fact situation and ground realities. Grant of Clearance to any other applicant cannot be a reason to extend the same treatment to the proposed Quarry of the petitioner. The 1^st respondent has decided the

¶36

W.P(C) No.7552 of 2021 7 ] issue on the basis of site inspection and the materials available before me.

¶37

Furthermore, this Court finds that the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy before the National Green Tribunal where the petitioner can agitate the grievance against Ext.P2. For all the above reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage.

¶38

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without granting any relief to the petitioner, but permitting the petitioner to approach the National Green Tribunal under Section 16(i) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 for redressal of grievances on Ext.P2, if the petitioner is so advised.

¶39

Sd /-

¶40

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶41

smm/ 24.08.2022

¶42

W.P(C) No.7552 of 2021 ]

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7552/2021

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR MINING PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT SEEKING TO GRANT PERMISSION FOR THE GRANITE BUILDING STONE QUARRY(MINOR MINERAL)IN THE REQUISITE FORMAT.

¶47

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 18.11.2020 TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Sakkier Hussain v. the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakkier Hussain v. the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subash K.Baby, Vs the District Collector

Abdul Gafoor, Vs the Geologist Squad ( Sr )

Parameswaran Pilla Vs Nedumangad Municipality

Raji Mathew Vs Union of India

David .P.v Vs the Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Dr.Sivaji Jaganathan Vs State of Kerala