Allowed
Anish Abraham v. the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change
Kerala HCWP(C)/1238/2023
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 1238 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
ANISH ABRAHAM
AGED 41 YEARS
ATHIYALIL HOUSE, TEEKOY P.O.
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686580
BY ADV PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE INDIRA PARYAVARANBHAWAN, JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 1100032 STANDING COMMITTEE FOR NATIONAL BOARD FOR WILDLIFE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST & CLIMATE CHANGE, INDIRA PARYAVARANBHAWAN, JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI – 1 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PIN - 1100033 STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PIN - 6950014 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 6950015 THE CHIEF WILD LIFE WARDE FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 6950146 STATE OF KERALA FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 6950147 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER IDUKKI WILDLIFE DIVISION, PAINAVU P.O, VELLAPPARA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603SRI.MANU S, DSGI
SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, SC
SRI.SANGEETH C.U, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.1238 OF 2023
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of February, 2023
This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:
“(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other writ or order or direction similar to writ of certiorari, quashing Ext.P2, to the extent it imposes the following condition: -
“3. Since the quarry site is located within a distance of 10 km from Idukki Wild Life Sanctuary, as per OM dated 8.8.2019 of MoEF & CC, Clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife is mandatory for mining activity. Hence the Project Proponent is directed to obtain Clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife Before starting any activity at the site”
(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to issue certificate of Environmental Clearance without incorporating any conditions to obtain clearance from SCNBWL;
(iii) Declare that any restriction/safeguard as to location of industries /activities/ processes etc. can be imposed and enforced only on the strength of a valid law notified in terms of Rule 5 of Rules, 1986 r/w. Section 3(2)(v) of Act, 1986,
(iv) Declare that any stipulation to obtain prior clearance from SCNBWL for conducting mining operations within a radius of 10 KM from National Park/Sanctuaries can be imposed and enforced only on the strength of a valid law notified in terms of Rule 5 of Rules, 1986 r/w. Section 3(2) (v) of Act, 1986”
learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent as well as the
WP(C) NO.1238 OF 2023
3
learned Special Government Pleader.
“5. In pursuance of the above direction. This respondent conducted inspection of the quarry site, recorded GPS CoOrdinates of the proposed quarry site and GPS points of nearest Idukki Wildlife Sanctuary and prepared a detailed inspection report. It is submitted that the proposed quarry site is situated with an aerial distance of 4.37 km away from the boundary of Idukki Wildlife Sanctuary and aerial distance of 3.37 km away from the proposed Draft Eco Sensitive Zone Notification of Idukki Wildlife Sanctuary and the relevant Maps are produced herewith and marked as “ Annexure R7(a) . It is reported that the proposed quarry site of the petitioner does not falls within the Draft Eco Sensitive Zone Notification of the Idukki Wildlife Sanctuary.”
directions issued by the Apex Court in T.N.Godavarman
WP(C) NO.1238 OF 2023
4
Thirumulpad v. Union of India [2022 (3) KLT 739 (SC)], I am of the opinion that the prayers as sought for in the writ petition are liable to be granted in the light of the directions of the Apex Court and the findings in Ext.P9 judgment. This writ petition is therefore disposed of setting aside the general condition No.3 in Ext.P2 Environmental Clearance and directing the 4th respondent to proceed with the application submitted by the petitioner without insisting for SCNBWL clearance, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
NP
WP(C) NO.1238 OF 2023
5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1238/2023
PETITIONER’S EXHIB |
ITS |
|
|---|---|---|
EXHIBIT P1 |
TRUE COPY OF THETHE4TH RESPONDEN |
LETTER OF INTENT ISSUED BYT, DATED 18.09.2017 |
EXHIBIT P2 |
TRUE COPY OF THEISSUED BY STATEASSESSMENT AUTHO02.12.2022 |
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCELEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACTRITY (SEIAA) KERALA,DATED |
EXHIBIT P3 |
TRUE COPY OF THE2019 |
OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 8-8- |
EXHIBIT P4 |
TRUE COPY OF THENO.SO.2772(E) DT |
DRAFT NOTIFICATION BEARING13.08.2020 |
EXHIBIT P5 |
TRUE COPY OF THEDISTANCE BETWEENQUARRY UNIT ANDSANCTUARY |
GOOGLE IMAGE SHOWING THETHE PETITIONER'S PROPOSEDTHE IDUKKI WILD LIFE |
EXHIBIT P6 |
TRUE COPY OF THEAPPLICATION FORPETITIONER IN THENVIRONMENT, FORGOVERNMENT OF IN |
RELEVANT PAGES OF THENOC UPLOADED BY THEE PORTAL OF THE MINISTRY OFEST AND CLIMATE CHANGE,DIA |
EXHIBIT P7 |
THE TRUE COPY OFHON'BLE COURT INNO.12829/2022 DA |
THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THISSIMILAR CASE BEARING WP©TED 19/08/2022 |
EXHIBIT P8 |
TRUE COPY OF THEHON'BLE COURT IN19710/2022 DATED |
JUDGMENT PASSED BY THISSIMILAR CASE BEARING WPC NO.27/07/2022 |
EXHIBIT P9 |
TRUE COPY OF THEHON'BLE COURT IN19.12.2022 |
JUDGMENT PASSED BY THISWPC NO. 34050/2022 DATED |
RESPONDENTS’ ANNEX |
URES |
|
ANNEXURE R7(A) |
PHOTOS OF THE MAPROPOSED QUARRY |
P SHOWING THE DISTANCE OFSITE. |
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
T.N.GodavarmanReferred¶37
Thirumulpad v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶37
Thirumulpad v. Union of India [2022 (3) KLT 739 (SC)]
Anish Abraham
The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change
Standing Committee for National Board for Wildlife
State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court