Quashed

M/s. Amala Industries v. the Director of Mining and Geology Department

Kerala HC16 Feb 2023WP(C)/1651/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed Condition No.11 of a letter demanding Wildlife Board clearance for a quarry lease, holding that the site lies outside the notified ESZ and Apex Court guidelines mandate reliance on notified boundaries.

What did the court decide?

Condition No.11 of Ext.P6 quashed; 1st respondent directed to issue quarrying lease without insisting on SCNBWL clearance.

M/s. Amala Industries Vs the Director of Mining and Geology… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 27TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1651 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S. AMALA INDUSTRIES AGED 78 YEARS

¶8

VAZHAKODE, MULLURKKARA P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680583 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.C. LUIZ BY ADVS. PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SAJITHA GEORGE NEENU BERNATH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLORY, MINI CIVIL STATION, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR., PIN - 680020

¶12

3 THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST & CLIMATE CHANGE INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN, JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 110003

¶13

4 STANDING COMMITTEE FOR NATIONAL BOARD FOR WILD LIFE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST & CLIMATE CHANGE, INDIRA PAR5RAVARAN BHAWAN, JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PIN - 110003

¶14

5 THE CHIEF WILD LIFE WARDEN FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

¶15

6 THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001

¶16

7 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, THRISSUR DIVISION, KALYAN NAGAR, AYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003 SRI.SANGEETH.C.U, SPL.GP(FORESTS) SRI.S.MANU, DSGI

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 1651 OF 2023

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2023

¶22

This writ petition is filed challenging condition No.11 in Ext.P6 letter issued by the 1^st respondent and seeking directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner for conducting the mining operations without obtaining prior clearance from the SCNBWL. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had approached the 1^st respondent for obtaining a quarrying lease for an extent of 1.6941 Hectares of land in Re-Survey Block No.35 and ReSurvey Nos.488pt and 499/2 of Mullurkkara Village, Talappilly Taluk in Thrissur District. It is submitted that Letter of Intent had been issued to the petitioner and Ext.P2 Environmental Clearance and Integrated Consent to Operate from the Pollution Control Board as well as Explosive licences and D & O licence from the Panchayat were also obtained. However, Ext.P6 letter had been issued by the 1^st respondent insisting on an NOC from the Wildlife Board. It is further stated that the condition imposed that the petitioner should obtain clearance from the Wildlife Board is completely unsustainable since the Central

¶23

WP(C) NO. 1651 OF 2023

¶24

¶25

Government has issued draft notification declaring the proposed buffer zone for the Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary and the project of the petitioner is at a distance of 6.5km from the Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary.

¶26

It is submitted that the Apex Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpadu v. Union of India [2022 (3) KLT 739 (SC)] has specifically provided that where the Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) is already prescribed as per law and those beyond 1km buffer zone, the wider margin as ESZ shall prevail. If such wider buffer zone beyond 1km is proposed under any statutory instrument for a particular national park or wildlife sanctuary awaiting final decision, then till such final decision is taken, the ESZ covering the area beyond 1km as proposed shall be maintained. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since, in the instant case, the petitioner’s quarry is not within the objectionable distance or within the ESZ, the condition provided in Ext.P6 is illegal and unwarranted.

¶27

A statement has been placed on record by the 7^th respondent as directed by this Court wherein it is stated that a field verification of the

¶28

WP(C) NO. 1651 OF 2023

¶29

¶30

proposed quarry site and nearest boundaries of the reserved forest (Akamala Reserved Forest and the Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary) reveals that the proposed quarry site of the petitioner does not fall within the draft ESZ notification of the Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary. It is stated that the quarry, however, may come within 10km radius of the boundary from the wildlife sanctuary.

¶31

Having considered the contentions advanced and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court where it has been specifically provided that where the ESZ has already been notified, the distance from the quarrying site has to be considered on the basis of the ESZ notified, the condition provided in Ext.P6 is not sustained.

¶32

The directions at paragraph No.44(h) of the judgment of the Apex Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpadu (cited supra) would show that in respect of Sanctuaries or National Parks for which the proposal of a State or Union Territory has not been given, the 10 Kilometres buffer zone as ESZ, as indicated in the order passed by the Apex Court on 4th December, 2006 in the case of Goa Foundation v. Union of India [(2006 (4) KLT Online 1110 (SC)] and also contained in the

¶33

WP(C) NO. 1651 OF 2023

¶34

¶35

Guidelines of 9^th February, 2011 shall be implemented.

¶36

The directions of the Apex Court contained in paragraph 44(p) of the judgment of the Apex Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpadu

¶37

(cited supra) would show that in the event there is any subsisting order of any High Court or any Court Subordinate to such High Court covering any of the issues dealt with by the Apex Court in the order, then the order of the Apex court shall prevail over any such order which are contrary to the directions.

¶38

In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpadu (cited supra), the writ petition is disposed of quashing condition No.11 of Ext.P6 to the extent they stipulate obtaining of Clearance from the SCNBWL and directing the 1^st respondent to issue quarrying lease in favour of the petitioner without insisting for SCNBWL Clearance, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶41

NP

¶42

WP(C) NO. 1651 OF 2023

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1651/2023

¶45

`PETITIONER’S EXHIB` `EXHIBIT P1`	`ITS` `TRUE COPY` `DATED 16.1` `THE 1ST RE`	`OF THE` `0.2018` `SPONDEN`	`LETTER OF INTENT ISSUED BY` `IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND P1.` `T,`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY` `ENVIRONMEN` `NO.1258/EC`	`OF THE` `TAL CLE` `2/2019/`	`RELEVANT PAGES OF THE` `ARANCE` `SEIAA DATED 20.03.2020`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY` `INTEGRATED` `POLLUTION`	`OF THE` `CONSEN` `CONTROL`	`RELEVANT PAGE OF THE` `T TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE` `BOARD, DATED 27.06.202A0`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY` `EXPLOSIVE`	`OF THE` `LICENSE`	`RELEVANT PAGES OF THE` `, DATED02-06-2022`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY` `SECRETARY,` `PERIOD FRO`	`OF THE` `MULLUR` `M 01.4-`	`LICENSE ISSUED BY THE` `KKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, FOR A` `2020 TO 19.03.2025`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY` `DIRECTORAT` `DATED 13.1`	`OF THE` `E OF MI` `2.2022`	`LETTER ISSUED BY THE` `NING & GEOLORY, TRIVANDRUM`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY` `8.8.2019`	`OF THE`	`OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY` `S.O.NO.427`	`OF THE` `1(E), D`	`DRAFT NOTIFICATION BEARING` `ATED 25/11/2020`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY` `DISTANCE B` `QUARRY UNI` `SANCTUARY`	`OF THE` `ETWEEN` `T AND T` `DATED N`	`GOOGLE IMAGE SHOWING THE` `THE PETITIONER'S PROPOSED` `HE PEECHY YAZHANI WILD LIFE` `IL`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY` `APPLICATIO`	`OF THE` `N FOR N`	`RELEVANT PAGES OF THE` `OC DATED NIL.`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`TRUE COPY` `HONBLE COU` `NO.12829 /`	`OF THE` `RT IN S` `2022 DA`	`JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THIS` `IMILAR CASE BEARING WPO` `TE19/08/2022`
`EXHIBIT P12`	`TRUE COPY` `HON'BLE CO` `19710/2022`	`OF THE` `URT IN` `DATED`	`JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THIS` `SIMILAR CASE BEARING WPO NO.` `27 /07 /2022`
`EXHIBIT P13`	`TRUE COPY` `PASSED IN`	`OF THE_` `WPC NO.`	`JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2O22` `34050 /2022`
`RESPONDENTS’ EXHIB`	`ITS:`
`ANNEXURE R7(a)`	`TRUE COPY`	`OF THE`	`INSPECTION REPORT`
`ANNEXURE R7(b)`	`TRUE COPY` `BETWEEN TH` `NEAREST BO` `SANCTUARY`	`OF THE` `E PROPO` `UNDARY` `AND RES`	`MAP INDICATING THE DISTANCE` `SED QUARRY SITE AND THE` `OF PEECHI-VAZHANI WILDLIFE` `ERVE BOUNDARY.`

M/s. Amala Industries v. the Director of Mining and Geology Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Amala Industries v. the Director of Mining and Geology Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Michael K.P Vs Eloor Municipality

Maideenkutty Naha Vs State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government

Viju Vs District Geologist

Santhosh Jacob E. Vs the Thrissur Municipal Corporation

Sainaba Vs 1. Panjal Grama Panchayath

Ajikumar N Vs Malayalapuzha Grama Panchayat