Dismissed

Ratheesh Karattu v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT10 Jan 2025Appeal No. 43/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal challenging Environmental Clearance granted to grantee for granite quarrying. Tribunal dismissed appeal holding existing District Survey Report, absence of clinical operating adjacent quarries, and compliance with mining distance rules validate the clearance despite appellants' objections regarding cluster, disaster management, and siting criteria.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Environmental Clearance granted to the 5th respondent with attached conditions.

Ratheesh Karattu vs Ministry of Environment Forest and… — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶2

Friday the 10^th day of January, 2025.

¶3

Appeal No. 43 of 2022(SZ) (Through Video Conference)

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF

¶5

1. Ratheesh Karattu, aged 45 years, S/o R.K. Vasu, Rayaroth House, Tholamra PO, Peravoor, Kannur District, Kerala - 670 673.

¶6

2. Nidhin C.M, aged 29 years, S/o Madhusoodanan, Chandroth House, Tholamra PO, Peravoor, Kannur District, Kerala - 670 673.

¶7

...Appellant(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh, Ali Ganj, New Delhi- 110 003.

¶10

2. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Rep by its Chairman,

¶11

KSRTC Bus Terminal Complex, 4th Floor, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala- 695 001.

¶12

3. State Expert Apraisal Committee, Rep by its Member Secretary, 4th Floor, KSRTC Bus Terminal complex Thampanoor, Thiruvanadapurm District, Kerala- 695 001.

¶13

4. The Administrator,

¶14

State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority,

¶15

KSRTC Bus Terminal Complex, 4th Floor, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala- 695 001.

¶16

5. K.K. Pemkumar

¶17

Kolanthara (H), Melmuringodi P.O, Manathana, Kannur District, Kerala- 670 673.

¶18

6. State Disaster Management Authority,

¶19

Rep by its Member Secretary,

¶20

Vikas Bhawan P.O, Observatory Hills, Opposite Kanakakkunnu palace, Nanthancodu, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695 033.

¶21

¶22

...Respondent(s)

¶23

For Appellant (s):	Mr. Harish Vasudevan.
For Respondent(s):	Ms. E. Rufina for Ms. Y. Kavitha for R1. Mr. Ramesh Kumar for Mr. G. Prabhu for R2 to R4. Mr. R. Parthasarathy Sr. Adv. a/w
	Ms. Tanushree Arvind and Ms. Srinivasan for R5.	Simran
CORAM:

¶24

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana , Judicial Member

¶27

1. The appellants have challenged the Environmental Clearance granted on 11.07.2022 to the 5^th respondent for quarrying granite building stone. The 5^th respondent, who is engaged in the business of quarrying and mining in Kannur District has obtained the impugned Environmental Clearance for an area of 1.4621 ha., in Re.Sy. No. 1/100, 1 and 9 of Tholambra Village.

¶28

2. It is alleged by the appellants that the 5^th respondent had deliberately and purposely misrepresented the facts and wilfully suppressed the vital facts in the Form- I(M) application. The appellants have challenged the grant of Environmental Clearance widely on the following grounds:

¶29

2.1. DSR

¶30

2.1.1.According to the appellants any application for obtaining the Environmental Clearance must be processed only in

¶31

¶32

accordance with the DSR. It is stated that there is no DSR prepared for the District of Kannur and the namesake DSR prepared in the year 2016 did not contain any scientific proper information that fulfil the criteria and intention of EIA Notification, 2006.

¶33

2.2. Cluster Certificate

¶34

2.2.1.The appellants relied on the certificate issued by the Geologist of Department of Mining and Geology, Kannur dated 17.07.2019 which states that two quarries are seen within 500m from the quarry of the project proponent, herein, therefore, there is a cluster when the distance between the one lease is less than 500m of the other lease. It is stated that as per clause IV of appendix-11, the individual leaseholders in clusters can use the Environmental Clearance granted for the clusters and the EIA and EMP shall be prepared for the entire cluster. Failure to do so by the project proponent vitiates the Environmental Clearance.

¶35

2.3. Impact of Disaster Management Plan

¶36

2.3.1. The area chosen for mining is situated in the moderate hazard zone and the 2^nd respondent did not consider the hazard vulnerability maps and the provisions of the State Disaster Management Plan, 2016 while appraising the project of the 5^th respondent.

¶37

2.4. Siting Criteria

¶38

2.4.1. The Central Pollution Control Board guidelines of 200m from residences is not considered by the 2^nd respondent by

¶39

¶40

pointing out the distance criteria for permitting stone quarrying as per the guidelines. So far as Kerala is concerned, when blasting is involved no mining within a range of 50 to 100m from the boundary line of residential buildings etc., can be permitted. When no blasting is involved 50 to 75m is prescribed as minimum distance. However, the CPCB had revised the same by prescribing 100m when blasting is not involved and 200m distance when blasting is involved.

¶41

3. So far as availability of DSR is concerned, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Ananthu Sunil vs. State of Kerala and ors.W.P(c) No. 5209 of 2022 has already held that the certificate issued by the Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology can be considered which is based on the DSR of 2016 which is commonly applied in the State of Kerala. As the DSR of 2016 is permitted to be considered by SEIAA, Kerala by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala the objection cannot be sustained.

¶42

4. Besides in Satendra Pandey vs. MoEF&CC and Anr-(2018)

¶43

SCC OnLine NGT 2388 , it has been observed as follows:

¶44

“18. We also find that parameters for consideration while preparing District Mining Plan (DMP) and District Survey Report (DSR) are only for the purpose of ascertaining whether an area is fit for mining which are quite different from the parameters laid down for EIA. The consideration of the view point of the public by keeping DSR in public domain is not a substitute of Public Hearing for consideration of the view point of the public for EIA.”

¶45

5. Based on these judgements, already the Tribunal in Appeal No. 55 of 2022- Lukose K T Alias Luka and ors. Vs. MoEF&CC and ors. has held that for the same District of Kannur, DSR of 2016 can be

¶46

¶47

considered for the purpose of issuance of Environmental Clearance. Hence, this point is also answered in the negative.

¶48

6. So far as the cluster certificate is concerned, the appellants relied on the certificate of the Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology dated 17.07.2019 wherein the two of the quarries, one owned by Sri K.K. Surendran and the second owned by one Sri Prajil K.K. are seen within 500m from the quarry of the project proponent, herein. Now it is admitted that the Environmental Clearance granted in favour of Sri K.K. Surendran was set aside and there is no operation of the quarry. Similarly, the other quarry is also not operating.

¶49

7. The 5^th respondent proposal is admittedly less than 05 ha.,1.4621 ha., even if the adjacent quarries are taken into consideration, they do not exceed 05 ha., as they account only for 2.9 ha. Therefore, the requirement of EIA/EMP for cluster will not apply to the 5^th respondent. In this regard, it is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the 5^th respondent that Form-I itself will suffice for this purpose and 5^th respondent had already submitted Form-I and certificate of the Geologist dated 17.07.2019. Therefore, the question for obtaining a cluster certificate does not arise in this case.

¶50

8. In this regard, SEIAA has stated that there were two quarries within 500m from the proposed quarry of the project proponent. The Geologist certified that the quarry operation by Mr. K.K. Surendran is suspended since Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has

¶51

¶52

directed the SEIAA to consider the complaints raised by the residents of the area before the SEIAA.

¶53

9. The apprehension of the appellants is that the SEIAA did not consider the hazard Vulnerability map and the provision of the State Disaster Management Plan, 2016 while appraising the project of the 5^th respondent.

¶54

10. The objection of the appellants in this regard is that there is landslide possibility and other environmental damages, if the quarry operations are permitted. The appellants have placed reliance on the Kerala State Disaster Management Plan wherein specific guidelines are issued to the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) for disaster risk reduction. According to that in the high hazard zone quarry blasting is known to increase the probability of triggering landslides. The DDMAs of Kerala shall ensure that permission is not granted for quarry blasting in the landslides high hazards zones as given in HSAK, 2014.

¶55

11. In moderate hazard zones as given in Kerala State Disaster Management Plan, 2016 116 HSAK, 2014, quarrying shall be permitted only after getting the approval of the district level crisis management committee for mining constituted vide G.O (Rt) No. 542/14/ID dated 26-05- 2014. Further, it is stated that quarry blasting shall temporarily be banned if there are two consecutive days of rainfall in the respective village until a completely rain free day occurs.

¶56

¶57

12. Learned Counsel appearing for the project proponent also would submit the report on the slope stability and possibility of soil piping around the proposed quarry. The report states that the quarry is planned to be operated with benches by semi-mechanised open cast method of mining. The report provides the causative parameters evaluated. As per the report the elevation difference between the upper and lower part is just 40m only. The continuity in the slope is segmented by break in slope and manmade features like road. Taking these factors the site is unlikely to cause slope instability. The nature of over burden is boulder rich pebbly soil with very low clay content. This adds to the capacity of the surface material to drain out water without saturating the over burden. In times of intense rains, the material is unlikely to fail as higher pore water pressure buildup is absent.

¶58

13. Regarding the drainage, the catch water drains are also to be provided on the lower part to regulate the flow of storm water from the working pit. To be noted is that already in the Environmental Clearance, the serial No. 30 of the general conditions directs:

¶59

“30. catch drains and siltation ponds of appropriate size shall be constructed around the mine working, mineral and OB dumps, to prevent run off of water and flow of sediments directly into the river and other water bodies. The water so collected should be utilized for watering the mine area, roads and for green belt development etc. The drains shall be regularly desilted and maintained properly, particularly, after monsoon. 31……

¶60

Garland drains and silt traps are to be provided in the slopes around the core area to channelize storm water. De-silting of Garland canal and silt traps have to be attended on a daily basis. A labour has to be specifically assigned for the purpose. The proponent shall ensure the quality of the discharging storm water as per the General Effluent Discharge Standards of CPCB.”

¶61

¶62

14. The slope stability report produced by the 5^th respondent inferred that “overall evaluation” of the site considering the land form, slope, geology and structure, nature of over burden, drainage channel layout and provision of vegetation in the buffer zone indicate that quarrying in the site is unlikely to initiate slope instability. Reinforced side walls of garland drain on the upper slope will add to the stability of the region.

¶63

15. The above conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance and also the slope stability report produced by the project proponent goes to show that the apprehension of the appellants on the land slide is based on surmises.

¶64

16. That apart the project proponent is only directed to use nonelectrical technology for blasting to reduce the vibration of the ground which is one of the positive factors that triggers landslides, formation of cracks in the surrounding buildings and disturbance to the humans and wildlife. Violation of any of these conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance would result in the cancellation of the same.

¶65

17. The next objection raised by the appellants was regarding the siting criteria prescribed by the CPCB guidelines which is not followed. The appellants point out that the nearest house located is within 101m of the quarry site. The Central Pollution Control Board had issued a direction on 12.05.2020 prescribing a minimum distance criteria for granite building stone quarrying units from the nearby residential building as 200m. Admittedly the challenge to the CPCB guidelines was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.

¶66

¶67

18. In this regard the Learned Counsel 5^th respondent has contended that minimum distance of 200m as mandated by the CPCB is pending consideration before the National Green Tribunal for fresh consideration after the same was remanded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the requirement of 200 m has not yet attained finality as the requirement was enhanced from 50 to 200m unilaterally by the CPCB.

¶68

19. An appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala which set aside the same. The appeal preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was remitted back to the Tribunal vide order dated 25.10.2021 which is yet to decide the same. The Tribunal has constituted a Joint Committee to study the impact of blasting with nonel detonation technology at distances of 50m, 75m, 100m, 125m, 150m, 200m and 250m. However, the findings of the Committee are yet to be filed before the Tribunal.

¶69

20. In the CPCB guidelines the minimum distance prescribed by various dates was studied. So far as State of Kerala is concerned, when blasting is involved, no mining within a range 50 to 100m from the boundary line of any railway line, bridges, reservoirs, tanks, residential buildings, Government protected monuments, canals, rivers, public roads having vehicular traffic, any other public works or the boundary walls of places of worship. Whereas when no blasting is involved the range of 50 to 75m is prescribed as minimum distance. While formulating the guidelines, the CPCB had concluded that when blasting is not involved minimum distance should be 100m from the residential/public buildings etc., when blasting is involved 200m minimum distance is prescribed.

¶70

¶71

Therefore, in this case the nearest residence to the boundary line of quarry is 101m. In the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, it is only 50m. The relevant Rule reads as follows:

¶72

“10(f) the permit holder, in cases where explosives are not used for quarrying, shall not carry on or allowed to be carried on any quarrying operations at or to any points within a distance of 75 metres from any railway line except with the previous written permission of the Railway Administration concerned and any bridge on National Highway or 50 metres from any reservoir, tanks, canals, rivers, bridges, other public works, residential buildings, the boundary walls of places of worship, burial grounds, burning ghats or forest lands or village roads except with the previous permission of the authorities concerned or the Government or the competent authority.”

¶73

21. Till such time the CPCB guidelines regarding distance criteria is finalised, the previous rules existing will have its operations. Therefore, going by the Kerala Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2015, the project proponent has complied with the distance criteria.

¶74

22. In the light of the above discussions, the objections by the appellants that the subject lands permitted for quarrying are in the ecological sensitive area is incorrect and the same is not supported by any valid proof. The EIA and EMP has assessed the nature of land sought to be quarried and the impacts have already been analysed. Based on the same, the Environmental Clearance has been granted with specific and general conditions providing suitable prevention and rehabilitation measures. Failure to follow the Environmental Clearance conditions or violation of any of the conditions, does not mean that the Environmental Clearance itself is liable to be cancelled.

¶75

¶76

23. The appellants have already raised these objections before the SEIAA unsuccessfully. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the same has to fail upholding the Environmental Clearance granted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶77

Sd/-
............................................................J.M.
(Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana)
Sd/-
.......................................E.M.
(Dr. Vijay Kulkarni)
Internet – Yes/No
All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No
Appeal No.43/2022(SZ)
10 th January, 2025 (AM)

¶78

Ratheesh Karattu v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratheesh Karattu v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kulal Munindar Narendar Goud vs Union of India

Selvi vs Seiaa

Selvi vs Seiaa

Uthirasami vs Seiaa

Shchem Corporation vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board

Tahir Hussain vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Brundhavana Foundation Reg. Trust vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Navkiran Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs Odisha State Pollution Control Board Government of Odisha

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Rep by Its Chairman vs Sri Raamji Sand Blue Metals

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Rep by Its Chairman vs Sri Raamji Sand Blue Metals

Suo Motu Illegal Stone Quarry in Vadipatti vs Directorate of Geology and Mining

Gummi Narendar Reddy vs Union of India

A v Nagaram vs Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board

News Item Titled "Road Expansion Along Nilgiris Highways Ruining Local Ecology Increasing Risk of Landslips: Activists" Appearing in the Hindu Dated 04.01.2024 vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board