Disposed

Jacob Thomas vs

NGT9 Jul 2025Original Application No. 308/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This prima facie order acknowledges grievances regarding an illegal quarry's violation of environmental norms. It directs the constitution of a Joint Committee to verify facts and suggests transferring the case for final hearing to the Southern Zone Bench due to jurisdictional grounds.

What did the court decide?

Constitution of a Joint Committee for site verification and transfer of the matter to the Southern Zone Bench for further hearing.

Jacob Thomas vs — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 05

¶2

Court No. 2

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 308/2025

¶5

Jacob Thomas Applicant Versus State of Kerala & Ors. Respondents

¶6

Date of hearing: 09.07.2025

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶8

Applicant: None for the Applicant.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The applicant-Mr. Jacob Thomas, resident of Punnathaniyil, Moonnilavu, District Kottayam, Kerala has sent to this Tribunal a letter petition dated 20.03.2025 which has been treated and registered as Original Application No.308/2025 for exercise of suo motu jurisdiction.

¶11

The applicant has raised the grievances regarding illegal quarry operating in violation of environmental norms. The relevant part of the letter petition enumerating grievances of the applicant reads as under:-

¶12

A) “I am a farmer by profession and immediate neighbour of the quarry of Sri E M Madhu, Ettickal, Poonjar South P 0, Kottayam Dt. Residential building in my property is shown as 4. Jacob Thomas, Punnathaniyil, Melukavu Panchayath, House No. 214 ward 07 in the approved plan. Copy of the approved plan is submitted as Exhibit 1. Quarry is functioning illegally violating the environment laws. The functioning of

¶13

¶14

quarry is seriously affecting the environment. The licences were obtained by suppressing facts.

¶15

B) Sri EM Madhu, Ettickal, Poonjar South P 0, Kottayam Dt. has obtained EC to an area of 0.9845 Ha on Resurvey No. 324/1, 318/7 and 318/1 in 53 of Moonnilavu Village. He obtained the EC and other licences suppressing material facts. The statutory authorities purposefully neglected their duty. Following are some of the examples of suppression of facts, willful neglect and illegal mining:-

¶16

1) Even though this property iS situated in Moonnilavu Village which is under Melukavu Grama Panchayat. Melukuvu Village is included in the list of ESA Village in Kasturirangan Committee Report on Western Ghats. This project area is on the boundary of Melukavu Village with similar terrain of Melukavu Village. As stated above the project area is under Melukavu Grama Panchayat itself This aspect is not considered by authorities before granting EC and other permissions. The mining area and surrounding area are steep with a slope of about 60⁰ . But this fact is also not considered before granting EC. Landslides occurred in the project area itself. A detailed verification of satellite images may reveal it.

¶17

2) Sri E MMadhu obtained E C suppressing material facts. There is a river called 'Kallar' adjacent to the project area, which is the main tribute of famous Meenachil River. It is mentioned as Thoclu' by the project proponent in Exhibit 1 plan and other documents to mislead the authorities. Actually it is flowing only at a distance of 40 Meters. The air distance from the river is not measured from the point where river flows close to the project area. The measurement has done during summer season and distance has taken from water flowing area only. Actual boundary of river from Revenue records were not considered for measuring the distance. As item No. 4 in the Special Conditions in E C it is stated that "A buffer of 80 m should be maintained between the stream bank and project boundary (BP-1 to BP-4)". If a buffer of 80 m is kept from the river boundary there will not be any area for mining. During the site visit the project proponent and his consultant misled the inspecting committee and got recommendation for the project. T here was no proper site verification. The river is flowing on the bottom of mining area. At present contaminated water, from the quarry is directly flowing to the river. During monsoon, the situation becomes worst.

¶18

3) There are two main irrigation works within 1 KM of project area. No NOC from Irrigation Officer has obtained by the project proponent at the time of issuance of EC. The drinking water tank situated in the property of ‘Narikattu’ is visible from project area itself. The distance is less than 100 m, More than 50 Scheduled Tribe families got house connections from the tank. The blasting operations in the site will destroy the water tanks.

¶19

4) The Anganwady (kids school) of Ward 7of Melukavu Grama Panchayat is situated within 100m of mining area. The Melukavu Gram Punchayat constructed it with an auditorium before 5

¶20

¶21

years for the welfare of mainly Scheduled Tribe children. It is situated on the same rock area of the quarry. Blasting will severely affect the small children studying there and also the building.

¶22

5) Clause 3 of Special condition in the EC stipulates that all the precautionary measures suggested in the revised EPM document should be implemented strictly. Minin. has started without any precautionary measures suggested in EMP have done.

¶23

6) Clause No. 5 of Specific Condition stipulate the construction of a wall of 5m to a distance of 50m. But no such wall has constructed before starting mining operations. Clause 13 also stipulates the construction of wall of Metal or GI sheet. But no such wall constructed so far.

¶24

7) Clause 7 specifically stipulates development of green belt starting mining operations. But mining started violating these conditions.

¶25

8) None of the Specific conditions or general conditions in the EC has complied by the quarry owner. For brevity each of the violation is not separately stating.

¶26

9.) Huge quantity of overburden has kept in unsafe manner near the project area, which will slip to the nearby river at any time.

¶27

I have filed detailed complaint, pointing out these aspects to SEIAA on 05/11/2024. Copy of the complaint attached as Exhibit 2. SEIAA considered it as item No. 30 in its 151 meeting and took decision which seems as a mockery. They decided to forward the complaint to project proponent for furnishing remarks without any verification of facts even from the office itself. The relevant page of decision in item No. 30 of 151 meeting is attached as Exhibit 3. So far no action has taken in it. No verification facts have so far done. Exhibit 3 decision is only to help the quarry owner and to conceal the earlier negligence by officials.

¶28

C) The copy of the above referred EC is attached as Exhibit 4. It is issued without fixing maximum quantity that can be extracted from the mining area or the maximum depth that can be mined or geo coordinates of the mining area. Bare minimum required information has not included in the EC. The EC itself is illegal.

¶29

I) Huge quantity of rocks is transported from the quarry. site in each day. About 75 torus of 550 to900 Cubic Feet capacity is removing rubbles every day. It is about 15 times of the quantity fixed by Mining and Geology Department. All these rubbles are removed without any movement permit. Mining and Geology Department is not conducting any inspection or verification of quantiy removed. Actually, the quantity permitted for 3 years has already removed from the site. There is huge revenue loss to the Government also.

¶30

D) Huge quantity of ordinary earth removed from the surrounding areas has heaped below the quarry. It will definitely slip to the nearby river in this monsoon. There is no permission to remove the ordinary earth from the surrounding area. Excavation of ordinary earth is not at all mentioned in

¶31

¶32

the mining plan. No precaution has taken to protect the accumulated earth.

¶33

It is humbly requested to verify the facts at the earliest by competent and sincere top officers and do necessary things to stop the illegal functioning of the quarry and appropriate action against the culprits.”

¶34

Prima facie the averments made in the application raise substantial questions relating to environment arising out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule-I to the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

¶35

In view of the averments made in the application, we consider it appropriate to have response of (1) State of Kerala, through Secretary, Department of Environment and Climate Change, (2) Director, Mining and Geology, Kerala (3) Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) through its Member Secretary, (4) Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) through its Member Secretary, (5) District Magistrate, Kottayam, and (6) Sri E M Madhu Ettickal (H), Poonjar South P.O. Kottayam District, Kerala who are impleaded as respondents no. 1 to. 6. The Registry is directed to prepare and attach memo of parties to the application and issue notices to respondents no. 1 to 6 requiring them to file their reply/response within one month.

¶36

In view of the environmental questions involved in the case, we also consider it necessary that a Joint Committee be constituted to verify the factual position and suggest appropriate remedial action. Accordingly, we constitute a Joint Committee comprising of officers duly authorized by Member Secretary, CPCB, Member Secretary, KSPCB, and District Magistrate, Kottayam and direct the same to meet within two weeks, undertake visits to the site, look into the grievances of the applicant, associate the applicant and representative of the concerned project proponent, verify the factual position and suggest appropriate remedial

¶37

¶38

action. The KSPCB will be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance.

¶39

Even though in the present case cognizance has been taken by this Bench on the basis of letter petition received by post with approval and assignment under order of Hon’ble Chairperson, but in view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the place of accrual of cause of action lies within jurisdiction of the Southern Zone Bench of this Tribunal at Chennai, we are of the considered view that it will be appropriate if the case is further heard by the Southern Zone Bench of this Tribunal at Chennai.

¶40

Accordingly, the Registry is directed to list the matter before the Southern Zone Bench of this Tribunal at Chennai on 01.09.2025 after obtaining orders from Hon’ble the Chairperson for transfer of the case.

¶41

Report of the Joint Committee may be filed by Kerala State Pollution Control Board and replies/ responses may be filed by respondents no. 1 to 6 before the Southern Zone Bench of this Tribunal at Chennai within one month.

¶42

A copy of this order may be sent to Member Secretary, CPCB, Member Secretary, KSPCB, and District Magistrate, Kottayam by email for requisite compliance.

¶43

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶44

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶45

July 09^th , 2025 Original Application No. 308/2025 M

¶46

Jacob Thomas vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jacob Thomas vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gareeb Guide Ngo vs State of Andhra Pradesh

News Item Titled Illegal Encroachment of Forest Land Appearing in the Eenadu Chennai Edition Dated 29 01 2025 vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through Its Regional Office Rep by Its Regional Director

K Rajarajan vs Central Pollution Control Board

Galina Babaiteva vs State of Goa through Goa State Pollution Control Board

Mahesh Chandra Saxena vs Chairman National Highway Authority of India

Dr Umashri Francis vs

Dr Rakesh Bakshi vs

Gram Panchayat Village Ghasokhana Maur Bathinda vs State of Punjab

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 61/2024 in Original Application No. 42/2024 of Madasir Hasan and Ors. vs

Utkarsh Singh Chauhan vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 115/2024 in Original Application No. 92/2023 of Sh. Neel Mani vs South Delhi Municipal Coorperation

Rajendra Shah vs

Pranab Jyoti Sarma vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 9/2025 in Original Application No. 278/2024 of Charan Singh vs