Disposed

N. Viswambharan v. State of Kerala

NGT6 Jul 2026Original Application No. 52/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the original application regarding Ashraf's laterite quarry operation. Although the applicant alleged environmental degradation and noted a public hearing omission, the court observed that the quarry holds a valid Environmental Clearance and the applicant failed to demonstrate specific violation of EC conditions, leading to disposal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Original Application No.52 of 2026(SZ) stands disposed of; the pending interlocutory application No.50 of 2026(SZ) is closed.

N. Viswambharan vs State of Kerala — Mining and Natural Resources | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.03:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Monday, the 6^th day of July, 2026.

¶4

(Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)

¶5

Original Application No.52 of 2026 (SZ) & I.A. No.50 of 2026 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:-

¶7

N. VISWAMBHARAN

¶8

S/o Balan, Mattayi Meethal, Narath, Ulliyeri, PO: Ulliyeri, District Kozhikode,

¶9

Kerala – 673620

¶10

…Applicant(s) Versus

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶12

Through Chief Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001.

¶13

2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶14

(HEAD OFFICE), Through Chairman, Pattom P.O., Thriuvanthapuram – 695004.

¶15

3. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶16

(REGIONAL OFFICE), Through Regional Officer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board 3rd Floor, Zamorin Square, Link Road, Kozhikode – 673002.

¶17

4. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE

¶18

Through Secretary, Jor Bagh Road, Lodi Colony, New Delhi – 110003.

¶19

5. DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY

¶20

Through Director, Kesavadasapuram, Pattom Palace P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala – 695004.

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

6. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,

¶23

Kozhikode Collectorate, Civil Station P.O, Kozhikode – 673020.

¶24

7. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶25

Office of the District Police Chief, Pavamani Rd, Tazhekkod, Kozhikode, Kerala – 673004.

¶26

8. ASHRAF

¶27

Aged about 46 Years, S/O: Abdurahiman. K, R/O: Kalathingal House, Perumanna, Kozhikode, Kerala – 673019.

¶28

…Respondent(s)

¶29

For Applicant(s): Mr. Ranjit Kumar. For Respondent(s): Ms. K. Shreenidhi represented M/s. E.K. Kumaresan & G. Vignesh for State of Kerala. Mrs. Nivedita S Menon represented Mrs. V.K. Rema Smrithi for Kerala SPCB.

¶30

CORAM :

¶31

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶32

HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

1. The present Original Application is filed by the applicant against the establishment and operation of a laterite quarry by the 8th Respondent-Ashraf Kalathingal at Re. Survey No.64/75, Ulliyeri Village, Kozhikode District for an extent of 0.8094 Hectare.

¶35

2. The Applicant has alleged that the quarrying operations involve usage of heavy machinery and blasting, resulting in environmental degradation, including removal and destruction of topsoil, depletion of groundwater, drying up of wells, deterioration of ambient air quality, increase in noise pollution and disturbance to the biodiversity and ecological integrity of the surrounding area.

¶36

Page 2 of 4

¶37

3. It is to be noticed that the Original Application was instituted stating that the 8^th Respondent was operating without obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC). However, during the pendency of the proceedings, the Applicant himself disclosed that the 8th Respondent had been granted EC dated 25.05.2024 under Category B1(a) for extraction of laterite for a period of four years, subject to the General and Specific Conditions stipulated by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA).

¶38

4. In view of the EC brought on record, the allegation on which the Original Application was filed, that the quarrying operation was being carried out without obtaining Environmental Clearance, does not survive for consideration.

¶39

5. It is also significant that the Applicant has not challenged the EC dated 25.05.2024 seeking to set aside within the period of limitation. In the present case, the applicant stated that public hearing was not conducted prior to the grant of EC. The validity of the said EC cannot be examined in the present proceedings after being barred by the period of limitation.

¶40

6. On consideration of the materials placed on record by the applicant, we find no substantive material demonstrating that the 8^th Respondent has violated any particular condition of the EC.

¶41

7. Allegations regarding environmental degradation cannot by themselves constitute sufficient legal grounds for restraining an activity carried on pursuant to subsisting statutory permissions. Any allegation of non-compliance must necessarily be supported by material capable of demonstrating the specific condition violated.

¶42

8. At the same time, the environmental concerns expressed by the Applicant may not be brushed aside. The State of Kerala has, in recent years, witnessed devastating landslides and other natural disasters resulting in loss of human life, property and livelihoods. Although the expert studies and

¶43

Page 3 of 4

¶44

investigations relating to such incidents, including the landslide disasters in Wayanad, have not conclusively attributed their occurrence due to mining activities, such recurring disasters underscore the need for heightened caution and strict regulatory oversight of developmental and extractive activities undertaken in hilly regions.

¶45

9. However, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and the Department of Mining and Geology shall remain vigilant, ensure strict and continuing compliance with all environmental safeguards, statutory permissions and conditions governing the quarrying operations, so that such activity does not result in environmental degradation or pose any threat to the fragile ecosystem.

¶46

10. If any violation of the EC is noticed in future by the Applicant or any other person, it shall be open to them to approach this Tribunal in accordance with law.

¶47

11. With the above observations and directions, the Original Application [O.A. No.52 of 2026(SZ)] stands disposed of.

¶48

12. The pending interlocutory application [I.A. No.50 of

¶49

2026(SZ)] is closed.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶52

Sd/-