Bijo Jose v State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 14TH MAGHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **BIJO JOSE, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.JOSE THOMAS, PARANKULANGARA, THEKKEDATH, NEDIYENGA P.O., THALAPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670631.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD SMT.A.GRANCY JOSE SRI.M.K.PRASANTH KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DEVIKIRIPA, PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695024.** - **2 THE STATE EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (SEAC) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DEVIKRIPA, PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695024.** - **3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KANNUR-670002.** - **4 THE GEOLOGIST DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION, E-BLOCK, KANNUR, PIN-670002.** - **5 JILSON JOSEPH V. S/O.V.M.JOSEPH, VELIYATHIL HOUSE, PULIKURUMBA P.O., NADUVIL VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670582.** - **6 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, C.G.O.COMPLEX, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.** - **7 ADDL.R7 THE KERALA STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY, OBSERVATOR HILLS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.** **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E) 2** **(ADDL.R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25/09/2018 IN IA.6354/2018)** - **8 ADDL.R8- SUNILKUMAR.V.V., VALIYAVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHEPPARAMBA, NEDIYANGA P.O.KANNUR.** - **9 ADDL.R9-REJI JOSEPH, MUNDIRIKATTIL HOUSE, EDOOR, PAYAM P.O., KANNUR.** - **10 ADDL.R10- JINEESH THOMAS KIZHAKKEPADAVATH, VELIMANAM P.O., VALAYAMKOD, KANNUR.** - **11 ADDL.R11- BABU POOVATHUNKAL, POOVATHUNKAL HOUSE, MANJALAMKUNNU, NEDIYANGA P.O., KANNUR.** - **12 ADDL.R12-VINCENT M.A., MANJALANKAL, PULIKURUMBA P.O., KANNUR.** - **13 ADDL.R13- MINI RAJEEV, VATTAKKEEL HOUSE, CHEPPARAMBA, NEDIYANGA P.O., KANNUR.** - **14 ADDL.R14-RAJU, MURIKKANANIKAL, AJUNOOR, CHERUPUZHA P.O., KANNUR.** - **15 ADDL.R15- KUNHIRAMAN, POOPARAMBA, CHEMBERI P.O., KANNUR.** - **16 ADDL.R16-LINEESH, KALATHIL (H), KARAYATTUMCHAL, CHEMPANTHOTTY P.O., KANNUR.** - **17 ADDL.R17- RANJITH BALAN, RENJITH BHAVAN, PULIKURUMBA P.O., KANNUR.** - **18 ADDL.R18- JOBISH, MATTAPPALLY (H), MANDALAM, NADUVIL P.O., KANNUR.** - **19 ADDL.R19-ANEESH P.VAYEKKARA, SREEKANDAPURAM P.O., KANNUR.** - **20 ADDL.R20- AJESH K.KALARICKAL, AREEKKAMALA, CHEMBERI P.O., KANNUR.** - **21 ADDL.21-BOBISH M.MEDLANKUZHI, VAYATTUPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR.** **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **3** - **22 ADDL.R22-JIBIN GEORGE, NELLANKUZHIYIL, PULIKURUMBA P.O., KANNUR.** - **23 ADDL.R23- ANOOP THOMAS, KUZHIPPALAYIL, PULI KURUMBA P.O., KANNUR.** - **24 ADDL.R24- ASHRAF A., ADDOOR, MALAPPATTAM P.O., KANNUR.** - **25 ADDL.R25-MADHIN P.PUNAKKALIL, CHEPPARAMBA, NEDIYANGA P.O. KANNUR.** - **26 ADDL.R26-SUBHASH, VELLAD, KARUVANCHAL P.O., KANNUR.** - **27 ADDL.R27- SATHEESH KURIAN, ELLIKKAL HOUSE, PULIKURUMBA P.O., KANNUR.** - **28 ADDL.R28-SANEESH KURIAN, ELLIKKAL HOUSE, PULIKURUMBA P.O., KANNUR.** - **29 ADDL.R29-RATHESH A., ALINKEEL HOUSE, NEDIYANGA P.O., KANNUR.** - **30 ADDL.R30-LIBIN CHACKO, PADINJARETHATTU HOSUE, CHEPPARAMBA, NEDIYANGA P.O., KANNUR.** - **31 ADDL.R31-SAJESH KRISHNA, KRISHNA SAROJAM, MADATHIL P.O., IRITTY, KANNUR.** - **32 ADDL.R32- SUNNY AIKKARAKANAYIL, CHELIMPARAMBA, CHEMBERI P.O., KANNUR.** - **33 ADDL.R33- SURESH BABU, VALIYAVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHEPPARAMBA, NEDIYANGA P.O., KANNUR.** - **34 ADDL.R34- THOMAS A., ARIMANNIL HOUSE, CHEMPANTHOTTY P.O., KANNUR.** - **35 ADDL.R35- SONY THOMAS, KARUKUTTI, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM.** - **36 ADDL.R36-DILEEP DEVAN, NENMARA, PALAKKAD.** - **37 ADDL.R37-JINEESH JOSEPH, ANJU KANDAM, MANJALAMKUNNU, CHEMPANTHOTTY, KANNUR.** **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **4** - **38 ADDL.R38-LIJU LAKSHMANAN, KOTTOOR, SREEKANDAPURAM P.O., KANNUR.** - **39 ADDL.R39-KANNAN K., KEEZHAKOTTAI, KRISHNAGIRI, TAMIL NADU.** - **40 ADDL.R40-LAKSHMI P., PRATTOOR, CHEPPARAMBA, NEDIYANGA P.O., KANNUR.** - **41 ADDL.R41-NARAYANI KOMIL, CHEPPARAMBA, NEDIYANGA P.O., KANNUR.** - **42 ADDL.R42- OMANA C.V., CHERANVEETTIL, CHEPPARAMBA, NEDIYANGA P.O., KANNUR.** - **43 ADDL.R43-ISLAM MAJHWALLIA, BALLIA, UTTARPRADESH.** - **44 ADDL.R44-RAJAN, KORANPEEDIKA, PARIYARAM P.O., KANNUR.** - **45 ADDL.R45- THANKACHAN, CHUNDUPARAMBA, PAYYAVUR P.O., KANNUR.** - **46 ADDL.R46-SAJI MATHEW, MELETTUTHADATHIL, CHEMPENTHOTTY P.O., KANNUR.** - **47 ADDL.R47-KAMAL GAWADA, POWAI BOAN GOAN, TIN SUKIA, ASSAM.** - **48 ADDL.R48-BIKARAM THAPPA, POWAI BOAN GOAN, TIN SUKIA, ASSAM.** - **49 ADDL.R49-SANJAY GURUNG, POWAI BOAN GOAN, TIN SUKIA, ASSAM.** - **50 ADDL.R50-SURAJ, POWAI BOAN GOAN, TIN SUKIA, ASSAM.** - **51 ADDL.R51-BIJESH BABY, ATHMATHADATHIL, MANNERI PAYYAVOOR, KANNUR.** - **52 ADDL.R52-JAYAKRISHNAN K.C., KANTHURULI KOPPALA, TAMILNADU.** - **53 ADDL.R53-DOMINIC XAVIER R, H40, SULVADI, KOLLEGATA TQ. ASSAM.** **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **5** - **54 ADDL.R54-CHENGBA THAMANG, POWAI BOAN GOAN, TINSUKIA, ASSAM.** - **55 ADDL.R55- SATHISH P.,** - **S/O.PALANI, NO.134, KEEZHKOTTAI, PERIYANKARADIYAR P.O., VEERAMALAI, TAMILNADU.** - **56 ADDL.R56-RAJEEVAN,** - **MAYYIL, ETTAYAR, MAYYIL P.O., KANNUR.** - **57 ADDL.R57-DAWA DORJI LAMA,** - **PAWAI BOON GOON, TINSUKIA, ASSAM.** - **58 ADDL.R58-SANJIV GOGI, POWAI BOAN GOAN, TIN SUKIA, ASSAM.** - **59 ADDL.R59-LYJU LAKSHMANAN, KOTTOR, SREEKANDAPURAM P.O., KANNUR.** - **60 ADDL.R60-SAJI M, MADATHIL, IRITTY, KANNUR.** - **61 ADDL.R61-POLACHAN ANTONY, KARUKUTTY P.O., ANKAMALY.** - **62 ADDL.R62-MABEL JOSEPH, ANJUKANDATHIL, CHENPANTHOTTY, KANNUR.** - **63 ADDL.R63- VIKAS KAI, BITAL, PANIGODA P.O., ODISHA.** - **64 ADDL.R64-BHIMANNA KUNTAPPA, KUNCHA HAL, BAJAPURA, KARNATAKA.** - **65 ADDL.R65-HARISH MALIK, TANGEDA, RAMNABADI, ODISHA.** - **66 ADDL.R66-SELVAM,** - **H 18, MARTALLI, KOLLEGAL, CHAMARAJA NAGAR, TAMILNADU.** - **67 ADDL.R67-NIKHIL P., PEERAKKEEL, CHEPPARAMBA, NEDIYANGA P.O., KANNUR.** - **68 ADDL.R68- UJAL P., PANDANDA, CHEPPARAMBA, NEDIYANGA P.O., KANNUR.** **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **6** - **69 ADDL.R69-MAIMUL HAQUE, BETAUNG, ANCHAL, KASABA, PURNIA (DISTRICT), BIHAR.** - **70 ADD.R70-TILISAN MALIK, ADIPENKA, RAMANABODI, BARIGADA, ANDHRAPRADESH.** - **71 BALAKRISHNAN, POOPARAMBA, CHEMBERI, KANNUR.** - **72 ADDL.R72- UNNI, KANJILARI, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR.** - **73 ADDL.R73- MANOHARAN, POOPARAMBA, CHEMBERI, KANNUR.** - **74 ADDL.R74-BINIL K., KARUKUTTY, ANKAMALY.** - **75 ADDL.R75- SHYAM THAMANG, 1-2-100, STREET NO.3, KAKATIYA, ASSAM.** - **76 ADDL.R76-PRANAV M. , KOLAPPA, IRIKKUR P.O., KANNUR.** **ADDL.R8 TO R76 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22/2/2019 IN IA NO.2/2019.** **R1 BY SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) R5 BY ADV. SMT.NISHA GEORGE R5 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL R6 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA R8 BY ADV. V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR SR ADV GEORGE POONTHOTTAM AND SRI VISHNU FOR R5 GP SRI S KANNAN SC SRI MP SREEKRISHNANR1 AND 2 ASGI FOR R6** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.02.2020,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **7** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, Bijo Jose has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the environmental clearance accorded by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) dated 29[th] of November 2017, uploaded on 5[th] January 2018 and communicated to the petitioner on 11[th] January 2018, Ext.P9 on the following grounds. 2. The petitioner has been residing along with his family members in the land comprised in Re.Sy. No.28 of Nediyenga village of Thaliparambu Taluk of Kannur District since 1969 and have been carrying on agricultural operations in respect of 20 Acres of land. The entire area in the vicinity is agricultural and ecologically/ environmentally sensitive. Reliance has been laid to the statements of the Agricultural Officer dated 9[th] August 2012, Ext.P2. It is averred that neither in his land nor in neighboring lands, there are exposed rocks warranting quarrying activities. The 5[th] respondent carried on the **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E) 8** quarrying operations in the neighboring property causing various hardship and damage to the petitioner and his family members. The aforementioned quarry was functioning in a most unscientific manner, in a land taken on lease comprised in Re.Sy.No.28 without any environmental clearance which necessitated the petitioner to approach this Court vide W.P.(C) No.27189 of 2016 and this Court vide order dated 17[th] August 2016 restrained conducting of the mining operations, which culminated into a final decision Ext.P4 dated 7[th] of December 2016. 3. On 26[th] December 2016, the 5[th] respondent preferred an application for obtaining environmental clearance wherein the petitioner on 24[th] January 2017 raised an objection. 4. Apprehending non consideration of the grievance of the petitioner, the petitioner again approached this Court vide W.P.(C) No.5016 of 2017. This Court vide judgment dated 16.2.2017 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the matter and afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **9** 5. Mr.K.Abdul Jawad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the writ petition and the annexures filed thereto from time to time as well as the reply to the counters raised following submissions: a. The State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority did not give an effective opportunity to file objections and had been carrying on the inspections in a very short span of time on 17[th] July or 25[th] July 2017 . However, the petitioner filed objections dated 15[th] September 2017, Ext.P7 and pointed out not only the irregularities but also the provisions of law as well as the judgments dis-entitling the 5[th] respondent from obtaining the environmental clearance. b. Notification dated 14[th] March 2017, Ext.P10, clearly specifies that the power to grant environmental clearance vests with Central Government. It is a matter of record that the 5[th] respondent, prior to the submission of the application for environmental clearance had been operating the quarry without environmental clearance, though he was having certain other clearances/permissions, which was mandatorily required, ## **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E) 10** in view of the Ministry of Environment Notification 2017 as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012 (4) SCC 629) c. Clause 13 of the notification, Ext.P10 has not been taken into consideration while granting the environmental clearance though specifically objected to. d. Clause 14 of the notification, Ext.P10 as has been emphatically relied upon by the 5[th] respondent would not come and rescue that the 5[th] respondent as environmental clearance was applied in December 2016. e. The Government of Kerala in order to protect the interest of the already existing quarries and the operator thereof, came out with two circulars dated 23.11.2012 and 11.12.2012 granting permission for period of 1 year to 5 year in respect of quarries. The aforementioned circulars were followed by amendment in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2015'). The same provision was struck down by this Court in the judgment in **Nature Lovers' Forum and others v. State of Kerala and Others (2016 (1) KLT 75)** . f. The objection of the respondents in not availing **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E) 11** the alternative remedy is not sustainable as it is settled law that if the order impugned is without jurisdiction, it can always be assailed under Article 226 to bring the illegality/irrationality within the realm of judicial review. g. If at all the petitioner had to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 16 of the Nation Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the Southern Bench was not holding the court and the grievance of the petitioner could not have been espoused in the absence of any interim relief. Reliance has been laid to averments in ground 'F' at page Nos.16 and 17 of the writ petition. The aforementioned circulars came to be pondered by Division Bench of this Court in **All Kerala River Protection Council vs State of Kerala (2015(2)** **KLT 78)** as well as the promulgation of Rules 2015. The petitioner, at this stage, cannot be relegated to avail the remedy of appeal by seeking the exclusion of the period spent in this court as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as on a plain and simple reading of the aforementioned provisions, it does not apply to appeal or the revision. It is only to be construed, in case the petitioner or any effected party has made an abortive **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **12** attempt in a suit, appeal or revision. h. The non functioning of Southern Tribunal has been pointed out in the reply dated 29[th] October 2019. By referring to the cause list attached to the reply dated 29[th] October 2019, only in the month of 31[st] July 2018 a proposal was mooted for a video conferencing of South, West, Central and Eastern Zones of the Green Tribunal, which commenced only in November 2018. The actual branch in Delhi started functioning in November 2018 and the Chennai Regular Bench started functioning with effect from December 2019. The field map Ext.P35 shows that the distance between the property of the petitioner from the proposed site of quarry is 29.54 mts. Thus the fundamental right of the petitioner as mentioned under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution has been flouted with impunity. The indiscriminate blasting and mining would make living miserable but this aspect of the matter has not been adverted to in the impugned decision, Ext.P9. In view of the materials placed on record and as per the report, it is evident that the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents did not conduct any proper study for the purpose of granting the **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E) 13** environmental clearance. It is a mandatory requirement that no mining could be permitted in places having a slope greater than 45 degrees. The area consisting of land proposed by the 5[th] respondent is having a slope area of more than 45 degrees as evident from the photographs, Ext.P11. The alleged notification dated 8[th] March 2018, Ext.R5(k) delegating the power of clearance to the State Environmental Committee, would not apply retrospectively. Thus the environmental clearance is without jurisdiction. 6. Per contra M.P.Sreekrishnan along with Sri. Mohammed Musthafa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first and respondents opposes the maintainability of the petition by relying upon the affidavit on behalf of the Assistant Solicitor General of India, 6[th] respondent, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the NGT of Southern Zone and its Registry was functioning during the period from 5.1.2018 to 5.4.2018. But the Southern Bench was vacant during this period. The proposal letter dated 5[th] February 2018 of the NGT regarding temporary transfer of jurisdiction of all the Benches of National Green **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E) 14** Tribunal to Principal Bench at New Delhi was referred to by the contesting Respondent which was accepted by the competent authority on 13[th] February 2018. Thus there was no handicappedness or embargo for the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal as the limitation in the first instance is 30 days with a condonation of another 60 days. The environmental clearance process comprises of four stages namely screening, scooping, public consideration and appraisal. The application received from the 5[th] respondent was categorized as 'Category B' project. It was further classified as a Category B-II project on the basis of the order dated 15[th] January of 2016 promulgated by Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change as the area of the project was below 25 Hectares. In this case, the stage of 'appraisal' was applicable. The grievance of the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction, noise pollution, contamination of water sources and damage to the local ecology had been gone into by the Sub Committee constituted by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority after conducting the field inspection and it could not notice any unusual damages in the locality **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E) 15** except what is nominal to a quarrying project. At the time of field inspection notice was issued to the petitioner on 17[th] July 2017, even he was contacted over telephone but he did not answer and then informed by reply that he was admitted in a hospital. By Government Orders dated 23[rd] November 2012 and 11[th] December 2012 ibid as well as keeping in view the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Deepak Kumar's** case, order regarding the issuance of short term permit for quarries for extraction of minor minerals from the private holding were issued, without insisting for environmental clearance for a period of one year. There was a litigation in the Supreme Court with regard to the renewal of the existing permit and there was an interim stay. In view of the judgment rendered by this Court commanding the 5[th] respondent to stop the quarry, 5[th] respondent applied for issuance of the environmental clearance in the month of December 2016. Ext.P10 was a one time measure that a scheme introduced by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, where the proponents who were admittedly violators and whose application for environmental **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E) 16** clearance was pending, direction was issued to approach the Central Government, which was in force only for a period of six months, commencing from 14[th] March 2017. The application of the 5[th] respondent pertains to a new project and could not have been treated as an expansion of the existing project or modernization, as tried to be built up by relying upon the provisions of sub clause (2) of clause 13 of the notification, Ext.P10. 7. Mr.S.Kannan representing the 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents, District Collector/ Geologist also reiterated the above submission. 8. Mr. George Poonthottam, Senior Counsel representing on behalf of the 5[th] respondent submitted that the case of the petitioner do not fall within the realm of judicial review as the court cannot assume the role of expert. It is submitted that google map R5(af) shows the distance of the nearest quarry from the house of the petitioner to be 347 mtrs whereas that of the proposed site of the 5[th] respondent as 370 mtrs. There was no bar for the petitioner to file the appeal and approach this Court for interim relief if permissible in law. The attention of **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E) 17** this Court has also been drawn to the averments in ground(F) reflecting reasons for not availing the remedy of the appeal. Clause 14 of the notification, no way help the case of the petitioner to impinge the impugned order. In none of the judgments cited, the circulars aforementioned, by the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents, have been quashed. As per the provisions of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 40 (1), Explanation (i) introduced vide notification dated 23[rd] of June 2017, there is an embargo of carrying out the lease in respect of a quarry, if located within 50 mtrs from any of the reservoir, tanks including the residential buildings. Even prior to the amendment also, the distance of 15 m was already in vogue since the project of the petitioner was falling in 'Category B-II', which would bring into motion only at stage-4 ie., 'appraisal' and permission of the State Impact Assessment Authority would not be required as per the Notification. He urges this Court for dismissal of the writ petition with exemplary costs. 9. Mr. K.Abdul Jawad rebutted the argument of Mr. George Poonthottam with reference to Ext.R5(af) the google map. The reference to the nearest quarry within **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **18** 347 mtrs would not be helpful for 5[th] respondent as there is no sharing of the boundary of the house of the petitioner with the alleged quarry, whereas the property of the petitioner shares with the boundary of the 5[th] respondent. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, apprised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit. In view of the above submissions, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the grounds are not one but many. 11. The alleged contention of non adherence to the provisions of clause 13 of the Notification dated 14[th] March 2017, Ext.P10 in no way help the petitioner to bring the case within the realm of judicial review. For the sake of brevity, sub clauses 1 and 2 of clause 13 of the Notification are extracted herein below: “13 (1) Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and sub clause (a) of clause (i) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act. 1986 read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Central Government hereby directs that the projects or activities or the expansion or modernization of existing projects or activities requiring prior environmental clearance under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 entailing capacity addition with change in process or **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **19** technology or both undertaken in any part of India without obtaining prior environmental clearance from the Central Government or by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, as the case may be, duly constituted by the Central Government under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act, shall be considered a case of violation of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and will be dealt strictly as per the procedure specified in the following manner:(2) In case the projects or activities requiring prior environmental clearance under Environment Impact Assessment (2) Notification, 2006 from the concerned Regulatory Authority are brought for environmental clearance after starting the construction work, or have undertaken expansion, modernization, and change in product- mix without prior Environmental clearance, these projects shall be treated as cases of violations and in such cases, even Category B projects which are granted environmental clearance by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority constituted under subsection (3) Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 shall be appraised for grant of environmental clearance only by the Expert Appraisal Committee and environmental clearance will be granted at the Central Level.” 12. The reply of the State do not in any manner suggest that it was a case of an expansion or modernization of the existing project but a new project as the previous violations were put on hold by this Court vide judgment dated 7[th] of December 2016 in W.P.(C) No.27189 of 2016, Ext.P4. 13. Moreover, clause 14 of the Notification dated 14[th] March 2017, Ext.P10 enables the petitioner or similarly **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E) 20** situated affected persons for claiming environmental clearance within a period of six months. The Same is extracted below: “14.The projects of activities which are in violation as on date of this notification only will be eligible to apply for environmental clearance under this notification and the project proponents can apply for environmental clearance under the notification only within six months from the date of this notification.” 14. On the basis of the aforementioned parameters, it is to be examined whether the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority accorded the environmental clearance subject to the norms and conditions. The report reflects the affording of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, not once but on few occasions. For avoiding repetition, as to what has been written in the report, it would be appropriate to extract relevant portion of the proceedings of the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Ext.P9. “2. The proposal was placed in the 73[rd] Meeting SEAC held on 30[th] and 31[st] May, 2017. Further to the intimation of SEAC, the proponent and the RQP attended the meeting and RQP made a power point presentation about the salient features of the project. **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **21** The Committee appraised the proposal based on the Mining Plan, Pre-feasibility Report and all other documents submitted along with Form 1. The proponent agreed to set apart Rs.10 lakh (recurring) and Rs.15 lakh per annum (non-recurring) for CSR activities for the welfare of the local community in consultation with the local body. The Committee decided to defer the item for field inspection and for submission of a list of flora and fauna observed at the proposed site. The Committee found that the information furnished about the quarries in the neighborhood is erroneous. Hence it was decided to ask the proponent to submit a non-cluster certificate. It was also decided to hear Mr. Bijo Jose at the time of field visit as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.5016 of 2017. Subsequently, site visit was conducted on 9[th] July 2017 by Subcommittee consisting of Dr.P.S Harikumar and Dr. Khaleel Chovva. The representatives of the proponent were present at the site at the time of site visit. The report is as follows: No activity was seen at the site and it appears that in recent times quarrying was not done The topsoil and quarry waste is dumped loosely at the site Planted some sapling of trees around the site Sign boards were erected at the site The approach road is badly maintained As per the certificate from District Officer, Mining and Geology Dept, 4 quarries are working in 500 m radius. The total area of the 4 quarries is approx 6.4 ha. We have not observed any deep pits from the ground level. No agricultural activity is seen at the proposed site. The topsoil and overburden in a large quantity has to be removed. The proponent has submitted the details of flora and fauna available in the area Hearing of the complaints of Mr. Bijo Jose as directed **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **22** ## by Hon'ble High Court The detail fo the visit to the site was informed to the petitioner by SEIAA Secretariat. On the day of visit, they tried to contact the petitioner 4 times but even though the phone was ringing Mr.Bijo did not attend it. Not seeeing the petitioner at the site, the inspection team made an attempt to meet him personally at his house. Mr. Bijo's mother Smt.Marykutty told us that Mr.Bijo was in hospital. He did not even depute a representative to talk or explain. Whatever blasting had been carried out earlier was on the other side of the rocky hill away from this house and there was only very little chance of flying of the rocks to the house. Moreover, the house and the quarry are separated by thick vegetation. The following conditions need to be specified before considering giving environmental clearance for the quarrying: 1. SEAC should check the details submitted by the proponent on the quarries available around 500m radius. 2. The biodiversity details of the area also shoula be checked 3. The approach road needs to be maintained properly 4. The topsoil and overburden should be stalked properly at suitable place 5. The blasting should be done only with the formation of benches 6. The drainage water should be collected in a pond and should be discharged only after clarification. A small stream is flowing inside the quarry area which should be maintained properly by providing embankment protection 7. Since lot of top soil is available some protective measures should be adopted to prevent soil erosion. The proponent can adopt measures such as laying coirmat on the slope of the hilly side. Planting more trees around the area also will help prevent soil erosion. 8. Any plant species endemic to western Ghats are available shall be protected in situ or transplanted to an appropriate place **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **23** The proponent submitted the documents sought by 73[rd] Meeting of SEAC. As the petitioner Sri.Bijo Jose was not present during the field visit he was again given a chance to express his grievances during the 76[th] meeting of SEAC held on 25 July 2017. The proposal was considered in the 76[th] meeting SEAC held on 25[th] & 26 th July 2017. As ordered by the Hon'ble High Court in Con.Case (C) No.687/2017 (S) of WP(C) No.5016/2017, the petitioner Sri.Bijo José was given a chance for hearing during the field visit conducted by the sub-committee on 9.7.17. But he did not turn up. Again he was given a chance for hearing by SEAC in it s 76[th] meeting on 25.07.2017. But again he did not turn up for the hearing. The petitioner has raised a number of general complaints like noise pollution, contamination of water sources, damage to the local ecology etc. But the Sub Committee members could not notice any unusual damages in the locality due the quarrying locate the damages if any. The petitioner himself is admitting that this residential is situated more than 200 m away from the blasting area, which is much more than the specified safe distance in the KMMR Rules, 2015. The Sub Committee members informed the Committee that there are nothing to point out any visible adverse impacts in the area other than what is normal to a quarrying operation. So, the Committee after deliberations Recommend to issue EC subject to the general conditions in addition to the following specific condition for mining. 1. The approach road needs to be maintained properly 2. The topsoil and overburden should be stalked properly at designated place. Since lot of top soil is available protective measures should be adopted to prevent soil erosion. 3. The drainage water should be collected in a pond and should be discharged only after clarification. A small stream is flawing inside the quarry area which should be maintained properly b providing embankment protection **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **24** 4 If any rare, endemic and threatened plant species are noticed, they shall be properly, protected insitu or transplanted to a suitable site inside the lease area. The proponent agreed to set apart an amount of Rs.15 lakhs (non-recurring) and 10 lakhs (recurring) per year for activities for the welfare of the local community. The proponent also agreed to spend this amount in consultation with the local panchayath. 4. Finally, the petitioner Shri. Bijo Jose was heard by the Authority on 15.9.2017. The proposal was placed again in the 74[th] meeting held on 9 October 2017. Since there is no genuine grounds in the complaint, the authority accepted the recommendation of SEAC and decided to issue EC subject to general condition in addition to the following specif conditions: I. The approach road need to be maintained properly 2. The topsoil and overburden should be stalked properly at designated place. Since lot of top soil is available protective measures should be adopted to prevent soil erosion. 3. The drainage water should be collected in a pond and should be discharged only after clarification. A small stream is flowing inside the quarry area which should be maintained properly by providing embankment protection. 4. If any rare, endemic and threatened plant species are noticed, they shall be properly protected insitu or transplanted to a suitable site inside the lease area. The proponent should set apart an amount of Rs.15 lakhs (non-recurring) and 10 lakhs (recurring) per year for CSR activities for the welfare of the local community in consultation with the local Panchayat. EC will be issued only after fulfilling the pre-mining condition in the project site. A notarized affidavit to this extent, for the commitment of CSR activities and also agreeing all the general and specific conditions should be submitted .The proponent has submitted an affidavit vide reference 6[th] cited, satisfying all the **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **25** aboveconditions. 5. Environmental Clearance as per the EIA notification 2006 is hereby accorded for the proposed quarry project of Sri. Mr. Jilson Joseph, Veliyathu House, Naduvil Via, Pulikurumba PO. Kannur District, Kerala-670582 the project in Sy.No 28, at Nediyenga Village, Taliparamba Taluk, Kannur District, Kerala subject to court verdict for an area of 8.0804 Ha subject to the specific conditions as in para 4 above, all the environmental impact mitigation and management measures undertaken by the project proponent in the revised Form 1, EMP, PFR and Mining plan submitted to SEIAA. The assurances and clarifications given by the proponent will be deemed to be a part of these proceedings as if incorporated appended hereto will be applicable and have to be strictly adhered to. 6. The clearance issued will also be subject to full and effective implementation of all the undertakings given in the application form, mitigation measures as assured in the Environment Management Plan and the mining features including progressive mine closure plan as submitted with the application and relied on for grant of this clearance. The undertakings and conditions subject to all the mining features, Environmental management Plans as undertaken in the Mining Plan and EMP submitted to SEIAA will be deemed to be part of this proceedings as condtiions as undertaken by the proponent, as if in corporated herein. 7. Validity of the Environmental Clearance will be five years from the date of this clearance, subject to inspection by SEIAA on annual basis and complaince of the conditions, subject to earlier review of E.C in case of violation or non-compliance of conditions or genuine complaints from residents within the security area of the quarry. ## 15. It is settled law that the Court cannot assume **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E) 26** the role of an expert to reexamine the impact of the environment, which is always in the domain of the experts. The contention of the petitioner that he was prevented to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act is neither here nor there. There is no such averment that he attempted to file the appeal but owing to the non functioning of the Tribunal, he has approached this Court. The pleadings as culled out to bring the case within the provisions of Article 226, the contention in Ground(F) are required to be extracted: F. The materials on record would prove that what the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents did, by granting Ext.P9, is, in fact, the grant of an ex-post fact clearance and thereby regularizing the illegal and unscientific mining done by the proponent for nearly a decade. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, lastly in common cause Case (Supra) and the NGT in S.P Muthuraman's Case (Supra) had unambiguously made clear that the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents lack jurisdiction for the same. Ext.P10 notification of the MoEF clarified that an E.C application could be considered and appraised at the central level, if at all an E.C. Granted by the state authority on successful implementation of mitigating measures suggested. The result is that Ext.P9 is non-est and unenforceable and invalid in law for want of jurisdiction. The judgment reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 and (2005) 6 SCC 499 made a binding exception for challenge of orders without jurisdiction for a challenge under the judicial review jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Similar **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **27** Writ petition was entertained by the Hon'ble Court as seen in Ext.P1 as well. Moreover, resorting to statutory appeal is meaningless and in-efficacious for want of judicial officers manning NGT for the time being. There is no chance for appointment of judicial officers in near future. It disabled the petitioner from getting urgent orders in the matter. Further, even in the absence of challenging Ext.P9 EC., the petitioner is entitled to pray for a restraint order against the 5[th] respondent from quarrying on the strength of Ext.P9 as the same is unenforceable, under the provisions of Ext.P10 notification. 16. There could have been a situation warranting interference had the petitioner actually filed appeal and in the absence of any hearing for the purpose of interim. Reliance to the cause lists, holding of the video conferences with effect from November 2018 cannot be a ground in overcoming the impediment of availment of the appeal. The affidavit of the Assistant Solicitor General of India do not suggest any closure of the Registry in not entertaining any such appeals, in respect of the matters pertaining to Southern Zone. It would have been very simple and convenient for the petitioner to prefer an appeal. No doubt, despite existence of the alternative remedy, the aggrieved persons can always invoke **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E) 28** jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not only by alleging but proving on record the impugned action to be without jurisdiction and apprehendly illegal. Except in not following the procedure as prescribed in Sub clause (2) of Clause (13) of the Notification ibid, it has not been suggested as to how or in what manner environmental clearance is vitiated in law. The entire notification has to be read in conjunction and not in isolation. On plain and simple reading of clause 14, extracted above, the case of the petitioner in seeking the clearance cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. I need not comment further about the conduct of the petitioner in the absence of any credentials having placed on record and nor can he be said to be a stooge or otherwise owing to the fact that his house is alleged to have been within the vicinity of the proposed quarry. But if so, under Explanation (i) of Rule 40(1) of Rules 2015, no quarry is permissible within the area of 50 mts. The petitioner is attempting to manifest the field map to bring the case within the embargo by saying to be 29.4 mtrs ie., from the agricultural land and not from the residential **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **29** building, which is far behind. With the aforementioned observations, the writ petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. **Sd/-** sab **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **30** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2650/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/08/2017 IN W.P.(C)27363/2017 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER OF SREEKANDAPURAM KRISHI BHAVAN DATED 09/08/2012.** - **EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 15/05/2013.** - **EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/12/2016 IN W.P.(C)27189/2016 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/02/2017 IN W.P.(C)NO.5016/2017 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 14/08/2017, IN CON. CASE (C)NO.687/2017 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 15/09/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH THE POSTAL COVER.** - **EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE E.C. DATED 29/11/2017 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ON 11/01/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT, DATED 14/03/2017.** - **EXHIBIT P11TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE QUARRY PITS AND SURROUNDING AREA AS WELL AS OF THE GOOGLE MAP.** - **EXHIBIT P12TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 01/07/2016 OF THE MOEF.** - **EXHIBIT P19 : TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 14-6-2018.** **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **31** **EXHIBIT-P13 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 1131/11 DATED 28/3/2011** - **EXHIBIT-P14 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14/12/2016 MADE AVAILABLE TO THIS PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT-P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF VULNERABLE AREAS IN KANNUR DISTRICT, PUBLISHED INT HE WEBSITE OF KSDMA.** - **EXHIBIT-P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND SLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY MAP FOR KANNUR DISTRICT, PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF KSDMA.** - **EXHIBIT-P17 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 15/3/2018 BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT-P18 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO. 3667/2016/DMD, DATED 9/9/2016.** - **EXHIBIT-P19 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 14/6/2018** - **EXHIBIT-P20 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICTING THE LEAKAGE AND OTHER DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE PETITIONER'S HOUSE.** - **EXHIBIT-P21 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5/7/2017 AND THE RECEIPTS, FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE.** - **EXHIBIT-P22 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT, DATED 118/2018, APPEARED IN MALAYALAMANORAMA DAILY.** - **EXHIBIT-P22(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT, DATED 11/8/2018, APPEARED IN MALAYALAMANORAMA DAILY.** - **EXHIBIT-P22(B) TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT, DATED 9/8/2018, APPEARED IN DEEPIKA DAILY.** - **EXHIBIT-P22(C) TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT, DATED 14/8/2018, APPEARED IN MAKTHAB.** - **EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM, DATED 09.09.2019, BY 6TH RESPONDENT.** **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **32** **EXHIBIT P24** **TRUE COPY OF THE RELEANT PAGE OF THE CAUSE LIST OF NBGT(SZ) FOR 02.01.2018** - **EXHIBIT P25** - **TRUE COPY OF THE CAUS ELIST FOR COURT 1 AND 2 FOR THE DATE 03.01.2018, OF THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI.** - **EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE CAUSE LIST FOR COURT 1AND 2 FOR THE DATE 23.01.2018, OF THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI** - **EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE CAUSE LIST FOR COURT 1 AND 2 FOR THE DATE 04.04.2018, OF THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI.** - **EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 24.07.2018, BY THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (PRINCIPAL BENCH) NEW DELHI** - **EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 31.07.2018, BY THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL(PRINCIPAL BENCH), NEW DELHI** - **EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2018 BY THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (PRINCIPAL BENCH) NEW DELHI.** - **EXHIBIT P31 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.08.2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.1975/2018 OF THE FILED OF THE HONOURABLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P-32 TRUE COPY OF THE GOOGLE MAP DEMARCATING PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND THE MINING LEASE AREA.** - **EXHIBIT P-33 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.551/2011.** - **EXHIBIT P-33 A TRUE COPY OF THE DIGITAL SURVEY SKETCHE PLAN I.** - **EXHIBIT P33 B TRUE COPY OF THE DIGITAL SURVEY SKETCHE PLAN II.** - **EXHIBIT P-33C TRUE COPY OF THE DIGITAL SURVEY SKETCHE PLAN III.** **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **33** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R5(K)** TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 8-03-2018 **EXHIBITR5(L)** TRUE COPY OF THE EIA NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 15-01-2016 **EXHIBIT R5(M)** TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REPORT OF THE GEOLOGIST SURVEY OF INDIA INTO THE LANDSLIDES IN KANNUR DISTRICT, ALONG WITH THE KANNUR DISTRICT LANDSLIDE INVENTORY OF GST **EXHIBITR5(M)** TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REPORT OF THE KERALA STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY **EXHIBIT-R5(a)** TRUE COPY OF THE ITERIM ORDER DATED 17/8/2016 IN WP(C) NO.27189/2016 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. **EXHIBIT-R5(b)** TRUE COPIES OF THE PERMIT GRANTED BY THE GEOLOGIST ON 15/6/2016 VALID UPTO 14/6/2017 **EXHIBIT-R5(c)** TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT DATED 28/12/2017 FOR RS.14,99,900/- **EXHIBIT-R5(d)** TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT DATED 15/1/2018 FOR RS. 7,80,000/- **EXHIBIT-R5(e)** TRUE COPY OF THE D AND O LICENCE ISSUED BY THE SREEKANDAPURAM MUNICIPALITY. **EXHIBIT-R5(f)** A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE THE QUARRY ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ON 5/12/2017 **EXHIBIT-R5(g)** A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENCE ISSUED ON 28/4/2016 **EXHIBIT-R5(h)** TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, SREEKANDAPURAM MUNICIPALITY EVIDENCING THAT THE AREA COMPRISED IN R.S.NO.28 OF NEDIYENGA VILLAGE IS NOT A PART OF THE WESTERN GHAT AREA. **EXHIBIT-R5(i)** A COPY OF THE SURVEY MAP **EXHIBIT-R5(j)** A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 6/6/2017 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST **EXHIBIT-R4(a)** A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 18/12/2017 **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **34** **EXHIBIT-R4(b)** A TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT IN FORM 2 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 23/11/2016. **EXHIBIT-R4(c)** A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 6/6/2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. **EXHIBIT-R1(a)** A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 10/1/2014. **EXHIBIT-R5(o)** TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION BEARING NO. DOC/M4067/2018 DATED 19/9/2018 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST. **EXHIBIT-R5(p)** TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 3/10/2018 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR BEARING NO. D/15340/2018 **EXHIBIT-R5(q)** TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION AS PER NO. 22/01/RTI/2018 **EXHIBIT-R5(r)** TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE THE MAP PREPARED BY THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY. **EXHIBIT-R5(s)** TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19/1/2018 SUBMITTED BY POLICE. **EXHIBIT R5(t):** TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 07/11/2017 ISSUED TO THE QUARRY IN THE LAND OWNED BY SRI.JOSEPH.T.T **EXHIBIT R5(u):** TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE ISSUED TO SRI.JOSEPH.T.T., DATED 05/09/2018, WITH ENCLOSURES. **EXHIBIT R5(v):** TRUE COPY OF THE SATELLITE IMAGE OF THE QUARRY TRUE COPY OF THE SATELLITE IMAGE OF THE QUARRY IN THE LAND OWNED BY SRI.JOSEPH.T.T., OBTAINED FROM GOOGLE EARTH. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE RTI APPLICATION, DATED 13/06/2019. **EXHIBIT R5(w):** **EXHIBIT R5(x):** TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DATED 13/03/2019, ISSUED TO THE QUARRY IN THE LAND OWNED BY MR.MANU MANUEL. **EXHIBIT R5(v):** TRUE COPY OF THE SATELLITE IMAGE OF THE QUARRY IN THE OWNED BY MR.MANU MANUEL OBTAINED FROM GOOGLE EARTH. **EXHIBIT R5 Z** TRUE COPY OF THE DIGITAL LEASE PLAN (PLATE NO2) APPROVED BY THE GEOLOGIST. **EXHIBIT R5 (AA)** TRUE COPY OF THE GOOGLE MAP (PLATE NO.1E) SHOWING LEASE AREA. **EXHIBIT R5 (AB)** TRUE COPY OF THE PLATES OF MINING PLAN OF THE QUARRY. **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E)** **35** **EXHIBIT R5(ac)** **EXHIBIT R5(ad)** **EXHIBIT R5(ae)** **EXHIBIT R5(af)** TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDIYANGA, DATED 24.01.2020. TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING DISTANCE FROM THE FAMILY HOUSE OF THE WRIT PETITIONER AND THAT OF THE LANDS BELONGING TO THE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY TO THE PILLARS IN THE 5TH RESPONDENTS QUARRY LEASE BOUNDARY DATED 27.01.2020. TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING CONTAINING THE AREA LOCATED IN R.S.NO.28 IN NEDIYENGA AMSOM DESOM PERTAINING TO WHICH THE 5TH RESPONDENT HAS OBTAINED PERMISSION FOR MINING AND ALSO THE HOUS OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER IN WARD V/159 OF SREEKANDAPURAM MUNICIPALITY. TRUE COPY OF THE GOOGLE EARTH MAP OBTAINED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE WRIT P[ETITIONER'S HOUSE AND ALL QUARRIES IN RE-SURVEY NUMBERS 28, 25/1-A, 29 AND 5. **WP(C).No.2650 OF 2018(E) 36**