Dennis Sebastian and Others v. State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority and Others

WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 1 : ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 30737 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 DENNIS SEBASTIAN AGED 38 YEARS S/O. DEVASSIA, RESIDING AT KUTTIYANKAL HOUSE, VALAVOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686635.`** - **`2 'NELLIKKUNNU JALANIDHI GUNABHOKTHRU SANGAM' REG. NO. KTMTC682/2014, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT TOMY JOSEPH, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, AMBATTU HOUSE, CHAKKAMPUZHA P.O, 686574 KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-`** - **`3 'ALUMKAL JALANIDHI GUNABHOKTHRU SANGAM' REG. NO. KTMTC766/2014, REP. 'BY ITS PRESIDENT APPACHAN JOSEPH, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, VELLAMKUNNEL HOUSE, VALVOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686635.`** - **`4 NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI T.N, AGED 75 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, THAMARASSERY ILLAM, VALAVOOR, P.O, KOTTAYAM PIN 686635.`** - **`5 MANUEL JOSEPH, AGED 69 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, VALAVOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM PIN 686635`** - **`6 P.A BABY, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. AUGUSTY, PONNATH HOUSE VALAVOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM PIN 686635`** - **`7 JOHNY JOSEPH, AGED 67 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, THEKKALAKKATTIL HOUSE, VALAVOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM PIN 686635`** - **`8 JOSE MANUEL, AGED 52 YEARS S/O. MANUEL, MUNDAMAKKIYIL HOUSE, VALAVOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM PIN 686635. BY ADV GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, KSRTC SHOPPING COMPLEX, THAMPANOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695005`** - **`2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THE OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.`** - **`3 THE GEOLOGIST, THE OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 002.`** - **`4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THE VILLAGE OFFICE, VALLICHIRA`** WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 2 : ||**`P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 574.`**| |---|---| |**`5`**|**`THE KAROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS`**| ||**`SECRETARY, KAROOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686`**| ||**`575.`**| |**`6`**|**`MOHAMMED NAHA SALIM, THUNDIL PUTHENVEEDU,`**| ||**`BHARATHEEYAPURAM P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM-691 312.`**| |**`7`**|**`ADDL.R7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION`**| ||**`DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM, PIN- 686009 IMPLEADED AS`**| ||**`ADDL. R7 AS PER ORDER DATED 16.01.2023 IN I.A. 1/2023`**| ||**`OF WP(C) 30737/2022.`**| ||**`BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SUNIL CYRIAC`**| ||**`JOBI JOSE KONDODY`**| ||**`BY SPL.GP - SUJITH MATHEW JOSE`**| ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 3 : # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 4655 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` DENNIS SEBASTIAN AGED 38 YEARS S/O. DEVASSIA, KUTTIYANKAL HOUSE, VALAVOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN ., PIN - 686635 BY ADV GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, KOTTAYAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686002`** - **`2 THE KAROOR GRAMAPANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KAROOR P.O KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686575`** - **`3 MOHAMMED NANA SALIM THUNDILPUTHENVEEDU HOUSE, BHARATHEEYAPURAM P.O, ANCHAL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691312 BY ADVS. SUNIL CYRIAC JOBI JOSE KONDODY`** ## **`BY SPL.GP - SUJITH MATHEW JOSE`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 4 : **‘CR’ VIJU ABRAHAM , J. =========================== WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 ============================ Dated this the 19[th] day of April, 2024** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **WP(C) No.30737 of 2022** The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P1, P3 and P5, i.e., Letter of Intent, Environmental Clearance and Quarrying Permit respectively, issued in favour of the 6[th] respondent. 2. Petitioners submit that the issuance of Ext.P1 letter of intent is arbitrary and illegal in as much as going by Rule 8 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as KMMC Rules, 2015) it is mandatory on the part of the 3[rd] respondent to conduct a site inspection before issuing a letter of intent. Since no inspection was conducted, the objectionable sites from the site of quarry were not noticed before issuing Ext.P1. Petitioners would submit that in Ext P3 there is a mention that the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) has also reported that there is a house in the locality within 165 metres from the boundary of the quarry and the project proponent shall produce the certificate from the Village Officer to the effect that there are no residential building within 200 metres from the boundary of the quarry. Petitioners submit that Ext.P4 certificate issued by the Village Officer is against the real factual situation. Later on Ext.P5 quarrying WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 5 : permit was also issued in respect of the quarry run by the 6[th] respondent. It is aggrieved by the issuance of Exts.P1, P3 and P5 that the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. One of the specific contention raised by the petitioners is that there are public water reservoirs near the quarry, but the existence of these water tanks was not noticed while issuing Exts.P1, P3 and P5. Petitioners relying on Section 40(2) of the Kerala Irrigation and Conservation of Water Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2003’) and the judgment dated 01.11.2017 in WP(C) No.23565 of 2017 submit that a No Objection Certificate from the Irrigation Department is necessary before issuing an EC or a quarrying permit. Petitioners also rely on the judgment of this Court in **Sobin P.K. v. District Geologist, Ernakulam and Others [2020 (1) KHC 1 (DB)]** in support of their contention. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 6[th] respondent, wherein it is contended that the environmental clearance and the permits were issued strictly in accordance with law and on finding that there are no objectionable structures near the site of quarrying. As regards the water reservoirs mentioned in the writ petition, the 6[th] respondent would contend that those are not structures constructed by the Irrigation Department and not within one kilometre radius of the quarry, and therefore no permission from the Irrigation Department is necessary and there is no violation of Section 40(2) of the WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 6 : Act, 2003. The 6[th] respondent would further contend that since the water tank is not constructed either by the Kerala Water Authority or by the Irrigation Department, no permission under Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003 is required. It is further contended that as regards the environmental clearance granted, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to approach the National Green Tribunal, challenging the same. ## **WP(C) No.4655 of 2024** 5. The above writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1[st] respondent to consider Ext.P2 and to take necessary action as provided under Kerala Irrigation and Conservation of Water Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2003’). The said writ petition is filed by the 1[st] petitioner in WP(C) No. 30737 of 2022 against the quarry run by the 3[rd] respondent, who is the 6[th] respondent in WP(C) No.30737 of 2022, mainly contending that there is violation of Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003. The specific case of the petitioner is that there are three public water tanks near the quarrying site and in case blasting operations are undertaken there is a chance for the water tanks to be destroyed and therefore only after obtaining an NOC as mandated as per Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003 that necessary permissions and licenses ought to have been issued by the authorities. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached the 1[st] respondent by filing Ext.P2 complaint and the petitioner seeks for an expeditious disposal of the same so that WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 7 : appropriate action could be taken by the 1[st] respondent. 6. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3[rd] respondent, wherein it is submitted that the trade license obtained was declined by the Panchayat and only after the intervention of this Court as evident from Ext.R3(a) to R3(d) that the same was issued. It is further contended that Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003 does not contemplate an NOC from the Irrigation Department in respect of drinking water supply tanks maintained by other agencies including the Panchayat and the Government. Further, Rule 10(f) and Rule 40(i) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as KMMC Rules 2015) only impose a restriction that quarrying using explosives cannot be permitted within 50 metres of any reservoir, tanks, canals, rivers, bridges, public works etc. and that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 or the KMMC Rules 2015 does not mandate obtaining an NOC from the Irrigation Department before mining activities are carried out using explosives within a radius of one kilometre of any structures or construction owned, controlled or maintained by the Government, local authority or any other authority. The 3[rd] respondent also relies on Ext.R3(f) communication issued by the Irrigation Department wherein it is reported that since the water tanks are under the ownership and custody of Karoor Grama Panchayat, 2[nd] respondent herein, it is for them to give an NOC in this regard and the Office of the Executive Engineer of the Minor Irrigation Division has absolutely no WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 8 : authority to issue NOC in the referred subject matter and are not empowered to do so by any Government order in this regard and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have heard the rival contentions of both sides. 8. Essentially the issue in these writ petitions is regarding the grant of permission for conducting a quarry overlooking the presence of three public water reservoirs near the quarry; water tanks of ‘Nellikunnu’ Water Supply Scheme, ‘Alunkal’ Water Supply Scheme under the local authority and water tank of Indian Institute of Information Technology. The counter affidavit of the 7[th] respondent in WP(C) No. 30737 of 2022 admits that the ‘Nellikunnu’ water tank is around 300 metres aerially away on the northern side from the quarrying location, the ‘Alunkal’ water tank is around 300 metres aerially away on the north-western side from the quarrying location and the IIIT water tank is around 400 metres aerially away on the south-eastern side from the quarrying location. It is also stated by the 7[th] respondent in the counter affidavit that the first two water tanks are in the ownership of 2[nd] respondent in WPC No. 4655 of 2024 and other by the Indian Institute of Information Technology, an institute of national importance under an Act of Parliament. It is further stated that as per Section 40(2), the irrigation officer has power over the water tanks referred to in the writ petition and that for issuance of an NOC, the consent of the owner of the water tank and the custodian of the water tank should be obtained. The contention of WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 9 : the 6[th] respondent in WP(C) No. 30737 of 2022 is that the environmental clearance and various permits were granted on finding that there are no objectionable structures from the site of quarrying. Ext P1 produced in WP(C) No. 30737 of 2022 is the letter of intent granted by the 3[rd] respondent and it is contended by the 6[th] respondent that Ext P1 quarrying permit was issued only after he has obtained all the consent/licence/clearance mentioned in Ext P1. Rule 8 of the KMMC Rules 2015 deals with grant of letter of intent to an applicant for a quarrying permit which reads as follows:- “ 8. Letter of intent to an applicant for a quarrying permit.On receipt of an application for a quarrying permit with all requisite contents and particulars thereof prescribed in these rules but without having the statutory licences required to be obtained from other Departments concerned, the applicant shall be issued a letter of intent by the competent authority after making site visits and other enquiries as the authority deems fit. Quarrying permit shall be granted and royalty collected only after obtaining all other statutory licences/clearances/No Objection Certificates etc. from other statutory authorities concerned. The letter of intent so issued shall be sufficient for statutory authorities concerned for issuing their licenses/permissions/No Objection Certificates etc. ” (underlines supplied) Rule 9 of KMMC Rules, 2015 deals with the disposal of application for grant of quarrying permit which reads as follows:- “9. Disposal of application for the grant of quarrying permit.-(1) On receipt of the application for grant of quarrying permit for undertaking quarrying operations, the competent authority shall make site inspection and take decision regarding the WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 10 : precise area to be granted for the said purpose and intimate the applicant to submit approved mining plan and Environmental Clearance for the precise area: Provided that, approved mining plan and environmental clearance shall not be insisted, for the issuance and renewal of permits in the case of Laterite Building Stone. (2) On receipt of an approved mining plan and Environmental Clearance for the precise area and on production of all other statutory licenses/clearances/No Objection Certificate etc. from other statutory authorites concerned, the competent authority shall issue a quarrying permit to the applicant within thirty days in Form N for ordinary earth and in Form M for all other minor minerals. ” (underlines supplied) 9. The petitioners contend that there are three public water reservoirs near the quarry, two run by the local authority i.e. the 2[nd] respondent in WP(C) No.4655 of 2024 and another is the water tank maintained by Indian Institute of Information Technology, Kottayam, and that going by Section 40 (2) of the Act, 2003, NOC from the competent authority in the Irrigation Department is required before issuing the environmental clearance and quarrying permit. But on the other hand, it is the contention of the 6[th] respondent that the quarrying permit has been granted after obtaining all the necessary statutory clearances as demanded in Ext.P1 letter of intent, and public water reservoirs are not constructed by the Kerala Water Authority or the Irrigation Department and therefore he is not obliged to obtain permission under Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003. WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 11 : 10. Ext.P1 is the letter of intent issued by the Geologist under Rule 8 of the Rules, 2015. In Ext.P1 letter of intent the petitioner was directed to produce five documents which does not contain a ‘No Objection Certificate’ as provided under Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003. Petitioners submit that he has produced whatever documents that have been requested in Ext.P1, and thereafter the environmental clearance and the quarrying permit were granted in his favour. Rule 8 of the KMMC Rules, 2015 only mandates that a letter of intent will be issued before the grant of statutory licenses required to be obtained from other departments concerned which shall be sufficient for statutory authorities concerned for issuing the license/permission/No Objection Certificate. The question to be considered is as to whether any written permission of the Irrigation Officer is required in the present case as mandated under Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003 before issuing environmental clearance and quarrying permit. Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003 reads as follows:- “40(2) - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, without the written permission of the Irrigation Officer, conduct mining or quarrying operation using explosives within a radius of one kilometre of any bridge, dam, check dam or any other work, structure or construction, owned, controlled or maintained by the Government, a local authority or any other authority. “ (underlines supplied) Going by Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003, written permission of the Irrigation Officer is required to conduct quarrying operation using WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 12 : explosives within a radius of one kilometre of any structure or construction controlled or owned, maintained by the Government, Local Authority or any other authority. Admittedly, two of the water tanks in question are owned and maintained by the local authority, and one by the Indian Institute of Information Technology. So the water tanks owned and maintained by both these authorities, one a local authority and another an authority of the Government are structures coming under the purview of Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003 which requires written permission from the Irrigation Officer before starting mining or quarrying operation using explosives. 11. The contention of the 6[th] respondent in WPC No. 30737 of 2022 is that since the water tank was not constructed either by the Kerala Water Authority or by the Irrigation Department, no permission under Section 40(2) of the Act is required. The 6[th] respondent relies on Ext R3 (f) communication produced in WPC No. 4655 of 2024 to contend that the irrigation department has no authority to issue an NOC in a case where the structures are owned by a local authority. The petitioner relies on the Government Order G.O.(P) No.1/2016/WRD dated 14.01.2016, wherein the Government in exercise of the power conferred by clause 2 of Act, 2003 appointed the Executive Engineers of the Irrigation Department in the respective jurisdiction as Irrigation Officer to perform all or any of the functions under the Act, 2003. The Government Order reads as follows: WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 13 : ## “GOVERNMENT OF KERALA ## **Water Resources (MI) Department** ## NOTIFICATION ## G.O.(P) No.1/2016/WRD. Dated, Thiruvananthapuram. 14[th] January 2016/29[th] Dhanu, 1191, **S.R.O. No.67/2016** – In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (u) of section 2 of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 (31 of 2003), the Government of Kerala hereby appoint the Executive Engineers of the Irrigation Department in their respective jurisdictions as the Irrigation Officer to perform all or any of the functions under the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003. By order of the Governor, V.J.Kurian, ## Additional Chief Secretary to Government.” So as per Section 40(2) of the Act 2003 coupled with the Government Order referred to above dated 14.01.2016 the Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department in the respective jurisdiction who has been appointed as Irrigation Officer is bound to look into whether the water tanks are situated within the objectionable distance as provided in Section 40(2) of the Act 2003. Therefore, I repel the contention of the learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent that NOC is not required as provided in Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003 in respect of the water tanks which are maintained by the local authority and the Indian Institute of Information Technology as Section 40(2) takes in structure or WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 14 : construction owned and controlled by the Government, local authority or any other authority. 12. Yet another aspect to be noted is that these issues have cropped in only for the reason that the letter of intent issued as Ext.P1 only required the 6[th] respondent to obtain certain consents/permission which the 6[th] respondent has duly obtained and that it did not direct the 6[th] respondent to obtain a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Irrigation Department as provided in Section 40 (2) of the Act, 2003. Though the letter of intent is issued as per Rule 8 of the KMMC Rules, 2015, the said Rule does not limit or does not prescribe about the licenses or permissions to be obtained for considering the request for issuance of a quarrying permit. Rule 8 only says that the letter of intent shall be sufficient for statutory authorities concerned for issuing the license/permission/No Objection Certificate etc., and the said Rule further mandates that quarrying permit will be granted only after obtaining all statutory licenses/clearances/No Objection Certificate etc. from other statutory authorities concerned. The problem of issuing a letter of intent in the nature of Ext.P1 which specifies the licences/consents to be obtained, is that the project proponent can take shelter under Ext.P1 and contend that he was obliged to produce only those documents mentioned in Ext.P1 and No Objection Certificate from the Irrigation Department is not necessary at all, since he was not asked to obtain the same as per the letter of intent. Therefore, the Geologist while issuing a letter of WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 15 : intent should see that it is issued strictly in accordance with Rule 8 of KMMC Rules 2015, after making site visits and other enquiries as the authority deem fit and informing the project proponent that a quarrying permit will be issued only after obtaining all other statutory licences/clearances/no objection certificates etc from other statutory authorities concerned and shall not limit the same as is done in Ext P1 or in the alternative the letter of intent should also mandate that the project proponents shall also obtain a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department in the respective jurisdiction who has been appointed as an Irrigation Officer to perform all the duties and functions under the Act, 2003 as provided under Section 40 (2) of the Act 2003 so that a situation like this will not arise in future. 13. Now that the environmental clearance as well as quarrying permit has been granted on the basis of the document produced by the 6[th] respondent in WP(C) No.30737 of 2022, this court is of the view that a direction could be issued to the 1st respondent in WP(C) No.4655 of 2024 to consider the complaint raised by the petitioners regarding the presence of water tank within the objectionable distance of the quarrying site in violation of Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003 for which petitioner in WPC No. 4655 of 2024 has preferred Ext.P2 request. The petitioner relies on the judgment in **Sobin P.K. v. District Geologist, Ernakulam and Others [2020 (1) KHC 1 (DB)],** wherein this Court held in paragraphs 16 and 18 as follows; WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 16 : “16. Admittedly, the water tank is having a capacity of 2.50 lakhs litres and the same is said to be constructed on the basis of Neriyamangalam drinking water project. Though, referring to the preamble of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that the provision cannot be applicable to grant permits, we are not in agreement with the said contention for the reason that Section 40(2) of the said Act starts with non obstante clause and it reads thus: - "40. Mining or quarrying near certain works etc.- xx xxx xxxxx (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, without the written permission of the Irrigation Officer, conduct mining or quarrying operation using explosives within a radius of one kilometre of any bridge, dam, check dam or any other work, structure or construction owned controlled or maintained by the Government, a local authority or any other authority." 18. Reading of 40(2) of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003, makes it clear that mining or quarrying operation using explosives within a radius of one kilometre of any bridge, dam, check dam or any other work, structure or construction, owned, controlled or maintained by the Government, a local authority or any other authority, without any prior written permission, is not permissible. In case on hand, water tank is maintained by Kerala Water Authority and the same would certainly fall under the expression in Section 40(2) of the Act to include Kerala Water Authority also. “ 14. The petitioner also relies on the judgment in WP(C) No.23565 ## of 2017, wherein paragraphs 2 and 6 reads as follows; “2. The 1[st] respondent admittedly has not obtained any permission under the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act which under Section 40(2) provides as under:- “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, without the written permission of the Irrigation Officer, conduct mining or quarrying operation using explosives within a radius of one WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 17 : kilometre of any bridge, dam, check dam or any other work, structure or construction, owned, controlled or maintained by the Government, a local authority or any other authority.” 6. It is also pertinent that the 1[st] respondent had applied as per Ext.P5 without specifically declaring the canal and water tank existing within the prohibited area as per the Conservation Act. In such circumstance, the recommendation of the DEAC was without looking at the relevant facts and considering the impact of the conduct of the quarry within the prohibited distance as provided under the Conservation Act. In such circumstance, despite there being no challenge to the EC as per Ext.P3, the declaration sought for would require this Court to set aside Ext.P3. Ext.P3 hence would stand set aside. The 1[st] respondent would be entitled to approach the Competent Officer under the Conservation Act for a permission under Section 40(2) and then approach the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority with a proper application specifically showing the water bodies or structures for irrigation or drinking water supply; existing within the prohibited distance and the consent if obtained under the Conservation Act.” 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the above writ petition is disposed of as follows:- The 1[st] respondent in WP(C) No.4655 of 2024 (Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Kottayam) shall take up Ext.P2 complaint preferred by the petitioner and conduct necessary enquiry regarding the objectionable sites from the quarry run by the 3[rd] respondent as provided under Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003 after conducting a site inspection and measurement with notice to the petitioners and 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents in WP(C) No.4655 of 2024, and take a final decision in the matter within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 18 : judgment. Report in this regard shall be submitted by the 1[st] respondent in WP(C) No.4655 of 2024 before the Geologist concerned and also serve a copy of the same to the petitioners as well as respondents 2 and 3 in WP(C) No.4655 of 2024 as well as the State Enviornmental Impact Assessment Authority, the 1[st] respondent in WP(C) No.30737 of 2022. The Geologist and SEIAA shall take appropriate steps in this regard based on the report to be submitted by the 1[st] respondent in WP(C) No.4655 of 2024 (additional 7[th] respondent in WP(C) No.30737 of 2022) regarding the continuation of the quarrying permit as well as the environmental clearance granted, within a further period of two months thereafter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, 2[nd] and the 3[rd] respondent in WP(C) No.4655 of 2024. 16. With the above-said directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Director of Mining and Geology, the 2[nd] respondent in WP(C) No. 30737 of 2022, for information and due compliance of the directions. Sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE** sbk/- WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 19 : ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30737/2022` ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT 03.10.2019 Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ASSET REGISTER OF THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE RECEIVED BY THE IST PETITIONER IN WP(C) 25554/2022 Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 06.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DATED 10.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P6TRUE PHOTOGRAPH Exhibit P7TRUE PHOTOGRAPH Exhibit P8TRUE PHOTOGRAPH Exhibit P9TRUE PHOTOGRAPH ``` ## `RESPONDENT EXHIBITS` ``` ExhibitA RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE 113TH R6(a)MEETING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ExhibitTrue copy of the site inspection report along with R7(a)the site plan ``` WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 : 20 : ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4655/2024` ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE MINING PERMIT BEARING NO: 3/GBS/QP/2022-23/541/DOY/ML/2018 DATED 10.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST KOTTAYAM IN FAVOUR OF 3RD RESPONDENT ``` ``` Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 31.01.2024 ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT ``` ## `RESPONDENT EXHIBITS` ``` ExhibitA true copy of the common judgment passed by the R3(a)learned Division bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.A No. 1813/2022 and WA No. 1820/2022 dated 06.03.2023 ExhibitA true copy of the order dated 04.04.2023 passed by R3(b)this Hon'ble Court in Con.Case (C) No. 699/2023 ExhibitA true copy of the order dated 10.04.2023 passed R3(c)by the learned Division Bench in Con.Case (Civil) No. 699/2023 ExhibitA true copy of the order dated 13.04.2023 passed R3(d)by the learned Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Cont.Case (C) No. 699 of 2023 ExhibitA true copy of the report dated 08.02.2024 R3(e)submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Department, Kottayam, before the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Kottayam ExhibitA true copy of the report dated 08.02.2024 R3(f)submitted by the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Kottayam-1, before the Geologist, Kottayam ```