High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2015-04-10Petition disposed of with directions that renew...

ELSY JOSE v. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS & ORS

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 29692 of 2014 (J)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.M. Shaffique
Judgment Date: 2015-04-10
Court Decision / Holding: WP(C). No. 29692 of 2014 disposed of. The Court did not decide the merits of Ext.P5/Ext.P13 but directed that, if the 4th respondent considers any renewal application for Ext.P5, it must be examined in accordance with law, specifically under the Kerala 2015 Rules and in light of the Division Bench decision All Kerala River Protection Council v State of Kerala (2015(2) KLT 78).
Final Disposition: Petition disposed of with directions that renewal, if sought, of Ext.P5 by the 4th respondent must be considered in accordance with law after ensuring compatibility with the 2015 Rules and in light of All Kerala River Protection Council v State of Kerala.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

ELSY JOSE

Respondents

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS
KERALA STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AGENCY
STATE OF KERALA
THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KALPETTA
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, PCB DISTRICT OFFICE
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MANANTHAVADI
TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MANANTHAVADI
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAVAKA VILLAGE OFFICE
M/S.ROSE GRANITES, EDAVAKA, KALLODY

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.P.G.SURESH
• SRI.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR)
• SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ
• SRI.V.HARISH

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.N.NAGARESH
• DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
• SRI.M.AMOHAMMED SAVAD
• SRI.M.AJAY

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner ELSY JOSE challenges the quashing of the consent and quarrying permit issued in favour of the 11th respondent (M/S Rose Granites) for rock quarrying in Sy. Nos. 356/2 and 354/2 of Edavaka Village, Mananthavady Taluk, Wayanad, and seeks certiorari and mandamus to restrain alleged illegal quarrying. The petitioner asserts Ext. P13 (Consent to operate) and Ext. P5 (quarrying permit) are illegal, as renewal of mining permits exceeded statutory limits under Rule 8(1)D of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 (amended) and as per the 2015 Rules; renewal cannot be for more than three years. The petitioner contends that Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006 is mandatory before continuing quarrying. The 11th respondent counters that renewal is permitted under the 2015 Rules and has applied for renewal for a different property; reliance is placed on All Kerala River Protection Council v State of Kerala (2015(2) KLT 78) directing compliance with the 2015 Rules and proper procedures. The Court notes Ext.P5 has expired and declines to decide merits, but disposes by directing that any renewal application for Ext.P5 be considered in accordance with law, after verifying whether renewal is permissible under the 2015 Rules and in light of the All Kerala River Protection Council ruling. The matter hinges on strict compliance with statutory requirements and renewal procedures.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 8(1)D of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006All Kerala River Protection Council v State of Kerala (2015(2) KLT 78)Deepak Kumar's case (Supreme Court)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

In the interest of justice, equity and good conscience
Renewal of mining permits must be in strict compliance with applicable statutory rules (2015 Rules)
Mandatory EIA clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P5 (quarrying permit) renewal was granted in violation of Rule 8(1)D of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 (as amended) and that 2015 Rules cap renewals at three years; Ext.P13 (Consent) is likewise illegal for not complying with statutory requirements and EIA norms. The challenge further asserts that renewal has been sought for a quarrying activity without valid authorization and that an Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006 is mandatory before continuing quarrying. The petitioner seeks quashing of Ext.P5 and Ext.P13 and a mandamus to stop the alleged illegal quarrying.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents urge that renewal of Ext.P5 is permissible under the 2015 Rules; the 11th respondent has applied for renewal possibly for a different site; they rely on the Division Bench's decision in All Kerala River Protection Council v State of Kerala (2015(2) KLT 78) guiding renewal under the 2015 Rules. They argue the matter requires conformity with statutory procedures, and the petition should be resolved by following the current rules and directions rather than granting relief on merits. They contend that the 4th respondent’s consideration of renewal, if any, must comply with law and be informed by the latest precedent.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
All Kerala River Protection Council v State of Kerala	2015(2) KLT 78	Positive	Cited to guide renewal of mining activities under the 2015 Rules and to confirm the process directives followed by the District Collector.
Deepak Kumar's case	—	Mentioned Only	Referenced as Supreme Court dictum regarding EIA clearance; not applied as a direct ruling in the present disposal.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against ELSY JOSE v. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS & ORS and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/20TH CHAITHRA, 1937** **WP(C).No. 29692 of 2014 (J) ----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **---------------** **ELSY JOSE AGED 45 YEARS W/O.JOSE KUNNATH, KUNNATH VEEDU, EDAVAKA P.O. MANANDAVADI TALUK, WAYANAD - 670 645.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.G.SURESH SRI.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR) SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ SRI.V.HARISH** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI - 110 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **2. KERALA STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AGENCY, DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **4. THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY MEENANGADY, WAYANAD - 673 591.** **5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT.** **6. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA- 695 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** **7. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT OFFICE, JASSAM COMPLEX, PINANGODE ROAD KALPETTA, WAYANAD - 673 121.** **8. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT.** **WP(C).No. 29692 of 2014 (J)** **----------------------------** ## **9. THE TAHSILDAR,** - **TALUK OFFICE, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD.** ## **10. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,** **EDAVAKA VILLAGE OFFICE, MANANTHAVADI TALUK WAYANAD - 670 645.** **11. M/S.ROSE GRANITES, EDAVAKA, KALLODY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SMT.ROSAMMA P.A. RESIDING AT MOOPPATTIL HOUSE, EDAVAKA P.O. KOLLODY DESAM, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R11 BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM** **R2,R3,R4, R5, R8, R9, R10 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.AMOHAMMED SAVAD R6,R7 BY ADV. SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 29692 of 2014 (J)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **------------------------** |**EXT.P1:**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE**| |---|---| ||**4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 11TH RESPONDENT IN THE**| ||**YEAR 2010.**| |**EXT.P2:**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE**| ||**4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 11TH RESPONDENT IN THE**| ||**YEAR 2011.**| |**EXT.P3:**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT NO.59/2012-**| ||**13/MM/GS/DOW/M-210/2013 DATED 4/2/2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P4:**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT NO.49/2013-**| ||**14/MM/GS/DOW/M-527/2014 DATED 12/2/2014.**| |**EXT.P5:**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT NO.49/2013-**| ||**14/MM/GS/DOW/M-527/2014 DATED 12/2/2014.**| |**EXT.P6:**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE**| ||**NO.PCB/WND/CO/5065/2010 DATED 5/5/2010.**| |**EXT.P7:**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.PCB/T4/115/97 DATED**| ||**20/7/2011**| |**EXT.P8:**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE FILE NOTING**| ||**OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT'S ENQUIRY.**| |**EXT.P9:**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 5/7/2013.**| |**EXT.P10:**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 5/7/2013.**| |**EXT.P11:**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FILE NOTES**| ||**DATED 3/9/2013 PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 7TH**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P12:**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY FO THE LETTER NO.PCB/WND/ICO113/2010**| ||**DATED 4/10/2013 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P13:**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE**| ||**7TH RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED 4/2/2014.**| |**EXT.P14:**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CONSENT VARIATION ORDER DATED**| ||**5/3/2014 BEARING NO.PCB/WND/ICO/1113/2010.**| |**EXT.P15:**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.DOW/M-1662/2013 DATED**| ||**25/7/2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P16:**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE**| ||**1ST RESPONDENT**| |**EXT.P17:**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAID QUARRY OF THE 11TH**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P18:**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS PAPER ARTICLES DATED**| ||**31/1/2014 IN THE LOCAL DAILES.**| **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------EXT.R11(a): TRUE COPY OF THE TOTAL STATION SURVEY PLAN DATED 17.8.2013 SHOWING THE DISTANCE OF THE QUARRY OF THE 11TH RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER'S RESIDENCE AT A DISTANCE OF 116.98 METERS. EXT.R11(b): TRUE COPY OF G.O9MS)NO.144/2012/ID DATED 11.12.2012 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.R11(c): TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) No.5/2014/ID DATED 20.01.2014 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.** **WP(C).No. 29692 of 2014 (J)** **----------------------------** |**EXT.R11(d):**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 6.8.2014 ISSUED BY**| |---|---| ||**THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.**| |**EXT.R11(e):**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH ISSUED BY THE**| ||**VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAVAKA VILLAGE DATED 6.5.2013.**| **//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.** **-----------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.29692 of 2014** **----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of April, 2015** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: - i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P13 consent and Exhibit P5 quarrying permit issued in favour of the 11[th] respondent. - ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the official respondents to prohibit the 11[th] respondent from the illegal quarrying operation in Sy.Nos356/2 and 354/2 of Edavaka Village of Mananthavady Taluk. - iii) Declare that Exhibit P5 permit and Exhibit P13 Consent with respect to rock quarrying is illegal and violative of the dictum laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar's case. - iv) Declare that Environmental Clearance under EIA notification, 2006 is mandatory requisite to be complied by the 11[th] respondent before continuing quarrying process in Sy.Nos 356/2 and 354/2 of Edavaka Village of Mananthavady Taluk. - v) Pass such any other order, direction or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. W.P.(C) No.29692/2014 2 2. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that the period for which Ext.P5 mining permit had been issued by the Geologist has expired and the 11[th] respondent therefore cannot proceed with the mining operations unless he gets a valid mining permit. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P5 by itself was invalid on account of the fact that the Geologist had no jurisdiction to grant renewal of the permit for more than three occasions as per Rule 8(1)D of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. Initially, the Geologist had jurisdiction only to extent the mining permit by one year. But, by way of the amendment, it was made as two years. In the 2015 Rules as well mining permits cannot be extended for a period of more than three years. 3. The learned counsel for the 11[th] respondent submits that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in **All Kerala River Protection Council v State of Kerala (2015(2) KLT 78),** the Division Bench has given appropriate directions to the District Collector to ensure the manner in which the mining activities are to be done in the State of Kerala. As far as the W.P.(C) No.29692/2014 3 renewal of permits is concerned, it has to be in accordance with the 2015 Rules. 4. The learned counsel for the 11[th] respondent submits that he has applied for a mining permit as per the new Rules in respect of a different property other than what is stated in Ext.P5 and that he is entitled for renewal of Ext.P5 for one more time. 5. In the light of the aforesaid factual situation and the fact that the period prescribed under Ext.P5 is over, I do not think that it is necessary for this Court to consider the issue on merits. On the other hand, as already indicated, the petitioner has a case that even Ext.P5 is illegal as renewals had been granted more than three times and in gross violation of the statutory provisions. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances this writ petition is disposed of as under. If the 4[th] respondent considers any application of the 11[th] respondent for renewal of Ext.P5 permit, the same shall be considered in accordance with law after verifying whether renewal can be granted in accordance with the 2015 Rules and 4 W.P.(C) No.29692/2014 in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench in **All Kerala River Protection Council v State of Kerala (2015(2) KLT 78).** Sd/- **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE** vdv