High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-07-07Disposed of; writ petition closed with directio...

GOPALAKRISHNAN T. et al. v. Kerala State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 10841 of 2022

Neutral Citation:

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date: 2022-07-07
Court Decision / Holding: Disposed of with directions: (i) the petitioner may file a representation for modification of Exts. P3 and P6 within three days from receipt of this judgment; (ii) once received, the 2nd respondent will consider the representation and pass appropriate orders in light of Ext. P5 within two weeks, expeditiously; (iii) before passing final order, opportunity of hearing shall be given to the petitioners and the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 10841/2022; (iv) the Panchayat shall consider modifications, and the writ petition is closed recording the order dated 26.05.2022, with all contentions left open.
Final Disposition: Disposed of; writ petition closed with directions and contentions left open. The court directed modification representations and hearing prior to final orders.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

GOPALAKRISHNAN T.
VISHNU G NATH
JACOB T.J.

Respondents

KERALA STATE ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR 695001
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM 691 001
GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM 691 001
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM 691 001
THE VILAKUDI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUNNIKODU P.O., KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 691 001
B. SUNDARAN, S/O BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT CHAITHANYA, VALLOM, NEDUVATHOOR, KOLLAM 691 506

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI

Counsels for Respondents

• GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
• ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
• S.SREEDEV
• RONY JOSE
• SUZANNE KURIAN
• CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL
• LEO LUKOSE

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 10841 of 2022) by three residents challenges quarry operations and licensing processes overseen by multiple state agencies. The petition seeks a mandamus to interdict the 6th respondent’s quarry activity beyond the licensed area as per the 3rd respondent, and to restrain the 6th respondent from operating the crusher unit without proper consent and licensing. It also seeks that respondents 1–5 not renew the license and permit in favor of the 5th respondent without notice and hearing. The petition relies on protests and media reports (Exhibits P3–P6) indicating environmental and local objections. Earlier orders directed the 5th respondent to implement a cancellation resolution and contemplated stopping activities if necessary. On 14.06.2022, a related judgment in W.P.(C) No.18101/2022 required hearing before final orders and permitted modification of Exts. P3 and P6. In this judgment, the court permits the petitioners to file representations to modify Exts. P3 and P6 and directs the Panchayat to consider them within a defined period, with hearing before final orders. Ultimately, the writ petition is disposed of, recording the order dated 26.05.2022, and the matter is closed with contentions left open.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners seek to restrain the 6th respondent from quarrying beyond the licensed area and to stop the crusher unit’s operations unless proper consent and licensing are obtained. They urge non-renewal of the license/permit in favor of the 5th respondent without notice and hearing, grounded in environmental concerns and public interest. They rely on Exts. P3–P7 (media reports and representations) to show local objections and potential environmental harm, and seek mandamus or other appropriate relief to meet justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents emphasize compliance with due process and legal procedures. They point to the 5th respondent’s resolutions, various licenses, and environmental clearances already in place, arguing that renewal and continued operation can proceed subject to legal norms and a hearing process. The Panchayat’s powers to reconsider licenses and the need for a hearing before final orders are highlighted. The court’s approach to permit modification of Exts. P3 and P6 and to ensure representation and hearing before final order is described as a balanced mechanism to safeguard both environmental concerns and lawful governance.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
	W.P.(C) No.18101/2022	Mentioned Only	Judgment dated 14.06.2022 in W.P.(C) No.18101/2022 is referenced within the order; no explicit treatment (followed/distinguished/overruled) is stated in the excerpt.
	W.P.(C) No.14813/2022	Mentioned Only	Exhibit R6 G reproduces a judgment in W.P.(C) No.14813/2022; cited as background/evidence with no explicit judicial treatment noted in the excerpt.

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 GOPALAKRISHNAN T. et al. v. Kerala State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority and others 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 10841 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - `1 GOPALAKRISHNAN T., AGED 51 YEARS S/O. THANKAPPAN ACAHRI, RESIDING AT CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MAKKANNUR KUNNIKODU P.O., 691 508.` - `2 VISHNU G NATH, S/O. GOPINATHAN P., RESIDING AT KARTHIKA, MAKKANNOOR, KUNNIKODU P.O., 691 508` - `3 JACOB T.J., S/O.T.T. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT THATTAPARAMI, MAKKANNOOR, KUNNIKODU P.O., 691 508.` - `BY ADV R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 THE KERALA STATE ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY,` - `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR 695001.` - `2 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM 691 001.` - `3 THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY , DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM 691 001.` - `4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR , KOLLAM 691 001.` - `5 THE VILAKUDI GRAMA PANCHAYATH , KUNNIKODU P.O., KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 691 001.` - `6 B. SUNDARAN , S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT CHAITHANYA , VALLOM, NEDUVATHOOR, KOLLAM 691 506.` -2- W.P.(C). No. 10841 of 2022 ``` BY ADVS. GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL S.SREEDEV RONY JOSE SUZANNE KURIAN CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL LEO LUKOSE ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC, SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP, SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, SC ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -3- W.P.(C). No. 10841 of 2022 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ====================================================== W.P.(C) No.10841 of 2022 ============================================================= Dated this the 7[th ] day of July, 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed with following prayers: _“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to interdict the 6th respondent from operating the quarry beyond the area granted by the 3rd respondent._ _ii.Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 6th respondent from operating the crusher unit except with the proper consent and license from the appropriate authorities._ _iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 5 not to renew the license and permit in favour of the 5th respondent except with notice to the petitioners and after hearing them._ _iv. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice._ ## _And_ _v. Award costs to petitioner.” (sic)_ -4- W.P.(C). No. 10841 of 2022 ## 2. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 26.05.022, this Court passed the following order: _“The petitioner has filed IA No.2 of 2022 seeking to produce Ext.P9 and P10 as additional documents and I.A.1 of 2022 seeking a direction to the 6th respondent to stop all construction activities and mining operation and excavation in the quarry, pending disposal of the writ petition. I.A.No.2 of 2022 is allowed._ _Even though I am not inclined to pass an order as sought for in 1.A.No.1 of 2022, there will be a direction to the 5th respondent to ensure that Ext.P9 whereby the Panchayat has resolved to cancel the permit issued to the 6th respondent and to take consequential steps to stop the activities, shall be given effect to, unless it is modified by a later resolution. The 5th respondent can request the help of concerned Police Authority if necessary for implementation of the decision.”_ 3. Subsequently as per judgment dated 14.06.2022 in WP(C) No.18101 of 2022, this Court directed the Panchayat to consider the renewal application after hearing the petitioner in this case also. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the judgment dated 14.06.2022 here: -5- W.P.(C). No. 10841 of 2022 _“4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. On the other hand, the counsel for the Panchayat takes me through Ext.P7 order dated 26.05.2022 in I.A.No.1/2022 in W.P.(C) No.10841/2022, passed by this Court. The counsel submitted that, if the petitioner wants any modification of resolution, they are free to approach the Panchayat with a representation and the same will be considered in accordance to law. In the light of the above submission, I think this writ petition can be disposed of allowing the petitioner to submit a representation to modify Exts.P3 and P6 and there can be a direction to the Panchayat to consider the same, within a time frame. The petitioners in W.P. (C) No.10841/2022 also should be heard before passing final order._ _Therefore this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:_ _i. The petitioner is free to file a representation for modification of Exts. P3 and P6, within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment._ _ii. Once such a representation is received, the 2nd respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, in the light of Ext.P5, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation._ -6- W.P.(C). No. 10841 of 2022 _iii. Before passing final order, opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner in this writ petition and the petitioners in W.P.(C)No. 10841/2022._ 4. In the light of the same, this writ petition can be closed recording the order dated 26.05.2022 passed in this case. Therefore, recording the order dated 26.05.2022, this writ petition is closed. All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are left open. sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** das -7- W.P.(C). No. 10841 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10841/2022`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 7.8.2020 ISSUED TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. ``` - `Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.3.20218 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P2 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 9.2.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FAVOR OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION OF RUBBLE.` - `Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM REGARDING THE OBJECTION OF THE PEOPLE OF THE LOCALITY.` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM REGARDING THE 5TH RESPONDENT S RECONSIDERATION OF LICENSE.` - `Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.2.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE WARD NUMBER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE.` - `Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 2.3.2022 ACCEPTING THE COMPLAINTS OF THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS.` - `Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY VILAKKUDI GRAMA PANCHAYATH` - `Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 05/05/2022 TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT` - `RESPONDENT EXHIBITS` ``` Exhibit R6 ATRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DATED 9/2/2022 VALID TILL 31/03/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ``` -8- ## W.P.(C). No. 10841 of 2022 ``` Exhibit R6 BTRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE DTD.26/6/2020 VALID TILL 18/03/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit R6 CTRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 19/3/2020 VALID TILL 18/03/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit R6 DTRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENSE VALID TILL 31/03/2027 Exhibit R6 ETRUE COPY OF THE TRADE LICENSE DATED 7/8/2020 VILID TILL 31/03/2023 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit R6 FTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/5/2022 BEARING NO.B2/4531/20 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit R6 GTRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/05/2022 IN WPC NO.14813/2022 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ``` ``` Exhibit R6 HTRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DATED 23/5/2022 VALID UPTO 18/03/2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit R6 ITRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/6/2022 BEARING NO.B2/4531/20 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. ```