K.B. Suman and N.M. Hassan Mohammed v. Union of India and Others

W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **FRIDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 25013 of 2014** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**K.B SUMAN**| |---|---| ||**AGED 49 YEARS**| ||**S/O. K.C.BALAKRISHNAN, MECHIRA, MUTHALAMADA.P.O.,**| ||**PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA-678507.**| |**2**|**N.M. HASSAN MOHAMMED**| ||**AGED 51 YEARS**| ||**S/O. LATE N.N. MOOSA, MAIMOONA MANZIL,**| ||**NANDANKIZHAYA, ANAMARI.P.O., MUTHALAMADA,**| ||**PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA-678506.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.P.G.SURESH**| ||**SRI.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR)**| ||**SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR**| ||**SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ**| ||**SRI.V.HARISH**| |**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**|**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**|| |---|---|---| |**1**||**MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS,**| |||**PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW**| |||**DELHI-110003, 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-695001.**| |**3**||**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**| |||**PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA.**| W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 2 - **4 THE GEOLOGIST** **DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, PALAKKAD, KERALA-691002.** - **5 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.** - **6 THE CHAIRMAN** **KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM, KERALA-691001.** **7 M/S. THOMSON METALS MECHIRA, MUTHALAMADA, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD KERALA-678507, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER P.T. DAVIS, S/O. THOMAN, RESIDING AT PUNNELLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOMBODINJAMMAKKAL, THAZHEKKAD.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA-680697.** - **8 ADDL.R8 : THE CENTRE FOR EARTH SCIENCE STUDIES P.B.NO.7250, AKKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695031. (ADDL.R8 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05/02/2016)** - **9 ADDL.R9 : THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. (ADDL.R9 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22/10/2018)** **BY ADVS. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA STANDING COUNSEL SRI M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SRI.K.ANAND FOR R7 SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD SRI.A.V.THOMAS (SR.) SRI. T.NAVEEN , SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD FOR R6 SPL.GP. TO AG SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR FOR R1** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.01.2019 ALONG WITH WP(C).26272/2015, WP(C).26275/2015, THE COURT ON 08.03.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 3 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **FRIDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 26272 of 2015** ## **PETITIONER:** **P.T.DAVIS AGED 57 YEARS MANAGING PARTNER, THOMSOM METALS, KOMBODINJAMAKKAL, P.O.THAZHEKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND SRI.A.V.THOMAS (SR.)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,**| ||**PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.**| |**2**|**SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER**| ||**KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,**| ||**DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678 001.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL**| ||**BOARD**| ||**SPL.GP. TO AG SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.01.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26275/2015, WP(C).25013/2014, THE COURT ON 08.03.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 4 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **FRIDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 26275 of 2015** ## **PETITIONER:** **P.T.DAVIS AGED 57 YEARS MANAGING PARTNER, THOMSOM METALS, KOMBODINJAMAKKAL, P.O.THAZHEKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND SRI.A.V.THOMAS (SR.)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY MINING AND GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.** - **2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **3 GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, PALAKKAD - 678 001.** **(ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 9.9.2015 IN I.A.NO.12764/2015) SPL.GP. TO AG SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR FOR R1** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.01.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26272/2015, WP(C).25013/2014, THE COURT ON 08.03.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 5 ## _**P.V.ASHA, J.**_ **--------------------------** W.P(C).Nos.25013 of 2014-B, 26272/15 and 26275/2015 ------------------------------------------- _Dated this the 8[th] day of March, 2019_ ## _**JUDGMENT**_ 2 organic mango farmers cum lovers of nature in Muthalamada-I and Muthalamada-II villages have filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by Ext.P1 mining lease issued in favour of the 7[th] respondent for running a quarry unit in the land adjacent to that of the 2[nd] petitioner, complaining that quarrying operations are carried out without getting environment clearance. They are also aggrieved by the deletion of certain area from the purview of mining lease by Ext.P9 order alleging that the same is to enable the 7[th] respondent to enjoy exemption from the requirement of environmental clearance. 2. Ext.P1 mining lease was issued to the 7[th] respondent on 4.5.2011 for quarrying granite building stone over an area of 6.4561 hectares of private land comprised in Re.sy.Nos.208/1, 208/3, 209/pt, 210/2, 210/3, 210/4, 210/5 in block no.18, 58 of Muthalamada-II Village for a period of 12 years from the date of execution of the lease deed under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 subject to the W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 6 conditions stipulated therein. 7[th] respondent executed Ext.P2 lease deed with the Governor of Kerala on 13.5.2011. He remitted the requisite fee on 7.6.2011 and got the lease deed registered in the Sub Registry Office, Kollengode. 3. Complaints were raised against the grant of mining lease without getting environmental clearance contrary to the provisions contained in Environmental Impact Assessment Notification ('EIA notification' for short), 2006, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, according to which the activity of mining of mineral in areas more than or equal to 5 hectares require prior environmental clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment (SEIA) Authority. On the basis of several complaints relating to the granting of mining lease and functioning of such quarrying units in various villages in Palakkad District, the District Collector had called for a report from the Tahsildar based on which the Tahsildar, Chittor Taluk along with additional Tahsildar and employees of the Village offices of Muthalamada I and II had conducted a joint inspection of the sites and submitted Ext.P3 study report. The District Collector had forwarded the same to the Government along with other reports received from other Taluks in W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 7 Palakkad, as per Ext.P4 letter dated 12.12.2013, furnishing a list of 16 quarrying units functioning in the district without the requisite permits and requesting for expeditious action at Government level in order to put an end to the illegal quarrying operations in the district, pointing out the resultant environmental threats to the western ghat. In Ext.P3 study report, the Tahsildar had explained the disasters likely to be faced by the inhabitants of Muthalamada village on account of the operation of the 24 quarrying units close to the Nelliyampathi Hills and Chulliyar dam. Referring to study report of CESS after conducting site inspection in the Nelliyampathy valleys consequent to landslide in 2012, the opinion of seismologists who conducted studies and cautioned that as tremors had occurred in the year 1900 there would be recurrence in 100-130 years and it is time for taking suitable measures to safeguard the life and property in Nelliyampathi valleys. Pointing out the cracks found on the Chulliyar Dam which is near to Muthalamada it was reported that if quarrying operations are permitted, the safety of the dam will be seriously affected and it would be hazardous to the entire biodiversity in the region. It was stated that after quarrying operations started in Muthalamada region, landslides occurred three times near W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 8 Seetharkundu viewpoint on 24.12.2012, 20.01.2013 and 15.10.2013, as a result of which, almost 1 km of the Palakapandi Nelliyampathy irrigation canal got filled up with soil, 2 electrical transmission towers were about to fall. As per the study report of CESS conducted after the tremors on 5.12.2012, it was recommended that an area of 5 km radius of the valley should be declared as a buffer zone banning mining and quarrying activities. As per the study report of seismologist the area is highly prone to earthquakes with tremors ranging upto 6 in the richter scale. Apart from all these the air pollutants resulting out of the quarrying operations transmit various diseases. The Tahsildar had recommended prohibition of mining activities in Muthalamada Panchayat. While forwarding the report of the Tahsildar the 3[rd] respondent had in Ext.P4 letter pointed out the serious threat to western ghats in Muthalamada area on account of the illegal quarrying. Producing the order dt.13.11.2013 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests the petitioners pointed out that Muthalamada-I and II Villages in Chittur Taluk in Palakkad district in Kerala are areas in which no pending case or fresh lease for mining, quarrying and sand mining are to be considered by the EACs/MoEF or SEACs/SEIAAs. W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 9 Ext.P5 office memorandum was issued on 13.11.2013 under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 prohibiting new and/or expansion project/activities in the ESA w.e.f that date except the cases which were received by EACS/MoEF or SEACs/SEIAAs before the date of putting high level working group report on the website of Ministry on 17.4.2013 and which are pending consideration. The High level working group was constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest under the chairmanship of Dr.K.Kasturirangan to study the preservation of the ecology, environmental integrity and holistic development of the Western Ghats in view of their rich and unique biodiversity and its report was put in the public domain in the website of the Ministry on 15.4.2013. 4. The petitioners have produced Ext.P6 report submitted by the Scientists in Environment Science Division CESS on 31.7.13 on the Nelliyampathi Rock fall at Seetharkund area on the basis of request from the Divisional Forest Officer, Nenmara as per his letter dt.28.1.2013. The Forest Range Officer, Kollengode had submitted another report Ext.P7 before the Chairman of the Local Level Committee for physical verification of the ecologically sensitive areas in W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 10 Muthalamada, recommending inclusion of those properties as highly ecologically sensitive zone and those properties include the property where the 7[th] respondent is running the quarrying unit. The petitioners pointed out that the quarrying unit is functioning without even submitting an application for environmental clearance and even after Ext.P8 representation was submitted by the petitioners before respondents 1 and 2, the authorities were not taking any action. 5. While so, the Director of Mining and Geology issued Ext.P9 order on 03.02.2015 deleting 3.18 acres and 82 cents from the area covered by Ext.P2 lease and allowing the 7[th] respondent to run the quarry unit in 4.8366 hectares of land for the period upto 12.05.2023. The petitioners pointed out that the 5[th] respondent has issued Ext.P9 order without any authority as the lease deed was executed under Article 299 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the Governor of Kerala by executing a registered deed and Ext.P2 lease deed cannot be diluted by way of Ext.P9. 6. Ext.P9 order was issued by the 5[th] respondent Director on the basis of an application submitted by the 7[th] respondent on 6.1.2015 on which the Village Officer, Muthalamada issued a letter on 31.1.2015 and W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 11 the Geologist submitted a report on 2.2.2015 and the 5[th] respondent issued the order Ext.P9 on 3.2.2015 in an attempt to exempt the petitioner from the requirement of permission from the Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. It is also alleged that the 7[th] respondent has not obtained any quarrying permit in tune with clause 2 of Ext.P2 lease deed, as provided under Rule 4 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules and none of the authorities have insisted environmental clearance. 7. On 11.12.2015 this Court passed the following order in this Writ Petition: _“xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx_ _i. The 5[th] respondent shall state whether the area referred in original mine lease situated in resurvey No.208/1 actually formed part of the mine lease of the petitioner and whether the subsequent exclusion of that area was based on correction or not._ • _The District Collector, the third respondent also has to state whether as on the date of the mine lease, the land situated in resurvey No.208/1 in Muthalamada Village was in possession of the petitioner and whether it was given to the petitioner as a part of the mine lease or not. Or, whether its inclusion in the mine lease was only a mistake. Necessary report shall be filed before this Court within ten days. Xxxxx xxxxx xxxx”_ 8. Pursuant to the above directions in the order dt.11.12.2015, the learned Government Pleader filed a memo producing a letter dated 23.12.2015 of the District Collector, Palakkad in which it was stated that the matter was verified through the Additional Tahsildar, Chittur and it was asserted that out of 3.5780 hectares of landed property situated in W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 12 resurvey block 18, resurvey number 208/1 of Muthalamada II Village, an extent of 1.2874 hectares is part of the excess land taken possession and reserved for public purpose and the remaining extent of 2.2906 hectares is in the ownership and possession of Sri P.T.Davis, the 7[th] respondent, and was given as part of original mine lease. 9. The petitioner thereupon produced Ext.P13 certificate obtained on application Ext.P14 under RTI Act, issued by the Village Officer, Muthalamada in which he had stated that the land in sy.no.208/1 was never declared as michabhoomi or poramboke. It was also stated in Ext.P14 that the Public Information Officer and the Village Officer of Muthalamada II Village informed that, that office had only raised a doubt whether the land in re.sy.208/1 was included in the poramboke land. 10. The 7[th] respondent had filed a counter affidavit in 2/2015 refuting the allegations. He stated that though Ext.P1 order was issued in respect of 6.4561 hectares for mining and the village authorities were objecting to the inclusion of 1.2874 hectares of land in Re.Sy. No. 208/1 saying that it is excess land vested in the Government and they were not accepting the tax in respect of that extent of land and another .3319 W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 13 hectares of land. It was also stated that in view of the objections he had been requesting them from 2011 onwards to exclude that disputed portion along with .3319 hectares of land from the leasehold; but orders were issued only as per Ext.R7(b) excluding 1.6193 hectares from Exts.P1 and P2. Therefore, he stated that no environmental clearance was required for the lease in respect of 4.83 hectares of land. Producing Exts.R7(c) to (g) license and permit he asserted that no further permit was required and he is entitled to continue quarrying operations. According to him, none of the reports mentioned by the petitioners were accepted by the authorities. 11. 7[th] respondent filed several additional counter affidavits and claimed that the prohibition issued by the Government of Inida in Ext.P5 order would be applicable only to new projects and expansion of existing projects and therefore it would not be applicable to the lease granted to him which would be in force till 2023. In the 3[rd] additional counter affidavit dt.13.1.2016 had produced Ext.R7(j) mahazar claiming that the land was taken possession by the Government from Sri. E. V. Narayanan, his predecessor in interest; but the BTR and other village records continued in the name of E.V. Narayanan and that when the W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 14 Village Officer noticed the mistake and Ext.R7(h) possession certificate was issued on 18.03.2013 in respect of 2.5280 corrected as 2.2910 hectares of land in R.Sy No.208/1 and the tax receipts issued to him the 7[th] respondent stated that the land was taken from E.V.Narayanan who owned the property including that of the 7[th] respondent originally. The Village Officer had identified the mistake in the lease deed and he had refused to accept the tax from the 7[th] respondent for the entire area and in the possession certificate Ext.R7(k) issued on 18.3.2013 the excess land was excluded and tax was received for the remaining land. The 7[th] respondent stated that the excess land never included in the area covered by the lease. From Ext.R7(j) order it is seen that the Taluk Land Board had under Section 85(a) of the KLR Act issued orders as to Sri E.V.Naryayanan to surrender a total extent of 37.02 acres in the survey nos.4350/1pt, 435R/ 461, 475D/1, 460/ and 458. E.V.Narayanan thereafter submitted a petition for modification for allowing him to surrender land in Sy.No.4350/1 and it was modified accordingly. 12. In the reply affidavit to the counter affidavit and additional affidavit of the 7[th] respondent, the petitioner produced Exts.P15 to P30 letters/orders. In Ext.P15 letter dt.18.12.2014 of the Village Officer W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 15 addressed to the Addl.Tahsildar, Chittur, he informed that an extent of 5 acres of land in old sy.no.435/2 and another extent of 7.02 acres of land were seen taken possession from Sri E.V.Narayanan from the register No.15 of that office for public purposes. It was stated that it was not possible to identify the land in the absence of the sketch. He requested for permission to identify the land and to sub divide the land to another Sub Division. Thereafter, the 7[th] respondent submitted Ext.P16 letter dt.6.1.2015 stating that the Village Officers had been objecting to the inclusion of 3.18 acres of land in re.sy.208/1 saying that it is Poramboke land and that quarrying is not possible in that land. He stated therein : “ _I have serious dispute regarding the view taken by the Village authorities as I have got Pattayaam in respect of the entire land. But, however it is advisable that 3.18 acres and surrounding 82 cents are excluded from the quarrying lease and the order first cited for the present.”_ He requested to exclude the 4 acres of land in Re. Sy.No. 208/1 from the order granting him lease. Petitioners pointed out that the very same 7[th] respondent has in para 4 of the counter affidavit dated 04.02.2015 filed in this case stated: “xxx the village authorities had been objecting to the inclusion of 1.2874 hectares of land in R.S.No.208/1 as W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 16 according to them it is excess land vested in Government. The village authorities refused to accept tax in respect of that land and surrounding 0.3319 hectare of land in the very same survey number. xxxx” Though 7[th] respondent had been making representations in this regard since August 2011, orders were passed only recently. On the basis of Ext.P15 letter it appears that the Director of Mining and Geology called for a report from the Village Officer on 13.01.2015 and thereafter the Geologist reminded him as per Ext.P17 letter dated 30.01.2015; the Village Officer as per Ext.P18 letter dt.31.1.2015 informed that it was doubtful whether the said extent of land is Government Poramboke land and clarification had been sought from the Tahsildar, Chittoor Taluk and till then, tax receipt or possession certificate would not be issued. On the very same day the Village Officer issued Ext.P19 possession certificate to the 7[th] respondent in respect of 4.8366 hectares of land. On 02.02.2015, the Geologist forwarded Ext.P19 report to the Director of Mining & Geology, along with the certificate dated 31.01.2015 of Village Officer in respect of 4.8366 hectares of land and the location route sketch furnished by the Tahsildar on 16.01.2015, Chittoor Taluk, etc. Ext P9 order was issued on 03.02.2015. Pointing out the speed with W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 17 which Exts.P15 to P19 culminated in Ext.P9 order, the petitioners alleged collusion as well as malice on all the officers involved. It is also pointed out that Ext.P23 possession certificate was issued to the 7[th] respondent on 18.03.2013 stating that 2.5280 hectares of land in Re.Sy.No.208/1 was in his possession. In Ext.R7 (k) possession certificate of the same date produced by 7[th] respondent, the extent of land 2.5280 was manually corrected as 2.2910 hectares. The certificate of Village Officer on 31.01.2015 forwarded along with Ext.P19 report was in respect of 4.8366 hectares of land. 13. The petitioner stated that the Revenue Authorities did not take any effort to find out the alleged michabhoomi though they had stated that they had entertained a doubt regarding inclusion of the said land in michabhoomi; the Addl.Tahsildar or Village Officer, who filed affidavit/report before this Court, did not take any steps to find out the excess land taken over from E.V.Narayanan. The petitioner stated that the land covering the quarrying unit purchased by the 7[th] respondent never belonged to E.V.Narayanan. 14. Thereafter, this Court on 5.2.2016 passed a detailed order referring to an affidavit filed by the Additional Tahsildar as well as the W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 18 documents produced by the 7[th] respondent. Relying on the affidavitts and the documents this Court found that the 1.2874 hectares is a poramboke land which was stated as mistakenly included in the mining lease and that the documents produced by the 7[th] respondent would mean that the area is surrendered by the declarant Sri E.V.Narayanan. Seeing that the order of the Director was supported by documents and affidavits produced by the Revenue officials before this Court, it was found that there was no malafides or fraud in excluding 3.5780 hectares from the original mining lease. However, regarding 0.3319 hectares of land which is part of mining lease, this Court observed that nothing was stated in the affidavit in what manner it was excluded and the Director of Mining was directed to explain the basis on which the said area was excluded from the mining lease area. In addition to that this Court, also referring to various reports raising apprehensions which are likely to arise on account of the mining, found that even after the District Collector forwarded the report to the Government, the Government had not taken any action. It was also found that there was some lack of attention as seen from the reports of the Tahsildar, District Collector, etc. An interim order was passed with the following directions: W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 19 _“i. All the quarrying and mining operations in the Muthalamada I and II Villages without environmental clearance shall be stopped forthwith._ _ii. The District Administration as well as the Geologist shall take immediate steps to stop such activities with immediate effect._ _iii. The Government is directed to state before thisCourt their views, based on Ext.P4 communication of the District Collector addressed to the Chief Secretary to Government, within one month._ _iv. The Centre for Earth Science Studies, P.B.No.7250, Akkulam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 031 is suo motu impleaded as an additional respondent No.8 in the writ petition._ _v. In the meanwhile, the Centre for Earth Science Studies shall file a preliminary report before this Court whether the quarrying permit issued in the Muthalamada I and II Villages in Palakkad District by the Geologist without environmental clearance are proper or not._ _vi. The Petitioners shall serve a copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition on the additional eighth respondent through Special Messenger._ _vii. The District Collector shall ensure that all illegal quarrying activities in the District of Palakkad are stopped forthwith._ _viii. The fourth respondent-District Geologist is directed to furnish before this Court the details of the quarry operators to whom quarrying permits have been issued in the Muthalamada I and II villages._ _ix. The Director of Mining and Geology shall state before this Court, on what basis, in Ext.P9, the land having an extent of 82 cents (0.3319 hectares) has been excluded from the mining area and the legal basis for such exclusion._ _x.. The petitioners shall take steps to implead other quarrying/mining operators in the Muthalamada I and II Villages, who are conducting mining activities without environmental clearance.”_ 15. The Centre for Earth Science Studies was suo motu impleaded and was directed to file a preliminary report whether quarrying permits issued in Muthalamada I and II Villages by the Geologist without environmental clearance are proper or not. 16. However, the CESS did not appear and file any affidavit. 17. Thereafter the Government Pleader filed a memo dated 24.02.2016 producing a statement of the 5[th] respondent-the Director of Mining and Geology. He stated that the 7[th] respondent had submitted an application dated 06.01.2005 requesting to exclude the 3.18 acres of W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 20 land in R.Sy No.208/1 part, which is Government surplus land and its surrounding 82 cents from the lease area. He called for a detailed report from the Geologist; the Geologist made a site inspection and reported that the Village Officer was not accepting tax for that area as it falls in surplus land of Government; 7[th] respondent had demarcated the area by erecting boundary pillars and fencing; he had not started quarrying operation; Geologist forwarded a revised survey map countersigned by the Tahsildar; Ext.P9 order was issued thereafter; as 7[th] respondent was directed to leave the 82 cents (.3319 hectares) as a barrier, this area was also left out. He further stated that “ the disputed area of Government Poramboke area in Sy No. 208/1 part covers an area of 1.2874 hectares. An additional area of 0.3319 hectares have been reduced for keeping a 7.5m buffer zone surrounding the surplus land for preventing further encroachment towards Government surplus land. The provision to observe 7.5 m buffer zone was made as per the Regulation No.111(2) of Metalliferrous Mines Regulations, 1961. However, he thereafter found that it was not possible for the 5[th] respondent to reduce the lease area as Ext.P2 lease deed was a registered document. He stated that when the Geologist sought for clarification as to whether the quarry comes under W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 21 the category of less than or more than 5 hectares, the 5[th] respondent issued Ext.R5(b) letter directing the 7[th] respondent not to undertake any quarrying activity except after production of environmental clearance. 18. The 4[th] respondent-Geologist also filed a statement stating the case. action which was being taken before and after _**Deepak Kumar's**_ The quarry units against which the temporary stop memos were issued and the interim orders passed by this Court against it. The stay order passed in the case of 7[th] respondent was also produced. 19. Whileso On 26.08.2016, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.13724 and 13725/16 producing the letter dt.21.6.2016 of the RDO, Palakkad, by which he reported the matter leading to Ext.P9 order before the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau and directing the 7[th] respondent to furnish fresh application on the basis of fresh possession certificate and expressing displeasure over the action of the Village Officer, Tahsildar, Geologist, etc. and in issuing certificates, permits etc. 20. The petitioner points out that the 5[th] respondent had issued Ext.P42 show cause notice to the 7[th] respondent on 9.1.2015 directing him to produce environmental clearance. But he did not produce the same. It is thereafter all these efforts leading to Ext.P9 were made. W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 22 Thereafter, the notice issued to him on 07.08.2015 to stop operation till production of environmental clearance, was stayed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 26272 of 2015 . 21. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.Nos.13724 and 13725 of 2016 it was stated that the RDO had conducted an enquiry in respect of the certificates based on which Ext.P9 order was issued pursuant to the complaints submitted before the District Vigilance Committee. The RDO found that the excess land of 3.18 acres referred to in Ext.P9 was not in Re.Sy.No.208/1, but in Re.Sy.No.198 and therefore the reduction of the area from Ext.P1 was on factually incorrect assumptions and certificate issued thereupon. In Ext.P43 letter the RDO had recommended an investigation by the vigilance into the issuance of Ext.P9 order. The Geologist had stated that the reason for deleting 1.2874 hectares from Ext.P1 lease was that the said land was included in poramboke property. The Village Officer had also submitted a report in respect of the land being included in poramboke land. It was also stated therein that even if the 1.2874 hectares of land was deleted, the remaining land will come to an extent of above 5 hectares. 22. The 7[th] respondent thereupon filed an additional affidavit W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 23 dated 15.10.2016 producing Ext.R7(m) letter received from the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau stating that the matter is under consideration of the RDO for fresh enquiry and stating that RDO had not conducted any independent enquiry. 23. However on 31.10.2016 a memo was filed by the Government Pleader producing a report dt.7.10.2016 of the District Collector, Palakkad along with the report of the Taluk Surveyor along with location sketch and copy of BTR pertaining to block No.18, report dt.7.10.2016 of Addl.Tahsildar. In the report of the Addl.Tashsildar, Chittur addressed to the District Collector it was stated that an inspection was conducted on 06.10.2016 in respect of the excess land taken possession from E.V.Narayanan from old survey number 435/Q1 in of the Collector District presence Deputy (LR), Survey Superintendent, Superintendents and Taluk Surveyors with reference to the sketch in file No.2972/76. It was stated that the 5 acres property taken possession from block No.18 was from Re.sy.nos.198/1, 4,5,6, 235/3, 236/3 and 234/6 as seen from the sketch as well as the BTR and co-relation register and that the reports submitted earlier were not correct and were seen made without reference to the relevant W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 24 documents. The District Collector in his letter dt.7.10.2016 addressed to the Advocate General requested that the report furnished from that office as per letter dt.23.12.15 may be treated as cancelled and rectified to the effect that an extent of 3.5780 acres of land situated in Resurvey Block.18, Re.Sy.No.208/1 in Muthalamada 2 village is in the ownership and possession of the 7[th] respondent and became part of the mining lease. It is also pointed out that the 7[th] respondent is not entitled to carry out mining activity in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in _Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana_ [2012 (4) SCC 629] and _Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala_ [2015 (2) KLT 78] and thereafter in view of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules issued in 2015. As per these judgments and the provisions, no quarrying permit can be issued in respect of more than 5 hectares of land without environmental clearance. It is also pointed out that just because Exts.P1 and P2 were executed in the year 2011 the petitioner, who was carrying on quarrying operation illegally, will not be benefited by the judgments and the 2015 Rules under the guise of existing operator, as such benefits are admissible only to those operators who were running the quarry in accordance with law. W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 25 24. However, those are matters to be agitated before the Green Tribunal. The petitioners point out that the National Green Tribunal had issued Ext.P39 order in Application No.400/2013 directing that renewal shall not be granted to any mining operations in the ESZ, whose permits have expired and directing the District Collector and the Environment Engineer to ensure that no illegal mining is done. According to petitioners, though the consent granted to the 7[th] respondent in Exts.R7(e) and R7(f) issued by the Pollution Control Board has expired, the 7[th] respondent continued to operate his quarry. 25. The 7[th] respondent claimed that as he was an existing quarry operator as on the date of the judgment in _**Deepak Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.**_ [2012 (4) SCC 629] case, he is entitled to conduct the quarrying operations without any environmental clearance. 26. A statement was filed by the learned ASGI on behalf of the additional 8[th] respondent stating that State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority in the Department of Environment and Climate Change, Government of Keala is the statutory authority for resolving the issue involved in the order dated 5.2.2016. Pursuant to the order dt.5.12.2015 and after the Government was impleaded as a party to the W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 26 Writ Petition, an affidavit was filed by the Government pointing out the deficiencies in the mining and mineral concession rules which existed till the commencement of KMMCRules, 2015. It is stated that there were no mechanism under the KMMCR, 1967 to ensure whether the concession given is hazardous to the environment. After the 2015 Rules, quarrying permissions are permitted within 1 km from the boundaries of national park and wild life sanctuaries and no quarries are functioning in western ghats region without environmental clearance and as per Chapter VI of the Rules, quarrying operations are to be carried out in accordance with mining rules. Under the new rules there is a district system to identify the mining friendly area and the requirement to follow eco-friendly mining practices came into existence and there is a District Level Environment Impact Assessment Committee headed by District Collectors to consider and grant environmental clearance of mining projects of less than 5 hectares. 27. I have heard the learned Counsel on both sides. As pointed out in the interim order dt.5.2.2015, the questions regarding the environmental matters come exclusively within the purview of the National Green Tribunal. However, this Court has to examine the action W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 27 of the respondents leading to Ext P9. Ext.P1 mining lease was granted to the 7[th] respondent for quarrying granite building stone over an area of 6.4561 hectares of land comprised in various survey numbers. As per Rule 2 of the EIA notification 2006 issued by the Central Government under Section 3(2)(1)(v) of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 r/w Rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986, all new projects or activities listed in the schedule to that notification require prior environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory authority, ie. from the Ministry of Environment and Forest for category A in the schedule and the State Environment Authority (SEIA), for matters under category B, in the said schedule. Mining of minerals, comes under sl.No.1 (a) of the schedule and in view of Rule 2(i) of the notification all new projects and activities of mining in mining lease area of more than 5 hectares require prior environmental clearance (EC) from the State Environment Impact Assessment (SEIA) Authority. The 7[th] respondent could have carried out any activity of quarrying only after getting EC. Ext.P42 show cause notice is seen to have been issued to him only on 9.01.2015. The entire proceedings leading to Ext.P9 and thereafter Ext.P42 have apparently started just before and after this show cause W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 28 notice, in order to evade the requirement of EC. Another notice was sent on 7.08.2015, which was stayed by this Court appearently because of Ext.P9. 28. Ext.P43 letter of the RDO, Palakkad and the reports dated 07.10.2016 of the District Collector and Additional Tahsildar, produced by the Government Pleader along with memo dated 31.10.2016 would show that Ext.P9 order was issued on the basis of non-existent materials. It is seen that this Court was misled by the concerted efforts of the 7[th] respondent along with the officers in the Department of Revenue as well as in Mining and Geology, to bring down the lease area below 5 hectares. However, the consistent efforts of the petitioners could unearth the clandestine moves of the 7[th] respondent and the officials in Revenue and Geology departments. 29. From Ext.P43 as well as the memo filed by the learned Government pleader producing the reports of the District Collector and the Addl.Tahsildar submitted in October, 2016 it is clear that the officers filed affidavits before this Court asserting that the area excluded in Ext.P9 was part of the poramboke land, without conducting proper enquiry into it, even after directions from this Court. It is relevant to W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 29 ## note the observations of this Court in paragraph 7 of the interim order which reads as follows: _“7. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 11/12/2015, an enquiry was conducted by the District Collector and the District Collector filed a report before this Court along with a memo dated 05/01/2016 stating that an extent of 1.2874 hectares of land is part of the excess land taken possession and reserved for the public purposes. This Court also summoned the Additional Tahsildar before this Court on 20/01/2016 to find out the veracity of the exclusion of the aforesaid area from the total extent. He was also directed to file an affidavit. The Additional Tahsildar has filed an affidavit which would indicate that the aforesaid area, i.e., 1.2874 hectares is a puramboke land and it was mistakenly included in the mining lease. It appears from the records that the land was taken from the original declarant Shri E.V.Narayanan. This is evident from Ext.R7(j) produced by the seventh respondent. The documents produced by the seventh respondent, namely, R7(j) and (k) would clearly establish that the land in this area was surrendered by the declarant E.V.Narayanan. The original survey numbers reflect in the above exhibits.”_ 30. Believing the contents of the affidavit filed by the Additional Tahsildar along with the report of the District Collector submitted on directions from this Court, supported by the affidavits of the 7[th] respondent, this Court found that there was no malafides or fraud involved to exclude 1.2874 hectares from the original mining lease Ext.P1. The entire proceedings covered by Exts.P15 to P19 coupled with Ext.P43 and the reports filed on 10/2016 would show the callous indeifference of the respective officers not only towards the orders of this Court but towards the office/post they occupy. It is evident from the proceedings that all those actions were calculated moves to bring down the area covered by the lease to less than 5 hectares and thereby to enable the 7[th] respondent to operate the quarry without environmental W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 30 clearance. 31. Now that it is already found that the exclusion in Ext.P9 is on non-existent facts, Ext.P9 order is only to be set aside and hence it is set aside. 32. The respondents, when issued Ext.P1 lease, ought to have insisted all the requirements provided in the EIA notification. At any rate, the 7[th] respondent did never operate the quarry in accordance with the provisions contained in the EIA Notification 2006. He cannot therefore be said to be one who was lawfully conducting the quarry as on the date of judgment in _**Deepak Kumar's**_ case and he will not be eligible for any exemption from environmental clearance under the guise of the date of Ext P1 order. 33. As pointed out by the petitioner producing Exts.P13 to P18 and the speed with which they could exclude the extent of area from the lease area covered by Exts.P1 and P2 so as to make it within the exempted category will prove the malice behind it. The officials involved appear to have not only helped the 7[th] respondent by issuing such orders/reports/certificates/recommendations, but also exhibited callous indifference to this Court filing affidavits without proper W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 31 enquiry. Ext.P1 mining lease could not have been allowed to be operated except after environmental clearance is obtained as provided in the EIA notification 2006. Therefore, I am of the view, even if no corruption could be pointed out, that the RDO ought to have seen the attitude of the officers seriously. 34. At any rate, the mining operations undertaken by the 7[th] respondent on the basis of Ext.P1, without enviormental clearance was illegal. It is seen that interim orders were passed by this Court because of Ext.P9 and the affidavits supporting the same. In view of subsequent reports and Ext.P43, in order to operate the quarry the 7[th] respondent was bound to follow the conditions prescribed in the lease deed apart from the provisions in the Act and Rules. Any activity without observing the rules shall be proceeded against in accordance with law. 35. The 7[th] respondent would have to compensate for the extraction if any carried out on the basis of Ext.P9 order and would be liable to be proceeded against for action under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), even if any such activity was permitted by interim orders passed by this Court, under circumstances already explained and at a time when W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 32 Ext.P43 or the subsequent reports were not available before this Court. Section 21(5) provides for one of the penalties under the Act, 57, which ## read as follows: _“(5) Whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority.”_ 36. The Apex Court in the judgment in _**Common Cause V Union of India & others**_ **: (2017) 9 SCC 499,** while considering a batch of cases relating to mining operations held in the State of Odisha as follows **:** _“151. In our opinion, Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act is applicable when any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land. In that event, the State Government is entitled to recover from such person the mineral so raised or where the mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof as compensation. The words “any land” are not confined to the mining lease area. As far as the mining lease area is concerned, extraction of a mineral over and above what is permissible under the mining plan or under the EC undoubtedly attracts the provisions of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act being extraction without lawful authority. It would also attract Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act. In any event, Section 21(5) of the Act is certainly attracted and is not limited to a violation committed by a person only outside the mining lease area — it includes a violation committed even within the mining lease area. This is also because the MMDR Act is intended, among other things, to penalise illegal or unlawful mining on any land including mining lease land and also preserve and protect the environment. Action under the EPA or the MCR could be the primary action required to be taken with reference to the MCR and Rule 2(ii-a) thereof read with the Explanation but that cannot preclude compensation to the State under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act. The MCR cannot be read to govern the MMDR Act.”_ In view of the provisions contained in the EIA notification 2006, EC is required for any mining project having lease area of and above 5 hectares. The extraction of any mineral without EC subsequent to 14.09.2006 would amount to unlawful mining attracting the provisions W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 33 of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act. 37. According to the petitioners, the 7[th] respondent has not remitted any royalty or got transit permit, as required under clause 2 of the lease deed. Therefore, this is a fit case where respondents 1 to 5 have to initiate action under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act. 38. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have taken strenuous efforts to bring to light the illegalities affecting the environment producing various materials, which can only be with the intention to protect the environmental wealth which requires to be appreciated. They are liable to be compensated with cost. 39. In the above circumstances, Ext.P9 is quashed. Respondents 1 to 5 are directed to proceed against the 7[th] respondent under Section 21(5) of MMDR Act in accordance with law. Petitioners shall be entitled to cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) from the 7[th] respondent. W.P.(C) No. 25013 of 2014 is allowed to the above extent. 40. W.P.(C) Nos. 26272 and 26275 of 2015 are also in respect of the very same quarrying unit filed by the very same petitioner. When Ext.P9 is set aside, the question of operation of the quarry does not arise W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 34 except after production of environmental clearance. Hence those writ petitions are dismissed. _**Sd/-**_ _**(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)**_ _rtr_ _**/**_ W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 35 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25013/2014** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **P1. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4- 5-2011 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P2 P2. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE EXECUTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P3 P3. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR DATED 9-12-13.** - **EXHIBIT P4 P4.A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1212-13 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.** - EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MoEF AND THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ANNEXURE A, HIGHLIGHING DECLARED ECO SENSITIVE AREAS IN KERALA STATE, DATED 13.11.2013. - **EXHIBIT P6 P6.A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT ON EARTHQUAKE AND LANDSLIDE IN THE NELLIAMPATHY-NENMARA-MUTHALAMADA FOREST RANGE BY CENTRE FOR EARTH SCIENCE AND STUDIES.** - **EXHIBIT P7 P7. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P8 P8. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1-7-2014 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS AS WELL AS OTHER LOCALITIES BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2.** - EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.758/201415/249/M3/2015 DATED 3.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHALAMADA ii TO THE PETITIONER ON 10.2.2015. - EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ON 12.11.2010. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE PHOTOCPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 36 |EXHIBIT P13|TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE| |---|---| ||VILLAGE OFFICE MUTHALAMADA-ii.| |EXHIBIT P14|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RTI REPLY DATED 8.10.2015 FROM| ||THE OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER MUTHALAMADA-II.| |EXHIBIT P15|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DT.18.12.2014 FROM THE| ||OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHALAMADA-ii BEFORE| ||THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, CHITTOOR.| |EXHIBIT P16|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER PREFERRED BY THE 7TH| ||RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 6.1.2015.| |EXHIBIT P17|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER OF COMMUNICATION| ||DATED 30.01.2015 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH| ||RESPONDENT TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHALAMADA.| |EXHIBIT P18|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY DATED 31.01.2015 ISSUED BY| ||THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHALAMADA TO THE 4TH| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P19|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT| ||ALONG WITH ITS 2 ANNEXURES.| |EXHIBIT P20|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOOGLE IMAGE OF THE 7TH| ||RESPONDENT'S QUARRYING SITE ON 2.12.2012.| |EXHIBIT P21|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOOGLE IMAGE OF THE 7TH| ||RESPONDENT'S QUARRYING SITE ON 10.11.2013.| |EXHIBIT P22|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOOGLE IMAGE OF THE 7TH| ||RESPONDENT'S QUARRYING SITE ON 30.01.2014.| |EXHIBIT P23|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE| ||DATED 18.3.2013.| |EXHIBIT P24|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DT.16.12.2015 FROM THE| ||VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHALAMADA-II.| |EXHIBIT P25|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 17.12.2015 FROM THE| ||ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, CHITTOOR.| |EXHIBIT P26|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPORT DATED 21.12.2015.| |EXHIBIT P27|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 15.11.2007| ||ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL.| |EXHIBIT P28|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED DATED 19.4.2013.| |EXHIBIT P29|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED DATED 16.9.2006.| |EXHIBIT P30|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RTI QUERY DATED 23.9.2015 BEFORE| ||THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHALAMADA-II.| |EXHIBIT P31|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1275/1/10.| |EXHIBIT P32|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14.11.2007| ||ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHALAMADA-II.| |EXHIBIT P33|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RTI REPLY LETTER DATED| ||25.11.2015 BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHALAMADA-II.| W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 37 EXHIBIT P34 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH OF BLOCK NO.18 IN MUTHALAMADA-II VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P35 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CORRELATION STATEMENT OF LANDS IN BLOCK NO.18 (OLD SURVEY nO.435Q/1) OF MUTHALAMADA-II VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P36 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 19.8.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P37 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD, CHITTUR IN CC 583/73 DATED 7.2.1976. EXHIBIT P38 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD CHITTUR IN CC.583/73 DATED 22.03.1976. EXHIBIT P39 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 7.8.2015 IN UNNIKRISHNAN VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD AS APPLICATION NO.400/2013. EXHIBIT P40 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 8.10.2015 IN WPC NO.30571/2015. EXHIBIT P41 A TRUE PHOTOOCPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P42 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 9.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P43 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.6.2016 ISSUED BY THE RDO, PALAKKAD. 7TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R7(a) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 3.6.2014 ISSUED BY REGIONAL CONTROLLER OF MINES, INDIAN BUREAU OF MINES. EXT.R7(b) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.758/2014-15/249/M3/2015 DATED 3.2.2015 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY. EXT.R7(c) TRUE COPY OF LICENCE NO.A3/1644/14 DATED 21.8.2014 ISSUED BY MUTHALAMADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN FAVOUR OF 7TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R7(d) TRUE COPY OF LICENCE NO.A3/3158/14 DATED 21.8.2014 ISSUED BY MUTHALAMADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN FAVOUR OF 7TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R7(e) TRUE COPY OF `CONSENT TO OPERATE' DATED 3.6.2013 ISSUED BY KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.R7(f) TRUE COPY OF CONSENT VARIATION ORDER DATED 17.3.2014 ISSUED BY KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.R7(g) TRUE COPY OF PERMISSION DATED 3.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVE DEPARTMENT. W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 38 EXT.R7(h) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.1-4/2012-RE (Pt.) DATED 20.12.2013 ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF ENVIORMENT AND FORESTS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXT.R7(i) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.1-4/2012-RE (Pt.) DATED 4.3.2014 ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF ENVIORMENT AND FORESTS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXT.R7(j) TRUE COPY OF MAHAZAR AND RELATED DOCUMENTS SERVED ON THE 7TH RESPONDENT ON 11.1.2016 UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.R7(k) TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 18.3.2013 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHALAMADA 2 VILLAGE. EXT.R7(l) TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT NO.6875617 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHALAMADA II. EXT.R7(m) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO ONE OF THE ASSOCIATES OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT BY THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU AND DATED 22.8.2016. DOCUMENT PRODUCED ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT DT.27.1.2016 FILED BY ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, CHITTOOR ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF SURVEY SKETCH. 5TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE R5(a) LETTER DATED 06.08.2015 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE R5(b) LETTER NO.249/M3/2015 DATED 07.08.2015 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT. 4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.5.2012 ANNEXURE R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.7.8.2012. ANNEXURE R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 12.12.2012. ANNEXURE R4(d) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.11.2013. ANNEXURE R4(e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07/01/14. ANNEXURE R4(f) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.29456/14 DATED 7.11.2014. ANNEXURE R4(g) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.1249/16 DATED 13.1.2016. ANNEXURE R4(h) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C).NO.31093/14 DATED 21.11.2014. ANNEXURE R4(i) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C).NO.31093/14 DATED 11.12.2014. W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 39 ANNEXURE R4(j) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C).NO.31093/14 DATED 15.1.2015. ANNEXURE R4(k) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C).NO.4662/14 DATED 16.12.2014. ANNEXURE R4(l) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.31093/14 DATED 10.4.2015. ANNEXURE R4(m) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.5.2015. ANNEXURE R4(n) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.14210/15 DATED 12.5.2015. ANNEXURE R4(o) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.333/16 DATED 12.1.2016. ANNEXURE R4(p) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.4409/16 DATED 4.2.2016. ANNEXURE R4(q) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.8.2015. ANNEXURE R4(r) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C).NO.26275/15 DATED 2.9.2015. 9TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R9(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DT.31.3.2014. ## EXHIBITS PRODUCED IN THE MEMO DATED 31.10.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER 1. COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DATED 7.10.2016. 2. COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, CHITTOOR DATED 7.10.2016. 3. COPY OF THE BTR PERTAINING TO BLOCK 18, CHITTOOR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. 4. REPORT OF THE TALUK SURVEYOR WITH COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH. W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 40 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26272/2015** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** ## **EXHIBIT P1** **P1- TRUE COPY OF 'CONSENT TO OPERATE' DATED 03.06.2013 ISSUED BY KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.** - **EXHIBIT P2 P2- TRUE COPY OF CONSENT VARIATION ORDER DATED 22.05.2015 ISSUED BY KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.** - **EXHIBIT P3 P3- TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.PCB/PLKD/IC/CO1592/2013 DATED 24.08.2015 ISSUED BY KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.** - **EXHIBIT P4** - **P4- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 7.8.2015 IN APPLICATION NO.400/2013 PASSED BY NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL.** **EXHIBIT P5** - **P5- TRUE COPY OF QUARRYING LEASE DATED 13.5.2011 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE GOVERNMENT.** - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.758/2014-15/249/M3/2015 DATED 3.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY. - EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.12.2015 IN WP(C).NO.25013/2014 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. - EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.2.2016 IN WP(C) NO.25013/2014 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.3.2016 IN WP(C).NO.25013/2014 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 20.12.2013 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ENVIORMENT AND FORESTS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - EXHIBIT R2(a) COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 13.6.2007. EXHIBIT R2(b) COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH DATED 22.1.2011. EXHIBIT R2(c) COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 3.6.2013. EXHIBIT R2(d) COPY OF THE CONSENT VARIATION ORDER DATED 26.6.2013. W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 41 EXHIBIT R2(e) COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 20.12.2013. EXHIBIT R2(f) COPY OF THE CONSENT VARIATION ORDER DT.17.3.2014. EXHIBIT R2(g) COPY OF THE CONSENT VARIATION ORDER DATED 22.5.2015. EXHIBIT R2(h) COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/PLKD/IC/CO-1592/2013 DATED 18.4.2016. W.P(c).Nos.25013/14 42 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26275/2015** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.58/2011-12/2870/M3/2011 DATED 4.5.2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF QUARRYING LEASE DATED 13.5.2011 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.758/2014-15/249/M3/2015 DATED 3.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION AND NON-ATTACHMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 18.3.2013 ISSUED BY MUTHALAMADA II VILLAGE OFFICE. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.249/M3/2015 DATED 7.8.2015 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.