K.T. Varghese, M.O. Paul, The Paristithy Samrakshana Janakeeya Samithy v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.33150 OF 2019(P)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**K.T. VARGHESE,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 79 YEARS,**| ||**S/O. K.V.THOMAN,**| ||**KAVALAKKATTU HOUSE,**| ||**MAMBRA,**| ||**KARUKUTTY P.O.,**| ||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN-683 576.**| |**2**|**M.O.PAUL,**| ||**AGED 59 YEARS,**| ||**S/O. M.P.OUSEPH,**| ||**MALIEKKAL HOUSE,**| ||**MAMBRA, KARUKUTTY P.O.,**| ||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN-683 576.**| |**3**|**THE PARISTHITHY SAMRAKSHANA JANAKEEYA SAMITHY**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS PATRON- P.P.PHILIP**| ||**REGISTRATION NO.ER 527/08,**| ||**KARUKUTTY P.O.,**| ||**MAMBRA,**| ||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN-683 576.**| **BY ADVS. SRI.ABDUL JAWAD K. SMT.A.GRANCY JOSE** W.P.(C) No.33150 of 2019 2 ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 THE DISTRICT SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, (DISTRICT COLLECTOR), DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, IST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.** - **3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.** - **4 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST OFFICE OF THE MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.** - **5 THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA) KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **6 THE PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESETNED BY ITS SECRETARY, KURUMASSERY P.O., MOOZHIKKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 579.** W.P.(C) No.33150 of 2019 3 **7 MANJU JOEMON, PARTNER, SAND ROCK ASSOCIATES, VI/492-A, EDATHALA BUILDING, NEELESWARAM P.O., KALADY, ERNAKULAM-683 574.** **R1-4 BY SMT.RENJITHA G., GOVERNMENT PLEADER BY SRI.S.KANNAN, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER R6 BY SRI.S.GOPINADHAN, STANDING COUNSEL R6 BY ADV. SRI.MANU SRINATH R7 BY SRI.BABU S. NAIR, STANDING COUNSEL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-04-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019 4 ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of April, 2021** ## **J U D G M E N T** The grievance voiced by the petitioners in this writ petition concerns the granite building stone quarry of the seventh respondent located in the vicinity of their residences. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the writ petition are the following: The husband of the seventh respondent obtained a quarrying lease in respect of 3.0915 Hectares of land in Parakkadavu Village on 14.10.2011 in terms of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. Ext.P5 is the indenture of lease executed on 22.12.2011 in favour of the husband of the seventh respondent. The husband of the seventh respondent died during 2018. Thereupon, the seventh respondent got the quarrying lease in the name of her husband transferred to her name and also secured other licences and permissions for conducting quarrying operations in the land covered by Ext.P5 quarrying lease. The case set out by the petitioners in the the writ petition is that the Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019 5 husband of the seventh respondent has not extracted minerals on the strength of Ext.P5 quarrying lease within two years from the date of execution of the quarrying lease and as such, the said quarrying lease had lapsed and the seventh respondent is therefore not entitled to extract minerals on the strength of the same. It is also the case of the petitioners that the seventh respondent, at any rate, is not entitled to conduct quarrying operations without obtaining environmental clearance in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. It is the further case of the petitioners that permission of the competent authority under Section 40 of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 is required for conducting quarrying operations in that quarry and the seventh respondent has not obtained the permission of the competent authority under the said provision. The petitioners, therefore, seek, among others, directions to the respondents to interdict the quarrying operations of the seventh respondent in the land covered by Ext.P5 quarrying lease. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the seventh respondent in the writ petition on 15.12.2020 contending, among others, that the quarrying lease obtained by her husband is valid for a period of 12 years from 22.12.2011; that there is no need to obtain environmental clearance for the purpose of undertaking quarrying activity on the strength of the said quarrying lease since Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019 6 the same is one issued prior to 18.05.2012; that her husband had started a crusher unit also in the land covered by Ext.P5 quarrying lease; that the quarry as also the crusher unit have become operational during 2013 and that the quarrying lease has, therefore, not lapsed. 4. The fourth respondent, the District Geologist has filed a counter affidavit in the matter on 17.12.2020, stating, among others, that movement permit has been issued to the husband of the seventh respondent on 1.8.2013 for extracting minerals for the period upto 30.09.2013; that the husband of the seventh respondent has operated the quarry during the said period; that the seventh respondent preferred an application on 12.11.2018 for approval of the mining plan; that the mining plan submitted by the seventh respondent has been approved on 6.3.2019 and that the seventh respondent has also been issued movement permit on 9.9.2020 for extracting minerals for the period upto 31.03.2021. It is also stated by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit that Ext.P5 quarrying lease being one executed in the year 2011, the seventh respondent is not required to obtain environmental clearance for extracting minerals on the strength of the said quarrying lease. 5. After hearing the parties on either side, this court has passed an interim order on 21.12.2020 restraining the seventh Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019 7 respondent from conducting mining activity in the land covered by Ext.P5 quarrying lease without environmental clearance. Though the seventh respondent filed an application seeking review of the said interim order, the same was disposed of by this court, holding that the seventh respondent is free to move this Court for vacating the interim order. Accordingly, the seventh respondent preferred I.A.No.1 of 2021 seeking orders vacating the interim order dated 21.12.2020. When the said application came up for orders, it was agreed to by the counsel for the parties that the writ petition itself can be heard, and accordingly, the matter was heard for final disposal of the writ petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the stand of the petitioners in the writ petition that the husband of the seventh respondent has not commenced quarrying operations within two years from the date of execution of Ext.P5 quarrying lease and as such, Ext.P5 quarrying lease had lapsed. The learned counsel has also reiterated the stand of the petitioners that at any rate, the seventh respondent is not entitled to operate the quarry without obtaining environmental clearance. Placing reliance on the findings rendered by the National Green Tribunal in Ext.P3 order that there is a water tank at a distance of 184 meters from the quarry, the learned counsel has also contended that the seventh respondent is not entitled to operate the quarry without obtaining Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019 8 permission of the competent authority under Section 40 of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003. 7. The learned Government Pleader reiterated the stand of the fourth respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent. 8. Placing reliance on the various documents produced by the seventh respondent along with the counter affidavit filed in the matter as also in the interlocutory application preferred by her for vacating the interim order dated 21.12.2020, the learned counsel for the seventh respondent submitted that the husband of the seventh respondent was operating the quarry during 2013 and the contention of the petitioners that the quarrying lease in favour of the husband of the seventh respondent had lapsed, is unsustainable. The learned counsel has also submitted that in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in **All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala** , 2015(2) KLT 78, in as much as the quarrying lease in favour of the husband of the seventh respondent was one which was existing on 18.05.2012, the day with effect from which the requirement of environmental clearance was made applicable for quarries in lands measuring less than 5 hectares, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that the seventh respondent is required to obtain environmental clearance for conducting quarrying operations on Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019 9 ## the strength of Ext.P5 quarrying lease. 9. I have examined the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the parties on either side. Sub-section (4) of Section 4A of the Kerala Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 provides that where the holder of a mining lease fails to undertake mining operations for a period of 2 years after the date of execution of the lease, or having commenced mining operations, has discontinued the same for a period of two years, the lease shall lapse on the expiry of the period of two years from the date of execution of lease or as the case may be, discontinuance of the mining operations. Rule 29(1)(g) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 also provided that unless the State Government or the competent authority for sufficient cause permit or permits otherwise the lessee shall commence mining operations within three months from the date of execution of the lease. Explanation to clause (g) to Rule 29(1) clarified that for the purpose of the said provision mining operations shall include the erection of machinery, laying of a tramway or construction of a road in connection with working of the mine. The said Explanation reads thus: “For the purpose of this clause mining operations shall include the errection of machinery, laying of a tramway or construction of a road in connection with the working of the mine;” Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019 10 The petitioners have no case in the writ petition that the husband of the seventh respondent having commenced mining operations has discontinued the same for a period of two years. Their specific case in the writ petition is that the husband of the seventh respondent has not commenced the mining operations within two years from the date of execution of the lease deed. The first and foremost question to be examined therefore is as to whether the husband of the seventh respondent has commenced quarrying operations within two years from the date of Ext.P5 quarrying lease, viz, 22.12.2011. 10. Ext.P4 proceedings of the Director of the Mining and Geology would show that the husband of the seventh respondent has applied for quarrying lease on 10.08.2011. Ext.R7(n) is the building permit obtained by the husband of the seventh respondent on 22.8.2011 for putting up buildings necessary for running the crusher unit in the land covered by Ext.P5 quarrying lease. Ext.R7(n) indicates that the same was issued pursuant to an application preferred by the husband of the seventh respondent on 12.08.2011. Ext.R7(l) is the consent obtained by the husband of the seventh respondent on 20.12.2012 from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to operate the crusher unit in the land covered by Ext.P5 quarrying lease. Ext.R7(d) is the licence issued by the Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019 11 Parakkadavu Grama Panchayat to the husband of the seventh respondent on 27.3.2013 for running the quarry as also the crusher unit for the period from 27.3.2013 to 31.3.2014. The numbers of the building constructed in the land covered by Ext.P5 quarrying lease pursuant to Ext.R7(n) building permit are disclosed in Ext.R7(d) licence. The aforesaid documents would certainly show that the husband of the seventh respondent has established a metal crusher unit in the land covered Ext.P5 quarrying lease. Ext.R7(k) is the representation preferred on behalf of the husband of the seventh respondent on 5.4.2013 to the Circle Inspector of Police, Angamaly for police aid for removing the obstruction caused by one Philip and others to the movement of vehicles carrying materials to and from the metal crusher unit run by him. In the said representation, the particulars of four vehicles, the movement of which has been obstructed, are also furnished. Ext.R7(h) is the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.11274 of 2013 filed by the husband of the seventh respondent, granting police protection to him for transportation of materials to and from his metal crusher unit. The Circle Inspector of Police, Angamaly and Philip referred to in R7(k) representation are the respondents in the said case. Ext.R7(m) is the communication issued by the Secretary of the Parakkadavu Panchayat to the husband of the seventh respondent on 27.4.2013 restraining him Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019 12 from operating the granite quarry. The petitioners have no case that the husband of the seventh respondent was running the metal crusher unit sourcing the raw materials from outside. In the absence of such a case for the petitioners, the aforesaid documents would establish that the husband of the seventh respondent has made the quarry and crusher unit operational before 5.4.2013. Further, Ext.R7(c) is a letter issued by the Director of Mining and Geology on 9.7.2013 to the husband of the seventh respondent informing him that his metal crusher unit has been registered for changing over to the consolidated royalty scheme as provided for under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. The said letter would reveal that the husband of the seventh respondent has exercised option in terms of Rule 45P of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 during July, 2013 to pay consolidated royalty for the mineral extracted from the quarry covered by Ext.P5 quarrying lease as provided for in Schedule IV to the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, instead of paying royalty specified in Schedule I to the said Rules. If the quarry run by the husband of the seventh respondent in the land covered by Ext.P5 quarrying lease was not operational, there is no reason why he should exercise the option to pay the consolidated royalty in terms of Rule 45P of the said Rules. The fourth respondent, the Geologist has stated in the counter affidavit filed by him in the matter that Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019 13 movement permit has been issued to the husband of the seventh respondent for removing 20,000 metric tonnes of granite building stones on 1.8.2013 for the period upto 30.9.2013 and that the husband of the seventh respondent has removed granite building stones on the strength of the said movement permit. Ext.R4(a) is the movement permit issued in this regard by the competent authority under the Rules to the husband of the seventh respondent. If the materials aforesaid are examined in the light of the Explanation to clause (g) of Rule 29(1) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, it cannot be said at all that the petitioner has not commenced the mining operations in the land covered by Ext.P5 quarrying lease within two years from the date of its execution. Needless to say that the contention of the petitioners that the quarrying lease obtained by the husband of the seventh respondent had lapsed is only to be rejected and I do so. 11. The next question is as to whether the seventh respondent is required to obtain environmental clearance for the purpose of operating the quarry referred to in the writ petition. Admittedly, the seventh respondent is operating the quarry referred to in the writ petition on the strength of Ext.P5 quarrying lease obtained by her husband on 22.12.2011. There is no dispute between the parties to the fact that the area of the land in respect Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019 14 of which the said quarrying lease has been granted to the husband of the seventh respondent is less than 5 hectares. There is also no dispute to the fact that the requirement of environmental clearance for quarries situated in lands measuring less than 5 hectares was brought in by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests only with effect from 18.05.2012. In **All Kerala River Protection Council,** this court has clarified that in cases where quarrying lease was existing as on 18.5.2012, no environmental clearance is required for extraction of minor minerals. In other words, the contention of the petitioners that the seventh respondent is required to obtain environmental clearance for conducting the quarrying operation based on Ext.P5 quarrying lease is liable to be rejected and I do so. 12. True, sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 provides that 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. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners based on the said statutory provision is also liable to be rejected as the petitioners have no case in the writ petition that any bridge, dam, Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019 15 check dam or any other work, structure or construction, owned, controlled or maintained by the Government, a local authority or any other authority exist within 1 kilometer of the land covered by Ext.P5 quarrying lease. The only averment made by the petitioner in the writ petition in this regard in ground (D) of the writ petition reads thus: “Moreover, Section 40 of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 prohibits mining near water canal. The 7[th] respondent has not secured permission from the statutory body under that Act for mining. So, mining becomes illegal for that reason as well. The presence of huge water tank and other structures including residential buildings makes the land unsuitable for blasting and mining as found in Ext.P1 and P3. Thus, the land is liable to be declared as absolutely unsuitable for mining.” The averments aforesaid, according to me, are vague and highly insufficient to justify a consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners based on Section 40 of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003. The writ petition, in the circumstances, is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE** tgs Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019 16 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE AIR APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN APPEAL NO.8/13, DATED 10.10.2013. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 20.12.2012, GRANTED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.1.2019 IN APPEAL NO.171/18 (EARLIER APPEAL NO.18/14(SZ)). EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DATED 14.10.2011. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE DATED 22.12.2011, BETWEEN THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND MR. JOEMON JOSEPH. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.3.2019, FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR D & O LICENSE FROM THE 6TH RESPONDENT THROUGH THE 2ND RESPONDENT BOARD, SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE JOINT INSPECTION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED FOR THE GRANT OF D & O LICENSE BY THE PANCHAYAT, DATED 21.6.2019. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15.11.2019, BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT, OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF REJECTION FURNISHED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019 17 **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.10.2019, SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS AS WELL AS OTHER STATUTORY AUTHORITIES. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PCB DATED 31.5.2013 EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT DATED 9.5.2013 EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.6.2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 8633/2013 AND CONNECTED CASE. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R7(a): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.11468/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED, 03/04/2017. EXHIBIT R7(b): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/10/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.25869/2019. EXHIBIT R7(c): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DATED, 09/07/2013. EXHIBIT R7(d): TRUE COPY OF THE D&O LICENCE ISSUED TO THE FIRM DATED, 27.3.2013. EXHIBIT R7(e): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST BY THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST DATED, 12.7.2013. EXHIBIT R7(f): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST BY THE GEOLOGIST DATED, 1.6.2013 EXHIBIT R7(g): TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. DATED, 6.4.2013 IN CRIME NO.858/2013 OF THE ANGAMALY POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT R7(h): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED, 23.4.2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)NO. 11274/2013.** Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019 18 **EXHIBIT R7(i): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST DATED, 25.6.2014 BY THE SECRETARY, PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT R7(j): TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF MACHINERIES INSTALLED BY THE PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST AND A LIST WHICH WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, 8.8.2011. EXHIBIT R7(k): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE MANAGER OF THE FIRM TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANGAMALY DATED, 5.4.2013. EXHIBIT R7(l): TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST DATED, 20.12.2012. EXHIBIT R7(m): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE FIRM BY THE PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED, 27.4.2013. EXHIBIT R7(n): TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE OWNER OF THE LAND TO ERECT THE BUILDING FOR THE CRUSHER UNIT DATED, 22.8.2011. EXHIBIT R7(o): TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST OF THE FIRM DT, 25.10.2013. EXHIBIT R4(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE MOVEMENT PERMIT GRANTED ON 01.08.2013 TO THE CONCESSION HOLDER. EXHIBIT R4(b): A TRUE COPY OF THE MOVEMENT PERMIT DATED 09.09.2020 ISSUED TO THE CONCESSION HOLDER. ANNEXURE- R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PCB DATED 31.05.2013. ANNEXURE- R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT DATED 09.05.2013.** Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019 19 **ANNEXURE- R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.06.2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)8633/13 AND CONNECTED CASE. ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE D & O LICENCE ISSUED TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER DATED, 27.3.2013. ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER BY THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST DATED, 12.7.2013. ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER BY THE GEOLOGIST DATED, 1.6.2013. ANNEXURE D : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED, 1.3.2013. ANNEXURE E : TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO. 858/2013 OF THE ANGAMALY POLICE STATION DATED, 6.4.2013. ANNEXURE F : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED, 23.4.2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)NO.11274/2013. ANNEXURE G : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER DATED, 25.6.2014 BY THE SECRETARY, PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT. ANNEXURE H : TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF MACHINERIES INSTALLED BY THE PETITIONER AND A LIST WHICH WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, 8.8.2011. ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER DATED, 20.12.2012. ANNEXURE J : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED, 27.4.2013. ANNEXURE K : TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE OWNER OF THE LAND TO ERECT THE BUILDING FOR THE CRUSHER UNIT DATED, 22.8.2011.**