M/S B & B GRANITES v. Union of India and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Anu Sivaraman
- Judgment Date
- 2023-04-10
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition allowed; Ext.P3 condition 3(3) quashed; 4th respondent directed to issue quarry lease to the petitioner without insisting on SCNBWL clearance; Ext.P4 provisions to obtain prior clearance for proposals within 10 KM from sanctuaries are to be interpreted in light of the ESZ framework and statutory provisions; justice directed as per law.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition allowed; Ext.P3 condition 3(3) quashed; lease to be issued without SCNBWL clearance; Ext.P4 provisions related to SCNBWL clearance for 10 KM radius to be interpreted under ESZ framework and 1986 Act rules.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- M/S B & B GRANITES
Respondents
- Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change
- Standing Committee for National Board for Wildlife
- State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
- Director of Mining and Geology Department, Government of Kerala
- Chief Wildlife Warden
- Divisional Forest Officer, Thrissur Division
- State of Kerala represented by Chief Secretary
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Philip J. Vettickattu
- • Sajitha George
- • Neenu Bernath
Counsels for Respondents
- • Girish Kumar V
- • Sangeeth C.U
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition filed by M/S B & B GRANITES challenges the condition imposed in the Environmental Clearance (Ext.P3) requiring clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) before commencing quarrying activities near Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary. The petitioner alleges that the site is situated beyond the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) boundaries and that the Office Memorandum of 08.08.2019 mandating SCNBWL clearance, and the 10 km radius concept, are misapplied. The petitioner also notes the 6.7 km (to buffer zone) and 9.5 km (to core area) distances from the sanctuary and relies on a Supreme Court order in Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2022) stating that restrictions should be limited to ESZ boundaries. An interim inspection by the Chief Wildlife Warden reported distances from the sanctuary boundary and revised ESZ measurements, indicating the quarry lies at a substantial distance from the core/ESZ. The petitioner contends that since the quarry lies outside ESZ and beyond its boundaries, SCNBWL clearance is unnecessary and restrictive. The Court, after considering the evidence and the Supreme Court’s guidance, allowed the petition, quashed Ext.P3’s condition 3(3), and directed the 4th respondent to issue the quarry lease in accordance with law without insisting on SCNBWL clearance. The order underscores a reliance on ESZ-based restrictions and statutory provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) doctrine
- Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India doctrine: restrictions would be limited to ESZ
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that the quarry site, being more than 10 km from Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary, falls outside the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ). Relying on office memorandum of 08.08.2019 and the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, the petitioner argues that ESZ-based restrictions apply and a SCNBWL clearance is not mandatary for sites outside ESZ no endangered wildlife areas. They seek quashing of Ext.P3 condition and Ext.P4 guidance that require SCNBWL clearance, and a directive to issue the quarry lease without such clearance, arguing that the law (Rule 5 of the Rules, 1986 r/w Section 3(2)(v) of the Act) governs restrictions and permits within the proper statutory framework.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents rely on ESZ norms, the 2019 Office Memorandum, and the precautionary approach towards wildlife protection, contending that proposed activities near a sanctuary warrant SCNBWL clearance and compliance with ESZ norms. They note the distances to sanctuary boundaries, the pending ESZ notifications, and the need for approvals under Rule 5 of the 1986 Rules and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act to regulate development near protected areas.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India | 2022 (3) KLT 739 (SC) | Positive | Cited as controlling doctrine; court acknowledges the Supreme Court ruling that quarry restrictions should be limited to ESZ boundaries and not blanketly extended beyond them. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 M/S B & B GRANITES v. Union of India and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.