M/S Highland Silver Sands Pvt. Ltd. v State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 23717 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** M/S. HIGHLAND SILVER SANDS PVT.LTD. 27/97, FCC BUILDING, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. VINAY JAMES KYNADI. BY ADVS. SANTHOSH MATHEW ARUN THOMAS JENNIS STEPHEN KARTHIKA MARIA ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL JAISY ELZA JOE ABI BENNY AREECKAL MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY - SEIAA 4TH FLOOR KSRTC BUS TERMINAL BUILDING, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. 2 STATE LEVEL EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (SEAC) 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL BUILDING, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.23717 OF 2021 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 1[st] day of November 2021** This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. _(i)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, declaring that Exts.P7 and P8 decisions taken by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority in so far as it restricts the validity of Environmental Clearance for mining projects to 5 years instead of for the life of mine, is without authority and violative of clause 9(i) of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2006;_ _(ii)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, commanding the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents to estimate the project life of the petitioner's mine and grant prior Environmental Clearance for the period of the estimated project life subject to a maximum of 30 years as stipulated in clause 9(i) of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2006;_ ## 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the WP(C).No.23717 OF 2021 3 respondents. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a grantee of quarrying lease for an extent of 4.31 hectares of land for a period of 12 years commencing from 19.04.2018 to 18.04.2030. It is submitted that the Environmental Clearance has also been granted to the petitioner which is valid for a period of 5 years from 15.07.2017. It is submitted that the validity of the Environmental Clearance is not liable to be restricted to a period lesser than the project life/ mine life estimated by the appraisal committee. The petitioner has, therefore, sought directions for re-validation of Ext.P2 Environmental Clearance for the full duration of the project life of the quarry. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as per paragraph 9(i) of the EIA Notification 2006, an Environmental Clearance has to WP(C).No.23717 OF 2021 4 be valid for the period of the project life/life of the mine as estimated by the respondents. The life of the mine as estimated by the respondents is 12 years. Therefore, Ext.P2 Environmental Clearance is unsustainable to the extent it provides a shorter period of duration. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that this Court has considered the legality of limiting the period of Environmental Clearance disregarding the life of mining project and has held that limiting the period of Environmental Clearance for five years would be against the terms and spirit of 2006 Notification. 5. It is evident from Ext.P2 proceedings that the 1 st respondent has estimated the project life of the mine of the petitioner as about 12 years. However, the validity of Environmental Clearance granted to the petitioner on 15.07.2017, was limited to 5 years. This Court considered the legality of issuing Environmental WP(C).No.23717 OF 2021 **==> picture [7 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Clearance for a shorter duration and held in the judgment in T. Mathew Abraham v. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority [2020 (6) KLT 302] that the Scheme of 2006 Notification as far as mining projects are concerned, is that if it is found that Environmental Clearance is to be granted for a mining project, the same shall be granted for the life of the project as estimated by the Expert Appraisal Committees concerned and that decision of SEIAA to limit the validity of the ECs to be granted for mining projects to 5 years, is against the terms and spirit of the 2006 Notification. 6. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of following the judgment in T. Mathew Abraham v. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (supra). It is declared that Ext.P2 Environmental Clearance is invalid to the limited extent, it limits the validity of Environmental Clearance for five years. The WP(C).No.23717 OF 2021 6 regulatory bodies concerned are directed to call for additional recommendations from the Appraisal Committee after estimating the life of the project of the petitioners in respect of Ext.P2 and revalidate the Environmental Clearance granted to the petitioner. It will be open to the Appraisal Committee to call for additional information required and in that event, it will be obligatory for the petitioner to furnish additional information called for. The recommendations of the Appraisal Committee would not be binding on the regulatory body and if the regulatory body disagrees with the recommendations made by the Appraisal Committee as regards the project life of the petitioner's project, the regulatory body would be free to follow the procedure mentioned in Clause 8 of 2006 Notification in the matter of arriving at the conclusion as to the life of the project of the petitioner, for the purpose of complying with the directions contained in WP(C).No.23717 OF 2021 7 ## this judgment. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for SEIAA that the term of SEIAA has expired and that reconstitution of the SEIAA is expected within a month. In the above view of the matter, the directions shall be complied within a period of three months from the date on which the SEIAA is duly reconstituted. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. **Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** SSK/1/11 WP(C).No.23717 OF 2021 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED MINING PLAN ISSUED BY Exhibit P1 THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST WITHOUT ANNEXURES. TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE NO.6./17 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL Exhibit P2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH DATED Exhibit P3 13.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY OF THE TRADE LICENSE DATED 10.4.2018 Exhibit P4 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE KATTIPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 19.4.2018 Exhibit P5 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENSE DATED 21.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETROLEUM AND Exhibit P6 EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION (PESO) IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 34TH MEETING OF Exhibit P7 THE SEIAA HELD ON 31.10.2014. TRUE COY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 89TH MEETING OF Exhibit P8 THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY DATED 27TH FEBRUARY, 2019. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.5.2021 IN WPC Exhibit P9 NO.10928 OF 2021. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN DEEPAK KUMAR AND Exhibit P10 OTHERS V. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS REPORTED IN (2012) 4 SCC 629. **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** **SSK //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE**