M/S. K. G. P. GRANITES RAVANANKUNNUPURA v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 6633 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** M/S. K. G. P. GRANITES RAVANANKUNNUPARA, NATTUKAL P. O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA - 678 554 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K. P. DAVIS , PIN - 678554 BY ADVS. MOHAMMED SADIQUE.T.A T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ K.P.MAJEED SHANKAR V. ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001 2 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001 3 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA) REPRESENTED BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY, 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001 4 THE MEMBER SECRETARY, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA) STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA), 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001 5 STATE LEVEL EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (SEAC) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001 6 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE (MOEF & CC), INDIRA PARIYAVARAN BHAVAN, JORBAGH, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003 WP(C).No.6633 OF 2022 **==> picture [7 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 7 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING & GEOLOGY KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004 8 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST - PALAKKAD DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678014 M.P.SREEKRISHNAN-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.6633 OF 2022 3 ## **JUDGMENT Dated this the 2[nd] day of March, 2022** This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- _(i)Issue a writ in the nature of a declaration that the validity of Exhibit P1 environment Clearance issued to the petitioner is for a period of 8 years. (ii)Direct the 3[rd] respondent to consider revalidation of Exhibit P1 Environment Clearance within the validity extended to 8 years._ 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 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 4.2627 hectares of land for a period of 12 years commencing from 18.05.2017 to 17.05.2029. It is submitted that the Environmental Clearance has also been granted to the petitioner which is valid for a period of 5 years from 03.03.2017. It is submitted that the validity of the Environmental WP(C).No.6633 OF 2022 4 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.P1 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 Clause 9(i) of the EIA Notification 2006, an Environmental Clearance has to 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.P1 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 WP(C).No.6633 OF 2022 5 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 7[th] 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 03.03.2017, was limited to 5 years. This Court considered the legality of issuing Environmental 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 WP(C).No.6633 OF 2022 6 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.P1 Environmental Clearance is invalid to the limited extent, it limits the validity of Environmental Clearance for five years. The regulatory bodies concerned are directed to call for additional recommendations from the Appraisal Committee after estimating the life of the project of the petitioner in respect of Ext.P1 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 WP(C).No.6633 OF 2022 7 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 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 four months from the date on which the SEIAA is duly reconstituted. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. **Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** SSK/03/03 WP(C).No.6633 OF 2022 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE NO. Exhibit P1 21/2017 DATED 03.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE DATED Exhibit P2 18.05.2017 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE GOVERNOR OF KERALA AND THE PETITIONER HEREIN TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL QUARRYING LEASE Exhibit P3 DATED 30.09.2020 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE GOVERNOR OF KERALA AND THE PETITIONER HEREIN TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 02.11.2020 IN Exhibit P4 W. P. (C) NO. 17533 OF 2020 & CONNECTED CASES OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** **SSK //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE**