M/S Piravom Aggregates v. District Geologist, Ernakulam

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 24576 OF 2021 ``` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` M/S.PIRAVOM AGGREGATES RAMAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. ``` ``` BY ADVS. PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SAJITHA GEORGE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST ERNAKULAM, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030. ``` ``` SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 24576 OF 2021 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the respondent to take steps for consideration of Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of quarrying permit without referring to the distance conditions specified in the order dated 21.07.2020 of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.No.304/2019. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exhibit P2 application for renewal of quarrying permit was submitted on 11.3.2020 and the said application was liable to be considered under Rule 10(f) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. The National Green Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi had passed an order directing that a distance of 200ms is to be maintained between quarries and nearby residences/inhabited areas. The said order was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C).No. 15305 of 2020 and connected cases and interim directions had been issued ``` WP(C) NO. 24576 OF 2021 ``` ``` 3 ``` stating that where a quarrying lease permit is issued under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 which is valid and current as on 21.07.2020, that is the date of the National Green Tribunal's order, which do not fulfill the new distance norms, status quo shall be maintained. However, with regard to pending applications and renewal applications including application for Environmental Clearance, PCB consent, Explosive licence, Local Body licence etc., such applications need not be rejected solely on the ground of non fulfillment of the new distance norms. However, it was made clear that in case of the applications for fresh grant of the quarrying permits/quarrying leases or applications for renewal of quarrying permits/leases, which do not fulfil the above said impugned distance criteria stipulated in the order of the tribunal, such requests need not be granted for the time being. 3. The writ petitions were finally heard and allowed by ``` WP(C) NO. 24576 OF 2021 ``` ``` 4 ``` judgment dated 21.12.2020. The order of the NGT was set aside and the NGT was directed to dispose of the representations of respondents 3 to 115 afresh after notice, by way of publication, to those who are affected by the prescription of the stringent distance criteria for permission for quarrying. The said judgment is reported in **State of Kerala v. Central Pollution Control Board [2021 (1) KLT 1].** From the said judgment, an appeal had been preferred and the directions of the learned Single Judge had been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, SLPs have been filed before the Apex Court and Civil Appeals had been disposed of by proceedings dated 25.10.2021. The said judgment is reported as **Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha [2021 (6) KLT 133]** . The Apex Court held that there is power in the National Green Tribunal to take up matters suo motu and pass orders as well. ``` WP(C) NO. 24576 OF 2021 ``` ``` 5 ``` ## It was further held as under:- “In light of the issue answered by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.12122-12123 of 2018 and connected cases titled as “Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai Vs. Ankita Sinha & Ors.” reported in 2021 (12) SCALE 184, it would be appropriate to permit the appellant(s) to raise all contentions/objections as may be available and permissible in law before the National Green Tribunal (In short “the Tribunal”) in the first place. The Tribunal may consider those contentions/objections and record reasons for accepting or rejecting the same, so that the appellant(s), if dis-satisfied, may have further remedy of appeal(s) before this Court. In other words, all contentions raised in the present appeal(s) on these aspects, including on merits are left open, to be considered by the Tribunal afresh. We say so because the judgment rendered by this Court predicates that even if the Tribunal intends to initiate suo motu action, must give opportunity to the parties likely to be affected before passing any adverse order against them. Viewed thus, the ex-parte preemptory order(s) passed by the Tribunal without giving opportunity to the person(s) likely to be affected by such order(s), be treated as effaced from the record. ``` WP(C) NO. 24576 OF 2021 ``` ``` 6 ``` Keeping that principle in mind, we deem it appropriate to relegate the appellant(s) before the Tribunal with liberty to raise all contentions as may be permissible in law, to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on its own merits. Notably, the decision of the High Court assailed in these appeal(s) also gives that liberty to the appellant(s). However, we expressly grant such liberty to the appellant(s), as aforesaid, in terms of this order.” Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that the petitioner's application had not been considered relying on the interim order of this Court dated 6.8.2020. However, with the above mentioned directions of the Apex Court, I notice that the interim order as well as the directions in the judgment of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench in W.A.No.286/2021 stand merged with the findings and directions of the Apex Court in **Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai (supra)** . In view of the fact that the Apex Court has clearly held that the Ex-parte peremptory orders passed by the Tribunal without giving opportunity to the ``` WP(C) NO. 24576 OF 2021 ``` ``` 7 ``` persons likely to be affected are to be treated as effaced from the records, I am of the opinion that the directions contained in the orders of this Court also cannot stand in the way of a consideration of the application in accordance with law, as it exists. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing the consideration of Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of quarrying permit, in accordance with law, and taking note of Rule 10(f) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, if the same is otherwise in order. ``` Sd/- ``` ``` ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE ``` np ``` WP(C) NO. 24576 OF 2021 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24576/2021`** ## **`PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:`** ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE DATED 23.06.2017 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. ``` ``` Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF QUARRYING PERMIT DATED 11.03.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTED AS 2021(6) KLT 133(SC). ``` ## **`RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL`**