M/S United Metals vs District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **FRIDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 15TH MAGHA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 3800 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** M/S. UNITED METALS, KARIMPANA P.O., PALAKKUZHA, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SAJEEV MATHEW) BY ADVS. PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SAJITHA GEORGE ## **RESPONDENTS:** - 1 DISTRICT LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (DEIAA), REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM – 682 030. - 2 DISTRICT LEVEL EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (DEAC), REPRESENTED BY GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM – 682 030. - 3 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA) 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL BUILDING, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. - 4 STATE EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (SEAC), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PALLIMUKKU, KANNANMOOLA ROAD, OVERBRIDGE, VELAKUDI, TRIVANDRUM – 695 024. ## BY SRI. SYAMANTHAK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.3800 OF 2022 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 4[th] day of February, 2022** ## This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- _“i)Issue a declaration declaring that the validity of environmental clearance cannot be restricted to a period lesser than the project life/mine life estimated by the Appraisal Committee;_ _(ii)Declare that the limiting of the validity of Ext.P2 Environmental clearance to 5 years is illegal, arbitrary and void abinitio;_ _(iii)Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash Exhibit P2 to the extent it restricts the validity of environmental clearance to 5 years;_ _(iv)Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash Exts.P4 and P5._ _(v)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to revalidate Ext.P2 environmental clearance granted to the petitioner for the full duration of the project life/mine life of the quarry of the petitioner forthwith;_ _(vi)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to extent the benefit granted by this Hon'ble Court vide Exts.P6 and P7 judgments;_ WP(C).No.3800 OF 2022 3 _(vii)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to issue a certificate of environmental clearance endorsing/ revalidating the validity for the full duration of project life of the quarry of the petitioner.”_ 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a grantee of quarrying lease for an extent of 3.5588 hectares of land for a period of 8 years commencing from 24.04.2018 to 23.04.2026. It is submitted that the Environmental Clearance has also been granted to the petitioner which is valid for a period of 5 years from 23.01.2018. 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, WP(C).No.3800 OF 2022 4 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 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 8 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 2[nd] WP(C).No.3800 OF 2022 5 respondent has estimated the project life of the mine of the petitioner as about 8 years. However, the validity of Environmental Clearance granted to the petitioner on 23.01.2018, 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 projects to 5 years, is against the terms and spirit of the 2006 Notification. 6. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed WP(C).No.3800 OF 2022 6 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 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.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 WP(C).No.3800 OF 2022 7 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 six months from the date on which the SEIAA is duly reconstituted. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. **Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** SSK/04/02 WP(C).No.3800 OF 2022 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF QUARRYING Exhibit P1 LEASE DT.24.04.2018 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ENVIRONMENTAL Exhibit P2 CLEARANCE DATED 2301.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER, VALID FOR 5 YEARS. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINING Exhibit P3 PLAN OF THE PROPOSED QUARRY. TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 34TH MEETING OF Exhibit P4 THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY DATED 31.10.2014. TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 89TH MEETING OF Exhibit P5 THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY DATED 27TH FEBRUARY, 2020. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.11.2020 IN Exhibit P6 W.P.(C) NO.18929/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2021 IN Exhibit P7 W.P.(C) NO.29789/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** **SSK //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE**