High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-01-17Writ petition disposed of; EC validity to be me...

MTR MOONADI QUARRY v STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA) & STATE LEVEL EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (SEAC)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.1454 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: ANU SIVARAMAN
Judgment Date: 2022-01-17
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P5 Environmental Clearance is invalid to the extent it limits validity to five years. The regulatory bodies must call for additional recommendations from the Appraisal Committee after estimating the life of the project and revalidate the EC for the period corresponding to the project life, allowing for information requests if needed. If recommendations differ, regulators may follow Clause 8 of the 2006 Notification. SEIAA is to be reconstituted within three months, and the petition is disposed of accordingly.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; EC validity to be measured against project life with revalidation and possible reconstitution of SEIAA within three months as directed by the court; life of the project to be determined per Clause 8 of the 2006 Notification if needed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

MTR MOONADI QUARRY

Respondents

State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T. P. Sajid Shifa Latheef

Counsels for Respondents

• Standing Counsel (SEIAA/SEAC)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, MTR Moonadi Quarry, sought a writ directing that the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted for the quarry be valid for the entire life of the mine as estimated by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), approximately 12 years. The EC dated 01.12.2017 was made valid for five years, and the petitioner contends this duration is inconsistent with the 2006 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, which mandates EC validity for the project life. The petitioner relies on the Kerala High Court decision in T. Mathew Abraham v. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (supra) to assert that mining ECs must align with the life of the project and should not be truncated to five years. The respondents (SEIAA/SEAC) argued that the SEIAA’s term had expired and that ECs can be limited by regulatory processes; they also faced the practical challenge of reconstitution. The court held Ext.P5 EC invalid to the extent it limits the period to five years, and disposed of the petition by directing the regulatory bodies to call for additional information and to revalidate the EC after estimating the project life. It directed SEIAA to reconstitute within three months and allowed the Appraisal Committee to make non-binding recommendations while adhering to Clause 8 of the 2006 Notification if needed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 – Clause 9(i)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner contends EC validity must be for the life of the mine as estimated by the Expert Appraisal Committee, about 12 years. The EC granted on 01.12.2017 is valid for five years, which contradicts the 2006 EIA Notification and the life of the project. Citing T. Mathew Abraham v. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (2020) 6 KLT 302, the petitioner argues that limiting EC to five years defeats the scheme of the notification. The petitioner seeks re-validation of Ext.P5 for the full project life, with possible extension up to 30 years under Clause 9(i). The Appraisal Committee should be asked to re-evaluate and may call for additional information; the regulator may follow Clause 8 if needed to determine the project life.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that SEIAA’s term had expired and that reconstitution is pending; they argue that EC validity can be limited according to statutory frameworks and practical regulatory considerations; the court should not prematurely alter the EC period but may direct reconstitution and re-evaluation after life estimation. The court’s order emphasizes that SEIAA must be reconstituted within three months and that the Appraisal Committee’s recommendations are advisory, with regulators retaining discretion under Clause 8 of the 2006 Notification.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
T. Mathew Abraham v. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority	2020 (6) KLT 302	Positive	Cited as the controlling authority for holding that mining ECs must be for the life of the project and not five years, aligning with the 2006 Notification.
Deepak Kumar & OTHERS v. State of Haryana & Others	2012 4 SCC 629	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P8 cited; not directly relied upon in the reasoning for the present decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 MTR MOONADI QUARRY v STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA) & STATE LEVEL EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (SEAC) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 27TH POUSHA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 1454 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** MTR MOONADI QUARRY S.NO 40 VELLIYANCHERRY PO, MOONADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679326, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR AYOOBKHAN K., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, KIZHISSERI HOUSE, VELLIYANCHERI PO, MALAPPURAM-679326. BY ADVS. T.P.SAJID SHIFA LATHEEF ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA) 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL BUILDING, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685001, 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 17.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.1454 OF 2022 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 17[th] day of January, 2022** This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- _(i)To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, declaring that Exts.P6 and P7 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 respondents. WP(C).No.1454 OF 2022 3 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a grantee of quarrying lease for an extent of 1.3760 hectares of land for a period of 10 years commencing from 12.02.2018 to 11.02.2028. It is submitted that the Environmental Clearance has also been granted to the petitioner which is valid for a period of 5 years from 01.12.2017. 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.P5 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 WP(C).No.1454 OF 2022 4 estimated by the respondents. The life of the mine as estimated by the respondents is 12 years. Therefore, Ext.P5 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.P5 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 01.12.2017, 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** WP(C).No.1454 OF 2022 5 ## **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.P5 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 WP(C).No.1454 OF 2022 6 Committee after estimating the life of the project of the petitioner in respect of Ext.P5 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 this judgment. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing WP(C).No.1454 OF 2022 7 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/17/01 WP(C).No.1454 OF 2022 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE Exhibit P1 DATED 8.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED Exhibit P2 12.2.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY OF THE MINING PLAN APPROVED BY THE Exhibit P3 GEOLOGIST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT DATED 21.6.2017. TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.E/SE/KL/22/110/ Exhibit P4 (E-84758) DATED 29.1.2019 FROM THE PETROLEUM & EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANIZATION (PESO). TRUE COPY OF ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE BEARING Exhibit P5 NO.23/2017 DATED 1.12.2017. TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 34TH MEETING OF Exhibit P6 THE SEIAA HELD ON 31.10.2014. TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 89TH MEETING OF Exhibit P7 THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY DATED 27TH FEBRUARY, 2020. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN DEEPAK KUMAR & OTHERS Exhibit P8 VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS REPORTED IN 2012 4 SCC 629. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.11.2020 PASSED Exhibit P9 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.23578/2020. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.4.2021 Exhibit P10 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.10880/2021. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12.1.2022. **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** **SSK //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE**