Paramount Granites Odukoor v Union of India and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Amit Rawal
- Judgment Date
- 2020-01-14
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition disposed of with directions. The Government must open a file in the petitioner’s name and forward all pertinent documents, including the mining lease, to the MoEF within 15 days. The Kerala Government must forward ECs to the MoEF within 15 days. The MoEF shall place the files before the Standing Committee within one week of receipt, and the Standing Committee must process and make its recommendations within two months, in line with interim orders in Goa Foundation cases. The stop memos will remain in force only for the fixed period; if there is delay, the petitioner may commence activities in accordance with EC and the mining lease; if ESZ notifications are issued, the interdiction shall be vacated from that date. The operation of stone crusher units will be governed by compliance with all conditions and external sourcing of raw material, not from the quarries in question, subject to further orders.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of with time-bound directions to forward EC-related papers to MoEF and to Standing Committee; stop memos remain in force for the fixed period; quarry operations may continue subject to EC and lease conditions; ESZ notifications, if any, will vacate the interdiction from the specified date; stone crusher operations not to be affected if they source material from outside and comply with conditions.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- PARAMOUNT GRANITES ODUKOOR, CHITTDI P.O. PALAKKAD 678 706, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGING PARTNER, VINU MANI.
Respondents
- UNION OF INDIA
- STATE OF KERALA
- THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
- THE CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN AND PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.
- THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTAM PALACE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.
- THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, T. B. ROAD, PALAKKAD 678 014.
- THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, MINIS CIVIL STATION, 1ST FLOOR, CHEMPOOKAVU, THRISSUR 680 020.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • SRI. SANTHOSH MATHEW
- • SRI. ARUN THOMAS
- • SRI. JENNIS STEPHEN
- • SRI. VIJAY V. PAUL
- • SMT. KARTHIKA MARIA
- • SRI. ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
- • SMT. DIVYA SARA GEORGE
- • SMT. JAISY ELZA JOE
- • SHRI. ABI BENNY AREEKAL
- • SMT. LEAH RACHEL NINAN
Counsels for Respondents
- • SPL. GP SANDESH RAJA
- • SRI. P. VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG
Case Synopsis & Summary
Paramount Granites Odukoor, a quarry operator in Palakkad, challenged Ext.P7 stop memo dated 19.09.2019 which directed the petitioner to obtain clearance from the Standing Committee for the National Board for Wildlife before continuing mining operations. The petitioners contended they hold a mining lease in force prior to 18.05.2012 and therefore were not obligated to obtain Environmental Clearance (EC). They relied on the Goa Foundation line of cases (Goa Foundation v Union of India (2011) 15 SCC 793; (2014) 6 SCC 590) and the interim/Supreme Court directives to press for expedited processing of ECs and related documents. The court, invoking those precedents, disposed of the writ petition with directions to implement a time-bound process: the Government must open a file in the petitioner’s name and forward it, with all relevant documents including the mining lease, to the MoEF within fifteen days; if documents are lacking, the Government may seek them without delay. The MoEF must review and place the file before the Standing Committee within one week of receipt; the Standing Committee must complete its recommendations within two months. Stop memos will remain in force only for the fixed period; subject to timely compliance and potential ESZ notifications, the petitioner may operate subject to EC and lease conditions. Stone crusher units operating with material from other sources and in compliance with conditions remain unaffected.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners challenge Ext.P7 stop memo dated 19.09.2019 requiring Environmental Clearance (EC) from the Standing Committee for the National Board for Wildlife. They assert they hold a mining lease in force prior to 18.05.2012 and therefore are not obliged to obtain EC. They rely on Goa Foundation v Union of India (2011) 15 SCC 793 and (2014) 6 SCC 590, and seek directions to the Government to open a file in their name and forward all documents to the MoEF within 15 days, so that EC and necessary papers can be placed before the Standing Committee within the stipulated time. They request prompt action and the removal of delay in processing. They also contend that mining operations should continue subject to compliance with statutory conditions and that stone-crusher activities may proceed only with non-quarry material and under applicable conditions.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend that quarrying activities require EC under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and that the Government must forward EC-related papers to the MoEF for consideration by the Standing Committee. They emphasize the need to adhere to this Court’s directions rooted in Goa Foundation decisions, to ensure timely processing, and state that the stop memos are in force only for the period fixed by the Court. They also clarify that ESZ notifications, if issued, will vacate the interdiction from that date.
Cited Precedents (4)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Others | (2014) 6 SCC 590 | Positive | Cited and relied upon to justify the directions directing expedited processing of environmental clearances in mining/quarrying cases. |
| Goa Foundation v. Union of India | (2011) 15 SCC 793 | Positive | Cited as a foundational decision underpinning the interim/directive framework. |
| Goa Foundation v. Union of India | (2011) 15 SCC 791 | Positive | Interim order cited as part of the framework guiding the directions. |
| Common Judgment dated 18.12.2019 in WPC No. 28014/2019 | WPC No. 28014/2019 | Positive | Relied upon as it reflects similar directions adopted by this Court in related matter. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Paramount Granites Odukoor v Union of India and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.