High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of with time-bound direc...

Paramount Granites Odukoor v Union of India and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.877 OF 2020(H)

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

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

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 NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Others(2014) 6 SCC 590PositiveCited 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 793PositiveCited as a foundational decision underpinning the interim/directive framework.
Goa Foundation v. Union of India(2011) 15 SCC 791PositiveInterim order cited as part of the framework guiding the directions.
Common Judgment dated 18.12.2019 in WPC No. 28014/2019WPC No. 28014/2019PositiveRelied upon as it reflects similar directions adopted by this Court in related matter.

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 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.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 24TH POUSHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.877 OF 2020(H)** ## **PETITIONERS:** **PARAMOUNT GRANITES ODUKOOR, CHITTDI P.O. PALAKKAD 678 706, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGING PARTNER, VINU MANI.** **BY ADVS. 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 AREECKAL SMT.LEAH RACHEL NINAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**UNION OF INDIA**| |---|---| ||**MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS,**| ||**PARYAVARAN BHAVAN,**| ||**CGO COMPLEX, LODI ROAD,**| ||**NEW DELHI 110 003.**| |**2**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| ||**REPRESENTED TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**FOREST AND WILDLIFE (F0 DEPARTMENT,**| ||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.**| |**3**|**THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,**| ||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.**| |**4**|**THE CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN AND**| ||**PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,**| ||**FOREST HEADQUARTERS,**| ||**VAZHUTHACAUD,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.**| **WP(C).No.877 OF 2020(H)** **2** - **5 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTAM PALACE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.** - **6 THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, T. B. ROAD, PALAKKAD 678 014.** - **7 THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, MINIS CIVIL STATION, 1ST FLOOR, CHEMPOOKAVU, THRISSUR 680 020.** **SPL. GP SANDESH RAJA SRI. P.VIJAYAKUMAR ASG** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.877 OF 2020(H)** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 stop memo dated 19.09.2019 issued by the 7[th] respondent, calling upon the petitioner to obtain the Clearance from the Standing Committee for National Board for Wild Life. Similar kind of memos of prior date were challenged in this Court in various other writ petitions No.28014/2019 and other connected petitions and vide order dated 18.12.2019, this Court issued certain directions. The directions contained therein were issued in terms of the interim orders as well as judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in _**Goa Foundation v. Union of India and others**_ [(2014) 6 supreme Court cases 590] as well as _**Goa Foundation v. Union of India**_ [(2011) 15 Supreme Court Cases 793] and the case of the petitioner is also falling within the aforementioned parameters. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition with similar directions as contained in the judgment cited supra. This writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above judgment which is **WP(C).No.877 OF 2020(H)** **4** as under:- “a) Since the petitioner asserts that he is in possession of a mining lease prior to 18.05.2012 and therefore, not being obligated to obtain an Environmental clearance, the Government is directed to open a file in his name containing all other relevant documents, including the Mining Lease; and forward it to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change-recording therein that the petitioner has not obtained an Environmental Clearance for this reason-within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If, for any reason, any other germane documents are found wanting, the Government will be at liberty to ask the petitioner to make available all such before the Secretary, Environment Department, so that there will be no delay in forwarding the same by the Government within the period granted above without seeking further extension of time. b) The Government of Kerala will forthwith and within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment forward the Environmental Clearances, along with all other necessary papers, to the MoEF. If, for any reason, the necessary papers are found wanting, the Government will be at liberty to seek such from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), who will make the same available without any delay. I also leave liberty to the petitioner to make available his papers before the competent authority of the Government, which is stated to be the Secretary, Environment Department, for such purpose. I make it clear that the intent of this Court is that there shall be no delay in forwarding the papers and that the Government will be **WP(C).No.877 OF 2020(H)** **5** obligated to do so within the period granted herein, without seeking any further extension of time. c) On the files as ordered above reaching the MoEF, they will be obligated to place it before the Standing Committee within a period of one week from the date on which it is received, so as to enable the said authority to take a decision in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. d) The Standing Committee, on receiving the files as per the afore directions, will immediately process the files and make their recommendations, as per the interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goa Foundation ((2011) 15 SCC 791) and this shall be done not later than two months from the date on which they receive the files from the MoEF. e) The afore directions having been issued, I must also clarify that the stop memos issued by the Geologists will remain in force only during the period that I have fixed above and if there is any delay by any authority, be that the Government of Kerala or the MoEF or the Standing Committee, in complying with the afore directions, on the expiry of the cumulative period mentioned above, the said memos issued by the Geologists will become inoperative and the petitioner will, thereupon, be entitled to commence his activities as per the Environmental Clearances and the Mining Leases obtained by him. Needless to say, if, during the aforementioned period, the final notification is issued by the MoEF under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with respect to the Eco Sensitive Zones in Kerala, the interdiction as ordered above will stand vacated from that date and the petitioner will be entitled to operate his quarries depending upon the said notification and as per the stipulations therein. **WP(C).No.877 OF 2020(H)** **6** f) By way of a further clarification, I order that the afore directions and the operation of the stop memos will be only with respect to the petitioner's quarrying activities and that the operation of the stone crusher units, if any, as long as they are done in compliance with all necessary imperative and statutory conditions and as long as the raw material for the same is from other sources and not from the quarries in question, will not be covered by him, thereby to mean that he can continue to operate them, notwithstanding the stop memos issued by the Geologists, subject to further orders to be issued by the Standing Committee.“ **Sd/-** nak **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** **WP(C).No.877 OF 2020(H)** **7** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE NO. 61/2017 DATED 18.08.2017 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE D & O LICENSE ISSUED BY THE VANDAZHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT ON 1.4.2019 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 17.11.2017 WHICH IS VALID TILL 10.12.2020 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENSE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER ON15.11.2010 RENEWED DT. 10/4/2018.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY 10952/M3/2015/DMG DATED 9.3.2018 GRANTING QURRYING LEASE TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE DATED 4.4.2018 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONER WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT NOTIFICATION DATED 3.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.11.201 SENT BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS AND CLIME CHANGE(ESZ-DIVISION). EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19TH DECEMBER, 2017 ISSUED BY MINISTRY** **WP(C).No.877 OF 2020(H)** **8** **OF ENVIRONMENT, FORREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE TO THE STATE.** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 2.12.2009 ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST.** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 8.8.2019 ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE TO THE STATE.** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2019 RENDERED IN WPC NO. 28014/2019.** //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE