High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of the writ petition with directions m...

Shinto Abraham v. Director of Mining and Geology Directorate, et al.

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.38229 of 2018(C)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Amit Rawal
Judgment Date
2020-01-28
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is disposed of with directions similar to those in WP(C).No.26431/2019 and related matters, guided by Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2011) 15 SCC 793 and Goa Foundation v. Union of India and others (2014) 6 SCC 590. The court directed: (a) The Government of Kerala must open a file in the petitioner’s name with all relevant documents, including the Mining Lease, and forward it to MoEF within fifteen days, recording that the EC has not been obtained for this reason. (b) The Government must furnish the EC, along with other necessary papers, to MoEF within fifteen days; if any papers are missing, obtain them from SEIAA. (c) On receipt, MoEF will place the files before the Standing Committee within one week to facilitate a decision under Supreme Court directions. (d) The Standing Committee must process the files and make its recommendations not later than two months from receipt. (e) The stop memos will operate only for the fixed period; if delays occur, the memos become inoperative and the petitioner may commence activities in accordance with ECs and existing mining leases. (f) The operation of any crushers will be permissible only if the raw material does not come from the quarry in question. Additionally, the competent authority is directed to process Ext.P6 for quarrying lease, but this does not amount to granting a mining licence until completion of proceedings or expiry of the fixed period.
Final Disposition
Disposed of the writ petition with directions mirroring Goa Foundation precedents; directed government authorities to process the Ext.P6 quarrying lease application within a structured time-frame and to ensure forwarding of necessary environmental clearances, without granting a mining licence until proceedings are complete or the fixed period expires.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • SHINTO ABRAHAM

Respondents

  • THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTAM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004
  • ADDl.R2.MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110003. ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06/06/2019 IN IA.NO.1/2019 IN WPC 38229/2018
  • ADDl.R3.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY IS SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
  • THE NATIONAL BOARD OF WILD LIFE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, (WILD LIFE WING) MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, 3RD FLOOR, VAYU WING, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, JORBAGH ROAD, ALIGANJ, NEW DELHI-110003
  • THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA) KERALA
  • ADDl.R6.KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, BUILDING NO.27/166/13, KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR - 680020

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri.K.ANAND
  • • Sri.BENNY ANTONY PAREL
  • • Sri.T.M.MUHAMED HAFEES

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri.S.KANNAN, Government Pleader
  • • Sri.KRISHNADAS P.NAIR, CGC

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Shinto Abraham, approached the Kerala High Court seeking directions to process Ext.P6 for grant of a quarrying lease. The court disposed of WP(C) No. 38229 of 2018 by adopting the framework established in Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2011) 15 SCC 793 and Goa Foundation v. Union of India and others (2014) 6 SCC 590, directing the Government to ensure timely action while safeguarding the environmental governance process. The court held that the petitioner, who asserts possession of a mining lease prior to 18 May 2012, may not be automatically barred from mining without Environmental Clearance (EC), and directed the Government to open a file in the petitioner’s name with all relevant documents, including the Mining Lease, and forward it to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF). If any germane documents are missing, the Government may seek them. The MoEF is to place the file before the Standing Committee within a week of receipt to enable a decision in line with Supreme Court directions. The Standing Committee should process and make recommendations within two months from receiving the files. Stop memos by geologists will remain in force only for the fixed period, after which the petitioner may operate subject to ECs and leases. The court also directs processing of Ext.P6 for quarrying lease, but clarifies that this does not amount to granting a mining licence until proceedings are completed or period expires. The order emphasizes no delay in forwarding documents and compliance with requisite statutory conditions for crushers operating on non-quarry material.

Provisions of Law Cited

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that he holds a mining lease prior to 18 May 2012, and therefore argues he is not obligated to obtain an Environmental Clearance (EC). He seeks directions to open a file in his name with all necessary documents, including the mining lease, and to forward it to the MoEF with an explicit note that EC has not been obtained due to the pre-2012 lease status. The petitioner seeks timely processing of his Ext.P6 quarrying lease application and asserts that any delay should not defeat the lawful mining activity subject to statutory approvals.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents are urged to ensure compliance with environmental governance, to process the Ext.P6 application in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions and Goa Foundation precedents, and to secure the requisite ECs and environmental clearances for mining operations while safeguarding ecological considerations. They must coordinate between the State and Central authorities (MoEF, SEIAA) to avoid delay and to ensure that the petitioner's activities adhere to statutory conditions, including the environmental regime.”

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Goa Foundation v. Union of India(2011) 15 SCC 793PositiveThe judgment explicitly uses Goa Foundation as a guiding authority to frame procedural directions for timely processing of environmental clearances, reflecting supportive treatment.
Goa Foundation v. Union of India and others(2014) 6 SCC 590PositiveThe court relies on the 2014 Goa Foundation decision for interim orders and procedural directions consistent with environmental governance in mining lease cases.

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 Shinto Abraham v. Director of Mining and Geology Directorate, et al. 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 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 8TH MAGHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.38229 OF 2018(C)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SHINTO ABRAHAM AGED 48 YEARS** **S/O ABRAHAM ISSAC, ILLICKAL HOUSE NO.B/2, INDIRA NAGAR, DEVALOKAM, KOTTAYAM-686 004.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL SRI.T.M.MUHAMED HAFEES** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTAM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.** - **2 ADDL.R2.MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE,** **INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110003. ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06/06/2019 IN IA.NO.1/2019 IN WPC 38229/2018.** - **3 ADDL.R3.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY IS SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001** **4 THE NATIONAL BOARD OF WILD LIFE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, (WILD LIFE WING) MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, 3RD FLOOR, VAYU WING, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, JORBAGH ROAD, ALIGANJ, NEW DELHI-110003.** - **5 THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA) KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, K.S.R.T.C. BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.** **WP(C).No.38229 OF 2018(C)** **2** **6 ADDL.R6.KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, BUILDING NO.27/166/13, KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR - 680020. ADDL. R3 TO ADDL. R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.06.2019 IN IA 2/2019 IN WPC NO. 38229/2018.** **R1 BY SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 BY SRI.KRISHNADAS P.NAIR, CGC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.38229 OF 2018(C)** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions to the respondent to process Ext.P6 application for grant of quarrying lease. The writ petition can be disposed in the light of the directions passed in W.P.(C) No.26431/2019 and other connected petitions (2020 (1) KLT 109). 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** [(2011) 15 Supreme Court Cases 793] as well as **Goa Foundation v. Union of India and others** [(2014) 6 supreme Court cases 590] 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 of this Court cited supra, which is 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 **WP(C).No.38229 OF 2018(C)** **4** 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 **WP(C).No.38229 OF 2018(C)** **5** 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 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 793) 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 **WP(C).No.38229 OF 2018(C)** **6** 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. 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 **WP(C).No.38229 OF 2018(C)** **7** further orders to be issued by the Standing Committee.” In addition to the directions already issued by the Court, I direct the competent authority to process Ext.P6 application for quarrying lease preferred by the petitioner. But it do not tantamount to granting of the mining licence until the proceedings as aforesaid is completed or the period fixed as above expires. ## **Sd/-** **AMIT RAWAL** sab **JUDGE** **WP(C).No.38229 OF 2018(C)** **8** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE ORDERS B1-17435/2017/DEIAA/TSR DATED 29.5.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT NO.5550/M3/2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 30.8.2017.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED EXPLOSIVE LICENSE NO.E/SC/KL/22/1450(E67693)DATED 23.5.2018.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT NO.PCB/DO/TSR/F/ICO/7987/2018 DATED 11.6.2018. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.A4-394/18-19 DATED 27.6.2018. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.3.2017. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT NOTIFICATION NO.S O 3327(E) DATED 07.12.2015. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE A DRAFT NOTIFICATION SO 657(E) DATED 03.3.3016. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO.30042/2018 DATED 13.9.2018. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(P) NO, 25/2017 DATED 22.6.2017.**