Shinto Abraham v. Director of Mining and Geology Directorate, et al.
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
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 Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goa Foundation v. Union of India | (2011) 15 SCC 793 | Positive | The 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 590 | Positive | The court relies on the 2014 Goa Foundation decision for interim orders and procedural directions consistent with environmental governance in mining lease cases. |
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 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.