Souhardha Charitable Club represented by its Treasurer Prasanth and others v. Union of India and others (WP(C) No. 34210 of 2016)

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.J.DESAI ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 34210 OF 2016`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - `1 SOUHARDHA CHARITABLE CLUB REPRESENTED BY TREASURER, PRASANTH,AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. BABU, THENOORAN HOUSE,ILLITHODE, MALAYATTOOR P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 587.` - `2 RAJENDRAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. RAJAPPAN,MADAPPURAM HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 587.` - `3 JOMON, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. DEVASSYKUTTY,THODUKULAM HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 587. BY ADVS. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD SRI.R.ANOOP SMT.A.GRANCY JOSE SRI.M.K.PRASANTH KUMAR` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS,PRAYAVARAN BHAVAN, CGO COMPLEX,LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003.` - `2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF MINE SAFETY,SOUTHERN ZONE, BENGALURU,KARANATAKA - 560 029.` - `3 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.` - `4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM - 682 035.` - `5 THE GEOLOGIST DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 035.` - `6 THE STATE ENVIKRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DEVIKRIPA,PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695 024.` ## **`WP(C) NO. 34210 OF 2016`** ``` -2- ``` - `7 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER MALAYATTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 587.` - `8 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,DISTRICT OFFICE, GANDHINAGAR,ERNAKULAM - 682 018.` - `9 MALAYATOOR NEELEESWARAM GRAMA PANCYAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,NEELEESWARAM P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 587.` - `10 MANOJ ANTONY AGED 44 YEARS, PUTHEN HOUSE,NEELEESWARAM, MALAYATTOOR P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 587.` - `11 JACOB PAUL AGED 52 YEARS, MADASSERY HOUSE,NEELEESWARAM P.O., KALADY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 587.` - `12 ASHIQ ALI ANDETH HOUSE, MEKKALADY, KALADY P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 587.` - `13 SHIBU P.M PULICKACHALI HOUSE, MALAYATOOR P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.` - `14 P.D.BABY PALATTY HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 587.` - `15 M.M.ABDUL AZIZ MUKKADA HOUSE, NEELEESWARAM P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 587.` - `16 K.C.BICIMON MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. ANUGRAHA METALS & SANDS PVT. LIMITED,MALAYATTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICTPIN - 683 587. BY ADVS. M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM - R12 SR.GP SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD - R8 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU – R10, R13 & R16 DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM – R11 & R 14 SRI.K.SHRI HARI RAO CGC -R1 & R2 K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) - R9 K.SUDHINKUMAR – R9` ## **`WP(C) NO. 34210 OF 2016`** ``` -3- ``` ``` SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) S.VIBHEESHANAN ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 34210 OF 2016 ``` ``` -4- ``` ## **JUDGMENT** ## **A.J.DESAI, C.J.** The present petition filed in the nature of public interest was filed in the year 2016, seeking the following reliefs: “I. To issue a writ of mandamus declaring that the land in which party respondents doing the quarry operations, are not fit for further quarrying operations since they are assigned for the agricultural purpose and direct the respondent authorities to stop all the illegal quarry operations of the respondents 10 to 16; II. To issue a writ of mandamus declaring that Exhibit P7 to P13 are invalid and inoperative for want of valid survey map as per the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 and to direct the 4[th] and 5[th] respondents to close down the respective quarries of the respondents 10 to 16 forthwith and to ensure that they are not being operated without following procedure contemplated in Rule 4(2)(c) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015; III. To issue a writ of mandamus declaring that the quarry operations conducted by the party respondents 10 to 16 are illegal and to direct the official respondents t stop all quarrying activity, in the absence of validly issued Environmental Clearance; ``` WP(C) NO. 34210 OF 2016 ``` ``` -5- ``` IV. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4[th] and 5[th] respondents to stop all mining operations carried out by the party respondents 10 to 16, forthwith if necessary, by seeking assistance of the police force. V. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 to 6 to prepare a strict regulatory frame work for reclamation of the mined out area of the party respondents within a time frame, at the expense of party respondents on basis of “Polluter Pays Principle”; VII. To issue a writ of mandamus declaring that the Caluse I (ii) of Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2013 (exhibit P19) is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable to the extent it categorises mining below 25 hectors as B2 category and to hold that mining irrespective of area shall be treated as B1 category; VIII. Issue a writ of mandamus declaring that the amended provisions in Rule 13 are arbitrary and unreasonable to extent it limits the scope of prohibition from the commencement of the 2015 Rules and to hold that the maximum period of 3 years fixed therein shall be counted from the date of original commencement of quarrying. IX. Issue such other writ, direction or order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.” ## 2. A Division Bench of this Court has passed an order on ## **`WP(C) NO. 34210 OF 2016`** ``` -6- ``` ## 04.07.2018, which reads as under: “Post this case on 26.7.2018, to enable the respondents 10 to 16 to file their counter affidavits, dealing with the averments in the writ petition. The 5[th] respondent Geologist shall also file a detailed counter affidavit giving the details of the lands, pertaining to the aforesaid respondents, wherein quarrying activities are being carried out. The affidavit shall also specify the nature of the land ie. as to whether it was assigned for a particular purpose or not, as also the nature of the quarrying activities carried out thereon, whether under cover of quarrying leases or quarrying permits.” ## 3. After hearing all concerned, a further interim order was passed on 26.07.2018 by the Division Bench, which reads as under: “The writ petition, which is filed as a Public Interest Litigation challenges the alleged illegal quarrying activities undertaken by respondents 10 to 16 in Malayattoor Village in Aluva Taluk in Ernakulam District. The contention in the writ petition is that the lands on which the quarrying activities are carried out by the said respondents are lands that were assigned to them in terms of the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules and hence cannot be used for any purpose other than the specific purpose for which they were assigned. ``` WP(C) NO. 34210 OF 2016 ``` ``` -7- ``` It is stated that, in as much as the assignment in these cases were for cultivation purposes, the said respondents cannot take shelter under any quarrying permit granted to them by the Government, for carrying on the said quarrying activity, since the prohibition envisaged under the Land Assignment Act and Rules is against the use of the land for purposes other than for which it was assigned. 2. Through a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 5[th] respondent, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 4.7.2018, it is brought to our notice that, from among respondents 10 to 16, respondent 12 is carrying on quarrying activities on Government land and hence the allegations in the writ petition with regard to the use of the land contrary to the terms of assignment may not apply to the said respondent. As regards the other respondents namely, 10 (Manoj Antony), 11 (Jacob Paul) and 13 to 16 (Shibu P.M., P.D.Baby, M.M.Abdul Aziz, K.C.Bicimon), it is stated that they were carrying on quarrying activities on the strength of quarrying permits issued to them in their respective lands which, as already noted, were lands assigned for the specific purpose of agricultural cultivation. Taking note of the said averments in the counter affidavit of the 5[th] respondent, as also the decision of this court in Jose v. State of Kerala [2018 (1) KLT 836], we are of the view ## **`WP(C) NO. 34210 OF 2016`** that an interim order restraining respondents 10, 11 and 13 to 16 from carrying on any quarrying activities in their respective lands, based on quarrying permits obtained from the State Government, is warranted. Accordingly, we direct that the said respondents shall not engage in any quarrying activity, pursuant to any permit obtained by the State Government, in the lands assigned to them for agricultural purposes, pending disposal of the writ petition.” 4. When the matter was called out today for hearing, learned Advocate Sri. Philip J. Vettickattu appearing for respondents 10, 13, 16 stated that the work of quarrying has been stopped and would not be carried out unless the said respondents are entitled in any rules, which may be framed by the Government hereinafter. 5. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in _**Raphy John v. Land Revenue Commissioner**_ , the same statement has been made by Sri. Geroge Abraham, learned Advocate appearing for respondents 11 and 14. Respondent No.15 is not represented by any Advocate. 6. As far as the 12[th] respondent is concerned, learned Advocate Sri. M.A. Abdul Hakkim states that, based on the observations made ## **`WP(C) NO. 34210 OF 2016`** ``` -9- ``` by the Division Bench on 26.07.2018, the quarrying activities was continued in the Government land and due to expiry of lease period, the same has been stopped. However, he has already applied for renewal of quarry lease. 7. In view of the above statements made by the learned Advocates, we close this petition. Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 and 13 to 16 may apply for fresh quarry lease, if any changes are made in the concerned rules. As far as respondent No.12 is concerned, the State authorities shall consider the application for renewal, in accordance with law. The writ petition is closed accordingly. ``` Sd/- ``` ``` A.J.DESAI ``` ## **`CHIEF JUSTICE`** ``` Sd/- ``` ``` V.G.ARUN JUDGE ``` uu 30.10.2023 ## **`WP(C) NO. 34210 OF 2016`** ``` -10- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34210/2016`** ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` |`PETITIONER`|`EXHIBITS`| |---|---| |`P1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION`| ||`CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER`| ||`13.12.2013 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH`| ||`TRANSLATION.`| |`P2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF`| ||`ASSOCIATION ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH`| ||`TRANSLATION.`| |`P3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED`| ||`19.3.2016 BY ONE OF THE LOCAL`| ||`INHABITANTS, THAT CONTAINS THE`| ||`ENDORSEMENT OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR`| ||`ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.`| |`P4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTAED 02.4.2016`| ||`SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,`| ||`MALAYATTOOR ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH`| ||`TRANSLATION.`| |`P5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 31.7.2015`| ||`OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR`| ||`ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRNASLATION.`| |`P6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED`| ||`08.7.2016, OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT,`| ||`ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.`| |`P7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 1.5.2016`| ||`ISSUED TO THE 10TH RESPONDET, OBTAINED`| ||`UNDER RTI ACT.`| |`P8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED`| ||`07.07.2016 ISSUED TO THE 11TH`| ||`RESPONDET, OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT.`| |`P9`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED`| ||`24.11.2015 ISSUED TO THE 12TH`| ||`RESPONDET, OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT.`| |`P10`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 265.2014`| ||`ISSUED TO THE 13TH RESPONDET, OBTAINED`| ||`UNDER RTI ACT.`| |`P11`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 18.4.2016`| ||`ISSUED TO THE 14TH RESPONDET, OBTAINED`| ||`UNDER RTI ACT.`| ## **`WP(C) NO. 34210 OF 2016`** ``` -11- ``` |`P12`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED`| |---|---| ||`16.12.2014 ISSUED TO THE 15TH`| ||`RESPONDET, OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT.`| |`P13`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED`| ||`08.06.2016 ISSUED TO THE 16TH`| ||`RESPONDET, OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT.`| |`P14`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED`| ||`06.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE`| ||`OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR IN RESPECT OF LAND`| ||`OF THE RESPONDENT NO.10, ALONG WITH ITS`| ||`ENGLISH TRANSLATION.`| |`P15`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED`| ||`29.6.2016 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE`| ||`OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR IN RESPECT OF LAND`| ||`OF THE RESPONDENT NO.11, ALONG WITH ITS`| ||`ENGLISH TRANSLATION.`| |`P16`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED`| ||`22.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE`| ||`OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR IN RESPECT OF LAND`| ||`OF THE RESPONDENT NO.14, ALONG WITH ITS`| ||`ENGLISH TRANSLATION.`| |`P17`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED`| ||`10.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE`| ||`OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR IN RESPECT OF LAND`| ||`OF THE RESPONDENT NO.15, ALONG WITH ITS`| ||`ENGLISH TRANSLATION.`| |`P18`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED`| ||`02.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE`| ||`OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR IN RESPECT OF LAND`| ||`OF THE RESPONDENT NO.16, ALONG WITH ITS`| ||`ENGLISH TRANSLATION.`| |`P19`|`TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM`| ||`DATED 24.12.2013.`| |`P20`|`TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF TH LIE AND`| ||`CONDITION OF ROADS.`| |`P21`|`TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE QUARRIES THAT`| ||`SHOW THEIR LIE AND DEPTH.`| |`P22`|`TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING DAMAGE CAUSED`| ||`TO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND WATER`| ||`TANK.`| |`P23`|`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ONE`| ``` WP(C) NO. 34210 OF 2016 ``` ``` -12- ``` ``` OF THE MASS COMPLAINTS DATED 23.3.2016, ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. P24TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.8.2016 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. P25TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.9.2016 BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MALAYATOOR, ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R5[A]COPY OF THE FORM OF PATTA IN LA 35/81 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA. EXHIBIT R5[B].COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 21101/2013 DATED 06.11.2014. ```