Souhrada Charitable Club v Union of India and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.38976 OF 2018(S)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 SOUHRADA CHARITABLE CLUB, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, AKHIL AUGUSTINE, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. AUGUSTINE, PADINJARETHIL HOUSE, ILLITHODE, MALAYATTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 587.** - **2 DINOOP M.V., AGED 24 YEARS TREASURER, SOUHARDHA CHARITABLE CLUB, S/O. VALSALAN, MANGALATHPARAMBIL HOUSE, ILLITHODE, MALAYATTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683587.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ABDUL JAWAD K. SMT.A.GRANCY JOSE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, PARAVARAN BHAVAN, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.** - **2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **3 THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, THAMPANUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** WP(C).No.38976 OF 2018(S) : 2 : - **4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 011.** - **5 THE DISTRICT LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (DEIAA), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN (DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM), CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 011.** - **6 THE DISTRICT LEVEL EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (DEAC) REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY AND GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM-682 011.** - **7 THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 011.** - **8 ABDUL JABBAR,** **MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. ANUGRAHA METALS AND SANDS PVT. LTD., MULAMKUZHI, MALAYATTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 587, RESIDING AT VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, EDATHALA P.O., ALUVA EAST (CHOONDI VILLAGE), ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM - 683 561.** **R1 BY ADV.SRI.PREMSHANKAR,CGC R2-7 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU R8 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU** **R8 BY ADV. SMT.ANEY PAUL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.38976 OF 2018(S) : 3 : ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 16th day of December 2019** ## **A.M.Shaffique, J.** This writ petition has been filed in the form of a public interest litigation, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs: “i. to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the 5[th] and 6[th] respondents have no jurisdiction to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 application of the 8[th] respondent after Ext.P10 order dated 13.9.2018 by the larger bench of NGT. ii. to issue a writ of mandamus, commanding the 5[th] respondent to stop all further proceedings on the application of the 8[th] respondent for grant of EC, as the 5[th] & 6[th] respondents lack jurisdiction to consider the same. iii. To issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the 3[rd] respondent has no legal authority to permit the DEIAA & DEAC to function without jurisdiction, in violation of Ext.P10 order of NGT. iv. to issue a writ of mandamus, declaring that the impact of all individual quarries operated on or after the date mentioned in the notification within a distance of 500 meters shall be considered as a cluster and the impact of all those quarries should be considered together and remediation etc. to be enforced considering the permissibility of the future mining on individual proposals. v. to direct the 6[th] respondent to reject the Ext.P5 application, for the reason of non-suitability of the land for quarrying and for the reason of suppression of material facts. WP(C).No.38976 OF 2018(S) : 4 : vi. In the alternative, direct the 5[th] and 6[th] respondents to hear on Exhibits - P8 & P11 objections of the petitioners in person, before passing final orders on Ext.P5 application.” 2. The petitioners grievance is regarding the grant of Environmental Clearance without conducting proper study. Petitioners point out that the 8[th] respondent is conducting illegal and unscientific quarrying operations. Reference is made to the all quarrying activities being conducted by the 8[th] respondent under the brand name Anugraha Metals and Sand Private Limited. It is stated that earlier when the petitioner approached this court by filing W.P.(C)No.34210 of 2016 alleging illegal quarrying activities, direction has been issued by this court to stop the illegal quarrying operations, conducted by 7 quarry operators. Ext.P3 is one such interim order. It is submitted that the 8[th] respondent has now submitted an application before the District Level Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC) seeking to grant Environmental Clearance for Resurvey No.272/1, 2 and 3 in Block 11 of Malayattoor village. The intention is to quarry an extent of 0.7520 hectares of land. The Mining Plan submitted by the 8[th] respondent before the District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) is produced as Exts.P5 and P6. According to the petitioner, he preferred a detailed objection against the grant of Environmental Clearance to the 8[th] respondent and Ext.P8 dated 4.9.2018 is the said objection. In the meantime, the National Green Tribunal passed orders in O.A.No.186 of 2016 considering the validity of the WP(C).No.38976 OF 2018(S) : 5 : litigation dated 15.1.2016 relegating the competent authority to grant Environmental Clearance in respect of certain category of industries. Ext.P10 is the order dated 13.9.2018 of the National Green Tribunal. It was, inter alia, held by the National Green Tribunal in the said interim order directing the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change to take appropriate steps to revise the procedure laid down in the impugned notification dated 15[th] January 2016 in terms of the directions issued by the Apex Court in **Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others (2012) 4 SCC 629** . According to the petitioner, in the light of the said order, respondents 5 and 6 has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications. It is in the said backdrop that this writ petition has been filed and the reliefs have been sought for. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by 8[th] respondent, they took up a contention that the land in respect of which the quarrying is proposed is still a Government puramboke land and was never assigned to any person and that the competent revenue authority had granted NOC, which is produced as Ext.R8(c). However, it is submitted that, after orders had been passed by the National Green Tribunal on 13.9.2018 and 11.12.2018, respondent had filed a fresh application before the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. The said application is pending consideration. There is a procedure to be followed by the said authority and once such procedure is followed there is no reason the WP(C).No.38976 OF 2018(S) : 6 : petitioner should be heard in the matter. It is also submitted that the petitioner had obtained other clearances and that the respondent had not suppressed any matter as alleged by the petitioner. 4. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to which, a rejoinder has also been filed. There is no dispute about the fact that as matters stand now neither District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) nor the District Level Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC) has any jurisdiction to grant Environmental Clearance. It is for the State Authority to decide the matter. The procedure for taking such a decision is by the competent authority, which is prescribed under Clause 8 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. When a detailed procedure had already been prescribed by the authority, necessarily said procedure requires to be followed by the State authority as well, including all relevant factors. As far as hearing of the third party is concerned, no such procedure is required to be followed by the rules. Under such circumstances, the claim of the petitioners that they should also be heard in the matter cannot be sustained. Insofar as the substantial contention of the petitioner has already been taken note, on account of the fact that the 8[th] respondent had filed fresh application before the State authority, nothing further survives to be considered in the present writ petition. In the said circumstances, we do not think that any directions are required to be passed in the present writ WP(C).No.38976 OF 2018(S) : 7 : petition. However, nothing prevents the petitioner from challenging any such Environmental Clearance being granted on valid grounds before the appropriate forum. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. SD/- **S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** SD/- **A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE** jes WP(C).No.38976 OF 2018(S) : 8 : ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER, DATED 13/12/2013 WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. - EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SATELLITE PICTURE OF THE SAID VILLAGE FROM THE GOOGLE EARTH. - EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/07/2018 IN WPC NO.34210/2016 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 26/12/16, SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM IM APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PARTY RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINING PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PARTY RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TIME LINE DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 04/09/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH AND 6TH RESPONDENTS. - EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 04/09/2018, FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S OFFICE, WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. - EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 04/09/2018, FROM THE 6TH RESPONDENT'S OFFICE, WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. - EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/09/2018 BY THE NGT. - EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL OBJECTION DATED 09/11/2018, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS. - EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 09/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. - EXHIBIT P11 B TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 09/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. - EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 31/07/2018, APPEARED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY, WITH ITS TRANSLATION. WP(C).No.38976 OF 2018(S) : 9 : - EXHIBIT P13 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE QUARRY LAND OF THE PARTY RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONS DATED 24/03/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE AREA BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT, WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. - EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/10/2018, BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT INTIMATED THE PETITIONERS THAT THEY WILL CONSIDER THEIR OBJECTION, WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. - EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION, DATED 14/3/2017 OF THE MOEF. - EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE EC DATED 02/02/2016, FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ## RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: - EXHIBIT R8 J TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. - EXHIBIT R8 K TRUE COPY OF NOC ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MALAYATTUR AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE