High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2023-02-21Writ petition disposed of; no relief granted; p...

Subramanyan E.K v Union of India and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 8425 OF 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: S. Manikumar
Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2023-02-21
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of; nothing survives as against the relief sought. The court held that Rule 9 of the 2015 Rules, read with the EIA Notification, 2006, and the related decisions, require EC before quarrying and renewal, and thus no further relief can be granted in this petition.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; no relief granted; petition considered resolved in light of Rule 9 and EIA/NOC requirements.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Subramanyan E.K

Respondents

Union of India represented by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Pariyawaran Bhavan, New Delhi
State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Mining & Geology, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Director of Mining Geology, Directorate of Mining & Geology, Kesavadasapuram, Pattam Palace P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Member Secretary, Pattom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Gandhi Nagar, Ernakulam
District Collector, Ernakulam, Civil Station, Kakkanad
Geologist, District Office, Department of Mining & Geology, Kakkanadu P.O., Kochi
Ayyampuzha Grama Panchayath represented by its Secretary

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A. X. Varghese
• A. V. Jojo

Counsels for Respondents

• T. V. Vinu
• Tek Chand V.
• T. Naveen
• K. S. Arunkumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, a public-spirited individual, seeks writs directing the respondents to strictly implement the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, and to ensure that quarrying operations proceed only with Environmental Clearance (EC). He seeks cancellation of quarry leases and permits issued without EC, personal liability on officials for renewals granted without EC, and a mandate that no quarrying occur without proper licenses and EC, with compensation under polluter-pay principles for affected citizens. The petitioner relies on Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 4 SCC 629, which held that leases/renewals for minor minerals in areas under 5 hectares require EC, and notes Kerala’s amendments via the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. During proceedings, counsel for the State highlighted Rule 9 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, which requires site inspections, mining plans, and EC before granting/renewing quarry permits, with certain exceptions. The court also cites a common judgment in W.A. Nos. 2034 of 2015 and connected matters, and the SLP No. 30103 of 2015 (decided 02.12.2016), indicating that writ appeals were dismissed. Ultimately, the Division Bench observes that Rule 9, along with statutory provisions, renders the petition without continuing relief and disposes of it, reiterating EC as a prerequisite for quarrying and related operations.

Provisions of Law Cited

Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015Rule 9, Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Polluter pays principle
Environmental clearance as a precondition for quarrying operations

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the respondents have a duty to protect the environment by enforcing the EIA Notification, 2006, and to stop quarry operations lacking EC. Citing Deepak Kumar (2012) and Kerala decisions, he argues that minor mineral leases/renewals must obtain EC and that quarries be permanently halted without proper EC, with personal accountability for officials who permit operations without EC. He seeks immediate stop memos and compensation to affected citizens, invoking polluter-pays principles.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argue that Rule 9 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 embeds EC requirements and site-inspection procedures, and thus the EC prerequisite is already integrated in the regulatory framework. They rely on the common judgment in W.A. Nos. 2034 of 2015 and the SLP No. 30103 of 2015 (decided 02.12.2016) to justify ongoing compliance and disposal of the petition. They contend that the petition is moot since the statutory prerequisites have been satisfied for permits and that further relief is unwarranted.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Deepak Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others	(2012) 4 SCC 629	Positive	Established that EC is required for lease/renewal of minor minerals in areas under 5 hectares, guiding the EC requirement in Kerala’s rules.
All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala	2015 (3) KLT 78	Positive	Cited as supportive precedent in reinforcing EC obligations under the regulatory framework.
Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya Samithy and another v. State of Kerala and others	—	Positive	Cited as supportive precedent relating to environmental protection principles and EC/EIA considerations.
W.A. Nos.2034 of 2015	W.A. No. 2034 of 2015	Positive	Referenced as a common judgment supporting relevant appeals and principles in related matters.
SLP No.30103 of 2015	SLP No. 30103 of 2015	Positive	Supreme Court decision cited as controlling in dismissing writ appeals in related matters.

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 Subramanyan E.K 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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN** **TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 8425 OF 2016** ## **PETITIONER:** **SUBRAMANYAN E.K AGED 40 YEARS ENJERIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AANAPPARA P.O., ELAVANTHY, MANJAPRA PANCHAYATH, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS, PARIYAWARAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN 110 001.** - **2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **4 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE OF MINING GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTAM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.** - **5 STATEOF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** **WP(C) NO. 8425 OF 2016 ..2..** - **6 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD MEMBER SECRETARY, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.** - **7 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER** **THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM 682 020.** - **8 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR** - **ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN 682 030.** - **9 THE GEOLOGIST DISTRICT OFFICE** - **DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU P.O., KOCHI 682 030.** - **10 AYYAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH** - **AYYAMPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 581, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **BY ADVS.** **R1 BY SHRI.T.V.VINU, CGC** **SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TEK CHAND V.** **R 6 & 7 SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, R 10 BY SRI. K.S.ARUNKUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 8425 OF 2016 ..3..** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **S. Manikumar, C.J.** The petitioner sought for the following reliefs: (i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to implement the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006, strictly and in accordance with directions contained in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in _**Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana**_ reported in (2012) 4 SCC 629 and the subsequent judgment of this Court in _**All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala**_ [2015 (3) KLT 78] and _**The Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya Samithy and another v. State of Kerala and others.**_ (ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3[rd] respondent to cancel all the Quarry Leases and Quarrying Permits issued by it, without obtaining the Environmental Clearance, as envisaged under the EIA Notification, 2006; (iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction, fixing personal liability to the concerned respondents for its failure in issuing and renewing of Quarry Leases and issuing and renewing of the Consent to Operate without obtaining the Environmental Clearance and allowing such units to operate after the EIA Notification, 2006 **WP(C) NO. 8425 OF 2016 ..4..** came into force and for the consequent degradation caused to the Mineral Deposits of the State; (iv) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents to ensure that no quarrying operations are undertaken by anyone with proper and valid licenses and consent and permit from the concerned authorities as provided under law. (v) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents to pay compensation to the affected citizens in State of Kerala due to the illegal quarrying operations under public law in view of the "polluter pay principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court; 2. Short facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that, petitioner is a public spirited person, who approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to issue stop memo forthwith to all the quarry operators extracting mineral under it, who are issued with/renewed the Quarry Lease without having the Environmental Clearance as envisaged under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. **WP(C) NO. 8425 OF 2016 ..5..** 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents, who are bound to protect the environment and ecology, are siding with the operators of illegal quarry and permitting them to exploit mines and minerals indiscriminately. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Deepak Kumar and Others** v. **State of Haryana and Others** [(2012) 4 SCC 629], in which, it was held that lease of minor mineral, including their renewal thereof, for an area of less than 5 hectares, be granted by the State/Union Territories, only after getting environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. On the basis of the said direction, Government of Kerala has amended the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. 5. When this matter came up for consideration today, Mr. V. Tek Chand, learned Senior Government Pleader, ## **WP(C) NO. 8425 OF 2016 ..6..** invited the attention of this Court to the common judgment in W.A. Nos.2034 of 2015 and connected cases dated 07.12.2016. 6. Mr. Tek Chand submitted that in view of the judgment in SLP No.30103 of 2015 and connected matters, decided on 02.12.2016, all the writ appeals were dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. 7. By inviting attention of this Court to the prayers sought for and Rule 9 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that the requirement of Environmental Clearance before undertaking quarrying operations, as contemplated under the EIA Notification, 2006, has been incorporated in Rule 9 of the rules, which reads as under: “9. Disposal of application for the grant of quarrying permit.— (1) On receipt of the application for grant of quarrying permit for undertaking quarrying operations, the competent authority shall make site inspection and take decision regarding the precise area to be **WP(C) NO. 8425 OF 2016 ..7..** granted for the said purpose and intimate the applicant to submit approved mining plan and Environmental Clearance for the precise area: Provided that, approved mining plan and environmental clearance shall not be insisted, for the issuance and renewal of permits in the case of Laterite Building Stone. (2) On receipt of an approved mining plan and Environmental Clearance for the precise area and on production of all other statutory licenses/clearances/ No Objection Certificate etc. from other statutory authorities concerned, the competent authority shall issue a quarrying permit to the applicant within thirty days in Form N for ordinary earth and in Form M for all other minor minerals. Having regard to the above and taking note of the common judgment in W.A. No.2034 of 2015 & connected cases dated 07.12.2016, and also the statutory provisions, nothing survives in this writ petition and accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- **S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SBxxxx **WP(C) NO. 8425 OF 2016 ..8..** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8425/2016** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1: PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE QUARRYING UNIT OF THE SAID JOSEPH** **EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.5.2015.** **EXT.P2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2.** **EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.06.2015.** **EXT.P3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.11.2015.** **EXT.P4(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P4** **EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DARTED 17/11/2015.** **EXT.P5(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P5 EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL.** **EXT.P6(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P6** **EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF TH DECISION OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 4/12/2015.** **EXT.P7(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P7** **EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL.** **EXT.P8(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P8** **EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN DSHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 22.1.2016.** **EXT.P9(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P9 EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20/11/2015.** **WP(C) NO. 8425 OF 2016 ..9..** **EXT.P10(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P10** **EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE WEB SITE OF 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF QUARRIES IN ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 6.5.2015.** **EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 7/7/2015.** **EXT.P14(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P14.** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL**