Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.14072 OF 2020(H)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **TOMY THOMAS, AGED 54 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, PULICKAL HOUSE, KALATHUKADAVU (PO), ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM 686 579. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY**| |---|---| ||**(SIEAA, KERALA )**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, KSRTC BUS**| ||**TERMINAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, THAMPANUR,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.**| |**2**|**THE MEMBER SECRETARY,**| ||**STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY,**| ||**(SEIAA, KERALA),**| ||**KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, THAMPANUR,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.**| |**3**|**THE KERALA STATE LEVEL EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE**| ||**(SEAC),**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,**| ||**THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY**| ||**(SEIAA, KERALA),**| ||**KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, THAMPANUR,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.**| ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI M P SREEKRISHNAN SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -:2:- **WP(C).No.14072 OF 2020(H)** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -----------------------------------W.P(C) No.14072 of 2020 -----------------------------------** Dated this the 10[th] day of August, 2020 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows: _The petitioner was operating a quarry for mining building stones from 0.3040 hectares of land comprised in Survey No. 248/4pt of Erattupetta Village in Meenachil Taluk of Kottayam District during 2007 to 2019 upon obtaining all statutory licenses from all concerned departments and also based on a quarrying lease executed between the State Government and the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. After the Apex Court has passed the order reported in_ _**2012 (4) SCC 629** (Deepak Kumar and Others vs. State of Haryana & Others), the Panchayat failed to renew the D & O License for the quarry of the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner obtained Environmental Clearance vide Exhibit P5 on 04.03.2016 having validity upto 03.03.2021. Even though the petitioner produced the same before the Panchayat, they failed to renew/grant afresh D & O License for the quarry of the petitioner raising environmental issues. This led to various litigations before this Court ultimately culminating in the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in_ _**2019 (3) KLT 987** (Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala). In the meantime the business rivals of the petitioner influenced the Sub Inspector of Police, Erattupetta and he issued Exhibit P18 letter to the first respondent based on which Exhibit P9 stop memo was issued by the first respondent to the petitioner. The same was also challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 31684_ ## -:3:- ## **WP(C).No.14072 OF 2020(H)** _of 2016. The Full Bench of this Court after answering the reference in its decision reported in 2019 (3) KLT 987 sent back the writ petitions to the learned Single Judge to decide the issue in the light of the Full Bench decision. The Learned Single Judge after considering all the writ petitions together disposed of W.P.(C) No.31684 of 2016 vide Exhibit P10 judgment directing the first respondent to finalise proceedings on Exhibit P9 stop memo after affording opportunity of hearing to all stake holders concerned within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Thereafter the first respondent considered the issue in its meeting held on 21[st] and 22[nd] November 2019 and heard all the stake holders in its meeting held on 23[rd] and 24[th] December, 2019 and directed the third respondent to conduct a site visit as to whether there were violations of the conditions laid down in Exhibit P5 Environmental Clearance while carrying out quarrying operations by the petitioner for a period of four months in the light of the interim order of this Court passed vide Exhibit P7. Instead of ascertaining whether there were violations as stated by the Sub Inspector in Exhibit P18 letter issued to the first respondent, the third respondent in its meeting held on 2[nd] , 3[rd] and 4[th] June, 2020 made a report to the first respondent vide Exhibit P16 to direct the petitioner to carry out the impact on all structures within a radius of 3 kilometers of the quarry of the petitioner, which according to the petitioner cannot be conducted during the currency of Exhibit P5. This fact is also known to respondents 1 to 3 while passing the direction contained in Exhibit P16 and also the one in Exhibit P17._ -:4:- **WP(C).No.14072 OF 2020(H)** It is in the light of these factual averments, that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) seeking the following reliefs: - _“I) Call for the records relating to Exhibit P16 regarding the petitioner and Exhibit P17 issued by the respondents 3 and 1 respectively and issue a writ of certiorari and quash the same;_ - _II) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to finalise Exhibit P9 proceedings in compliance of Exhibit P10 judgment passed by this Honourable Court and also based on the hearing conducted by the first respondent in its meeting held on 21st and 22nd November, 2019 as evident from Exhibit P12 minutes and 23rd and 24th December, 2019 as is evident from Exhibit P13 minutes of the first respondent; and_ - _III) Issue such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deems fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.”_ 2. Heard Sri.Jobi Jose Kondody, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, appearing for the respondents. 3. The present writ proceedings appear to be the sixth writ litigative proceedings initiated by the petitioner in relation to conduct of his quarry. Shorn of the details, the core of the case to the extent it is relevant for the present purpose is that the petitioner has already secured Ext.P-6 quarrying lease issued by the respondent-State Government authorities, statutory consent of the Pollution Control Board as well as explosives licence from the competent authority concerned (Joint Chief Controller of Explosives) and he has also obtained Ext.P-5 Environmental Clearance dated 4.3.2016 issued by the respondents. The formal licence to be issued by the Panchayat authorities concerned has not been issued to **WP(C).No.14072 OF 2020(H)** ## -:5:- the petitioner which constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.15505/2016, in which this Court had initially granted interim order permitting the petitioner to function the quarry even though the Panchayath authorities has not formally issued the licence to the petitioner's Unit. The learned Single Judge had referred the W.P.(C). No.15505/2016 to the Division Bench as per Ext.P-8 reference order dated 20.9.2016 and also directed that until the matter is decided by the Division Bench, the petitioner may not function the quarry. Later, the Division Bench of this Court had referred the matter for consideration of the Full Bench. The Full Bench of this Court has made authoritative pronouncement as per judgment dated 30.8.2019 in W.P.(C).No. 15505/2016 [reported in _**Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala**_ , 2019 (3) KLT 987 (FB)] and it was held that once the statutory regulatory authorities concerned like the Mining and Geology Department, State Pollution Control Board, Explosives Licencing authority, State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, etc., grants the necessary permission/consent/licence to the quarrying operator, then in view of the amendments made to the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 and the amended provisions of the Rules framed thereunder, the local body concerned like the Panchayath does not have any significant discretion to refuse the grant of the formal licence to run the quarrying unit, etc. The Full Bench of this Court had -:6:- **WP(C).No.14072 OF 2020(H)** thus answered the reference in question and had remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge. 4. Earlier the Sub Inspector of Police concerned had sent Ext.P-18 letter dated 16.7.2016 addressed to the 1[st] respondent herein that the petitioner has operated the quarry in violation of the terms and conditions of Ext.P-5 Environmental Clearance, etc. Pursuant to the said complaint as per Ext.P-18, the 1[st] respondent has issued Ext.P-9 stop memo dated 22.9.2016 directing the petitioner to stop the quarrying operations pending examination of the said complaint made out as per Ext.P-18. After the rendering of the reference order by the Full Bench and consequent to the remit, the learned Single Judge of this Court has rendered Ext.P-10 common judgment dated 4.10.2019 in the aforesaid W.P.(C). No.15505/2016 as well as in two other Writ Petitions, viz, W.P. (C). No.31684/2016 filed by the petitioner challenging the stop memo dated 22.9.2016 issued by the 1[st] respondent as per Ext.P-9 herein and W.P.(C).No.25529/2019 filed by an objector. This Court as per Ext.P-10 common judgment dated 4.10.2019 in all the abovesaid three Writ Petitions including the matter, which was remitted by the Full Bench in W.P.(C). No.15505/2016 had ordered that the respondent-Panchayath authorities should consider the application of the petitioner for licence as per the provisions contained in the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and rules framed thereunder and take a decision thereon strictly in accordance with the -:7:- ## **WP(C).No.14072 OF 2020(H)** legal principles laid down by the Full Bench in which the petitioner herein was the petitioner therein ( _Tomy Thomas_ ). This Court as per Ext.P-10 judgment also directed that the 1[st] respondent herein should finalise action contemplated as per the stop memo dated 22.9.2016 as per Ext.P-9 herein as well as the abovesaid objector and all other stakeholders including the the Centre for Earth Science Studies, the report drawn up by the said organisation in respect of the area concerned in which the quarry is situated, the plans under the Disaster Management Act, etc., within a time limit of 3 months mentioned in the said judgment. The operative portion of Ext.P-10 judgment contained in para 9 thereof (on pages 11 & 12 thereof) reads as follows: _“9. W.P.(C) Nos.31684 of 2016 and 25529 of 2019 are disposed of, with direction to the Kerala State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Thiruvananthapuram i.e., the 2nd respondent to finalize the proceedings pertaining to Ext.P11 stop memo dated 22.09.2016, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, petitioners in W.P.(C) No.25529 of 2019, 8th respondent in W.P.(C) No.31684/2016, i.e., K.G. Anilkumar, Convenor, Kizhakkemala Protection Council, Secretary of the Grama Panchayat and all other stakeholders including Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS), the report drawn by the said organization in respect of the area in which the quarry is situated, the plans prepared under the Disaster Management Act, i.e., National Plan, State Plan and the District Plan and all other inputs available and produced by the petitioners and the interested persons, and attain finality at the earliest, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”_ Now consequent to the directions issued by this Court as per Ext.P-10 judgment, the Panchayath has again refused formal licence to the petitioner which was interdicted by this Court as per Ext.P-15 judgment dated 27.5.2020 in W.P.(C).No.5897/2020 filed by the petitioner herein. **WP(C).No.14072 OF 2020(H)** -:8:- This Court as per Ext.P-15 judgment in the said Writ Petition has ordered that in case the respondent-State environment Impact Assessment Authority takes decision in favour of the petitioner on the matters regarding the issuance of the stop memo in respect of the Environmental Clearance, then the respondent-Panchayath should grant the licence provided the petitioner has secured all other necessary permissions/consent, etc. Further now in purported compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P-10 judgment, the 1[st] respondent has passed Ext.P-16 minutes of the said body rendered on 2-4, June, 2020, which has culminated in the issuance of formal proceedings dated 30.6.2020 as per Ext.P-17. The operative portion of Exts.P-16 and P-17 reads as follows: ## Ext.P-16: _“The Committee accepted the observations in the Field Inspection Report and decided that the environmental and social safeguard of the building stone quarry has to be evolved through a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment study and precise Environmental Management Plan for the proposed project. The EIA should cover the impact of the activities of the proposed project in and around the site within an impact zone of 3 km radius. The impact assessment should specifically cover the impacts on:_ - _(i) All the buildings and constructed structures within the radius of 500m and the impact due to the proposed blasting;_ - _(ii) Different types of buildings and constructed structures within the impact zone of 3 km radius and the impact due to the proposed blasting;_ - _(iii) Air quality and noise level of the impact zone due to blasting and transportation;_ - _(iv) Surface drainage;_ - _(v) Groundwater levels due to blasting and consequent vibration; (vi) sloping terrain with special reference to the possibility of including landslides;_ - _(vii) Biodiversity and (viii) Social aspects including employment, income and involuntary land acquisition._ _The study should cover an area of 3 km radius of the proposed mining spot. A_ -:9:- **WP(C).No.14072 OF 2020(H)** _detailed land use and land cover map of an area covering 500 m radius of the proposed mining spot should also be submitted. The Committee decided to direct the proponent to submit the above details/documents so that a studied decision can be taken on the matter.”_ ## _- Ext.P 17:_ _“State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) Kerala K.S.R.T.C Bus Terminal Complex, 4[th] Floor, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001 Ph:+91471-2334262(Off) + 91471-2334265 (Fax) e-mail: seacseiaa@gmail.com Web: www.seiaakerala.in_ _No.1255/EC4/2016/SEIAA_ _Date: 30-06-2020_ _From_ _The Administrator State Environment Impact Assessment Authority_ _To_ _Shri. Tomy Thomas Pulickal Kalathukadavu (P.O), Erattupetta, Kottayam – 686 579_ _Sir,_ _Sub:- SEIAA- Judgment dated 04-10-2019 in (Common Judgment in WP(C) 31684/2016, WP(C) 15505/2016 & WP(c) 25529/2019)- reg:-_ _Ref::- Minutes of the 111[th] meeting of SEAC held on 02[nd] to 4[th] June 2020_ _Attention is invited to the reference cited. It is informed that your proposal was placed in the 111[th] meeting of SEAC. The Committee accepted the observations in the Field Inspection Report and decided that the environmental and social safeguard of the building stone quarry has to be evolved through a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment study and precise Environmental Management Plan for the proposed project. The EIA should cover the impact of the activities of the propsed project in and around the site within an impact zone of 3 km radius. The impact assessment should specifically cover the impacts on:_ - _(i) All the buildings and constructed structures within the radius of 500m and the impact due to the proposed blasting;_ - _(ii) Different types of buildings and constructed structures within the impact zone of 3 km radius and the impact due to the proposed blasting;_ - _(iii) Air quality and noise level of the impact zone due to blasting and transportation;_ - _(iv) Surface drainage;_ - _(v) Groundwater levels due to blasting and consequent vibration;_ - _(vi) sloping terrain with special reference to the possibility of including landslides;_ - _(vii) Biodiversity and_ - _(viii) Social aspects including employment, income and involuntary land_ -:10:- **WP(C).No.14072 OF 2020(H)** _acquisition. A detailed land use and land cover map of an area covering 500 m radius of the proposed mining spot should also be submitted. The Committee decided to direct the proponent to submit the above details/documents so that a studied decision can be taken on the matter._ _Hence you are requested to submit the above documents at the earliest for further processing of the application._ _Yours faithfully, sd/Anil P. Antony, Administrator, SEIAA_ _Approved for issue sd/Section Officer.”_ 5. It is the case of the petitioner that field inspection was duly conducted by the respondents in pursuance of Ext.P-10 judgment and that the field inspection report has not disclosed that the petitioner has in any manner violated the terms and conditions in Ext.P-5 EC granted by the respondents and that the action of the 1[st] respondent in passing proceedings in the nature of Exts.P-16 and P-17 cannot be said to be in compliance with the directions in Ext.P-10 judgment inasmuch as no final decision has been taken in the matter and what has been ordered in Ext.P16 is only an interlocutory decision that certain other parameters will have to be also assessed. The time limit stipulated by this Court as per Ext.P-10 judgment dated 4.10.2019 was 3 months from the date of receipt of the said judgment, which has expired quite some time ago. 6. When the matter was taken up for consideration on the previous occasion, this Court has requested the learned Standing Counsel to get instructions from the respondents as to the contents of the field inspection report as referred to in Exts.P-16 and P-17 and as to whether **WP(C).No.14072 OF 2020(H)** ## -:11:- the field inspection report disclose any violations of Ext.P-5 EC in the operation of the said quarry by the petitioner. After hearing both sides it appears that there are no adverse findings in the said field inspection report that the petitioner has in any manner violated the terms and conditions of Ext.P-5 EC. A reading of Ext.P-5 EC granted by the 1[st] respondent as early as on 4.3.2016 which is current up to 4.3.2021, would clearly show that various environmental parameters have been duly considered by the 1[st] respondent while taking the decision to grant EC, which has been issued as per Ext.P-5 proceedings. From page 4 of Ext.P-5, it is seen that dwelling units are not seen in the vicinity of 200 meters. These aspects are crystal clear from a reading of internal pages 2 to 4 of Ext.P-5 proceedings. Further the 1[st] respondent has placed rigorous conditions in Ext.P-5 to be observed by the petitioner and the said conditions are as follows: - “1. _Fencing should be provided all around the lease area._ _2. Considering the steepness of slope, haulage road much be redesigned with increase in width and lower gradient._ _3. Catch water drains must be provided at the lowest part and channelised down slope after clarification._ _4. RWH structure should be provided in the site but on the lower part. 5. Ultimate depth of mine to be limited to the permissible level of deepening by benches._ _6. OB burden must be stored in a designated place at a lower elevation and must be provided with protective walls to prevent slope stability problems._ 7. _The working must progress from top to bottom by providing benches. The existing steep cuttings should be negotiated in a planned manner_ .” 7. Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the impugned proceedings as per Exts.P-16 & P-17 does not suffer from any illegality and the various parameters as ## -:12:- ## **WP(C).No.14072 OF 2020(H)** per Exts.P-16 & P-17 have to be assessed. The learned Standing Counsel may be correct in submitting that various parameters mentioned in Ext.P-16 may have to be assessed, but it is to be borne in mind that various crucial parameters were duly assessed and considered by the respondents before the issuance of EC as can be seen from a reading of the details in Ext.P-5. 8. Since the respondents do not have any case that the field inspection has disclosed any violations of the abovesaid terms and conditions in Ext.P-5 EC and as the time limit stipulated by this Court in Ext.P-10 judgment has expired long ago and as no final decision in the matter has been taken by the respondent as can be seen from a reading of Ext.P-16 and Ext.P-17 and as the validity period of Ext.P-5 EC is only up to 4.3.2021, which is hardly 6 months from today, this Court is of the considered view that the action on the part of the respondents in not vacating Ext.P-9 stop memo inspite of the fact that field inspection report does not disclose any violation of terms and conditions in Ext.P-5 EC is illegal, improper and unreasonable. A reading of Ext.p-5 EC would make it clear that the petitioner has invested huge amount to the tune of Rs.6 Crores. The validity period of Ext.P-5 EC is only up to 4.3.2021. The petitioner has been compelled to initiate consecutive writ litigations one after the other. Expecting the formal issuance of licence by the Panchayath authorities, the petitioner has obtained all the other **WP(C).No.14072 OF 2020(H)** ## -:13:- permission/consent/licence. It is at the instance of the petitioner, that the Full Bench has laid down the authoritative position of law in the case in _**Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala**_ [2019 (3) KLT 987 (FB)]. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that this Court in a catena of subsequent judgments have given benefit to various applicants including quarry operators. The benefit of the legal position laid down by the Full Bench in the abovesaid writ proceedings initiated by the petitioner, is being enjoyed by many litigants, whereas the petitioner is still left in the lurch on account of the pendency of Ext.p-9 stop memo. The counsel for the petitioner would strongly urge that the petitioner is the victim of certain concerted actions done by his trade rival, who is having quarry in the vicinity and inspite of the petitioner successfully litigating proceedings before this Court in a series of cases, the petitioner is left in the lurch with the result that he has not able to function his quarry for quite long period and that the petitioner's financial liabilities have also mounted in view of no returns of the huge investments made by him as referred to in the impugned proceedings. In the light of these aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the action on the part of the respondents, more particularly, the 1[st] respondent in passing an order in the nature of Exts.P16 & P-17 by again taking recourse to assess various other aspects, without vacating Ext.P-9 stop memo, does not appear to be legally correct and fair. Moreover, a reading of Exts.P-16 & P-17 would show that various other **WP(C).No.14072 OF 2020(H)** -:14:- parameters are now sought to be again assessed and those matters should be assessed when the quarry is actually in operation. 9. In view of the abovesaid aspects mentioned hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the matter would require interdiction as otherwise the petitioner would be suffering from grave injustice. Accordingly, the following orders and directions are issued: - _(i) Exts.P-16 & P-17 to the limited extent, it has not ordered for vacating or revoking Ext.P-9 stop memo dated 22.9.2016 will stand quashed and set aside. It is made clear that Exts.P-16 & P-17 in all other aspects are not interdicted by this Court and the respondents will be at liberty to assess various aspects mentioned in Exts.P-16 & P-17 and the respondents will also be at liberty to take a final decision on the matters ordered in Ext.P-10 judgment, though the time limit has expired long ago._ - _(ii) In view of the above limited interdiction made to Exts.P16 & P-17 it is further consequently ordered that the impugned Ext.P-9 stop memo dated 22.9.2016 will stand quashed and set aside. The petitioner is temporarily permitted to function the quarry, but he can do so strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of quarrying lease, explosives licence, statutory consent of the State Pollution Control Board and Ext.P-5 EC granted by the respondents._ - _(iii) The respondents will be at liberty to monitor the functioning of the petitioner's quarry and if it is found on the basis of objective materials that the petitioner has_ **WP(C).No.14072 OF 2020(H)** ## -:15:- - _violated the terms and conditions of Exts.P-5 EC then the respondents will be at liberty to take necessary action in that regard. So also if the petitioner violates quarrying licence, explosive licence, statutory consent of the State PCB, etc., then also the appropriate authorities are at liberty to take appropriate action in that regard in accordance with law but subject to a fair procedure._ - _(iv) The respondents will immediately take steps to ensure that various parameters mentioned in Exts.P-16 & P-17 are duly assessed, if necessary on the basis of further inspection, such inspection should be done with prior notice to the petitioner and a copy of the inspection report should also be given to the petitioner._ - _(v) Thereafter the competent authority among the respondents should consider the various aspects in the matter including the parameters to be assessed as per Exts.P-16 & P-17 as well as in accordance with the observations made by this Court in para 9 of Ext.P-10 judgment, after hearing the petitioner as well as the objector concerned without any further delay, at any rate, within 2-3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment._ - _(vi) Needless to say, in view of the abovesaid directions, the petitioner may temporarily function his quarry until final orders are passed in the matter as aforedirected and in accordance with Ext.P-10 judgment and care should be taken by the respondents to ensure that assessment of the various parameters mentioned in Exts.P-16 & P-17 is done preferably when the quarry is in operation so that real impact could be duly assessed by the respondents._ **WP(C).No.14072 OF 2020(H)** ## -:16:- Further, needless to say, if the final decision as aforedirected, taken by the 1[st] respondent is in favour of the petitioner then proceedings in that regard may be issued so that the petitioner can produce a copy of the said proceedings before the Panchayath Secretary concerned for consideration of the matter as already directed by this Court in Ext.P-15 judgment dated 27.5.2020 in W.P.(C).No.5897/2020. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the memorandum of Writ Petition with all exhibits before the Member Secretary of the 1[st] respondent for necessary information and further action. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** bkn/- ## -:17:- **WP(C).No.14072 OF 2020(H)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT DATED 11.10.2007 VALID UPTO 10.10.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES F THE MEETING OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 13TH AND 14TH OCTOBER 2015.** - **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT HELD ON 7TH AND 8TH DECEMBER 2015.** - **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE 48TH MEETING OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT HELD ON 23.01.2016.** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPLENDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 04.03.2016 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF EIA NOTIFICATION 2008.** - **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER ND THE STATE GOVERNMENT URNED THE PROVISION OF THE KERALA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES 2015 DATED 17.05.2016 HAVING VALIDITY UPTO 26.05.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM, ORDER DATED 26.04.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINLE JUDGE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO. 15505 OF 2016.** - **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE ORDER DATED 20.09.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO. 15505 OF 2016.** ## -:18:- **WP(C).No.14072 OF 2020(H)** - **EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 04.10.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WPC NO. 15505 OF 2016 , 31684 OF 2016 AND 25529 OF 2019.** - **EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.01.2020 PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.A. NO. 2566 OF 2019.** - **EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT HELD ON 21ST AND 22ND NOVEMBER 2019.** - **EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT HELD ON 23RD AND 24TH DECEMBER 2019.** - **EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE 108TH MEETING OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT HELD ON 13TH AND 14TH JANUARY 2020.** - **EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.05.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONOURABLE CO RUT IN WPC NO. 5897 OF 2020.** - **EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE 111TH MEETING OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT HELD ON 2-4 JUNE 2020.** **EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2020 DISSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERTTUPETTA TO THE FIRST REPRESENTED.**