High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-01-24Writ petition disposed of with directions for t...

Travancore Readymix (P) Ltd. v. Union of India

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.1303 OF 2020(K)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Amit Rawal
Judgment Date: 2020-01-24
Court Decision / Holding: Petition disposed of with directions mirroring those in Goa Foundation cases: (a) open a file in petitioner’s name showing mining lease and non-EC status; forward all papers to MoEF within 15 days; (b) Government of Kerala to forward ECs to MoEF within 15 days; (c) MoEF to place files before Standing Committee within one week; (d) Standing Committee to process and make recommendations within two months; (e) stop memos to remain in force only for the fixed period; (f) if eco-sensitive zone notifications are issued, moratorium stands vacated; quarrying activities may continue subject to EC and lease conditions; stone crushers, if sourced from other materials, are not covered by the stop memos. The petition is disposed with these directions.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions for time-bound processing and forwarding of documents to the MoEF, with stop memos limited to the specified period and continued operation of quarrying subject to compliance with environmental and licensing requirements.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Travancore Readymix (P) Ltd.

Respondents

Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi-110003
Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife, National Board of Wildlife, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi-110003
State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary, Department of Forests and Wildlife, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
Director of Mining and Geology, Directorate of Mining and Geology, Kesavadasapuram, Pattom Palace P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695004
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden, Forest Headquarters, Nandanam, Vajuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram-695014
District Geologist, Mining and Geology Department District Office, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695004
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, 3rd Floor, KSRTC Complex, Thiruvananthapuram-695001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Bechu Kurian Thomas (Sr.)
• Sri Enock David Simon Joel
• Sri George A. Cherian

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Ramanarayanan Prabhu

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Travancore Readymix (P) Ltd., challenges Ext.P3 stop memo dated 16.10.2019 issued by the 6th respondent, which directs the petitioner to obtain Environmental Clearance (EC) from the Standing Committee for the National Board for Wildlife. The petition cites earlier petitions and the Supreme Court's Goa Foundation decisions (2011 and 2014) as a basis for the Court’s directions. The Court notes that the petitioner claims possession of a mining lease prior to 18.05.2012, arguing that EC is not mandatory for him; the Court had previously directed a process to avoid delay in EC compliance, including opening a file in the petitioner’s name, forwarding EC documents to the MoEF, and ensuring the Standing Committee’s timely consideration. The judgment quotes those directives and sets out a time-bound framework: the Government must forward environmental papers to the MoEF within 15 days; MoEF must place the files before the Standing Committee within one week of receipt; the Standing Committee must process and recommend within two months. The stop memos will remain in force only for the fixed period; if delays occur, the petitioner may operate under the EC and mining lease conditions; if eco-sensitive zone notifications are issued, the moratorium is vacated. The order clarifies that quarrying activities are covered by these directions, while stone crusher units may continue subject to compliance. The petition is disposed with these directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that he holds a mining lease predating 18 May 2012 and therefore is not bound to obtain Environmental Clearance. He relies on earlier directions and the Goa Foundation judgments to argue that leading authorities must process and forward documents efficiently, ensuring that ECs are obtained only where required. The petition seeks to document that a file be opened in the petitioner’s name, forward EC papers to the MoEF and ensure timely decision-making by the Standing Committee, with a fixed timetable and clear safeguards that stop memos would operate only during the specified period. He asserts that ongoing quarrying activities should not be blocked by premature EC requirements, and that any eco-sensitive zone notifications should be treated to enable lawful operations.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain that Environmental Clearance and compliance with regulatory processes are essential for mining activities. They emphasize that the MoEF, SEIAA and the Standing Committee must examine and process papers expeditiously and within statutory timeframes. They argue that the directives follow from Supreme Court precedents and are necessary to ensure environmental safeguards, even in cases involving leases predating 2012. They assert that the Government must forward ECs and relevant papers to MoEF and that the standing committee must render its recommendations within the stated deadlines; failure to adhere to these timelines would jeopardize regulatory compliance and environmental protection.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Goa Foundation v. Union of India	(2011) 15 Supreme Court Cases 793	Positive	Cited as the basis for the directions and the remedial framework; used to justify sequencing of documents and timely processing by authorities.
Goa Foundation v. Union of India and others	(2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 590	Positive	Cited as precedent underpinning the interim orders and regulatory process directing authorities to act in a time-bound manner.

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 Travancore Readymix (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 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 MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.1303 OF 2020(K)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **TRAVANCORE READYMIX (P) LTD. T.C.54/928,ROHINI SADANAM,MELAMCODE, NEMOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.) SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS,INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN, JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.** - **2 STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL BOARD OF WILDLIFE, NATIONAL BOARD OF WILDLIFE, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS,INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN,JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS AND WILDLIFE,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **4 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM,PATTOM PALACE.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.** - **5 PRINCIPAL CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR(WILDLIFE) AND CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN, FOREST HEADQUARTERS,NANDAVANAM,VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.** - **6 DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT DISTRICT OFFICE,PATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.** **WP(C).No.1303 OF 2020(K)** **2** **7 STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, 3RD FLOOR,KSRTC COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.** **R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.RAMANARAYANA PRABHU** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **GP SRI MANURAJ KJ** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.1303 OF 2020(K)** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 stop memo dated 16.10.2019 issued by the 6[th] respondent, calling upon the petitioner to obtain the Clearance from the Standing Committee for National Board for Wild Life. Similar kind of memos were challenged in this Court in various other writ petitions No.28014/2019 and other connected petitions and vide order dated 18.12.2019, this Court issued certain directions. The directions contained therein were issued in terms of the interim orders as well as judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in **Goa Foundation v. Union of India** [(2011) 15 Supreme Court Cases 793] as well as **Goa Foundation v. Union of India and others** [(2014) 6 supreme Court cases 590] and the case of the petitioner is also falling within the aforementioned parameters. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition with similar directions as contained in the judgment of this Court cited supra, which is as under:- “a) Since the petitioner asserts that he is in possession of a mining lease prior to 18.05.2012 and therefore, not being obligated to obtain an Environmental **WP(C).No.1303 OF 2020(K)** **4** clearance, the Government is directed to open a file in his name containing all other relevant documents, including the Mining Lease; and forward it to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change-recording therein that the petitioner has not obtained an Environmental Clearance for this reason-within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If, for any reason, any other germane documents are found wanting, the Government will be at liberty to ask the petitioner to make available all such before the Secretary, Environment Department, so that there will be no delay in forwarding the same by the Government within the period granted above without seeking further extension of time. b) The Government of Kerala will forthwith and within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment forward the Environmental Clearances, along with all other necessary papers, to the MoEF. If, for any reason, the necessary papers are found wanting, the Government will be at liberty to seek such from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), who will make the same available without any delay. I also leave liberty to the petitioner to make available his papers before the competent authority of the Government, which is stated to be the Secretary, Environment Department, for such purpose. I make it clear that the intent of this Court is that there shall be no delay in forwarding the papers and that the Government will be obligated to do so within the period granted herein, without seeking any further extension of time. c) On the files as ordered above reaching the MoEF, they will be obligated to place it before the **WP(C).No.1303 OF 2020(K)** **5** Standing Committee within a period of one week from the date on which it is received, so as to enable the said authority to take a decision in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. d) The Standing Committee, on receiving the files as per the afore directions, will immediately process the files and make their recommendations, as per the interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goa Foundation ((2011) 15 SCC 793) and this shall be done not later than two months from the date on which they receive the files from the MoEF. e) The afore directions having been issued, I must also clarify that the stop memos issued by the Geologists will remain in force only during the period that I have fixed above and if there is any delay by any authority, be that the Government of Kerala or the MoEF or the Standing Committee, in complying with the afore directions, on the expiry of the cumulative period mentioned above, the said memos issued by the Geologists will become inoperative and the petitioner will, thereupon, be entitled to commence his activities as per the Environmental Clearances and the Mining Leases obtained by him. Needless to say, if, during the aforementioned period, the final notification is issued by the MoEF under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with respect to the Eco Sensitive Zones in Kerala, the interdiction as ordered above will stand vacated from that date and the petitioner will be entitled to operate his quarries depending upon the said notification and as per the stipulations therein. f) By way of a further clarification, I order that **WP(C).No.1303 OF 2020(K)** **6** the afore directions and the operation of the stop memos will be only with respect to the petitioner's quarrying activities and that the operation of the stone crusher units, if any, as long as they are done in compliance with all necessary imperative and statutory conditions and as long as the raw material for the same is from other sources and not from the quarries in question, will not be covered by him, thereby to mean that he can continue to operate them, notwithstanding the stop memos issued by the Geologists, subject to further orders to be issued by the Standing Committee.” **Sd/-** **AMIT RAWAL** sab **JUDGE** **WP(C).No.1303 OF 2020(K)** **7** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE DATED 23.11.2018 VALID TILL 22.11.2029 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT 1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE TH QUARRY ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VALID TILL 31.03.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE D & O LICENSE FOR THE PERIOD 2018-19.** - **EXHIBIT P1(C) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1(B)** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 29.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE DEIAA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.10.2019 WITH NO.2511/DOT/ML/19 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.11.2019 WITH NO.B.3856/2019 ISSUED BY THE WILDLIFE WARDEN TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P4** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 13.06.2018 IN WP(C)NO.40525/2017 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** - **EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.06.2018 IN W.A.NO.1201/2018 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 02.12.2019 WITH NO.J-110013/41/2006IA.II(I)ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 28.07.2016 WITH S.O.2633(E)ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINOUT FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT SHOWING RECEIPT OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER** **WP(C).No.1303 OF 2020(K)** **8** **ON 08.01.2016. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2018 IN WP(c)NO.202/1995 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 08.08.2019 WITH F.NO.22-43/2018-IA.III ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**