High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeThe writ petitions are disposed of by a common ...
W.P.(C) Nos. 5430/2020 and 5456/2020: Thrissur Builders Private Limited v. State of Kerala; Carol v. State of Kerala
Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos. 5430/2020 (C) and 5456/2020 (F)
Neutral Citation:/null
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- The Hon. Justice Alexander Thomas
- Judgment Date
- 2020-02-25
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petitions disposed of by common judgment with directions to the District Geologist to consider Ext.P6 (5430/2020) and Ext.P10 (5456/2020) after due site inspection and hearing, and to pass orders within 2–3 months, provided all requisite documents are furnished as per Rule 9 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. It is clarified that, as per District Geologist v. Sivaraman, where the total plinth area is below 20,000 m2, environmental clearance cannot be insisted for consideration of the applications.
- Final Disposition
- The writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment with directions to the District Geologist to process the Ext.P6/Ext.P10 applications after due inspection and hearing, and to decide within 2–3 months, while affirming that environmental clearance is not to be insisted for construction with plinth area below 20,000 m2 as per the cited District Geologist v. Sivaraman dictum. The petitions stand disposed with these directions.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Thrissur Builders Private Limited
- Carol
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
- The Director, Mining and Geology, Office of the Mining and Geology, Kesavadasapuram Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
- The District Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, Thrissur District-680001
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • P. M. Ziraj
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty
Case Synopsis & Summary
Two related writ petitions, filed by Thrissur Builders Private Limited (5430/2020) and Carol (5456/2020), challenge government and statutory requirements for environmental clearance while permitting mining/quarry-related activity for construction purposes. The petitioners seek mandamus to consider mining/quarrying permits to extract soil from building foundations without insisting on environmental clearance, invoking exemptions under MOEF&CC notifications dated 9 December 2016 and 15 November 2018 (for projects with plinth area below 20,000 m2) and similar guidance cited in 15 January 2016 and 19 December 2016 notifications, as applicable. Both petitions contend that environmental clearance should not be a pre-condition where the construction plinth area is under the threshold, and that the District Geologist should evaluate their Ext.P6 and Ext.P10 applications after due process, including site inspection and hearing, per Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (Rule 9). The court, noting broadly similar issues, disposed of the petitions by a common judgment with directions to the Third Respondent District Geologist to process the applications promptly (within 2–3 months from certified copy of judgment), subject to production of requisite materials. The judgment explicitly relies on the Division Bench’s dictum in District Geologist v. Sivaraman (2020) (1 KLT 375) to hold that EC can be not insisted where the plinth area is below 20,000 m2. Ultimately, both petitions stand disposed with directions and clarifications on the EC exemption for small-scale constructions.
Provisions of Law Cited
MOEF&CC notification dated 09 December 2016MOEF&CC notification dated 15 November 2018MOEF&CC notification dated 15 January 2016MOEF&CC notification dated 19 December 2016Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 - Rule 9
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners submitted that Ext.P6 (5430/2020) and Ext.P10 (5456/2020) applications for quarrying/mining permits should be considered without requiring environmental clearance because the ongoing construction involves a plinth area far below the 20,000 m2 threshold. They rely on MOEF&CC exemptions (9 December 2016 and 15 November 2018) and argue that environmental clearance is not a bar to permit consideration for construction activity linked to building foundations. They urge the District Geologist to act on the applications after site inspection and hearing, with production of necessary documents under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (Rule 9). They seek a prompt decision—preferably within 2–3 months—so that the construction can proceed. The petitions emphasize reliance on the District Geologist v. Sivaraman dictum and ask the court to extend exemptions to their cases, given small-scale plinth areas and associated environmental clearance exemptions.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents, represented by the Senior Government Pleader, contend that environmental clearance requirements under MOEF&CC notifications apply to mineral extraction and transportation, and the decision to insist upon EC should be guided by statutory exemptions and thresholds. They argue that EC exemptions, where applicable, depend on the specific notification criteria and the nature/scale of the project. They contend that the District Geologist must ensure compliance with procedural requirements and environmental safeguards before granting mining/quarrying permissions and that determinations be made after due inspection and hearing, in accordance with the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. They also suggest that while small-volume projects may fall within exemptions, the court’s interpretation should be aligned with the notified thresholds and permissible exemptions.
Cited Precedents (6)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| District Geologist v. Sivaraman | 2020 (1) KLT 375 (DB) | Positive | The judgment expressly cites and relies on the District Geologist v. Sivaraman dictum to hold that EC is not required where the construction plinth area is under 20,000 m2. |
| W.P.(C) 36018/2017 | W.P.(C) No.36018/2017 | Mentioned Only | Listed as an exhibit, cited as part of the record, but without explicit reliance in the reasoning presented in the judgment. |
| W.P.(C) 8389/2018 | W.P.(C) No.8389/2018 | Mentioned Only | Listed as an exhibit; referenced but not central to the court’s reasoning in the common judgment. |
| W.P.(C) 10931/2018 | W.P.(C) No.10931/2018 | Mentioned Only | Exhibits include this judgment; no explicit treatment in the judgment’s rationale. |
| W.P.(C) 34014/2018 | W.P.(C) No.34014/2018 | Mentioned Only | Exhibits include this judgment; the document does not show direct reliance. |
| W.A. Nos. 215/2018 and 327/2018 | W.A. Nos. 215/2018 and 327/2018 | Mentioned Only | Exhibited judgments cited; not explicitly treated in the core reasoning. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 W.P.(C) Nos. 5430/2020 and 5456/2020: Thrissur Builders Private Limited v. State of Kerala; Carol v. State of Kerala 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS**
**TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1941**
**WP(C).No.5430 OF 2020(C)**
## **PETITIONER:**
**THRISSUR BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED MACHINGAL LANE, THRISSUR P.O., THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.A. PADMAKUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR**
**BY ADV. P.M.ZIRAJ**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001**
- **2 THE DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEOLOGY, OFFICE OF THE MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001**
- **3 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THRISSUR DISTRICT680 001**
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
**SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.02.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).5456/2020(F), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.P.(C)No.5430/2020 & Con.case
2
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS**
**TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1941**
## **WP(C).No.5456 OF 2020(F)**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
**CAROL AGED 55 YEARS W/O.MAPRANI GEORGE, MAPRANI HOUSE, THRISSUR P.O., OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
|**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**|
|---|---|
||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**|
||**INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,**|
||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**|
|**2**|**THE DIRECTOR,**|
||**MINING AND GEOLOGY, OFFICE OF THE MINING AND**|
||**GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTAM,**|
||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**|
|**3**|**THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,**|
||**DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THRISSUR**|
||**DISTRICT-680001.**|
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
**SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.02.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).5430/2020(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.P.(C)No.5430/2020 & Con.case
3
# **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.**
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)Nos.5430 & 5456 of 2020
---------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of February, 2020
## **JUDGMENT**
As the issues raised in these two Writ petitions are broadly similar, these cases are disposed of, on the basis of common judgment.
## W.P.(C)No.5430/2020
The prayers in the Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:-
_“1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, orders or direction to the third respondent to consider exhibit P6 application submitted by the petitioner for mining permit to extract and transport minerals from the foundation of a building without insisting environmental clearance since it has been exempted as per the notification of Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change dated 9.12.2016 and 15.11.2018 and issue Mining Permit,Transit Permit and sufficient Transit Passes for transportation of said earth._
_2. Declare that environmental clearance is not required for extraction and transportation of minerals removed from the foundation of a building having a plinth area of less than 20000 M2 as per the Notification of Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change dated 15.1.2016 and 19.12.2016._ ”
2. Heard Sri. P.M. Ziraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. It is submitted by Sri. P.M. Ziraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has now submitted Ext.P6 application dated 10.2.2020 before the 3[rd] respondent District Geologist for formal grant of quarrying permit for removal of red earth which is required for the excavation for
W.P.(C)No.5430/2020 & Con.case
4
making the construction in pursuance of the building permit etc. and that the total plinth area of construction is only around 8683.13 M[2] and as the total quantity in this regard is much less than to the threshold limit of 20,000M[2,] and environmental clearance is not necessary and therefore, insistence by the 3[rd] respondent that the petitioner should necessarily produce the environmental clearance before Ext.P6 application to be considered is not legally correct and proper etc.
4. Taking note of the facts and circumstances, it is ordered that the 3[rd] respondent District Geologist may take up the plea made by the petitioner in Ext.P6 application and after conducting site inspection and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, will pass orders disposing of Ext.P6 application without much delay, preferably within a period of 2-3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment, provided, the petitioner makes available all the requisite documents required as per the Rules for consideration of the said application. However, it is made clear and ordered that in view of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in _**District Geologist**_ v. _**Sivaraman**_ [2020 (1) KLT 375(DB)], the total plinth area of construction is less than the threshold limit of 20,000M[2 ] , then environmental clearance cannot be insisted by the 3[rd] respondent for consideration of Ext.P6 application.
With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.
W.P.(C)No.5430/2020 & Con.case
5
## W.P.(C)No.5456/2020
## The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:-
_“1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, orders or direction to the third respondent to consider exhibit P10 application submitted by the petitioner for mining permit to extract and transport minerals from the foundation of a building without insisting environmental clearance since it has been exempted as per the notification of Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change dated 15.01.2016 and 19.12.2016 as clarified by the judgment of this honourable court in District geologist Vs. Sivaraman 2020 (1) KLT 375 and issue Mining Permit,Transit Permit and sufficient Transit Passes for transportation of said earth._
_2. Declare that environmental clearance is not required for extraction and transportation of minerals removed from the foundation of a building having a plinth area of less than 20000 M2 as per the Notification of Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change dated 15.1.2016 and 19.12.2016._ ”
2. Heard Sri. P.M. Ziraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. It is pointed out by the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner has now submitted Ext.P10 application dated 28.12.2019 before the 3[rd] respondent seeking for grant of quarrying permit for removal and excavation of the soil for undertaking the construction in pursuance of the building permit issued to him and the total plinth area of construction is only 2495.75 M2 and that the insistence by the 3[rd] respondent that the petitioner should necessarily produce environmental clearance for consideration of Ext.P10 application is illegal and improper, in view of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in _**District Geologist**_ v. _**Sivaraman**_ [2020 (1) KLT 375(DB)] etc. Further it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would
W.P.(C)No.5430/2020 & Con.case
6
produce the mining plan before the 3[rd] respondent as required under Rule 9 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 etc.
4. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the 3[rd] respondent District Geologist will take up the plea made by the petitioner in Ext.P10 application and, after conducting due inspection and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, will pass orders disposing of Ext.P10 application, without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment, provided the petitioner produces all the requisite materials and documents as required under Rule 9 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 etc. However, it is made clear that in view of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case in _**District Geologist**_ v. _**Sivaraman**_ [2020 (1) KLT 375(DB)], so long as the total plinth area of construction is less than the threshold limit of 20,000 M2, the 3[rd] respondent cannot insist that the applicant should produce environmental clearance as a condition precedent for consideration of Ext.P10 application.
With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.
Sd/-
## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.**
acd
W.P.(C)No.5430/2020 & Con.case
7
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5430/2020**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION, LOCATION ,NONL.A. CERTIFICATES DATED 22.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE**
**EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE**
**EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 25.10.2019 ISSUED FORM THE THRISSUR CORPORATION EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DATED 27.9.2018 ISSUED FROM THE THRISSUR CORPORATION EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 18.5.2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.2.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FOIL OF CHELAN TOWARDS OF PAYMENT OF APPLICATION FEE EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMNET OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 20.12.2017 IN WPC NO.36018/2017 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 13.03.2018 IN WPC N.8389 OF 2018 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 4.4.2018 IN WPC NO.10931 OF 2018 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 8.11.2018 IN WPC NO.34014 OF 2018 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 10.7.2019 IN W.A.NOS 215/2018 AND 327/2018**
W.P.(C)No.5430/2020 & Con.case 8
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5456/2020**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 01.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHALAKKUDY EAST VILLAGE.**
**EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 01.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHALAKKUDY EAST VILLAGE.**
- **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHALAKKUDY EAST VILLAGE.**
- **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 14.06.2019 ISSUED FROM THE CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY.**
**EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DATED 06.09.2019 ISSUED FROM THE CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.**
- **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FOIL OF CHELAN TOWARDS OF PAYMENT OF APPLICATION FEE DATED 13.11.2019.**
**EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 12.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.**
**EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 20.12.2017 IN W.P. (C)NO.36018/2017.**
|W.P.(C)No.5430/2020 & Con.case<br>9|W.P.(C)No.5430/2020 & Con.case<br>9|
|---|---|
|**EXHIBIT P12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS**|
||**HONOURABLE COURT DATED 13.03.2018 IN W.P.**|
||**(C)NO.8389 OF 2018.**|
|**EXHIBIT P13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS**|
||**HONOURABLE COURT DATED 04.04.2018 IN W.P.**|
||**(C)NO.10931 OF 2018.**|
|**EXHIBIT P14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS**|
||**HONOURABLE COURT DATED 08.11.2018 IN W.P.**|
||**(C)NO.34014 OF 2018.**|
|**EXHIBIT P15**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF THIS**|
||**HONOURABLE COURT DATED 10.07.2019 IN**|
||**W.A.NO.215/2018 AND 327/2018.**|