PETER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the operation of a granite stone quarry by the 12th respondent, on the basis of an Environmental Clearance (hereinafter also referred to as 'E.C') allegedly obtained through suppression of material facts. It is also alleged that certain other permissions granted to the 12th respondent are illegal and that the 12th respondent has not obtained all the permissions required under the law. There are certain other allegations such as violation of E.C conditions, encroachment into Government lands, accumulation of water in pits and heaping of overburden etc. In short, the petitioners allege rampant violations of law in the matter of the operation of the quarry.

(2.) The 12th respondent was granted Ext.P8 mining lease in respect of an extent of 4.7065 hectares of land comprised in Sy Nos.1270/4, 5, 7, 8, 1271/2, 3,4, 1273/1, 2, 1272/1 of Kodassery Village in Chalakudy, Thrissur. The petitioners in the writ petition are residents in properties adjoining to or near to the aforesaid lands in respect of which Ext.P8 mining lease has been issued. They contend (i) that the Ext.P3 Environmental Clearance was obtained by suppression of several material facts and especially the fact that the lands were 'Forest' lands assigned to the predecessors-in- interest of the 12th respondent for specified purposes and therefore that an Environmental Clearance obtained by suppression of several material facts is liable to be quashed.; (ii) that the Environmental Clearance is bad for the reason that a no objection certificate in respect of the nearby water tank and irrigation canal has not been obtained as mandated under Section 40 (2) of the Kerala Irrigation and Conservation of Water Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Conservation of Water Act'); (iii) that the operation of the quarry is in violation of several conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance; (iv) that a huge quantity of topsoil removed from the land for enabling mining activities have been unscientifically stored causing threat of landslide etc. which may affect the houses of the petitioners which are situated at a lower level than the quarry operated by the 12th respondent; (v) that huge pits which have been formed on account of the mining activities are filled with water and this may cause extreme danger to persons like the petitioners who live at lower level; (vi) that there is violation of Rule 164 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961; (vii) that the activities of the 12th respondent has resulted in destruction of a public road (viii) that there is illegal extraction of rock from the Government land and destruction of boundary and survey mark etc.; and (ix) that the operation of the quarry is in violation of the orders issued by the National Green Tribunal in O.A No. 304/2019 on 21.7.2020 whereby the Tribunal has directed that blasting operations shall not be permitted if there are residential buildings within a radius of 200 Meters of a quarry [This contention is not one taken in the writ petition and has been raised only in the additional affidavit filed in support of I.A Nos.5 and 6 of 2020, in the above Writ Petition.]

(3.) The 12th respondent has filed a counter-affidavit refuting the allegations levelled by the petitioners. Some of the official respondents have filed statements/counter-affidavits setting out their stand in the matter. The 12th respondent contends, inter alia, (i) that the Environmental Clearance cannot be challenged before this Court as the Writ Petitioners have an effective alternate remedy before the National Green Tribunal; (ii) that the writ petition is barred by delay and latches; (iii) that there is absolutely no suppression of facts in the application for Environment Clearance; (iv) that the land in question is not 'Forest' land; (v) that the quarry is functioning with all requisite permissions; (vi) that there is absolutely no danger caused on account of functioning of the quarry to the petitioners or anybody else; (vii) that there is no illegality in permitting the 12th respondent to construct / use the culvert in question; (viii) that N.O.C has been obtained from the Executive Engineer, Edamalayar Irrigation project as contemplated in the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 and therefore that Ext.P4 judgment has no application to the facts of the case; (ix) that there is no damage to the Village Road, as alleged, and that the said road was strengthened to PWD standards at the cost of the 12th respondent; (x) that the mining activities are carried out strictly in accordance with the approved mining plan; (xi) that there is no threat of pollution; (xii) that no Government land has been encroached and (xiii) that the 12th respondent has not destroyed boundary marks etc. The learned Government Pleader would also state that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. However, he also contends that the mining activity cannot be carried on in lands which were part of a reserve forest (originally) without permission from the Government and further that this issue is now before the Government in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.P (C) 641/2020.