MTR MOONADI QURRY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a proprietary concern. They were operating a granite building stone quarry at Edapatta in Malappuram District on the strength of Ext.P1 Environmental Clearance issued to them on 01.12.2017 in terms of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (EIA Notification, 2006) issued under the Environment (Protection) Act,1986 (the Act). The quarry of the petitioner is located near the Silent Valley National Park established under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. On 18.10.2019, the seventh respondent interdicted the operation of the quarry of the petitioner on the ground that they need to obtain clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (the Standing Committee) constituted under Section 5B of the Wildlife (Protection) Act also for operating their quarry since it is located within 10 kilometres from Silent Valley National Park. Ext.P6 is the notice issued by the seventh respondent to the petitioner in this regard. In Ext.P6 notice, it is stated that the said communication is issued in the light of Ext.P8 office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India dated 8.8.2019 insisting clearance from the Standing Committee for mining projects within 10 kilometres from the National Parks. Ext.P6 notice is under challenge in the writ petition. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that restrictions in the nature of one provided for in Ext.P8 office memorandum can be imposed only in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Environment (Protection) Rules (the Rules), and the quarry of the petitioner being one located beyond the eco-sensitive zone around the Silent Valley National Park covered by Ext.P10 draft notification issued under Section 3 of the Act and Rule 5 of the Rules, there cannot be any impediment in law for operating the same.

(2.) A statement has been filed by the fourth respondent in the matter reiterating the contents of Ext.P6 notice. In addition, it is pointed out in the said statement that it was found in the enquiry conducted pursuant to the complaint lodged by the eighth respondent that the petitioner has been conducting blasting in the quarry in the early hours of the day and therefore, it has been decided to interdict the operation of the quarry on that ground also.

(3.) Heard Adv.Santhosh Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv.V.R.Rakesh, the learned Central Government Counsel, Adv.Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) and Adv.K.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel for respondents 8 and 9.