AMAL MATHEW Vs. DISTRICT GEOLOGIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in the above writ petitions seek renewal of quarrying permit without insistence for an environmental clearance as provided under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 [for brevity "the Rules"]. The petitioners admittedly had been holding mining permits, which expired. The mining permits of both the petitioners expired in December, 2014. The order produced at Exhibit P1 in the respective writ petitions are said to have been renewal of earlier permits issued; without insisting for a environmental clearance, since the Government orders issued by the State in that respect permitted issuance of short-term mining permits even without any environmental clearance. In any event, when a further renewal was sought for, of Exhibit P1, the same was not considered in view of Exhibit P2 order passed in a batch of writ petitions.

(2.) In that batch of writ petitions the questions raised inter alia dealt with the insistence for environmental clearance certificates to existing permits/licenses/concessions. The interim order, based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, 2012 4 SCC 629], restrained the State Government from issuing any fresh permits till the matter is heard, on the concession made by the learned Advocate General before the Division Bench. The said batch of writ petitions have now been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala, 2015 2 KerLT 78].

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Division Bench judgment, the environmental clearance certificate is to be insisted only for new permits/licenses. The specific case put forward by the petitioners is that even the Rules, brought into force in February 2015, by a proviso to Rule 12 exempts environmental clearance required under Rule 9 in the case of renewal of quarrying permits in respect of quarries which had a valid permit as on 09.01.2015. The petitioners' contentions are two-fold. One, that, if the petitioner's renewal application was considered at the proper time, i.e., in December, 2014, then the petitioner would have had an existing permit as on 09.01.2015, which he would have been entitled to renew without environmental clearance. An alternative plea has also been raised, with a challenge to the proviso to Rule 12 insofar as the date prescribed being arbitrary and discriminatory and devoid of any nexus with the intention sought to be achieved.