SOUHRADA CHARITABLE CLUB Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed in the form of a public interest litigation, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The petitioners grievance is regarding the grant of Environmental Clearance without conducting proper study. Petitioners point out that the 8 th respondent is conducting illegal and unscientific quarrying operations. Reference is made to the all quarrying activities being conducted by the 8 th respondent under the brand name Anugraha Metals and Sand Private Limited. It is stated that earlier when the petitioner approached this court by filing W.P.(C)No.34210 of 2016 alleging illegal quarrying activities, direction has been issued by this court to stop the illegal quarrying operations, conducted by 7 quarry operators. Ext.P3 is one such interim order. It is submitted that the 8 th respondent has now submitted an application before the District Level Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC) seeking to grant Environmental Clearance for Resurvey No.272/1, 2 and 3 in Block 11 of Malayattoor village. The intention is to quarry an extent of 0.7520 hectares of land. The Mining Plan submitted by the 8 th respondent before the District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) is produced as Exts.P5 and P6. According to the petitioner, he preferred a detailed objection against the grant of Environmental Clearance to the 8 th respondent and Ext.P8 dated 4.9.2018 is the said objection. In the meantime, the National Green Tribunal passed orders in O.A.No.186 of 2016 considering the validity of the litigation dated 15.1.2016 relegating the competent authority to grant Environmental Clearance in respect of certain category of industries. Ext.P10 is the order dated 13.9.2018 of the National Green Tribunal. It was, inter alia, held by the National Green Tribunal in the said interim order directing the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change to take appropriate steps to revise the procedure laid down in the impugned notification dated 15 th January 2016 in terms of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others (2012) 4 SCC 629 . According to the petitioner, in the light of the said order, respondents 5 and 6 has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications. It is in the said backdrop that this writ petition has been filed and the reliefs have been sought for.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by 8th respondent, they took up a contention that the land in respect of which the quarrying is proposed is still a Government puramboke land and was never assigned to any person and that the competent revenue authority had granted NOC, which is produced as Ext.R8(c). However, it is submitted that, after orders had been passed by the National Green Tribunal on 13.9.2018 and 11.12.2018, respondent had filed a fresh application before the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. The said application is pending consideration. There is a procedure to be followed by the said authority and once such procedure is followed there is no reason the petitioner should be heard in the matter. It is also submitted that the petitioner had obtained other clearances and that the respondent had not suppressed any matter as alleged by the petitioner.