The Kerala High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondents authorities to take necessary action to stop the quarrying activities conducted by the private respondents in the landed property of Arackappady and Mazhuvannoor village.
The PIL filed by Environmental Protection Forum seeks following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to take necessary action to stop the quarrying activities conducted by the private respondents in the landed property of Arackappady and Mazhuvannoor village.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the Kerala State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (respondent No.4) and District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (respondent No.5) to not renew the Environmental Clearance.
c. Direct the respondents to take effective steps to assess and quantify the exact quantity of granite stones illegally and illicitly quarried by the Private respondent firm from the landed property of Arackappady and Mazhuvannoor village by using the assistance of a Recognised Qualified Person (RQP) attached to the Mining and Geology Department and using Total Station or GPS surveying or survey using appropriate latest equipments, and technologies and direct the said respondents to take appropriate action against the private respondent for illicit and illegal extraction of granite stones.
d. Direct the respondents not to further grant or renew any quarrying permit or lease submitted by the private respondents firm with respect to the landed property of Arackappady and Mazhuvannoor village.
The private respondents have been carrying out illicit and excessive granite building stone quarrying activities in the landed property of Arackappady and Mazhuvannoor village since 2013 under cover of quarrying permits, quarrying lease order and environmental clearance. It is submitted that the said illegal and illicit quarrying activities are presently conducted under the guise of holding quarrying lease order and environmental clearance.
Prior to getting the aforesaid quarrying lease order in 2018, private respondent used to carry out quarrying activities in a smaller part of the said landed property of Arackappady village by virtue of quarrying permits. The said illegal and excessive quarrying is conducted with the active connivance and support of all the regulating authorities, especially the Geologist. This is evident from the fact that the quarrying permits were continued to be given illegally until 15.11.2016 without following the mandate by the Apex Court. Later, The Director , Mining and Geology Department, Thiruvananthapuram (respondent No.2) also issued quarrying lease order in respect of a larger area without taking into account the excessive extractions done by the Private respondent in connection with the earlier permits.
The petitioner reliably learnt that, at present, about 3000 MT of granite stones are being quarried on a daily basis. In the above circumstances, the petitioner submitted representations before the concerned authorities, raising the said issues and requesting them to stop all the quarrying activities of private respondents in the said landed property by cancelling the quarrying lease order and environmental clearance. The petitioner had also requested the said authorities to carry out a proper assessment by a recognised qualified professional using appropriate latest technology and equipment, including a Total Station or GPS Survey, with regard to the extent of the illegal quarrying conducted by private respondent . Prior to submission of the aforesaid representations, the petitioner had preferred several complaints before many authorities including respondent Nos. 2 and Geologist Mining and Geology office , Ernakulam District (Respondent No. 3) and was successful in causing some pressure to respondent No.3 as he understood that if no action is initiated, he will also be proceeded against legally for facilitating the illegal quarrying activities of private respondent.
In pursuance of the same, respondent No.3 issued show cause notice and demand notice to private respondent and he was made to pay a fine for illicit extraction as evidenced by receipt. The issuance of the said notices and preparation of the rectification plan by the private respondent on his own assessment, is simply hogwash.
Earlier also, when nearby residents had raised an issue against the excessive quarrying, respondent No.3, in order to save face and to prevent the agitated persons from approaching larger authorities and the court, without any proper assessment, had directed private respondent to remit certain amounts for doing excessive and illegal quarrying. In fact, the quantity of granites said to have been quarried in excess as per the said rectification plan, demand notice and receipts is just a minuscule portion of the actual quantity quarried in violation and excess of the respective permit, order, clearance etc. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are also not carrying out proper post-environmental clearance monitoring as contemplated in the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also not even taken any steps to assess and quantify the exact quantity of granite stones illicitly extracted by the private respondent.
It is stated that, presently, the period of Environment Clearance has expired, and Private respondents have applied for its renewal. Considering the said illegal and illicit extraction, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 ought to refrain from renewing the Environmental Clearance. The said illicit and illegal quarrying has a huge adverse impact on the environment and the quality of the lives of the residents. Hence, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and The Geologist Kerala Mineral Squad ought to take steps to stop all the quarrying activities in the said landed property. It is also highly necessary that respondent No. 2 takes appropriate steps for a Total Station or GPS survey using the appropriate latest equipment, and technologies for assessing the exact quantity of stones illegally extracted by respondent No.9 with the help of a recognised qualified person attached to the Mining and Geology Department. Hence, the petition is filed.
When the writ petition came up for admission on 18.01.2023, the Court directed the respondent No.2, to cause inspection of the quarry sites, make an assessment using the latest technology and submit a report, as regards the extent of land permitted to be quarried and extent of material excavated, if any, beyond the permissible limit. The Director, Mining and Geology Department was also directed to ascertain whether private respondents have any environmental clearance, if required.
When the petition came up for further consideration on 01.02.2023, the Senior Government Pleader submitted that based on complaints received about illicit mining going on in the quarry, the District Collector, Ernakulam has ordered a contour survey of quarry and based on the sketch to be obtained after completion of the survey, the Director, Mining and Geology will calculate the quantum of illicit extraction of granite building stone and will proceed against the lessee as per the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015.
Based on our direction in the order dated 18.01.2023, the Senior Government Pleader has filed a memo dated 10.02.2023 producing the inspection report of the Director, Mining and Geology dated 09.02.2023. The Senior Government Pleader has also produced the digital survey report of the Surveyor mentioned in the aforesaid inspection report of the Director of Mining and Geology.
A counter affidavit dated 16.03.2023 is filed by the private respondents stating that they have not conducted any illegal activity as alleged in the writ petition. It is stated that though quarrying lease comes to an end only on 16.02.2029, they have stopped the quarrying activities based on the said permit. It is also stated that they do not intend to conduct any quarrying operation at present and that they have not made any application for renewal of environmental clearance. They have also denied that they have extracted granite stones beyond the permissible limits.
The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by private respondents traversing the averments therein.
Having considered the pleadings of the parties and the inspection report submitted by the Director of Mining and Geology, the Division Bench of Chief Justice S.Manikumar and Justice Murali Purushothaman disposes of the petition, directing the Director of Mining and Geology to take further appropriate action based on the inspection report dated 09.02.2023, under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015.