The Kerala High Court disposed of a petition seeking a direction to the respondents to issue stop memo forthwith to all quarry operators extracting mineral under it, who are issued with/renewed the quarry lease without having the environmental clearance as envisaged under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006.
The petition filed by one Subramanyan E.K. sought the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to implement the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006, strictly and in accordance with directions contained in the judgment of the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana reported in (2012) 4 SCC 629 and the subsequent judgment of the High Court in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala [2015 (3) KLT 78] and The Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya Samithy and another v. State of Kerala and others.
(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent (State of Kerala) to cancel all the Quarry Leases and Quarrying Permits issued by it, without obtaining the Environmental Clearance, as envisaged under the EIA Notification, 2006;
(iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction, fixing personal liability to the concerned respondents for its failure in issuing and renewing of Quarry Leases and issuing and renewing of the Consent to Operate without obtaining the Environmental Clearance and allowing such units to operate after the EIA Notification, 2006 came into force and for the consequent degradation caused to the Mineral Deposits of the State;
(iv) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents to ensure that no quarrying operations are undertaken by anyone with proper and valid licenses and consent and permit from the concerned authorities as provided under law.
(v) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents to pay compensation to the affected citizens in State of Kerala due to the illegal quarrying operations under public law in view of the “polluter pay principles” enunciated by the Apex Court.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents, who are bound to protect the environment and ecology, are siding with the operators of illegal quarry and permitting them to exploit mines and minerals indiscriminately.
The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others [(2012) 4 SCC 629], in which, it was held that lease of minor mineral, including their renewal thereof, for an area of less than 5 hectares, be granted by the State/Union Territories, only after getting environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. On the basis of the said direction, the Government of Kerala has amended the Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2015.
By inviting attention of the Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Murali Purushothaman to the prayers sought for and Rule 9 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, the Senior Government Pleader further submitted that the requirement of Environmental Clearance before undertaking quarrying operations, as contemplated under the EIA Notification 2006 has been incorporated in Rule 9 of the rules.
Having regard to the above and taking note of the common judgment in WA No.2034 of 2015 & connected cases dated 07.12.2016, and also the statutory provisions, nothing survives in this petition and accordingly the petition is disposed of by the High Court.