The Kerala High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking direction to the respondent authorities to take necessary action to stop the quarrying activities conducted by private respondents in the landed property of Vengoor West village.
The PIL is filed by Environmental Protection forum, seeking to bring to the notice of the Court the illegal quarrying activities conducted by respondent No.9 (partnership firm) beyond the permissible limits laid down in the respective quarrying permits, integrated consent to operate, and environmental clearance issued by the 3rd respondent (Geologist), 8th respondent (Environmental Engineer), and respondent No. 5 (District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority), respectively.
The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the 9th respondent, a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, along with respondents 10 to 12, have been carrying on quarrying of granite stones in the landed property owned by the 11th respondent, in Vengoor West Village.
Petitioner has further stated that a quarrying permit dated 29.06.2019 is issued by the 3rd respondent, the Geologist, Mining and Geology office, Ernakulam, to the 11th respondent permitting the quarrying of 20000 metric tonnes of granite stones. However, in utter violation of the said permit, respondent No.9 quarried 300000 metric tonnes of granite. Later, the 9th respondent partnership firm was permitted to quarry 28146 metric tonnes of granite from the said landed property, by virtue of the permit dated 17.07.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent. However, the 9th respondent again extracted granite stones exceeding the permissible limit, in violation of the permit.
Petitioner has further stated that as per the Environmental Clearance dated 28-06-2018, issued by the 5th respondent. The 9th respondent was only allowed to quarry building stones at the rate of 28146 ton per annum for a period of 5 years. But, the 9th respondent has already excavated 25,00,000 metric tonnes, in violation of environmental clearance.
Petitioner has further stated that the Geologist, Mining and Geology Office, Thiruvananthapuram (3rd respondent), had conducted an inspection on 04.07.2019, in the landed property wherein, the 9th respondent is carrying on the quarrying activities, and based on the said inspection, the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice dated 22.07.2019, as to why legal action has not been taken against the firm for the extraction of 7358 metric tonnes of building stones, and also as to why, 11500 metric tonnes of building stones are seen excavated and lying in the adjoining property in Kombamnadu Village, which is outside the land property pertaining to which, the quarrying permit is granted. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 12.10.2020 was issued by the 3 rd respondent for not maintaining the reserve deposit.
It is submitted by the Petitioner that the 9th respondent firm is also carrying out quarrying activities and stocking the quarried stones in the adjacent landed properties, which include Government properties, beyond the mining area, as evident from . Subsequently, on 26.08.2020, the 9th respondent firm paid an amount of Rs.8,53,000/- towards fine for the illicit extraction of stones from the landed property, as evidenced by challan dated 26.08.2020.
The Petitioner contended that there is a slow sand filter and a water reservoir of the Kerala Water Authority, within 107 metres away from the landed property wherein, the quarrying activities are being undertaken by the 9th respondent firm. The residents of Vengoor East and West villages are much dependent for drinking water on the said water reservoir and related units. The explosions conducted in connection with the said quarrying activities adversely affect the said water reservoir.
The Petitioner has asserted that the 9th respondent firm is also carrying out mining operations in violation of the conditions laid down in integrated consent to operate issued by the 7th respondent (Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Ernakulam) to the Managing Partner of the 9th respondent firm as the quarrying activities are carried out beyond the area marked by Mining and Geology and it is being done in violation of environmental clearance.
Petitioner has further contended that being aggrieved by the conduct of the 9th respondent, though he had made representations to respondents 3, 4 and 7, viz the Geologist, Mining and Geology Office, Kakkanad; Kerala State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, represented by its Chairman, Thiruvananthapuram; and Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution control Board, Ernakulam respectively, requesting to stop all the quarrying activities of the 9th respondent conducted in the landed property, by cancelling the permit/licence/environmental clearance, no action has been taken so far.
In such circumstances, petitioner is constrained to approach the Court by filing the instant petition for the reliefs stated above.
In response to the report submitted by the District Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, Ernakulam, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the survey report does not reflect the actual amount of granite stones quarried illicitly as the same is seen to have prepared in an unscientific manner, without any basis. Further, the digital survey also does not reflect the actual length, breadth, and height of the mined area. Hence, the report is silent as to how or using what tools, the digital survey has been carried out.
Inviting the attention of the Court to the report of the Senior Geologist, Mining and Geology Department, Ernakulam, Tek Chand V., Senior Government Pleader submitted that, the office of the Mining and Geology had conducted a joint inspection of the quarry along with the Taluk Surveyor on 28.09.2021, to estimate the quantity of illicitly extracted granite stones.
But, the Revenue Department has not provided the survey sketch. Therefore, with the help of the Surveyor of Department of Mining and Geology, survey was conducted and excess excavation of the granite stones was found.
In reply to the above, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the survey report does not reflect the actual amount of granite stones quarried illicitly as the same is seen to have been prepared in an unscientific manner, without any basis.
The digital survey sketch does not reflect the actual length, breadth and height of the mined area. Hence, the area and volume of the portion shown as ‘mined area’ are arrived at without any basis.
The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the survey report is also silent as to how or using what tools, the digital survey is carried out.
The unscientific manner of arriving at the volume of the mining area by the Digital Surveyor and the blind reliance of the same by the 3rd respondent, for best reasons known to him, while submitting the report before this Court, is an attempt by the 3rd respondent to suppress the actual quantity of stones quarried illicitly.
However, the counsel appearing for the 11th respondent submitted that after the digital survey, referred to in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, another inspection was carried out by the Taluk Surveyor and found that there are contradictions in the quantity of the granite excavated.
Responding to the above, Senior Government Pleader submitted that proceedings have already been initiated by the competent authority, in accordance with the provisions of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, for violation of the conditions in the licenses/permits/environmental clearance etc. In such circumstances, it is open to the 11th respondent to submit his explanation along with all the supporting documents, including revenue survey sketch.
Senior Government Pleader also submitted that though notice was given to the 11th respondent, he was not present when the inspection was conducted by the District Geologist. Said submission has not been refuted.
Having considered the submissions advanced, pleadings, contentions raised in the respective counter affidavits, statutory provisions, and the material on record, in particular, the inspection report submitted by the District Geologist, Mining and Geology, Ernakulam, the Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Murali Purushothaman disposed of the petition, directing the Director of Mining and Geology Department, Thiruvananthapuram (respondent No.2), to take further appropriate action based on the inspection report submitted, under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015.