IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8708 of 2009(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.N.BANU, THEKKUMKATTIL, MEVELLOOR, VELLOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY MR.T.M.MOHAMMED YOUSUFF, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.U.M.FOUSIA SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K. SMT.M.KABANI DINESH SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR SMT.K.M.SABITHA SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 021. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 5. NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. R. NARAYANAN NAIR, PERUMPILLI VEEDU, KALAMPOORT, PIRAVOM. R1 TO R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.RAMESH R5 BY ADVS. MR.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM, MR.KURIAN JOSEPH (ARAKKUNNAM) . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.8708/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDINARY SAND MINING PERMIT DT.D 29.12.04 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 14.10.05 IN WPC. 26161/05. P3:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 2.3.06 IN WPC. 5363/06. P4(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10.4.06 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20.3.06 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DTD. 5.7.06 IN WPC. 11448/06. P6(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18.7.06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 7.10.06 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE REPROT FILED BY THE ADV. COMMISSIONER IN IA. 17030/06 IN WPC. 27913/06. P9:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 6.6.08 IN WPC. 27913/06. P10:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 2.7.08 IN WA. 1371/08. P11:- COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DTD. 25.7.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT P12:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RDO DTD. 18.9.08. P13:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.D 6.10.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SIT RESPONDENT. P14:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 15.10.08 IN WPC. 30236/08. P15:- COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 6.11.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P16:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.L1.064874/08(M2) DTD. 29.1.09 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P17:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B10/11075/06 DTD. 24.11.06 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, ADDL. TAHSILDAR MUVATTUPUZHA TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.8708/2009-G ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P16 order passed by the first respondent prohibiting sand mining from an area of an extent of 75 cents of land is under challenge in this writ petition. It was found by the District Collector that the petitioner has excavated sand heavily by violating the conditions contained in the permit, and this would lead to serious ecological and environmental problems and, therefore, sand mining cannot be permitted. 2. Ext.P1 is the copy of the Quarrying Permit issued by the third respondent-Geologist. There had been successive orders passed by the departmental authorities in the matter whereby, intermittently, stop memos and prohibitory orders were being issued and the same had lead to the parties approaching this Court at various stages. Initially, a stop memo was issued by the second respondent dated 02/06/2005 which was vacated as per Ext.P3 after Judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.26161/2005 in Ext.P2. Ext.P4(a) is a prohibitory order issued later by the second respondent which was vacated as per Ext.P5 order. Subsequently, by Ext.P6(a), the validity of the permit was extended by the third respondent. Consequent disputes also W.P.(C). No.8708/2009 -:2:- arose whereby, the matter reached this Court in W.P.(C). No.27913/2006 which was disposed of by Ext.P9 Judgment from which W.A.No.1371/2008 also arose. In terms of the directions issued by this Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer heard the matter again and by Ext.P12, passed an order prohibiting sand mining. This was taken up before the District Collector in Ext.P13 by the petitioner which was directed to be disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P14 Judgment which resulted in Ext.P16 order passed by the District Collector. 3. The first respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit in the matter. 4. As per order in I.A.No.14395/2009, dated 19/01/2010, this Court had directed the third respondent to conduct a local inspection and to file a report regarding the impact of mining of sand from the property covered by Ext.P1 permit and submit report before this Court. Accordingly, a report has been filed by the third respondent along with a memo dated 19/02/2010. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it has been explained that there are ecological and environmental problems consequent to the removal of sand by the petitioner and the same had caused cancellation of the permit. W.P.(C). No.8708/2009 -:3:- 6. Going by the report submitted by the third respondent, various suggestions have been made for consideration. According to the report, out of the 75 cents of land, from about 67.5 cents of land have been excavated and the brick clay and sand have already been mined and transported. About 125 loads of ordinary sand have been extracted and heaped near the pit. The report provides a description of the adjoining land on various sides of the property in question also. 7. Further it is stated as follows:- “The quarrying in the said land has so far reached only a depth of 3-4.5 mts. from the adjacent ground level. It shows that the depth of the excavated pit has not yet attained the permissible limit. I may submit that as per Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 'the depth of pit below surface shall not exceed 20 feet'. The pit in the land in question has not exceeded the depth limit stipulated by the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. The nearest house is located at a distance of 80 meters from the land in question. In terms of environmental implication due to W.P.(C). No.8708/2009 -:4:- previous mining, it is revealed from the site inspection that no adverse impacts have been identified due to the quarrying activity done over the land in question. I may submit that detailed environmental impact assessment study has not been done in this respect by this office due to the lack of infrastructural facilities for undertaking the same.” 8. Certain further suggestions have also been made by the Geologist in the matter. Significantly, it is clear from the report itself that environmental impact assessment study has not been done by the third respondent's office due to lack of infrastructural facilities for undertaking the same. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the report, there may be a direction to the first respondent to reconsider the matter after allowing an opportunity to the parties to file additional statements etc. 10. What is emphasised in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent is the adverse ecological problems. This aspect is of prime importance. W.P.(C). No.8708/2009 -:5:- 11. In that view of the matter, the first respondent will re-hear the matter and, for enabling the first respondent to do so, Ext.P16 is set aside. The report of the Geologist filed before this Court will be called for and examined in detail by the first respondent to find out whether the mining can be permitted or not. It is evident from the report of the Geologist also that no environmental impact assessment study has been done by the said authority before filing of the report. Steps will be taken to have such a study for enabling the first respondent to pass appropriate orders and the same should get proper attention before any order is passed in the matter. 12. Appropriate orders will be passed after hearing rival parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The first respondent will be free to direct the third respondent- Geologist to conduct a detailed study and submit fresh reports in the matter with the assistance of the experts. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms