Case Title: K.SEKHARAN V. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS..
Case No: WP © NO. 7203 OF 2023
Decided on: 15 JANUARY, 2024
CORAM: JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
Facts of the Case
The matter pertains to two writ petitions, W.P (C) Nos.7203 of 2023 and 15771 of 2023, challenging quarrying activities conducted by the 11th respondent. In W.P (C) No.7203 of 2023, the petitioner, residing within 50 meters of the quarry operated by the 11th respondent, alleges illegal quarrying operations. The quarry purportedly operates based on various clearances and licenses, including Environmental Clearance (Ext.P1), Consent to Operate (Ext.P2), Explosive License (Ext.P3), D&O License (Ext.P4), and Quarrying Lease (Ext.P5).
The petitioner’s contentions are twofold: first, the quarry operates within 10 kilometers of the Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary, violating Ext.P6 issued by the Wildlife Warden; second, the quarrying operations occur in lands assigned for special purposes, contrary to the decision in Raphy John v. State of Kerala.
Legal Provisions
Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960: Governs the assignment of lands for special purposes and outlines the rules for such assignments. Environmental Clearance (Ext.P1): Issued by the District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, indicating compliance with environmental norms. Consent to Operate (Ext.P2): Granted by the Pollution Control Board, signifying compliance with pollution control regulations. Explosive License (Ext.P3): Issued by the Addl. District Magistrate, permitting the use of explosives in quarrying activities. D&O License (Ext.P4): License issued by the local authority, authorizing quarrying operations. Quarrying Lease (Ext.P5): Issued by the Director, Mining and Geology, allowing the 11th respondent to conduct quarrying activities in specified lands
Issues
Whether the quarrying activities conducted by the 11th respondent are illegal based on the alleged proximity to Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary? Whether the lands on which quarrying operations take place were assigned for special purposes, rendering such operations impermissible as per Raphy John’s case? Whether the various clearances and licenses obtained by the 11th respondent are valid in light of the petitioner’s contentions?
Courts Analysis and Decision
The court deliberated on the contentions of both parties. The petitioner relied on Raphy John’s case, arguing that quarrying operations in assigned lands are impermissible. The 11th respondent countered, asserting that the lands were not assigned and presented certificates (Exts.R11(a) to R11(c)) from revenue officials to substantiate their claim. The court considered the statements filed by the 8th and 10th respondents, Tahsildar and concerned authorities respectively, which confirmed that the lands covered by the Quarrying Lease (Ext.P5) were originally assigned under the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960. Given the facts and circumstances and considering the potential prejudice to the petitioner and damage to the property covered by Ext.P5, the court granted an interim stay on quarrying operations by the 11th respondent in the specified lands. The court emphasized the precedent set in Raphy John’s case, highlighting that quarrying activities in assigned lands are impermissible. The court directed respondents 2 and 5 to 8 to ensure immediate compliance with the interim order. The stay remains in effect until the final disposal of the writ petitions. This order reflects the court’s commitment to protecting assigned lands from unauthorized quarrying activities, aligning with the principles established in relevant legal provisions and prior judgments.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
