High Court Kerala High Court

S.Vasudevan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 27 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
S.Vasudevan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 27 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29673 of 2010(H)


1. S.VASUDEVAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. VIJAYA DEVI,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. THE GEOLOGIST,

4. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :27/09/2010

 O R D E R
                     ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

           ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
               W.P.(C) No. 29673 of 2010 H
           ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
           Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P3

and P4. Petitioner applied for mining permit for the removal of

clay. Though, by Ext.P1 report of the Geologist,

recommendation was made for grant of the permit, it is stated

that request of the petitioner was finally rejected. Appeal was

filed before the Government. That was also rejected by

Ext.P3 order. Petitioner filed another appeal against Ext.P3

before the Government, which was also rejected by Ext.P4

order dated 05-06-2010. Petitioner sought for reconsideration

of the matter by filing Exts.P5 and P6. There was no

response and at this stage, this writ petition was filed.

2. Reason stated in Ext.P4 is contained in paragraph

5, which reads as under:-

” 5. The petitioner and his counsel

were again heard on 19-05-2010. The matter

was examined in detail after taking into

WPC.29673/10
: 2 :

account the contentions of both parties. On

the basis of the directions given to the

Director of Mining & Geology a field

inspection was carried out by Sri.D.P.

Sreekumar, Senior Geologist on 05-04-2010

in the averred area. During the inspection,

the Geologist and Assistant Geologist of the

District Office, Kollam and Special Village

Officer concerned were also present. In the

report furnished by Sri.D.P.Sreekumar, Senior

Geologist it is stated that the averred area is

situated on the bank of Kallada river and

forms a part of the flood plain. The appellant

had already extracted brick clay from the

averred area on the strength of the Quarrying

Permits issued from the Geologist, District

Office, Kollam during the year 2002-03. Due

to the above extraction the surface level of the

averred area and the surrounding area has

come down and also due to mining activities,

most of the adjoining areas has become water

logged, even during the month of April. It is

also reported that the entire area has already

become environmentally fragile and further

WPC.29673/10
: 3 :

mining in the area can accelerate the flooding

of the entire area and there could be a drift in

the course of the river. The Senior Geologist

opined that since mining activity is likely to

cause severe environmental degradation, it

would be advisable to abstain from any such

further mining activities in the averred area

which would lead to severe environmental

impact such as flooding, change of river

course etc. Moreover the consent given by the

Secretary, State Pollution Control Board also

expired on 30-06-2009 and no further consent

for mining has been given by the Pollution

Control Board since 30-06-2009.”

3. A perusal of the above shows that it was only

because of the environmental impact and for other relevant

consideration that the mining permit sought for by the

petitioner was rejected. There is nothing to show that the

reasons contained in Ext.P4 are arbitrary or are vitiated for

malafides. In such circumstances, this Court will not be

justified in upsetting the said order.

WPC.29673/10
: 4 :

4. However, petitioner has a case that mining is

permitted in the neighbouring properties and, therefore, he

alone could not have been discriminated. Even if the

submission that mining is permitted in the neighbouring

properties is factually correct, there is no material to conclude

that those properties are similar in all respects. That apart,

even if wrong permits are granted to other properties, there is

no justification for the prayer made before this Court to order

grant of permit to the petitioner. The writ petition fails.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks