—i ee Presented on: 26.10.2019 Subject: KMMC_ Rules-Chellenging renewal of querrying leases and issuance of Environmental Clearance to run two quarries without any evaluation and assessment regerding environmental impact, BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM (Special Original Jurisdiction) Writ Petition (Civil).No. 28715 of 2019, Petitioners. 1 Ansari & others Ys Z Respondents State of Kerala represented by Secrétary to Government, Industries Department, ‘Thiruvananthapuram @ others SIJU KAMALASANAN (S-2010) (K/636/1994), S.ABHILASH (4-494) (K/1641/1998), REKHA.S (R-1128) (K/156/1994), MUHAMMED RAFFI (M-857) (K-1182/02) SEETHA.S (S-2926) (K-1399/2002) & ANJANA KANNATH (A-1554) (K-939/2014) COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERSBEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM (Special Original Jurisdiction) ‘Writ Petition (Civil).Ne. 28715 of 2019 Petitioners Ansari & others Vs Respondents State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, Inéustries Department, ‘Thiravananthaparam & others aie | Nol Hos [i [Synopsis 1 ("Sr ] Memorandum of Writ petition (Civij TT (S_ [affidavit or 18 [4 [ERRIBIEPI: ‘Truc copy of quarrying lease dt31.01.2018 | 19-28 | executed between the respondents $ and 12 | Bxhibit- P2. The copy of quamying lease dt.10.01,2019 | 29-35 | executed between the 164 respondent anid 3+ respondent. The copy of Environmental | Certificate dt.g0.11.2017 issued te the 19° respondent | regarding Quarry No.1 ‘The copy of Environmental Clearance | 55-60 Certificate dt.21,08,2018 issued by the 7% respondent to | the 134 respondent. EMLLTS Ths iy OC ose Sle mang of| ST waste water to the nearby Thodu from ‘(Quarry No.1” Exhibit-P6: The copy of photographs of the Quarry No.” 62 Exhibit?7, The | t.29,09.2015 woo of GOR) No.59/201S Tran] 69-64 Exhibit: The copy of query submitted under Right to | 65~ 68 11. | fnformation Act dt.14.08.2019 and its reply dt 04.09.2019 Ex ‘The photographs of the magazine referred in| 69 12. | the explosive licenses granted to the quarries 1 and 2. ERIDIEPIO: The copy of explosive licenses issued by the | 70-71 1S: | gir vespondent to the 130 respondent for (Quarry No.1 [BRIBE Ths copy of aon Hess ive 8% respondent to the 19 respondent for ‘Quarry No.2 Dated this the 25% day af October, 2019 Counsel for the petitBEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. AT ERNAKULAM. (Special Original Jurisdiction) Writ Petition (Civil).No. 28715 of 2019 Potitioners : Ansari & others Vs Respondents: _—_-State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, ‘Thiravananthapuram & others SYNOPSIS ‘The petitioners are residents of Muklannam ward of Kummil Grama Panchayath at Kollam District, wherein the respondent 110.13 has established and operating two quarries as per Exhibit Pl and P2 quarrying lease. The petitioners arc aggrieved by the operation of the quarries, which resulted environmental degradation and pollution in the area, ‘The petitioners’ right to life is adversely affected by the operation of the quarry. The grievance of the petitioners are that, the statutory authorities, respondents 2 to 11 issued permits and license to operate the quarries in total disregard of Rules governed in the field. The respondent 6 and 7 issued Environmental Clearance without conducting any study, evaluation and assessment end in total violation of the procedures envisaged in the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification ‘Though the respondent No.13 is fixed with liability for conducting iMegal/excess quarrying and penslty was imposed, instead of terminating the lease, the 3 respondent renewed the same. The quarry is violating Rule 77 of KMMC Rules and Rule 106 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulation. The respondent no.13 is plying vehicles with loads more than 10 tons of weight through narrow Panchayath roads to access the quarry in violation of Exhibit P7 Government Order. The quarry is polluting natural water sources in the area and polluting air, Hence the Writ Petition (Civil) challenging Exhibit Pl to P4 and P10 & P11. Chronology of Events 31.3.2018 Quarrying lease was renewed for quarry No.1 10.1.2019 Quarrying lease was renewed for quarry No.2 30.11.2017 EC 91/2017 was issued 31.8.2018 EC issued for quarry No.2 Provision of law involved: Rule 106 of Metalliferous Mines Regulation Rule 68 & 77 of KMMC Rules Decisions Cited: Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others (2012) 4 SCC 629 Dated this the 25% day of October, 2019 Counsel for the petitionersBEOFRE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM (Special Original Jurisdiction) Writ Petition (Civil).No. 28715 of 2019 1. Angari, S/0,Abdul Kharim, aged 41 years, Anzia Manzil, Mukleannam, Kaclatekal P.O, Kollam District, Pin:691 836 2, Abdul Gafoor, S/o Asanaru Pillai, aged 45 years, VKP House, Mukkunnam, Kadakkal P.O, Kollam Disteiet, Pin: 691 536 3, Muhammed Taha, S/o Sainudeen Rawthar, ayed 44 years, Tholikcunnil House, Mankadu, Kummil P.O, Kollam District, Pin: 691 536 Vs Respondents: 1, State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001 ‘The Director of Mining and Geology, Office of the Mining and Geology, Kesavadasapuram, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram ~ 695 004 4S. The District Geologist, Office of Mining And Gcology, Kesavanikethan, Asramam, Kollam - 691 002 4. The District Collector, Civil Station, Kollam-691 018 5. The Village Officer, Kummil Village, Kurmil P.O, Kollam District, Pin: 691 536 6. Kerala State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, represented by ils member sccretary, Pallimuldeu Kannammovla Road, Velakudi, ‘Thiravananthapuram, Pin; 695 024 7. ‘The District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA), Civil Station, Kollam, represented by its member secretary and Sub Collector, Civil Station, Kollam, Pin: 691 018 8. Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Petroleum and Exptosive Safety Organization (PESO), Kendriya Bhavan, Block C2, Kakkanad, Emakulam, Pin: 682 037 9. The Environmental Engineer, Pollution Control Board, District Office, Kollam, Pin: 691 001 10. The District Medical Officer, Kotlam District, Civil Station, Kollam District, Pin: 691 01311. Kummil Grama Panchayath, Kummil P.O, Kollam District, Pin: 691 536 represented by its Secretary, 12. Joint Road Transport Officer, RTO Office, Kottarakckara, Kollam-691 506 13, Mr. M.K. Biju, S/o M.Karunakaran, Karthika, Kuttikad P.O, Kadakkal, Kollam District, Proprietor, Karthika Granites and Quarry, Cherukara, Kummil P.O, Kadakkal, Kollam District, Pin: 691 536, ‘The address for service of all notice, process etc on the petitioner is that of their counsel SIJU KAMALASANAN, S.ABHILASH, REKHA.S, MUHAMMED RAFI, SEETHA.S & ANJANA KANNATH, ADVOCATES, Le-Lawyers 68/443, Ist Floor, Ruby Court View, Poothulli Lane, Kombara, Kochi - 18 and that of the respondents on their address as shown above. -MEMORANDAM OF ION (CIVIL) FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 ‘The above named petitioner most respectfully states and submits as follows: 1. The petitioners are residents of Mukkunnam ward of Kummil Grama Panchayath, wherein the 19 respondent is conducting two Granite Quarries based on permits and licenses obtained from respondents 2 to 11 through deceitful means, The 13! respondent is conducting the quarries in total disregard of the conditions stipulated by the statutory authorities in such a way resulting environmental degradation affecting the right to life of the petitioners and other inhabitants in the area. The petitioners challenges the issuance of Environmental Clearance which were issued by the respondents 6 and 7 in total violation of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification and the renewal of quarrying lease to the respondent No.13. 2, The 13% respondent is running @ granite quarry in Re.Sy.Nos.432/3, 492/3/1/2, 482/3/1/3 in Block No.50 of Kummil Village, Kollam District for several years. ‘The quarrying lease issucd in favor of the 13% respondent by the 9" respondent was periodically renewed and now as per lease decd dated 31.01.2018, he was permitted to conduct quarrying from an extent of 1.0533 hectres in the above referred Re.Sy.Numbers for a period of § years from 91.01.2018 to 30.01.2023, The copy of quarrying3. Tease dt.31.01.2018 executed between the respondents Nos. 3 and 13 is Produced herewith and marked as Exhiblt-Pi. The 130 respondent established a quarry based on Exhibit Pl and conducting the same in Wiolation of the specific stipulations in the Environment Protection Act, Motalliferous Mines Regulations and Environmental Impact Assessment Notification. the quarry established and operated on the strength of Exhibit Pl is herein after referred as ‘(Quarry No.1 for brevity Similarly the 13 respondent entered into a quarrying lease with the Sv respondent regarding 3.221 hectors of property in Re.Sy.No.405/7, 405/8- 1, 405/8-2, 406/2, 404/2 of Kummil Village in Kollam District on 10.01.2019. In fact the quarrying lease was renewed on 10.01.2019 for a further period of 5 years till 09.01.2024. Though the quarry was started operation earlier, due to the public protest, the operation was suspended for a while and restarted only after executing the fresh quarrying lease. The Copy of quamying lease dt.10.01.2019 executed between the 13m respondent and 3" respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P2. the Quarry is operating as per Exhibit P2 in survey os.404/1, 404/2-2, 404/3, 404/4, 404/5, 404/6, 405/6, 405/7, 405/8- 4, 405/8-2, 406/2 and from adjacent government land 404/2 in Block No.50 of Kummil Village. ‘The quarry operating in the above survey numbers pursuant Exhibit P2 Quarrying Lease is hereinafter referred as ‘Quarry No.2’ for brevity. It is submitted that both Quarry No.1 and 2 had operating in Block No.50 of Kummil Village in the same vicinity, beneath a mountain namely Alumiannu in Mukkunnam ward of Kummil Panchayath, The people in the locality started agitation against the working of the quarries, since it affected their peaceful life, availability of drinking water and due to the air, water and sound pollution caused due to the working of the quarries, The 13% respondent who is an influential person started to threaten thepetitioners and others against the continuing agitation. Due to the threat and fear of assault, many of the affected persons were forced to withdraw from the agitation due to fear and remaining persons like the petitioners were repeatediy threatened by the henchmen of the 13" respondent. The statutory authorities failed to take any action to check the environmental pollution caused by the working of the two quarries and whenever the petitioners and other persons questioned the illegal activities of the 13% respondent, the very same authorities are reluctant to take any action ‘against the 13 respondent saying that the 19 respondent is holding statutory licenses. The petitioners obtained the copies of the licenses and permits from the office of the 11! respondent through Right to Information ‘Act. On perusal of the licenses/permits obtained through RTI Act, the petitioners were convinced about the collusion and foul play on the part of the responsible officers with the 19% respondent in granting/renewing the licenses and permits. Itis submitted that, the 6" respondent, Kerala State Environmental Impact ‘Assesement Authority had issued Environmental Clearance to the ‘Quarry No.1? based on a proceedings dt.30.11.2017 vide EC No.91/2017. The copy of Environmental Clearance Certificate dt.80.11.2017 issued to the 19 respondent regarding Quarry No.1 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P3. Even on a bare reading of the document shows that, there is no impact assessment as required in the BIA notification was done by the SEIAA and the EC was iesued on a mechanical way. The environmental impact resulting to the property of the 131" respondent wherein the quarry is established or the impact in the neighboring propertics of the quarry was not considered or subjected to any study while issuing the Environmental Clearance Certificate. The Assessment Authority has not studied the impact of establishing/running a quarry as proposed in the surroundings. ‘The authority only incorporated the project details and the proposedmitigation mecoures submitted by the 13% respondent in Exhibit P3. No screening or scoping was done with regard to the application submitted ty the 19% respondent and the materials given by the project proponent as fequired in the Environmental Impact Assessment notification. No publie consultation was done or any report from the expert appraisal committee or State Expert Appraisal Commitice (EAC) evaluated the proposals made in the application for Environmental Clearance submitted by the 19% Tespondent. No ‘Appraisal’ was conducted by the Expert Appraisal ‘Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee in the proposal made by the 13% respondent The proceedings adapted by the 6% respondent before issuing Exhibit P3 Environmental Clearance Cerificate to the ‘Quarry No.1’ were not at all transparent. Similarly the 7® respondent, the ‘then District Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority had issued Environmental Clearance to the ‘Quarry No.2’ belongs to the 12% respondent without complying with any of the prescriptions regarding procedure, evaluation and assessment as required in BIA notification, The Copy of Exvironmental Clearance Certificate dt.31.08.2018 issued Ly the 7* respondent to the 13% respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit Pa, Tt is submitted that Kxhibit Po and Pa were issued by the 11" respondent under Right to Information Act on 22.07.2019. By the time the petitioners Teceived Exhibit P3 and P4, the statutory time limit for fling appeal was over. Moreover Exhibit P3 and P4 art prepared not in consonance with the stipulations regarding EIA notification and hence perse illegal. Hence the Petitioners are haying no other remedy other than approaching this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 to set aside Exhibit P2 and PS. Apart from that Exhibit P4 was issued by the District Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, which is now not in existence. As rightly held by the National Green Tribunal that the erstwhile District Environmental Impact8 Assessment Authority didn’t have any experts in the field of environment and they used to issue Environmental Clearance Certificate without any assessment or evaluation, The 7% reepondent was also had no experts and they have not followed the procedure prescribed in the Environmental Impact Assessment notification in processing the application for Environmental Clearance Certificats by the 19% respondent. There is not even a single word regarding assessment of the Environmental Impact and Exhibit P4 is issued in a totally mechanical manner and hence unsustainable. Exhibit P3 and P4 is issued not in compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment notification and in contravention of principle laid down in the judgment, Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others (2012) 4 SCC 629. ‘The respondents 6 and 7 has not considered the environmental aspects anticipated by operating the quarries, mitigation measures and additional studies involving public consultation, risk assessment, social impact assessment etc, while issuing Exhibit P3 and P4. It is submitted that based on Exhibit Pl to P4, the 13% respondent had obtained license/permits from the statutory authorities and running the quarry violating the conditions preseribed thereia, The air and water in the locality is got contaminated by the heavy usage of explosives and gun powder. The waste water from Quarry No.1’ is flowing to the nearby Tholiluzy Thodu, which is used by the public for their daily needs. The copy of photographs showing draining of waste water to the nearby Thodu from ‘Quarry No.1’ is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit PS. It is respectfully submitted that, the 13% respondent conducting the quarries not in compliance with the Minor Mineral Concession Rules and Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 and Mines Act. None of the precautions mandated in Rule 106 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations regarding an open cast quarry wes not complied by the 138 respondent.‘There is no fencing of the boundaries, not benched the sides ofthe quarry, though deep excavation end quarrying was done. The photograplis showing the premises of the quarry, it is clear thet there is no fencing of the boundaries to avoid untoward incidents. The copy of photographs of the ‘Quamy No.2" is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P6, His submitted that the roads leading to the quarry are only having 4 to 45 meter in width and no fire and rescue vehicles can be brought to the ‘quamrying site in case of any emergency, Since heavy vehicles were plying with heavy loads through Panchayath road, the roads were damaged aiid ‘the public is facing difficulty. Though the Goverment as per GO(P) No.59/2019/Tran dt.29,09.2015 banned entry of vehicles having loading capacity of more than 10 tones en Panchayath roads, the 13M respondent is plying his vehicles through the Panchayath road mainly Mankad — Nirappupara-Cherukara-Maniyanmulcky Panchayath road, which is having less than 6 meter in width to access the ‘Quarry No.1? with loads weighing more than 10 tons. The copy of G.0(P) No.59/2015/Tran dt.29.09.2015 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P7. It is pertinent to note that the Quary Ni 9-1 ean be accessed only through the Panchayath which is having an average width of 4.5 meters, Due to the continuous ply of heavy ehicles like Taurus, Nippers and other Multi axle vehicle with more than 10 tones of load through the Panchayath road and other narrow roads resulted damaging the public road, The authorities are not taking any action against the ply of prohibited vehicles though the Panchayath road in the influence of the 13 respondent. The 12% respondent who is duty bound to impose ban in strict compliance of Fxt.P7 Government Order is shutting their eyes due to extraneous consideration and the heavy vehicles, with prohibited weight are repeatedly plying through narrow roads in violation of Exhibit P7.10.1t is submitted that, reckless mining activities and random blasting operations are causing hazard to the natural ecosystem in the area. The fine dust emanating from the quarry and the road due to the passage of vehicles with rock pieces affected the safety and security of the people in the locality. A Panchayath road is lying adjacent to the ‘Quarry No.1’ and the quarry Manager is not in a position to control the movement of people through the road during the time of blasting and hence the people are apprehensive about their safety. 11.The 13% respondent is conducting indiscriminate mining in the guise of Exhibit P1 and 22 and excavated large quantities of granites beyond the permission granted to him. Since the quarries were operational for a while, hhe is continuing encroachment upon the adjacent government lands for mining and also excessive quantity. He was found guilty for excessive mining by the 3° respondent earlicr, but the lease agreements were renewed without considering the fact that he is looting mineral resources of the government, The 1* petitioner herein had submitted a query under Right to Information Act before the 3¢ respondent on 14.08.2019 regarding the working of ‘Quarry No.1 and 2’ belongs to the 13" respondent. The petitioner put a specific query regarding imposition of penalty and seigniorage regarding excess quarrying in Quarry No.1 and 2’. The 394 respondent in reply dt.04,09.2019 has informed the 1+ petitioner that the 13% respondent has made an illegal quarrying before sanctioning of the present quatry to the tune of 102966.6 metric ton of granite, He was imposed a penalty of Rs.15,93,000/- for excess/illegal quarrying from Survey No.404/2/2-6-5-4 and 045/8/1-7 of Kummil Village for extracting 21291.6 metric ton of granite. He was also imposed penalty and royalty including seigniorage to a tune of Rs.22,08,791/- for illegal quarrying from government land. comprised in Sy.No.404/2 of Kummil Village. The copy ofi) query submitted under Right to Information Act dt.14.08.2019 and its reply dt.04.09.2019 are produced herewith and marked as Exhibit PB, 12.Itis pertinent to note that, as per Exhibit P8 the 3% respondent informed the petitioners ‘that 3 other proposals for starting quarries are in the ‘consideration of the authorities. The proposed quarries are alse near to the quarries of the 13 respondent established in Mukkunnem ward of Kummil Panchayath. Out of the @ proposed new quarries, the 13% respondent is the proponent of two of them and one belongs to another company. ‘The 3+ respondent renewed the lease by Exhibit P1 and P2 Alespite the fact that the 139 respondent had conducted illegal quantying in ‘he area and huge amount was imposed upon him as penalty, royaity and scigniorage. The 3! respondent ought to have found thet the 13% respondent has committed breach regarding the conditions of quarrying lease and hence ineligible for the renewal of lease. 18:The 8° respondent jested explosive license to both the quarries of the 13% respondent in @ mechanical manner without Verifying the site and the ‘magazine. In fact the magazine referred in the explosive licenses issued to both the quarries of the 13% respondent is only for a name sake and the explosives are actually kept in a house in a residential area wherein the ‘workers of the 13% respondent are residing, The photographs of the ‘magazine referred in the explosive licenses granted to the quarries 1 and 2 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P9. The lock and the Premises of the magazine speaks volume regarding the contention thet the explosives are kept in the megazine established in Sy.No.431/1 in Block No.S0 of Kummil Village. The explosives are carried in motorbikes to the ‘quarrying sites ty the workers of the 13% respondent through public road and thereby violating the mandatory directions issued by the st respondent while issuing explosives license to the quarries, ‘The blasting in the quamties is not conducting as per the stipulation in then copy of explosive licenses issued by the 8% respondent to the 13% respondent for ‘Quarry No.1 and 2' are produced herewith and marked as Exhibit_P10 and P11 respectively. Moreover, the building wherein the explosives were stored can be accessed only through a narrow road, though the building is to be treated as hazardous occupancy. As per Rule 61(4) of the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules for a hazardous occupancy, the same should be accessed by a minimum 7 meter width road. Hence the explosive Ticenses’ were granted by the 8% respondent is irregular and ittegal, since the magazines are not constructed in compliance with Rule 61(4) of Kerala Panchayath Building Rules regarding hazardous occupancy. 14.It is submitted that the water sources in the locality are contaminated due to the heavy usage of explosives, The availability of ground water is also ‘affected due to the continuous blasting and quarrying in the area. The fine dust emited from the quarry is polluting the open water sources like well water, which are the sole sources of drinking water in the area. The fine dust contains hazardous silica and the continuous inhalation will cause pulmonary diseases. People in the area are now affected with breathing difficulties, asthma ete. due to the high content of silica in the air. 15.It is submitted that the 3° respondent renewed the quarrying lease to the respective quarries of the 13M respondent as per Exhibit Pl and P2 ignoring the violations committed by him. The 3¢ respondent ignored the fact that the conditions of quarrying lease are blatantly violated. The actions of the 13% respondent resulted environmental degradation inchiding air and water pollution and the life of the local inhabitants including the petitioners were directly affected. The respondents 6 and 7 had issued Environmental Clearance by Exhibit P3 and P4 without actual assessment of the impact. The 8% respondent renewed and issued explosive license without any site inspection in a mechanical manner. The working of the quarry is against statutory prescriptions and EnvironmentalImpact Agsessment Notification issued by the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climatic Change, Any further continuance of ‘Quarry No.1 and 2 will further result in violating the right to life guaranteed to the citizens. ‘The statutory authorities are net taking any follow up inspections to check the illegel activities conducted by the 13% respondent in the guise of operating the quarries. The petitioners are having no other remedy other than to approach this Hon’ble Court challenging Exhibit Pl to P4 and Exhibit P10 and P11. Flaced in the above said circumstances the petitioners are having no other alternative, efficacious remedy than to approach this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india on the following among other. GROUNDS: ‘The quarrying lease in favor of the 13% respondent were renewed by Exhibit Pl and P2 not in compliance with Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Though at the time of granting the quarrying lease earlier, precise area of mining was approved and demarcated, the 13% respondent violated the mining plan and approved mining area and conducted illegal quarrying from adjacent government land comprised in Sy.No.404/2 of Kummil Village. As per Exhibit P8 information given by the 3" respondent, the 13 respondent is found guilty for conducting illegal quarrying and he had illegally mined and removed 212916 metric ton granite from Sy.Nos.404/2/2/6/5/4 and 405/8/1-7 of Kummil Village and a penalty of Rs.15,33,000/- was imposed against him, Moreover an amount of Rs.2208791/- was also imposed as royalty and seigniorage for conducting illegal quarrying from government land comprised in Sy.No.404/2 of Kummil Village. ‘Though by the act of illegal quarrying, the 13% respondent violated conditions of the quarrying lease, the lease agreements were renewed to him as per Exhibit P! and P2. Hence Ext.P1 and P2 are improper, illegal and liable to be interfered.B ‘the 13 respondent had violated the conditions in the lease agreement in conducting indiscriminate mining and the government sustained loss, he is not entitled for renewal of lease agreements but the 3 respondent through irregular means arbitrarily renewed and executed Exhibit P1 and P2 least deeds, ‘The extraction of excess quantity of mineral and illegal quarrying as evident from Exhibit P8 is a clear indication of violation of Rule 40(2) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which mandates that the lessce shell carry out the mining operations only in accordance with the approved mining plan submitted by him for obtaining the quarrying lease. Rule 68 of the KMMC Rules also prohitits the violation of mining plan in case of quarrying. Since the 13% respondent violated Rule 40(2) of KMMC Rules, the government is bound to cancel the lease as per Rule 50 of KMMC Rules but in the present case the leases were renewed as per Exhibit P1 and P2. ‘The respondents 6 and 7 issued Exhibit P3 and P4 respectively to the ‘Quarry No.1 and 2 of the 13% respondent in a mechanical manner in total violation of the procedure envisaged under Environment Protection Act and Rules and Environmental Impact Assessment Notification issued by the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climatic Change. Exhibit P3 was issued by the Kerala State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority without condueting any ‘assessment’ regarding the impact and consequences of the ‘Quarry No.1’ operated by the 13% respondent. The proceduse mentioned in Clause 7 of the notification regarding processing an application for Environmental Clearance was followed by the authority. There is no screening, scoping, public consultation or appraisal was conducted by the authority before issuing Exbibit P3 Environmental Clearance14 Certificate to the ‘Quarry No.1', ‘The 6! respondent authority only incorporated the project details and the mitigation measures proposed by the 13% respondent in his application in the proceedings without considering the practicability and consequences. No expert appraisal committee evaluated the proposals made by the project proponent before issuing Exhibit P3 Environmental Clearance to the ‘Quarry No.1’ of the 13% respondent and henes liable to be interfered. The Exhibit P4, the Environmental Clearance for the ‘Quarry No.2’ was issued by the then District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Kollam in a mechanical manner without conducting any study what so ever, ‘The 7% respondent District Environment Impact Assessment Authority are constituted among bureaucrats only and no ‘expert as required under Environment Impact Assessment notification in the committee. There is no appraisal or study regarding the impact, of running a quarry in the property or in the surroundings, Even on a mere reading of Exhibit P4 the violation of procedure envisaged in clause 7 of the EIA notification is clear, Exhibit P4 is prepared in a mechanical manner without complying with EIA notification and hence liable to be interfered, Exhibit P3 and P4 arc issued without conducting any study and totally violating the mandates of BIA notification 2006 and the judgment of the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others. Moreover the 7% respondent committee is not now in existence and in that score also Exhibit P4 is to be found improper and illegal, In short, Exhibit P3 and P4 are issued without any study, assessment or evaluation, Exhibit PS photographs shows that, waste water from the ‘Quarry No.1" is flowing to the nearby Tholikuzhy ‘Thodu, which was used by the public for their daily needs. The act of the 13% respondent permitting flowing of waste water from the quarry across the road to15 the nearby stream resulting water pollution in the area. The very act of the 13% respondent contaminating nearby water sources is a clear viclation of Rule 77(h) of KMMC Rules, The 13! responitent not taken any precautions as required under the Rule to prevent the discharge of toxic end objectionable effluents from the quarry in the surface of ground water bodies and usable lands and streams. It is submitted that none of the conditions prescribed in Rule 77 of the KMMC Rules of Rule 106 of Metalliferous Mines Regulations were complied by the 13% respondent in conducting the respective quarries 1 and 2. The quarries are established beneath a mountain and 13% respondent is engaged in indiscriminate quarrying and least concerned about the environmental impect of such quarrying. The 13% respondent is ot taken any steps to check the fine dust emanates from the quarry and from transporting the granite through harrow roads to the nearby inhabitants. ‘The quarries of the 13% respondent are in the nature of open cast, but the quarrying was done to the deep without any benches or slope as required undor Rule 106 of Metalliferous Mines Regulation. As per Rule 106) of the Regulation, an excavation in any hard and compact grounds or in prospecting trenches and pits, the sides shall be adequately benched, sloped or secured so as to prevent danger from fall of sides. Exhibit P6 photograph of Quarry No.2? shows that there is no compliance of the Rule 106 of the Regulation and there is no fencing was erected as required in the lease agreement and the Rules. ‘The 12% respondent obtained Exhibit P10 and P11 explosive licenses, from the 8% respondent through irregular means. The 8 respondent without inspecting the site and the magazine, issued Exhibit P10 and P11. The fact that, 18% respondent is not keeping the explosives in the magazine as proved by Exhibit PO and keeping the same in & residential building wherein, the accommodation is provided to theworkers. The explosives are transporting from one quarry to another in motorbikes through public roads without any security or precaution, The magazine is constructed in Sy.No.431/1 in Block NoS0 of Kumumil Village which can be accessed only through a narrow road Though the magavine is a hazardous occupancy, no road connectivity having a minimum width of 7 meters as required under Rule 61(é) of Kerala Panchayath Bull ing Rules is available. Hence the establishment of magizine and isstiance of explosive license on that basis is illegal and improper and liable to be interfered, Exhibit P9 photograph of the magazine substantiate the case of the Petitioner that, it is abandoned and the 13% respondent keeping the explosives in an illegal manner in the midst of residential homes. ‘The public are approhensive about their safety, since the publie road is lying adjacent to the quany, wherein indiscriminate quarrying and blasting is taking place. The quarry manager is having no contral over the people who are using the Panchayath road and hence the blasting is against the stipulation in the Mines Act The Gevernment had issued Exhibit °7 GO prohibiting entry of goods vehioles with more than 10 tons weight from narrow roads having 4 Width of 6 meters and below. The 13% respondent is plying his heavy Vehicles with load more than 10 tons through the Panchayath road and other narrow roads espevially through Mankad-Nirappupara- Cherukara-Maniyanmukku Panchayath road resulting damage to the road. Though the said fact and Exhibit P7 G.0 was brought to the hotice of the 12 respondent, they are not taking any action to control the entry of heavy vehicles in the narrow roads leading to the quany ofthe 13% respondent, en extraneous considerations The respondents 2 to 11 issued license/permits to the quarries of the 13% tespondent without considering the negative impact of working of” the quarries in the environment and without considering the pollution caused to the air and water in the area, ‘he authorities failed to check the amount of contamination of drinking water due to the excessive 1use of explosives and spreading of fine dust containing silica For these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing it is most respectiully prayed that this Hon’ole Court may be pleased to: Call for records leading to Exhibits Pl to P4, P10 and P11 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari ‘To issue a weit of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 11 to immediately stop the functioning of the granite quarries run by the 13M respondent as per Exhibit Pl and P2 quarrying leases. ‘To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 12% respondent to strictly implement Exhibit P7 by prohibiting entry of heavy vehicles with more than 10 tons of weight in narrow roads. ‘To issue such other writ order or direction, which is just and ry inthe facts and circumstances of the case. INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT FOR For the reasons stated in the writ petition and the accompanying affidavit it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.13 to stop operating the quarries established as per Exhibit Pl to P4 pending disposal of the writ petition, Dated this the 23 day of October, 2019 Petitioners: siju cml tioners Counsel for the pet1B BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM (Special Original Jurisdiction) Writ Petition (Civil).Ne. 28715 of 2019 Petitioners Ansari 6 others Vs Respondents: _—_State of Kerala represented by Secretary to. Government, Industries Department, ‘Thiruvananthapuram & others ARFIDAVI 1 Ansari, 8/e.Abdul Kharim, aged 41 years, Anzia Manzil, Muklunnam, Kadakkal P.O, Kollam District, Pin:691 536, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: L Tam the 1* petitioner in the writ Petition. I know the facts of the case and I am competent to swear this affidavit for me and on behalf of the other petitioners also, All the facts stated in the writ petition are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, All submission made in the writ petition on matters relating to law are made on the advice of my counsel It is submitted that | have not filed any other petition before this Hon'ble Court for the same relief. The Exhibits produced are the true copies of the originals. All the facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, Deponent: | Solemnly affirm and signed before me by the deponent who is known to Dated this the 25! day of October, 2019 me on this the 25% day of October, 2019 at my office at Ernakulam, Siju Kamalaganan ‘Advocate|