VINOD BHASKAR v. MEMBER SECRETARY

MEMBER SECRETARY KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004 DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE ( ERNAKULAM - II), NEAR KALLUMKAL AUDITORIUM, KSRTC ROAD , PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683542 MEMBER SECRETARY STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA) KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX 4TH FLOOR, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANNTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014 THE GEOLOGIST DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION , KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI, PIN - 682030 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (GENERAL) CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030 STATE EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 695014 BY ADV.SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, SC(SEIAA) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

23.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)NO.39664/2023 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2024 Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P12 communication dated 26.09.2023 and for a consequential direction to the seventh respondent SEAC to accept Ext.P13 reply of the first respondent to Ext.P12 and to issue a direction to dispose of the application of the petitioner for environmental clearance.

2. Petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application for quarrying permit before the fifth respondent herein. Since the petitioner’s proposed quarrying unit is coming under a cluster of units, the authorities directed the petitioner to conduct a public hearing environmental clearance in accordance with 2006 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification. The application submitted by the petitioner was accepted by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) as is evident from Ext.P3 communication dated 15.02.2023. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board is the agency entrusted under the EIA notification to conduct public hearing for the approval of environmental clearance. Thereupon the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application before the first respondent WP(C)NO.39664/2023 3 member Secretary, Kerala State Pollution Control Board for conducting a public hearing. As per Ext.P2 notification, the District Collector or in his absence, the additional District Magistrate has to supervise the public hearing proceedings. So, the first respondent as early as on 09.06.2023 informed the second respondent - District Collector about the application submitted by the petitioner for conducting public hearing and also made a request to the second respondent to arrange a convenient venue accessible to the local public and fix a date and time for conducting public hearing as per Ext.P5 communication dated 09.06.2023. As per Ext.P6, the first respondent entrusted the third respondent to conduct a public hearing and the date was scheduled to 18.07.2023 at 2.00 P.M. at Marthoma Cheriyapalli St.Thomas Hall, Kothamangalam, which was duly published in Malayalam newspapers and English Newspapers as is evident from Ext.P7 notice dated 16.06.2023. The proposed day of public hearing was deferred to another date since 18.07.2023 was declared as a public holiday. Later on public hearing was scheduled to 05.09.2023 and necessary news paper publication was effected as is evident from Ext.P9 notice dated 27.07.2023. Petitioner contends that the public hearing was attended by locals of surrounding area as is evident WP(C)NO.39664/2023 4 from Ext.P10 attendance sheet and Ext.P11 minutes of the public hearing. To the surprise of the petitioner Ext.P12 communication has been issued by the second respondent stating that the venue of public hearing was far away from the proposed site and therefore, the local public of surrounding areas of the proposed quarry projects could not participate in the public hearing. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner has approached this Court. It is submitted that the first respondent has addressed the second respondent by Ext.P13, relevant portion of which reads as follows : “It may kindly be noted that as per Rule 6III(iii) of the EIA notification under reference (1), KSPCB is entrusted to conduct public consultation in the specific manner and forward the proceeding to the regulatory authority within 45 days of a request to the effect from the applicant. But the proceedings of the meeting conducted on 05.09.2023 is yet to be received. Kindly note that it is a statutory requirement by the Board to forward the proceedings of the public consultation to the regulatory authority (SEIAA). Regarding the distance of the site from the place of public hearing as per the Rule 6III(iii) of the EIA notification under reference (1), the public hearing is to be carried out as the site or in its close proximity– District wise. The EE, DO-II Ernakulam informed that the distance between the venue of the public hearing and the Varapetty Grama Panchayath was less than 6 km. and the venue was accessible transportation facility. It was reported from Ernakulam DOII that the auditorium in Kothamangalam was selected considering its capacity to accommodate 200 persons for the hearing. Regarding the quorum for the public hearing, it is not specified in EIA notification.” WP(C)NO.39664/2023 5

3. By Ext.P13, it is informed to the second respondent by the first respondent that the distance between the venue of public hearing and Varapetty Grama Panchayat is less than 6 kms. and the venue has accessible transportation facility. In view of the same, the petitioner submits that effective public hearing was conducted and the finding in Ext.P12 is without any basis.

4. Heard the learned Government Pleader, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent as well as the Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent.

5. Ext.P12 was issued by the second respondent after taking into consideration the fact that the venue of public hearing was not within Varapetty Panchayath where the particular stone quarry is proposed to be established and that the hearing was conducted at Kothamangalam and therefore there was no effective public hearing. A perusal of Ext.P13 would reveal that the Pollution Control Board, which was entrusted to conduct public hearing, has submitted that the distance of the site of the public hearing as well as the respective Panchayath was less than 6 kms. and there was effective public hearing and the auditorium in Kothamangalam was selected considering its capacity to accommodate 200 WP(C)NO.39664/2023 6 persons for hearing. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the second respondent in the light of Ext.P13. Therefore, Ext.P12 is set aside with a consequential direction to the second respondent to reconsider the matter in the light of Ext.P13 communication issued by the first respondent, in accordance with law, at any rate, within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, first respondent and other necessary parties. Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE WP(C)NO.39664/2023 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39664/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 Exhibit P10 Exhibit P11 Exhibit P12 Exhibit P13 Exhibit P14 COPY OF THE UNDATED APPLICATION FOR GRANITE BUILDING STONE QUARRY SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE EIA NOTIFICATION,2006 DATED 14-09-2006 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 15-02-2023 INFORMING THE APPROVAL OF TOR ISSUED BY ADMINISTRATOR SEIAA TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR CONDUCTING PUBLIC HEARING FOR EC DATED 05- 06-2023 THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. DATED PCB/HO/PH-VBK/EKM/23 DATED 09-06-2023 OF 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT INTIMATING 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17/06/2023 ABOUT AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF ENGINEER REGIONAL OFFICE, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ERNAKULAM AND 3RD RESPONDENT FOR CONDUCTING THE PUBLIC HEARING THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN MALAYAM NEWSPAPERS AND ENGLISH NEWSPAPERS DATED 16-06-2023 THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. PCB/EKM/DO- II/SRMI/PH/201/2022 DATED 25-07-2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER TO 6TH RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN NEWSPAPERS 27-07-23 ATTENDANCE SHEET OF THE PUBLIC HEARING DATED 05-09-2023 THE MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING DATED 05-09-2023 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26-09- 2023 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 05-10-2023 THE LETTER FORWARDING THE REPORT AND DOCUMENTS OF PUBLIC HEARING TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 31/10/2023