PETER, V. UNION OF INDIA,

WP(C)/24806/2019

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by residents challenging the operation of a granite stone quarry by M/s. Edathadan Granites (Private) Limited, alleging that the Environmental Clearance was obtained by suppression of material facts and that various legal and environmental regulations were violated. The petitioners argued that the quarrying activities posed risks such as landslides and environmental degradation, citing specific violations of the Environmental Clearance conditions and the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003. The respondents, including the Union of India and various state authorities, defended the legality of the quarry's operations, asserting compliance with all necessary regulations. The court's decision emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the Environmental Clearance's validity and the implementation of restoration measures at the quarry site.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 742005 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, State of Uttarakhand v. Kumaon Stone Crusher, Omana v. Anil Kumar, One Earth One Life v. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. v. State of Kerala, Haridas R. v. State of Kerala, Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala
• Laws Referred To: Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006, Kerala Irrigation and Conservation of Water Act, 2003, Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P VIJAYAKUMAR; RANJITH THAMPAN; M R VENUGOPAL; DHANYA ASHOKAN; T H ABDUL AZEEZ; MOHAMMED
• Assessee Lawyers: GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW; K P SATHEESAN
• Keywords: Encroachment; Environmental clearance; Suppression of Material Facts; Granite Stone Quarry; Violation of E.C Conditions; Water Accumulation; Overburden; Landslide Risk; Public Road Destruction; Illegal Extraction; Boundary Destruction
• Section: 164; 40(2)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.24806 OF 2019(A) PETITIONERS: 1 PETER, S/O.DEVASSY, AGED 57 YEARS NADUVILEVEETIL HOUSE, MATTATHOOR.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680684. 2 SAJIN JOHN S/O.JOHN, POONKAVANAM HOUSE, PADY.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680699 3 ISACC CHERIYAN PONNAL HOUSE, MATTATHOOR.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680684 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, ALIGANJ, JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003 2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY KESAVADSAPURAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001 3 THE KERALA DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001 4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680001 5 THE GEOLOGIST OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680001 6 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, CHALAKKUDY.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680307 7 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR.P.O, PI-680020. W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -2- 8 THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, CHALAKKUDY, CHALAKKUDY.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680307 9 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SUB DIVISION I, CHALAKKUDY.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680307 10 THE MATTATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MATTATHOOR.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN680684 11 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VELLIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680699 12 M/S.EDATHADAN GRANITES (PRIVATE)LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, OMBATHUNGAL, MATTATHUR.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680684 13 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, 14 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 15 THE STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA), K.S.R.T.C BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY ADDITONAL R13 TO R15 ARE IMPLEADED SUO MOTU R1 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA R2-6, R8-9, R11 BY SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL R10 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL R10 BY ADV. SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN R12 BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ R12 BY ADV. SRI.MOHAMMED SADIQUE.T.A OTHER PRESENT: SRI. S. KANNAN, GP, SRI. T. NAVEEN (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-07-2020, THE COURT ON 06-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -3- 'C.R.' J U D G M E N T Dated this the 6th Day of August, 2020 Gopinath, J: This writ petition is filed challenging the operation of a granite stone quarry by the 12th respondent, on the basis of an Environmental Clearance (hereinafter also referred to as 'E.C') allegedly obtained through suppression of material facts. It is also alleged that certain other permissions granted to the 12th respondent are illegal and that the 12th respondent has not obtained all the permissions required under the law. There are certain other allegations such as violation of E.C conditions, encroachment into Government lands, accumulation of water in pits and heaping of overburden etc. In short, the petitioners allege rampant violations of law in the matter of the operation of the quarry. 2. The 12th respondent was granted Ext.P8 mining lease in respect of an extent of 4.7065 hectares of land comprised in Sy Nos.1270/4, 5, 7, 8, 1271/2, 3,4, 1273/1, 2, 1272/1 of Kodassery Village in Chalakudy, Thrissur. The petitioners in the writ petition are residents in properties adjoining to or near to the aforesaid lands in respect of which Ext.P8 mining lease has been issued. They contend (i) that the Ext.P3 Environmental Clearance was obtained by suppression of several material facts and especially the fact that the lands were 'Forest' lands assigned to the predecessors-in- interest of the 12th respondent for specified purposes and therefore that an W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -4- Environmental Clearance obtained by suppression of several material facts is liable to be quashed.; (ii) that the Environmental Clearance is bad for the reason that a no objection certificate in respect of the nearby water tank and irrigation canal has not been obtained as mandated under Section 40 (2) of the Kerala Irrigation and Conservation of Water Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Conservation of Water Act'); (iii) that the operation of the quarry is in violation of several conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance; (iv) that a huge quantity of topsoil removed from the land for enabling mining activities have been unscientifically stored causing threat of landslide etc. which may affect the houses of the petitioners which are situated at a lower level than the quarry operated by the 12th respondent; (v) that huge pits which have been formed on account of the mining activities are filled with water and this may cause extreme danger to persons like the petitioners who live at lower level; (vi) that there is violation of Rule 164 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961; (vii) that the activities of the 12th respondent has resulted in destruction of a public road (viii) that there is illegal extraction of rock from the Government land and destruction of boundary and survey mark etc.; and (ix) that the operation of the quarry is in violation of the orders issued by the National Green Tribunal in O.A No. 304/2019 on 21.7.2020 whereby the Tribunal has directed that blasting operations shall not be permitted if there are residential buildings within a radius of 200 Meters of a quarry W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -5- [This contention is not one taken in the writ petition and has been raised only in the additional affidavit filed in support of I.A Nos.5 & 6 of 2020, in the above Writ Petition.] 3. The 12th respondent has filed a counter-affidavit refuting the allegations levelled by the petitioners. Some of the official respondents have filed statements/counter-affidavits setting out their stand in the matter. The 12th respondent contends, inter alia, (i) that the Environmental Clearance cannot be challenged before this Court as the Writ Petitioners have an effective alternate remedy before the National Green Tribunal; (ii) that the writ petition is barred by delay and latches; (iii) that there is absolutely no suppression of facts in the application for Environment Clearance; (iv) that the land in question is not ‘Forest’ land; (v) that the quarry is functioning with all requisite permissions; (vi) that there is absolutely no danger caused on account of functioning of the quarry to the petitioners or anybody else; (vii) that there is no illegality in permitting the 12th respondent to construct / use the culvert in question; (viii) that N.O.C has been obtained from the Executive Engineer, Edamalayar Irrigation project as contemplated in the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 and therefore that Ext.P4 judgment has no application to the facts of the case; (ix) that there is no damage to the Village Road, as alleged, and that the said road was strengthened to PWD standards at the cost of the 12th respondent; (x) that the mining activities W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -6- are carried out strictly in accordance with the approved mining plan; (xi) that there is no threat of pollution; (xii) that no Government land has been encroached and (xiii) that the 12th respondent has not destroyed boundary marks etc. The learned Government Pleader would also state that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. However, he also contends that the mining activity cannot be carried on in lands which were part of a reserve forest (originally) without permission from the Government and further that this issue is now before the Government in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.P (C) 641/2020. 4. The writ petitioners have filed a reply affidavit producing certain documents to show that the land in question is part of a reserve forest and forms part of Old Sy.No 436 of Kodassery Village which was declared as a reserve forest by Notification dated 9.10.1909 of the Cochin Government. They state that this notification is part of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Forest Department in W.P (C) 641/2020 which was filed by the 12th Respondent challenging a stop memo issued by the Forest officials. They also reiterate their contentions in the Writ Petition. 5. In furtherance to an interim order issued by this court on 18- 02-2020, the District Collector, Thrissur along with Divisional Forest Officer, Chalakudy and the District Geologist Thrissur conducted an inspection at the quarry site. A report of the inspection has been placed on record by the Government Pleader through a memo dated 12-03-2020. W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -7- 6. I have heard Sri. Georgekutty Mathew learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. PK. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Sri. T.A. Mohammed Sadique for the 12th respondent, the Learned Assistant Solicitor General for the 1st respondent, Sri. S. Kannan, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of Respondents 2 to 6, 8, 9 & 11 & Sri.T.Naveen Learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. On 30.7.2020, when I.A Nos. 5 & 6 were taken up for consideration, I heard Dr. K.P. Sateeshan, Learned Senior Advocate instructed by Sri. Georgekutty Mathew learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 7. At the outset, it is necessary to deal with two contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 12th respondent as well as the Learned Government Pleader that the writ petition itself is not maintainable on account of (i) the fact that the Environmental Clearance granted to the 12th respondent has to be challenged, if at all, only through appropriate proceedings initiated before the National Green Tribunal; and (ii) that the Writ Petition is barred by delay and latches. It is to be noticed that Ext.P3 Environmental Clearance was issued as early on 12-03-2015. This writ petition was filed only on 18-09-2019. It is no doubt true that delay is one of the grounds that will have to be considered in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that an earlier writ W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -8- petition against the functioning of the quarry is pending consideration of this Court as W.P(C) 7344/2014 and further that the present Writ Petition was filed only when the operation of the quarry became so objectionable and dangerous to persons living nearby (like the petitioners). In a matter like this where violations of environmental law and other gross statutory violations are alleged, it would not be proper for this Court to refuse consideration of the issue on merits, on the ground of delay. The issue as to whether the delay will disentitle the petitioners to any discretionary relief is certainly a matter for consideration at the stage when this court considers the reliefs, if any, that are required to be granted. As far as the question of alternate remedy is concerned it is to be noticed that at the time when the Writ Petition was filed any remedy under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, was barred1. It is settled law that this court cannot extend the statutory period of limitation fixed by a statute. However, that does not mean that this Court cannot independently examine the validity of the Environment Clearance under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The question to be considered is whether the existence of an alternative remedy of appeal before the National Green Tribunal should act as a complete bar to the entertainment of this writ petition. It is settled law that existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that relegation of a party to a statutory appeal or other alternative remedy is only a self-imposed limitation. [See 1 Vide Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -9- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603]. This writ petition was admitted on 19-09-2019. The parties have filed their respective pleadings. Pursuant to interim orders inspections have been carried out and reports filed before this court. The fact that a Writ Petition has been admitted and interim orders have been issued is not in itself a ground which would compel this Court to examine the matter on merits despite the existence of effective alternate remedy. [See State of U.P. v. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti, (2008) 12 SCC 675 & Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, (2019 SCC Online SC 1500)]. It is true that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against Ext.P3 Environmental Clearance before the National Green Tribunal. However, it is also to be noticed apart from questioning the Environmental Clearance various other reliefs have been sought for in this writ petition. At least some of the reliefs sought for cannot obviously be granted by the National Green Tribunal when examining the validity of Ext.P3. Therefore, I reject the contentions raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, I hold that the writ petition is maintainable notwithstanding the availability of alternate remedy against Ext.P3 before the National Green Tribunal. 8. In view of the finding that the Writ Petition is maintainable, the following issues arise for consideration:- W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -10- (i) Is Ext.P3 Environmental Clearance illegal and unsustainable in law on account of suppression of material facts especially the fact that the lands in question were 'forest' lands assigned for agricultural/residential purposes after obtaining permission of the Central Government ? (ii) Is Ext.P3 Environmental Clearance illegal and unsustainable in law on account of failure to obtain no-objection certificates required under the provisions of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 ? (iii) Whether Ext.P8 order granting mining lease is liable to be cancelled on account of the fact that it was issued on the assumption that the lands in question are not lands assigned by the Government for specified purposes? (iv) Whether directions are required to be issued regarding the following issues / allegations raised by the petitioners:- (a) Filling up of mined areas with 'overburden' which is now stacked unscientifically at the mining site and the possibility of land slide; (b) The apprehension of landslide due to water collection in pits formed due to mining and stacking of overbuden in an unscientific manner; (c) The alleged destruction of public road; (d) The alleged destruction of a culvert over the canal near the mining area; (e) violation of E.C conditions; (f) illegal extraction of minerals from Government (puramboke) lands; (g) destruction of boundary and survey marks;and (h) alleged violation of Regulation 164 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961. W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -11- (v) What is the effect of the directions issued by the National Green Tribunal in O.A No. 304/2019 on 21.7.2020 whereby the Tribunal has directed that blasting operations shall not be permitted if there are residential buildings within a radius of 200 Meters of a quarry? (vi) If the Environmental Clearance is found to be illegal and unsustainable what relief must be granted in this Writ Petition considering the delay (if any) in approaching this Court and also considering the fact that the issue as to whether mining should be permitted in the areas in question is pending consideration of the Government by virtue of directions issued by this Court in W.P(C) 641 of 2020 ? Re. Issue (i) 9. Ext.P3 Environmental Clearance is one granted in terms of the provisions contained in the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006. It is clear from a reading of Ext.P3 that it was issued on the premise that no forest land is involved in the area proposed for mining activity. That the site in question is part of Kodassery Koomban Reserve Forest in view of the Reserve Forest notification published in the Cochin Government Gazette as early as on 09-10-1909 is not seriously disputed before me by the 12th respondent. This fact is also clear from the affidavit dated 27-01- 2020 filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chalakkudy in W.P (C) No.641/2020 which, has been placed on record by the petitioners along with their reply affidavit, as Ext.P16. The Reserve Forest notification issued W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -12- on 09-10-1909 is part of Ext.P16. It is also clear from the report dated 11- 03-2020 filed by the District Collector enclosing the report of the Divisional Forest Officer, Chalakudy that the land on which the mining activity was permitted through Ext.P3 Environmental clearance is a Reserve Forest and part of the Kodassery Koomban Reserve by virtue of the notification of 1909, referred to above. In paragraph 4 of Ext.P3 it is stated:- \"The total mining lease area of 4.7065 ha which is private land. No forest land is involved\" It is settled law that once a particular land has been notified as a forest under any provision enabling the authorities to do so, the land does not lose the character of forest land and notwithstanding any purpose for which it may be subsequently put to use, it will still carry the nature and character of forest land [vide T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267]. In State of Uttarakhand v. Kumaon Stone Crusher, (2018) 14 SCC 537 it was held:- \"XIII. Meaning of “forest” 124. Safeguarding of forest has also been recognised by our Constitution under Article 48-A which obliges the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Article 51-A clause (g) enumerates the fundamental duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including the forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife. W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -13- 125. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is another parliamentary enactment which has been specifically enacted to provide for the conservation of the forest and for matters connected therewith. The definition of “forest” cannot be confined only to reserved forests, village forests and protected forests as enumerated in the 1927 Act. This Court has already held in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267] that the word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning, in para 4 the following is stated: (SCC pp. 269-70) “4. … The word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest (Conservation) Act. The term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2, will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof.” 126. Thus, forest shall include all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise. The term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2, will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -14- recorded as forest in the government records irrespective of the ownership. The restrictive meaning of forest as given by the Uttarakhand High Court in M/s Gupta Builders cannot be approved.\" Applying the ratio of Godavarman Thirumulpad as well as that of Kumaon Stone Crusher the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the 12th respondent that no Forest Land is involved cannot be accepted. 10. The learned Senior Counsel for the 12th respondent would then contend, on the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Omana v. Anil Kumar, 2017 (2) KLT 481, that notwithstanding the wide definition of 'forest' in Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra),once the land is assigned, the land loses its character as a forest land. In Omana this Court held:- \"Thereafter, the said lands were assigned in terms of the Assignment Rules that were framed under the 1960 Act. The assignments, having been effected to the predecessors in interest of the present land owners, also had the effect of transferring the title over the said lands to the said persons. The question then arises, as to whether, after a transfer of registry in respect of the land, whereby the State Government relinquished its title over the land in favour of the assignee, the notification declaring the lands as reserved forests would continue to apply in respect of the said lands, so as to impose restrictions with regard to the manner of use of the lands. In my view, the transfer of registry in respect of the land effectively divested the title over the land from the State W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -15- Government and vested it in the assignee. The land in question, upon assignment and thereafter, ceased to be Forest land for the purposes of the Kerala Forest Act and Rules, as also for the purposes of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Consequently, the notification that once included the said lands in the category of reserved forests, ceased to have any application to the said lands after their assignment to the predecessors in interest of the present land owners.\" After referring to the fact that the assignments in question in that case were prior to coming into force of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the learned Judge proceeded to hold as follows:- \"17. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, is that the lands, in respect of which the quarrying leases covered by these Writ Petitions have been granted, cannot be seen as Forest Lands for the purposes of invoking the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. This issue is answered accordingly, in favour of the said petitioners.\" The view taken by the learned Single Judge has been doubted by another learned Judge of this court in W.P (C) No.8244/2019 and the issue is now pending in reference before the Division Bench. The Learned Senior Counsel for the 12th respondent would however contend that the law laid down in Omana (supra) has been affirmed by the Division Bench in One Earth One Life v. Ministry of Environment and Forests, 2018 (3) KLT 683. I find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the 12th respondent that the judgment of the learned W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -16- Single Judge in Omana (supra) has been affirmed in One Earth One Life (surpa). Though the judgment in Omana has been extensively referred to, the Division Bench, after referring to Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra); Haridas R. v. State of Kerala, 2016 (4) KLT 707, Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala, AIR 2000 Ker.131 (FB), the judgment of the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition challenging the aforesaid Full Bench judgment of this court viz. Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala, (2009) 5 SCC 373 and; State of Kerala v. New World Investments, ILR 2016 (1) Ker. 817 held:- \"38. The quarrying for minerals is certainly a non- forest activity and therefore, without securing prior permission from the Central Government, such non- forest activity cannot be permitted in the lands declared as Reserve Forest which continue to be categorized so, in the revenue records. But, no attention appears to have been paid to this aspect, when the quarry permits were granted to the respondents 13 - 23. The protection of the environment and soil conservation is paramount in public interest, as otherwise, the right to enjoyment of life, guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution, would be impacted for the inhabitants of the area. While the development needs may also have to be accounted for, the courts must bear in mind that environment must be protected and pollution be minimized for greater interest of mankind.\" 39. to 43...... \"44. Obviously, the quarrying lease was being executed between the Geologist coming under the Department of Mining W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -17- and Geology, representing the State Government, without any involvement of the Forest or Revenue authorities. This was only with reference to the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, framed in terms of the relevant provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. As such, permission was being granted without ascertaining the nature or purpose of assignment of land involved. The lacuna in this regard was taken note of by the Government, who, accordingly, filled up the gap while framing the new Rules (Rule 4 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015), whereby production of the relevant certificate from the Village Officer is insisted, for granting/renewing the leasehold right. As it stands now, no lease can be granted, contrary to the purpose of the assignment. 45 & 46...... 47. Consequent to above, we are of the considered opinion that the Public Trust doctrine must also be made applicable in the present case. It is thus declared that whenever the Government decides to grant quarry permit or renew such permits, it must always take into account the availability of natural resources and the ecological impact and other environmental factors. Very often, quarry permits are granted on the basis of one sided self serving project reports which may not give a clear picture of the ground realities. This, in our considered opinion, is a significant lacuna to be addressed by State authorities. 48...... 49. Following the above discussion and having regard to the ratio in T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India (supra), as also the doctrine of Public Trust enunciated by the W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -18- Supreme Court in M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the concerned areas which are declared to be Reserve Forest, should continue to receive the protective cover of law, notwithstanding the settlement and assignment over the areas. In other words, these lands should be treated as forest lands. The assignment of these lands, for the limited purpose of settlement and agriculture in the already denuded lands, can be permitted. But, quarrying activities should not be encouraged, since it will cause permanent damage to the area. The removal of granite stones even from the rocky areas, will lead to loosening of the surface soil with its attendant problems of landslide and destruction of the green cover and these can hardly be permitted, if one takes into account the future needs of the mankind. Therefore, answering the issue Nos. (A), (B) and (C), we say that assignment of the land for limited purpose, envisaged under Rule 3 of the Special Assignment Rules, can be permitted. However, quarrying activities in those lands should either be prohibited altogether or should be permitted only under strict regulatory measures. The first three issues are answered accordingly.\" (emphasis is supplied) 11. Therefore the decision in Omana (supra) cannot be applied in the facts of this case. The findings of the Division Bench in One Earth One Life, in so far as it is relevant for this case are:- (i) that only activities permitted at the time of assignment can be normally permitted in forest lands assigned for W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -19- agricultural/residential purposes; (ii) that a land which is treated as Reserve Forest will continue to be characterized as such and any non-forest activity including quarrying for minerals can be permitted only with the permission of the Central Government; (iii) Quarrying activities in Reserve Forest lands should either be prohibited altogether or permitted only under strict regulatory measures. Since it is not disputed before me that the lands in question in this case were forest lands assigned for agricultural purposes and this fact is also borne out from the documents/pleadings already referred to, I hold that the fact that the lands in question in this case were forest lands assigned for agricultural purposes was certainly was a relevant factor for consideration while issuing the Environmental Clearance especially in the light of the provisions in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in One Earth One Life (supra). Re. Issue (ii) 12. This court in judgment dated 1.11.2017 in W.P (C) No.23565/2017 had quashed an Environmental Clearance on account of the failure of the project proponent to obtain a no objection certificate under the provisions of Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003. Ext.R12 (a) no objection certificate was obtained only on 01-11-2019 W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -20- which is much after the date of obtaining Ext.P3 Environmental Clearance. The existence of an irrigation canal at a distance of 172.86 meters and a public water tank at a distance of 563.50 meters of quarry site is evident from the report of the District Collector. A Division Bench of this court in Sobin P.K. v. District Geologist, Ernakulam and others, 2020 (1) KHC 1 held that the provisions of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 would extend to canals, water tanks etc., even if they are not owned and operated by the Irrigation Department. The learned counsel for the petitioners is therefore right in contending that a no objection certificate was mandatory in view of the existence of the irrigation canal at a distance of 172.86 meters and the public water tank at a distance of 563.50 meters of quarry site. Section 40 (2) states that such no objection will be required in respect of mining or quarrying activity within a radius of one kilometer of any bridge, dam, check dam or any other work structure or construction owned, controlled or maintained by the Government, local authority or other authority. In view of the law laid down in Sobin P.K (supra) it is clear that the failure to obtain a no objection certificate from the Irrigation Department in respect of the water tank is clearly an aspect which would affect the validity of Ext.P3 Environmental clearance. Even if Ext.R12 (a) is taken into consideration the same is only in respect of the irrigation canal not in respect of the water tank. Therefore the failure of the 12th respondent to obtain a no objection W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -21- certificate under the provisions of Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 affects the validity of Ext.P3. Re. Issue (iii) 13. The lands forming part of the aforesaid Kodassery Koomban Reserve Forest have been subject matter of encroachment over several years. After obtaining permission of the Government of India, lands forming part of the aforesaid reserve forest were assigned to various persons for the purpose of carrying out agricultural activities. Though this assignment is expressed as one under the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, it is the assertion of the learned Government Pleader that the assignment is under the provisions of the Arable Forest Assignment Rules, 1970 which have also been framed in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960. It is seen from the pattayams issued to the predecessors in interest of the 12th respondent [produced as Ext.R12 (m) to R12 (s)] that reference is made to the provisions of Rule 9 (2) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules of 1964 which according to the Government Pleader was an inadvertent error or the wrong use of forms by the officials concerned. In view of the fact that the Arable Forest Assignment Rules of 1970 were already in place as on the date of issuance of pattayams referred to above it is clear that these pattayams which have been issued in January, February and March of 1980 will have to be taken as one under the Arable Forest Assignment W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -22- Rules, 1970 and not an assignment in terms of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules of 1964. The mention of the 1964 Rules can only be taken as a wrong quoting of the relevant provisions. 14. This court in Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2019 (2) KLT 978 after referring to the provisions of the Land Assignment Rules 1964 and in particular Rule 4 thereof found that assignment can only be for the purpose of personal cultivation or house sites. A reference to Rule 3 of the Arable Forest Land Assignment Rules, 1970 also shows that the assignment can only be for the purpose of personal cultivation or for house sites or for cultivation on co-operative basis. Paragraph 16 of the judgment in Mahindra Holidays (supra) reads as follows: \"16. As adverted above, in private law, positive obligations or covenants will not run with the land and will not bind subsequent assignee. In public law, the assignment itself was on public interest. The moment, the object of the public law is defeated, the assignment becomes revocable. The original assignment would not have been possible for any other purposes other than the purpose for which it was assigned. The purpose for the assignment would equally bind the patta holder as well as his assignee. This is the reflection of public trust doctrine. There is no requirement to have conditions in patta that the patta holder or its assignee should cultivate the land all the time. The very basis of such assignment was for cultivation. The patta holder or assignee if commits any act defeating the object of the assignment, is bound to restore the land to the assignor.\" W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -23- The same view was taken by this court in Haridas R. v. State of Kerala and others, 2016 (4) KLT 707. Clause 8 of all the pattayams issued to the predecessor in interest of the 12th respondent [Ext.R12 (m) to Ext.R12 (s)] reads as follows:- \"The assignee or any member of his family or successor-in- interest shall reside in/cultivate the land and such residence/cultivate shall commence effectively within a period of one year from the date of receipt of patta.\" Clause 9 of all the pattayams referred to above categorically provides that the registry shall be liable to be cancelled for contravention of any of the 'aforesaid conditions' which obviously includes Clause 8. The form of patta under the Arable Forest Land Assignment Rules (Form No.5) contains almost identical provisions in clauses 2 & 3. Therefore the question as to whether the assignment was under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 or under the Arable Forest Land Assignment Rules 1970 need not detain this court from holding that the use of the land for purposes other than residence or cultivation by either the original assignee or the successor-in-interest will be a violation of the condition of assignment. The non-disclosure of the fact that the lands in question were Forest Lands assigned for agricultural / residential purposes clearly amounts to non- disclosure of material facts, affecting the validity of Ext.P3. W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -24- Re. Issue (iv) 15. The statement dated 11-10-2019 filed by the 5th respondent in this Court on 12-10-2019 states that mining activity by the 12th respondent has been going on upon the lands in question for the past 10 years. The photographs produced by the petitioner as well as the 12th respondent show that huge pits have been formed on account of the mining. The State of Kerala has reported several accidents on account of the huge pits formed on account of mining activity on sites which are abandoned by the project proponents. Precious lives have been lost due to such accidents. It is rather unfortunate that the authorities have failed to address this issue effectively. It is the need of the hour to ensure that the pits formed due to mining activity are restored. In the facts of this case it is seen that huge quantities of overburden are stocked at the site. Though fresh mining leases have been issued from time to time, the Mining & Geology Department appears to have done little to ensure that the pits formed at points where the mining activity has been abandoned is restored using the overburden. Therefore necessary directions have to be issued to ensure that the pits at points where the mining activity has been abandoned is restored immediately. The 12th Respondent has undertaken before me that this will be done within a period of six months. The 12th respondent has also undertaken to take steps for afforestation of the restored areas within the same period. The officials of the forest department will have to be directed W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -25- to ensure that afforestation activities are also undertaken by the 12th respondent, completely at its cost, by planting trees of such type and in such number as may be required to restore the natural flora and fauna of the site, in such manner as may be directed by the 6th respondent. The restoration/afforestation will have to be completed by 31-12-2020. 16. The apprehension of landslide due to water collection in pits formed due to mining and stacking of overburden in an unscientific manner is definitely a matter to be considered by the 3rd respondent. It is stated before me that Ext.P13 complaint filed before the 3rd Respondent has been referred to the District Level Disaster Management Authority for consideration. This is recorded. 17. The complaints of the petitioners regarding destruction of public road; destruction of a culvert over the canal near the mining area; illegal extraction of minerals from Government (puramboke) lands; destruction of boundary and survey marks; and alleged violation of Regulation 164 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 are matters which have to be considered by the respective authorities on the matter being brought to their notice by the petitioners. These are essentially questions of fact which cannot be determined in these proceedings. Re. Issue (v) 18. Through an order dated 21-07-2020 in O.A 304/2019, the National Green Tribunal appears to have taken on record a report W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -26- submitted by the Central Pollution Control Board that a minimum distance of 100m (when blasting is not involved) and 200m (when blasting is involved) should be maintained between residential/public buildings and quarrying sites. Referring to Ext.P.19, it is submitted that there are several residential houses within the aforesaid 200 Mts and therefore that the activities must be ordered to be stopped forthwith. It is to be noticed that the distance prescribed in the Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2015 is only 50 mts. The National Green Tribunal has not struck down the Rules. Further this is not a point raised in the Writ Petition. Therefore I refrain from issuing any directions on the basis of the order of the National Green Tribunal in O.A 304/2019. Re. Issue (vi) 19. The findings on issues (i), (ii) and (iii) would have normally resulted in an order setting aside Ext.P3 Environmental Clearance. However I refrain from doing so on account of the fact that there is considerable delay in approaching this court challenging Ext.P3 Environmental Clearance. As already noticed, Ext.P3 was issued on 12- 03-2015 and this writ petition was filed only on 18-09-2019. Delay is certainly a factor which will have to be considered when the grant of a discretionary relief is sought. Judicial Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion and I believe that there are sound reasons to refuse certiorari to quash Ext.P.3, in this case. I must notice W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -27- that the issue as to whether mining activity can be permitted on the lands in question is pending consideration before the Government of Kerala by virtue of the judgment of this Court in W.P (C) 641/2020 [Ext.R.12(L) judgment dated 06-02-2020]. In W.P (C) 641/2020 this Court was examining the validity of a stop memo dated 29-10-2019 issued to the 12th Respondent by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chalakkudy. This Court through Ext.R.12(L) judgment dated 06-02-2020 has found that the stop memo could not have been issued by the Divisional Forest Officer and has directed the Government of Kerala in the Industries Department to take a decision as to whether mining activity should be permitted in the area in question. A reading of Ext.R12(L) judgment shows that this Court had only examined the issue relating to the competence of the Divisional Forest Officer to issue a stop memo and had directed the Government of Kerala in the Industries Department to take a decision in the matter on account of the fact that mining lease is issued by the Director of Mining & Geology who functions under the administrative control of the Industries Department. Though Ext.P3 Environmental clearance is not being set aside, the decision to be taken by the Government of Kerala, as directed in Ext.R2(L) judgment in W.P (C) 641/2020 will have a bearing on the issue. The activity in respect of which the E.C was issued is a Category 'B' project under the EIA Notification, 2006. The question of granting Environmental clearance was considered by the Ministry of Environment and Forests as W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -28- the tenure of the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) had expired at that time. Since the SEIAA is now in place in the State of Kerala necessary directions will have to be issued to the SEIAA, Kerala to take note of the observations and findings in this judgment and consider/re-consider the matter of grant of Environmental Clearance to the 12th respondent. Directions will also have to be issued in respect of matters considered under issue No.5. 20. In order to ensure compliance with the directions to be issued by this Court, (i) The State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary to Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001, (2) The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Industries, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001 and the (3) The State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), K.S.R.T.C Bus Terminal Complex, 4th Floor, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001 represented by its Member Secretary, are suo motu impleaded as additional respondents 13, 14 & 15 to this writ petition. Registry shall carry out necessary corrections to the cause title. 21. In view of the findings on issues (i) to (vi), this Writ Petition will stand disposed of with the following directions:- (i) The Government of Kerala, shall take up for consideration the question as to whether the 12th respondent should be permitted to conduct quarrying operations in land having an extent of 4.7065 W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -29- hectares of land comprised in Sy Nos.1270/4, 5, 7, 8, 1271/2, 3,4, 1273/1, 2, 1272/1 of Kodassery Village in Chalakudy, Thrissur which was identified as a Reserve Forest in terms of the notification issued by the Cochin Government on 09-10-1909, as directed by this Court in the Judgment dated 06-02-2020 in W.P(c) 641/2020. In view of the findings on issues (i), (ii) and (iii) the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala shall ensure that reports from the Principal Secretary/Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue & the Principal Secretary / Secretary to Government, Department of Forests and Wild Life shall be obtained and placed before the Principal Secretary / Secretary to Government, Department of Industries in order to enable him to take a proper decision in the matter. The Principal Secretary / Secretary to Government, Department of Industries shall also take note of the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in One Earth One Life v. Ministry of Environment and Forests [2018 (3) KLT 683] and especially the findings in paragraphs 38, 44, 47 & 49 of that judgment and the observations/findings in this judgment, while passing orders, as directed in W.P (C) 641/2020. He shall also take into consideration the reports to be placed before him by the Department of Revenue and the Department of Forests and Wildlife, as directed above. Orders shall be passed as aforesaid within a period W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -30- of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. A copy of the order to be passed shall also be communicated to the Additional 15th Respondent, namely the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority. Unless and until orders are passed permitting the mining activity, the 12th respondent shall not conduct any mining operations pursuant to Ext.P3 and P8. However the 12th respondent will be permitted to use the material which was already mined and extracted and to operate its stone crusher unit using such materials; (ii) the 2nd Respondent, namely the Director of Mining & Geology and the 6th Respondent, namely the Divisional Forest Officer, Chalakkudy shall ensure that restoration of the mined out areas and afforestation as directed in paragraph 15 of this judgment shall be commenced immediately and completed at the earliest and at any rate within the time permitted i.e. 31-12-2020; (iii) the Additional 15th Respondent, namely the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority shall take up the issue of Environmental Clearance granted to the 12th respondent, after receipt of a copy of the order from the Government of Kerala, as directed herein before and consider the strict measures to be imposed additionally in Ext.P.3 clearance as observed by a Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 49 of the judgment in One Earth W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -31- One Life v. Ministry of Environment and Forests [2018 (3) KLT 683]. The additional conditions shall include a condition regarding restoration and afforestation. This exercise shall be completed at the earliest and at any rate on or before 31-12-2020; (iv) The 3rd respondent, namely the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority shall ensure that necessary action is taken on Ext.P13 and that necessary steps are taken to ensure that the accumulation of water/ overburden does not result in any untoward incident as apprehended by the petitioners. The concerned officials of the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority or the District Disaster Management Authority, Thrissur District, shall forthwith cause inspection of the mining area of the 12th respondent which is subject matter of this writ petition and necessary instructions/directions shall be issued to the 12th Respondent. The needful shall be done within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; (v) The 12th respondent shall obtain fresh no objection certificates as required under the provisions of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 and produce the same before the the Additional 15th Respondent, namely the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment; W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -32- (vi) The 12th respondent will be permitted to operate the quarry in question in strict compliance with the conditions in Ext.P3 till 31-12- 2020 if, the Government of Kerala permits mining activity upon the land in the decision to be taken in furtherance of the directions issued by this Court in W.P (C) 641/2020 and in this judgment. The operations by the 12th respondent after 31-12-2020 will be subject to all the additional conditions and stipulations to be imposed by the Additional 15th Respondent, as directed herein before. (Sd/-) GOPINATH P. Judge AMG W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -33- APPENDIX PETITIONERS'EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE QUARRY SITE EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PUBLIC WATER TANK EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE DATED 07.05.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.11.2017 IN WP(C)NO.23565/2017 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.04.2014 OF THE DFO OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE DAMAGES OF THE VILLAGE ROAD EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE DAMAGES IN THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.05.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2010 OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT WITH REGARD TO THE FORMATION OF CULVERT OVER THE CANAL EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PORAMBOK BOOK OF KODASSERY VILLAGE EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.08.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHER NEIGHBOURS EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED 03.09.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHER NEIGHBOURS EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.08.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 11TH RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MAP SHOWING THE RED DISASTROUS RED ZONE WITH REGARD TO QUARRY SITE PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND LAID IN THE GOOGLE EARTH W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -34- EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 27.1.2020 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN WP(C) NO.641/2020 EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 24.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KODASERY EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 7.1.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR, CHALAKKUDY TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH DATED 25.9.2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KODASSERY. EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27.2.2017 OF THE SUPERINTEND OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI- CORRUPTION BUREAU EASTERN CIRCLE KOTTAYAM EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF PLAN OF DISASTER PROBABILITY AREAS PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 26/02/2020. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R12 A TRUE COPY OF THE NO-OBJECTION CERTIFICATE (NOC) ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IDAMALAYAR IRRIGATION PROJECT, DIVISION NO.II, CHALAKKUDY ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT R12 B TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 19/6/2018 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER OF THE 10TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT R12 C TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 9/5/2019 SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT TO THE 10TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT R12 D TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL DATED 15/5/2019 GIVEN BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT TO THE EXHIBIT R12(A) APPLICATION GIVEN BY THIS RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT R 12E TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS AND A GROUP OF PEOPLE TO THE 10TH RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBIT R12(D) APPROVAL ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT R12 F TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC LIABILITY INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE POLICY VALID UPTO 12/11/2019 EXHIBIT R12 G TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/10/2019 BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, MATTATHUR ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION W.P (C) No.24806/2019 -35- EXHIBIT R12 H TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2019 BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, MATTATHUR ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT R12 I TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 24/8/2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT R12 J TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 30/9/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT EXHIBIT R12 K TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.341/19-20/1981/GS/C2/TDO/19 DATED 30/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION "