The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the restriction of consent issued by the Pollution Control Board upto 9.2.2015 as per Ext.P5. Ext.P5 is the consent renewed to the petitioner. Petitioner points out at Ext.P9 Government Order issued by the Government of Kerala and submits that the Pollution Control Board restricted consent based on the above Government Order. It is further submitted that restriction in Ext.P9 would apply to quarrying operation based on permit. The petitioner's case is that lease was granted prior to Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana (2012(4) SCC 629) and area is less than the area prescribed for environmental clearance. The learned Counsel relied on relevant paragraph in Ext.P9 which is as follows:
“The system of permit being environmentally benign and carries the environmental safeguards
WP(C).No.25367/2014-U.
2 as expounded in the recommendations of the MoEF extracted in para II of the order read as first paper above, and is statutorily approved and implemented since 1967, even as Environmental Clearance is being insisted for quarrying on long term lease, short time permits in small private holding have been sanctioned to be continued on the extent permit conditions upto 09.02.2015. Government order that while operating these quarries on permit, the permit holders shall be required to submit an undertaking that Environmental Clearance as may be required for such quarrying activities will be obtained from the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority.”
The consent of the Pollution Control Board is not depend upon any other parameters. If the petitioner is entitled for a consent of normal duration unless it is restricted by any valid order, by reference to some other order issued by the Government, consent cannot be restricted. Whether the petitioner is entitled to operate the quarry with environmental clearance is look out of the Geologist or other authority. The Pollution Control Board is only expected to issue consent in accordance with their norms and parameters. Therefore, Ext.P5 is set aside to the extent
WP(C).No.25367/2014-U.
3 restricting the period upto 9.2.2015 and the Pollution Control Board is directed to extend the period in Ext.P5 to the period of normal duration. The petitioner submits that he has already paid necessary fees upto 7.7.2015. If the normal validity period of the consent could be issued to that period, necessarily the Pollution Control Board will have to issue consent for that period depend upon the norms followed in issuing consent. Needful shall be done within a period of four weeks.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, (Judge)
Kvs/-
// true copy //