Kerala: Tribunal order on quarry quashed

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has held that the National Green Tribunal has no power to pass an ex parte interim order.  Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar passed the order on a petition filed by KK Rocks & Granites, Kottackal,  against the NGT order staying the environmental clearance of a quarry.  While quashing the order,  the court  made it clear that the tribunal was free to pass fresh orders on the stay after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The petitioners own  7.8603 hectares of property in Pallichal village.

According to them,  they had been conducting quarrying operations in the said property for the last several years. On account of the amendment introduced during 2015 to the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, it became mandatory for the petitioners to obtain environmental clearance for renewal of the quarrying lease obtained by them. Consequently, they  obtained environmental clearance from the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. A litigant challenged the same before the tribunal and it stayed the operation of EC without notice to the petitioners.

They challenged the same in the  High Court on the ground that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass an ex parte interim order in any matter. Considering the argument,  the court observed, “section 19 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 shows that the tribunal though not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, the statute provides that the tribunal shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. Section 19(4) of the Act confers on the tribunal the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure in relation to matters enumerated therein for the purpose of discharging its functions.”

“While section 19(4) of the Act provides that the tribunal will have the same power as are vested in a civil court in the matter of passing interim orders, it imposes a condition therein that an interim order shall be passed by the tribunal only after providing the parties concerned an opportunity to be heard,” the court held.