Kerala High Court | Environmental Clearance Mandatory For Quarrying | NHAI Contractors Can Claim Exemption Only If Work Is Exclusively For Linear Projects Under Pre-2024 Work Orders
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice C. Jayachandran declared that a contractor engaged in the six-laning of the National Highway cannot undertake quarrying activities without obtaining environmental clearance. The Court quashed the quarrying permit granted to the contractor on the ground that it was not confined to exempted works of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). Directions were issued to the concerned authorities to prevent quarrying based on the expired permit and to ensure no excavation proceeds without mandatory clearance.
The petitioners, residents of Kurumbala Village in Pathanamthitta District, approached the High Court expressing apprehensions over large-scale excavation of earth from “Erichurili Mala,” a hillock situated in their locality. They alleged that the seventh respondent, a private company engaged as a contractor for NHAI, had purchased land in the area to source ordinary earth for constructing the Kottukulangara–Kollam highway bypass.
According to the petitioners, a quarrying permit (Ext.P2) had been issued to the contractor by the District Geologist permitting excavation and removal of ordinary earth from 43.20 ares of land in Erichurili Mala. They contended that this permit was granted in the absence of mandatory environmental clearance.
The State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) had issued a communication (Ext.P3) expressing no objection to grant exemption from environmental clearance for borrowing earth for highway construction. Petitioners challenged the legality of this position, pointing to a Government of Kerala Circular (Ext.P4) that exempted such requirements, which they argued was unlawful.
They further referred to a notification (Ext.P5) issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) dated 28 March 2020, which introduced an amendment exempting extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects such as roads and pipelines. The petitioners submitted that this exemption was challenged before the National Green Tribunal, which held that blanket exemptions violated sustainable development principles. The Ministry subsequently issued an Office Memorandum (Ext.P6) clarifying that such exemptions would be subject to a Standard Operating Procedure.
The petitioners maintained that the Kottukulangara–Kollam highway bypass project required environmental clearance and that the exemption granted was invalid. They relied on letters sent to authorities (Exts.P7 and P8) highlighting alleged illegality in granting the permit and SEIAA’s no-objection certificate. They also produced materials (Ext.P9) showing evacuation orders issued in nearby Athiramala during heavy rainfall, arguing the similarity in topography heightened risks of excavation.
Resolutions passed by the Pandalam Municipality (Ext.P11) and subsequent representations (Exts.P10 and P12) were also relied upon to establish local opposition. They urged the Court to quash Exts.P2 and P3 and direct authorities to prevent excavation.
The seventh respondent filed a counter affidavit contending that it was a duly selected concessionaire of NHAI for the highway project, which required large quantities of earth. The company had purchased land and sought permission under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. The quarrying permit was accordingly issued, and royalty was paid. It was further submitted that a revised mining plan was approved by the Geologist (Ext.R7(b)).
The contractor relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s clarification in Noble M. Paikada v. Union of India, where by order dated 15 May 2024, the Court clarified that work orders issued prior to 21 March 2024 would not be affected by its earlier judgment striking down the exemption under the EIA Notification. Since the contractor’s work order was dated 6 August 2021, it was argued that the project fell within the exemption.
NHAI supported this contention by producing a letter (Ext.R7(c)) communicating the applicability of the Supreme Court’s clarification. The respondents, therefore, sought dismissal of the petition.
The Court heard the parties, including counsel for petitioners, the Government Pleader, Standing Counsel for SEIAA, NHAI, Pandalam Municipality, and Senior Counsel appearing for the contractor.
Justice C. Jayachandran recorded that the issues revolved around the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Noble M. Paikada and its clarificatory order of 15 May 2024.
The Court noted: “The Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that projects, for which work orders were issued by NHAI prior to 21.03.2024, will remain unaffected by the judgment in Noble M. Paikkada (supra).”
It was further observed: “The Supreme Court was fully aware of the fact that the work orders are being executed through contractors/concessionaires… If the contractor is specifically confining his activity to the work of the NHAI and if his quarrying permits also reflect such limitation… then to deny the benefit of the clarificatory order only for the reason it is sought for by the contractor would defeat the very purpose of the clarificatory order.”
However, on examining the present facts, the Court stated: “A perusal of the above as well as other documents produced in this Writ Petition would only indicate that the quarrying permit issued to the 7th respondent is not confined to the exempted works of the NHAI. There is nothing to indicate that the proposed quarrying in terms of Ext.P2 is confined and limited to the exempted work of the NHAI.”
The Court also remarked: “There is absolutely no guarantee that the quarrying activity to be undertaken by the 7th respondent by virtue of Ext.P2 permit is confined only to the requirements of the NHAI for the exempted work.”
On the argument advanced regarding the date of permits vis-à-vis the Supreme Court’s cut-off date, the Court recorded: “It may be that there is some force in that argument of the learned Senior Counsel. However, inasmuch as this Court is dis-inclined to accept the contentions of the 7th respondent, the said argument will be of no impact.”
Ultimately, the Bench concluded: “The quarrying permit issued, in the absence of a clear nexus confining it to NHAI’s exempted works, cannot be sustained. There is every chance of misuse if contractors are afforded benefit of the clarificatory order without clear limitations.”
The Court categorically declared that the seventh respondent cannot undertake quarrying activities for extracting ordinary earth on the strength of the quarrying permit dated 21 March 2023 (Ext.P2). Justice Jayachandran directed that the permit, which had already expired, could not form the basis for further excavation.
The Court ordered that respondents 1 (District Geologist), 4 (District Collector/Chairperson of District Disaster Management Authority), and 5 (Pandalam Municipality) must take effective steps to ensure that no quarrying activity is carried out by the contractor under the expired permit.
It was further directed that quarrying operations shall not proceed without mandatory environmental clearance from the competent authority. The Bench underscored that permissions granted in the absence of environmental clearance stand quashed, and any continuation of excavation would be unlawful.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed, and the respondents were bound to enforce compliance, preventing unauthorized extraction of earth from Erichurili Mala.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. P.M. Rafeek, Sri. U. Nidhin, Smt. Gia Mathai Kandathil, Smt. Sara John
For the Respondents: Shri. Lejo Joseph George, Sri. K.R. Arun Krishnan, Sri. E.C. Kuriakose, Sri. S. Sreekumar (Sr.), Smt. Deepa K. Radhakrishnan, Shri. Sanal C.S, Shri. Vishak K.V., Smt. Devishri R. – Government Pleader, Sri. M.P. Sreekrishnan – Standing Counsel (SEIAA), Smt. T.S. Maya – for Pandalam Municipality, Sri. B.G. Bidan Chandran – Standing Counsel (NHAI)
Case Title: Bhargavan Pillai & Ors. v. District Geologist & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:61185
Case Number: WP(C) No. 20083 of 2023
Bench: Justice C. Jayachandran
