Prospective environmental clearance and approved mining plans govern new and renewed quarrying grants, while existing operations retain transitional protection.

The Kerala High Court examined the interaction between the 2006 environmental clearance notification, the Deepak Kumar directions, the 2012 Central Government order, the MMDR Act, and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. It held that prior environmental clearance applies prospectively to new quarrying or mining projects and to fresh grants or renewals below five hectares, but not to existing leases and permits already in force on the relevant dates. It also held that mining permits remain within the State's regulatory power as other mineral concessions, and that the approved mining plan requirement in Rule 68 operates subject to the transitional dispensation in Rule 66 for existing operators. The State's 2014 order could not be acted upon while the NGT restraint order continued.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the 14.09.2006 environmental clearance notification applied only to new projects or also to existing quarrying and mining operations, including short-term permits; (ii) whether the Supreme Court directions in Deepak Kumar and the Central Government's 18.05.2012 order required prior environmental clearance for leases and permits below five hectares, including renewals; (iii) whether the amendment to Section 14 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 excluded mining permits and confined mining activity only to leases; (iv) whether Rule 68 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 made an approved mining plan an absolute precondition for all quarrying operations; and (v) whether the State Government's 10.01.2014 order could be relied upon in view of the National Green Tribunal's restraint order.

Issue (i): Whether the 14.09.2006 environmental clearance notification applied only to new projects or also to existing quarrying and mining operations, including short-term permits.

Analysis: The notification was construed from its text, particularly the distinction drawn between new projects or activities and expansion or modernization of existing projects or activities. The framework of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 showed that prior environmental clearance was intended for future commencement of covered projects and for expansion or modernization of existing ones, not as a general prohibition on already existing operations. The later Government of India clarification of 02.07.2007 was treated as confirming that existing minor mineral projects could continue till renewal if there was no increase in lease area or production.

Conclusion: The notification was held to govern new projects and new activities, not existing quarrying or mining operations as such.

Issue (ii): Whether the Supreme Court directions in Deepak Kumar and the Central Government's 18.05.2012 order required prior environmental clearance for leases and permits below five hectares, including renewals.

Analysis: The directions in Deepak Kumar were read with the 18.05.2012 Office Memorandum issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Court held that, after that order, mining projects of minor minerals below five hectares, whether by lease or other mineral concession, required prior environmental clearance for fresh grant or renewal. However, the interim direction in Deepak Kumar, expressed to operate "in the meanwhile" and phrased as leases to be "granted," was held not to have retrospective effect on existing leases and permits already in force on the date of the judgment.

Conclusion: Prior environmental clearance was mandatory for fresh grants and renewals below five hectares, but not for existing leases and permits already operating on the relevant dates.

Issue (iii): Whether the amendment to Section 14 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 excluded mining permits and confined mining activity only to leases.

Analysis: Sections 4, 14 and 15 were read harmoniously. Section 15 empowers the State Government to regulate quarry leases, mining leases and other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals. A mining permit was treated as falling within the expression "other mineral concessions." The amendment to Section 14 made the restrictions applicable to minor minerals, but did not abolish the State's power to regulate mining through permits under the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The amendment did not bar mining permits; mining operations could continue through leases or other mineral concessions in accordance with the statute and rules.

Issue (iv): Whether Rule 68 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 made an approved mining plan an absolute precondition for all quarrying operations.

Analysis: Rule 68 was construed together with Rule 66. Rule 68 requires quarrying operations to be carried out in accordance with an approved mining plan, but Rule 66 grants existing operators time to submit such plan. The Court therefore rejected the contention that Rule 68 must override the specific transitional dispensation in Rule 66. Existing leaseholders were given the benefit of the time allowed under the rules, while new grant and renewal cases remained subject to the plan requirement.

Conclusion: Rule 68 was not absolute in its operation against existing operators, because Rule 66 created a transitional exception.

Issue (v): Whether the State Government's 10.01.2014 order could be relied upon in view of the National Green Tribunal's restraint order.

Analysis: The 10.01.2014 order extended short-term permits without insisting on environmental clearance, but the National Green Tribunal had already passed a restraint order on 27.09.2013 requiring compliance. So long as that restraint order remained in force, the State order could not be acted upon.

Conclusion: The 10.01.2014 Government order could not be relied upon while the restraint order continued.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only in part. The Court upheld the regulatory necessity of environmental clearance and approved mining plans for future grants and renewals, but protected existing operations already in force on the relevant dates, and disposed of the connected matters by issuing case-specific directions, dismissing some petitions, and granting limited liberty in others.

Ratio Decidendi: Environmental clearance requirements under the 2006 notification and the 2012 governmental implementation apply prospectively to new quarrying and mining grants or renewals below five hectares, while existing operations are governed by the transitional statutory framework and must also comply with approved mining plan requirements under the later rules, read harmoniously with the State's regulatory power over mineral concessions.

---