The Supreme Court on Thursday (June 26) sought the view of the amicus curiae in the forest batch matter (TN Godavarman Thirumalpad case) on whether stone/metal crusher units can operate within the Eco Sensitive Zones (ESZ) notified around protected forests.The petitioner, the proprietor of a crusher unit based in Kerala, contended that the restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court in ESZ...
The Supreme Court on Thursday (June 26) sought the view of the amicus curiae in the forest batch matter (TN Godavarman Thirumalpad case) on whether stone/metal crusher units can operate within the Eco Sensitive Zones (ESZ) notified around protected forests.
The petitioner, the proprietor of a crusher unit based in Kerala, contended that the restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court in ESZ areas would not apply to crusher units since they are not indulging in quarrying operations.
A bench comprising Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh was hearing a special leave petition filed by M/s Alankar Granites challenging the order of the Kerala High Court which vacated its earlier stay ordered on the stop memos issued against the unit.
In June 2023, a single bench of the High Court dismissed the unit's challenge against the stop memos, relying upon the directions passed by the Supreme Court in 2022 and 2023 in the Godavarman case that "any activity, which is prohibited by both the guidelines as well as the ESZ notification shall strictly be prohibited." In writ appeal, the division bench passed an interim order in the unit's favour, staying the stop memos. However, in May 2025, the stay order was vacated by the division bench. Although the unit was at a distance of 1.6 KM from the Choolannur Pea Fowl Sanctuary, considering that there was a proposal to declare the area as a wild life sanctuary, the division bench passed the order. The division bench directed the authorities to stop the operation of the unit.
Senior Advocate Shaji P Chaly, appearing for the petitioner in the Supreme Court, argued that the prohibition on mining activities in ESZ would not apply to crusher units. "It is only a crushing unit bringing metals from outside. And only crushing is done," Chaly submitted. He also contended that the unit was not falling within the ESZ area.
"You are saying that there is no impediment to carry on crushing activities?" Justice Viswanathan asked. Chaly answered in the affirmative and added that government bodies are also dependent on crusher units for various construction activities.
The bench then chose to seek the views of Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, the amicus curiae in the Godavarman matter, and posted the matter tomorrow.
Case : M/S ALANKAR GRANITES v THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT AND ORS.| SLP(C) No. 16999/2025