Vinod Chandran, J.

All the above cases deal with the mining activities of a Company, called "English India Clays Limited". The different cases are dealt with in chronological order herein below.

2. W.A. No. 1099 of 2010 is filed by English India Clays Limited, hereinafter referred to as "the Company", challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.29634 of 2009 refusing to interfere with Exhibit P9 order passed by the District Collector under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 [for brevity "Paddy Land Act"]. The order directed the Company to stop the construction activities carried on in the property in violation of the Paddy Land Act and Rules. The learned Single Judge refused to consider the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution for reason of an effective alternate remedy and relegated the Company to that statutory remedy of revision under Section 28 of the Paddy Land Act.

3. W.P. (C) No. 8843 of 2013 is a writ petition filed by the Company seeking police protection for mining and transportation of china clay from the areas covered by Exhibit P1 order of the Government and Exhibit P2 lease. There was an interim order granted on 07.10.2013 on condition of the Company having all necessary licences, permit, consent, etc. for mining and transporting the clay.

4. W.P. (C) No. 3251 of 2015 is a writ petition filed by one individual, seeking interference to Exhibit P3 order of the District Collector, which withdrew an earlier interdiction made to the mining activities carried on by the Company.

5. W.P. (C) No. 32230 of 2015 again is filed by four individuals, who claim to be residents of the area in which the mining activities are carried on, seeking interdiction of the mining activities carried on in Veilur Village of Thiruvananthapuram District for reason of no prior Environmental Clearance [for brevity "EC"] having been obtained. The writ petition also seeks penalty proceedings for offences under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 [for brevity "Act of 1986"] as contemplated in Section 19.

6. W.A. No. 1761 of 2018 is filed by two individuals, one of whom is the petitioner in W.P(C) No.3251 of 2015, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed by the Company. The Company by W.P.(C) No.31654 of 2017 approached this Court for expeditious consideration of their application for EC, wherein the learned Single Judge permitted the Company to carry on mining activities provisionally, since there was a recommendation issued by the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee [for brevity "SEAC"]. The permission so granted was by placing reliance on the notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change [for brevity "MoEF&CC"], which deemed such grant if there was a recommendation issued by the SEAC and the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority [for brevity "SEIAA"] does not respond within 45 days of the receipt of such recommendation.

7. Sri. T. Madhu, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A. No. 1761 of 2018 argues that the Company had commenced and carried on mining activities from the year 2008 itself on the strength of Exhibits P1 to P3 [W.P.(C) No.31654 of 2017] Government Orders without obtaining an Environmental Clearance [for brevity “EC”]. The application for EC itself was made long after the commencement of mining; when Annexure A2 notification of the Ministry of Environment & Forests [for brevity “MoEF”] specifically required prior EC insofar as lease areas in excess of 5 hectares. Exhibits P1 and P2 though below 5 hectares, lie contiguously and Exhibit P3 shows extent more than 5 hectares. Specific reliance is placed on Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2012) 4 SCC 629] to contend that even by the notification of the MoEF of 1994, which was modified by the notification of 14.09.2006 [Exhibit A2], there was a requirement of prior EC for mining areas in excess of 5 hectares. The appellants are said to be p