IMPORTANT POINT
SEIAA being a body constituted only for the purpose of exercising the powers of the Central Government in terms of 2006 notification, it cannot take a decision otherwise than in accordance with the notification, for it does not have any inherent power or authority. That does not mean that SEIAA cannot exercise any powers incidental to the powers vested in it in terms of the notification. SEIAA would certainly be justified in exercising powers incidental and ancillary to the powers conferred on it for the purpose of achieving the object of the notification, but it can never take any decision contrary to the terms of the notification or its scheme and spirit, whatever be the justification for the same.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

1. Common questions relating to the validity of Environmental Clearance (EC) granted in terms of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (2006 notification) issued by the Central Government under sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (the Act), arise for consideration in this batch of writ petitions. The writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The facts of the cases involved in this batch are similar, if not identical. As such, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of all cases. I am, therefore, referring to the facts brought out in W.P. (C) No. 17533 of 2020 alone for the purpose of adjudicating the questions.

3. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 17533 of 2020 is the grantee of a quarrying lease in terms of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (KMMC Rules) framed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) for extracting building stones for a period of 12 years. In order to commence the operation of the building stone quarry of the petitioner, he applied for EC to the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), the regulatory body at the State level under the 2006 Notification, and on the basis of the recommendation made by the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), the appraisal body at the State level, the petitioner has been granted EC by SEIAA for his building stone quarry project on 05.12.2014. It is stated by the petitioner that the life of the project of the petitioner as estimated by him and intimated by him to SEIAA is 20 years and as such, he should have been granted EC for a period of 20 years. Instead, it is alleged that the SEIAA had limited the validity of the EC issued to the petitioner to five years. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition, in essence, is that the decision of SEIAA to limit the validity of the EC granted to him to five years is ultra-vires the 2006 notification, in terms of which the EC has been granted to him. In order to make out the said case, the petitioner relies on Clause (9) of 2006 notification to contend that in terms of the said provision, if the appraisal body, viz. SEAC recommends for grant of EC to a particular applicant and if the recommendation is found acceptable, SEIAA is bound to grant EC for mining projects for the life of the project. It is stated by the petitioner that since the life of the project of the petitioner is 20 years, on the expiry of the period of five years, the petitioner preferred an application before SEIAA for extension of the validity of the EC granted to him. It is alleged that to the dismay of the petitioner, the application preferred by him is treated by SEIAA as a fresh application for grant of EC and is being processed accordingly. It is also stated by the petitioner that the enquiries made by him in this regard reveal that on 31.10.2014, as sufficient enforcement arrangement were not available, the SEIAA has decided to limit the validity of the ECs to mining project to five years, instead of the life of the projects and to permit the project proponents to apply for fresh ECs after five years. Ext.P20 is the said decision of SEIAA. It is stated by the petitioner that Ext.P20 decision was made known to the public only when it was uploaded by SEIAA in its website on 13.08.2020. It is also stated by the petitioner that it is revealed that in the meanwhile, on 27.02.2019, the SEIAA has also decided to simplify the process of the application for extension of ECs made, in accordance with Ext.P20 decision, by insisting the applicants concerned to prefer applications for extension at least six months before the expiry of the validity of the EC in the updated Form 1 with the mining plan, processing fee and photographs and to consider the same with the report of SEAC. Ext.P21 is the decision taken by SEIAA in this regard. The case of the petiti