The main legal point established is that the deeming provision in the EIA 2006 entitles an applicant to proceed as if the environmental clearance sought has been granted if the decision is not communicated within the specified time frame.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner approached the Senior Geologist for issuance of a letter of intent for conducting quarrying operations in 0.5886 hectors of land comprised in Sy.Nos.462/1-18-1, 462/1-5B-12 and 462/1-6B-13 of Pindimana Village in Kothamangalam Taluk in Ernakulam district, belonging to him. On 23.11.2017, the Senior Geologist granted a letter of intent to the petitioner, subject to the condition that the petitioner obtains all the required licenses and permits as per the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 2015 Rules). On 22.2.2018, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application before the 2nd respondent, for environmental clearance (hereinafter referred to as EC). The 2nd respondent took up the application for appraisal in its meeting held on 6.4.2018 and thereafter on 3.5.2018. The minutes of the said meetings have been produced as Exts.P3 and P4. After considering the proposal and the report of the Committee and after scrutiny, the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P4 decided to recommend the grant of EC to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though such a recommendation was made, orders granting EC were not issued within the time stipulated in paragraph 8 of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification issued in 2006 (hereinafter referred to as EIA 2006. As per paragraph 8(iii) of the EIA 2006, if the decision of the Regulatory Authority is not communicated to the applicant within the time stipulated in the said provision, the applicant may proceed as if the EC sought for has either been granted or denied by the Regulatory Authority in terms of the final recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee. In the case on hand, since the Expert Appraisal Committee has recommended the grant, it is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to proceed as if the EC has been granted in his favour. It is his further case that, though the right had crystalised on the basis of the deemed grant, the 2nd respondent was duty bound to issue a certificate of EC to the petitioner, since such a certificate is required for submission before the other statutory authorities for getting the consent to operate, licence from the Panchayat, execution of quarrying lease, etc. On enquiry about the reason for not issuing the certificate, the petitioner came to understand that orders are not being issued owing to Ext.P5 order dated 13.9.2018 issued by the National Green Tribunal (NGT for short). In Ext.P5, the NGT had observed that applications for EC for areas of zero to five hectares are to be evaluated by the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC for short) and not the District Level Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC for short). The petitioner submits that order of the NGT was issued only on 13.9.2018 and as far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner already is entitled to EC by operation of the deeming provision as early as on 22.6.2018 by the passage of time stipulated in the EIA 2006. Ext.P5 order was reiterated by the NGT in Ext.P6 order dated 11.12.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent lost its jurisdiction and authority only with effect from 13.9.2018, the date on which Ext.P5 was issued by the NGT. As such, all cases where rights have crystallized prior to 13.9.2018, will have to be considered under the de facto doctrine and the proceedings and consequences cannot be taken away. The petitioner submitted representations before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P7 is such a representation dated 20.1.2019 which was followed by Ext.P8 representation dated 20.3.2019. When no action was being taken, the petitioner submitted a representation before the 1st respondent on 5.5.2020, which is produced as Ext.P9. When the 1st respondent also did not take any action on Ext.P9, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.12073 of 2020. By Ext.P10 judgment dated 19.6.2020, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to take