JUDGMENT :

A.J. Desai, J.

By way of the present appeal filed under section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, the appellant/original petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 03.02.2020 in W.P.(C) No.2650 of 2018 by which the learned single Judge has refused to entertain the petition seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring that the 5th respondent is not entitled to conduct quarrying operation on the basis of the Environmental Clearance Certificate issued on 29.11.2017 by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Kerala (SEIAA), since the certificate ought to have been issued by the Central Government in terms of the notification dated 14.03.2017 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Union of India. The other prayer is for a writ of mandamus commanding the concerned District Collector as well as the Geologist to see that the quarrying operations are not continued unless and until the appraisal is done and permission granted by the Expert Appraisal Committee and Regulatory Authority at the Central level.

2. In response to the notice issued by the learned single Judge, all the respondents filed their counter affidavits and opposed the grant of reliefs prayed by the appellant. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the documents on record, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal.

3. The case put forth by the appellant is as under:

The appellant, along with his family, is residing in the property comprised in Re.Sy.No.28 in Nediyenga Village in Taliparamba Taluk in Kannur District since 1969 and is carrying out agricultural operations on the said land. It is the case of the appellant that the entire area surrounding his land is agricultural land and an ecologically and environmentally sensitive one. It is the case of the appellant that private respondent No.5 started granite quarrying operations in the adjacent property and the house of the appellant was damaged and his agricultural operations were affected due to the blasting of rocks. Therefore, the appellant was left with no alternative, but to file a writ petition before this court, being W.P.(C)No.27189 of 2016. By an interim order dated 17.08.2016, this court restrained the 5th respondent from conducting mining operations and by judgment dated 07.12.2016, the learned single Judge restrained the 5th respondent from conducting quarrying operations without environmental clearance and without permit/licence/lease obtained under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015.

4. Later, on coming to know that the 5th respondent had submitted an application for environmental clearance before the first respondent, the appellant preferred an objection and sought rejection of the application. Apprehending that the first respondent will not provide the appellant with an opportunity to plead his case, he filed another writ petition, W.P.(C)No.5016 of 2017, before this court and the same was disposed of on 16.02.2017 with certain directions. Alleging disobedience of the directions in that judgment, Cont. Case (C) No.687 of 2017 was filed and on 14.08.2017, this court recorded the statement of the learned Government Pleader appearing for the authority that, the opportunity of hearing shall be given to the appellant.

Accordingly, the appellant was heard by the SEIAA on 15.09.2017 and submitted a detailed written objection. Thereafter, the authority issued Environmental Clearance No.86/2017 on 29.11.2017 (Exhibit P9) recording the objections submitted by the appellant.

5. While challenging Exhibit P9 before this court in W.P.(C)No.2650 of 2018, the appellant had stated that, though there is an alternate remedy of filing an appeal against the environmental clearance certificate, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed, since the appellate authority was not conducting its session during that period and urgent or