Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.JAYACHANDRAN
Kottiyoor Metals Pvt. Ltd., Represented By Its Director – Appellant
Versus
State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa Kerala), Represented By Its Member Secretary – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner denied a hearing before seac's decision. (Para 2) |
| 2. respondents contest petitioner's arguments based on local grievances. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. importance of expert appraisal and proper procedure emphasized. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court invalidates prior decisions due to lack of opportunity. (Para 8) |
| 5. court directs eac to hear the application promptly. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
(C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.)
The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 Order passed by the State Expert Appraisal Committee (‘SEAC’, for short) and Ext.P7 and P10 decisions taken in the meetings held by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (‘SEIAA’, for short). The fundamental issue propounded by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is violation of the principles of natural justice, a principle well accepted in administrative law, besides being ingrained to the statute relevant.
2. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 application for environmental clearance for commencement of a quarry. The SEAC, in its 147th meeting, resolved not to recommend environmental clearance to the petitioner. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 representation for re-consideration. On an apprehension that orders will be passed without hear
The absence of a pre-decisional hearing by an expert committee in environmental clearance decisions violates principles of natural justice.
Natural justice is imperative in EIA processes, requiring project applicants to be given a fair opportunity to address all deficiencies noted against their application before decisions are made.
The court emphasized the binding nature of expert committee recommendations for environmental clearance, necessitating compliance with judicial directives and reasons for deviations.
As long as SEIAA's decision to grant Environmental Clearances was made before the expiration of its term, the subsequent issuance remains valid despite any delays in communication.
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 commun....
A statutory authority must exercise jurisdiction within defined limits; exceeding or misinterpreting these can lead to invalid decisions.
The court emphasized the importance of enforcing the conditions of the Environmental Clearance (EC) and ensuring compliance by the Project Proponent. The judgment was issued based on the specific cir....
Environmental clearance rejection must be based on scientific evidence and reasoned appraisal, not unsubstantiated ecological concerns.
The court affirmed the right of affected parties to participate in public consultations regarding environmental clearances, emphasizing the need for regulatory authorities to consider all material co....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
