Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1873
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Kottiyoor Metals Pvt. Ltd., Represented By Its Director – Petitioner
Versus
State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa Kerala), Represented By Its Member Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 22463 of 2024, WP(C) No. 31732 of 2023
Decided On : 17-06-2025
For the Petitioner: Shri. Philip J. Vettickattu, Smt. Neenu Bernath, Shri. Saju S. Dominic.
For the Respondents: Sri. M.P. Sreekrishnan, SC.
The absence of a pre-decisional hearing by an expert committee in environmental clearance decisions violates principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) EIA Notification, 2006 - Clause 7(i).IV - Principles of natural justice - No opportunity granted before the SEAC decision leads to vitiation of the subsequent decisions by SEIAA - In matters requiring expertise, a prior hearing by the competent authority is mandatory - Exts. P5, P7, and P10 decisions held invalid. (Paras 6, 7, and 10)
(B) Administrative Law - It is fundamental that authorities must afford opportunities for explanation or rebuttal concerning decisions affecting interests.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought environmental clearance for a quarry but was denied opportunity of being heard in the initial SEAC decision, leading to court intervention.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the absence of a pre-decision hearing invalidates all subsequent decisions related to environmental clearance.
Issues: Central question revolves around the necessity of a pre-decisional hearing for approvals on environmental matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that principles of natural justice necessitate that opportunities to refute or supplement information should be granted before decisions are taken by expert committees.
Result: The decisions are set aside with directions for reconsideration by the Expert Appraisal Committee.
| 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 hearing the petitioner, he moved this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.28723/2023 seeking consideration of Ext.P6 representation. In the meantime, Ext.P7 decision was taken in the 131st meeting of the SEIAA, on 24.08.2023, accepting the recommendation of SEAC and refusing environmental clearance to the petitioner. Ext.P7 decision was challenged by filing a second Writ Petition, W.P.(C).No.31732/2023, by the petitioner. In that Writ Petition, Ext.P8 interim order was passed, directing SEIAA to ascertain whether the petitioner was heard before Ext.P5 decision was taken by SEAC. This was followed by a notice issued by SEIAA calling upon the petitioner to appear for hearing and accordingly, he was heard on 29.01.2024. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner was asked to file a hearing note. Ext.P9 hearing note was filed on 30.01.2024, which explained in detail all the defects/infirmities, which were found by SEAC in refusing the E.C to the petitioner. However, without considering Ext.P9 representation, Ext.P10 decision was taken by SEIAA in its 140th meeting dated 26.03.2024, holding that there is no situation to review the decision, which refused environmental clearance to the petitioner, is the argument advanced.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would rely on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey [ 2023 KLT OnLine 1601 (SC) ] to propound the doctrine of official notice, which will enable the party to refute, as also, to supplement, explain or to give a different perspective to the facts on which the authority acting is relying upon. The proposition that an Order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is non-est in law, is sought to be expatiated by the petitioner by relying on a Bench decision of this Court in Ajith Kumar v. State of Kerala [ 2017 (3) KLT 58 ]. The learned Counsel then invited the attention of this Court to Clause 7 of the EIA Notification , especially to Stage (4), which speaks about ‘appraisal,’ wherein, a specific mandate is there to invite the applicant for furnishing necessary clarification before SEAC takes a decision in the matter of environmental clearance. Stage (4) also mandates that the appraisal by the Expert Committee should be in a transparent manner, which implies that an opportunity of being heard should necessarily be afforded, is the contention raised. On such premise, the learned Counsel would submit that Exts.P5, P7 and P10 are liable to be set aside. It was specifically pointed out that, an opportunity afforded before Ext.P10 decision cannot substitute an opportunity mandated before Ext.P5 decision by SEAC.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for SEIAA, based on the direction given by this Court, specifically ascertained whether an oppor
