The court emphasized the binding nature of expert committee recommendations for environmental clearance, necessitating compliance with judicial directives and reasons for deviations.

JUDGMENT :

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. This judgment has to be read in continuation of, and as a sequel to, the judgment in W.P.(C.) No.8820/2023 dated 03.04.2024, produced at Ext.P15 herein.

2. Petitioner’s application for issuance of Environmental Clearance (E.C.) was originally rejected by the 1^st respondent State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) vide Exts.P4 and P13 Orders. Challenging the Orders, the petitioner approached this Court. The challenge was upheld and Exts.P4 and P13 decisions were set aside by this Court, by virtue of Ext.P15 judgment. The 1^st respondent herein was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application for issuance of E.C. (produced as Ext.P8 in that Writ Petition). Exts.P4 and P13 decisions were frowned upon by this Court in Ext.P15 judgment citing three specific reasons, which are available in the penultimate paragraph of Ext.P15. The first is that no reason, whatsoever, is stated to take a view different from that of the well considered recommendation of the expert body, State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC). This reason was stated in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India , (2019) 15 SCC 401 , which underscored the primacy of the recommendations made by the SEAC, and its binding nature on SEIAA in normal circumstances. The said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that in case SEIAA is to overlook the recommendations made by the expert body SEAC, they have to state reasons and the matter will have to be sent back to SEAC for reconsideration, which obviously was not reflected in Exts.P4 and P13 decisions.

3. The second aspect which weighed with the learned Single Judge is the finding of SEAC that no cluster is formed in the petitioner’s case and that, the judgment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in Satendra Pandey v. Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change & Another, (O.A. No. 186 of 2016) has not invalidated Appendix XI of E.I.A. notification. The learned Single Judge found that this was also not properly considered in Ext.P13 decision. A third aspect-described by the learned Single Judge as a crucial aspect - is with respect to the expiry of the lease mentioned in Ext.P2 certificate granted on 06.03.2012, by virtue of which, the total extent is admittedly below 5 hectares, wherefore a comprehensive E.C. for the entire 5 hectares is impossible.

4. It is on the strength of these specific findings that Exts.P4 and P13 decisions of the 1^st respondent were set aside by the learned Single Judge and directed reconsideration of the same.

5. I am at loss to find that none of the above parameters- specifically pointed out by this Court in Ext.P15- were not referred, much less considered, by the 1^st respondent in Ext.P17 Order, impugned herein. The matter did not end there. The petitioner filed a review petition vide Ext.P18, pointing out the above anomaly of not referring to any of these parameters, besides pointing out the recommendations of SEAC, which has to be followed by SEIAA ordinarily, as held in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar (supra). Ext.P18 also did not evoke any response and the 1^st respondent/SEIAA came up with Ext.P19 decision, without referring to any of the above aspects, but finding a new ground to reject the petitioner’s application, holding that the splitting up of the area into three parts will be against the spirit of the judgment of the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others , 2012 (4) SCC 629.

6. Sri.Jacob P. Alex, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Deepak Kumar (supra) is rendered entirely in a different context. Where the law mandates