Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN
Thomas Mathai – Appellant
Versus
State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judgment followed up on previous rulings. (Para 1) |
| 2. judicial review of e.c. decisions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. failure to consider judicial parameters. (Para 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. binding nature of seac recommendations. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. court's directive to address procedural violations. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
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 1st 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 1st 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 court emphasized the binding nature of expert committee recommendations for environmental clearance, necessitating compliance with judicial directives and reasons for deviations.
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 absence of a pre-decisional hearing by an expert committee in environmental clearance decisions violates principles of natural justice.
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 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....
Compliance with regulatory requirements for mining operation closure can enable reconsideration of Environmental Clearance applications.
Environmental clearance rejection must be based on scientific evidence and reasoned appraisal, not unsubstantiated ecological concerns.
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....
Environmental clearances require fresh, evidence-based appraisal; rejections must cite specific legal/scientific grounds, not prior decisions.
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
