Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.JAYACHANDRAN
K.V. Joy, S/o. Varghese – Appellant
Versus
State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) KERALA) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to order for environmental clearance. (Para 1) |
| 2. inadequate opportunity to be heard in environmental decision-making. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. importance of audi alteram partem in environmental assessments. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. non-compliance with natural justice mandates invalidates orders. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Ext.P8 Order, which refused petitioner's application for Environmental Clearance (E.C) is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Ext.P8 Order is passed based on Ext.P9 decision taken in the meeting of the State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAA), which, in turn, is based on Ext.P10 representation made by State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC). The short ground, which has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the non-compliance of the principle of audi alteram partem, especially in the context of clause 7(i).IV.Stage (4) of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification, 2006.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for SEIAA and SEAC. Perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would essentially rely on a judgment of this Court in Kottiyoor Metals Pvt.
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.
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 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....
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....
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....
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.
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
