Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Sri. K.V. Joy, S/o. Varghese – Appellant
Versus
State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) KERALA) – Respondent
WP(C) No. 40566 of 2023
Decided on : 25-09-2025
For the Appellant : SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU, SMT.NEENU BERNATH
For the Respondent: SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN
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.
Headnote:(A) Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 - Clause 7(i).IV.Stage (4) - Application for Environmental Clearance - Refusal of clearance contested for violation of natural justice principles - Important for project proponents to be heard regarding defects in E.C applications - Past judgments stressing the need for transparency and opportunity to clarify - SEIAA's past decisions linked to erroneous SEAC recommendations. (Paras 1, 3, 5, 6)
(B) Natural Justice - Principles of natural justice mandate that the applicant must be given a fair hearing, especially when adverse findings may influence decision making. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the refusal of Environmental Clearance based on the claim of not being offered an opportunity to address deficiencies in their application, as is mandated by the EIA Notification.
Findings of Court:
Refusal for clearance was not sustainable due to non-compliance with the principle of natural justice; prior decisions leading to the refusal were thus invalidated.
Issues: The court explored the adequacy of the opportunity provided to the petitioner to address concerns regarding environmental implications before the SEIA's decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for hearings as per statutory requirements and found the process flawed, thus invalidating prior decisions on the application for environmental clearance.
Result: Extension of hearing directive for the petitioner by SEAC, invalidating previous orders.
| 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. Ltd. v. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA Kerala) [2025 KLT OnLine 2298], to point out that the purpose of hearing contemplated in clause 7(i).IV.Stage (4) of EIA notification, 2006 is quite significant. The very purpose of hearing as contemplated in the above referred provision of the EIA notification is to enable an opportunity to the project proponents like the petitioner to offer their explanation to the defects, if any, found in their application for E.C, so that the authorities concerned can consider the feasibility of allowing an E.C based on such input given by the project proponent, as well. The directions contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Kottiyoor Metals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) have been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which are as follows:
"6. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court will first refer to Clause 7(i).IV. Stage (4) of the EIA Notification, 2006 which is extracted here under.
i) Appraisal means the detailed scrutiny by the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee of the application and other documents like the Final EIA report, outcome of the public consultations including public hearing proceedings, submitted by the applicant to the regulatory authority concerned for grant of environmental clearance. This appraisal shall be made by Expert Appraisal Committee of State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned in a transparent manner in a proceeding to which the applicant shall be invited for furnishing necessary clarifications in person or through an authorized representative. On conclusion of this proceeding, the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned shall make categorical recommendations to the regulatory authority concerned either for grant of prior environmental clearance on stipulated terms and conditions, or rejection of the application for prior environmental clearance, together with reasons for the same.
As could be seen from the above extracted portion, the appraisal is a detailed scrutiny by the Expert Appraisal Committee on the application and other documents, the outcome of the public consideration, etc. There is a specific mandate that the appraisal shall be made in a transparent manner, in a proceeding to which the applicant ‘shall ’ be invited for furnishing necessary clarifications in person or through an authorized person. This Court notice that a situation where clarification would be necessary is a situation, where the authority, after preliminary appraisal, finds that there are defects, which stand in the way of granting E.C to the applicant. In such circumstances, it is all the more mandatory to give an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, as en
