Environmental authorities must ensure compliance with rigorous procedural requirements when granting clearances for projects in ecologically sensitive areas, balancing development needs with environmental protection mandates.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

1. This writ petition that is styled as a Public Interest Litigation, challenges Exhibit P21 Environmental clearance granted by the Union of India in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to the Public Works Department of the Government of Kerala for construction of Twin Tube Unidirectional Tunnel Road (2+2 Lane) with Four Lane Approach (from existing roads) for providing direct connectivity between Anakkampoyil – Kalladi - Meppadi in Kozhikode and Wayanad Districts of Kerala State. The proposed length of the road is 8.735 kilometres and it is to be situated at an average altitude ranging from 700 to 2061 metres above sea level, passing through the Bio-diverse Western Ghats.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the Environmental clearance was granted in a mechanical manner without due application of mind by the authorities under the Environment (Protection) Act and Rules, and that such action cannot be legally countenanced in relation to a construction project proposed in an ecologically sensitive area that has witnessed many natural disasters in recorded history and severe floods and landslides in 2018, 2019 and 2024. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the proposed tunnel is situated in close proximity to Mundakkai and Chooralmala villages that were worst affected in the 2024 landslide, and hence, they are justified in their apprehension with regard to the proposed project.

3. The petitioners challenge to Ext.P21 Environmental clearance is multi-pronged. Firstly, it is pointed out that the Public Works Department of the Kerala Government nominated M/s.Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. [8^th respondent] as a Special Purpose Vehicle [SPV] to implement the proposed project and the latter, in turn, engaged M/s.Kitco Ltd. [7^th respondent] to conduct the Environment Impact Assessment Study [EIAS] for the project and that the said respondents do not have the necessary accreditation to conduct an Environment Impact Assessment [EIA] for the project. Secondly, it is contented that the EIAS conducted was not comprehensive in nature so as to satisfy the requirements of the EIA notification. Thirdly, it is pointed out that while the 2nd respondent Central Expert Appraisal Committee [CEAC] had, in its 283^rd meeting held on 9^th/10^th December, 2021, considered the feasibility of the project and concluded that the project did not fall under the ambit of the Schedule to the EIA notification and returned the proposal, the very CEAC had, vide its 401^st meeting on 14^th/15^th May, 2025 recommended the project for Environmental clearance. This recommendation of the CEAC was allegedly without an independent application of mind and was a mechanical recommendation made by the State Expert Appraisal Committee [SEAC] at its 181^st meeting on 01.03.2025, a day prior to the expiry of its sanctioned term. Fourthly, it is contended that the tunnel project could not have been categorized under Sl.No.7(f) dealing with Highways, but ought to have been considered under Sl.No.8(a) that dealt with Building and Construction projects under the EIA notification. It is argued therefore that since the area of the project was more than 20,000 sq.mtrs., it had to be categorized as a Category 'A' project and not as a Category 'B' project as was done in the instant case. Fifthly, it is argued that the project did not comply with the general conditions stipulated under the EIA notification in relation to its location in close proximity to eco-sensitive areas as notified under Section 3 (2) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 19