V. Ramasubramanian, J.

All these writ petitions question the correctness of the orders passed by the Southern Regional Bench of the National Green Tribunal dated 24.2.2014.

2. We have heard Mr. T. Mohan and Mrs. U. Nirmala Rani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Advocate General appearing for the State, Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred to as the SEIAA), Mr. K.K. Senthilvelan, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India and Mr. M. Subash Babu and Mr. V. Karuna learned counsel appearing for the parties, who seek to implead themselves in the writ petitions.

3. After intensive quarrying in the volumes and volumes of papers filed before us, the factual matrix unearthed could be summarized as follows :

(a) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Central Government issued The Environment Impact Assessment (hereinafter referred to as the EIA) Notification, on 14.9.2006, directing that on and from the date of its publication, the construction of new projects or activities or the expansion or modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to the notification entailing capacity addition with change in process and or technology, shall be undertaken in any part of India only after the prior environmental clearance from the Central Government or as the case may be, by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, duly constituted by the Central Government under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the said Act, in accordance with the procedure specified hereinafter in this notification.

(b) On 27.2.2012, the Supreme Court passed an order in Deepak Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others [2012 (4) SCC 629] holding that leases of minor minerals as well as their renewal, be granted by the States/Union Territories in certain cases only after getting environmental clearance.

(c) On 3.8.2012, this Court passed an order in a batch of cases in W.P. No.4699 of 2012 etc., mandating environmental clearance before commencement of sand mining. The SEIAA was also directed to pass orders within 2 months on the project proposal of the Public Works Department of the State Government.

(d) Therefore, on 28.8.2012, a joint meeting was convened between the SEIAA and the State Experts Appraisal Committee on formulation of interim guidelines.

(e) Thereafter, the SEIAA filed a petition for extension of time for processing the proposal of the PWD. However, it was not effectively pursued.

(f) But on 27.09.2012, the SEIAA issued a set of adhoc interim guidelines for processing applications/project proposals, till the MOEF issued revised guidelines. On the basis of those guidelines, the SEIAA also granted Environmental Clearances to the Public Works Department of the State of Tamilnadu on 30-11-2012 valid for a period of 5 years.

(g) Consequently, the review applications filed by the Government before this court, seeking a review of the order dated 3-8-2012 were dismissed on 12.12.2012 and the copies of the environment clearances were handed over to the concerned writ petitioners.

(h) Challenging the said environment clearances, appeals were filed before the National Green Tribunal, South Zone at Chennai in February 2013.

(i) During the pendency of the appeals, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (hereinafter referred to as the MoEF) issued revised guidelines on 24.12.2013 on sub-categorisation of B projects.

(j) On 24.2.2014, the National Green Tribunal, Southern Regional Bench disposed of all the appeals holding that after the issue of the revised guidelines by the MoEF, the Public Works Department of the State has to get clearance only under those guidelines and th