Clarification from the Supreme Court regarding Environmental Clearance applicability is binding on concessionaires engaged in quarrying, irrespective of their direct association with NHAI projects.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P1/quarrying permit, in favour of the 9^th respondent, for want of a valid Environmental Clearance issued by the competent authority. A declaration to this effect is sought for in the light of Ext.P4 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. When this Writ Petition was moved, this Court passed an interim order restraining the 9^th respondent from conducting any quarrying operations in the subject premises.

2. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri. S.Sreekumar, learned Senior counsel, duly instructed by Adv.Harikrishnan M.S, on behalf of the 9^th respondent, would submit that the question as to whether a concessionaire will be entitled to the benefit of Ext.P5 clarificatory order issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court - so long as the concessionaires perform the work of N.H.A.I - has been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in a reference made by a learned Single judge. The relevant findings are contained in paragraph numbers 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, which are extracted hereunder:

“10. It is thus rendered apodictic that, even while the Hon’ble Supreme Court struck down Item No.6 in Appendix-IX of the aforementioned two notifications, it allowed all works, for which Work Orders were issued by the ‘NHAI’ prior to 21.03.2024 (being the date of the original judgment), to continue unaffected by its declarations.

11. It is, therefore, ineluctable and beyond any possible contest that, with respect to works that are continuing based on Work Orders issued prior to 21.03.2024, the original notifications, including the portions of which have been struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, would still apply.

12. The corollary questions, impelled for our consideration at the Bar, by Sri.P.M.Rafeek, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C)No.16710/2025, are two: (a) whether the clarification of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would apply even to concessionaires who are engaged in extracting, sourcing or borrowing ordinary earth for linear projects; and (b) whether such permission to the concessionaires, even assuming that they do not require the rigour of obtaining an ‘EC’, can be applicable only if the Work Orders contain specific provisions for the same.

13. As far as the first of the afore issues is concerned, it does not require much thought to conclude that the above extracted clarification by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cover not merely the ‘NHAI’, but the concessionaires also, because otherwise, it would not have stated with precision that all projects for which Work Orders by the ‘NHAI’ was issued before 21.03.2024 can continue and will remain unaffected by its declarations. If the intent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was to allow only the ‘NHAI’ to conduct the extraction, sourcing and borrowing of ordinary earth directly, then it would not have offered the clarification with respect to the Work Orders issued by it in favour of the concessionaires.

14. Irrefutably hence, the argument that the benefit granted by the clarification of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would apply only if the extraction, sourcing and borrowing of ordinary earth for linear projects is being carried out by the ‘NHAI’ alone, would hold no water; and we do not think we will have to strain any further to conclude on such lines

15. Coming to the second of the afore issues, technically, this is not one that we require to answer because, the question whether a Work Order is defined or prepared in a particular manner is one in the realm of facts, which will have to be projected and argued within the matrix of the facts of the cases pending, or to be filed. However, going by the afore said clarification of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, when it comes to a ‘linear project’, for whi