Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
SUDHEESH A.T. – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek relief regarding environmental clearance. (Para 1) |
| 2. court analyzes arguments on environmental clearance conditions. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. decision aligns with previous supreme court ruling on buffer zones. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 4. supreme court guidance on environmental law applies. (Para 8) |
| 5. writ petitions allowed, condition in e.c. quashed. (Para 10) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
In this batch of 21 cases, all the writ petitioners essentially seek the same relief, which pertains to a condition incorporated in the Environmental Clearance issued by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority ('SEIAA' for short). One such condition, incorporated in the case of petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28314/2024, is extracted here below:
“Condition No.5: Since, the project is located within 10km of Peechi Vazhani Wild Life Sanctuary and Chimmony Wild Life Sanctuary, the project proponent has to obtain Wild Life Clearance from the SCNBWL as per the OM dated 17/05/20225 of MoEF & CC as per the directions in the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dated 26/04/2023 in I.A.13177 of 2022 before the commencement of mining”.
In respect of a similar condition imposed in the Environmental Cl
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
