Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 2918
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
UNION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
JIJO JOY – Respondent
WA NO. 2330 OF 2025|WA NO. 3149 OF 2025|WA NO. 3146 OF 2025|WA NO. 2184 OF 2025|WA NO. 2326 OF 2025|WA NO. 2279 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN, SRI.ALPHIN ANTONY, SRI.AADITHYAN S.MANNALI, JISHNU P.P.
For the Respondents: SRI.V.HARISH FOR R1, SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.KANNAN FOR R2 TO R4, SHRI.K.N.ABHILASH FOR R6, SRI.T. NAVEEN, SC, PCB FOR R5, SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ FOR R7, SRI.PHILIP J. VETTICKATTU FOR R8 TO R10, SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM FOR R11, SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, SC FOR R13, SRI.SARITHA THOMAS FOR R14
Environmental clearances for mining projects cannot be extended without proper consultation and due process as mandated by environmental law, highlighting the primacy of sustainable development.
Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 - Notification S.O.1807(E) dated 12.04.2022 amending EIA Notification - Extension of Environmental Clearance (E.C.) validity for mining projects - Challenged as ultra vires and unconstitutional - The learned Single Judge ruled the subject notification and the office memorandum as violating the E.P. Act’s provisions - Petitioner's argument centered on environmental degradation and proper legal procedure for E.C. - The learned Single Judge found that the notification vitiated public consultation processes, undermined expert authority, and favored mining interests over environmental safeguards - Writ appeals arise from the judgment, primarily challenging the legality of these environmental clearances. (Paras 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 34, 35)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of case background and notifications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners' arguments regarding the invalidity of notifications. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of the implications of ext.p8 notification. (Para 12 , 18) |
| 4. legal questioning concerning maintainability and public interest. (Para 30) |
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J
The above writ appeals filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, arises out of the judgment dated 26.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.23150 of 2023 and connected matters, treating W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 as the leading case.
2. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, issued notification, S.O.1807(E) dated 12.04.2022 [Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024] amending the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, extending the validity period of the Environmental Clearance for certain projects and activities. It was followed by a clarification vide Official Memorandum F.NO.1A3-22/28/2022-1A.111 [E 181584] dated 13.12.2022 [Ext.P9 in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024], clarifying that the validity of environmental clearances, which had expired as on the date of publication of Ext.P8 notification dated 12.04.2022 shall stand automatically extended to the respective increased validity as mentioned in para No.1, column (C), subject to the proviso to para No.2(i), and that environmental clearances for 129 which the project proponents have submitted the application for extension of validity as per EIA Notification, 2006, as on the date of publication of the notification, i.e., 12.04.2022, shall stand automatically extended to respective increased validity as mentioned at para No.1, column (C).
3. 66 writ petitions were filed seeking the benefit of Ext.P8 notification read with the clarification contained in Ext.P9 office memorandum. One writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024, was filed challenging its constitutional vires. As already noticed hereinbefore, the learned Single Judge proceeded with the matter, treating W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 as the leading case.
4. In paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge noticed that, in the 66 writ petitions preferred claiming the benefit of the Ext.P8 notification, the issue is one pertaining to the interpretation and the effect of the said notification. According to the petitioners, the Environmental Clearance granted for mining projects shall be valid for the ‘project life as laid down in the mining plan’ as per the amendment brought in to clause No.9 of Ext.P8 notification and the term ‘project life’ means the ‘mine life’, subject to a maximum of 30 years, whichever is earlier. In W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024, the subject matter of 130 challenge is the constitutional vires of Ext.P8 notification and Ext.P9 office memorandum dated 13.12.2022, on various counts. In the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025, the learned Single Judge noticed that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 posed challenge to the said notification, only in the context of the environmental clearance (EC) issued to the quarry of the 9th respondent, i.e., Kabani Blue Metals Pvt. Ltd., primarily. The ECs issued by District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA), for mining projects, are also generally under challenge. The petitioner seeks a declaration that Ext.P8 notification and Ext.P9 office memorandum are ultra vires the Constitution and inconsistent with the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 . Several grounds are raised to challenge the constitutional validity of the subject notification.
5. In paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025, the learned Single Judge noted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024. Paragraph 18 of the judgment reads thus;
“18. Arguments of Sri. V.Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024:-
The petitioner styles himself as an affected party
