The judgment emphasizes the primacy of environmental protection in legal proceedings concerning dredging in ecologically sensitive areas.

This writ appeal is filed challenging the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the Registry was directed to ascertain whether the W.P.(C) ought to have been filed as a Public Interest Litigation and considered by a Bench having roster.

2. We have heard Sri.P.K.Ibrahim, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri.P.G. Pramod, the learned Senior Government Pleader and Sri.Sudhin Kumar representing Dr.K.P.Satheesan, the learned Senior Advocate for respondents 1 and 2.

3. We note at the outset that Exts.P1, P2 and P3 Government Orders dated 28.11.2024, 21.04.2025 and 14.05.2025 which have been challenged in the W.P.(C) have already been the subject matter of W.P(PIL)Nos.148 and 159 of 2025, which stands disposed of by judgment dated 11.03.2026. The legal sustainability of the said orders as well as the ecological and other environmental aspects, that have been raised by the appellant herein had already been considered in detail in the said judgment. The question as to whether the National Highway Authority of India is entitled to use the dredged material/silt that has been recovered from the water bodies, had also been the subject of scrutiny in the said PILs. The contentions raised regarding the contractors of National Highway Authority being entrusted with the task of dredging the water bodies and the permission granted to the National Highway Authority to use the same for filling purposes as part of the NH-66 development work, without paying any seignorage or royalty has also been already dealt with therein.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant points out that an apparent difference exists between the WP(C) from which the present appeal arises and the earlier writ petitions, insofar as the Vembanad lake, which is one among the water bodies that has permitted to be dredged vide Ext.P2, is a Ramsar site and as per the decision in Kapico Kerala Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others ¹, the entire water body has been declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as an ecologically fragile

1 (2020) 3 SCC 18

area, thus requiring greater circumspection and care before being dredged.

5. We have taken note of the said submission and have also noted that the ecological issues as seen raised by the appellant in this writ appeal has already been covered by the judgment dated 11.03.2026 in W.P.(PIL)Nos.148 and 159 of 2025. While upholding the validity of Exts. P1, P2 and P3 orders, this Court had in the said judgment specifically directed the State authorities to ensure strict compliance with the requirements laid down in the Government Orders dated 21.04.2025 and 14.05.2025 while undertaking dredging activities. The said directions, we note cover the concerns raised by the appellant concerning Vemband lake.

6. Taking note of the environmental and ecological concerns pointed out by the petitioners in the WP(C), interim order wherein is impugned in this appeal, we reiterate the directions passed in the earlier judgment, wherein we had inter alia directed strict implementation of the norm that if any areas of the water bodies, permitted to be dredged is ecological fragile, then the same shall stand exempted from dredging. As regards the challenge in this appeal regarding the correctness of the learned Single Judge’s order directing the Registry to ascertain whether the subject W.P.(C) is a public interest litigation, the said question is no longer res integra since two PILs on the same subject has already been considered and disposed of. We find no reason to interfere with the direction of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal.

In the light of the above, this W.A. as well as W.P.(C)

No.4863/2026 shall stand disposed of. However, we clarify that the disposal of this appeal & WP (C) shall not stand in the way of the appellant i