Environmental clearance for mining is project and site-specific. Legal entities are distinct, preventing the attribution of one entity's regulatory failures to another absent proof of fraudulent incorporation. Withdrawing environmental litigation without leave precludes re-litigation of identical grounds, adhering to principles preventing the abuse of court process.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners in both these Writ Petitions are aggrieved by the grant of Environmental Clearance (‘E.C’, for short – produced as Exts.P21 and P33 in W.P.(C) Nos.15775 and 29038 of 2025 respectively) to the 10th respondent by the 3rd respondent/State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (‘SEIAA’, for short). The petitioners seek quashment of the E.C, as also, to initiate action against respondents 8, 9 and 10 for excessive and unauthorised mining and violations of E.C conditions under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

2. The parties are referred to in their respective status as shown in the first Writ Petition, W.P.(C) No.15775/2025, for the sake of convenience.

3. Heard Smt. Aysha Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Yeshwanth Shenoy, who addressed arguments on her behalf; Smt. O.M. Shalina, learned D.S.G.I. and Sri. K.S. Bharathan, learned Senior Panel Counsel for R1 Union of India in W.P.(C) Nos.15775/2025 and 29038/2025; Smt. Deepa Narayanan, learned Senior Government Pleader for official respondents 2, 4 and 5; Sri. M.P. Sreekrishnan learned Standing Counsel for R3 SEIAA, Sri. T. Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for R6 Pollution Control Board; Sri. George Sebastian, learned counsel for R7 Panchayat; Sri. T.H. Abdul Azeez and Sri. Mohammed Sadique T.A, learned counsel for R8 M/s.Palathra Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (R10 in W.P.(C) No.29038/2025); Sri. Philip T. Varghese, learned counsel for R9 M/s.Rockfield Estates Pvt. Ltd. (R11 in W.P.(C) No.29038/2025); Sri. T. Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel, duly instructed by Adv.Jolly John, on behalf of R10 M/s.RDR Crushers Pvt. Ltd. (R12 in W.P.(C) No.29038/2025)

4. Having regard to the complexities of the issues involved, Adv.Jacob P.Alex was appointed as the Amicus Curiae. Heard the learned Amicus as well.

5. Both the Writ Petitions arise out of closely connected facts and involve more or less same issues. The petitioners in the respective proceedings are essentially treading the same line and seek substantially similar reliefs. As already indicated, the Environmental Clearance granted to the 10th respondent is under challenge, essentially on the premise that the 10th respondent, or for that matter 9th respondent, are binamies/proxies of the 8th respondent Company, which committed gross violation of E.C conditions, the reparations in respect of which, as per law, have not been satisfied. The petitioners would contend that the 8th respondent Company, while acting upon the E.C granted in their favour, committed illegal and unauthorised mining, both. They have excavated excess quantities than what is permitted, besides quarrying from adjacent properties, not permitted as per the E.C as well as other permits. The activities of the 8th respondent have caused serious ecological imbalance in the region, thereby affecting the peaceful right to life of the local inhabitants, including the petitioners. The 4th respondent Directorate assessed the royalty and penalty to the tune of Rs.3.63 crores against the 8th respondent for the illegal and unauthorised mining activities. Besides, the 6th respondent/Pollution Control Board assessed the environmental compensation to the extent of Rs.88.15 crores.