High Court of KeralaDivision BenchRP No. 472/2024 is allowed to the extent above....

M.P. Lalu v. Shaji A.K and Others (RP No. 472/2024 in WP(C) No. 43954/2023)

Case / Petition Number:RP No. 472/2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. Muhamed Mustaque
  • Shoba Annamma Eapen
Judgment Date
2024-04-25
Court Decision / Holding
R.P.No.472/2024 is allowed to the extent above. R.P.No.480/2024 is disposed of with the observations as above.
Final Disposition
RP No. 472/2024 is allowed to the extent above. RP No. 480/2024 is disposed of with the observations as above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • M.P. Lalu
  • Shaji A.K

Respondents

  • Shaji A.K.
  • Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change
  • State of Kerala
  • State Environment Impact Assessment Authority
  • State Expert Appraisal Committee
  • Director of Mining and Geology
  • Geologist, District Office, Department of Mining & Geology
  • District Collector Kannur
  • M.P. Lalu

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Philip J. Vettickattu
  • • Neenu Bernath
  • • Saju S. Dominic
  • • Krishna TC

Counsels for Respondents

  • • V. Harish
  • • Rajan VishnuraJ
  • • Jafar Khan
  • • M.P. SreeKrishna

Case Synopsis & Summary

These review petitions arise from WP(C) 43954/2023 challenging an environmental clearance and related norms. The Kerala High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the writ petitioner to approach the National Green Tribunal for redressal, noting that the issues involve substantial interpretation of environment-related norms under the central memoranda. The matter was heard by a division bench of Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Shoba Annamma Eapen on 25 April 2024. The petitions (RP 472/2024 by M.P. Lalu and RP 480/2024 by Shaji A.K.) challenge that disposal and seek to retain an interim posture to enable Tribunal consideration. The respondents contended that since the court had not interfered, it could not grant interim relief by final disposal and relied on several judgments to emphasize Tribunal jurisdiction over environmental matters. The court observed force in this argument and stated it would not decide on substantive environmental norms itself; instead, it maintained an interim arrangement for one month to allow the writ petitioner to approach the Tribunal, clarifying that no decision on violations has been made. The petitions culminated with RP 472/2024 being allowed to the extent stated and RP 480/2024 disposed of with the same observations.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The writ petitioner (M.P. Lalu) contends there is no flagrant violation of any norms that would bar him from approaching the National Green Tribunal; the matter involves interpretation of environment-related norms and central memoranda. He maintains that the court’s disposal directing him to approach the Tribunal should be respected, and seeks preservation of an interim posture to enable redress before the Tribunal, including consideration of Ext.P12. He asserts that environmental-norm interpretation warrants tribunal intervention rather than final adjudication by this Court.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that since the High Court did not interfere, it could not grant interim relief by final disposal for one month and that the matter should be left to the Tribunal. They rely on four judgments (i–iv) to emphasize that relief should not be granted without Tribunal involvement and stress the necessity of tribunal interpretation for environment-norm issues. They contend the court’s role is limited to directing the writ petitioner to pursue Tribunal redress and that no conclusive findings on norm violations should be made here.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD) v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission2023 KLT OnLine 1173Mentioned OnlyCited by respondents as authority; the judgment’s holdings are not discussed or applied in detail in this order.
G.E.Power Controls India and Others v. S.Lakshmipathy and Others2005 SCC OnLine SC 853Mentioned OnlyCited to support the argument regarding restrictions on final relief; no substantive treatment of its ratio in this decision.
District Collector, Idukki and Others v. M.D.Dileep and Others2015 KHC 203Mentioned OnlyCited as part of the authorities; no explicit distinguishing or endorsing of its holdings in the judgment.
State of Orissa and Others v. Madan Gopal Rungta and Others1951 SCC OnLine SC 63Mentioned OnlyCited in the course of argument; not expressly treated or distinguished in this order.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M.P. Lalu v. Shaji A.K and Others (RP No. 472/2024 in WP(C) No. 43954/2023) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1946 ``` ``` RP NO. 472 OF 2024 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.43954 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`REVIEW PETITIONER/S:`** ``` M.P.LALU AGED 51 YEARS S/O.M.K.PAVITHRAN, MANKUDI HOUSE, KODANAD P.O., KURICHILAKODE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683544 BY ADVS. PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU NEENU BERNATH SAJU S. DOMINIC ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1SHAJI A.K. S/O.KURIAKOSE, ARAKKAL HOUSE, PERINKARI P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670706 ``` - **`2 MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST &AMP; CLIMATE CHANGE REPRESENTED BY IS SECRETARY, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN, JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110993`** ``` 3STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 ``` ## **R.P.NOS.472/2024 AND 480/2024 IN WP(C) NO.43954/2023** - **-:2:-** ``` 4STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, 4 TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004 5STATE EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, 4 TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004 6DIRECTOR OF MINING &AMP; GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001 7THE GEOLOGIST DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING &AMP; GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670002 8THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANNUR, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670002 BY ADVS. V.HARISH RAJAN VISHNURAJ(K/653/2010) ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` Sri.Jafar Khan, G.P. ``` ``` Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, SC ``` ``` THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.04.2024, ALONG WITH RP.480/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ## **R.P.NOS.472/2024 AND 480/2024 IN WP(C) NO.43954/2023** **-:3:-** ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` **==> picture [51 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE ``` **==> picture [8 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1946 ``` **==> picture [131 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.43954 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`REVIEW PETITIONER/S:`** ``` SHAJI A.K AGED 49 YEARS ``` ``` S/O KURYAKOSE, RESIDING AT ARAKKAL HOUSE, PERINKARI PO, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670706 BY ADVS. V.HARISH RAJAN VISHNURAJ ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST & CLIMATE CHANGE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN, JORBAGH, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003 ``` ``` 2STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 ``` ## **R.P.NOS.472/2024 AND 480/2024 IN WP(C) NO.43954/2023** ## **-:4:-** - **`3 STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC TERMINAL COMPLEX, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014`** - **`4 STATE EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC TERMINAL COMPLEX, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014`** - **`5 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004`** - **`6 GEOLOGIST DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670002`** - **`7 DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANNUR DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670002`** - **`8 M P LALU S/O MK PAVITHRAN, MANKUDI HOUSE, KODANAD P.O., KURICHILAKODE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683544`** ## **`BY ADV KRISHNA T C`** ``` SHRI JAFAR KHAN, GP ``` SHRI M.P.SREEKRISHNA, SC ``` THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 25.04.2024, ALONG WITH RP.472/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ## **R.P.NOS.472/2024 AND 480/2024 IN WP(C) NO.43954/2023** ## **-:5:-** ## **`O R D E R`** ``` Dated this the 12[th] day of April, 2024 ``` ## **`A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.`** ``` These review petitions are filed by the party respondent and the writ petitioner respectively. ``` ``` 2. We have disposed of the writ petition directing the writ petitioner to approach the National Green Tribunal for redressal of his grievance challenging issuance of the environmental clearance certificate. We are unable to decide the issue as the issue involved is of substantial interpretation touching environment based on various clauses in the official memorandum issued by the Union Government. However, while disposing the matter we maintained the interim order for month to enable the writ petitioner to approach the Tribunal. ``` ``` 3. The party respondent has come up with this review citing that since this Court had not interfered, this Court could not have granted an interim relief by way of final disposal for ``` ## **R.P.NOS.472/2024 AND 480/2024 IN WP(C) NO.43954/2023** ## **-:6:-** ``` one month till the matter was entertained or finally disposed of by the Tribunal. The learned counsel of the party respondent placed reliance on the following judgments: ``` ``` i. Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD) v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission [2023 KLT OnLine 1173] ``` ``` ii. G.E.Power Controls India and Others v. S.Lakshmipathy and Others [2005 SCC OnLine SC 853] ``` ``` iii. District Collector, Idukki and Others v. M.D.Dileep and Others [2015 KHC 203] ``` ``` iv. State of Orissa and Others v. Madan Gopal Rungta and Others [1951 SCC OnLine SC 63] ``` ``` 4. We find there is force in his argument. This Court while disposing of the writ petition could not have passed any order giving relief to the writ petitioner. In the light of the above, we review the judgment to the extent of ordering the maintenance of the interim order for one month to enable the writ petitioner to approach the Tribunal. ``` ``` 5. Coming back to the review petition filed by the writ petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out ``` ## **R.P.NOS.472/2024 AND 480/2024 IN WP(C) NO.43954/2023** ## **-:7:-** ``` that this Court observed that there is no flagrant violation of any rules that would stand against him from approaching the competent Tribunal. ``` ``` 6. We make it clear that we have not made any decision. The observation as above is only made in the context of exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The power under Article 226 can be exercised when this Court is of the opinion that, on the face of the record, there is violation of any norms. However, if such violations are depend upon substantial interpretation of norms related to the environment, it is for the competent Tribunal to decide such matters. It is in that context this Court made observations as above. We make it clear that we have not decided anything in regard to violation of the norms or guidelines set out by the Union Government for issuance of environment certificates. The observation as above was made as to the exercising the power under Article 226 and nothing else. There is one more prayer sought by the writ petitioner in the review petition for implementation of Ext.P12. Having not entertained the matter, it is not possible for us to direct implementation of Ext.P12 by an order or direction. We find there is no reason to give such a direction. ``` ## **R.P.NOS.472/2024 AND 480/2024 IN WP(C) NO.43954/2023** **-:8:-** ``` R.P.No.472/2024 is allowed to the extent above. ``` ``` R.P.No.480/2024 is disposed of with the observations as above. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE ``` ``` ms ``` ## **R.P.NOS.472/2024 AND 480/2024 IN WP(C) NO.43954/2023** **-:9:-** ## **`APPENDIX OF RP 480/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1ANNEXURE A1: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22.12.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 43954 OF 2023 Annexure A2A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23.02.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 43954 OF 2023 Annexure A3A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN WPC NO. 43954 OF 2023 Annexure A4A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15.03.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 43954 OF 2023 Annexure A5A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS RECEIVED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC NO. 43954 OF 2023 Annexure A6A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP[C].NO. 43954 OF 2023 DATED 08.04.2024 Annexure A7A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 24.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT ``` ## **R.P.NOS.472/2024 AND 480/2024 IN WP(C) NO.43954/2023** **-:10:-** ## **`APPENDIX OF RP 472/2024`** ``` RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(a) ``` ``` Exhibit R1(b) ``` ``` A true photocopy of the instructions submitted by the counsel for the 1st respondent in WPC No. 43954 of 2023 A true photocopy of the certificate dated 24.06.2022 issued by the 7th respondent ```