High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2024-04-12Partly allowed/partially disposed. RP 472/2024 ...

RP Nos.472/2024 and 480/2024 in WP(C) No.43954/2023

Case / Petition Number:RP 472/2024; RP 480/2024 in WP(C) No.43954/2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Muhamed Mustaque
Shoba Annamma Eapen
Judgment Date: 2024-04-12
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: Partly allowed/partially disposed. RP 472/2024 allowed to the extent stated; RP 480/2024 disposed of with observations. No definitive determination on norms or Ext.P12; matter referred to Tribunal for environmental-norm issues.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M.P. Lalu
Shaji A.K

Respondents

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

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Philip J. Vettickattu
• Neenu Bernath
• Saju S. Dominic
• V. Harish
• RAJAN VISHNURAJ

Counsels for Respondents

• V. Harish
• RAJAN VISHNURAJ
• KRISHNA TC
• JAFAR KHAN
• M.P. SREEKRISHNA

Case Synopsis & Summary

These review petitions challenge the Kerala High Court’s writ petition judgment in WP(C) No.43954/2023, which directed the writ petitioner to approach the National Green Tribunal for redressal of environmental clearance disputes and left a live interim order in place. The petitions were filed by M.P. Lalu and, separately, by Shaji A.K. The bench, comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, took up the review on 25 April 2024 and delivered an order dated 12 April 2024. The court acknowledged that the writ petition could not be disposed of by routine interpretation of Union memorandum and environmental norms, given that the core issues required substantial interpretation. The court noted the need for Tribunal consideration in matters concerning environmental clearances and, while maintaining an interim relief for one month, directed that the writ petitioner could approach the Tribunal. The respondents contended that Article 226 should not substitute for the Tribunal’s domain and relied on several precedents. The court agreed that there was force in the respondents’ argument, but clarified that its observations were limited to the constitutional power under Article 226 and did not decide on any violation of norms or guidelines. It then disposed RP 472/2024 to a limited extent and RP 480/2024 with observations, leaving the environment-norm issue to the Tribunal. The petitions also sought enforcement of Ext.P12; the court clarified that it had not entertained such a direction and could not order implementation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that the writ petition was disposed of with directions to approach the National Green Tribunal and that the court’s interim relief for one month should not be misused as a final disposition of environmental norms. They argue that matters requiring substantial interpretation of environmental norms must be left to the Tribunal, not resolved in intra-court proceedings, and that Ext.P12 should not be summarily implemented by the court. They rely on the view that Article 226 cannot substitute for expert scrutiny of regulatory processes; the relief granted should align with the Tribunal’s exclusive competence.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the writ petition’s disposal implicates environmental norms that require substantial interpretation, a domain not suitable for final adjudication by the High Court under Article 226 alone. They contend that interim relief while directing Tribunal redress is appropriate and rely on precedents suggesting that environmental and regulatory questions are best resolved by specialized adjudication. They emphasize that the court’s observations were made to delineate the scope of Article 226 and did not constitute a finding on norm violations or a directive to implement Ext.P12.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD) v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission	2023 KLT OnLine 1173	Mentioned Only	Cited by the respondent’s counsel; the judgment notes the argument but does not apply or distinguish it in a definitive manner.
G.E.Power Controls India and Others v. S.Lakshmipathy and Others	2005 SCC OnLine SC 853	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of the argument; no explicit treatment by the Court beyond mention.
District Collector, Idukki and Others v. M.D.Dileep and Others	2015 KHC 203	Mentioned Only	Cited in the course of argument; no direct application or distinction stated.
State of Orissa and Others v. Madan Gopal Rungta and Others	1951 SCC OnLine SC 63	Mentioned Only	Cited as authority; not actively distinguished or followed in the 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 RP Nos.472/2024 and 480/2024 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 ```