Sarngadharan vs Thomas P Mathew & Ors.

Soumen Sen, C. J.

This appeal has been preferred by a third party against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3644 of 2018 dated 20.02.2018, whereby the writ petition was allowed to the limited extent of directing the concerned Environment Impact Assessment Authorities to consider the applications for environmental clearance submitted by the writ petitioners in accordance with the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, as amended from time to time, and by treating the areas where the petitioners are carrying on their quarrying operations as not falling within the ambit of ecologically sensitive areas for the purpose of the draft notification referred to in the said judgment. The basis of the judgment appears to be that the area where the petitioners were carrying on quarrying operations was not, at the relevant time, included in the area identified as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) for the purpose of the draft notification.

The appellant was not a party to the writ petition. The appellant filed the appeal with a prayer for leave to prefer an appeal, and it is contended on behalf of the appellant that he is aggrieved by the order insofar as it permitted the Environment Impact Assessment Authorities to process the application of the writ petitioner for environmental clearance as though the area falls within a non-ESA. It is further contended that permitting mining operations in ESA areas would result in irreparable injury and damage to the environment and ecology at large, and that the finalisation of the draft notification has not yet been completed. It is also contended that Exts. P11 (Office Memorandum No. 1-4/2012-RE (Pt.) dated 20.12.2013), P12 (draft notification dated 04.09.2015), and P13 (draft notification dated 27.02.2017) can be altered or withdrawn at any point of time. The prayer for leave to appeal was allowed.

This matter was heard from time to time, during which all parties filed their affidavits as well as counter affidavits. On 27.10.2025, the Division Bench headed by Mr. Justice Nitin Jamdar, former Chief Justice of this Court, recorded that although leave had been granted to the appellant to prefer the appeal on the ground that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, on a question of law, would have a negative impact on the environment, the appellant had not been appearing. In such circumstances, the Division Bench appointed Mr. V. Harish as Amicus Curiae to consider whether the appeal should be proceeded with further. Pursuant thereto, a report has been filed by the learned Amicus Curiae.

The Law Officer of the 4^th respondent has filed an affidavit on 04.01.2019 disclosing the notification dated 03.12.2018. Specific reference is made to the said notification in view of the fact that the learned Amicus Curiae, in the report, has referred to the same as Annexure B2. In the affidavit filed by the 4^th respondent, it is stated that during the pendency of the appeal, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued a draft notification published on 03.10.2018, and by virtue of paragraph 2 of the said draft notification dated 03.10.2018, the ESA in the State of Kerala extends over an area of 9993.7 sq. km., which includes 9107 sq. km. of forest area and 886.7 sq. km. of non-forest area. It is further stated that the boundary and description of the ESA and village-wise details of the ESA proposed by the State Government are available on the website of the Kerala State Biodiversity Board. A copy of the said draft notification dated 03.10.2018 was produced along with the affidavit and marked as Annexure A7.

It is further stated in the said affidavit that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change amended the direction dated 13.11.2013 issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (Act of 1986), by virtue of the direction dated 03.12.2018. By the amended direction, the ESAs of the Western Ghats would extend to 56,826 sq. km., as mentioned in the draft notification dated 03.10.2018. Further, by virtue of clause 4 of the amended Section 5 direction dated 03.12.2018, the list of villages shall also be as per the draft notification dated 03.10.2018. A copy of the amended Section 5 direction dated 03.12.2018 was annexed to the said affidavit and marked as Annexure A8. These documents were issued subsequent to the common impugned judgment dated 20.02.2018.

In the report filed by the learned Amicus Curiae, it has been highlighted that the legal issue raised in the writ petition pertained to the direction dated 13.11.2013 issued by the Union Ministry with respect to the prohibition of mining in 123 villages in Kerala identified as ESAs of the Western Ghats. The cause of action raised by the appellant appears to be that the said direction issued under Section 5 of the Act of 1986 has an overriding effect over any draft notification issued under Section 3 of the said Act, which appears to be correct in view of the notwithstanding clause contained in Section 5 of the Act.

However, it is evident from the subsequent developments that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has brought in an amendment by issuing a direction under Section 5 of the Act of 1986 dated 03.12.2018, modifying the earlier direction dated 13.11.2013 and limiting its effect to the areas covered under the draft notification. The learned Amicus Curiae has also referred to the notification dated 03.12.2018 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, which replaced the earlier direction dated 13.11.2013, thereby limiting the scope of prohibition only to the areas covered by the draft notification.

In view of the issuance of the notification dated 03.12.2018, whereby the directions issued earlier were amended, the writ petition has now become infructuous. By virtue of the amendment dated 03.12.2018, quarrying units proposing mining activities in villages identified as ESAs in the original notification dated 13.11.2013 are permitted to commence mining activities if such areas are excluded from the proposed ESA under the draft notification. Prima facie, more areas in the Western Ghats are open for mining activities.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the dilution of the areas may give rise to a fresh cause of action to the appellant and that he may be permitted to challenge the validity of the amended notification dated 03.12.2018.

The amended notification dated 03.12.2018 was disclosed by the 4^th respondent in the affidavit dated 04.01.2019, and till date, there has been no challenge to the said amended notification. However, in view of the fact that the said modification has not been challenged in the present proceedings, we refrain from making any observation in that regard.

We take on record the submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae and dispose of the writ petition, taking into consideration the subsequent developments whereby the notification that was under challenge has been amended by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the 7^th respondent.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of.