AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Soumen Sen, C. J.
Heard Mr. S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. M. S. Harikrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sidharth R. Warrier, learned counsel representing Ms. Nisha George, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Mr. Arjun Padmanabhan, learned counsel representing Mr. C. Dinesh, learned Senior Panel Counsel and Ms. Vinitha B., learned Senior Government Pleader.
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment delivered by this Bench in W.A. No. 2254 of 2025 dated 16.02.2026 would apply, since the present work forms part of one of the ongoing National Highway projects mentioned in the interim application filed by NHAI before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the said proceedings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted such ongoing projects to continue, as would appear from the following directions issued while disposing of Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 21827 of 2024:
“For the time being, we clarify that the projects for which work orders were issued by the applicant-NHAI prior to 21st March, 2024 will remain unaffected by the judgment dated 21st March 2024.
However, we direct the applicant-NHAI to file an affidavit giving a list of the projects for which the work orders were issued prior to 21st March, 2024 and produce copies of the work orders and other relevant documents showing service of the work order on contractors within a period of one month from today.
We clarify that the work orders which were issued prior to 28th March 2020 required Environment Clearance and therefore, the clarification which we have issued under this order will not apply to such work orders.
We make it again clear that we are not permitting the work of all projects which are listed at Annexure A-3 to continue. Only those works will continue where work orders have been issued prior to 21st March, 2024.
Needless to add that in those cases where work order has not been issued prior to 21st March, 2024, the applicant-NHAI will be bound by the decision of this Court dated 21st March, 2024.”
It is not in dispute that the job that was assigned and was awarded to the present appellant was one of the ongoing projects referred to in the list of projects mentioned in the interim application.
In our respectful reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, along with the clarifications offered, it is clear that the work orders issued prior to 21st March 2024 shall continue to remain in force for the purpose of executing the works assigned to the contractor. The purpose of granting such exemption appears to be for expeditious completion of linear projects such as roads, pipelines, etc. in national interest and public interest. The basis for directing clarification of the said order is an application filed by the NHAI, and it appears that NHAI was able to satisfy the Hon’ble Supreme Court that such clarification was necessary for the timely completion of ongoing projects in the national interest. However, the appellant can utilise only 0.9646 hectares of land in Re-Sy. Nos. 131/3-1, 131/4-1, 131/7-2 and 132/2 of Block No. 18 of Nedumkunnam Village of Changanassery Taluk of Kottayam District, as is required for the project and not beyond that. The quarrying permit must confine to exempting works of the NHAI.
On such consideration, the appeal is allowed.
In view of the fact that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the permit had already expired, it is directed that, in the event an application is made for renewal of the permit, the authorities concerned shall decide the same within a period of two weeks from today, as any further delay is likely to adversely affect the implementation of the ongoing project.