AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as respondents. The issue involved in this case is about the validity of the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted by SEIAA on 27.01.2016 for the 5th respondent which is valid upto 26.07.2016 for the purpose of removal of 3,00,000 m3 of ordinary earth from an area of 4.0287 hectares of land belonging to Mr.Saheer, Jasim, Rukgiya, Silna, Azeez, Salman and Kasim in Survey No.216/34 , 37, 10, 8, 18, 35, 13, 20, 21, 19, 2, 27, 26, 29, 25,39 and 38 at Pattimattom Village, Kunnathunadu Panchayath, Kunnathunadu Taluk, Ernakulam District.
Admittedly, the validity of the EC granted by SEIAA has already expired on 26.07.2016. The appellant has raised an issue while challenging the impugned EC that EC has been granted without appraisal by SEAC after the EIA Notification, 2006 was amended.
It is also the case of parties that on 15.01.2016, by way of amendment to the EIA Notification, 2006 which is based on Principal Bench of NGT order, District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) was constituted for granting of EC in respect of minor minerals of an extent upto 5 ha. of land, Further, the contention of the appellant is that neither SEIAA nor DEIAA appraised the project.
On the other hand, the counsel for the official respondents contends that in this case the very fact that SEAC has recommended the project and the recommendations form part of the conditions of EC reveals that the SEAC appraised the project and therefore it is not correct to say that there was no appraisal. Be that as it may, now that the validity period of the EC has already expired on 26.07.2016, nothing survives in this appeal except that it will be open to the project proponent to apply afresh for EC if so advised.
Except to that extent, the appeal stands dismissed as it has become infructuous. No order as to cost.