Common Judgment:

1. The petitioners in both these Writ Petitions are aggrieved by the grant of Environmental Clearance (‘E.C’, for short – produced as Exts.P21 and P33 in W.P.(C) Nos.15775 and 29038 of 2025 respectively) to the 10th respondent by the 3rd respondent/State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (‘SEIAA’, for short). The petitioners seek quashment of the E.C, as also, to initiate action against respondents 8, 9 and 10 for excessive and unauthorised mining and violations of E.C conditions under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

2. The parties are referred to in their respective status as shown in the first Writ Petition, W.P.(C) No.15775/2025, for the sake of convenience.

3. Heard Smt.Aysha Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Yeshwanth Shenoy, who addressed arguments on her behalf; Smt.O.M.Shalina, learned D.S.G.I. and Sri.K.S.Bharathan, learned Senior Panel Counsel for R1 Union of India in W.P.(C) Nos.15775/2025 and 29038/2025; Smt.Deepa Narayanan, learned Senior Government Pleader for official respondents 2, 4 and 5; Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for R3 SEIAA, Sri.T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for R6 Pollution Control Board; Sri.George Sebastian, learned counsel for R7 Panchayat; Sri.T.H.Abdul Azeez and Sri.Mohammed Sadique T.A, learned counsel for R8 M/s.Palathra Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (R10 in W.P.(C) No.29038/2025); Sri.Philip T. Varghese, learned counsel for R9 M/s. Rockfield Estates Pvt. Ltd. (R11 in W.P.(C) No.29038/2025); Sri. T. Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel, duly instructed by Adv.Jolly John, on behalf of R10 M/s.RDR Crushers Pvt. Ltd. (R12 in W.P.(C) No.29038/2025)

4. Having regard to the complexities of the issues involved, Adv.Jacob P.Alex was appointed as the Amicus Curiae. Heard the learned Amicus as well.

 5. Both the Writ Petitions arise out of closely connected facts and involve more or less same issues. The petitioners in the respective proceedings are essentially treading the same line and seek substantially similar reliefs. As already indicated, the Environmental Clearance granted to the 10th respondent is under challenge, essentially on the premise that the 10th respondent, or for that matter 9th respondent, are binamies/proxies of the 8th respondent Company, which committed gross violation of E.C conditions, the reparations in respect of which, as per law, have not been satisfied. The petitioners would contend that the 8th respondent Company, while acting upon the E.C granted in their favour, committed illegal and unauthorised mining, both. They have excavated excess quantities than what is permitted, besides quarrying from adjacent properties, not permitted as per the E.C as well as other permits. The activities of the 8th respondent have caused serious ecological imbalance in the region, thereby affecting the peaceful right to life of the local inhabitants, including the petitioners. The 4th respondent Directorate assessed the royalty and penalty to the tune of Rs.3.63 crores against the 8th respondent for the illegal and unauthorised mining activities. Besides, the 6th respondent/Pollution Control Board assessed the environmental compensation to the extent of Rs.88.15 crores. Though the royalty and penalty were remitted by the 8th respondent under protest, the environmental compensation has not yet been realised. Though the 8th respondent surrendered the quarrying lease, the mine closure plan was never implemented properly, and huge pits, which are filled with water, are remaining unrestored.

                  5(a). It was while these gross violations were holding sway that the 9th respondent approached the competent authorities for issuance of fresh E.C. Although E.C was sought for in respect of a different property, it includes properties where the 8th respondent had already mined/excavated illegally. It is on the same footing that the 10th respondent has also come forward with a fresh application for issuance of E.C in respect of a different property, which is adjacent to the abandoned quarry of the 8th respondent. According to the petitioners, respondents 8, 9 and 10 are acting in unison to perpetrate fraud upon the competent authorities by suppression of material facts, so as to circumvene regulatory scrutiny and to conceal earlier environmental violations. The petitioners would allege that the environmental crime committed by the 8th respondent is of a huge magnitude, which necessitates lifting the corporate veil to understand that the promoters and the directors of respondents 8, 9 and 10 companies are one and the same or members of the same family, with a common address. In short, the petitioners would contend that respondents 9 and 10 are not entitled to issuance of any fresh E.C, unless the violations committed by the 8th respondent are fully compensated in terms of law.

                  5(b). On such premise, the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions seek the E.C granted to the 10th respondent [Ext.P21 in W.P.(C) No.15775/2025 and Ext.P33 in W.P.(C) No.29038/2025] to be quashed.

6. The 3rd respondent SEIAA filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.29038/2025. A statement on behalf of the said respondent has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel in W.P.(C) No.15775/2025. It is averred that Environmental Clearance was granted to one Charles Mathew on 03.02.2016, which was subsequently transferred to the 8th respondent, M/s.Palathra Constructions [R10 in W.P.(C) No.29038/2025]. The E.C was in respect of 2.0766 hectares of land in Survey Nos.402/1, 403/1 and 403/2 of Chengalam East Village, Kottayam. Thereafter, the counter affidavit proceeds, referring to the various events which transpired, including a Writ Petition filed by one Marykutty V.A, which complaint was eventually withdrawn. However, non-compliance of the mining plan and the E.C conditions by the 8th respondent was noted by SEIAA, which resulted in a conditional E.C being issued in favour of the 9th respondent, M/s.Rockfield Estates Pvt. Ltd. [R11 in W.P.(C) No.29038/2025]. The factum of O.A No.56/22 being filed before the N.G.T by the petitioners against the 8th respondent and the Order disposing the said O.A was taken stock of by SEIAA to grant a conditional E.C to the 9th respondent M/s.Rockfield Estates, limiting the period of E.C to 3 years. One among the conditions imposed in that E.C was in the form of an interdiction for issuance of transport permit, unless the actions proposed against 8th respondent, M/s.Palathra Constructions, for violations of E.C conditions are fulfilled. Although a request was made by the 9th respondent to delete that condition, the same was rejected.

                  6(a). However, once it comes to the issuance of E.C to the 10th respondent, M/s.RDR Crushers Pvt. Ltd. - which is under challenge in this Writ Petition - the 3rd respondent/SEIAA takes a different stand on the averment that the proposed project area is distinct from the mined area of the 8th respondent. [see in this regard paragraph no.19 of the counter affidavit]. The 3rd respondent categorically avers in the same paragraph that the close relationship of the project proponents is not a valid ground to deny E.C. The contention is seen repeated in paragraph no.21, as well. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the E.C granted in favour of the 9th respondent is not under challenge at all in this Writ Petition. What is under challenge is the E.C granted to the 10th respondent, M/s.RDR Crushers, which is sought to be justified by the competent authority/SEIAA, on the premise that the project area proposed is distinct and that the close relationship of the project proponents is not a ground to reject E.C.

7. This Court specifically queried as to why different stands have been taken by the 3rd respondent in the matter of grant of E.C to the 9th respondent and the 10th respondent. In answer to the same, the 3rd respondent filed an additional counter affidavit, explaining as follows:

                  The specific condition, as regards fulfillment of the requirements to mitigate the violation of E.C conditions by the 8th respondent - M/s.Palathra Constructions, was incorporated as a pre-condition for issuing transport permit, while granting E.C to the 9th respondent, for the reason that they were sharing a common boundary. However, by the time the 10th respondent sought for Environmental Clearance, the 8th respondent had ceased its operations and the lease was surrendered. The mine closure plan was filed, which was approved, after accepting remittance of requisite dues. This could be the reason for not incorporating a similar condition while granting E.C to the 10th respondent. [Note here that the rank of the respondents is different in the additional counter affidavit, since it was filed in W.P. (C) No.29038/2025].

8. The 5th respondent/Geologist contended that the 8th respondent quarry had ceased functioning on 26.11.2021 and an amount of Rs.3,63,71,064/- was realised from it for illegal extraction of minerals. Although the demand notice was challenged by filing W.P.(C) No.20834/2023, the amount was paid under protest by the 8th respondent. By judgment dated 07.02.2024, this Court directed the 8th respondent to file statutory appeal. The appellate authority rejected the refund of the penalty due to the absence of the refund provisions in Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The 8th respondent filed a second appeal for a full refund, which is pending. Learned Senior Government Pleader also added that the final mine closure plan of the 8th respondent was approved on 17.02.2023 and a deed of surrender was executed on 19.04.2023. It was further submitted that the E.C issued to the 9th respondent was for a period of 3 years, subject to the completion of actions against violation of E.C conditions, illegal extraction and payment of Environmental compensation by the 8th respondent. Till now, the 9th respondent has not proceeded with the lease application. The 5th respondent would further submit that the 8th respondent has intimated the 5th respondent that the petitioners herein have demanded 2 crores of rupees for withdrawal of their fabricated allegations against the 8th respondent and that a crime has been registered against them at Pallickathodu Police Station, bearing Crime No.586/2025, for blackmailing. It is also averred that, at present, no concession has been granted to the respondents 9 and 10.

9. The 6th respondent/Pollution Control Board would contend that, the application for consent to operate preferred by the 10th respondent is scheduled for hearing and that no extraction of mineral has been carried out in the proposed area. It is further contended that the two adjoining quarries to the proposed quarry of 10th respondent are currently not functioning, of which, the quarry named Palathra Constructions Pvt. Ltd./8th respondent is reported to be closed and the mine closure plan was approved. The 6th respondent has assessed environmental compensation for the purpose of providing details before the National Green Tribunal (SZ) in O.A. No.56/2022 to the tune of Rs.88.15 crores for excessive mining by the 8th respondent and the same was re-assessed at Rs.13.878 crores, upon clarification from the Department of Mining and Geology. The learned Standing Counsel also submitted that 9th respondent quarry named Rockfield Pvt. Ltd. has a valid consent to operate, expiring only on 26.07.2027.

10. The contesting respondents 8, 9 and 10, advanced a common line of argument, with substantially identical contentions. They point out that the issues now raised have already been the subject matter of multiple proceedings initiated by the petitioners, both before this Hon’ble Court and the N.G.T, and contend that the present round of litigation is an attempt to resuscitate the same challenge. On facts, they maintain that respondents 9 and 10 are distinct and separately incorporated entities, with independent project credentials, and cannot be treated as alter egos of the 8th respondent, especially in light of the corporate records, shareholding structure and project-specific approvals placed on record. They would further submit that the E.C was granted only after a detailed appraisal process, based on verified land documents, possession certificates, survey and sub-division details, and other statutory submissions, all of which were scrutinised by the competent authorities.

                  10(a). The respective contesting respondents would further contend that the allegations of continuing environmental violations are factually incorrect, and that any issue noted earlier have already been addressed in accordance with regulatory directions. It is specifically contended that there is no subsisting liability or violation that would stand in the way of grant of Environmental Clearance to the 10th respondent. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents also deny the allegation that the project area includes government land or land not owned by the project proponent, asserting that the entire extent covered under the clearance forms part of validly held property, supported by title and revenue records. They reiterate that the project site does not fall within the notified Ecologically Sensitive Area of the Western Ghats, and therefore, the allegation in that regard by the petitioners are also unsustainable.

                  10(b). The respondents would further submit that the allegations of excessive and unauthorised mining are wholly misconceived, inasmuch as respondents 9 and 10 quarry units have not commenced any mining operations pursuant to the impugned Environmental Clearance. It is pointed out that, despite the absence of operational activity, the petitioners have proceeded on assumptions of ongoing violations. The allegations of fraud, suppression, and lack of procedural fairness are specifically denied by the contesting respondents, as being contrary to the record. According to them, the repeated institution of proceedings by the petitioners, despite earlier adjudications and factual findings, clearly indicates that the present petitions are motivated and intended to obstruct and delay a duly sanctioned project, rather than raising any genuine environmental grievance. On such premise, the contesting respondents seek dismissal of the Writ Petition treating it as an abuse of process of law.

11. I will now refer to the submissions made by the learned Amicus. The first point mooted by the Amicus is that an Environmental Clearance granted is 'site specific' and 'project/activity specific'. Learned Amicus would refer to paragraph nos.2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the E.I.A notification in this regard. Learned Amicus relies on Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority and Others [(2022) 11 SCC 1] to drive home that E.C is 'site specific'. The second aspect highlighted by the learned Amicus Curiae is the absence of a specific provision in the relevant statutes enabling the authority to cancel/refuse the issuance of an E.C for violation of the conditions of a previously granted E.C, even if the project proponent is the same. However, by relying on Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 590] and Goa Foundation v. Sesa Sterlite Limited and Others [(2018) 4 SCC 218], learned Amicus would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the suspension of existing mining E.Cs in public interest, where serious legal and environmental violations emerge. According to the learned Amicus, in the absence of a specific provision, disqualification of an individual/entity cannot be envisaged. Thirdly, learned Amicus refers to the principle of lifting of corporate veil and the precedents dealing with the same. It was highlighted that in situations concerning environmental law and public law, lifting of Corporate veil is quite conceivable. On the power of the Pollution Control Board to levy environmental compensation, learned Amicus relies on the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, besides relying on the dictum laid on by the Supreme Court in Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. and Others [(2026) 2 SCC 670], which power, however, can be exercised only as enabled by the relevant rules and regulations. Learned Amicus specifically refers to Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, as a source of power for the Pollution Control Board to impose environmental compensation. Learned Amicus, however, refrained from addressing the specific allegations and contentions in the Writ Petition, leaving the same to be agitated by the respective parties.

12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the following points arises for determination.

                  Points for determination:

                  I. Whether the factual parameters alleged in these Writ Petitions - in order to quash Ext.P21 Environmental Clearance granted to 10th respondent/R.D.R Crushers Pvt. Ltd. - are factually correct and established by the petitioners?

                  II. Are the present Writ Petitions maintainable in view of the previous litigations ventured by the petitioners?

                  III. Whether the 10th respondent company is answerable for the laches, non-compliance and violations, if any, committed by the 8th respondent Company, when the sites in respect of which E.C sought for by the 10th respondent, is different and distinct from the site of the 8th respondent?

                  IV. Whether the instant Writ Petitions are Public Interest Litigations or not? If the answer is in the affirmative, whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the same?

                  V. Whether the contention of the contesting respondents that the respective petitioners have absolutely no bonafides, whatsoever, in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is liable to be accepted or not?

13. Point no.I:

Three factual parameters are alleged in these Writ Petitions to quash Ext.P21 Environmental Clearance. All the three factual parameters stem from the alleged environmental crime committed by the 8th respondent/Palathra Constructions Pvt. Ltd., violating the statutory regime governing mining of minerals. Both excess quarrying and unauthorised quarrying are alleged against the 8th respondent/Palathra Constructions. By the former, the petitioner means mining in excess of the permitted quantity from the permitted area; whereas by the latter, the petitioner means mining from areas, which are not authorised as per the governing documents. It is not in dispute that the 8th respondent had stopped mining activities and had filed a mine closure plan, which has been accepted by the 5th respondent/Geologist, though the petitioners maintain an allegation that the mine closure plan is not in accord with the requirements of law. With this prelude, the factual parameters alleged can be addressed.

14. The first is pertaining to the royalty and penalty demanded from the 8th respondent on account of the excessive and unauthorised mining. In this regard, the petitioner [in W.P.(C) No.15775/2025] would admit in paragraph no.15 of the Writ Petition that the 8th respondent had paid a sum of Rs.3.63 crores towards royalty and penalty, under protest and without prejudice to their contentions in the Writ Petition filed, challenging the demand. The second and the important aspect is with respect to environmental compensation, demanded by the 6th respondent/Kerala State Pollution Control Board to the tune of Rs.88.15 crores, which has been reduced to Rs.13.878 crores, going by the report filed by the 5th respondent/Geologist. The same has not been paid by the 8th respondent, is the major allegation levelled by the petitioners, so as to highlight the violation on the part of the 8th respondent, which, in turn, is projected as a reason as to why the Ext.P21 E.C granted to the 10th respondent is liable to be cancelled. In this regard, it is relevant to note that no formal Order demanding environmental compensation has been issued by the 6th respondent/Pollution Control Board, calling upon the 8th respondent/Palathra constructions to pay the same. At any rate, no such document has been produced by either side. All what is seen produced is Ext.P17 additional report preferred by the 6th respondent/P.C.B in O.A. No.56/2022 (about which, detailed reference will be made here below), before the National Green Tribunal, Chennai. A perusal of Ext.P17 would only indicate that the 6th respondent Board had merely assessed the environmental compensation at Rs.88.15 crores, based on the penalty levied by the 4th respondent/Department of Mining and Geology; whereas, the environmental compensation based on the mine plan approved by the said department is calculated at Rs.13.878 crores. The additional report preferred by the 6th respondent/Pollution Control Board before the National Green Tribunal clarifies that further action in the matter will be taken only as per the Order of the High Court and the Tribunal, the significance of which proceedings will be dealt with later. It could thus be seen that there is no enforceable Order issued against the 8th respondent, except a mere assessment of the environmental compensation. Therefore, no violation, in the sense of non-compliance of the Order, can be alleged as a reason to cancel Ext.P21 E.C granted to the 10th respondent, if at all, such a ground is validly available in law. This is all the more so, when further action pursuant to assessment of the environmental compensation is deferred, subject to the Orders of the N.G.T.

15. Another aspect, which has been highlighted by the learned Amicus, on which heavy reliance is placed upon by respondents 8 to 10, is the necessity of the relevant rules/ regulations, so as to enable P.C.B to impose environmental damages. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Pollution Control Committee (supra) recognises the power of Pollution Control Board under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act to impose environmental damages, which, however, has to be enabled by necessary subordinate legislation, so as to ensure procedural fairness, certainty and transparency [see in this regard paragraph no.35 of the judgment]. The dictum was followed by the Rajasthan High Court in M/s.Tata Bricks Company v. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and Others [2025 LiveLaw(Raj) 366] holding that the power can be invoked, subject to the passing of relevant rules/regulations.

16. Suffice to note, in the light of the above judgments, that a mere assessment of the environmental damages by the 6th respondent/Pollution Control Board, referred to in an additional report filed before the N.G.T, cannot partake the character of an enforceable Order, wherefore, the non-compliance of the same would be a far-fetched contention to attack the E.C issued in favour of an entity, different from the 8th respondent, that is to say, the 10th respondent. Therefore, the factual parameter alleged by the petitioner in the context of non-compliance of environmental compensation would crumble to the ground, leave alone the question whether the E.C issued to the 10th respondent can be interfered on that ground of violation/non-compliance, if any, by the 8th respondent.

17. The third factual parameter is pertaining to the area, where the 8th respondent was permitted to mine and the area where the 8th respondent had transgressed and mined illegally /unauthorisedly. It is the contention of the petitioner that the E.C granted to the 9th respondent (not subjected to any challenge in this Writ Petition) includes such transgressed area mined by the 8th respondent. Such an allegation is levelled relying upon the survey numbers of the property; and not based on any record indicating physical inspection or measurement. It is true that unauthorised mining from an area not permitted has been found against the 8th respondent. However, it has not been shown or established that E.C granted to the 9th respondent for fresh mining includes such trespassed area as well. The issue requires to be addressed from various angles. First of all, alleging identity of the property only on the basis of survey numbers is unscientific and improper. Similar survey numbers does not necessarily imply the same identity of properties. There could be larger extent within the same survey numbers.

18. The second angle is the fact that the E.C granted to the 9th respondent is not under the challenge in this Writ Petition. What is under the challenge is the E.C granted to the 10th respondent. The petitioner could not establish that the site in respect of which E.C has been granted to the 10th respondent shares a common boundary with the site of the 8th respondent, or for that matter, the 9th respondent.

19. This Court therefore concludes Point no.I by finding that the factual parameters alleged to seek cancellation/quashment of Ext.P21 Environmental Clearance issued to the 10th respondent are nor established. Point concluded accordingly.

20. Point no.II:

Before addressing this point, it requires to be noticed that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15775/2025 is one Sajan George, whereas the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.29038/2025 is one Stanley Joseph and his daughter. In the counter affidavit filed by the 9th respondent, as many as four litigations are referred to in paragraph no.10, of which, the first one is W.P.(C) No.828/2023 preferred by Sajan George, the present petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15775/2025. As regards the maintainability of the instant Writ Petition, the culmination of W.P.(C) No.828/2023, vide judgment produced at Ext.R9(A), has no significance, whatsoever, since Ext.R9(A) only directed SEIAA to afford an opportunity to the petitioner therein, while considering the Environmental Clearance sought for by the 8th respondent herein. The second is W.P.(C) No.28127/2023, which was filed by the present 9th respondent, with the present petitioner, Sajan George, as respondent. As per Order produced at Ext.R9(B), this Court directed the 1st respondent/SEIAA to consider 9th respondent's application for issuance of Environmental Clearance, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the present 9th respondent, as also, the present petitioner herein. This judgment is also of no consequence in the context of the maintainability of the present Writ Petition.

21. O.A. No.56 of 2022

The third in line is O.A. No.56/2022 preferred jointly by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15775/2025 and the first petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29038/2025, wherein present respondents 8 and 9 were respondents 4 and 5 respectively. This litigation would impact the maintainability of the present Writ Petition and hence referred to in detail herebelow. The judgment in O.A No.56/2022 is produced at Ext.R9(D). As could be seen from paragraph no.1 of Ext.R9(D) judgment, the O.A was filed seeking rejection of an application submitted by the present 9th respondent/Rockfield Estates Pvt. Ltd. for grant of Environmental Clearance. That relief is premised on the alleged environmental crime committed by the present 8th respondent, M/s.Palathra Constructions Pvt. Ltd, alleging that the Managing Director of both the Companies is one and the same person. Excess quarrying and unauthorised quarrying based on survey numbers is seen alleged in the O.A, as could be seen from paragraph no.6 of Ext.R9(D) judgment. A prayer for prosecuting M/s.Palathra Constructions for violations, besides levy of penalty and royalty were also sought for. The applicants sought for constitution of a Committee to assess the damage caused due to unauthorised mining and further to take action against the present 8th respondent, M/s.Palathra Constructions for non-compliance of the mine closure plan. The Tribunal took stock of the fact that the penalty and royalty demanded by the competent authority has been paid by the present 8th respondent, however without prejudice to their contentions in a pending Writ Petition challenging such demand. In paragraph no.14 of the judgment, the Tribunal noticed that the applicants have challenged the grant of Environmental Clearance to the present 9th respondent in W.P.(C) No.15525/2017. The Tribunal further found in paragraph no.15 that the present 6th respondent/Pollution Control Board had taken appropriate action for levying environmental compensation to the tune of Rs.88.15 crores. Therefore, the Tribunal found that there is no necessity for any further Orders, especially when the project of the present 8th respondent is over and no mining activities are taking place there. Accordingly, the O.A was closed.

22. As already referred, the O.As sought for rejection of the Environmental Clearance sought for by M/s.Rockfield Estates Pvt. Ltd., about which relief, Ext.R9(D) judgment is silent. Needless to say that Ext.R9(D) judgment has become final and the only slender thread on which the petitioners could hang on is the existence of W.P.(C) No.15525/2017, wherein the Environmental Clearance granted to M/s.Rockfield Estates Pvt. Ltd. was under challenge. There is no quarrel that the said Writ Petition is still pending.

23. In the backdrop of the above factual circumstances, the instant Writ petition, insofar as the reliefs sought for against respondents 8 and 9 cannot be sustained, since Ext.R9(D) judgment has become final. The reliefs sought for and the cause of action for the same are similar and hence it is impermissible in law to reagitate concluded issues and claims. However, the challenge to Ext.P21 Environmental Clearance given to the 10th respondent cannot be adversely affected by Ext.R9(D) judgment.

24. O.A No.267 of 2024

This litigation is the fourth in line, which is also quite relevant in the context of maintainability of the present Writ Petition. The Original Application is produced at Ext.R9(E), which would indicate that the petitioners therein are the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15775/2025 and the first petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29038/2025. The present respondents 8, 9 and 10 are respondents 7, 8 and 9 respectively in O.A No.267/2024 before the N.G.T, Chennai. A perusal of the pleadings in Ext.R9(E) would indicate that the self-same cause - as sought to be espoused in this Writ Petition - was canvassed in that Original Application, that is to say, allegations of excess quarrying and unauthorised quarrying by the present 8th respondent [see Ground A], the issue with respect to the survey numbers [see Ground E], non-compliance of the environmental compensation sought to be levied by the Pollution Control Board [see Ground K], the fact that the Directors of the Companies are common [see Ground N], the fact that the liabilities of the present 8th respondent Company on account of its violations has not been discharged and that the sites of the present respondents 8 and 9 are adjacent to one another [see Ground P], the return of the proposal given by present 9th respondent/Rockfield Estate because of the proximity of the site to the Western Ghats [see Ground Q], the failure to furnish the mine closure plan [see Ground R] and the impermissibility of issuance of a fresh E.C without levying the environmental compensation [see Ground S] etc. These grounds are seen specifically canvassed in Ext.R9(E) O.A. It is pertinent to point out that the self-same grounds are canvassed in the instant Writ Petitions also.

25. On the strength of the above pleadings, the applicants sought for appointment of an Expert Committee to conduct a detailed enquiry into the illegalities of quarrying operations conducted by the present 8th respondent; the quantum of compensation to be realised; and the relationship by and between the present respondents 8, 9 and 10. The second relief was to ensure that the entire compensation as assessed by the Expert Committee is realised from the present 8th respondent. The third relief is important, which sought for rejection of the Environmental Clearance sought for by the present respondents 9 and 10. Coming to the relief sought for in the instant Writ Petitions, the first relief is to quash Ext.P21 Environmental Clearance granted to the 10th respondent. The second relief is to initiate proceedings under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (for short, 'MMDR Act') and other laws against respondents 8 to 10 for unauthorised and excessive quarrying and non-compliance of the conditions in the E.C. Similarly, the petitioners have sought for a third relief against respondents 8 to 10 for excessive mining and violation of E.C conditions. It does not apply to common sense as to how the above relief is maintainable against respondents 9 and 10, who have not yet commenced their operations.

26. Now, this Court will come to the culmination of Ext.R9(E) O.A. The Order is produced at Ext.R9(G), which is extracted here below:

                  “ ORDER

                  1. After arguing the matter for some time, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant decided to withdraw the application. He is directed to send an e-mail to the Registry to that effect, as he is appearing through Video Conference.

                  2. At the request of the learned counsel for the applicant, the application is allowed to be withdrawn. Accordingly, this Original Application [O.A. No.267 of 2024 (SZ)] is dismissed as withdrawn.”

27. It could thus be seen that the O.A was withdrawn, without seeking any liberty to initiate further proceedings on the same cause of action. Inasmuch as the pleadings and the reliefs sought for in the instant Writ Petition (barring cosmetic changes) and the above O.A are the same in the pith and substance, the instant Writ Petition is not maintainable, as hit by the principles analogous to Order XXIII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in detail in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior and Others [1987 (1) SCC 5]. As could be seen from paragraph no.5 of the judgment, the issue centered around the maintainability of a second Writ Petition filed after withdrawing the first one, without permission of the High Court to file a fresh writ. Elaborating on the provisions of Order XXIII, the Supreme Court found that the interdiction contained in Order XXIII is to prevent abuse of process of the Court by instituting suits again and again on the same cause of action, which principle is founded on public policy. In paragraph no.8 of the judgment, the Supreme Court referred to the practice of counsel arguing the matter for some time (as has been done by the petitioners' counsel before the N.G.T) and seeking to withdraw the Writ Petition, once it is found that the Court is not likely to pass an Order in favour of the Writ Petitioner. It was observed that the Court which is unwilling to admit the Writ Petition would not ordinarily grant liberty to file a fresh one. In paragraph no.9, the Supreme Court held that the principle underlying Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure should be extended to Writ Petitions in the interests of administration of justice, since it is based on public policy. Accordingly, the second Writ Petition was found to be not maintainable by the Supreme Court.

28. The principles based on public policy to prevent abuse of process of Court cannot have any different impact, when the first proceeding before the N.G.T is withdrawn, without seeking liberty to file a fresh one. In such circumstances, the second litigation, in the form of Writ Petition before the High Court, will certainly be hit by the principles of Order XXIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The following Bench decisions of this Court would also dissuade me from invoking the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the instant facts.

                  1. Kartika Metal Crusher and Others v. State of Kerala [Writ Appeal No.728/2021] (Sl.no.1 in the compilation given by the counsel for the 10th respondent).

                  2. M.K.Salim v. State of Kerala [W.P.(C).No.19580/2019] (Sl.no.2 in the compilation given by the counsel for the 10th respondent).

                  3. Kichu K.Ravi v. SEIAA and Others [Writ Appeal No.931/2024] (Sl.no.3 in the compilation given by the counsel for the 10th respondent).

29. Besides, the National Green Tribunal is the very authority constituted by the statute for settlement of disputes relating to environment as per Section 14 of the N.G.T Act. Therefore, the petitioners' conduct in withdrawing an O.A with the self-same prayers from the competent Tribunal and venturing a similar challenge before this Court, invoking its powers under Article 226, can hardly be countenanced.

The point found accordingly.

30. Point no.III

Although it was argued by respondents 8, 9 and 10 that the answer to the above question can only be in the negative in view of the law laid down in Salomon v. A Salomon & Company Ltd. [(1897) AC 22] - a decision which has attained the status of locus classicus - this Court is of the opinion that the resolution of the point is not strictly required in the attendant facts and circumstances. This Court concludes so, essentially on the basis of its findings to point nos.I and II, which negates the necessity to resolve the instant issue framed. That apart, this Court is not in full agreement with the legal position sought to be canvassed by respondents 8, 9 and 10 to the effect that, since the said respondents are separate legal entities, capable of suing and being sued, one cannot be answerable for the actions of the other. In an appropriate factual setting, it might be well within the four corners of law to make a legal entity answerable for the actions of another. Say for example, if a company having a separate legal entity, commits serious violations of law, and in order to escape from the clutches of law, a second company is floated, with more or less the same set of Directors. The law enforcement agency cannot throw its hands in despair, stating that the second company is a separate legal entity in the eyes of law and hence completely immune from all possible legal actions, even when fraudulent constitution of the same is axiomatic from the facts. Legal recourse in such situation may be available, possibly with the aid of piercing the corporate veil. However, that fact situation has not arisen in the instant case. It is noticed that 9th respondent company was constituted in the year 1996 and the 10th respondent company, in the year 2018. Therefore, it cannot be argued for a moment that the said companies were floated in order to enable the 8th respondent company to wriggle out of the legal obligations. This Court also notice that the sites, where each Company operates is different. No document is produced by the petitioners to show that a fraudulent sale was occasioned in favour of the 10th respondent – or for that matter the 9th respondent – by the 8th respondent, in order to escape from the consequences of non-compliance and violations committed by the 8th respondent company. There is no evidence on record to show that the companies were formed and the properties were purchased for the purpose of rescuing the 8th respondent from the clutches of law, dehors and independent of the fact that no such event, worth the name, posing a necessity for the 8th respondent to escape from the clutches of law, has been shown or demonstrated by the petitioners. Merely for the reason that the Directors of the three companies are more or less the same, no fanciful inference can be drawn, as alleged by the petitioners. This Court would also take note of the aspect highlighted by the learned Amicus that there is no enabling provision in the Environment (Protection) Act, or the Environmental Impact Assessment notification, or in the M.M.D.R Act to refuse issuance of an E.C for the violation of conditions in a previously granted E.C to the same project proponent. Per contra, Environmental Clearance is granted to a project or activity and the same is 'site specific', as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Suri (supra) (see paragraphs 470.1, 487, 491, 492 and 512).

31. The above aspect would also lean in favour of the proposition that the 10th respondent, who has been granted Ext.P21 E.C in respect of a different site, cannot be made answerable for the violations, if any, of the 8th respondent.

Point concluded accordingly.

32. Point no.IV

This Court may straight away notice that there is no specific contention in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 8, 9 or 10 that the instant Writ petitions are Public Interest Litigations and hence not liable to be considered by this Court, for want of jurisdiction as per roster. However, in the argument notes preferred by the 9th respondent, such a contention is seen raised. Having referred to the pleadings and the reliefs sought for, this Court is of the opinion that the instant Writ Petitions are not liable to be treated as a Public Interest Litigations. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15775/2025 would specifically aver in paragraph no.1(a) that he is residing within a distance of 1 Km from the quarrying site of the 8th respondent, along with his family members. The petitioner specifically alleges that the activities of the 8th respondent has caused substantial environmental damage, of which, the petitioner is a victim. It is true that the petitioner would allege that several other persons, along with the petitioner, have suffered due to the illegal activities of the 8th respondent. Such generalised allegations are available in paragraph no.7, as also, paragraph no.8 of the Writ Petition. However, in paragraph no.7(a), the petitioner specifically alleges that his life, health, property and livelihood is affected by the illegal quarrying operations of the 8th respondent. Inasmuch as he essentially espouses his cause, though along with others, this Court is of the opinion that the instant Writ Petitions are not liable to be characterised as P.I.Ls. The contention will therefore stand rejected.

33. Point no.V.

This Court has already referred to the litigations ventured by the petitioners. Further, it is noticed that W.P.(C) No.15775/2025 is filed by one Sajan George on 10.04.2025. The second Writ Petition is filed by one Stanley Joseph and his daughter on 04.08.2025. This Court may straight away observe that the second petitioner in the second Writ Petition bearing no.29038/2025 has joined the lis only as the daughter of the first petitioner and she was not a party to any of the earlier litigations, or to the subsequent event being referred to herein. The petitioners in the second Writ Petition would aver that they are residing approximately 100 metres from the quarrying site of the 10th respondent. The fact that the 1st petitioner in the second Writ Petition and Mr.Sajan George, [petitioner in the first Writ Petition, W.P.(C) No.15775/2025] have jointly filed most of the litigations is admitted in paragraph no.3 of the second Writ Petition. However, the explanation offered in the second Writ Petition, in the same paragraph, for the 1st petitioner not joining the first Writ Petition is his unavoidable personal exigencies to give instructions to the Advocate along with Mr.Sajan George, which cannot be taken, except with a pinch of salt. It has been seriously canvassed by the counsel for the contesting respondents that a crime has been registered against Mr.Sajan George, the petitioner in the first Writ Petition, as Crime No.586/2025 of Pallikathodu Police Station, where the allegation is that the instant litigation has been used as a weapon for extracting money and blackmailing the contesting respondents. The F.I.R is produced by the 5th respondent/Geologist as Ext.R5(B) and the F.I.S, Ext.R5(C). It has been averred in paragraph no.12 of the counter affidavit filed by the Geologist that the Bail Application filed by Mr.Sajan George has been rejected by the Sessions Court, as also, by this Court. According to the contesting respondents, the second Writ Petition has been filed by Stanley Joseph and his daughter, so that a possible allegation with respect to utter lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioner in the first Writ Petition, can be averted. All what this Court needs to observe in the above-mentioned facts and circumstances - particularly the litigations which have been ventured earlier, coupled with the registration of F.I.R above-referred - is that the bonafides of the petitioner in the first Writ Petition and the first petitioner in the second Writ Petition is not demonstrated.

Point concluded accordingly.

34. In the result, these Writ Petitions will stand dismissed. Interim orders, if any, will stand vacated and interlocutory applications, if any, will stand closed.

35. This Court place on record its sincere appreciation to the commendable efforts taken by Sri.Jacob P.Alex, learned Amicus Curiae in unfolding, the liability, if any, of a different project proponent, for the activities of another project proponent, in the context of the fact that the Directors of both entities are more or less the same.