Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The above writ appeals filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, arises out of the judgment dated 26.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.23150 of 2023 and connected matters, treating W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 as the leading case.

2. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, issued notification, S.O.1807(E) dated 12.04.2022 [Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024] amending the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, extending the validity period of the Environmental Clearance for certain projects and activities. It was followed by a clarification vide Official Memorandum F.NO.1A3-22/28/2022-1A.111 [E 181584] dated 13.12.2022 [Ext.P9 in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024], clarifying that the validity of environmental clearances, which had expired as on the date of publication of Ext.P8 notification dated 12.04.2022 shall stand automatically extended to the respective increased validity as mentioned in para No.1, column (C), subject to the proviso to para No.2(i), and that environmental clearances for which the project proponents have submitted the application for extension of validity as per EIA Notification, 2006, as on the date of publication of the notification, i.e., 12.04.2022, shall stand automatically extended to respective increased validity as mentioned at para No.1, column (C).

3. 66 writ petitions were filed seeking the benefit of Ext.P8 notification read with the clarification contained in Ext.P9 office memorandum. One writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024, was filed challenging its constitutional vires. As already noticed hereinbefore, the learned Single Judge proceeded with the matter, treating W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 as the leading case.

4. In paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge noticed that, in the 66 writ petitions preferred claiming the benefit of the Ext.P8 notification, the issue is one pertaining to the interpretation and the effect of the said notification. According to the petitioners,      the Environmental Clearance granted for mining projects shall be valid for the ‘project life as laid down in the mining plan’ as per the amendment brought in to clause No.9 of Ext.P8 notification and the term ‘project life’ means the ‘mine life’, subject to a maximum of 30 years, whichever is earlier. In W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024, the subject matter of challenge is the constitutional vires of Ext.P8 notification and Ext.P9 office memorandum dated 13.12.2022, on various counts. In the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025, the learned Single Judge noticed that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 posed challenge to the said notification, only in the context of the environmental clearance (EC) issued to the quarry of the 9th respondent, i.e., Kabani Blue Metals Pvt. Ltd., primarily. The ECs issued by District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA), for mining projects, are also generally under challenge. The petitioner seeks a declaration that Ext.P8 notification and Ext.P9 office memorandum are ultra vires the Constitution and inconsistent with the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Several grounds are raised to challenge the constitutional validity of the subject notification.

5. In paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025, the learned Single Judge noted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024. Paragraph 18 of the judgment reads thus;

                  “18. Arguments of Sri. V.Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024:-

                  The petitioner styles himself as an affected party due to the illegal and unscientific mining conducted by the 9th respondent entity, which is being done at a distance of 400 metres only from the petitioner's place of residence, with his family. Petitioner, along with his aged mother and family, is residing at Rajagiri, in Pulingome Village, a very peaceful area near to a wildlife sanctuary and forest. According to the petitioner, the area is identified as a landslide-prone area by the authorities. Ext.P20 E.C. in favour of 9th respondent expired on 06.11.2022, reckoning the 5 years validity period stipulated therein. COVID-19 exemption was given for 1 year by virtue of Ext.P7 notification, which extends the validity period of the E.C. up to 06.11.23. But for Ext.P8 impugned notification and Ext.P9 O.M, the 9th respondent's activities ought to have been stopped, on the expiry of Ext.P20 E.C. Ext.P8 notification, according to the petitioner, is issued in gross violation of the legal provisions; and the retrospective operation given to Ext.P8, as clarified by Ext.P9 O.M. is all the more illegal. The 9th respondent is also one among the petitioners, who approached this Court and obtained Ext.P18 interim Order on the strength of Ext.P8 notification and Ext.P9 O.M, so as to continue mining. The following arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge Ext.P8 subject notification:

                  1. Ext.P8 notification amended clause No.9 of the EIA notification, as per which, the powers of the expert body [State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (‘SEAC’, for short)] - to estimate the project life and thus to stipulate the validity period of the E.C. - has been taken away and the power is virtually seen given to a different authority under the M.M.D.R. Act.

                  2. There is violation of Rule 5(3)(a) to (d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules. Recourse seen taken to Rule 5(4) of that Rules is not justified at all. There is no ‘public interest’, so as to avoid public consultation, as mandated by Rule 5(3)(a) of the East Punjab Rules. The subject notification is squarely in the teeth of the dictum laid on by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Noble M. Paikada v. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine SC 369].

                  3. Before issuance of the subject notification/Ext.P8, there was no consultation, whatsoever, with the States, as also, with the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authorities.

                  4. When the powers of SEAC are taken away in the matter of fixation of validity period of E.Cs, the overriding effect of the Environment (Protection) Act over the M.M.D.R. Act has been overlooked, and hence, the subject notification is bad on that count as well.

                  5. The impugned Ext.P8 notification cannot be retrospective. The amendments under the EIA notification, 2006 are only prospective in application, unless clarificatory in nature, as held by the Apex Court in Bengaluru Development Authority v. Sudhakar Hegde [(2020) 15 SCC 63]. The word ‘existing’ as used in sub-paragraph no. 2 is missing in sub-clause no. 4 of clause no. 9 of Ext.P8 notification, wherefore, the subject notification/Ext.P8 cannot apply to the existing E.Cs.

                  6. The subject notification/Ext.P8 cannot be construed as one issued in furtherance of safeguarding the interests of environment and hence, cannot be treated as one issued under Section 3 of the E.P. Act.

                  7. The subject notification/Ext.P8 is so vague and uncertain. Neither ‘project life’ nor ‘life of mine’ is defined under any of the enactments concerned. Clause 9(iv) and its proviso of the subject Ext.P8 notification is vague, unclear and ambiguous and hence, liable to be declared as arbitrary, violative of Article 14.

                  8. The necessity to review the environmental impact of mining projects in every 5 years and to issue E.Cs accordingly has been done away with by virtue of the subject notification.”

6. In paragraph 30 of the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025, the learned Single Judge noted the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the 9th respondent in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024. Paragraph 30 of the judgment reads thus;

                  30.     Arguments advanced by Sri. Ranjith Thamban, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting 9th respondent:-

The following arguments were advanced on behalf of the 9th respondent by the learned Senior Counsel.

                  (i)       The writ petition, as framed, is not maintainable since there exists an alternative and efficacious remedy available before the National Green Tribunal, a specialised body. Since that alternative remedy is barred by limitation, a writ petition under Article 226 is also barred.

                  (ii)      The prayers made in the writ petition affect a large number of persons throughout the Nation. In the absence of the affected parties, at least in the representative capacity as respondents, the instant writ petition is not maintainable.

                  (iii)     This writ petition is actually not a private interest litigation, but a public interest one; and hence, not liable to be considered by this Court, as per roster.

                  (iv)     Ext.P8 notification is issued in public interest under Rule 5(3)(a) of the East Punjab Rules and hence, legally valid.

                  (v)      After undergoing the stages involved in the process of issuance of E.C, including the existence of an approved mining plan, scoping, appraisal etc., the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee would consider the entire aspects including the ‘project life’ as approved in the mining plan and recommends grant of E.C. However, both SEIAA and DEIAA, without any reason, grants E.C. for 5 years only, which has been deprecated by this Court in Mathew Abraham v. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority [2020 (6) KHC 596]. There is no provision for the grant of a fresh E.C. in respect of a project, for which E.C. is granted, once. Thus, E.Cs are liable to be granted for the life of the project, as estimated by the Expert Appraisal Committee concerned. In Mathew Abraham (supra), this Court directed the Expert Appraisal Committee to appraise the project life.

                  (vi)     Going by the purpose for which the impugned Ext.P8 notification was issued, that is to say, to align the validity period of E.Cs in tune with the period of mining lease, it is idle to submit that Ext.P8 is only prospective in nature. On such premise, the 9th respondent seeks the writ petition to be dismissed.”   (underline supplied)

7. In paragraph 38 of the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025, the learned Single Judge formulated the following points for consideration;

                  1) Whether dispensing public consultation required as per Rule 5(3)(a) to (d) of the E.P Rules, by placing purported reliance on Rule 5(4), has vitiated Ext.P8 notification?

                  2)(a) Whether Ext.P8 notification promotes and further environmental and public interest?

                  (b) Whether Ext.P8 notification militates against the fundamental purpose of EIA Notification, 2006?

                  (c) Whether it is desirable to extend the validity period of an

E.C. to a larger period, as Ext.P8 notification and Ext.P9 O.M. contemplate?

                  3) Whether Ext.P9 O.M. is ultra vires and bad in law?

                  4)(a) Whether Ext.P8 notification is bad for being thoroughly vague, ambiguous and unworkable, thus resulting in arbitrariness?

                  (b) Whether the 66 writ petitions seeking the benefit of the impugned Ext.P8 notification are liable to be dismissed for the reason of Ext.P8 being vague and unworkable? Whether their contention that project life is equivalent to or synonymous with mine life is legally tenable?

                  5)       Whether the notification is only prospective in nature, applicable only to the E.Cs issued after the date of notification?

                  6)       Jurisdiction/Maintainability/Entertainability?

                  7)       Whether a writ court can suo moto consider the vires of a notification, even in the absence of a complete challenge to the same?

                  8)       Whether there is adequate representation for the project proponents - in the peculiar facts and circumstances - in the context of considering the vires of the notification?

8. In the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025, on point No.1, the learned Single Judge held that the dispensation of public notice and consideration of objection in terms of Rule 5(3)(a) to (d)   of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, by placing purported reliance on Rule 5(4), is illegal and ultra vires, and the same smacks of non-application of mind, rendering the decision- making process vitiated. On point Nos.2 and 2(a), the learned Single Judge held that, when the requirement of prior EC has been introduced by EIA Notification and a separate body of experts have been constituted for that purpose by the same notification, all matters pertaining to the EC, including the question as to the validity of such EC, has to be determined by such expert body; and not by anybody else. Shifting of such powers from the hands of the expert body to an authority under another Act, i.e., the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, (MMDR Act), certainly works against the purpose of introduction of EIA notification. An amendment which negates - or at least, inconsistent with - the very purpose of EIA notification can hardly be sustained in law. Such shifting of power from the expert body to determine the project life and consequently, the validity of the EC cannot be said to be an act in furtherance of the purposes of EIA notification. The rule-making authority has exceeded its powers granted under the Environment (Protection) Rules. Therefore, the impugned amendment by virtue of Ext.P8 notification is bad in law on that count as well. On point No.2(c), the learned Single Judge held that the notification to bring in the amendment is not in furtherance of the requirements of environmental protection, the very purpose envisaged in the Environment (Protection) Rules; and hence, the notification becomes unconstitutional for being inconsistent with and contrary to the purpose of the parent enactment.

9. In the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025, on point No.3, the learned Single Judge held that Ext.P9 office memorandum, though styled as a clarification, impermissibly altered the substance of Ext.P8 notification by fixing a definite EC validity of 30 years for mining projects, instead of linking it to project life, subject to a maximum limit. By directing automatic extension of all subsisting ECs as on 12.04.2022 to 30 years, Ext.P9 office memorandum supplanted the statutory scheme and nullified the project-specific assessment contemplated under Ext.P8 notification. Ext.P9, being at best an administrative circular, without reference to the Environment (Protection) Act or the Rules, could not override or expand the scope of a statutory notification. Consequently, the learned Single Judge held Ext.P9 office memorandum as ultra vires the Environment (Protection) Act, the Environment (Protection) Rules, and the EIA Notification, 2006. On point Nos.4(a) and (b), the learned Single Judge found that the term ‘project life’ under clause 9 of notification is undefined and conceptually distinct from ‘mine life’, which extends until exhaustion of mineral reserves and may involve multiple leases and projects. By Ext.P8 notification the statutory role of the expert body in estimating project life was removed and the validity of EC was linked to the mining plan, even though the mining plan does not determine or refer to project life, making the mechanism unworkable. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention that ‘project life’ is synonymous with ‘mine life’ or ‘lease period’, as legally unsustainable, especially in view of clause 9(iv) of Ext.P8 notification and its proviso, which itself treats ‘project life’ and ‘mine life’ as distinct. Owing to the resulting uncertainty, arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Ext.P8 notification was held unsustainable, and the learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.(C)Nos.23150 of 2023 and connected matters filed seeking the benefit of the said notification.

10. In the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025, on point No.5, the learned Single Judge rejected the contention that Ext.P8 notification operates only prospectively, based on the absence of the word ‘existing’ in clause 9(iv). The learned Single Judge held that the clauses of the said notification cannot be read in isolation and must be interpreted in the light of the object and purpose of Ext.P8 notification. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of Ext.P8 clearly indicate that the Central Government intended to extend the validity of already granted environmental clearances, including mining projects, and not merely to regulate future clearances. Consequently, the argument that Ext.P8 notification applies only to prospective environmental clearances was found unsustainable and was expressly rejected by the learned Single Judge.

11. In the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025, at paragraphs 76 to 78, the learned Single Judge dealt with point No.6. Paragraphs 76 to 78 of the judgment read thus;

                  “76. Point No.6 Jurisdiction/Maintainability/Entertainability? It was seriously canvassed by the 1st respondent Ministry, 2nd respondent Secretary and also by the 9th Respondent, that the instant Writ Petition, challenging the notification is not maintainable      before         this Court, inasmuch as an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner before the National Green Tribunal. Extensive arguments were advanced in this regard by the said respondents by placing reliance upon various decisions, which dilate on the scope of the NGT's jurisdiction. The attention of this Court was invited to the various provisions in the NGT Act, especially to Section 14 thereof. According to the Senior Panel Counsel, Section 14(1), read with Section 16(h), is a complete answer to the petitioner's challenge, insofar as the jurisdiction of NGT is concerned,             especially when it is a specialized body constituted for that purpose. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mantri Techzone Private Limited v. Forward Foundation [(2019) 18 SCC 494], Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, [(2022) 13 SCC 401], etc., were relied upon to contend that the NGT even has suo moto power to take cognizance in         respect of a matter falling within its jurisdiction. Inasmuch as the subject notification is one emanating from the Environment (Protection) Act, and the allegation is to the effect that Ext.P8 notification, if remain, will damage the environment, certainly the body competent to consider is the NGT; and not by invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned senior counsel for the 9th respondent also canvassed that the declaration sought for, in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 is one liable to be sought for in terms of Section 40 of the Specific Relief Act, for which reason, a suit can be filed in terms of Section 113 of the C.P.C, read with Section 9, to declare that the S.O. is unconstitutional. When an alternate and efficacious remedy is available, a writ will not lie, is the specific contention urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the 9th respondent.

                  77.     As against the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the National Green Tribunal has no power to issue a writ, quashing Ext.P8 notification and P9 O.M. Issuance of prerogative writs can only be done in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, by the High Court; and not by the Tribunal. Inasmuch as the impugned Ext.P8 notification is sought to be quashed by issuance of a writ of certiorari, the contention that there is an equivalent and efficacious alternate remedy available is grossly erroneous, is the submission made by the learned counsel. Learned Amicus would fully support the contentions of the petitioner in this regard. In the notes submitted by the learned Amicus, this issue is seen dealt with in paragraph No.6, at page No.10, wherein relying on Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd., [(2019) 19 SCC 479], it is canvassed that the NGT has no power under Section 16 of the Act to strike down the Rules or regulations and does not possess general powers of judicial review, comparable to the High Courts under Article 226. Learned Amicus would submit that whether the NGT can set aside a notification is presently a matter pending before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2522 of 2018, for which reason also, the High Court's jurisdiction in respect of the captioned subject cannot be doubted.

                  78.     Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court fully endorses the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Amicus. The legal position is not res integra in view of the judgment in Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (supra). When the specific prayer sought for vide relief no. 2 is to quash the subject notification by issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be doubted at all, for such a relief cannot be granted by the National Green Tribunal. It is also settled, by now, that the existence of an alternate remedy, by itself, - assuming an alternate remedy is available - is not a ground in all cases to hold that the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. By the nature of the challenge posed to the impugned notification in the Writ Petition, it is only appropriate that the High Court exercises its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Point concluded accordingly.”

12.    In the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025, on point No.7, the learned Single Judge held that a writ court is competent, and in appropriate cases duty-bound, to suo motu examine the constitutional vires of a notification, when substantive reliefs affecting numerous parties and core constitutional values are founded upon it, even if the challenge is not complete or comprehensive. Where the notification ex facie discloses non- compliance with the mandatory statutory procedure and implicates environmental protection and the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot grant relief without first testing its constitutional validity. The Apex Court has consistently affirmed that constitutional Courts may, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, examine legality and vires suo motu to prevent illegality and constitutional harm. On point No.8, the learned Single Judge held that the project proponents are adequately represented in the proceedings challenging the impugned notification, i.e., Ext.P8 notification. The matter was heard along with multiple writ petitions filed by project proponents themselves, and a registered association of quarry owners, along with individual proponents, were impleaded and heard in their representative capacity. The author of the notification, i.e., Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, was also a party and defended the vires of the notification, satisfying the requirement of audi alteram partem. Hence, the learned Single Judge, rejected the contention that the challenge could not be considered without impleading all project proponents.

13. By the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025, the learned Single Judge allowed W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024. Ext.P8 notification dated 12.04.2022 - insofar as it is applicable to mines and mining operations as provided in clause 9(iv) - is declared ultra vires the Environment (Protection) Act, the Environment (Protection) Rules, and also, the EIA notification, 2006 and hence struck down as unconstitutional. Ext.P9 office memorandum is also declared illegal and ultra vires the Environment (Protection) Act, the Environment (Protection) Rules and the EIA Notification, 2006, insofar as it pertains to mines and mining operations. The conclusion of the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025 read thus;

                  “85. CONCLUSION:-

                  In the light of the above discussion, W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 is allowed. The impugned Ext.P8 notification dated 12.04.2022 - insofar as it is applicable to mines and mining operations as provided in clause 9(iv) - is declared ultra vires the Environment (Protection) Act, the Environment (Protection) Rules, and also, the EIA notification, 2006 and hence struck down as unconstitutional. Ext.P9 Office Memorandum is also declared illegal and ultra vires the Environment (Protection) Act, the Environment (Protection) Rules and the EIA notification, 2006, insofar as it pertains to mines and mining operations. Consequently, the 6th respondent will stand directed, by a writ of mandamus, to take action in accordance with law regarding the quarrying operations of the 9th respondent, treating Ext.P20 E.C. to have expired.

                  86. Consequently, the 66 writ petitions filed, claiming the benefit of Ext.P8 notification and Ext.P9 Office Memorandum, will stand dismissed. All the interim orders will stand vacated. Interlocutory applications, if any, pending in all the 67 writ petitions will stand closed. Since the constitutional vires of Exts.P8 and P9 have been considered suo moto - beyond the scope of the challenge in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 - and struck down as unconstitutional, appropriate action by the 6th respondent shall follow in respect of the quarries run by the petitioners in the said 66 writ petitions, depending upon the validity of the E.Cs issued to such quarry project.”

14. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 is under challenge in W.A.No.2330 of 2025 filed by the Union of India and W.A.No.2326 of 2025 filed by the State of Kerala. The 9th respondent in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 has filed W.A.No.2279 of 2025, the 11th respondent in that writ petition has filed W.A.No.3006 of 2025 and the 14th respondent in that writ petition has filed W.A.No.2190 of 2025. The judgment in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 is also under challenge in W.A.Nos.3145, 3146, 3148, 3149, 3150, 3153, 3155, 3158, 3159, 3160, 3161 of 2025 and W.A.Nos.89, 91, and 92 of 2026, filed by third parties (quarry owners), after obtaining leave of the Court.

15. W.A.Nos.2184, 2278, 2377, 2382, 2383, 2421, 2423, 2426, 2427, 2438, 2453, 2473, 2482, 2484, 2489, 2494, 2552, 2560, 2567, 2573, 2604, 2681, 2683, 2687, 2703, 2729, 2820, 2828, 2838, 2971, 3151, 3152, 3156, 3157 and 3062 of 2025 are filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.7913 and 6220 of 2024, 25208 of 2023, 21091 of 2024, 6535 of 2025, 4121 of 2023, 31513 of 2023, 26690 of 2023, 7516 of 2024, 15677 of 2024, 32545 of 2023, 29463 of 2023, 28223 of 2023, 25905 of 2022, 40727 of 2024, 24450 of 2022, 30474 of 2024, 28573 of 2022, 31614 of 2022, 40292 of 2022, 7763 of 2024, 25721, 22497, 18280, 29452, 28092, 42123, 26121, 23687, 31651, 30954, 29026, 30251 and 26136 of 2022 and 2053 of 2023, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereby those writ petitions filed by the quarry owners, seeking the benefit of Ext.P8 notification dated 12.04.2022 stand dismissed.

16. These writ appeals are listed before this Division Bench based on the orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice dated 08.10.2025, on the administrative side.

17. We heard arguments of the learned Senior Panel Counsel for Government of India, for the appellant in W.A.No.2330 of 2025, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the appellant in W.A.No.2326 of 2025, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in W.A.Nos.2278 and 2279 of 2025, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in W.A.Nos.2377 and 2190 of 2025, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.2184 of 2025, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, the learned counsel for the appellants and party respondents in other writ appeals and also the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-petitioner in the writ appeals arising out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024.

18. During the course of arguments, one of the contentions raised by the learned Senior Panel Counsel for Government of India, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.2279 and 2278 of 2025, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.2190 of 2025, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.2184 of 2025, the learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.3006 of 2025 and connected matters and also the learned counsel for the appellants in the connected writ appeals, is that W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 is actually not a private interest litigation, but a public interest litigation, and hence not liable to be considered, as per roster, by the learned Single Judge, who rendered the common judgment dated 26.08.2025. Though in paragraph 30 of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has noted the arguments advanced at the Bar on the above aspect, while deciding the issue ‘jurisdiction/maintainability/entertainability’, the above aspect was not dealt with. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024, who is the 1st respondent in W.A.No.2330 of 2025 and connected matters, submitted that when that question was raised on a previous day, before the conclusion of the arguments before the learned Single Judge, it was submitted that the writ petitioner is prepared to file a memo to not press relief No.4 sought for in that writ petition.

19. On the above issue, the learned counsel on both sides addressed detailed arguments. The decisions of the Apex Court in Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. v. GRSE Limited Workmen’s Union [2025 SCC OnLine SC 582 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1575 (SC)] and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Trivandrum Apollo Towers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2025 (2) KLT 858] were cited during the course of arguments. After detailed arguments, the writ appeals were ordered to be listed for orders/judgment.

20. As already noticed hereinbefore, the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge is one rendered in W.P.(C)No.23150 of 2023 and connected matters, treating W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 as the leading case. 66 writ petitions filed by quarry owners were for seeking the benefit of Ext.P8 notification dated 12.04.2022, read with the clarification contained in Ext.P9 office memorandum dated 13.12.2022. On the other hand, W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 was filed challenging the constitutional vires of Ext.P8 notification dated 12.04.2022 and Ext.P9 office memorandum dated 13.12.2022. Though 66 writ petitions were filed, only 35 writ appeals have been filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

21. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024, who is arrayed as the 1st respondent in W.A.No.2330 of 2025 and connected matters arising out of the judgment in that writ petition, invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs;

                  “(i) Declare that Exhibit P8 notification and Exhibit P9 Office Memorandum are ultra vires to the Constitution and provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and rules made thereunder, to the extent that it extends the validity of the then existing environmental clearances of mining projects granted by the DEIAAs as per Exhibit P3 Notification;

                  (ii)      Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P8 notification in so far as it purports to bring within the ambit of the newly inserted sub-paragraph (iv) of Paragraph 9 of the EIA notification dated 14th September, 2006 [S.O. 1533 (E)] the environmental clearances for mining projects issued by the DEIAAs constituted under Paragraph 3A of the 2006 notification and quash the same.

                  (iii)     Alternatively, declare that sub-paragraph (iv) of Paragraph 9 of EIA notification dated 14th September, 2006 inserted vide Exhibit P8 notification does not take within its ambit the environmental clearances issued by the DEIAAs constituted under Paragraph 3A of the 2006 notification.

                  (iv)     Call for the records leading to Exhibit P9 office memorandum and issue a writ of certiorari to set aside Exhibit P9 notification in so far as it extends the validity of Exhibit P20 and similar environmental clearances issued by the DEIAAs beyond its original validity.

                  (v)      Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the 1st respondent to issue a notification amending the provisions of the SO No.1533(E) dated 14.09.2006, incorporating the directions in the Judgment of Apex Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2012) 4 SCC 629], and Exhibit P5, P10, P12 Judgments of the National Green Tribunal.

                  (vi)     Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate steps to suspend Exhibit P20 environmental clearance of the 9th respondent, so far as its original validity is over.

                  (vii)    Petitioner may be permitted to dispense with the filing of the translations of the documents in the vernacular language in the interest of justice;

                  (viii)    Pass such other order, direction or relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.”  (underline supplied)

22. The interim reliefs sought for in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 read thus;

                  “a) Stay the operation of Exhibit P8 notification and P9 Office Memorandum in so far as it extends the validity of Exhibit P20 environmental clearance and similar environmental clearances granted by the DEIAAs.

                  b) direct the respondents No.1 to 7 to ensure that mining is not being done based on the environmental clearances granted by DEIAAs beyond the original validity date of Environmental Clearance.”  (underline supplied)

23. The averments in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 are to the effect that the petitioner is a victim and affected party of the environmental degradation due to the illegal and unscientific mining of the 9th respondent in the same locality, within 400 metres away from the place where the petitioner is residing with his family. Rajagiri area in Pulingome Village, where the petitioner resides, is a very peaceful area near a wildlife sanctuary and forest, and rich with thick natural vegetation, agricultural lands and natural water streams. The 9th respondent [appellant in W.A.No.2279 of 2025] is running a granite building stone quarry in an area that is identified by the authorities as a landslide-prone area. The petitioner is highly aggrieved by the mining activities done by the 9th respondent for the last two years, even after the expiry of Ext.P20 environmental clearance dated 07.11.2017 granted by DEIAA Kannur, without being revalidated by SEIAA. Ext.P20 has to be invalidated on 06.11.2022. But, since Ext.P8 notification and Ext.P9 office memorandum did not exempt environmental clearances granted by DEIAAs like Ext.P20, authorities and courts are being misdirected as if the validity of Ext.P20 and similar environmental clearances granted by DEIAA, Kannur, is automatically extended. It defeats the whole purpose of EIA Notification, 2006, and Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act. [see: paragraphs 1, 29 and 30 of the statement of facts in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024].

24. In W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024, the petitioner has stated that most of the environmental clearances granted by the DEIAA in Kerala have already damaged the environment. Compliance is less than 20%. Many of them have extracted more quantity than what is permitted to be extracted. Some of them have even admitted the violation and paid the penalty under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. For the extension of the validity of an ongoing environmental clearance, the proponents have to satisfy SEIAA that they have complied with all the statutory norms and conditions of environmental clearance. The certificate of compliance with conditions issued by the Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment is a mandatory requirement of law for t h e extension of environmental clearance. A violator cannot obtain an extension of environmental clearance in the normal course. In t h e absence of a specific monitoring mechanism in place, it is a benchmark to prevent violations. By issuing Exts.P8 and P9, the Ministry has changed this situation and literally permitted violators to continue without any process of renewal of their environmental clearance. This is not a step to protect or improve the environment, but to facilitate violation and degradation or damage of the environment. [see: paragraph 17 of the statement of facts in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024].

25. In W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024, the petitioner has stated that there are absolutely no safeguards for the environment while conducting mining based on environmental clearances granted by DEIAA. Even though environmental clearance obtained from DEIAA by most of the quarry projects expired, some are still continuing mining activity without undergoing a valid EIA process or a scientific appraisal process by the experts. In Kannur District alone, DEIAA has granted clearance to more than 100 mining projects without any scientific EIA process. When the High Court has specifically directed SEIAA to re-appraise some of such projects, SEIAA found that such projects would cause irreparable damage to the environment and canceled the environmental clearance and stopped mining before they started the activity. Normally, the validity of all environmental clearances granted by DEIAA is for 5 years. Severe environmental damage has already been done by such projects, and mitigation measures are required, as accepted by the 1st respondent in Ext.P11 office memorandum. If no automatic extension is given, without re-appraisal by SEIAA, the 1st respondent can prevent further environmental degradation. The ongoing mining, based on environmental clearance granted by DEIAA, like Ext.P20, creates severe environmental degradation and environmental damage, which is irreversible in nature. Citing all these, the petitioner preferred a representation before the 1st and 2nd respondents, in the month of November, 2024 itself, not to permit the environmental clearance granted by DEIAA to continue. However, no positive action is seen from the part of the respondents. [see: paragraph 36 of the statement of facts in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024].

26. In W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024, the petitioner contended that he has a fundamental duty under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. The issuance of Ext.P8 notification and Ext.P9 office memorandum permits several proponents, like the 9th respondent, who    have obtained environmental clearances like Ext.P20 from DEIAAs, who have been found incompetent by various forums to issue such environmental clearances, to continue their mining operations. This is directly against the environmental jurisprudence, such as principles of sustainable development and precautionary principles, affecting the fundamental rights of citizens under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India at large. [see: Ground (Z) of W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024]

27. As already noticed hereinbefore, the specific contention raised before the learned Single Judge, which was taken note of in paragraph 30 of the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025, was that W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 is actually not a private interest litigation, but a public interest litigation, and hence not liable to be considered, as per roster, by the learned Single Judge, before whom it was listed.

28. Rule 146A of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 deals with affidavits in public interest litigation. As per Rule 146A, a person filing a Public Interest Litigation, in addition to the requirements stipulated in the other rules of this chapter, shall precisely and specifically affirm in the affidavit to be sworn to by him the public cause he is seeking to espouse, that he has no personal or private interest in the matter, that there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court or the High Court on the question raised and that the result of the litigation shall not lead to any undue gain to himself or to anyone associated with him.

29. In Vinoy Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2001) 4 SCC 734], a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Apex Court held that, generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence that the Court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of a third party, where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the Court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief.

30. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 [1st respondent in W.A.No.2330 of 2025 and connected matters] contended that the petitioner has a fundamental duty under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. Ext.P8 notification and Ext.P9 office memorandum permit several proponents, like the 9th respondent, who have obtained environmental clearances like Ext.P20 from DEIAAs, who have been found incompetent by various forums to issue such environmental clearances, to continue their mining operations, which is directly against the environmental jurisprudence, such as principles of sustainable development and precautionary principles, affecting the fundamental rights of citizens under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India at large. W.P.(C)No. 44547 of 2024 filed by the petitioner, who has a fundamental duty under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures, is not a public interest litigation.

31. In Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 582], in the context of Rule 26 of the Rules framed by the High Court at Calcutta under Article 225 of the Constitution of India in relation to applications under Article 226 thereof and the powers of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court as the master of the roster, the Apex Court held that in the light of the law laid down by the High Court at Calcutta at Calcutta in Sohan Lal Baid v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1990 Calcutta 168], as approved by a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand [(1998) 1 SCC 1], which has subsequently been approved by a Constitution Bench in Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India [(2018) 1 SCC 196], as well as Rule 26 of the Rules framed by the High Court at Calcutta under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, any order which a bench - comprising of two judges or a single judge - may choose to make in a case that is not placed before them/him by the Chief Justice of the High Court or in accordance with the directions of the Chief Justice, is without jurisdiction. In other words, an adjudication, beyond allocation, is void, and such an adjudication has to be considered a nullity. It needs no emphasis that the Chief Justice of the High Court, being the primus inter pares, has been vested with the power and authority to set the roster, as articulated in Sohan Lal Baid [AIR 1990 Calcutta 168], and such roster is final and binding on all the ‘Companion Justices’ of the said Court.

32. In Trivandrum Apollo Towers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2025 (2) KLT 858] a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with an appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the order dated 24.02.2025 passed in W.P.(C)No.44196 of 2024, by which the learned Single Judge rejected the prayer for interim relief sought by the appellants in the writ petition. Interim relief sought by the appellants was for lifting the freezing of the bank accounts in a proceeding under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The writ petition was filed as Writ Petition (Civil). The question was whether the subject writ petition is a Civil Writ Petition or a Criminal Writ Petition. The Division Bench held that examining whether a matter pertains to the roster/allocation is important in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 582], wherein the Apex Court has declared the legal effect of the order passed in a case outside the roster and without specific order of allocation. The dicta of the Apex Court is clear that any order passed in a matter outside the roster or not specifically assigned would be without jurisdiction and nullity.

33. Having considered the averments in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 and the grounds raised therein in order to challenge Ext.P8 notification dated 12.04.2022 and Ext.P9 office memorandum dated 13.12.2022, which we have extracted hereinbefore at paragraphs 23 to 26, we find considerable force in the specific contention raised by the 9th respondent in that writ petition [appellant in W.A.No.2279 of 2025] that the said writ petition is actually not a private interest litigation, but a public interest litigation, and hence not liable to be considered, as per roster, by the learned Single Judge, who rendered the common judgment dated 26.08.2025. As already noticed hereinbefore, the contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024, who is the 1st respondent in W.A.No.2330 of 2025 and connected matters, is that the said writ petition filed by the petitioner, who has a fundamental duty under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures, is not a public interest litigation. In the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025, the learned Single Judge has not dealt with the specific contention raised on the above legal issue. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 582] and followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Trivandrum Apollo Towers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2025 (2) KLT 858], the legal effect of the order passed in a case outside roster and without specific order of allocation is that such an order would be without jurisdiction and nullity. Therefore, when a specific contention is raised that a case is outside roster and without specific order or allocation, the bench - comprising of Two Judges or a Single Judge – has to decide that issue before proceeding to consider the said case on merits. In the above circumstances, we find that the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge, which is one rendered treating W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 as a leading case, warrants interference on the above sole ground.

34. In the above circumstances, W.A.Nos.2330, 2326, 2190, 2279 and 3006 of 2025 filed by the respondents 1, 3, 14, 9 and 11 respectively in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 and also W.A.Nos.3145, 3146, 3148, 3149, 3150, 3153, 3155, 3158, 3159, 3160, 3161 of 2025 and W.A.Nos.89, 91, and 92 of 2026 filed by third parties to W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024, after obtaining the leave of this Court, are disposed of by setting aside the judgment dated 26.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2025, since the learned Single Judge failed to decide the question as to whether it is a case outside roster and without specific order or allocation, before proceeding to consider the said case on merits. Since the judgment dated 26.08.2025 is one rendered treating W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 as the leading case, W.A.Nos. 2184, 2278,         2377,  2382, 2383,   2421,  2423,  2426,  2427,  2438,  2453, 2473, 2482, 2484,   2489,  2494, 2552,   2560,  2567,  2573,  2604, 2681,   2683,  2687,  2703, 2729, 2820,  2828, 2838,   2971,  3151, 3152, 3156, 3157 and 3062 of 2025 filed by the petitioners-quarry operators in W.P.(C)Nos.7913 and 6220 of 2024, 25208 of 2023, 21091 of 2024, 6535 of 2025, 4121 of 2023, 31513 of 2023, 26690 of 2023, 7516 of 2024, 15677 of 2024, 32545 of 2023, 29463 of 2023, 28223 of 2023, 25905 of 2022, 40727 of 2024, 24450 of 2022, 30474 of 2024, 28573 of 2022, 31614 of 2022, 40292 of 2022, 7763 of 2024, 25721, 22497, 18280, 29452, 28092, 42123, 26121, 23687, 31651, 30954, 29026, 30251 and 26136 of 2022 and 2053 of 2023, are also disposed of by setting aside the respective judgment of the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions.

35. In the result, W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 as well as W.P.(C)Nos.7913 and 6220 of 2024, 25208 of 2023, 21091 of 2024, 6535 of 2025, 4121 of 2023, 31513 of 2023, 26690 of 2023, 7516 of 2024, 15677 of 2024, 32545 of 2023, 29463 of 2023, 28223 of 2023, 25905 of 2022, 40727 of 2024, 24450 of 2022, 30474 of 2024, 28573 of 2022, 31614 of 2022, 40292 of 2022, 7763 of 2024, 25721, 22497, 18280, 29452, 28092, 42123, 26121, 23687, 31651, 30954, 29026, 30251 and 26136 of 2022 and 2053 of 2023, are remanded to the learned Single Judge for consideration afresh. In W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024, the learned Single Judge shall decide the question as to whether it is a case outside roster and without specific order or allocation, before proceeding to consider the matter on merits.

36. Registry to list the writ petitions before the Single Bench, on 30.01.2026. It is submitted at the Bar that the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)Nos.7913 and 6220 of 2024, 25208 of 2023, 21091 of 2024, 6535 of 2025, 4121 of 2023, 31513 of 2023, 26690 of 2023, 7516 of 2024, 15677 of 2024, 32545 of 2023, 29463 of 2023, 28223 of 2023, 25905 of 2022, 40727 of 2024, 24450 of 2022, 30474 of 2024, 28573 of 2022, 31614 of 2022, 40292 of 2022, 7763 of 2024, 25721, 22497, 18280, 29452, 28092, 42123, 26121, 23687, 31651, 30954, 29026, 30251 and 26136 of 2022 and 2053 of 2023 were in force till the disposal of the writ petitions. It would be open to the learned Single Judge to consider the question as to whether the said interim order shall continue, pending disposal of the said writ petitions.

                  We make it clear that the observations, if any, contained in this judgment, touching the merits of the matter involved in the respective writ petitions, including the question as to whether W.P.(C)No.44547 of 2024 is outside the roster of the learned Single Judge, are made only for the limited purpose of disposal of these writ appeals. The legal and factual contentions raised by both sides are left open to be raised before the learned Single Judge, at the appropriate state.