No Procedural Lapse By Statutory Authorities: Kerala High Court Rejects PIL Challenging Environmental Clearance For Twin Tube Unidirectional Tunnel Road Construction

The Kerala High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Environmental Clearance for construction of Twin Tube Unidirectional Tunnel Road (2+2 Lane) with Four Lane Approach (from existing roads) for providing direct connectivity between Anakkampoyil – Kalladi - Meppadi in Kozhikode and Wayanad Districts.

The Court was of the view that there is no procedural lapse occasioned by the statutory authorities while granting Environmental clearance to the project.

A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed, “On a holistic consideration of the materials before us therefore, we do not find any procedural lapse having been occasioned by the statutory authorities while granting Environmental clearance to the project in question. As for the scientific aspects of the case, we have already indicated that the jurisdiction exercised by us in these matters does not enable us to question the scientific wisdom informing the decision of expert bodies appointed under the Statute, and any dispute in relation to such matters must be adjudicated before the National Green Tribunal.”

The Bench said that there is no illegality in the action of the statutory authority in classifying a project as a Highway construction project.

Advocate Prakash M.P. appeared for the Petitioners, while Central Government Counsel (CGC) B. Pramod, Advocate General K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, Special Government Pleader (SGP) C.E. Unnikrishnan, Standing Counsel M.P. Sreekrishnan, Advocates Millu Dandapani, and T.C. Krishna appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

The Writ Petition styled as PIL challenged the Environmental Clearance granted by the Union of India in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to the Public Works Department of the Government of Kerala for construction of Twin Tube Unidirectional Tunnel Road (2+2 Lane) with Four Lane Approach (from existing roads) for providing direct connectivity between Anakkampoyil – Kalladi - Meppadi in Kozhikode and Wayanad Districts of Kerala State. The proposed length of the road is 8.735 kilometres and it is to be situated at an average altitude ranging from 700 to 2061 metres above sea level, passing through the Bio-diverse Western Ghats.

The case of the Petitioners was that the Environmental clearance was granted in a mechanical manner without due application of mind by the authorities under the Environment (Protection) Act and Rules, and that such action cannot be legally countenanced in relation to a construction project proposed in an ecologically sensitive area that has witnessed many natural disasters in recorded history and severe floods and landslides in 2018, 2019, and 2024. It was the specific case of the Petitioners that the proposed tunnel is situated in close proximity to Mundakkai and Chooralmala villages that were worst affected in the 2024 landslide, and hence, they are justified in their apprehension with regard to the proposed project.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “The multi-tiered scrutiny by scientific experts effectively ensures that the factors relevant to striking a balance between human development needs and environmental safeguards have been duly taken into account while granting Environmental clearance to the project.”

The Court remarked that the expert bodies under the Statute were not unmindful of the gravity of the responsibility cast upon them while discarding their statutory functions under the Environment (Protection) Act and the EIA (Environment Impact Assessment) notification.

“The unambiguous averments in the counter affidavits filed before us on behalf of the Central and State Governments leads us to assume that they were not. … The other contention raised by the petitioners with regard to the categorisation of the project and its consideration as a Category 'A' project for the purposes of grant of Environmental clearance is also baseless. When the EIA notification specifies various categories of projects pursuant to a classification of the same, what has to be seen is whether the instant project of construction of a Twin Tube Unidirectional Tunnel Road would merit classification as a 'Highway construction project' or as a 'Building construction project'.”, it added.

The Court held that in matters of classification, the entry that offers the most specific description should be preferred over the one that offers a general description and hence, there is no illegality in the action of the statutory authority in classifying a project as a Highway construction project and placing it under Category 'B' in accordance with Sl.No.7(f) of the Schedule to the EIA notification.

“We also find that, taking note of the proximity of the project to wildlife habitats and ecologically sensitive areas, the statutory authorities had categorized the project under Category 'A' and processed the application as such as mandated by the EIA notification. Thus, the application for Environmental clearance was ultimately scrutinized and processed in the channel applicable for Category 'A' projects by the CEAC”, it observed.

Before parting with the case, the Court made a few observations with regard to the accountability that is expected from the statutory regulatory authorities in environmental litigation.

“As has already been discussed above, in Public Interest Litigations that come before this Court, especially in environmental matters, this Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review often resorts to a heightened review of State action when the fundamental rights of the citizens are at stake. However, there are myriad instances, as in the present case, where the merits of a decision taken by a regulatory authority under the Environment (Protection) Act and Rules can be ascertained only by a person having scientific expertise”, it said.

The Court added that in such cases, the role of the Reviewing Court has necessarily to be limited to merely ensuring that the decision of the statutory authorities has been taken after strict compliance with the procedure prescribed for the same under the Statute.

“As for the scientific aspects of the decision concerned, the court has necessarily to defer to the wisdom of the statutory authorities who are persons entrusted with such statutory duties because of their expertise in the respective areas of scientific knowledge. Such deference by a reviewing court, even while it is otherwise exercising a 'heightened scrutiny judicial review' imposes a corresponding 'heightened responsibility and accountability' on the statutory authorities concerned for it is their assurance as regards the merit of their decision and the justification thereof, that persuades a reviewing court to not interfere with their decision in judicial review proceedings”, it further remarked.

Conclusion

The Court also said that it expects the State Executive to bear in mind the public accountability that is expected of them and monitor the project diligently at every stage of its implementation by according primacy to the considerations of safety of its people.

“The learned Advocate General assures us that the State Executive will honour its assurances to the people of Wayanad. Taking note of the above, we dismiss this writ petition”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the PIL, without prejudice to the right of the Petitioners to approach the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in the event of any fresh cause of action arising during the implementation of the project in question.

Cause Title- Wayanad Prakrithi Samrakshana Samithi & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:96569)

Click here to read/download the Judgment