For EC Exemption, NHAI Contractor Must Show Work Is Exclusively For Linear Project Based On Pre-2024 Contract: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court held that contractors executing National Highway projects cannot claim automatic exemption from environmental clearance (EC) requirements merely because they hold a work order from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). They have to show that they are holding a work order executed before March 21, 2024, and that they are doing the work exclusively for the linear project.Justice C Jayachandran delivered the judgment in a writ petition filed by residents of Kurampala Village in Pathanamthitta, opposing a large-scale excavation of ordinary earth from 'Erichurili Mala' by Respondent 7, Viswasamudra Engineering Pvt. Ltd., a contractor engaged in six laning of NH-66 from Kottukulangara-Kollam bypass. The District Geologist had issued a quarrying permit, while the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) granted a “No Objection” for exemption from EC for sourcing or borrowing of earth for the construction of the National Highway.The petitioners argued that the exemption was illegal in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Noble M. Paikada v. Union of India [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 252] , which struck down a 2020 amendment to the EIA Notification, 2006, that had exempted extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects from EC requirements.The respondents, however, relied on the clarificatory order dated May 15, 2024, in which the Supreme Court held that work orders issued prior to March 21, 2024 would remain unaffected by the Noble Paikada ruling. Since Respondent 7, was executing a work order issued in 2021, it claimed the benefit of this exemption.The central question was whether a contractor who is executing the work of NHAI, which stands exempted by virtue of the clarificatory Order dated 15.05.2024, can claim the benefit of that Order. The Court noted that such benefit can be claimed, provided the extraction, sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth is exclusively for the linear projects. It further noted "An interpretation otherwise would defeat the precious right secured by the NHAI by seeking a clarification to the judgment and obtaining the same by Order dated 15.05.2024."Justice Jayachandran observed that the permit granted to the 7th respondent, was not explicitly limited to the six-laning project of NH 66, and lacked sufficient oversight to prevent misuse.“There is nothing to indicate that the proposed quarrying in terms of Ext.P2 is confined and limited to the exempted work of the NHAI by virtue of the clarificatory Order dated 15.05.2024. If that be so, the concessionaire/contractor cannot be brought in within the scope of the exemption from the judgment in Noble M. Paikada (supra) as clarified by Order dated 15.05.2024. There is every chance of misuse, if the contractor/concessionaire is also afforded with the benefit of the clarificatory Order in the above-referred state of affairs", the Court noted.The Court further criticised the absence of material from NHAI detailing the exact quantum of earth required for the exempted linear project of the NHAI, stating that without such clarity, exemption could not be presumed.“This Court is at a loss to find that no material, or for that matter even a counter, has been placed on record by the 3rd respondent/NHAI in the instant Writ Petition, despite the Writ Petition having been filed in the year 2023. Thus, there is absolutely no guarantee that the quarrying activity to be undertaken by the 7th respondent by virtue of Ext.P2 permit is confined only to the requirements of the NHAI for the exempted work.” the Court noted.Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and declared the quarrying permit illegal and directed the District Geologist, District Disaster Management Authority and Pandalam Municipality to ensure no further excavation takes place at Eruchurili Mala under the impugned permit. Case Title - Bhargavan Pillai and Ors. v District Geologist and Ors. Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 517Case No - WP(C) 20083/ 2023Counsel for Petitioners - P M Rafeek, U Nidhin, Gia Mathai Kandathil, Sara JohnCounsel for Respondents - Lejo Joseph Geroge, K R Arun Krishnan, E C Kuriakose, S Sreekumar (Sr.), Seepa K Radhakrishnan, Sanal C S, Vishak K V, Devishri R, M P Sreekrishnan, T S Maya, B G Bidan ChandranClick Here To Read/ Download Judgment

For EC Exemption, NHAI Contractor Must Show Work Is Exclusively For Linear Project Based On Pre-2024 Contract: Kerala High Court

Anamika MJ

Tags