Saji Sebastian vs State Level Environment Impact ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 10209 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023/30TH BHADRA, 1945
                    RP NO. 962 OF 2023
    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 25388/2023 OF
                   HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:


         SAJI SEBASTIAN,
         AGED 48 YEARS,
         S/o.M.D.DEVASSY,
         MADECKAL HOUSE,
         KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O,
         ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683562

         BY ADV PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
RESPONDENTS:


    1    STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
         ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA)KERALA,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,
         4TH FLOOR,KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
    2    STATE LEVEL EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
         4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL
         COMPLEX,THIRUVANANTHAPURM, PIN - 695001

         SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R1 &
         R2.

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 R.P. No.962/2023
                                    :2:




                           N. NAGARESH, J.
              ---------------------------------------------------
                        R.P. No.962 of 2023
                                 in
                      W.P.(C) No.25388 of 2023
              ---------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 21st day of September, 2023


                                  ORDER

The review petition has been filed pointing out that

the built structure within 50 Metres from the boundary of the

quarrying area was to be used only as Site Office, Mess Hall,

Store Room and the Crusher Unit. However, in the operative

portion in paragraph 6(i) of the judgment in the writ petition, this

Court directed the writ petitioner to file an affidavit before the 1 st

respondent undertaking that the building will be used only as

Site Office and will not be used for residential purpose during

the Project Life.

2. The petitioner states that the structure will have to be

used as Site Office, Mess Hall, Store Room and the Crusher

Unit, which unit is also situated within the 50 Metres boundary. R.P. No.962/2023

3. I have heard the learned counsel representing the

review petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel

representing the respondents.

4. From Ext.P16 representation, it is evident that the

petitioner has been using the existing structure for the purpose

of Site Office, Mess Hall, Store Room and the Crusher Unit.

Therefore, it will be only just and proper that the direction given

in paragraph 6(i) of the judgment dated 03.08.2023 in W.P.(C)

No.25388 of 2023 is modified as below.

6(i) The petitioner is directed to file an affidavit before

the 1st respondent undertaking that the building will be used

only as Site Office, Mess Hall, Store Room and the Crusher

Unit and will not be used for residential purpose during the

Project Life.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE sss