Kerala High Court
M/S.Dragonstone Realty Pvt Ltd vs State Environment Impact Assessment ... on 15 October, 2024
2024:KER:76151
W.P(C) No.27000/2023 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 23RD ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 27000 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
1 M/S.DRAGONSTONE REALTY PVT LTD.,
THE ATOMIC, TECHNOPARK MAIN GATE, KAZHAKOOTAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695582
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, MR. ANIL
KUMAR
2 MR.R.ANIL KUMAR,
AGED 59 YEARS
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, DRAGONSTONE REALTY PVT. LTD.,
T C 12/2417 (1), KINAVOOR LANE, MUTTADA PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695025
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.)
SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
SRI.S.SREEDEV
SRI.RONY JOSE
SRI.LEO LUKOSE
SRI.KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY
SRI.DERICK MATHAI SAJI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY,
KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, THAMPANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN.
2 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT &
FORESTS & CLIMATE CHANGE, JOR BAGH ROAD, ALI GANJ,
LODHI COLONY, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003
2024:KER:76151
W.P(C) No.27000/2023 2
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 WINTERFELL REALTY PVT. LTD. [DELETED],
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, CARDINAL CLEEMIS
CENTRE FOR INNOVATIONS, TC NO. 11/2402-3, MAR IVANOS,
VIDYA NAGAR,NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695015
5 DORNE REALTY PVT. LTD. [DELETED],
THE ATOMIC, TECHNOPARK MAIN GATE, KAZHAKOOTAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695582
[RESPONDENT NO.4 & RESPONDENT NO.5 ARE DELETED AS PER
ORDER DATED 07.11.2023 IN I.A.1/2023 IN
WP(C)27000/2023].
6 M/S. TECHNOPARK,
PARK CENTRE, TECHNOPARK CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PIN -
695581
7 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KUDAPANNAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695043
8 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
1ST FLOOR, COLLECTORATE, KUDAPANAKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043
9 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, JALAVINJANABHAVAN, SAMITHY
NAGAR, AMBALAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695044
10 THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, CENTRAL STADIUM, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
11 THOMAS LAWRENCE,
GV 79, DIVISIONAL OFFICE ROAD, NEAR PMG JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2024:KER:76151
W.P(C) No.27000/2023 3
BY ADVS.
SRI. M.P.SREEKRISHNAN,SC FOR SEIAA
SMT.K.V.RASHMI, SC FOR TECHNOPARK
SMT.AYSHA ABRAHAM
SRI.S.KANNAN, SENIOR G.P.
SRI K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
SRI. YASWANTH SHENOY, FOR R11
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.08.2024, THE COURT ON 15.10.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:76151
W.P(C) No.27000/2023 4
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
...........................................................
W.P(C) No.27000 of 2023
.............................................................
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2024
JUDGMENT
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the judgment in Appeal No.54/2021 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai, allowing the application preferred by respondent No.11 herein questioning the Environmental Clearance dated 06.03.2021 issued in favour of the writ petitioners by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred to as "SEIAA" for short),.
2. The NGT, in its impugned judgment, noted that the project proponent had initially submitted an application on 21.04.2018 for the third phase of the project, covering a built-up area (BUA) of 133,491 sq.m. EC was granted for this under Item 8(a) of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) on 07.06.2019. Subsequently, within six months, another application for the expansion of Phase-3 under Item 8(b) was filed, covering a total BUA of 271,164.4 sq.m. This second application included the area already pending consideration from the first 2024:KER:76151 W.P(C) No.27000/2023 5 application. However, the NGT noted that although SEIAA and the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) were constituted on 19.09.2018, the project was not transferred to them from the MoEF&CC. Instead, the MoEF&CC went ahead and granted the EC for Phase-3, despite SEIAA being in existence.
3. The NGT also found that the project proponent had submitted an additional application to SEIAA on 01.10.2018 for expanding Phase-3 to 249,786 sq.m, which was subsequently withdrawn. A new application was made on 28.12.2018 for a BUA of 271,164.4 sq.m under Item 8(b). Although these applications claimed that EC had already been granted for 133,491 sq.m, the NGT observed that the MoEF&CC had only granted EC on 07.06.2019, and the recommendation from SEAC did not constitute an actual sanction. The Tribunal noted that despite knowing that the earlier application from 21.04.2018 was pending with MoEF&CC, SEIAA-Kerala neither forwarded the new applications to the MoEF&CC nor requested a transfer of pending proposals. As a result, the project was fragmented into two: the main project (133,491 sq.m) and the expansion project (137,673.4 sq.m). MoEF&CC granted EC for the main project under Item 8(a) based on a submission of Form I, Form IA, and a conceptual plan, without a full EIA. On the other hand, SEIAA granted EC for the expansion under Item 8(b) while the main project was still under consideration. This division of the project was seen as improper by the NGT.
4. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Anil V. Tharthare & Ors. [(2020) 2 SCC 66], which held that 2024:KER:76151 W.P(C) No.27000/2023 6 when seeking amendments or expansions for a project, the proponent must submit the entire project for assessment and not attempt to divide it into parts. The Tribunal also noticed its earlier decision in V. Ramasubbu v. Union of India & Ors., Original Application No. 149/2016, reiterating that splitting projects to avoid proper assessment violates the EIA Notification. The NGT found that SEIAA's claim of having examined the environmental impact of the entire project (271,164.4 sq.m) was unsustainable. The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environment Management Plan (EMP) were not submitted to SEIAA until 20.03.2020, while MoEF&CC had already granted EC for 133,491 sq.m on 07.06.2019 without a full EIA. This sequence of events confirmed that the project had not been subject to a holistic EIA, violating the EIA Notification's requirements. The NGT further ruled that SEIAA's contention that EC was granted for the expansion was flawed. Generally, the expansion of a project is only permissible once the main project or earlier phases have been completed. In this case, the main project had not even been sanctioned when the expansion application was filed. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the impugned EC for the expansion, stating that it was contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment in Keystone (supra).
5. In addition to setting aside the EC, the NGT imposed a penalty of ₹15 crores on the project proponent for failing to submit the entire Phase-3 project for a comprehensive review and for improperly splitting it. This penalty was to be paid to the Integrated Regional Office of MoEF&CC within three months and utilised for wetland improvements in the district. Moreover, the project proponent was directed 2024:KER:76151 W.P(C) No.27000/2023 7 not to undertake further work on the expansion project without obtaining a fresh EC. The NGT also directed SEIAA-Kerala to reassess the project, ensuring that a cumulative impact study for the entire Phase 3 (covering 271,164.4 sq.m) was conducted. This study was required to identify any environmental mitigation measures necessary for the completed parts of Phase 3 to prevent adverse environmental impacts. SEIAA was also ordered to investigate and remediate any potential harm caused by the completed construction.
6. Heard Sri. Joseph Kodiyanthara, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Adv.Enoch David Simon Joel for the petitioners, Sri.K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, the learned Advocate General instructed by Sri. S. Kannan, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. M.P. Sreekrishnan, the learned Standing Counsel for SEIAA, Smt. K.V. Rashmi, the learned Standing Counsel for the Technopark and Sri. Yashwant Shenoy, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.11. and perused the records.
7. The petitioner/proponent alone challenged Ext.P1 judgment of the Tribunal. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Joseph Kodiyanthara contended that the Tribunal had completely misread the judgment of the Supreme Court in Keystone (supra) and that the SEIAA had complied with Ext.P2 judgment of the Supreme Court. He submits that there was an environmental clearance for the entire project and that the decision in Keystone (supra) had no application with the facts on hand. It is also contended that the judgment impugned is patently illegal, erroneous and violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the 2024:KER:76151 W.P(C) No.27000/2023 8 Constitution of India and that the levy of penalty was totally without jurisdiction. A Contention is also raised that respondent No.11, who moved the Tribunal, had no locus standi or personal grievance. The Tribunal also fell into error by misinterpreting the provisions of EIA Notification 2006, going beyond its jurisdiction. It is also stated that since the judgment of the Tribunal was against the statutory provisions, the notification and the evidence on record, the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. The SEIAA, MoEF&CC, the State of Kerala, Technopark, and the 11th respondent have filed counter affidavits.
9. The State of Kerala and SEIAA supported the contentions of the writ petitioners.
10. The learned Advocate General Sri. Gopalakrishna Kurup argues that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere with the orders of the Tribunal if the same is without jurisdiction or on any ground mentioned in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks Mumbai and others [(1998) 8 SCC 1] as referred to in the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association and Another v. Union of India and Another [2022 SCC Online SC 639].
11. On the other hand, respondent No.11, represented by Advocate Sri. Yashwant Shenoy argued that the Tribunal's order was well within the law and followed established precedents. He argued that the petitioners had an alternate and 2024:KER:76151 W.P(C) No.27000/2023 9 efficacious remedy under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court. He argued that the High Court should not entertain the writ petition, as it is a settled principle that when a statutory appeal mechanism exists, it should be pursued first before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. Sri. Shenoy further contended that the environment must be protected at all costs and cited the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Telangana v. Mohd Abdul Qasim (Died) Per Lrs. [AIR 2024 SC 2466] to argue that courts have a constitutional duty to protect the environment, applying the principle of parens patriae. He referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Anil V. Tharthare & Ors. [(2020) 2 SCC 66], emphasizing that the Supreme Court had prohibited splitting projects for environmental clearance purposes and argued that the petitioners were trying to circumvent this prohibition by filing separate applications for the main and expansion projects, which the NGT had rightly identified as illegal. It is urged that though the NGT passed a judgment levying a penalty, it is clear from the directions given that it is as compensation and not as a penalty under Section 26 for which it had the powers under the Act. It is also stated that the area question was predominantly paddy land/wetland as found by the ground-level officers in Exts.R11(e), R11(f), R11(h), R11(i), R11(j), R11(k), R11(i) and R11(m) and therefore, for enabling a commercial enterprise, the water bodies should not be allowed to be filled up or illegally reclaimed contrary to the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act and Rules.
2024:KER:76151 W.P(C) No.27000/2023 10
12. In the instant case, it cannot be disputed that an appeal is provided under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, subject to the condition stated therein.
13. The pivotal case in this context is of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261], where a Seven-Judge Bench held that Section 24 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, which excluded judicial review by any court except the Supreme Court under Article 136, was unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are part of the basic structure and cannot be taken away even by legislation. Thus, judicial review by the High Courts remains available, even when statutory remedies exist. The Constitution bench in Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr [(2019) 20 SCC 143], further elaborated on the circumstances in which High Courts can interfere with decisions of Tribunals under Article 226 reiterating that the power of superintendence under Article 227 is supervisory, and not appellate. The High Court should exercise its jurisdiction sparingly, to ensure that tribunals act within their jurisdiction. The High Court does not interfere unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice, patent error of law, or violation of natural justice. Regarding decisions of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association and Another v. Union of India [2022 SCC Online SC 639] reaffirmed that orders of the NGT fall within the purview of the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. This case clarified that the High Court's supervisory powers 2024:KER:76151 W.P(C) No.27000/2023 11 remain intact even with the existence of an alternative remedy through statutory appeal. The Supreme Court in M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. [(2022) 16 SCC 428] reiterated that where statutes create specific remedies, those remedies should be pursued before resorting to constitutional remedies.
14. The general legal position that emerges from these decisions is that the existence of a statutory appeal, even to the Supreme Court, does not bar the discretionary power of High Courts to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and
227. However, the exercise of this power should be exceptional, reserved for cases of jurisdictional error or grave injustice with a caveat that the High Court must not act as an appellate body to correct errors of fact or re-evaluate evidence by converting the writ jurisdiction of the High Court into an alternative appellate forum, especially when a statutory appeal is provided directly to the Supreme Court by the Act.
15. The power to issue writs under Article 226 is broad, but it must be exercised with restraint, especially when statutory remedies exist, as in the present case under the NGT Act. Although no strict limitation is imposed on the High Court's power under Article 226, it is prudent to direct the parties to exhaust alternative remedies before approaching the High Court. It is one thing to say that the High Court has power to exercise jurisdiction over the orders of the Tribunal notwithstanding the existence of an appellate remedy, but, it is totally another to decide when to exercise that power. The power to issue prerogative writs under 2024:KER:76151 W.P(C) No.27000/2023 12 Article 226 is plenary in nature. Any limitation on the exercise of such power must be traceable in the Constitution itself like the bar to interference by courts mentioned in the Constitution. Article 226 does not, in terms, impose any limitation or restraint on the exercise of power to issue writs which turns on entertainability and not maintainability.
16. Striking a different note, the Supreme Court in Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory [(2012) 8 SCC 524] underscored that High Courts should refrain from entertaining writ petitions when statutory appeals to higher courts exist. Allowing parties to bypass the direct appeal provided to the Supreme Court by entertaining writ petitions disrupts the legislative framework. While the exercise of writ jurisdiction is not entirely prohibited, it is essential for the High Courts to consider the legislative intent and the available statutory remedies before interfering in writ jurisdiction.
17. Similarly, in General Manager Electrical Rengali Hydro Electric Project Orissa and Ors. v. Sri Giridhari Sahu and Ors. [(2019) 10 SCC 695] , the Supreme Court reiterated that writs of certiorari are only appropriate to correct jurisdictional errors. The Court does not act as an appellate authority to re-assess facts or evidence unless there is a clear excess of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice. In this case, it was found that once a Tribunal is shown to have jurisdiction over a matter, its findings of fact cannot be reviewed unless they are completely unsupported by evidence. Certiorari is a supervisory, not an appellate, remedy. This 2024:KER:76151 W.P(C) No.27000/2023 13 principle, articulated in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan [(1964) AIR SC 477], has been consistently followed by the courts.
18. The NGT Act is designed for the swift and effective resolution of environmental disputes. Its purpose is to ensure the protection and conservation of the environment through timely and expert decision-making. The Tribunal, composed of both judicial and environmental experts, is well-equipped to handle complex environmental cases, balancing legal and technical considerations and adhering to the "Precautionary Principle" shifting the burden of proof to those proposing projects which may affect the environment and bearing in mind that Courts must ensure environmental preservation, in line with Articles 48A, 51A, 21, 14, and 19 of the Constitution.
Considering the legal principles aforementioned and taking note of the fact that the petitioners have an alternate, effective remedy under the NGT Act, as the legislature has provided for a statutory appeal to a higher court, it cannot be a proper exercise of jurisdiction to permit the parties to bypass the statutory appeal and entertain a writ petition in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is equally obvious that while exercising power under Article 226, the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. The above decisions and principles were noticed only for finding out whether in the instant case, interference is warranted against the order of the Tribunal. The legal principles in the decisions noticed above cannot be 2024:KER:76151 W.P(C) No.27000/2023 14 construed to enlarge the jurisdiction of this Court to enable or exercise appellate powers disregarding the legislative intent or the policy of law spelt out in the Act. Therefore, without any expression on the merits/legality of the impugned judgment and leaving all the contentions of the writ petitioners open, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE okb/ 2024:KER:76151 W.P(C) No.27000/2023 15 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27000/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.5.2023 IN APPEAL NO.54/2021(SZ) ON THE FILES OF THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, SOUTHERN ZONE.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ANIL V. THARTHARE AND ORS., REPORTED IN (2020) 2 SCC 66.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 23.10.2017 BEARING NO. F. NO. J.11013/41/2006- IA.III ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2/MOEF&CC.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE 32ND MEETING DATED 04.07.2018 OF THE EAC OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EC ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT FOR B.U.A 1,33,491 SQM. ON
07.06.2019.
Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RECONSTITUTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 1/ SEIAA
W.E.F. 19.09.2018.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF A SKETCH OF THE PROJECT LAND
SHOWING DRAIN ALIGNMENT AND HOW THE BUILDINGS
ARE PLACED IN THE 9.73 ACRES, ALONG WITH A
PICTURES SHOWING THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE
LAND.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF THE TOR
APPLICATION DATED 28.12.2018 FOR THE ENTIRE
PROJECT INCLUDING THE CUMULATIVE BUA OF
2,71,164.4 SQM..
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE TABLE SHOWING THE PROCESS AND
STEPS INVOLVED AS PER EIA NOTIFICATION 2006 IN
THE GRANT OF AN EC FOR A BUA ABOVE 20,000 SQM
AND LESSER THAN 150,000 SQM AND FOR A BUA
GREATER THAN 1,50,000 SQ.M.
2024:KER:76151
W.P(C) No.27000/2023 16
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
CLEARANCE DATED 18.03.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE
1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE
PRESENTATION MADE TO THE RESPONDENT NO.
1/SEIAA.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE EC DATED 06.03.2021 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2018 PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE NGT IN O.A NO. 875/2018.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2019 IN OA
NO.71/2019.
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.7.2019 IN OA
NO.71/2019.
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2019 IN OA
NO.71/2019.
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 06.11.2019 IN E.A NO.
39/19.
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.10.2020 IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2535/2020 ON THE FILES OF THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.
Exhibit 19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
ELECTRONICS & IT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA
DATED 19.11.2021.
Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED
23.07.2021, WITHOUT EXHIBITS, IN APPEAL
NO.54/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE NGT, SOUTHERN
ZONE.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit-R6(A) COPY OF GOOGLE IMAGES SHOWING THE LIE OF THE
LAND IN THE YEAR 2003,2006,2012 AND 2017
EXHIBIT R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE SEIAA
2024:KER:76151
W.P(C) No.27000/2023 17
BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL IN EXHIBIT P20.
Exhibit R1(a3) A TRUE COPY OF THE PRESENTATION FROM PAGES
101-163
Exhibit R1(a1) A TRUE COPY OF THE PRESENTATION FROM PAGES 1-
50.
Exhibit R1(a2) A TRUE COPY OF THE PRESENTATION FROM PAGES 51-
100
Exhibit R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE OM DATED 23.10.2017 ISSUED
BY MOEF CC
Exhibit R2(a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)
NOTIFICATION NUMBER S.O. 1533 E DATED 14TH
SEPTEMBER 2006
Exhibit R2(b) TRUE COPY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE F.NO. 21-
48/2018-IA-III DATED 07.06.2019
Exhibit R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
MINUTES OF 32ND MEETING OF EXPERT APPRAISAL
COMMITTEE DATED 2-4 JULY -2018
Exhibit R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.J.11013/41/2006-IA.III
DATED 23.10.2017
Exhibit R2(e) TRUE COPY OF INSPECTION REPORT OF M/S
DRAGONSTONE REALTY PVT LTD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA Exhibit R2(f) TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.S.O637(E) DATED 28.02.2014 Exhibit R11(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE NEWSPAPER REPORTS DATED 15.10.2023 AND 17.10.2023 Exhibit R11(b) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 98TH MEETING OF THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY ( SEIAA) KERALA, HELD ON 18TH AND 19TH OCTOBER 2019 IN THE CONFERENCE HALL OF STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY KERALA 2024:KER:76151 W.P(C) No.27000/2023 18 Exhibit R11(c) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. 533/A2/2021/SEIAA DATED 04.03.2021 SENT BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY TO SUSHIL THOMAS Exhibit R11(d) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO, ETPK/LA/2017-18/1436 DATED 26.12.2017 SENT BY THE CEO OF TECHNOPARK TO THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit R11(e) True copy of letter No. KBA 33/2017.18 dated 03.01.2018 sent by the Agricultural Officer, Attipra to the Local Level Monitoring Committee, Thiruvananthapuram Corporation Exhibit R11(f) True copy of the State Level Monitoring Committee Report dated 05.01.2018 Exhibit R11(g) True copy of the letter No. ETPK/LA/2017- 18/1499 dated 06.01.2018 sent by the CEO, Technopark, Trivandrum to the IT Secretary, Government of Kerala dated 06.01.2018 Exhibit R11(h) True copy of the letter dated 10.05.2018 sent from the Sub Collector to the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram Exhibit R11(i) True copy of the report No. KBA 33/2018-19 dated 24.09.2018 submitted by the Agricultural Officer, Attipra to the Sub Collector, Thiruvananthapuram Exhibit R11(j) A true copy of the response No. REV-
P1/402/2019-REV to the RTI by the Revenue Department dated 29.11.2019 Exhibit R11(k) True copy of the extract of the draft list of SWAK, February 2020 Exhibit R11(l) True copy of File No, RDOTVM/4076/2021-1 of the proceedings dated 04.08.2021 of the Sub Collector, Thiruvananthapuram Exhibit R11(m) True copy of the minutes of the 92nd meeting of SEAC, Kerala, held on 22nd January 2019 at the Conference Hall, State Environment Impact 2024:KER:76151 W.P(C) No.27000/2023 19 Assessment Authority, Thiruvananthapuram Exhibit R11(n) True copy of the relevant pages of the application submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent dated 24.10.2017 Exhibit R11(o) True copy of the minutes of the 98th meeting of the SEAC, Kerala held on 03.06.2019