In a significant development for a major infrastructure project in Kerala, the High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought to challenge the environmental clearance granted for the construction of a crucial tunnel road connecting Kozhikode and Wayanad districts.
Court Upholds Clearance, Finds No Procedural Flaws
The bench comprising Justices A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian delivered the verdict, rejecting the plea filed by the environmental group Wayanad Prakrithi Samrakshana Samithy. The court firmly held that there was no procedural lapse on the part of the statutory authorities in granting the environmental clearance for the project.
The ambitious project involves building a Twin Tube Unidirectional Tunnel Road with four-lane approaches. It is designed to provide direct connectivity between Anakkampoyil in Kozhikode district and Meppadi in Wayanad. The clearance for this project was granted by the Union government.
Petitioners' Concerns and Court's Scrutiny
The petitioners had raised several serious objections against the project's approval. They argued that the proposed tunnel's location near Mundakkai and Chooralmala villages was a major concern, as these areas were among the worst affected during the devastating 2024 landslide. They contended that the authorities granted the clearance without due application of mind to these environmental risks.
Another key argument was regarding the credentials of the agencies involved in the environmental impact assessment (EIA). The petitioners pointed out that the Public Works Department (PWD) had nominated Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd (KRCL) as a special purpose vehicle (SPV) to implement the project. KRCL, in turn, engaged KITCO Ltd to conduct the crucial EIA study. The PIL claimed that neither entity possessed the necessary accreditation to conduct an EIA for a project of this nature.
High Court's Reasoning and Verdict
The High Court, however, found these arguments insufficient. The bench noted that the petitioners failed to produce any material evidence to demonstrate that KRCL or KITCO lacked the scientific expertise required for the EIA or project implementation. After hearing all stakeholders, the court concluded it could not find fault in the procedure followed by the authorities.
Importantly, the court clarified the limits of its jurisdiction. It stated that it does not have the authority to question the scientific wisdom of expert bodies. The bench made it clear that any dispute specifically related to the scientific aspects of the environmental clearance must be adjudicated before the specialized National Green Tribunal (NGT).
Policy Decisions Rest With Executive, Says Court
In its ruling, the court emphasized the principle of separation of powers. It observed that policy decisions in such developmental matters must be taken by the relevant executive authorities. Judicial interference, the court stated, is only warranted if a policy is found to be capricious, unreasonable, arbitrary, or in violation of constitutional or statutory mandates—a threshold not met in this case.
Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed. However, the dismissal was without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners, meaning they retain the option to approach the NGT if they wish to pursue the matter further on scientific grounds.
The court concluded with an expectation directed at the state government. It expressed hope that the state executive would remain mindful of its public accountability and would diligently monitor the project at every stage of its execution to ensure all safeguards are followed.
