ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT RELATING TO A LEASE GRANTED BY THE MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT FOR SETTING UP A CEMENT UNLOADING AND PACKING TERMINAL IN COCHIN PORT. 3. IT TRANSPIRES THAT EARLIER IN THE YEAR 1994-95, THE PORT TRUST HAD INVITED TENDERS FOR GRANTING LONG-TERM LEASE OF WORK WITH OR WITHOUT BACK-UP AREAS. AT THAT POINT OF TIME, WRIT PETITIONS HAD BEEN FILED IN THE KERALA HIGH COURT ASSAILING THE FEASIBILITY AND LEGALITY OF SUCH PROJECTS CONTENDING INTER ALIA THAT ALLOWING SUCH PROJECTS WOULD DISTURB THE SENSITIVE AQUA ECOSYSTEM OF THE ESTUARINE CIRCULATION, THEREBY ENDANGERING THE MARINE SPECIES AND ALSO IS F CONTRARY TO THE CRZ NOTIFICATIONS. WHILE SUCH WRIT PETITIONS WERE PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, THE MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT COMMUNICATED ITS DECISION TO THE COCHIN PORT TRUST THAT THEY DO NOT CONSIDER IT FEASIBLE TO GRANT LEASE OF THE LAND FOR GOING AHEAD WITH THE PROJECTS AND IN VIEW OF SUCH COMMUNICATION, THE WRIT PETITIONS WERE HELD TO BE INFRUCTUOUS. SUBSEQUENT TO THE DISMISSAL OF THE AFORESAID WRIT PETITIONS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY G OF SURFACE TRANSPORT HAVING PASSED AN ORDER ON 15-10-1998, GRANTING LEASE OF LAND WITHIN THE PORT TRUST AREA, THE APPELLANTS HEREIN BECAME APPREHENSIVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO SANCTION THE PROJECTS CONCERNED IN SPITE OF SEVERAL VIOLATIONS OF LAW AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AND THEN APPROACHED THE HIGH COURT ASSAILING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT DATED 15-10-1998. 4. BEFORE THE HIGH COURT APART FROM CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-10-1998, ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS SEVERAL OTHER CONTENTIONS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN RAISED IN RELATION TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS AN INDUSTRY; WHETHER SUCH PROJECT WOULD VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF THE CRZ ZONES AND/OR WHETHER SUCH PROJECTS ARE CONTRARY TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. ON CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVITS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE UNION OF INDIA AS WELL AS THE LESSEES IN WHOSE FAVOUR THE LAND HAS BEEN LEASED OUT UNDER THE ORDER DATED 15-10-1998, THE HIGH COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAID ORDER PASSED BY THE MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT BASED ON THE REPORT OF ITS TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL WINGS. HAVING SAID SO, THE COURT ALSO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ORDER OBLIGES THE LESSEE TO GET STATUTORY CLEARANCE AS REQUIRED BY LAWS, WHICH WOULD ALLAY THE APPREHENSION ALLEGED BY THE PETITIONER (THE PRESENT APPELLANT). PERHAPS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER ON THE PART OF THE HIGH COURT TO CLOSE THE CHAPTER THERE. BUT, SINCE ARGUMENTS HAD BEEN ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PRESENT APPELLANTS BEFORE THE COURT ON SEVERAL OTHER ISSUES, THE COURT THOUGHT IT FIT TO EXAMINE AND ANSWER THOSE ISSUES. THE PRESENT APPELLANT IS AGGRIEVED BY THE CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT ON THOSE ISSUES WHICH HAVE BEEN ANSWERED BY THE HIGH COURT. 5. MR VAIDYANATHAN, THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE AFORESAID CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS WOULD MAKE THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ALL OTHER AUTHORITIES BOUND BY THOSE OBSERVATIONS AND, THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE A FAIT ACCOMPLI AND THE PROJECTS ARE BOUND TO BE SANCTIONED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER OR NOT THEY POLLUTE THE ENVIRONMENT AND VIOLATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. THE LEARNED SOLICITOR GENERAL APPEARING FOR THE PORT TRUST, LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL APPEARING FOR THE UNION OF INDIA, MR SHANTI BHUSHAN, THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR AMBUJA CEMENTS AND MR DAVE, THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR L&T, VEHEMENTLY CONTEND THAT ALL THE SUBSEQUENT OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT ARE THE OUTCOME OF THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE WRIT PETITIONERS (THE PRESENT APPELLANTS) AND BY NO MEANS, THOSE OBSERVATIONS WOULD BIND THE HANDS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS ALL OTHER AUTHORITIES WHICH ARE UNDER LAW REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF SUCH PROJECTS AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS THEREON. ACCORDING TO THEM, EVEN THE LESSEES THEMSELVES HAD GIVEN UNDERTAKINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT TO THAT EFFECT AND THE COURT ALSO SUBSEQUENTLY RECORDS THAT THE APPREHENSIONS OF THE APPELLANTS ARE WHOLLY UNFOUNDED. IT IS TRUE THAT SUCH UNDERTAKINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE CONCLUSIONS AND THE FINDINGS BEING THAT OF THE HIGH COURT POSSIBLY THE APPREHENSIONS OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE WHOLLY UNFOUNDED. IT IS TRUE THAT SUCH UNDERTAKINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE CONCLUSIONS AND THE FINDINGS BEING THAT OF THE HIGH COURT POSSIBLY THE APPREHENSIONS OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE WHOLLY UNFOUNDED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHILE UPHOLDING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT SO FAR AS THE LEGALITY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-10-1998 PASSED BY THE MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT IS CONCERNED, WE OBSERVE THAT ALL OTHER SUBSEQUENT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE HIGH COURT STARTING FROM PARA 37 ONWARDS OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT WILL NOT HAVE ANY BINDING EFFECT ON ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND/OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITIES WHO ARE DUTY BOUND TO CONSIDER THE PROJECTS AND SANCTION SUCH PROJECTS ONLY IF THEY CONFORM TO ALL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS. 6. NEEDLESS TO MENTION, IN VIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 15-10-1998 HAVING BEEN HELD TO BE VALID, THE LEASES GRANTED PURSUANT TO THE SAME WOULD ALSO REMAIN VALID. 7. THESE APPEALS STAND DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY.