JUDGMENT : Anu Sivaraman, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers. i. To call for the records leading to Ext. P12 and P14 and to quash them by issuing a writ of certiorari. ii. To issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ order or direction, declaring that the 1st and 2nd respondents have no jurisdiction to consider and pass orders on the application of the 5th respondent after 15.1.2016 as the 2nd respondent has not made any recommendation by the time. iii. To issue a writ of mandamus declaring that no EC shall be issued in the State of Kerala in respect of land less than 5 hectares unless a special report of the authority concerned for such grant is invited and specific reason for such grant are stated in specific terms, as mandated in the binding direction in NGT in the case of Jitendra Sing in O.A. (O.A. No. 495/2015). iv. To direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to ensure that the 5th respondent is not conducting any mining activity, on the strength of Ext. P12 EC and other concessions issued on its strength." Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. 2. The challenge against the environmental clearance granted to the quarries operated by the 5th respondent is raised on the ground that no study or assessment on the impact of the proposed activity on the environment has been made before the clearance has been granted. The capacity and sustainability of the area to bear the brunt of further mining was completely ignored and the conditions contained in the clearance are completely unworkable and impossible of compliance. It is further contended that there was no proper quorum for the meeting of the 2nd respondent which considered the issue. It is stated that there were 8 active quarries within 500 metres from one another and by the decision reported in Paristhithy Samrakshana Samithy v. State of Kerala ( 2015 (4) KLT 278 ) the functioning of seven quarries were interdicted by the Division Bench. It is stated that there were 8 active quarries within 500 metres from one another and by the decision reported in Paristhithy Samrakshana Samithy v. State of Kerala ( 2015 (4) KLT 278 ) the functioning of seven quarries were interdicted by the Division Bench. It is the specific case of the learned counsel for the petitioners that by the amendment of Rule 5 of the Environmental Protection Rules, the power of the State Environmental Appraisal Committee (SEAC for short) and the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA for short) to recommend and grant environmental clearance had been taken away and that the meeting which considered the grant of environmental clearance also did not have proper quorum. It is stated that Exhibit R5(b) minutes of the SEAC would show that the application of the 5th respondent for environmental clearance was not accompanied by site plan, pre-feasibility report or the report of the site visit. It is further contended that all steps for appraisal were taken only after the amendment of Rule 5 to the Environmental Protection Rules and that therefore the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to consider the issue. It is stated that these aspects have not been considered in Exhibits P12 and P14 and they are completely illegal and invalid. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the 5th respondent would contend that the District Level Committee and Authority had been constituted only in 2017 and the recommendation of the SEAC was on 11.8.2016. It is stated that the appraisal of the SEAC was completed on 7.12.2015 as is evident from Exhibit R5(b) and the decision was deferred only for a field inspection. It is stated that going by the original notifications, unless the DEAC and the DEIAA (District Environment Impact Assessment Authority) become fully functional, the SEAC and SEIAA continue to have jurisdiction to consider the issue of environmental clearance. The learned senior counsel relies on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Government of India & Anr. ( (2009) 5 SCC 492 ) to contend that eventhough where the Water Disputes Tribunal had been formed for consideration of disputes, till such tribunal is notified and becomes fully functional, the powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court remained unaffected. ( (2009) 5 SCC 492 ) to contend that eventhough where the Water Disputes Tribunal had been formed for consideration of disputes, till such tribunal is notified and becomes fully functional, the powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court remained unaffected. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court, reported in Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India (2013 (2) KLT 235 (SC)), it is further contended the decision of the SEAC is not justiciable on its merits under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have considered the contentions advanced. It is not in dispute that the 5th respondent's application for environmental clearance was directed to be considered in accordance with law by this court. Ext R5(a) is the copy of the EIA Notification, 2006. By Ext R5(b) it is clear that the application had been taken up by the SEAC and in the 5th respondent's case, the minutes were as follows:- "Parakkadavu Village, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam District, Kerala, by Sri K.M. Joy (File No. 843/SEIAA/ECI/2805/2015) Project proponent: Sri K.M. Joy Further to the intimation of SEAC, the proponent attended the meeting. The total area proposed for EC is 2.4169 ha which is patta land. The proponent has the quarry was working for the last 8 years with permit and presently it is not working from February 2015 onwards. The proponent also informed that no forest land is near to the quarry area. As per the certificate issued by the Geologist there are more than 8 quarries within 500m radius of the proposed area. Distance of the mining area from the nearest human settlement is 100m West. Ultimate depth of mining proposed is 72m MSL. The committee decided to defer the item for field visit to verify the cluster situation if any, since there are more than 8 quarries within 500m radius." 5. It is stated that thereafter, though the SEAC met on 29.7.2016, decision of the 5th respondent's case was not taken for want of time. In the 61st meeting of SEAC dated 11.8.2016, the decision to grant environmental clearance was taken and such clearance was granted by Exhibit R5(e) by the 1st respondent, subject to specific conditions. It is stated that when the appraisal process was conducted on 7.12.2015 and formally recorded on 11.8.2016, the DEAC in Ernakulam had not come into existence. In the 61st meeting of SEAC dated 11.8.2016, the decision to grant environmental clearance was taken and such clearance was granted by Exhibit R5(e) by the 1st respondent, subject to specific conditions. It is stated that when the appraisal process was conducted on 7.12.2015 and formally recorded on 11.8.2016, the DEAC in Ernakulam had not come into existence. It is stated that the DEIAA was constituted in Ernakulam district on 18.6.2016 and the DEAC came into existence only in June 2017. The learned counsel for the petitioners immediately contends that Exts. R5(f) and R5(g) are only reconstitution of the committees which were already in existence. The question to be considered is whether on the date of conduct of appraisal and recommendation to grant environmental clearance, the 2nd respondent had the power and jurisdiction to consider the question and to recommend the grant of such clearance. The specific contention of the petitioners is that by Exhibit P7 notification dated 15.3.2016 the power to conduct appraisal and consider the question of grant of clearance had been taken away from the 2nd respondent and invested with DEAC in terms of the said notification. The contention of the 5th respondent that all procedures for appraisal were complete at the time of Exhibit R5(b) proceedings and that only site visit was remaining do not appear to be borne out by the minutes recorded in Exhibit R5(b). As on the date of issuance of Exhibit P7 notification, the 5th respondent's application had only been placed for consideration before the SEAC. The SEAC deferred further proceedings in the matter pending the site visit by Exhibit R5(b). The contention of the 5th respondent that the District Environmental Appraisal Committees and the District Environmental Impact Assessment Authorities were constituted only later and that the power of the 2nd respondent continued unabated till that time also do not appear to be borne by any materials produced in this case. Exhibit P7 notification specifically provides for the constitution of District Level Committees and Authorities. By the vesting of the power to consider the grant of environmental clearance on such district level committees, the power of the 2nd respondent to consider the grant of environmental clearances stood transferred to such district level committees and authorities. The recommendation to grant environmental clearance was admittedly taken by the 2nd respondent only on 11.8.2016. By the vesting of the power to consider the grant of environmental clearance on such district level committees, the power of the 2nd respondent to consider the grant of environmental clearances stood transferred to such district level committees and authorities. The recommendation to grant environmental clearance was admittedly taken by the 2nd respondent only on 11.8.2016. On a consideration of the materials placed on record in this case, I am of the opinion that as on 11.8.2016, the 2nd respondent, whose power to make such recommendation stood transferred to the DEAC by virtue of Exhibit P7, could not have issued a positive recommendation which led to the environmental clearance. In the above view of the matter, the environmental clearance granted to the 5th respondent cannot be sustained. Exts. P12 to P14 proceedings, which did not consider the aspect of jurisdiction are also unsustainable. The impugned orders are therefore stand set aside. The 5th respondent is free to approach the appropriate authority empowered to consider the grant of environmental clearance in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly.