JUDGMENT : The universally accepted and endorsed principles and doctrines of environmental protection are not a mere claptrap, or a matter of mere verbal expression; but are, in fact, an inviolable component of social engineering, with an imperative requirement for it to be enforced and implemented to its fullest warrant, in intent and spirit. 2. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short 'the EP Act') begins stating its unexpendable tenet, that it is intended to provide for the protection and improvement of the environment; and that it is imbued by the decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on Human Environment, held at Stockholm in June, 1972, to which India is a signatory. 3. The world is rapidly changing, with the behaviour and designs of nature increasingly becoming difficult for humans to comprehend or to plan. Laws have generally been anthropocentric; but it is now increasingly recognised that it has to pave for “Earth Jurisprudence” or “Greater Jurisprudence”. The essential balance between the various components, which includes humans as merely one of it, is something that is now absolutely essential and unavoidable — lest it befall even the deracination of our race. Any developmental activity has to be accepted as being subservient to the larger interest of the survival of the planet; with the thought that this generation holds the treasures of nature for the next one. 4. This Court has thought it essential to start this judgment with the afore exordium because, among the facts presented in these cases, is virtually conceded that, while the statutory Regulators have acted, many of the essential attributes of the imperative Regulatory scheme have been either violated or not complied with — either inadvertently or otherwise. 5. First, a backdrop of the essential facts. 6. The controversy in these cases revolves around a large construction made by Calicut Landmark Builders and Developers of India Private Limited (for short, “Project Proponent”). It discerns from the pleadings and materials on record that the “Project Proponent” obtained a statutory Environmental Clearance (EC), dated 12.03.2020, from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and was continuing with the construction, when Sri.Shaji A.K., who is stated to be a committed environmental conservationist, filed Appeal No.3/2019 before the National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone) (for short, 'NGT') on 28.12.2021. He singularly alleged that the “EC” was illegal, producing it as Annexure A1; with an adscititious plea for a declaration that the “Project Proponent” did not obtain any right to obtain ex post facto Environmental Clearance in violation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (for short 'EIA Notification'). 7. It was also pleaded and argued by him that the Administrator of the 'SEIAA' had no authority to issue the 'Environmental Clearance' pointing out that it was so done; thus finally requesting that the “Project Proponent” be declared to be bound by the “Polluter Pays Principle” and resultantly ordered to pay Environmental Compensation for damage and pollution, to be assessed by the said Tribunal. 8. Pertinently, even though Sri.Shaji filed his appeal before the ‘NGT’ on 28.12.2021, no interim orders were issued; and his learned counsel – Sri.Harish Vasudevan, concedes that the records do not indicate whether the matter was moved for such purpose. 9. That being so, on 11.09.2023, the 'NGT' issued its final order, allowing the appeal of Sri.Shaji A.K.; thus setting aside the 'Environmental Clearance', and then went on to issue a slew of directions. Since the pivot of case is on the merits of such directions, I deem it necessary to extract the same ut infra, for a full reading: 53. In view of the detailed discussions made above, we I. Set aside the Environmental Clearance dated 12.03.2020 granted by the SEIAA – Kerala II. The SEIAA – Kerala is directed to stop the project with immediate effect and we direct the project proponent to make an application within 2 (Two) months which shall be examined by the SEIAA or MoEF&CC, as the case may be, on merits and as per rules in force. III. When the application is considered, it can be considered only after assessing the damage that might have been caused to the environment due to the construction and also assessing the mitigation /remediation measures that will have to be undertaken prior to consideration of the application. The amount required for remediation and mitigation measures shall be recovered from the Project proponent. In view of Para (52), the environmental compensation to be imposed on the Project Proponent will be considered by the Kerala SPCB appropriately within a period of 3 (Three) months which will be subject to the approval of this Tribunal. IV. The amount required for remediation and mitigation measures shall be recovered from the Project proponent. In view of Para (52), the environmental compensation to be imposed on the Project Proponent will be considered by the Kerala SPCB appropriately within a period of 3 (Three) months which will be subject to the approval of this Tribunal. IV. The environmental compensation shall be paid to the Kerala SPCB for being deposited in an interest bearing account in a Nationalized Bank and the interest shall be utilized for restoration of wetlands and removal of water hyacinths from the major waterways and water bodies of Kerala State and for utilization of the removed water hyacinth for energy generation/ composting or producing a value added product. V. A Committee comprising of the (i) Additional Chief Secretary -Department of Environment -Directorate of Environment and Climate Change (DoECC), (ii) Additional Chief Secretary -Irrigation Department, (iii) Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force)/Chief Conservator (Wetlands), and (iv) Chairman Kerala State Pollution Control Board headed by the Chief Secretary -State of Kerala shall consider the projects received for sanction of funds from the interest income. VI. In view of the gross violations made out, we recommend the Secretary – MoEF&CC to initiate action after due enquiry against all the members of SEIAA who were party to the decision. VII. In case the same members are continuing as members of SEIAA, pending enquiry all the proposals for prior Environmental Clearance may be referred to a new set of members. VIII. The Additional Chief Secretary Department of Environment, Directorate of Environment and Climate Change (DOECC), State of Kerala shall report compliance in 6 (Six) months to this Tribunal. 10. The afore order of the 'NGT' triggered the above litigations before this Court. 11. Among the three writ petitions, which are being considered together and disposed of in this judgment – on account of the analogous nature of the circumstances pleaded and the opposing nature of the reliefs prayed for – W.P.(C).No.30399/2023 has been filed by the “Project Proponent”, challenging the order of the 'NGT'; while W.P.(C).No.35871/2023 has been filed by certain persons who claim to have purchased apartments in the complex constructed by the “Project Proponent” and who are awaiting occupancy certificates from the Local Self Government Institutions. Interestingly, W.P. (C).No.32797/2023 has been filed by the 'SEIAA', being aggrieved by direction Nos. Interestingly, W.P. (C).No.32797/2023 has been filed by the 'SEIAA', being aggrieved by direction Nos. VI – VIII of the order of the 'NGT' afore extracted, but virtually conceding that they had made certain mistakes in issuing the 'Environmental Clearance'; however, arguing that they were not material enough for the 'NGT' to have injuncted them from continuing in such capacity. 12. Sri.Harish Vasudevan – learned counsel for the petitioner before the 'NGT', namely Sri.Shaji A.K., argued that, even going by the documents produced by the petitioners in these cases, particularly, the minutes of the various meetings of the 'SEIAA', the 'Environmental Clearance' issued by it becomes indefensible. He showed me that the application of the “Project Proponent” was considered by the 'SEAC' for the first time in their 89th meeting, dated 04.12.2018, as item No.89.06, when a decision was taken to defer it; followed by its consideration on the 95th meeting, held on 27.03.2019, as item No.95.17, when a field inspection of the site of the proposed construction was ordered. He then showed me from the materials produced by the petitioners themselves that, in the 97th meeting of the 'SEAC' held on 21.05.2019, a decision was taken, as item No.97.76, that action for violation be initiated against the Project Proponent because even before obtaining the 'Environmental Clearance', they had commenced construction of the project. He proceeded to then say that, in the 93rd meeting of the 'SEIAA' dated 30.05.2019, vide item No.93.16, it is recorded to have accepted the recommendations of the 'SEAC', qua the aforesaid violation noticed by them; and consequently, the District Collector and the Corporation of Calicut, was directed to issue a Stop Memo, thus initiating “violation procedure”. 13. Sri.Harish Vasudevan argued that, therefore, in the afore scenario, it was implausible and improbable for the 'SEIAA' to have made any attempt to grant 'Environmental Clearance' to the “Project Proponent”; but that, in their 97th meeting on 24.09.2019, they decided to verify whether the alleged violation was in the “window periods” as mandated by the office Memorandum of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, (MoEF) dated 09.09.2019, and that this is indited as item No.97.24 in the minutes of the said date. He then pointed out that, in the 100th meeting of the 'SEIAA', held on 23.12.2019, a decision was taken to await the afore clarification from the “MoEF”, as item No.100.70; but that everything changed in their 101st meeting on 18.01.2020, where, under item No.101.43, they adopted a volte face and allowed the 'Environmental Clearance' to the “Project Proponent”. 14. Sri.Harish Vasudevan, thereafter, showed me that the 'SEAC', faced with the 'Environmental Clearance', met on 11th and 12th of February 2020 – which was their 110th meeting – and, as item No.110.21, a sub-committee was constituted to monitor the said clearance, leading to further decisions being taken in their 116th meeting on the 2nd and 3rd of December, 2020, to cause a further field inspection, as indited in agenda No.116.09. 15. The learned counsel then predicated that the 'SEAC', in their 119th meeting on 25.02.2021, as item No.119.11, accepted the field inspection report, but thought it fit to impose certain additional conditions and recommended the same to the 'SEIAA'; which the latter Authority then considered in their 108th meeting, on the 22nd and 23rd of March 2021, and which were incorporated in their decision recorded as item No.108.15 . 16. Sri.Harish Vasudevan, in the afore factual scenario, vehemently argued that the grant of 'Environmental Clearance' by the 'SEIAA', without any recommendation having been made for such purpose by the 'SEAC', and in fact, when the observations of the latter – that the “Project Proponent” had commenced the project even before any such clearance had been obtained, thus being exposed to attract penal and violation procedures – having been accepted by them earlier, could have never then proceeded to grant the 'Environmental Clearance'. He added that the 'Environmental Clearance' can, therefore, only be construed to have been issued in blatant disregard to the provisions of the “EIA Notification”, as also the ‘EP Act’ in its totality; and contended that, if the 'SEIAA' is allowed to act in such manner, then it would create situations where it would have unbridled powers to deal with applications as per its whims, rather than under the rigour of law. 17. 17. Sri.Harish Vasudevan, then moved on to his further submissions, by the “Project Proponent” being allowed to construct in such manner, with the 'SEAC' being reduced to a mere spectator, or at the best, a monitoring agency, the deleterious consequences of environmental depredation, pollution, and havoc to nature, have been virtually swept under the carpet; and, therefore, that the 'NGT' was without any error in having issued the impugned order, not only setting aside the 'Environmental Clearance', but castigating the members of the 'SEIAA' – they having admittedly failed in their duties cast upon them by a very important legislation. He thus prayed that these writ petitions be dismissed. 18. Sri.B.G.Bhasker, learned counsel, instructed by Sri.Biju Abraham, appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.30399/2023, refuted the afore submissions of Sri.Harish Vasudevan, pointing out that the impressions gathered by the 'NGT', that his client had commenced construction even before the 'Environmental Clearance' had been obtained, his facile and based on incorrect factual assertions; and clarified that, in fact, what his client did was that, they had initially started a construction based on a building permit issued by the Local Self Government Institution, which was below 20,000 Sq.M., and thus without requirement of any 'Environmental Clearance'; but to then stop it midway after having constructed a mere 508.84 Sq.M., because they wanted to then substitute it with a “Mixed Use Township” project. He submitted that, therefore, when the earlier project commenced by his client had been stopped and given up, nothing stopped them from proposing a new “Mixed Use Township” project, under the provisions of the “EIA Notification”; and that they, therefore, applied – even though it was not necessary, the total proposed area being only 81,589 Sq.M., but in fairness – to approach the 'SEIAA' with a fresh application for 'Environmental Clearance'. He conceded that there was a small mistake in the said application because, even though his client had clearly proposed a new “Mixed Use Township” project, while indicating the serial number as per the “NIA notification”, it was incorrectly shown as 8a' instead of 8b'. He argued that, this is immaterial and irrelevant because, eventually, the 'SEIAA' was to consider whether the proposed “Mixed Use Township” project was viable from the environmental point of view, which they did assess, thus leading to the grant of the 'Environmental Clearance'. 19. He argued that, this is immaterial and irrelevant because, eventually, the 'SEIAA' was to consider whether the proposed “Mixed Use Township” project was viable from the environmental point of view, which they did assess, thus leading to the grant of the 'Environmental Clearance'. 19. Sri.B.G.Bhasker then answered the further contentions of Sri.Harish Vasudevan, saying that the 'SEIAA' did not act incorrectly at all; and that, on the contrary, they approached the application of his client with great caution and rigour because, as it would be seen from the very narration offered by Sri.Harish Vasudevan, it took them several meetings, to finally decide upon the grant of the clearance. He reiterated that, in fact, no 'Environmental Clearance' was necessary for his client to have obtained, when they were proposing a “Mixed Use Township” project, with a total build up area of 81,589 Sq.M. only; but that it was only by way of abundant caution that they did so and in furtherance of their intent not to do anything which is contrary to law or in violation of the applicable Regulations. He thus prayed that W.P. (C).No.30399/2023 be allowed. 20. Sri.Renjith Thamban, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Philip J.Vettikad – appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (C).No.35871/2023, adopted the afore submissions of Sri.B.G.Bhasker; supplementing it, saying that his clients were never made parties before the 'NGT' and were completely kept in the dark, until its impugned Final Order was issued, cancelling the 'Environmental Clearance'. He interestingly added that the cancellation of the 'Environmental Clearance' impacts the “Project Proponent” much lesser, than what it impacts his client because, they are people who have invested their life savings in the apartments therein, to be now told that they cannot use it, or put it to any other productive purpose. The learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that, even assuming without admitting, that the 'SEIAA' had made a mistake in granting the 'Environmental Clearance', the 'NGT' could not have issued any orders to the detriment of his clients, without hearing them and without assessing their version because, as has already been recorded by this Court, the original petitioner – Sri.Shaji A.K., approached it only on 28.12.2021, but to have been granted no interim order; thus virtually allowing the “Project Proponent” to complete the construction by the time it issued its impugned order on 11.09.2023. 21. 21. Sri.Renjith Thamban concluded, explaining that the “Project Proponent” had, in the meanwhile, acted without error, in having obtained approvals from the competent Regulatory Authority, namely the Real Estate Regulatory Authority; and had also made publications in newspapers, which had been relied upon by its clients to make their investments, which now face cataclysm, if the order of the 'NGT' is to stand. He also thus prayed that the impugned order be set aside and W.P.(C).No.35871/2023 be allowed. 22. Pertinently, Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan – learned Standing Counsel for the 'SEIAA', did not challenge the findings of the 'NGT' in the impugned order, but argued that, even if they were found to be true, a drastic direction against his client's members, from continuing in such office; and in further ordering an enquiry into all pending proposals dealt with by them, is too harsh and beyond any proportion. In its crux, the argument of Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan was that his clients may have erred, but that it was too much for the 'NGT' to have mulcted them with the castigation, as has been done in the impugned order. 23. Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, thereafter tried to impress upon that the allegations of the original complainant before the 'NGT', namely Sri.Shaji A.K., that there was large scale environmental depredation on account of the construction, is wholly untenable, because the 'SEIAA' had been very careful in allowing the 'Environmental Clearance', with very specific conditions, including that the 'SEAC' must virtually supervise the construction, through constant inspections, so as to ensure that there was no environmental impact at all. He submitted that this had been done, as evident from the subsequent meetings of the 'SEIAA'; which is further fortified by the fact that the “MoEF” had also issued a “Certified Compliance Report” (CCR) on 20.01.2022, certifying that the “Project Proponent” had complied with all necessary requirements under the 'Environmental Clearance' and that there was no pollution or environmental depredation, even when the stage of construction was at 44%. He thus prayed that the directions VI to VIII in the impugned order be vacated, as against his client and their members. 24. He thus prayed that the directions VI to VIII in the impugned order be vacated, as against his client and their members. 24. Sri.Harish Vasudevan replied to the afore submissions of the various petitioners, saying that, in fact, the 'NGT' has also considered another aspect, namely that there was large scale conversion of paddy lands by the “Project Proponent” without authority and without disclosing the same in the application before the 'SEIAA'; and further that, even going by the 'CCR', the “MoEF” has only found the compliance of the conditions in the 'Environmental Clearance' to be satisfactory. He, however, conceded, to a pointed question from this Court, that his client has not sought for demolition of the buildings already constructed; and then made an alternative plea that, if, in the event this Court is inclined to accept any of the contentions of the petitioners, then the directions of the 'NGT' with respect to the assessment of damage, Environmental Compensation and the proper management of the amounts found by the 'SEIAA' under the head “Corporate Environmental Responsibility”, be maintained and ordered to be effectively implemented. He asserted that, for this purpose, the involvement of the “MoEF” is essential and indispensable; and, therefore, prayed that the further directions of the 'NGT' allowing the said Authority to conduct constant inspections and maintain vigil be confirmed; further praying that, as regards the Environmental Compensation to be so assessed, it be allowed to be done by a competent officer of the “MoEF” itself, rather than by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. 25. The facts being so recorded and the rival submissions at the Bar being noticed, I must say that this Court begins its analysis with a prodding forbearance because, am left with doubt that the views and conclusions of the learned Tribunal are justified to most part; and that any interference from this Court will only be required to modulate its impact. 26. As manifest from the afore narrative, on the fundamental question whether the ‘SEIAA’ had acted in terms of the statutory Scheme, as mandated under the “EIA Notification” -which takes into its ambit the crucial query whether they could have granted an “Environmental Clearance”, without the recommendation of the ‘SEAC’ -this Court certainly is compelled to an opinion that their actions are not beyond question. 27. 27. I say so because, as has already been indited supra, the first of the meetings of the ‘SEIAA’, where the application of the “project proponent” was effectively considered was its 97th one, on 21.05.2019, when it decided to defer it, leading to several other meetings being held thereafter. Interestingly, except in its last meeting, namely the 101st one on 18.01.2020, no decision was ever taken by the ‘SEIAA’ to grant ‘EC’ to the “Project Proponent”. Since I have already recorded the essential facts earlier, I do not propose to restate them, but it is evident that, initially, proceedings for violation were proposed; thereupon progressing to a question whether the notification of the “MoEF” would grant any leverage to the “Project Proponent”; but, when it came to its 101st meeting, a volte face appear to have been adopted by the ‘SEIAA’, taking a decision on that day itself, to grant “EC” to the “Project Proponent”. 28. When one reads the minutes of the 101st meeting of the ‘SEIAA’ dated 18.01.2020, listed as item No.101.43 therein, the change of opinion appears to have been triggered, when the Secretary of the Panchayat concerned was heard, who submitted before them that the earlier construction made by the “Project Proponent” was on the basis of an independent and separate Building Permit; consequently, leading them to an opinion that what the “Project Proponent” has sought was actually an ‘expansion’, and not a new construction. It is on such mentation that the ‘SEIAA’ decided to grant the “EC”; and, as could be seen from the further proceedings, particularly that of the ‘SEAC’, the said Authority met thereafter, on their 116th and 119th meetings, and initially decided to constitute a sub-committee to monitor the “EC” as required therein, leading to a field inspection being conducted; and thus accepting it with certain conditions and placing it before the ‘SEIAA’ for its approval. This is evident from the minutes of the 119th meeting of the ‘SEAC’ dated 25.02.2021; and the factum of it having been placed before the ‘SEIAA’, is available from Ext.P21, which is the minutes of that Authority of its 108th meeting held on 22.03.2021 and 23.03.2021. 29. This is evident from the minutes of the 119th meeting of the ‘SEAC’ dated 25.02.2021; and the factum of it having been placed before the ‘SEIAA’, is available from Ext.P21, which is the minutes of that Authority of its 108th meeting held on 22.03.2021 and 23.03.2021. 29. It is, therefore, perspicuous and luculent -without requirement for further expatiation – that, admittedly, and being expressly conceded by the ‘SEIAA’ themselves in their writ petition, the “EC” was granted to the “Project Proponent” without any recommendation having been obtained from the ‘SEAC’. This court does not think it necessary to say anything further because, none of the parties have any contention to the contrary, that, in every sense, the ‘SEIAA’ violated the applicable “EIA Notification” in having acted in such manner. 30. Of course, I am cognizant of the explanation that has been sought to be impelled by Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan to this, namely, that the original opinion of the ‘SEIAA’ was tempered by the factum of the “Project Proponent” having begun a construction initially and being under the impression that it was done anticipating expansion in future; but that, when the Secretary of the Panchayat made it clear, through valid documents, that the said construction was based on a separate Building Permit and that the “Project Proponent” had constructed only about 584 sq.mts. Thereunder, it was found warranted – perhaps in error – that an “EC” be granted, especially because a specific condition was imposed therein to the effect that the ‘SEAC’ would monitor its conditions scrupulously. 31. Whatever be the explanation that the ‘SEIAA’ may offer with respect to the “EC” granted by them, it is without doubt that it should not have been normally done, without the specific recommendations of the ‘SEAC’ being on record, particularly when, as is limpid from the narrative of facts recorded above, that the latter Authority had, in fact, refused to make any such; but had, on the contrary, recommended to the ‘SEIAA’ to initiate violation proceedings against the “Project Proponent”. Whether the ‘SEAC’ was right or wrong in having said so and whether the “Project Proponent” had started construction, which was covered by the eventual “EC”, are not really relevant at this stage because, had the ‘SEIAA’ found that the ‘SEAC’ did not understand the position correctly, then they ought to have referred the matter back to them for their recommendation on the grant of “EC”, rather than have brushed aside their opinion and to proceed to favour the “Project Proponent” with such benefit. 32. I must say, therefore, that, in such perspective, the ‘NGT’ was without error in having held that the ‘SEIAA’ did not act as per their statutory requirements and obligations under the various notifications under the “EP Act”. 33. Before I proceed, I must record that the ‘NGT’ has also found against the “EC” for another reason, namely that the “Project Proponent” had converted paddy lands unauthorizedly; but, in my view, this is not relevant in this case because, Ext.P30 would establish, at least to some certainty, that such conversion was done with the permission of the competent Authorities, under the applicable statutes. The condition in such permission that adjacent paddy lands or streams, if any, are to be protected is only a general one incorporated in every such permission and is not a specific one qua the property in question. In any event, this by itself would not be a reason to find against “EC”; more so, since the ‘NGT’ itself has found in sure terms that the site in question is not an environmentally sensitive area; and consequently the demolition of the already constructed structure is not necessary and Sri.Harish Vasudevan also does not press it vehemently, presumably on account of Ext.P30. 34. That said, the corollary issue which the ‘NGT’ found against the ”EC”, was that it has been issued by the Administrator of ‘SEIAA’, rather than by the said Authority themselves. Here again, I cannot blame the ‘NGT’ in any manner because, even a cursory look through the “EC” would render it without any doubt that it has, in fact, been issued by the Administrator in his own hand. This is sought to be explained by the parties, referring to a order issued by the Government of Kerala bearing No.G.O.(Rt)No.29/2019/Envt. dated 12.04.2019, wherein, the competence to issue the “EC” had been delegated to the Administrator of the ‘SEIAA’. This is sought to be explained by the parties, referring to a order issued by the Government of Kerala bearing No.G.O.(Rt)No.29/2019/Envt. dated 12.04.2019, wherein, the competence to issue the “EC” had been delegated to the Administrator of the ‘SEIAA’. I am afraid that, even in such circumstances, the ‘SEIAA’ could not have acted contrary to law; and one can only wonder why they felt that they must slavishly confer to the dictates of the Government, when it obtains no authority to intervene to any of the processes under the “EIA Notifications” or the “EP Act”. 35. This is a rather grave situation because – as is expressly admitted by all sides; and therefore, an aspect which can be taken judicial notice by this Court there are several hundreds of “ECs” issued by the ‘SEIAA’ in the same manner, as has been reflected in this case, namely under the hand of the Administrator. In fact, the petitioner in W.P(C)No.35871 of 2023 had produced various such “ECs” before this Court, along with I.A.No.2 of 2023. 36. Of course, a mistake of the ‘SEIAA’ cannot be justified by the other mistakes committed in the past; but the cataclysmic consequences of this Court concluding affirmatively that such “ECs” will have to be set aside, would lead to consequences which are beyond comprehension. 37. This is not to mean that this Court justifies the “EC” since, it clearly has been issued by the Administrator, who was not authorized to do so. It must be at this time, fully borne in mind that, even going by the “EP Act” or the notifications under it, the competent Authority to issue the “EC” is only the ‘SEIAA’ and no one else. It is in this context that Sri.B.G.Bhaskar – learned counsel, made a fervent plea that, what this Court should do and what the ‘NGT’ ought to have done, was to examine the “EC” and verify which Authority actually issued it, de hors the fact that it has been signed by the Administrator. It is in this context that Sri.B.G.Bhaskar – learned counsel, made a fervent plea that, what this Court should do and what the ‘NGT’ ought to have done, was to examine the “EC” and verify which Authority actually issued it, de hors the fact that it has been signed by the Administrator. To put it in other words, what the learned counsel attempted to impress upon this Court is that, though the “EC” begins by saying it is the proceedings of the Administrator, it can only mean that the said Authority was only conveying the decision of the ‘SEIAA’ and condition imposed by it, as part of the “EC” approved by them in favour of the “Project Proponent”. 38. The afore submissions of Sri.B.G.Bhaskar would obtain any force only if, as stated by him, the stated “EC” does not have any independent opinion of the Administrator, but it is a mere and true reflection of the decisions taken by the ‘SEIAA’. In this context, I must say that there is some force in the submissions of Sri.B.G. Bhaskar because, when one takes note of all the meetings of the ‘SEIAA’ which I have already discussed serially -it is evident that, throughout, the ‘SEIAA’ took decisions one way or the other as regards the application of the “Project Proponent”, to finally decide to issue the “EC” in their 101st meeting held on 18.01.2020 as is evident from Ext.P11. The conditions for the grant of “EC” were specified therein; and it is the same which has been reproduced by the Administrator in his proceedings, which is then styled as the “EC”. 39. In such perspective, certainly, Sri.B.G.Bhaskar has made a point that, though the stated “EC” appears to have been signed by the Administrator, it only contain the decision taken by the ‘SEIAA’ to grant it to the “Project Proponent”, as also the specific conditions, which it alone had approved and imposed. 40. Though, by the afore reasoning, perhaps the “EC” can be saved; but the fact remains that the ‘SEIAA’ ought not to have allowed its Administrator to issue the proceedings, as has been done. 40. Though, by the afore reasoning, perhaps the “EC” can be saved; but the fact remains that the ‘SEIAA’ ought not to have allowed its Administrator to issue the proceedings, as has been done. This is because, when the “EP Act” and the “EIA Notification” specifies that only the ‘SEIAA’ can issue the “EC”, it ought to have done so, without delegating it to any other Authority, including the Administrator, for whatever be the reason, including the Government Order referred above. 41. No doubt, the ‘SEIAA’ has made vital mistakes; but the larger issue arises whether this would be fatal to the “Project Proponent”, or to the other petitioners, whose interests had been created in the interregnum. 42. The afore being so concluded, as I have said above, it is certainly possible for this Courts to find against the “EC” and set it aside, but then, it has to be answered, what would be the consequence. 43. For this, one will surely have to see the complaint preferred by Sri.Shaji before the ‘NGT’, which contains the following prayers: “i. Set aside Annexure A1 Environment Clearance No.1193/EC2/2018/SEIAA dated 12.03.2020; ii. Declare that the 5th respondent has no right to obtain post facto Environmental Clearance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for the project in Sy. Nos.27/1, 30/4C, 31/4, 7/, 8, 9, 32/4, 351 B of Panthirankavu village of Kozhikode Taluk, as it is a case of violation of the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 and violative of the Precautionary Principle. iii. Declare that the 4th respondent has no authority to exercise the power conferred to the 2nd respondent for the grant of prior Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006. iv. Declare that the 5th respondent is duty bound to follow Polluter Pays Principle and to pay the entire Environmental Compensation for the damages and pollution made by them as assessed by the Hon’ble Tribunal. v. Issue any order or orders, as may be fit proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 44. Even Sri.Harish Vasudevan, appearing for Sri.Shaji, expressly conceded that his client never wanted the construction to be demolished; but that his intent was that it be declared that the ‘SEIAA’ could not have deviated from the “EP Act” or the “EIA Notification”, and that they be subjected to all necessary consequences, for having done so, as is manifestly exhibited in this case. 45. 45. I am, also cognizant of the submissions of the petitioners that, Sri.Shaji had approached the ‘NGT’, through his Appeal, only on 28.12.2021 and that no interim order been issued by the said Tribunal, thus the construction having been allowed to continue. They thus argue that there is some fault in the part of the ‘NGT’ in having allowed the Appeal of Sri.Shaji, nearly two years later, on 11.09.2023 setting aside the “EC” as it has done. 46. It is here that the alternative submissions of Sri.Harish Vasudevan assumes some importance. 47. As noticed above, Sri.Shaji – the appellant before the ‘NGT’, apart from seeking a declaration that an expo facto clearance by the ‘SEIAA’ was impermissible, also relied upon the “Polluter Pays Principle” to seek that environmental compensation for damages and pollution be assessed by the ‘NGT’, or such other competent Authority. This Court also keeps in mind the request of Sri.Harish Vasudevan that, such an evaluation be permitted to be done, not by the Kerala Pollution Control Board -as has been ordered by the ‘NGT’ in its impugned final order -but by a competent Authority of the “MoEF” itself. 48. Before dealing with the afore issues, this Court notices that, after ‘NGT’ took umbrage to the actions of the ‘SEIAA’, as this court has also done in this judgment, it went on to impose certain very stringent restrictions on its members, as indited in paragraph 53 (VI) & (VII) of its impugned final order; with a further direction to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Environment – Directorate of Environment and Climate Change (DoECC), to report to it, the compliance of the same. 49. As said earlier, the afore restrictions and orders are impugned by the members of the ‘SEIAA’ in W.P(C)No.32797 of 2023, wherein, as perhaps expected, they do not justify their actions; but say that, even if they have made mistakes, they could not have been mulcted with the rigour of the same, since it casts stigma on their credibility and competence. 50. In fact, Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, appearing for the petitioners in W.P(C)No.32797 of 2023 – the members of the ‘SEIAA’ argued that, even Sri.Shaji – the appellant before the ‘NGT’, has not even impelled a whispering allegation against his clients, that they have acted in malice, or for confutative or questionable reasons. 50. In fact, Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, appearing for the petitioners in W.P(C)No.32797 of 2023 – the members of the ‘SEIAA’ argued that, even Sri.Shaji – the appellant before the ‘NGT’, has not even impelled a whispering allegation against his clients, that they have acted in malice, or for confutative or questionable reasons. He went on to assert that the integrity of the members of the ‘SEIAA’ have never been called into question even before the ‘NGT’; and hence that the impugned directions in its final order, to initiate action against them and injuncting them from continuing as members, is too harsh and disproportionate, because even assuming that they may have committed mistakes in their decision making process, they being quasi judicial functionaries, cannot be subjected to such prejudice or detriment. 51. As I have already said above, the actions of the ‘SEIAA’ can never be normally countenanced or justified. The members of the said Authority ought to have been much more circumspect and careful, particularly because they are expected to act with crucial responsibility cast upon them, under the statutory scheme. However, many of their actions appear to have been done in a rather casual manner, at least in part because, though they were aware and ought to have been aware, that a final decision on the application of the “Project Proponent” to grant an “EC”, could have been taken only on the recommendations of the ‘SEAC’; and that the applicable environmental notifications do not permit any deviation therefrom, they went on to favour them with the same in their 101st meeting. Obviously, therefore, the argument of Sri.Harish Vasudevan that, an expo facto appraisal by the ‘SEAC’, after the ‘SEIAA’ had issued “EC” cannot suffice, is certainly on terra firma. 52. Now, what is thus the sum total of the observations of this Court as afore. 53. Without doubt, the ‘NGT’ was justified in holding that the “EC” was issued irregularly for both the reasons it relied upon, namely: that it was issued by the ‘SEIAA’ without consultation with the ‘SEAC’; and because it has been issued by the Administrator as his own proceedings. 53. Without doubt, the ‘NGT’ was justified in holding that the “EC” was issued irregularly for both the reasons it relied upon, namely: that it was issued by the ‘SEIAA’ without consultation with the ‘SEAC’; and because it has been issued by the Administrator as his own proceedings. However, in the context of the fact that Sri.Shaji does not seek the demolition of the building already constructed, coupled by the factum of such construction having been made possible to have continued by the “Project Proponent” solely because the ‘NGT’ did not pass any interim orders from 28.12.2021 to 11.09.2023, juxtaposed by the further factum of the petitioners in W.P(C)No.35871 of 2023 having invested in the project guided by the subsequent orders of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and the mandatory notifications caused to be done by the “Project Proponent”, I am certain that an exercise of cancellation of “EC”, thus rendering the entire building without any worth in future, would be to nobody’s benefit. 54. To paraphrase, if this Court is to confirm the findings of the directions of the ‘NGT’ and affirm that the “EC” stands cancelled, it would create an unavoidable predicament, whereby, the building having already been constructed, would be worthless and would remain thus for eternity, unless it is ordered to be demolished – which, in my view, would be counterproductive since it would only create larger environmental issues and impact, than if it is allowed to continue. 55. This is more so because the law or the applicable Rules and Regulations do not permit and, in fact, virtually proscribes an ex post facto Environmental Clearance; and hence the further directions of the ‘NGT’ that the “Project Proponent” can apply again for it becomes tenuous, if not untenable, when it is expressly admitted before this Court by both sides that the construction question is almost fully complete with only finishing touches to be completed – which stands presently interdicted on account of the Stop Memo issued by the Panchayat and the Pollution Control Board under the orders of the ‘SEAC’. 56. 56. My opinion on afore is also tempered by Ext.P23 proceedings of the “MoEF” – which is the Certified Compliance Report (CCR) conducted by it as early as on 20.01.2022, which fairly indicates that when the work of the construction was ongoing – at a stage of 44% as noticed by it, the conditions imposed by the ‘SEIAA’ in the “EC” had been substantially complied with. 57. Axiomatically and in my firm view, the demolition of the constructed building cannot aid environmental protection; but it would be more apposite that the “Project Proponent” be subjected scrupulously to the requirement under law qua the Environmental Compensation Assessment (ECR) under the “Polluter Pays Principles”, as ordered by the ‘NGT’; in addition to the Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) as mandated by the ‘SEIAA’ in the “EC”. In fact if, as ordered by the ‘NGT’, the “EC” is set aside as a whole it may only help the “Project Proponent” to escape from the inviolable condition therein imposing a duty upon them to complete the activities requisite under the ‘CER’. 58. In fact, going by the terms of the “EC”, an amount of Rs.7 Crores has been ordered to be earmarked as “CER”; while Environmental Compensation has been ordered to be considered by the ‘NGT’. That said, quad hoc Environmental Compensation, it must be evaluated, assessed and adjudged through proper enquiry by a competent Authority; and this Court finds favour with Sri.Harish Vasudevan when he makes the plea for such to be done by an impartial Authority, if possible, by the “MoEF” itself. 59. The further plea of Sri.Harish Vasudevan that, the “ECR” also must be ordered to be overseen by an Authority, other than the Kerala Pollution Control Board, also finds my favour because, it is imperative that it is implemented in its letter and spirit, without any deviation. 60. Coming back to the actions of the ‘SEIAA’, as unmistakable from my observations above, this Court finds strongly against them and deem it necessary to hold that they ought not to have acted in the manner as has been imputed against them, and which remains uncontested. But, the question whether they ought to be injuncted from continuing as members of the ‘SEIAA’, and whether an enquiry ought to be done by the Secretary, “MoEF” as ordered by the ‘NGT’, impels me to an opinion to the contrary. 61. But, the question whether they ought to be injuncted from continuing as members of the ‘SEIAA’, and whether an enquiry ought to be done by the Secretary, “MoEF” as ordered by the ‘NGT’, impels me to an opinion to the contrary. 61. This is because, as argued by Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan -learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P(C)No.32797 of 2023, his clients were acting as members of a quasi judicial entity and were certainly expected to act in terms of law. However, as long as there is no imputations of malice, or charges of corruption impelled against them, their actions can only be seem to be irregular, committed in error of judgment; and thus in violation of the imperative procedural mandate by the petitioners – and no such having been established before the ‘NGT’ or even before this Court. 62. It is certainly possible to err, but what is the consequence to be meted out to the members of an entity like the ‘SEIAA’, if they have done so inadvertently and without malice, is something that requires to be thought of intently. Had this been a case whether this Court had even a whiff of suspicion that the members of the ‘SEIAA’ had acted for confutative reasons, or in furtherance of a complot to help the “Project Proponent”, I would have not merely allowed the impugned directions of the ‘NGT’ to remain, but would have perhaps even made it more stronger, by corollary orders. But, when I am left without much of a doubt that the members of the ‘SEIAA’ did not act in such manner, but perhaps being innocent of the consequences of full compliance of the “EIA Notifications”, I am of the view that it will be sufficient that they be told of their mistakes and sufficiently warned, rather than being injuncted from acting as members in future or in having to face an enquiry by the “MoEF”, which will certainly be demeaning to them and would cast a stigma on their future irretrievably. In the afore circumstances, I allow these writ petitions in part with the following directions: (a) The order of the ‘NGT’, to the extent to which it set aside the “EC” dated 12.03.2020 grated by the ‘SEIAA’, is hereby vacated. In the afore circumstances, I allow these writ petitions in part with the following directions: (a) The order of the ‘NGT’, to the extent to which it set aside the “EC” dated 12.03.2020 grated by the ‘SEIAA’, is hereby vacated. (b) Consequently, the corollary directions of the ‘NGT’, in paragraph 53 (II) and that part of 53 (III) of its order dated 11.09.2023, which mandates the ‘SEIAA’ to consider the fresh application to be made by the “Project Proponent” is set aside. However, the latter part of the directions in paragraph 53(III) of the order of the ‘NGT’, requiring an assessment of the mitigation/remediation measures with respect to the construction completed and that it be recovered from the “Project Proponent”, leading to Environmental Compensation to be imposed on them, is left intact; and this shall be done by the competent Authority of the “MoEF”, assisted by the Kerala Pollution Control Board as may be requisitioned by the former, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (c) In continuation of the afore directions, the orders of the ‘NGT’, in paragraph 53 (IV) and (V) of its order dated 11.09.2023, will remain; however, modifying 53(IV) in part – to the effect that such compensation shall be used for restoration of wetlands – since, as I have already said above, this Court finds material to the effect that the conversion of land had happened on the basis of valid permissions. The compensation, therefore, will be used for all other necessary components, including environmental mitigation and remediation, to be recommended by the “MoEF” in terms of direction (b) above. (d) As regards the “CER” of the “Project Proponent”, it shall abide by the conditions in the “EC” scrupulously and will file mandatory half yearly returns before the ‘SEIAA’ and the Regional Office of the “MoEF” without fail. The ‘SEIAA’ will monitor the actions of the “Project Proponent” in this regard, through appropriate agencies including the ‘SEAC’, as the case may be; and will ensure that the amounts are expended for the purposes as has been stipulated by them in the “EC”. I make it clear that any violation in this regard will not be countenanced by this Court, should it be brought to my notice in future. I make it clear that any violation in this regard will not be countenanced by this Court, should it be brought to my notice in future. (e) In view of the afore, the directions in paragraph No.53 (VI), (VII) and (VIII) of the impugned order of the ‘NGT’ dated 11.09.2023 will stand set aside; however, placing on record the displeasure of this Court on the members of the ‘SEIAA’, for the manner in which they issued the “EC” dated 12.03.2020. However, since it is not proved to have been done deliberately or for questionable reasons, this Court deem it prudent to leave it there. (f) Needless to say, all conditions of the “EC” shall be enforced, and ensured to be complied with by the “Project Proponent” by the ‘SEIAA’ and the ‘SEAC’; and I leave liberty to the petitioners to bring to the notice of this Court any violation in future, through appropriate application. Before I close, I must, however, record that this judgment is not intended to be used as a precedent in any case, even where analogous factual circumstances may be projected or involved; and that the directions herein have been issued solely taking note of two fundamental facets, namely: for the first, that the ‘NGT’ did not injunct the construction of the building when Sri.Shaji approached it through an Appeal on 28.12.2021, thus allowing it to be completed by the time it finally passed its impugned order on 11.09.2023, consequent to which the petitioners in W.P(C)No.35871 of 2023 had invested in the construction, on the strength of subsequent orders that can to be obtained by the “Project Proponent” from the RERA; and for the second, that the liberty reserved by the ‘NGT’ to the “Project Proponent” to apply for a fresh “EC” and the corollary direction to the ‘SEIAA’ to consider it, would be effectively authorizing an ex post facto action, which is not shown to be permitted by the “EP Act” or the “EIA Notification”. The afore, added to the fact, that the appellant before the ‘NGT’ – Sri.Shaji, never sought and is not seeking demolition of the building, guides me to the afore course. The afore, added to the fact, that the appellant before the ‘NGT’ – Sri.Shaji, never sought and is not seeking demolition of the building, guides me to the afore course. Axiomatically all necessary consequences of the declarations of this judgment shall flow, thus allowing the completion of the building and issuance of Occupancy Certificate, subject to all other requirements in law being satisfied; but in strict compliance of the Building Permit and such other.