JUDGMENT : C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. 1. This judgment has to be read in continuation of, and as a sequel to, the judgment in W.P.(C.) No.8820/2023 dated 03.04.2024, produced at Ext.P15 herein. 2 . Petitioner’s application for issuance of Environmental Clearance (E.C.) was originally rejected by the 1 st respondent State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) vide Exts.P4 and P13 Orders. Challenging the Orders, the petitioner approached this Court. The challenge was upheld and Exts.P4 and P13 decisions were set aside by this Court, by virtue of Ext.P15 judgment. The 1 st respondent herein was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application for issuance of E.C. (produced as Ext.P8 in that Writ Petition). Exts.P4 and P13 decisions were frowned upon by this Court in Ext.P15 judgment citing three specific reasons, which are available in the penultimate paragraph of Ext.P15. The first is that no reason, whatsoever, is stated to take a view different from that of the well considered recommendation of the expert body, State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC). This reason was stated in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India , (2019) 15 SCC 401 , which underscored the primacy of the recommendations made by the SEAC, and its binding nature on SEIAA in normal circumstances. The said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that in case SEIAA is to overlook the recommendations made by the expert body SEAC, they have to state reasons and the matter will have to be sent back to SEAC for reconsideration, which obviously was not reflected in Exts.P4 and P13 decisions. 3. The second aspect which weighed with the learned Single Judge is the finding of SEAC that no cluster is formed in the petitioner’s case and that, the judgment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in Satendra Pandey v. Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change & Another, (O.A. No. 186 of 2016) has not invalidated Appendix XI of E.I.A. notification. The learned Single Judge found that this was also not properly considered in Ext.P13 decision. A third aspect-described by the learned Single Judge as a crucial aspect - is with respect to the expiry of the lease mentioned in Ext.P2 certificate granted on 06.03.2012, by virtue of which, the total extent is admittedly below 5 hectares, wherefore a comprehensive E.C. for the entire 5 hectares is impossible. 4. A third aspect-described by the learned Single Judge as a crucial aspect - is with respect to the expiry of the lease mentioned in Ext.P2 certificate granted on 06.03.2012, by virtue of which, the total extent is admittedly below 5 hectares, wherefore a comprehensive E.C. for the entire 5 hectares is impossible. 4. It is on the strength of these specific findings that Exts.P4 and P13 decisions of the 1 st respondent were set aside by the learned Single Judge and directed reconsideration of the same. 5. I am at loss to find that none of the above parameters- specifically pointed out by this Court in Ext.P15- were not referred, much less considered, by the 1 st respondent in Ext.P17 Order, impugned herein. The matter did not end there. The petitioner filed a review petition vide Ext.P18, pointing out the above anomaly of not referring to any of these parameters, besides pointing out the recommendations of SEAC, which has to be followed by SEIAA ordinarily, as held in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar (supra). Ext.P18 also did not evoke any response and the 1 st respondent/SEIAA came up with Ext.P19 decision, without referring to any of the above aspects, but finding a new ground to reject the petitioner’s application, holding that the splitting up of the area into three parts will be against the spirit of the judgment of the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others , 2012 (4) SCC 629. 6. Sri.Jacob P. Alex, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Deepak Kumar (supra) is rendered entirely in a different context. Where the law mandates E.C. only in cases of mining exceeding 5 hectares, unscrupulous project proponents started dividing larger extents to extents less than 5 hectares and conducting quarrying mining without E.C. This was frowned upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar (supra) and it was held that even for mining in areas less than 5 hectares, E.C. is necessary. Distinguishing the facts in the instant case, learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner had sought for - and he was in fact issued with - an E.C. in respect of 3.1473 hectares earlier in the year 2013; and that he had sought for a separate E.C. this time, in respect of 0.99 hectares. Distinguishing the facts in the instant case, learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner had sought for - and he was in fact issued with - an E.C. in respect of 3.1473 hectares earlier in the year 2013; and that he had sought for a separate E.C. this time, in respect of 0.99 hectares. Learned Counsel would clarify that E.C. granted in the year 2013 was in respect of 4.8493 hectares, that is the total area; whereas the same has been limited to 3.1473, when the E.C. was renewed in the year 2019. The point remains that the petitioner had applied for separate E.Cs in respect of both the extents, wherefore the application of Deepak Kumar (supra) does not come into play at all. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention to paragraph nos.41.5, 41.6, 54, 58, 118, 123.1 and 124 of Hanuman Laxman Aroskar (supra), which categorically held that the recommendation of the expert body SEAC, or for that matter E.A.C., to grant E.C. to an applicant or to reject the same is to be accepted by the regulatory authority, normally. In paragraph no.58, a specific reason has been assigned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that SEAC is a body constituted of experts in the field of environment. The judgment also underscores the requirement to state specific and cogent reasons in case the regulatory authority/R1 differs with the recommendation made by the expert body SEAC, in which case, the course open to the regulatory authority like R1 is only to remand the matter to the expert body/SEAC for reconsideration. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the SEIAA would invite the attention of this Court to Clause 8, Sub clause 2 of E.I.A. notification which would precisely lend support to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that SEAC’s recommendation shall ordinarily be accepted, and in case the regulatory body disagrees, it will have to be sent back to SEAC for reconsideration. Such reconsidered recommendation received from SEAC has to be considered by the regulatory body and a decision has to be taken, which has been made final as per the statutory notification. Learned Standing Counsel pointed out that this procedure has been adopted by virtue of Ext.P4. Such reconsidered recommendation received from SEAC has to be considered by the regulatory body and a decision has to be taken, which has been made final as per the statutory notification. Learned Standing Counsel pointed out that this procedure has been adopted by virtue of Ext.P4. But it should be noticed immediately that Ext.P4, as well as Ext.P13, has been set aside by this Court as per Ext.P15 judgment, wherefore the compliance, if any, by virtue of Ext.P4 cannot be gainsaid by the 1 st respondent regulatory authority. 8. More importantly, this Court notice that no specific reason is stated by the 1 st respondent authority, either in Ext.P17 Order or in Ext.P19 Order, except saying that the petitioner is to get a mining plan for the entire area. None of the reasons, which have been considered and recognized by SEAC and the reasons which specifically weighed with the learned Single Judge in setting aside Exts.P4 and P13 Orders, is seen considered by the 1 st respondent while passing Ext.P17 and Ext.P19 orders. 9. This Court is of the opinion that this is not a case where a mere setting aside of Exts.P17 and P19 Orders would meet the interest of justice. This Court notice a clear dereliction of duty on the part of the members of SEIAA in- (1) complying with this Court’s Order produced at Ext.P15; (2) in complying with the mandate and dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar and (3) in not considering the recommendations of SEAC. I am of the opinion that such non-consideration is not an omission, but deliberate. This is axiomatic from the fact that the petitioner had preferred Ext.P18 review pointing out these aspects, which also fell in the deaf ears of the members of the 1 st respondent authority. It requires no mention that a judgment considers the legality and correctness of a course of action adopted by an authority, including a statutory body. If a Court chooses to set aside such action as reflected in an Order, the same will obviously for reasons recorded in that judgment. Ext.P15 contains cogent reasons, which has been narrated all throughout the judgment and pin- pointed in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment. If a Court chooses to set aside such action as reflected in an Order, the same will obviously for reasons recorded in that judgment. Ext.P15 contains cogent reasons, which has been narrated all throughout the judgment and pin- pointed in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment. It is after specifically referring to the illegalities in Exts.P4 and P13 Orders that the learned Single Judge chose to set aside the same and directed reconsideration of the same. It is, therefore, incumbent on the authority to consider those reasons - which weighed with the learned Single Judge in setting aside Exts.P4 and P13 Orders- while reconsidering petitioner’s application for issuance of E.C, in compliance with the directions of the judgment. I am of the firm opinion that Exts.P17 and P19 Orders are in utter disregard of Ext.P15 judgment. Palpable recalcitrance to change SEIAA's stand - dehors the directions in Ext.P15 judgment and the binding nature of SEAC's recommendation in normal circumstances - is manifest in Exts.P17 and P19 Orders, especially in the latter. 10. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed with costs. Exts.P17 and P19 Orders are set aside. Besides, this Court directs the 1 st respondent SEIAA to pay a cost of Rs.75,000/- to the petitioner within a period of one month from today, each member of SEIAA paying Rs.25,000/- each. 11. It is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that SEIAA/1 st respondent is not functioning now, since their period is over. Dehors the same, the above direction to pay cost will operate as against the individual members of SEIAA. Needless to say that the cost above referred has to be paid by them individually, without in any way burdening the public exchequer. 12. It will be open for the petitioner to seek compensation for the business lost, because of the erroneous Orders passed by the 1 st respondent authority, in case the E.C. sought for by the petitioner is ultimately allowed. 13. 12. It will be open for the petitioner to seek compensation for the business lost, because of the erroneous Orders passed by the 1 st respondent authority, in case the E.C. sought for by the petitioner is ultimately allowed. 13. The 1 st respondent (in case new SEIAA is constituted) or the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change of India (as provided in Clause IV (3) of EIA notification) will consider the petitioner’s application for issuance of E.C. as directed in Ext.P15 judgment, in the light of the observations contained therein, as also, those contained in this judgment, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To enable the same, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change of India is suo motu impleaded as the 3 rd respondent, for which entity, Sri.C.Dinesh takes notice. The gist of this Order will be communicated forthwith by Sri.C.Dinesh to the competent officer in the Ministry for necessary compliance within time. Besides, it will be open for the petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment before the said authority, to ensure compliance. This WP(C) is allowed with cost as above.