JUDGMENT : (C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.) The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 Order passed by the State Expert Appraisal Committee (‘SEAC’, for short) and Ext.P7 and P10 decisions taken in the meetings held by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (‘SEIAA’, for short). The fundamental issue propounded by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is violation of the principles of natural justice, a principle well accepted in administrative law, besides being ingrained to the statute relevant. 2. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 application for environmental clearance for commencement of a quarry. The SEAC, in its 147 th meeting, resolved not to recommend environmental clearance to the petitioner. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 representation for re-consideration. On an apprehension that orders will be passed without hearing the petitioner, he moved this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.28723/2023 seeking consideration of Ext.P6 representation. In the meantime, Ext.P7 decision was taken in the 131 st meeting of the SEIAA, on 24.08.2023, accepting the recommendation of SEAC and refusing environmental clearance to the petitioner. Ext.P7 decision was challenged by filing a second Writ Petition, W.P.(C).No.31732/2023, by the petitioner. In that Writ Petition, Ext.P8 interim order was passed, directing SEIAA to ascertain whether the petitioner was heard before Ext.P5 decision was taken by SEAC. This was followed by a notice issued by SEIAA calling upon the petitioner to appear for hearing and accordingly, he was heard on 29.01.2024. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner was asked to file a hearing note. Ext.P9 hearing note was filed on 30.01.2024, which explained in detail all the defects/infirmities, which were found by SEAC in refusing the E.C to the petitioner. However, without considering Ext.P9 representation, Ext.P10 decision was taken by SEIAA in its 140 th meeting dated 26.03.2024, holding that there is no situation to review the decision, which refused environmental clearance to the petitioner, is the argument advanced. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would rely on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey [ 2023 KLT OnLine 1601 (SC) ] to propound the doctrine of official notice, which will enable the party to refute, as also, to supplement, explain or to give a different perspective to the facts on which the authority acting is relying upon. The proposition that an Order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is non-est in law, is sought to be expatiated by the petitioner by relying on a Bench decision of this Court in Ajith Kumar v. State of Kerala [ 2017 (3) KLT 58 ] . The learned Counsel then invited the attention of this Court to Clause 7 of the EIA Notification , especially to Stage (4), which speaks about ‘appraisal,’ wherein, a specific mandate is there to invite the applicant for furnishing necessary clarification before SEAC takes a decision in the matter of environmental clearance. Stage (4) also mandates that the appraisal by the Expert Committee should be in a transparent manner, which implies that an opportunity of being heard should necessarily be afforded, is the contention raised. On such premise, the learned Counsel would submit that Exts.P5, P7 and P10 are liable to be set aside. It was specifically pointed out that, an opportunity afforded before Ext.P10 decision cannot substitute an opportunity mandated before Ext.P5 decision by SEAC. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for SEIAA, based on the direction given by this Court, specifically ascertained whether an opportunity was granted before Ext.P5 decision was taken by SEAC. Learned Standing Counsel answered the query in the negative. However, it was emphasized by the learned Standing Counsel that, before taking Ext.P10 decision by SEIAA, the petitioner was not only heard, but was also permitted to file an argument note, so that the requirements of natural justice stands amply complied. The learned Standing Counsel would also point out that, by virtue of Ext.P11 Order of this Court in a different Writ Petition, the present petitioner, who was the 8 th respondent therein, had undertaken that no quarrying activity will be conducted in the quarry, until the suspension of permit is revoked by the competent authority. According to the learned Standing Counsel, rejection of E.C sought for by the petitioner, who was virtually attempting to start a fresh quarry - after giving an undertaking as indicated in Ext.P11- cannot be found fault with. 5. The learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(C).No.31732/2023 would submit that, they are persons residing in the immediate vicinity of the quarry and that they have made a complaint before the SEAC, which is referred to in Ext.P10 decision. 5. The learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(C).No.31732/2023 would submit that, they are persons residing in the immediate vicinity of the quarry and that they have made a complaint before the SEAC, which is referred to in Ext.P10 decision. According to the learned Counsel, one among the reasons for rejection of petitioner’s E.C vide Ext.P10 is that, the authorities have been convinced of the prejudice and hardship which will be caused to the said respondents. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court will first refer to Clause 7(i).IV. Stage (4) of the EIA Notification , 2006 which is extracted here under. i) Appraisal means the detailed scrutiny by the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee of the application and other documents like the Final EIA report, outcome of the public consultations including public hearing proceedings, submitted by the applicant to the regulatory authority concerned for grant of environmental clearance. This appraisal shall be made by Expert Appraisal Committee of State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned in a transparent manner in a proceeding to which the applicant shall be invited for furnishing necessary clarifications in person or through an authorized representative. On conclusion of this proceeding, the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned shall make categorical recommendations to the regulatory authority concerned either for grant of prior environmental clearance on stipulated terms and conditions, or rejection of the application for prior environmental clearance, together with reasons for the same. As could be seen from the above extracted portion, the appraisal is a detailed scrutiny by the Expert Appraisal Committee on the application and other documents, the outcome of the public consideration, etc. There is a specific mandate that the appraisal shall be made in a transparent manner, in a proceeding to which the applicant ‘shall ’ be invited for furnishing necessary clarifications in person or through an authorized person. This Court notice that a situation where clarification would be necessary is a situation, where the authority, after preliminary appraisal, finds that there are defects, which stand in the way of granting E.C to the applicant. In such circumstances, it is all the more mandatory to give an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, as enunciated in the official notice doctrine in Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station (Supra) . In such circumstances, it is all the more mandatory to give an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, as enunciated in the official notice doctrine in Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station (Supra) . The same will afford an opportunity for the applicant to refute, supplement, explain or give a different perspective to the facts which come to the notice of the authority, which are apparently against grant of license or permit or E.C sought for by the applicant. As held by the Supreme Court, the authority is quite at liberty to rely on the materials familiar in its capacity as an expert; nevertheless, the parties ought to be informed of the materials so noticed and be given an opportunity to explain or rebut them. In the instant facts, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner before Ext.P5 decision was taken by the Expert Appraisal Committee. Ext.P5 is vitiated on that count alone. 7. It is noteworthy that Ext.P7 decision was taken by SEIAA on the basis of Ext.P5 decision taken by SEAC. Ext.P10 decision is also one taken pursuant to Ext.P7 Order, especially in the context of a reconsideration sought for in respect of the same. Suffice to say that if Ext.P5 is vitiated, all consequent orders including Exts.P7 and P10 are also vitiated. As rightly canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, grant of opportunity by SEIAA at Ext.P10 stage cannot substitute the mandate of granting an opportunity by SEAC at Ext.P5 stage. This is for the reason that, environmental clearance is a matter which requires expertise and the members of SEAC are experts in the field, as is explicit from its constitution in terms of the EIA Notification . Therefore, the aspects, which stand against the petitioner in the matter of grant of E.C, has to be explained before a competent body having clear know-how and expertise in environmental matters. A perusal of Ext.P9 detailed explanation given by the petitioner would make the position clear that it has to be considered, handled and processed by an expert board, which in the instant case, beyond any doubt, is the State Level Appraisal Committee. A perusal of Ext.P9 detailed explanation given by the petitioner would make the position clear that it has to be considered, handled and processed by an expert board, which in the instant case, beyond any doubt, is the State Level Appraisal Committee. In Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India [ (2019) 15 SCC 401 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the recommendations of SEAC has to be accepted by SEIAA under ordinary circumstances, and any deviation therefrom should be for reasons to be recorded in writing. Even in a case where SEIAA deviate from the recommendation made by SEAC, the course open to SEIAA is to send the matter back to SEAC for reconsideration. This would also underscore the necessity of a pre decisional-hearing by SEAC, and not by SEIAA. 8. In the circumstances, Exts. P5, P7 and P10 decisions will stand set aside. It has been brought to the notice of this court that neither SEIAA, nor SEAC, is presently functioning, since the tenure of its members had expired. A new expert body or authority is yet to be constituted. It is the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, the direction to reconsider Ext.P4 be given to the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), as provided in clause 4(iii) of EIA Notification . This Court finds merit in that submission, especially in view of the fact that Ext.P4 was filed as early as on 06.05.2020 and the petitioner has been waiting for a decision for almost 5 years. 9. In the circumstances, Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC)constituted under the EIA Notification is suo motu impleaded as additional 3 rd respondent in W.P.(C).No. 22463/2024 and additional 5 th respondent in W.P.(C).No.31732/2023. Learned DSGI takes notice for the additionally impleaded respondent. 10. Having heard the learned DSGI, there will be a direction to the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) to take a decision in Ext.P4 application in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in terms of clause 7(i).IV of the EIA notification, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This court also reserves the right of respondents no.3 and 4 in W.P.(C).No. 31732/2023 to participate in the hearing, in view of the complaint dated 05.02.2024 preferred by them, which has been referred to in Ext.P10 decision. This court also reserves the right of respondents no.3 and 4 in W.P.(C).No. 31732/2023 to participate in the hearing, in view of the complaint dated 05.02.2024 preferred by them, which has been referred to in Ext.P10 decision. The said respondents will also be afforded with an opportunity of being heard before taking a call in Ext.P4. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the competent officer in the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), for compliance. The Writ Petition will stand disposed of as above. Needless to say that the petitioner's explanation as offered by Ext.P9 will also be considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC).