JUDGMENT : C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. Ext.P8 Order, which refused petitioner's application for Environmental Clearance (E.C) is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Ext.P8 Order is passed based on Ext.P9 decision taken in the meeting of the State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAA), which, in turn, is based on Ext.P10 representation made by State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC). The short ground, which has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the non-compliance of the principle of audi alteram partem, especially in the context of clause 7(i).IV.Stage (4) of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification, 2006. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for SEIAA and SEAC. Perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would essentially rely on a judgment of this Court in Kottiyoor Metals Pvt. Ltd. v. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA Kerala) [2025 KLT OnLine 2298], to point out that the purpose of hearing contemplated in clause 7(i).IV.Stage (4) of EIA notification, 2006 is quite significant. The very purpose of hearing as contemplated in the above referred provision of the EIA notification is to enable an opportunity to the project proponents like the petitioner to offer their explanation to the defects, if any, found in their application for E.C, so that the authorities concerned can consider the feasibility of allowing an E.C based on such input given by the project proponent, as well. The directions contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Kottiyoor Metals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) have been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which are as follows: "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. 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). 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. 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. 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.” Going by the dictum laid down as above, an effective opportunity of hearing was not afforded, is the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. In answer to the above arguments, learned Standing Counsel for SEIAA would submit that the project proponent, as also, his Recognised Qualified Person (RQP) were heard and RQP was also permitted to make a presentation in the 136 th meeting of the SEAC, wherefore, it cannot be said that an opportunity of being heard was not afforded. 5. 4. In answer to the above arguments, learned Standing Counsel for SEIAA would submit that the project proponent, as also, his Recognised Qualified Person (RQP) were heard and RQP was also permitted to make a presentation in the 136 th meeting of the SEAC, wherefore, it cannot be said that an opportunity of being heard was not afforded. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds that the opportunity granted to the petitioner, as also, his RQP in the 136 th meeting is not sufficient in terms of the requirements of clause 7(i).IV.Stage (4) of EIA notification, 2006. It is noticed that a field inspection was conducted after the 136 th meeting of SEAC, to which the project proponent was invited. After conducting the field inspection, a report has been preferred, which, in fact, recommended grant of E.C, as could be seen from Ext.P12 report. Thereafter, the 139 th meeting of the SEAC was conducted. The said meeting found that the project proponent has not produced certain documents called for. Upon receipt of notice on the same, the project proponent produced the documents. Thereafter, in the 146 th meeting, which was conducted on 5 th , 6 th and 7 th of July, 2023, the SEAC decided to recommend rejection of petitioner's E.C. It is therefore clear that the reason as to why the petitioner's application for E.C is not liable to be allowed is not signified to the petitioner. Nor is any explanation sought for from the petitioner in that regard, which renders the very purpose of clause 7(i).IV.Stage (4) of EIA notification, 2006, otiose. It is not enough that the petitioner was called for a preliminary meeting of the SEAC, that is to say, the 136 th meeting. All important things transpired thereafter, including the field inspection study and the decision to reject the petitioner's application. A perusal of Ext.P8 would indicate that the petitioner's E.C was rejected for environmental vulnerability of the locality. It may be a possible argument that an opportunity - even if granted to the petitioner - could not have improved the situation and the reasons found in Ext.P10. However, that is no reason in law to deny an opportunity of being heard, more so, when it is statutorily recognised in terms of the above referred provision of the EIA notification, 2006. 6. However, that is no reason in law to deny an opportunity of being heard, more so, when it is statutorily recognised in terms of the above referred provision of the EIA notification, 2006. 6. In the circumstances, Ext.P8 Order cannot be sustained for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice, specifically the statutory mandate under clause 7(i).IV.Stage (4) of EIA notification, 2006. Since Ext.P8 Order is based on Ext.P10 decision of the SEAC, in which decision, this Court has already found the vice of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, Ext.P10 Order will also stand set aside. Accordingly, Exts.P8, P9, P10 and P11 will stand set aside. There will be a direction to the 2 nd respondent/SEAC to hear the petitioner, especially on the factors found adverse to the petitioner in the matter of grant of E.C; and to make a recommendation, in accordance with law, based upon which, the SEIAA will have to take a decision in the matter. Let the above process be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the judgment before the appropriate authority, for compliance. This Writ Petition is disposed of, as above.