JUDGMENT : T.R. RAVI, J. W.P.(C)No.12684 of 2024 has been filed with the following prayers :- “i. Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibits P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5, in the light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ext.P8 judgment ; ii. Declare that Exhibit P1 to P5 permits issued to respondents 4 to 8 are non est and void in law, as they have no valid EC, in the light of Ext.P8 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ; iii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 & 2 to conduct a detailed enquiry and assessment pertaining to the quarrying/mining done by respondents 4 to 8 under the guise of the Ext.P1 to P5 permits and appropriate actions should be initiated against the erring respondents 4 to 8 for the excessive and illegal mining done by them; iv. Petitioners also pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the Vernacular Language ; v. Grant such other reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper to be granted on the facts and circumstances of this case”. 2. W.P.(C) No.13596 of 2024 has been filed with the following prayers :- “i. To issue a Writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P1 in the light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ext.P4 judgment ; ii. To issue a declaration that Ext.P1 permit issued to the 8 th respondent is non est and void in law, as they have no valid EC in the light of Ext.P4 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ; iii. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice, including costs”. 3. W.P.(C) No.32704 of 2024 has been filed with the following prayers :- “i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 7 to ensure that no sort of excavation/mining/ quarrying of ordinary earth or any activities relating thereto is permitted to be commenced or continued by respondents 8 to 14 in the properties comprised in — (a) Property of Sri. Paul Jacob (R9) - admeasuring 2.28 acres (92.27 ares) comprised in Sy.No.969/4 and 969/9A-3 having TP No.3477 of Memmury Village, Pampakuda Kara, Ernakulam District located13 in Ward No.2 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayath; (b) Property of Sri. Paul Jacob (R9) & Smt. Mary Paul (R10) - admeasuring 3.24 acres (1.31.22 hectares) comprised in Sy.No.962/1-2-2, 962/1-3-3, 962/1-1- 2, 962/1-2-2-2, having TP No.10645 and 10681 of Memmury Village, Pampakuda Kara, Ernakulam District located in Ward No.3 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayath; (c) Property of Smt. Thankamma Abraham (R11), admeasuring 2.24 acres (94.69 ares) comprised in Sy.No.594/1-3 of Onakkoor Village, Piramadom Kara, Ernakulam District located in Ward No.4 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayath; (d) Property of Smt. Leelamma Paulose (R12), admeasuring 2.23 acres (94.29 ares) comprised in Sy.No.594/1-3-2 of Onakkoor Village, Piramadom Kara, Ernakulam District located in Ward No.4 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayath; (e) Property of Smt. Ammini George (R13), admeasuring 2.23 acres (94.29 ares) comprised in Sy.No.594/1-3-4 of Onakkoor Village, Piramadom Kara, Ernakulam District located in Ward No.4 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayath; and (f) Property of Smt. Alice Baby (R14), admeasuring 2 acres (80.94 ares) comprised in Sy.No.594/1-3-3 of Onakkoor Village, Piramadom Kara, Ernakulam District located in Ward No.4 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayath; without a valid Environmental Clearance from the SEIAA (R1), in the light of Ext.P10 judgment and Ext.P11 order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ; ii. Declare that no sort of excavation/mining/quarrying of ordinary earth or any activities relating thereto can be undertaken/commenced or continued in the properties comprised in — (a) Property of Sri. Paul Jacob (R9) - admeasuring 2.28 acres (92.27 ares) comprised in Sy.No.969/4 and 969/9A- 3 having TP No.3477 of Memmury Village, Pampakuda Kara, Ernakulam District located in Ward No.2 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayath ; (b) Property of Sri. Paul Jacob (R9) - admeasuring 2.28 acres (92.27 ares) comprised in Sy.No.969/4 and 969/9A- 3 having TP No.3477 of Memmury Village, Pampakuda Kara, Ernakulam District located in Ward No.2 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayath ; (b) Property of Sri. Paul Jacob (R9) & Smt. Mary Paul (R10) - admeasuring 3.24 acres (1.31.22 hectares) comprised in Sy.No.962/1-2-2, 962/1-3-3, 962/1-1- 2, 962/1-2-2-2, having TP No.10645 and 10681 of Memmury Village, Pampakuda Kara, Ernakulam District located in Ward No.3 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayath; (c) Property of Smt. Thankamma Abraham (R11), admeasuring 2.24 acres (94.69 ares) comprised in Sy.No.594/1-3 of Onakkoor Village, Piramadom Kara, Ernakulam District located in Ward No.4 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayath; (d) Property of Smt. Leelamma Paulose (R12), admeasuring 2.23 acres (94.29 ares) comprised in Sy.No.594/1-3-2 of Onakkoor Village, Piramadom Kara, Ernakulam District located in Ward No.4 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayath; (e) Property of Smt. Ammini George (R13), admeasuring 2.23 acres (94.29 ares) comprised in Sy.No.594/1-3-4 of Onakkoor Village, Piramadom Kara, Ernakulam District located in Ward No.4 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayath; and (f) Property of Smt. Alice Baby (R14), admeasuring 2 acres (80.94 ares) comprised in Sy.No.594/1-3-3 of Onakkoor Village, Piramadom Kara, Ernakulam District located in Ward No.4 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayath; without a valid Environmental Clearance from the SEIAA (R1) in the light of Ext.P10 judgment and Ext.P11 order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ; iii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3" respondent to produce any permits or permissions, if any granted to respondents 8 to 14 in respect of the properties of respondents 9 to 14 which are located in Marekkattu hills in Ward No.I| & Il and Piramadom Kizakedathu hill located in Ward No.IV in Pampakuda Panchayath. iv. Petitioners also pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the Vernacular Language; v. Grant such other reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper to be granted on the facts and circumstances of this case”. 4. The main issue involved in these cases is whether an Environmental Clearance (EC) has to be obtained by the concessionaires who have undertaken the work on behalf of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) for quarry of ordinary earth to be used for the development of the highway. 4. The main issue involved in these cases is whether an Environmental Clearance (EC) has to be obtained by the concessionaires who have undertaken the work on behalf of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) for quarry of ordinary earth to be used for the development of the highway. The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.12684 and 32704 of 2024 are residents of Pampakkuda Panchayat in Ernakulam District challenging mining activities in the said Panchayat and the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.13596 of 2024 are residents of Thiruvaniyur Grama Panchayat, challenging mining activities in the said Panchayat. The concessionaire in all these writ petitions is the same and has been arrayed as 4 th respondent in W.P.(C) No.12684 of 2024 and as 8 th respondent in W.P.(C)No.13596 of 2024 and W.P.(C)No.32704 of 2024. The concessionaire has undertaken the construction activities of the National Highways Project “Six Laning from Kodungallur to Edappally Section from kilometer 379.750 to Km 423.780 of NH 66 (Old NH 17)”. The concessionaire is extracting ordinary earth based on agreements entered into with the land owners. According to the petitioners, these properties are situated several Kilometers away from the area where the construction work of National Highway is going on and it is a work which is incidental to the procurement of materials for the construction work undertaken under the concession agreement with the NHAI. 5. The issue arises as an offshoot of the orders issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1628-1629 of 2021 [Noble M. Paikada Vs. Union of India] . The Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering exemptions granted from the requirement of taking an Environmental Clearance, in the EIA notification 2006. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been produced as Ext.P8 in W.P. (C)No.12684 of 2024. Some basic facts required for deciding these writ petitions are given below: 6. The Ministry of Environment and Forest ('MoEF' for short) issued a notification on 14.09.2006 in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) and clause 5 of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “1986 Act”), read with Clause G of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environmental Protection Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “1986 Rules”). Ext.R8(G) produced in W.P.(C)No.32704 of 2024 is a copy of the notification dated 14.9.2006. Clause 2 of Ext.R8(G) reads thus:- " 2. Ext.R8(G) produced in W.P.(C)No.32704 of 2024 is a copy of the notification dated 14.9.2006. Clause 2 of Ext.R8(G) reads thus:- " 2. Requirements of prior Environmental Clearance (EC):- The following projects or activities shall require prior environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory authority, which shall hereinafter referred to be as the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests for matters falling under Category 'A' in the Schedule and at State level the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for matters falling under Category 'B' in the said Schedule, before any construction work, or preparation of land by the project management except for securing the land, is started on the project or activity: (i) All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification; ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification with addition of capacity beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector, that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold limits given in the Schedule, after expansion modernization; ?? (iii) Any change in product mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in Schedule beyond the specified range." 7. Clause 7(f) of the Schedule to the notification included new National Highways and expansion of NationalHighways greater than 30 kms., involving an additional right of way greater than 20 metres, and the general conditions laid down in the notification were applicable. 8. By Ext.R8(I) notification dated 22.8.2013, Clause 7(f)was modified by replacing 30 kms with 100 kms, and 20 metres with 40 metres. Thereafter by Ext.R8(J) notification dated 15.1.2016, the notification was amended by introducing exemptions in respect of 11 items stated in Appendix IX. Ext.R8(J) was modified by Ext.R8(K) notification dated 28.3.2020 by including two other items and we are concerned in these writ petitions with Entry 6 so included. Entry 6 reads thus:- “6. Extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for the linear projects such as roads, pipelines, etc.” 9. The inclusion of Entry 6 was the subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Noble M. Paikada (supra) in Civil Appeals preferred against the order of the National Green Tribunal. The National Green Tribunal in its order had recorded a finding regarding Entry 6 in the following manner:- "8. The inclusion of Entry 6 was the subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Noble M. Paikada (supra) in Civil Appeals preferred against the order of the National Green Tribunal. The National Green Tribunal in its order had recorded a finding regarding Entry 6 in the following manner:- "8. The second issue is exemption from requirement of EC for extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for the linear projects such as roads, pipelines, etc and for dredging and de-silting of dams, reservoirs, weirs, barrages, river and canals for the purpose of their maintenance, upkeep and disaster management. It is possible to take a view that the EC can be exempted for these situations on account assessment already made or of for extraction of earth for linear project but such blanket exemption must be balanced by sustainable development concept. The exemption should strike balance and instead of being blanket exemption, it needs to be hedged by appropriate safeguards such as the process of excavation and quantum. Similarly, in respect of item 7, safeguards are required to be incorporated in terms of disposal of dredged material. These aspects are not shown to have been considered and the reply does not provide any explanation thereon. Learned counsel for the MoEFCC is also unable to provide any justification why these aspects be not addressed and incorporated in the notification for ensuring sustainable development concept which is required to be enforced by this Tribunal under section 20 read with section 15 of the NGT Act, 2010." 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the entire issue, held that the inclusion of Item 6 in Appendix IX was arbitrary and illegal. Ext.P10 in W.P.(C)No.32704 of 2024 is a copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The NH Authority applied to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, praying to vacate the order regarding the removal of Item 6 from Appendix IX. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the application and on 15.05.2024 ordered as follows :- “We have heard the learned Solicitor General appearing for the applicant-National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the learned senior counsel representing the original appellant. For the time being, we clarify that the projects for which work orders were issued by the applicant-NHAI prior to 21 st March, 2024 will remain unaffected by the judgment dated 21 st March, 2024. For the time being, we clarify that the projects for which work orders were issued by the applicant-NHAI prior to 21 st March, 2024 will remain unaffected by the judgment dated 21 st March, 2024. However, we direct the applicant-NHAI to file an affidavit giving a list of the projects for which the work orders were issued prior to 21 st March, 2024 and produce copies of the work orders and other relevant documents showing service of the work order on contractors within a period of one month from today. We clarify that the work orders which were issued prior to 28th March, 2020 required Environment Clearance and therefore, the clarification which we have issued under this order will not apply to such work orders. We make it again clear that we are not permitting the work of all projects which are listed at Annexure A-3 to continue. Only those works will continue where work orders have been issued prior to 21 st March, 2024. Needless to add that in those cases where work order has not been issued prior to 21 st March, 2024., the applicant-NHAI will be bound by the decision of this Court dated 21 st March, 2024. For considering the compliance made by the applicant- NHAI, list the application on 25th July, 2024 at 3.30 p.m.” 11. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following order on 05.09,2024 :- “As per the affidavit dated 4 th July, 2024 filed by the applicant-National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), it appears that the projects which are mentioned from serial nos.67 to 483 (both numbers inclusive) in Annexure A-1 to the said affidavit were undertaken after 28th March, 2020 but prior to 21 st March, 2024, in the sense, that the work orders were issued during this period. It is not even disputed by the appellant in the Civil Appeals that during this period, the work which is being carried out in terms of the work orders at serial nos.67 to 483 did not require prior Environmental Clearance. It is, therefore, obvious that only these projects will remain unaffected by the final judgment dated 21 March, 2024. If it is the contention of the appellant that notwithstanding the fact that these projects have commenced during the aforesaid period, the applicant-NHAI must obtain Environmental Clearance, it is for the appellant to take appropriate proceedings in that behalf. It is, therefore, obvious that only these projects will remain unaffected by the final judgment dated 21 March, 2024. If it is the contention of the appellant that notwithstanding the fact that these projects have commenced during the aforesaid period, the applicant-NHAI must obtain Environmental Clearance, it is for the appellant to take appropriate proceedings in that behalf. As far as the prayers (a) and (b) of IAD.No.135885/2024 are concerned, the same are beyond the scope of the proceedings inasmuch as there is already a final judgment in the Civil Appeals. As far as prayer (c) is concerned, it is for the appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Hence, the applications are disposed of in the above terms.“ 12. The counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.12684 and 32704 of 2024, Sri Paul Abraham Vakkanal submits that once Entry 6 has been removed from Appendix IX, the exemption ceases to apply for all linear projects such as roads, pipelines, etc. It is hence submitted that any extraction of ordinary earth for a linear project would require EnvironmentalClearance. It is submitted that the clarificatory orders issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court do not have the effect of reviving the exemption that had been granted, in the case of works relating to National Highways, and the benefit of the said orders can be claimed only by the NHAI and not by the concessionaires or sub-contractors involved in the work. In other words, what is submitted is that any extraction of ordinary earth by a concessionaire to procure raw materials for executing the concession agreement with the NHAI must be after obtaining Environmental Clearance. The counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C)No.13596 of 2024 endorsed the arguments of Sri Paul Abraham Vakkanal. 13. Sri M.Ajay, the counsel appearing for the concessionaire in W.P.(C)Nos.12684 and 32704 of 2024 contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had passed the clarificatory orders, fully knowing that the NHAI implements the projects by engaging concessionaires and contractors, and hence the clarification necessarily applies to the concessionaires and contractors issued with work orders before 21.03.2024. In support of this contention, the counsel for the respondents submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the NHAI to file an affidavit giving the list of projects on which work orders were issued before 21.03.2024 and the work entrusted to the concessionaire before this Court is included in the list. 14. In support of this contention, the counsel for the respondents submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the NHAI to file an affidavit giving the list of projects on which work orders were issued before 21.03.2024 and the work entrusted to the concessionaire before this Court is included in the list. 14. The counsel for the concessionaire further submitted that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has to be given a meaning and to hold that the benefit of the order is not available to the concessionaires entrusted the work between 28.03.2020 and 21.03.2024, would be to negate the effect of the exemption as there is no work which is being carried out by the NHAI directly. Sri P.M.Ziraj, appearing for the concessionaire in W.P.(C)No.13596 of 2024, and the Standing Counsel for NHAI in all these writ petitions, endorsed the arguments of Sri M.Ajay. 15. In the cases on hand, the letter accepting the bid and directing execution of necessary agreements etc., in favour of the concessionaire was issued as per Ext.R8(A) produced in W.P. (C)No.32704 of 2024 on 28.12.2021. The Concession Agreement between the NHAI and the concessionaire was entered into on 14.3.2022 which is before 21.3.2024. On 3.11.2023, the concessionaire entered into a lease agreement with the land owners for the excavation of ordinary earth in Pampakuda Panchayat. The mining plan submitted by the concessionaire was approved on 23.2.2024. Ext.R8(D) would show that the quarrying permit was issued valid from 13.3.2024 to 12.9.2024. Ext.R8(E) is a quarrying permit for the period from 28.2.2024 to 27.8.2024. Ext.R8(F) is another quarrying permit from 13.9.2024 to March 2025. The mining plan submitted by the concessionaire for the mining of ordinary earth was approved on 23.02.2024. The movement permits for removing the ordinary earth are seen to have been issued on 18.03.2024, with validity between 13.03.2024 and 12.09.2024. The movement permits have been issued by the Geologist for removing the ordinary earth for carrying out the National Highway work. It can be seen from the transit pass Ext.R8(E) produced by the concessionaire, that the location of the quarry is in Memury Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk, and the destination (site of NH), is 50 Kms from the quarry. The quarrying permit with regard to mining in Thiruvaniyoor Panchayat (Ext.P1 in W.P. (C)No.13596 of 2024) was issued on 13.3.2024. It can be seen from the transit pass Ext.R8(E) produced by the concessionaire, that the location of the quarry is in Memury Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk, and the destination (site of NH), is 50 Kms from the quarry. The quarrying permit with regard to mining in Thiruvaniyoor Panchayat (Ext.P1 in W.P. (C)No.13596 of 2024) was issued on 13.3.2024. The petitioners contend that the exemption granted by the Hon’ble Court cannot be misused by the concessionaire engaging in such quarrying activities, without Environmental Clearance from SEIAA. It is argued that the concession agreement between the NHAI and the concessionaire cannot be equated to “work orders” referred to in the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, or extended to contracts entered into between the concessionaire and land owners for quarrying earth. It is contended that the work order relates to the development of the NH and not to excavation for ordinary earth. 16. The contentions on either side can be summarised as follows. Sri Paul Abraham Vakkanal for petitioners: (a) The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is only in favour of the NHAI and not for any others. (b) The clarificatory order only says about work orders granted by the NHAI and does not refer to work orders issued by concessionaires or contracts entered into by concessionaires. (c) No contractor has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court for any clarification. (d) Sl.No.7F of the schedule of the EIA notification deals with work relating to Highways and the contents thereof are totally distinct from the contents in Appendix IX. (e) The exemption granted under Entry 6 is for extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth and the work orders referred to in the clarificatory order can only relate to work orders for extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth and cannot relate to work orders issued to a concessionaire for carrying out the work of the National Highways. Sri M.Ajay appearing for the concessionaire: (i) Several items in Appendix IX specifically speak about the beneficiary of the exemption, except Entry 6, which only says about extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for linear projects. It is hence submitted that what is material is the nature of the project and not the identity of the beneficiary. Sri M.Ajay appearing for the concessionaire: (i) Several items in Appendix IX specifically speak about the beneficiary of the exemption, except Entry 6, which only says about extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for linear projects. It is hence submitted that what is material is the nature of the project and not the identity of the beneficiary. (ii) Referring to Ext.R8(b) produced in W.P.(C)No.32704 of 2024 which is the list of projects submitted by the NHAI before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is submitted that Sl.No.216 in the list is the work which the concessionaire in this case has undertaken and it is hence submitted that going by the clarificatory order, the entire work contained in Sl.No.216 of Ext.R8(b) stands exempted whether or not it is strictly carried out by the NHAI or through concessionaire. (iii) It is submitted that all works shown against Sl.Nos.67 to 483 in the list stand exempted and the concessionaire before this Court alone cannot be denied the benefit when all over the country every other work is exempted. 17. Referring to Ext.R8(b), it is submitted that the Joint Committee had concluded that the proposed project does not require Environmental Clearance. The obligation of the concessionaire under the concession agreement is referred to, to submit that the concessionaire is obliged to procure all the materials for the work. However, it is to be noted that the agreement also specifically says that the concessionaire shall ensure and procure and that its contractors comply with all applicable permits and applicable laws in the performance by them of any of the concessionaire's obligations under the agreement. It obliges the concessionaire to obtain all applicable permits in conformity with the applicable laws. CONSIDERATION 18. In paragraph 25 of Ext.P10 judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the exemption granted as per Entry 6 is arbitrary. The Apex Court held that when an exception is sought to be carved out, to the requirement of obtaining EC, the exception should be specific. The Court held that Entry 6 does not specify the quantum of ordinary earth, which can be extracted, the area from where the earth can be extracted, and whether only the quantity required for the linear project can be extracted. The Court also noted that “linear projects” have not been defined and that the process to be adopted for excavation is not set out. The Court also noted that “linear projects” have not been defined and that the process to be adopted for excavation is not set out. The Court hence held that Entry 6 is a blanket exception, completely unguided, which is per se arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also pointed out that there is no authority to decide whether a particular linear project is covered by Entry 6. The above conclusions cannot be lost sight of while understanding the scope of the later clarifications issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 19. Clause 7(f) as amended lays down that the National Highway project requires EC. Appendix IX spelt out exemptions for linear projects, whether or not they are National Highway projects. The exemption relating to the excavation of ordinary earth has been struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. All that remains is how the clarificatory order has to be understood. 20. In M/s.Oriental Structural Engineers Private Ltd. v. The Circle Inspector of Police & Ors. [WPC.34959 of 2024] filed by the concessionaire in these cases seeking police protection for removal or ordinary earth, a learned Single Judge of this Court considered the effect of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Noble M. Paikada (supra) and rejected the argument of the concessionaire that Environmental Clearance is not required. Paragraph No.10 of the said judgment reads thus; “10. The petitioner's contention is that, since the work order for the subject project was issued between 28.03.2020 and 21.03.2024, and removal of ordinary earth being part of that project, 32 environment clearance is not required. The argument is liable to be rejected, since the Apex Court has clarified that, striking down of Item 6 of Appendix-IX will not affect work orders issued by the NHAI between 28.03.2020 and 21.03.2024. Even if it is accepted that the work order in the instant case was issued prior to 21.03.2024, Ext.P3 permit is issued only on 12.09.2024. Therefore, as on the date of issuance of Ext.P3, the exemption provided for extraction of earth for linear projects was not in existence. The clarificatory order does not also resurrect the exemption granted to linear projects by virtue of Item 6 of Appendix-IX. Moreover, Ext.P3 does not mention that the quarrying permit is granted for carrying out the work awarded to the petitioner by the NHAI as per Ext.P1. The clarificatory order does not also resurrect the exemption granted to linear projects by virtue of Item 6 of Appendix-IX. Moreover, Ext.P3 does not mention that the quarrying permit is granted for carrying out the work awarded to the petitioner by the NHAI as per Ext.P1. As submitted by the learned counsel for the party respondents, if the clarificatory order is understood to be extending to even extraction works for which permit is issued after 21.03.2024, that will result in massive excavation, since work orders for most ongoing National Highway projects would have been granted between 28.03.2020 and 21.03.2024. As such, the petitioner has failed to establish its right to conduct quarrying of ordinary earth without environmental clearance. The basic requirement for issuing a writ of mandamus, viz; the writ petitioner should be having a legal right, is absent as far as the petitioner is concerned.” 21. The concessionaire challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.A.No.1877 of 2024 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and in paragraph 2 it was held as follows: “2. This is one more writ petition seeking police protection in civil cases where civil rights are involved. Case of the Appellant / Petitioner is that the Petitioner is entitled to excavate simple earth in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Respondents dispute this position and state that environmental clearance is required. This would certainly require enquiry in the issue and adjudication that there is no enquiry required is merely a contention of the Appellant. The learned Single Judge has found otherwise. The petition is filed for a simplicitor prayer to extend police protection. No declaration is sought as regards the right of the Petitioner as regards excavation of simple earth without environmental clearance. It has been emphasized by this Court time and again that in the jurisdiction in the matters invoking simplicitor police protection contested substantive rights of the parties cannot be decided. Nothing stops the Appellant from seeking substantive relief akin to an injustice, the attempt to sidestep these proceedings by police protection is wholly misconceived. Such directions if liberally granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will place whole burden on already overworked police force, unless if issue of law and order arises. There is no such case before us.” 22. Such directions if liberally granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will place whole burden on already overworked police force, unless if issue of law and order arises. There is no such case before us.” 22. The Division Bench did not set aside the findings of the learned Single Judge but only found fault with the concessionaire for having approached the Court with a prayer for police protection simpliciter, without seeking any declaratory relief regarding the right to excavate ordinary earth without Environmental Clearance. 23. A similar issue arose before this Court in Nedumkunnam Grama Panchayat v. State of Kerala & Ors. [W.P.(C)No.2090 of 2025] . It was a case where the Grama Panchayat had prayed for quashing the quarrying permit for mining ordinary earth. The contention of the owner of the property where the excavation was being done was that the extraction of ordinary earth was in connection with work related to six laning of Thurvaoor-Paravur section of the National Highway 66, and the clarificatory order issued in Noble M. Paikada (supra) would exempt such work from the purview of Environmental Clearance. This Court relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Oriental Structures (supra) and also on the 'precautionary principle' which has been spoken to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pragnesh Shah v Arun Kumar Sharma [ (2022) 11 SCC 493 ], to hold that the work is not saved by the clarificatory order. In the process, this Court also relied on several other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which dealt with the precautionary principle. A different view was taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in P.K.Sasi & Ors. v. State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority & Ors. [ 2023 (5) KLT 875 ] The said decision was before the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Noble M. Paikada (supra) and the clarificatory orders thereon and hence cannot have any application. 24. In these cases, the benefit of the clarificatory order is sought by the concessionaire. The clarificatory order only safeguards work orders relating to the extraction of ordinary earth, the sourcing of ordinary earth, and the borrowing of ordinary earth, for linear projects. The mere fact that Entry 6 does not speak about the beneficiary, cannot by itself mean that every person who is undertaking the said work is entitled to the exemption. The clarificatory order only safeguards work orders relating to the extraction of ordinary earth, the sourcing of ordinary earth, and the borrowing of ordinary earth, for linear projects. The mere fact that Entry 6 does not speak about the beneficiary, cannot by itself mean that every person who is undertaking the said work is entitled to the exemption. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Entry 6 is invalid. The clarification was issued only for the work orders issued by the NHAI and that too on an application filed by the NHAI. The work order issued by the NHAI to the concessionaires herein is not for extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth. The work entrusted is the construction of the road and incidentally, the said work includes an obligation from the part of the concessionaire to extract or source or borrow ordinary earth. The said obligation can be met by the concessionaire either by undertaking the work of mining or by procuring the required ordinary earth from other suppliers. There can be no dispute that the suppliers of the concessionaire have to obtain Environmental Clearance for the excavation of ordinary earth. Hence, to say that if the concessionaire takes up the job of excavation, no EC would be required, would be extending the clarification issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, beyond its scope and intent and diluting the effect of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The obligation of the contractor cannot be equated to a work order issued by the NHAI. Any expanded interpretation given to the clarificatory order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would lead to several unintended situations like the one in the present case. Admittedly, in this case, the extraction of the ordinary earth is being done from a hillock situated 50 Kms away from the work site of the National Highway. Such an aspect was never in contemplation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had only permitted work orders issued by the NHAI to be exempted from the requirement of getting any Environmental Clearance. This Court cannot enter into an interpretative process as in the case of Statutes, when it comes to judgments. I do not find any reason to take a different view from the views expressed by the learned Single Judge in Oriental Structural Engineers (supra) and Nedumkunnam Grama Panchayat (supra). 25. This Court cannot enter into an interpretative process as in the case of Statutes, when it comes to judgments. I do not find any reason to take a different view from the views expressed by the learned Single Judge in Oriental Structural Engineers (supra) and Nedumkunnam Grama Panchayat (supra). 25. The contention that the work in question has been included in the list provided by the NHAI before the Hon’ble Supreme Court also does not in any manner better the case of the concessionaire of the NHAI. The list only speaks of the project of the NHAI and does not specifically refer to the mining contract entered into between the concessionaire and the land owners, for meeting their obligations under the concession agreement with the NHAI. The fact that the benefit of the clarification does not extend to the contracts entered into by the concessionaire for the purpose of procuring ordinary earth is further clear from the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the clarificatory order: “If it is the contention of the appellant that notwithstanding the fact that these projects have commenced during the aforesaid period, the applicant- NHAI must obtain Environmental Clearance, it is for the appellant to take appropriate proceedings in that behalf.” 26. It is clear from the above that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the EC that needs to be obtained by the NHAI and not regarding the EC that needs to be obtained by the Concessionaire or any other contractor who supplies ordinary earth for the purpose of the project. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Exts.P1 to P5 quarrying permits produced in W.P.(C)No.12684 of 2024 andExt.P1 quarrying permit produced in W.P.(c)No.13596 of 2024 are quashed as they have been issued without any valid Environmental Clearance. There will be a direction to the respondents 1 to 7 in W.P.(C)No.32704 of 2024 to ensure that respondents 8 to 14 do not engage in any excavation/mining/ quarrying of any ordinary earth or any such activities, in the light of Ext.P10 judgment and Ext.P11 order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, without obtaining Environmental Clearance from the SEIAA, with respect to the following properties; (a) Property of Sri. Paul Jacob (9 th respondent), admeasuring 2.28 acres (92.27 Ares) comprised in Sy.No.969/4 and 969/9A-3 having TP No.3477 of Memmury Village, Pampakuda Kara, Ernakulam District located in Ward No.2 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayat; (b) Property of Sri Paul Jacob (9 th respondent) & Smt.Mary Paul (10 th respondent), admeasuring 3.24 Acres (1.31.22 hectares) comprised in Sy.No.962/1-2-2, 962/1-3-3, 962/1-1-2 and 962/1-2-2-2, having TP No.10645 and 10681 of Memmury Village, Pampakuda Kara, Ernakulam District located in Ward No.3 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayath; (c) Property of Smt.Thankamma Abraham (11 th respondent), admeasuring 2.24 Acres (94.69 Ares) comprised in Sy.No.594/1-3 of Onakkoor Village, 40 Piramadom Kara, Ernakulam District located in Ward No.4 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayath; (d) Property of Smt. Leelamma Paulose (10 th respondent), admeasuring 2.23 Acres (94.29 Ares) comprised in Sy.No.594/1-3-2 of Onakkoor Village, Piramadom Kara, Ernakulam District located in Ward No.4 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayat; (e) Property of Smt.Ammini George (13 th respondent), admeasuring 2.23 Acres (94.29 Ares) comprised in Sy.No.594/1-3-4 of Onakkoor Village, Piramadom Kara, Ernakulam District located in Ward No.4 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayat; and (f) Property of Smt.Alice Baby (14 th respondent), admeasuring 2 Acres (80.94 Ares) comprised in Sy.No.594/1-3-3 of Onakkoor Village, Piramadom Kara, Ernakulam District located in Ward No.4 of Pampakuda Grama Panchayath; without a valid Environmental Clearance from the SEIAA (1 st respondent).