Supreme Court dismisses plea challenging environment clearance to Thiruvananthapuram Lulu Mall

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea challenging the Environment Clearance granted to the Lulu Mall at Thiruvanathapuram in Kerala [MK Salim v. State of Kerala]..A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana along with Justices JK Maheshwari and Hima Kohli dismissed the appeal filed by one MK Salim against a Kerala High Court judgment dated August 13, 2021 which had held that mall did not violate either the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification or the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) regulations."This type of (PIL) business, we should not entertain. They appointed a committee, which measured..everything is over," the CJI said. Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and V Giri and advocate Haris Beeran appeared for Lulu Group. Salim had contended that the mall was built in violation of CRZ -III regulations and had destroyed the ecological balance of the area. It was alleged that the construction fell within the prohibited distance from two water bodies - the Aakulam lake and the Parvathy Puthanar canal.The State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) erroneously granted EC to the ₹1,000 crore project, it was contended."A letter issued by SEIAA has given an Environmental Clearance dated October 4, 2016 explaining that the Lulu Mall construction is built at a distance of 100 meters from the Hide Tide Line of Aakkulam Lake, which was covered by mud and stone debris in order to showcase that the building was a correct sketch which did not violate the Coastal Regulation. In short, the building is constructed adjacent to the Aakkulam lake and has destroyed the scenic beauty of the coastal area," the plea said. Further, it was contended that the SEIAA had power to grant EC only for constructions upto 1,50,000 square meters. "Here clearance has been given to construct 2,32,400 Sq. Mtrs in category B as per EIA Notification 2006, which itself is a huge violation of the power vested on the authority," it was submitted..The petitioner further contended that respondent Lulu Mall in their counter affidavit had submitted that the project was a Township and Area Development Project, which was false. "The statement is false. The Chief Town planner in Kerala had vehemently given a letter in Thiruvananthapuram from his office via RTI Letter, explaining clearly the area does not fall under the ambit of Township and Area Development,' contended petitioner..The place where the mall was constructed was a saline prone marshy land influenced by the sea water, stated plea adding further that, it was highly polluted and not fit for drinking."Earlier, the site was dense, had a large variety of tree species and belonged to the forest department. While the construction started, the process of deforestation was carried out and the environment was affected," it was submitted.