IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 940 of 2009(S) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.12156/2008 Dated 23/05/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WPC. ---------------------------------- CITIZEN INTEREST AGENCY, A REGISTERED CHARITABLE SOCIETY, 'VASANTH',MANIKKIRI ROAD,ERNAKULAM, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT,SIMON KUNNATH. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 9 AND ADDL.RESPONDENT NO.10 ------------------------ 1. COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND,KOCHI, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT,DELHI. 3. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,NEW DELHI, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE,GANDHI NAGAR,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-20,REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 6. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,ERNAKULAM. 7. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REP.BY THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI,ERNAKULAM. 8. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM. 9. M/S.GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD., 248,OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE-III,NEW DELHI-20. R.P.No.940 of 2009 : 2 : 10. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN,(PRINCIPAL SECRETARY), SCIENCE,TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R2 & R3 SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR FOR R5 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R9 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R9 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R9 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R9 SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R1 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, Ag.C.J. & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------- R.P.No.940 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.12156 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 O R D E R Ramachandra Menon, J. This is a composite application seeking to review the judgment dated 23.5.2009 in W.P.(C) No.12156 of 2009 and also to condone the delay in filing the Review petition. Even though no separate application has been filed with a supporting affidavit explaining the reason for the delay, this Court still thought it fit to have it considered and urgent notice was ordered on 10.11.2009. 2. The basis for the review petition is stated in 'Ground G', that the petitioner actually wanted to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and when the matter was consulted with the learned counsel in New Delhi, it was advised that some important issues raised by the petitioner have not been considered by this Court. Hence, this review petition is filed with the delay of 67 days, though absolutely nothing has been R.P.No.940 of 2009 2 stated any where as to how the delay occurred or any justifiable reason to condone the same. 3. With regard to the merits of the case, the matter was argued in detail by the learned counsel Sri. V.Jayaprasad appearing for the review petitioner. The various prayers raised in the Writ Petition have been specifically dealt with in paragraph 3 of the judgment. As evident from paragraph 6 of the judgment, Mr.Vaidyanathan, the learned Senior Counsel who addressed the Court confined his arguments on five aspects which are as follow:- (a) that Ext.P5 impugned in the Writ Petition was passed without obtaining environment impact assessment as required in the Environment Impact Assessment Notification; (b)that there is no independent appraisal of the relevant factors; (c) that 'Cement' being a hazardous chemical, environmental clearance should not have been granted by the Ministry; (d) regarding the zoning of the Cochin Port area and, R.P.No.940 of 2009 3 (e) that a public hearing should have been conducted before granting the clearance. It is very much evident that all these points have been specifically and separately dealt with, in paragraph Nos.7,8,9 and 10 of the impugned judgment. 4. After appreciating all the facts and figures, it has also been observed in paragraph 11 of the verdict that the basic issue was with regard to the 'pollution' and further, “it is fairly clear that by the marine transport of bulk cement, the impact on the environment is less, compared to the surface transport of cement”. This being the position, all the points argued by the learned Senior Counsel have been dealt with in detail, while passing the judgment. There is absolutely no case for the review petitioner that they have omitted to raise any of the points. Likewise, there is no case that any of the points raised had been omitted to be considered while passing the final verdict. Nor is there any case, that some new points which were not within the knowledge of the review petitioner earlier, have come to light. In other words, all the points specifically argued R.P.No.940 of 2009 4 before this Court have been considered and there is 'no error apparent on the face of the record'. In short, the grievance projected in the present review petition is that the petitioner wants to have a 're-hearing' of the matter, after passing the judgment, which is not at all permissible, being not within the four walls of law. The scope of review has been explained by the Honourable Supreme Court on many an occasion, including in Meera Bhanjas' case reported in AIR 1995 SC 455, alerting that, it shall not be taken as a substitute for appeal. This being the position, there is absolutely no ground to call for any interference in the review petition. We find no merit and accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE nj.