"No Centre's Approval, Project Is Nowhere, SIA Lapsed" : Kerala High Court Closes Writ Petitions Relating To K-Rail Silverline

The Kerala High Court on Monday has closed all the Writ Petitions filed in connection with the K-Rail Project for the time being, with full liberty to the petitioners to seek a rehearing when any further actions are taken by the Government of Kerala, either for the social impact assessment or acquisition of land.

Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that since the SIA notifications issued have lapsed and the land acquisition orders issued by the Kerala Government are at a standstill as the Central Government is yet to approve the DPR, the Court should not consider the matter at this stage. 

The challenges in the writ petitions are against the orders and notifications issued by the Government of Kerala. Going by the narrative above, a consideration of the validity of the aforesaid orders and notifications are now unnecessary because, for one, the SIA notification has admittedly lapsed, and for the second, the land acquisition orders are literally stillborn, awaiting the final nod from the Government of India. I do not think that this Court should spend any further time on these matters at this stage, particularly when it is not even clear as to how the Government of India will deal with the DPR in the days to come. 

The Silver Line is a proposed semi-highspeed railway line, and Kerala Rail Development Corporation Limited (KRDCL) was entrusted with the implementation of the project. 

In a Statement filed on 25th September, the Railway Board informed the Kerala High Court that Kerala Rail Development Corporation Limited (KRDCL) has not provided the details requested by the Railway Board regarding the DPR of the Silver Line Project.

This comes after the Court had directed the Railway Board to inform the Court before the next posting whether there has been any progress from the stand they had taken earlier with respect to the DPR.

The Railway Board had previously submitted before the Court that all steps taken in pursuance of land acquisition for K-Rail Silverline are premature since no approval has been granted for the project so far and reiterated that it has neither approved nor concurred with the SIA and that the survey conducted by the State Government was under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act.

In the statement moved through Deputy Solicitor General of India, Advocate S. Manu, it is submitted that KRDCL was asked to produce detailed technical documents such as alignment plan particulars of railway land and private land crossings over the existing railway network, duly depicting affected railway asset through Zonal Railway for examination of the project and to arrive at conclusion about the feasibility of the project and it is averred that despite several letters being sent to KRDCL as reminders, KRDCL has not submitted the clarifications sought by the Railway Board. 

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the Deputy Solicitor General of India submitted before the Court that since the Government of India has not even approved the DPR, there cannot even be said that there is a project, particularly because such approval is only the first step. He further explained that even after the DPR is approved (whenever it is done), the proposal will have to be vetted by various authorities in the hierarchy. Finally, to obtain the concurrence of the Cabinet Committee of Economic Affairs, the Government of India, and until the final approval from the Cabinet Committee is obtained, the project is, at the best, only a proposal.  As a concluding submission, the Deputy Solicitor General added that the government of India did not give permission for conducting the SIA and that any action taken by the KRDCL would be at their own risk and responsibility. 

Advocate Dinesh Rao, Standing Counsel for KRDCL, submitted that the clarification sought by the Railway Board has already been provided. This was then supplemented by Special Government Pleader Advocate T B Hood that all action was taken by the Government of Kerala under the legitimate expectation that DPR would be approved.  

The Court remarked that the Government of Kerala unequivocally admits that unless the proposal obtains the concurrence of the Government of India, it cannot be fortified. Since the Writ Petitions are filed challenging the orders and notifications issued by the Government of Kerala, the Court going by the narrative above, observed that a consideration of the validity of the aforesaid orders and notifications is now unnecessary because, for one, the SIA notification has admittedly lapsed, and for the second, the land acquisition orders are literally stillborn, awaiting the final nod from the Government of India. Therefore, opining that the Court should not spend any further time on these matters at this stage, particularly when it is not even clear as to how the Government of India will deal with the DPR in the days to come.

Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Advocates Mohammed Shah and Preetha, submitted that the Government of Kerala and KRDCL should be interdicted from spending any further money until the Government of India approves; however, the Court remarked that in a Constitutional scheme, the Government is accountable for every penny spent.

The Single Bench consisting of Justice Ramachandran, also strongly condemned the action of the Director of Survey, Government of Kerala, for granting permission to the KRDCL to use large concrete stones, which ironically led the situation to be in the manner as evident today. The explanation given by the officer was that he was not aware that the Court had interdicted him from statutory powers under the Survey Acts and Rules. The Court remarked that the records show that the officer has acted upon the request made by the KRDCL, and the act of the KRDCL having approached the Director of Survey without obtaining permission from this Court and the officer in having issued an order without seeking clarification is unfortunate and should be viewed very seriously. 

Since everything has come to a stand-still, I deem it better to leave it at there, observed the Court, while closing the Writ Petitions for the time being, however, with full liberty to the petitioners to seek a re-hearing as and when any further actions is taken by the Government of Kerala, either for the social impact assessment or acquisition of land. 

Justice Ramachandran further added that the Court chose not to answer any of the specific contentions of the Writ Petitions because what is stated to be a 'Project' is visibly nowhere even near being defined as such. 

Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala