Kerala high court – can environmental clearance be reassessed due to adoption of new gsi–ksdma hazar

Environmental Clearance (EC) for a quarry in Kerala was granted in 2024 based on the then-prevailing landslide hazard map (NCESS / earlier framework), under which the project site was recorded as being more than 2 km away from the Moderate Hazard Zone, and was treated as a Low Hazard area. This position is also reflected in SEAC/CAC meeting minutes relied upon while granting the EC. In 2025, the Kerala State Government, through official policy documents (including the “Orange Book”), has formally adopted GSI landslide hazard maps endorsed by KSDMA as the official hazard framework to be followed thereafter. As per the latest GSI–KSDMA maps, the same quarry site is now shown at 0 km from the Moderate Hazard Zone, with the hazard boundary touching the site and indications of extension towards a higher hazard category. The project involves blasting, and as per the habitation map prepared by the project proponent itself (certified by the Village Officer), there are residential / rehabilitation houses within approximately 60–100 metres, with several habitations within 500 metres. My queries are: 1. Can the Kerala High Court, in writ jurisdiction, direct SEIAA and/or the District Collector to reconsider or re-appraise the EC based on the updated official hazard framework, even if the EC was valid at the time it was granted? 2. Can interim restrictions or a temporary restraint on blasting be ordered on public-safety / precautionary-principle grounds pending such reassessment? 3. In Kerala practice, is hazard reclassification based on officially adopted GSI–KSDMA maps, coupled with close habitation, considered sufficient ground for judicial intervention, without going into criminal, title, or private disputes? I am seeking views based on Kerala High Court practice, SEAC/SEIAA functioning, and environmental jurisprudence relating to continuing duty and precautionary principle.