1. Challenge to government clearance for a thermal power plant based on environmental concerns and adherence to guidelines. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1991 Supreme(SC) 169
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.D.Ojha : S.C.Agrawal : S.Ranganathan
Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group: Bombay Environmental Action Group
Versus
Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Company Ltd: State Of Maharashtra
Case No. : 1223 of 1991
Date of Decision : 3/19/91
The court's role in reviewing environmental clearances is limited to ensuring the government considered all relevant factors. Expert committee reports are advisory, not binding, and general environmental guidelines can be flexibly applied based on local conditions and specific safeguards.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 136 - Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - Judicial review of government clearance for a thermal power plant - The court's role is restricted to examining whether the government has taken into account all relevant aspects and has neither ignored nor overlooked any material considerations nor been influenced by extraneous or immaterial considerations in arriving at its final decision. (Para 2)
(B) Expert Committee Reports - Findings of an expert appraisal committee are not conclusive or binding on the central government, which may consider multiple reports and recommendations from state authorities to strike a balance between the importance of public projects and the necessity for the preservation of social and ecological balances. (Para 3(2))
(C) Environmental Guidelines - Guidelines regarding the location of power plants are of a general nature and are not rigid or inflexible; they can be adapted to local conditions and specific regional requirements, provided stringent conditions to prevent pollution are imposed. (Para 3(3))
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the clearance granted by the central and state governments for the construction of a thermal power plant. They contended that the site was unsuitable as per the findings of an expert appraisal committee and violated environmental guidelines concerning the distance from the coastline and ecologically sensitive areas. It was further argued that subsequent notifications prohibiting industrialization in the region invalidated the clearance.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the government had considered various expert reports and state recommendations before granting clearance. The restriction regarding distance from the high tide line applied specifically to the buildings of the station, and the company had agreed to ensure the required clearance. Subsequent notifications prohibiting further industrialization were intended to prevent proliferation and did not affect the validity of the specific clearance already granted.
Issues: Whether the government's decision to clear the project was arbitrary for disregarding an expert committee's report and whether the clearance violated environmental guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the government's action is not arbitrary if it considers all relevant material, and expert committee findings are advisory rather than binding. General environmental guidelines serve as safeguards that can be modified based on local necessity and the imposition of stringent pollution-control measures. The court will not substitute its own view for that of the government unless the decision-making process was flawed.
Result: Special leave petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Allegations of disregarding expert committee reports, violation of environmental guidelines regarding distance from coast/forests, and potential non-enforcement of pollution control conditions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Government must balance public utility with ecological preservation; courts only review if all relevant material was considered without ignoring critical factors or being influenced by extraneous ones. (Para 2 , 3 , 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. Administrative decisions on public projects are not arbitrary if based on a consideration of all relevant material, even if they diverge from non-binding expert recommendations. (Para 2 )
5. Special leave petitions dismissed; directions issued to ensure monitoring of building distance from high tide line and notice for any relaxation of pollution conditions. (Para 5 , 6 )
6. What is the scope of judicial review when courts examine government decisions regarding public projects and ecological preservation?
The court's role is restricted to examining whether the government has taken into account all relevant aspects and has neither ignored nor overlooked any material considerations nor been influenced by extraneous or immaterial considerations in striking a balance between public benefit and ecological preservation. (Para 2 )
7. Are the findings of an expert appraisal committee binding on the government when granting project clearances?
Findings of an expert appraisal committee are not conclusive or binding on the government. The government may accept other expert recommendations or state reports, provided the decision is based on a consideration of all relevant material and is not arbitrary. (Para 2 )
8. Must general environmental guidelines regarding distance from ecologically sensitive areas be applied rigidly to all projects?
General guidelines are intended as safeguards and are not rigid or inflexible. They must be applied considering local conditions and specific project requirements, provided stringent conditions are imposed to prevent significant environmental pollution. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT
S.RANGANATHAN, J.
(1) THE two petitioners, who are "Environment Protection Groups" objected to the clearance, by the State of Maharashtra and the Union of India, of a proposal of the Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "BSES") for the construction of a thermal power plant over an area of 800 hectares or thereabouts in Dahanu, Maharashtra. They filed writ petitions in the Bombay High court challenging the decision of the central government to that effect dated 29/03/1989. After some hearing the Bombay High court passed an order dated 30/03/1990 adjourning the hearing to enable the government of India to consider the representations made by the two petitioners. Government of India did this and reaffirmed its decision to clear the project. A detailed affidavit was filed on behalf of the Union on 29/06/1990. To this was enclosed a memorandum dealing in seriatim with the various objections raised by the petitioners and setting out the governments findings thereon. After considering the same and hearing the counsel at length, the High court, by a detailed order, dismissed the writ petitions by its order dated 12/12/1990. The objectors have thereupon filed these two petitions for leave to appeal before us.
(2) THE limitations, or more appropriately, the self-imposed restrictions of a court in considering such an issue as this have been set out by the court in Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. Sachidanand Pandey V. State of W.B. The observations in those decisions need not be reiterated here. It is sufficient to observe that it is primarily for the governments concerned to consider the importance of public projects for the betterment of the conditions of living of the people on the one hand and the necessity for the preservation of social and ecological balances, avoidance of deforestation and maintenance of purity of the atmosphere and water free from pollution on the other in the light of various factual, technical and other aspects that may be brought to its notice by various bodies of laymen, experts and public workers and strike a just balance between these two conflicting objectives. The courts role is restricted to examine whether the Government has taken into account all relevant aspects and has neither ignored nor overlooked any material considerations nor been influenced by extraneous or immaterial considerations in arriving at its final decision.
(3) HAVING regard to the fact that the High court, after giving a fresh opportunity to the objectors to have their objections considered, has gone into the matter in depth and found nothing wrong with the decision of the government, the scope for any interference by this court under Article 136 is indeed very narrow. However, as the project involved is a very vital one for the citizens of Bombay and its suburbs and the petitioners claim that the decision of the governments was arrived at in disregard of certain guidelines prescribed and the recommendations of an expert committee set up by the Union government itself, we have looked into the matter in detail. Sri Atui Setalvad, Sri Gopal Subramaniam and Sri G.S. Patel who appeared for the objectors and Sri Ashok Desai who appeared for respondents have taken us through considerable portions of the several paper books filed by them. We have also heard the standing counsel for the State. We have come to the conclusion that there are no grounds to grant leave to appeal from the order passed by the High court. We shall briefly deal with the contentions urged before us:
(1 The BSES undertook surveys some time in 1976 and selected about ten sites where its thermal power station could be located and Dahanu was not one of them. After consideration, a site at Bassein was cleared in 1985. But the State government objected to this site later on the ground that Bassein was located within a distance of one kilometer from the sea shore and 5
