Bengaluru Development Authority vs Sudhakar Hegde

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 262

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA
Bengaluru Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Sudhakar Hegde – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Dharm Singh, Suraj Kaushik, Nanda Kumar K.B., for M/S. Nuli & Nuli, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

	Index
A	Introduction
B	Submissions
C	Issues
D	Date of commencement of the PRR project
E	Applicability of the EIA Notification 2006
F	Compliance with the procedure under the EIA Notification 2006
G	Deficiencies in the EIA report
	G.1	Accreditation of the EIA consultant
	G.2	Forest land
	G.3	Trees
	G.4	Pipeline
H	Appraisal by the SEAC
I	Courts and the environment
J	Directions

A. Introduction

1. The present appeal arises from a judgment of the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal[NGT] dated 8 February 2019 quashing the Environmental Clearance, [EC] granted to the appellant for the development of an eight lane Peripheral Ring Road[PRR] connecting Tumkur Road to Hosur Road and totaling a length of 65 kilometers. The NGT was of the view that the primary data upon which the Environment Impact Assessment [EIA] report was based was collected more than t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(SC) 262

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTABengaluru Development Authority – AppellantVersusSudhakar Hegde – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA
Bengaluru Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Sudhakar Hegde – Respondent