SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 1631

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.K. SABHARWAL, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.
Goa Foundation (I) - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 460 of 2004
Decided on : 17-12-2004

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Raj Panjwami and Ms. Purnima Bhat, Advocates.
For the Respondent:A. Sharan, Additional Solicitor General (Vikas Sharma and Anil Katiyar, Advocates).

Compliance with environmental impact assessment notification and the prohibition on construction work without obtaining environmental clearance are crucial legal principles.

Headnote:

Environmental Clearance - Ex Post Facto Clearance - Compliance with Environmental Impact Assessment Notification

Fact of the Case:

The court perused an affidavit and a list of projects in the industry sector that had been accorded ex post facto environmental clearance. The notification prohibits construction work until environmental clearance is obtained.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the Ministry of Environment and Forests to provide information on units operating without prior environmental clearance, steps taken regarding remaining proposals, and relevant facts in regard to compliance with the environmental impact assessment notification.

Issues: Compliance with environmental clearance regulations, ex post facto environmental clearance, and violation of the notification dated 27-1-1994.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of compliance with environmental impact assessment notification and the prohibition on construction work without obtaining environmental clearance.

Final Decision: The matter was adjourned for the Ministry of Environment and Forests to file an affidavit within a period of four weeks.

ORDER :

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.

We have perused the affidavit filed by Mr G.V. Subrahmanyam, Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests, dated 7-12-2004, along with which list of projects in the industry sector which have been accorded ex post facto environmental clearance up to 14-5-2004 has been annexed. As per the said list, 95 projects in the industry sector have been accorded ex post facto environmental clearance. The notification dated 27-1-1994, inter alia, prohibits construction work, preliminary or otherwise, relating to setting up of the project till environmental clearance is obtained. The nature of the projects to which the said notification applies has been indicated in the notification itself. The last extension granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to seek environment impact clearance was in terms of the circular dated 14-5-2002 whereunder the application had to be filed by 31-3-2003. The said circular has been commented upon by this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118 : JT (2004) 4 SC 181.

2. Our attention has been drawn by Mr Panjwani, learned counsel, to the answer given in Parliament by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Environment and Forests relating to the units operating without prior environmental clearance. The answer states that the Government had received 465 proposals for ex post facto environmental clearance by 31-3-2003 of which 249 are in the industry sector and 216 in the mining sector. Even if 95 projects in the industry sector, referred to above, are reduced from the aforesaid figure of 249, it will still leave many projects in the industry sector going on without clearance besides 216 projects in the mining sector. A copy of the answer given by the Minister on the floor of the House has been handed over by Mr Panjwani to learned Additional Solicitor General. Let learned Additional Solicitor General take instructions and file an affidavit as to the units operating in violation of the notification dated 27-1-1994, steps taken regarding the remaining proposals and the other relevant facts in regard to the compliance with the environmental impact assessment notification in letter and spirit. This shall be done by filing an affidavit within a period of four weeks.

3. The matter is adjourned.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top