JUDGMENT :

L. Nageswara Rao. J.

The dispute in these appeals pertains to the environmental clearance for expansion of National Highway 45-A between Villuppuram to Nagapattinam. The High Court held that it is necessary. The Appellant disagrees. Hence, these appeals.

2. The project of widening and improvement of the existing 4-laning carriage way in the State of Tamil Naduand the Union Territory of Puducherry, from Villuppuram to Nagapattinam was bifurcated into four packages, which are as follows:

i. Villuppuram to Puducherry (29.000 kms)-Package I.

ii. Puducherry to Poondiankuppam (38.00 kms)-Package II.

iii. Poondiankuppam to Sattanathapuram (56.800 kms)-Package III.

iv. Sattanathapuram to Nagapattinam (55.755 kms)-Package IV.

3. Approval was granted by the Competent Authority, i.e. Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways No. 45-A in March, 2018 and agreements were entered into between the Appellant and the concessionaires. Process was initiated for acquisition of lands required for the project. Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court of Madras by certain aggrieved farmers and public interest litigants questioning the commencement of the project without obtaining environmental clearance. The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and issued the following directions:

a. "The present project of expansion of NH-45A covering a stretch of 179.555 k.m. shall be put on hold, and the present status quo is directed to be maintained.

b. That the project proponent (NHAI) shall undertake an EIA study and obtain environmental clearance.

c. The NHAI is also directed to obtain approval from CRZMA for CRZ clearance for two locations that it has indicated in its counter in W.P.15217/2019.

d. Once the necessary clearances are obtained as mentioned in (b) and (c) above, the project can proceed. If the EIA study to be undertaken provides any contra-indicators to the NHAI's plan of development of NH-45A, it will be at liberty to make necessary alterations and modifications to make the project environmental viable.

e. If after ensuring the environmental viability of the project, its implementation resumes, the project proponent, and subject to the terms of the contract, the concessionaire, should first identify the places for planting the saplings of the same variety, preferably native-trees, for every tree felled, and it must be grown first. Possibility of forming a Miyawaki forest has to be explored as well.

f. This Court proposes to form a committee to monitor the compliance of the direction given in (e) above, and hence, before resumption of the project, NHAI is required to approach this Court".

4. Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 empowers the Central Government to take all such measures for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution. One of the measures provided in Section 3 (2) (v) is restriction of areas in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards. The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 were made in exercise of power conferred by Sections 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. According to Rule 5, the Central Government may prohibit or restrict the location of industries and the carrying on of processes and operations in different areas.

5. In exercise of the power conferred on the Central Government by Sub-Clause (i) and Clause (v) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Clause (b) of Sub rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India issued a Notification on 14.09.2006 directing construction of new projects or activities or the expansion or modernisation of existing projects or activities listed under the Schedule to the Notification shall be undertaken only after prio