1. Appeal against NGT order rejecting a challenge to environmental clearance for an airport project due to delay in filing under Section 16, NGT Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 885
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
Sridevi Datla - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3136 of 2020
Decided On : 02-03-2021
Important Points
Points of law : Given mandate of the NGT Act, exercise of discretion, as was done in this case, to reject appeal by dismissing application for condonation of delay, on ground that no sufficient cause was shown, was erroneous and based on a narrow reading of the law.
Subject
Environmental Law - National Green Tribunal (NGT)
Act Referred
AIR PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION ACT: S.31(b)
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ACT: S.52(a)
CONTRACT ACT: S.25
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT: S.5
FOREST CONSERVATION ACT: S.2
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT: S.10
LIMITATION ACT: S.5
NATIONAL GREENS TRIBUNAL ACT: S.22, S.19, S.16
WATER PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION ACT: S.28, S.13(a), S.33(a)
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ACT: S.52(a)
CONTRACT ACT: S.25
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT: S.5
FOREST CONSERVATION ACT: S.2
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT: S.10
LIMITATION ACT: S.5
NATIONAL GREENS TRIBUNAL ACT: S.22, S.19, S.16
WATER PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION ACT: S.28, S.13(a), S.33(a)
Headnote
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 - Section 13-A - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Section 2-A - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 31-B - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 10 - Projects Environment Protection - Claim exercise - Greenfield international airport As was required by law and extant statutory notifications, it applied to Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change (hereinafter "MoEF") to seek environmental clearance MoEF after following prescribed procedure which included ascertaining views and objections of the concerned parties general public etc indicated its approval by an order dated.
Finding the Court :
Court is of opinion that there is merit in appellant's argument respondents especially project applicant had urged that appellant is an interested party and cannot be called a public-spirited citizen because she had opposed acquisition of land for airport and therefore was able to access legal advice at High Court stage - There is in our opinion nothing in NGT Act which excludes parties who would be directly affected by a project that has environmental repercussions from accessing tribunal (NGT) - Likewise characterizing nature of legal advice that can be accessed for challenging land acquisition as similar to a challenge to environmental clearance which involves application of mind to technical issues in detailed manner would be unfair and simplistic court is of opinion that given mandate of NGT Act exercise of discretion as was done in this case reject appeal by dismissing application for condo nation of delay on ground that no sufficient cause was shown was erroneous and based on a narrow reading of law - An appeal to NGT in such matters is no ordinary matter it has potential of irrevocably changing environment with possibility of likely injury.
Result : Application of judicial (2021) 3 SCALE 493
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- environmental law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether website publication constitutes communication, applicability of General Clauses Act for holidays, and whether technical complexity justifies condonation of delay. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Environmental disputes require specialized expertise; sufficient cause for condonation should be interpreted liberally to ensure substantial justice and prevent irrevocable environmental injury. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applies to NGT appeals; technical complexity and voluminous documentation constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay. (Para 20 , 21 , 29 )
5. NGT order set aside, delay condoned, and the appeal remanded for disposal on merits. (Para 30 )
6. Does the Limitation Act apply to appeals filed under the NGT Act?
No. Where a special law prescribes a specific period of limitation and a specific window for condoning delay, the provisions of the Limitation Act are inapplicable. (Para 18 )
7. How is the computation of time handled if the limitation period expires on a holiday for NGT appeals?
Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applies. If the last day of the prescribed period falls on a holiday, the act is considered done in due time if performed on the next working day. (Para 20 , 21 )
8. What is the standard for determining sufficient cause for condonation of delay in environmental appeals?
Sufficient cause should receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice. Delay should generally be condoned unless there is gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or lack of bona fides. (Para 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 )
9. Can the need for technical expertise and review of voluminous documents be considered sufficient cause for delay?
Yes. Because environmental clearances involve complex technical issues and voluminous documentation, the time required to obtain expert professional advice and prepare grounds for appeal can constitute sufficient cause. (Para 28 , 29 )
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. - The appellant is aggrieved by an order of the National Green Tribunal (hereafter referred to as "the NGT" [Dated 31.07.2020] ) and has, therefore, approached this Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act. The NGT rejected her appeal, preferred to it against the environmental clearance for construction of the Greenfield International Airport, Bhogapuram, Vishakapatnam, which had been sought for by the fifth respondent.
2. The facts are simple: the fifth respondent (hereafter called "the Project Applicant") proposed the construction of a new Greenfield international airport. As was required by law and extant statutory notifications, it applied to the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (hereinafter, the "MoEF") to seek environmental clearance. The MoEF, after following the prescribed procedure, which included ascertaining the views and objections of the concerned parties, the general public etc, indicated its approval by an order dated 14.08.2017. In terms of Section 19 of the NGT Act, the approval was posted on the website of the MoEF on 14.08.2017. Concededly, the Project Applicant published the approval in an English daily on 13.09.2017.
3. The appellant preferred her appeal to the NGT on 13.11.2017. Along with the appeal, she preferred an application for condonation of delay in approaching the NGT, given the stipulation of Section 19 that the appeal had to be preferred within 30 days from the date of communication of the order impugned. She explained that since the clearance and related documents were voluminous and the matter required some technical expertise, requiring the papers to be forwarded to experts and lawyers in Delhi, and the inter se communication delay, the NGT needed to condone the delay, in the interests of justice. After considering the submissions made by the appellant as well as the Project Applicant, which opposed the application for condonation of delay, the NGT, by its impugned order, rejected the appellant's application and consequently the appeal as well.
4. The appellant's arguments before this Court are mainly twofold: that the requirement of Section 16 is to "communicate the order to the concerned parties as well as the public and that a meaningful interpretation should be given to the provision". It was emphasised in this context that communication means not merely the publication on the Central Government's website, but also dissemination of the news or the decision to the affected parties. Learned senior counsel for the appellant -Ms. Anitha Shenoy, in this context, relied upon the terms contained in the environmental clearance/approval given by the MoEF, especially those which obliged the Project Applicant to intimate the decision in dailies having local circulation in the vernacular. She also relied upon the stipulations in the environmental clearance ("EC") which prescribed that the successful project applicant had to, in continuation to so publishing the decision or intimation in local newspapers, also ensure that the decision was forwarded to local communities through the Panchayats etc. for dissemination.
5. It was pointed out that the object of these conditions should be construed as part of a larger scheme of the Act to communicate every decision. The appellant argued that if a contrary interpretation were to be accepted, the appeal given by the statute would be meaningless as most often, large projects which involve either displacement of people or which affect habitats and have the tendency to damage or at least cause significant adverse impact upon the environment would not be considered on its merits by the NGT since people and neighbourhoods cannot be presumed to have knowledge of deliberations in New Delhi.
6. It was also argued on behalf of the appellant that in the circumstances of the present case, at least the appeal could not be said to be time barred. It was argued that the date for reckoning (limitation) is from 14.08.2017,
