SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Sanjay Karol, JJ.
Noble M. Paikada – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 1628-1629 of 2021
Decided On : 21-03-2024
Environmental Clearance - Environmental Protection Act, 1986 - Section 3, Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - The court struck down item 6 of the impugned notification and the amended impugned notification, as it was found to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also found non-compliance with the directions of the NGT in revisiting the impugned notification.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals challenged the impugned judgment and order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, and the order rejecting the review petition. The challenge was to the notification dated 28th March 2020, which modified earlier Environmental Clearance (EC) notifications. The specific challenge was to item 6 of the impugned notification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned notification violated the directions issued by the NGT and was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also found that the exemption granted for the removal of ordinary earth for linear projects was illegal and ultra vires the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
Issues: The issues included the illegal invocation of the power under sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, and the arbitrariness of the exemption granted for the removal of ordinary earth for linear projects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned notification was issued without any application of the mind and was vitiated. The exemption granted for the removal of ordinary earth for linear projects was found to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also found non-compliance with the directions of the NGT in revisiting the impugned notification.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeals and quashed item 6 in the impugned notification and the amended impugned notification. The court found no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 28th October 2020 (for short, ‘the impugned judgment’) passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, ‘the NGT’). There is also a challenge to the order dated 24th December 2020, by which, the NGT rejected the review petition filed by the appellant for seeking review of the impugned judgment.
2. A notification was issued on 14th September 2006 (for short, ‘the first EC notification’) by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short, ‘MoEF’) in exercise of powers under subsection (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the EP Act’) read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (for short, ‘the EP Rules’). Clause 2 of the first EC notification is material, which reads thus:
(i) All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification;
(ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification with addition of capacity beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector, that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold limits given in the Schedule, after expansion or modernization;
(iii) Any change in product – mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in Schedule beyond the specified range.”
3. The notification provided that the projects falling under categories A and B set out in the Schedule to the notification will require prior Environmental Clearance (EC) from the concerned Regulatory Authority. The Regulatory Authorities for different projects have been named in clause (2) of the first EC notification. For the A category, the Central Government in the MoEF was named as the Regulatory Authority. For projects in the B category, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short, ‘SEIAA’) was named as the Regulatory Authority. Various procedural aspects regarding applying for a grant of EC, its processing, etc., have been incorporated in the first EC notification. There were subsequent modifications to the first EC notification. Another notification was issued on 15th January 2016 (for short, ‘the second EC notification’), by which the first EC notification was partly modified. Clause 7B and Appendix-IX were added to the first EC notification, providing for an exemption to specific categories of projects from the requirement of obtaining EC. Item 6 in the said Appendix-IX reads thus:
Exemption of certain cases from requirement of Environmental Clearance
The following cases shall not require prior environmental clearance, namely:
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
6. Dredging and de-silting of dams, reservoirs, weirs, barrages, river, and canals for the purpose of their maintenance, upkeep and disaster management.
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..”
Though the NGT struck down a part of the second EC notification, Appendix-IX was not touched.
4. In the Original Application subject matter of these appeals, the challenge before the NGT was to the notification dated 28th March 2020 (for short, ‘the impugned notification’), which modified earlier EC notifications. Appendix IX to the second EC notification provided for ex
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exemption granted for the removal of ordinary earth for linear projects was found to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Const....
Railway contractors excavating soil from external borrow areas for projects require prior environmental clearance; exemption under Railways Act Section 11 applies only to railway administration, not ....
Post facto environmental clearance is impermissible as it contradicts statutory requirements established by the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019, which mandates prior clearance.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for transparency and fairness in the process of issuing notifications, including public notice and consideration of objections a....
(1) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 does not prohibit ex post facto Environmental Clearance – Grant of ex post facto EC in accordance with law, in strict compliance with Rules, Regulations, Notifi....
The court ruled that amendments extending environmental clearance validity violate statutory and constitutional mandates, undermining effective environmental governance and public interest.
Court held that amendments to the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, which shifted authority and reduced public consultation, were unconstitutional and violated environmental protections u....
The notification extending environmental clearance validity without proper consultation is unconstitutional, undermining environmental protection statutes.
The court declared the notification extending environmental clearances for mining projects unconstitutional, citing lack of public consultation and violation of statutory procedures under the Environ....
The court ruled that amendments to environmental clearance regulations violated statutory requirements, emphasizing the importance of expert appraisal in environmental protection, thus declaring the ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.