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

2025 Supreme(SC) 482

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
The Auroville Foundation – Appellant
Versus
Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 5781-5782 of 2022
Decided on : 17-03-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. A Yogeswaran, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. M.V, Swaroop, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR

The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions without a substantial environmental question being raised, misapplying the 'Precautionary Principle' and disregarding the statutory force of the approved Master Plan.

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 2(1)(m), 14, 15 - Environmental protection - The Tribunal's directions regarding the construction of roads in Auroville were deemed outside its jurisdiction, as no substantial environmental question was raised. The Tribunal misapplied the 'Precautionary Principle' and failed to recognize the statutory force of the approved Master Plan. (Paras 11, 12, 14, 19)

(B) Jurisdiction of Tribunal - The Tribunal must ensure that a substantial question relating to the environment is involved before exercising its jurisdiction. (Paras 6, 10)

Facts of the case:
The Respondents alleged unauthorized tree cutting by the Appellant-Foundation for road construction in Auroville, claiming it violated environmental laws. The Tribunal initially granted an interim order to halt tree cutting.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's directions were quashed as they exceeded jurisdiction and lacked legal basis.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to issue directions regarding the construction activities of the Appellant-Foundation.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal's directions were invalid as they did not address a substantial question of environmental law, and the approved Master Plan had statutory force.

Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. The present Appeals stem from the final judgment and order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 239/2021, and from an interim order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the said Tribunal in the M.A. No.6/2022 in O.A No.239/2021. The directions given by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment dated 28.04.2022 read as under:-

    I. “125. In the result, this Original Application is allowed in part and disposed of with the following directions: -

    (i) The 1st Respondent is directed to prepare a proper township plan either in respect of 778 Ha which is in their possession now or in respect of 1963 Ha which was visualized by the MOTHER by identifying the locations where each zone will have to be located, where the roads will have to be laid showing the location of the ring roads with their width and further road, if any, to be constructed, the nature of industries and other activities which they are expected to establish in the township and if it is not going to be implemented as one phase, how many phases in which they are going to complete the project and then apply for Environmental Clearance (EC) as it will fall under Item 8 (b) of the EIA Notification, 2006 as amended from time to time. Till then they are directed not to proceed with further construction in the project area.”

    (ii) Considering it as an exceptional circumstances, even before obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) for further activity, we are permitting the 1st Respondent to complete the crown road on the following conditions: -

    a. The Joint Committee appointed by this Tribunal viz., (i) the District Collector who is the Chairman of the District Green Committee of the concerned district along with (ii) the Forest Officer not below the rank of Conservator of Forest, as deputed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, (Head of Forests Force) and Chief Wildlife Warden, State of Tamil Nadu to inspect the area in question and ascertain whether by reducing the width of the road at suitable places or by slight realignment (if any) required, so that the number of trees to be cut can be minimized so that the vision of the MOTHER of creating a green cover in that area can be protected.

    b. The Joint Committee is also directed to ascertain as to whether there are any water bodies/streams exists in that area and if the road passes through the water body, then what is the manner in which the road will have to be constructed by elevation without affecting the water body/water flow or a bed level causeway with box type of vents will suffice. If such a recommendation is made, that also will have to be implemented, and the 1st Respondent is to undertake the construction as suggested by the committee.

    c. The Joint Committee is directed to complete the process and submit the report to the 1st Respondent within a period of two months and on receipt of the same, the 1st Respondent is directed to carry out the crown road work, in the impugned area with tree cover, strictly in accordance with the recommendations made by the Joint Committee.

    d. Till that exercise is completed, the 1st Respondent is directed not to cut any further trees from the property. The 1st Respondent is at liberty to undertake the crown road work in the remaining stretches where there are no trees. The 1st Respondent is also at liberty to take action against unauthorized occupations, if any, strictly in accordance with the law in force.

    (iii) The 1st Respondent is also directed to plant trees in the ratio of 1: 10 for the number of trees to be cut, and the species to be recommended by the Joint Committee may be considered for planting either on the side of the road or other area identified by the Joint Committee, in order to protect environment and also to maintain the green cover in that area.

    (iv) Considering the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the application.

    (v) The Registry is di

    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