The commencement of the limitation period for appeals regarding environmental clearances is triggered by the earliest effective communication to an aggrieved person by any duty bearer.

JUDGMENT :

1. The date on which environment clearance (EC) granted to the project proponent is “communicated” to “any person aggrieved” is relevant for calculating the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 16(h) of the Green Tribunal Act, 2010.¹[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.] Considering the fact that such communication is the obligation of plurality of duty bearers and to “any person”, we have interpreted Section 16(h) of the Act to hold that limitation will commence from the earliest of the date on which the communication is carried out by any of the duty bearers. Having considered the legal and factual submissions of the appellant, we have come to the conclusion that the appeal filed by the appellant is beyond the mandatory period of limitation. We have thus affirmed the judgment of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.

Facts :

2. The respondent being the project proponent, applied and obtained an EC for limestone mining covering an extent of 193.3269 hectares at Talli and Bambor villages in Gujarat from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) on 05.01.2017. The appellant, the Gram Panchayat of village Talli, sought to challenge this EC before the National Green Tribunal by filing an appeal under Section 16(h) of the Act. However, as there was delay, the appeal was accompanied by a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was contended therein that the grant of EC was known to them only through the reply dated 14.02.2017 received under the Right to Information Act. It was therefore contended that limitation must commence either from 14.02.2017 or from the last of the communications received from the authorities who had the duty to intimate the appellant.

3. By its order dated 29.01.2018, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default and even the subsequent application for restoration was also dismissed on 16.07.2021. Challenging these orders, the appellant filed a civil appeal before this Court, primarily contending that such orders could not have been passed by a single member of the Tribunal. Accepting the submission, this Court by its order dated 11.07.2022 allowed the appeals and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for consideration and disposal on merits. While remanding, this Court directed the Tribunal to consider all questions, including the issue relating to limitation. After restoration of the appeal, the Tribunal heard the appeal and the accompanying application for condonation of delay and proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the appeal was filed after the maximum condonable period of 90 days as such barred by limitation. Thus, the present Civil Appeal under Section 22 of the Act.

4. We heard Mr. Sanjay Parikh, senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, advocate for the appellant and Mr. Pinaki Mishra, senior counsel, for the respondents.

Analysis:

5. Section 16 of the Act, to the extent that it is relevant for our purpose is extracted herein below for ready reference;

“Sec. 16. Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction - Any person aggrieved by,-

(a) …

(b)….

(h) an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986).

…

may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal:

Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed under this section within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”

6. Section 16(h) provides that “any person aggrieved… may’ within a perio