M. SUNDAR, K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
Fatima – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, rep by its Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110 003 – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitions challenge actions of the ministry of environment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's observations on procedural adherence in judicial hierarchy. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. arguments presented regarding ex post facto environmental clearances. (Para 11 , 12 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. summary of significant precedents relevant to ex post facto clearances. (Para 13) |
| 5. court's reasoning regarding environmental laws and regulations. (Para 14 , 15 , 26) |
| 6. final ruling on the validity of the office memoranda concerning environmental clearances. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 7. final judgment allowing petitions and clarifying non-compliance actions. (Para 29) |
ORDER :
(M. Sundar, J.) :
This common order will govern the captioned three 'Writ Petitions' ('W.Ps' in plural and 'W.P.' in singular for the sake of brevity), captioned 'writ miscellaneous petitions' thereat ('W.M.Ps' in plural and 'W.M.P' in singular for the sake of brevity), captioned Contempt Petition and Sub Application thereat.
2. In 'captioned W.P.(MD)No.8866 of 2021' (hereinafter 'I Fatima WP' for the sake of convenience) inter-alia a 'Office Memorandum' [hereinafter 'OM' in singular and 'OMs' in plural, though plural of 'memorandu
Padma Sundara Rao Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533
State Of Assam vs Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha reported in (2009) 5 SCC 694
State of Gujarat Vs. Utility Users'' Welfare Association and others reported in (2018) 6 SCC 21
Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Rohit Prajapati reported in (2020) 17 SCC 157
Common Cause Vs. Union of India reported in (2017) 9 SCC 499
Electrosteel Steels Limited Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2023) 6 SCC 615
Electrosteel Steels Ltd. v. Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board
Herrington v. British Railways Board
Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited Vs. T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad reported in (2011) 7 SCC 338
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Escorts Ltd. and others reported in (1986) 1 SCC 264
(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....
Environmental Clearance – Where adverse consequences of denial of ex post facto approval outweigh consequences of regularization of operations by grant of ex post facto approval, and establishment co....
Ex post facto environmental clearance is illegal as it undermines the fundamental right to a pollution-free environment and contravenes established environmental laws.
Post facto environmental clearance is impermissible as it contradicts statutory requirements established by the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019, which mandates prior clearance.
Requirements of prior Environmental Clearance - It is a trite law that a writ cannot be issued on ground of violation of principles of natural justice if only one conclusion is possible in a given si....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fresh appraisal and prior clearance for changes in the scope of construction projects, as well as the applicability of penal pr....
The National Green Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 16 permits aggrieved parties to challenge environmental clearances to ensure compliance with ecological protection standards.
Court held that amendments to the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, which shifted authority and reduced public consultation, were unconstitutional and violated environmental protections u....
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.