2021 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 229
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, CJ, Justice Sudhir Agarwal, J, Dr. Nagin Nanda, ACJ
Goa Foundation – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Execution Application No. 19/2019 IN O. A. No. 597/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents:
The court mandates timely actions and adherence to environmental protections under the Environment (Protection) Act, penalizing delays by government officials.
Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - The protection of ecologically sensitive areas like the Western Ghats is mandated under this act, entailing periodic assessments and notifications for safeguarding ecological integrity. The Tribunal emphasized compliance with timelines to ensure protection efforts are upheld and directed that delays could impact officials’ salaries. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 5)
(B) Compliance and Remediation - Tribunal iterated the necessity for prompt action by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to finalize notifications related to the Western Ghats Eco-Sensitive Area and judged that prior delays were unacceptable. (Paras 6, 9)
Facts of the case:
The matter concerns steps needed for ecological safeguards for the Western Ghats following various representations from states and study committee recommendations over several years, reflecting ongoing debates and concerns over the balance of environmental protection and development.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal deemed the necessity for a unified draft notification for the eco-sensitive areas and mandated that any failure to comply could result in sanctions for the responsible officials.
Issues: The main issues involved delays in finalizing eco-sensitive area notifications and the necessity for solid actions amidst ongoing demands from state governments for exclusions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found it imperative to follow the recommendations laid out under the Environment (Protection) Act while also balancing state concerns, insisting on accountability from the Ministry of Environment regarding adherence to timelines for ecological protection efforts.
Result: Execution Application disposed of with a directive for compliance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. importance of ecological protection in western ghats. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. need for government compliance and timely action. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. consequences of non-compliance and delays. (Para 6) |
ORDER
1. The issue for consideration is the remedial steps for protection of ecology of Western Ghats, which is an eco-sensitive area within the meaning of the relevant notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 . The need for safeguarding such erosion has been highlighted inter alia in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 277 and M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 388 . Since the notifications have validity period and fresh exercise has to be undertaken periodically, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) appointed High Level Working Group (HLWG) (Dr. K. Kasturirangan Committee). The said Committee gave its report which was accepted in principle by the MoEF&CC. The recommendations were for excluding some area from the eco-sensitive area. There is demand for more and more exclusion by those who claim the need for development while need for environment protection does not allow acceptance of such demands. This aspect needs to be finalized and has been pending consideration for the last about eight years.
2. The matter has been earlier considered on several occasions in the light of earlier order dated 08.09.2017 in OA 26/2012, Goa Foundation v. Union of India. The Timeline laid down in the earlier order, for compliance, was extended vide order dated 24.08.2018. Vide order dated 22.11.2019, the Tribunal observed:
4. Since the above timeline were not adhered to, the present application was filed on 07.05.2019. The Tribunal sought a report about the status of compliance from MoEF&CC. Thereafter on 03.09.2019, it was observed that the State of Gujarat has not furnished its response which was the cause of delay. The matter was listed for today to consider the progress.
5. The Advisor, ESZ Division, MoEF&CC is present in person and states that the matter is being processed and will be positively finalized before 31.03.2020.
6. Having noted the earlier delay and violation of undertaking given to this Tribunal and need for speedy finalization of the notification, we direct that if there is a further default and delay beyond 31.03.2020, the Advisor, ESZ Division will not be entitled to salary till compliance. We further direct that the draft notification will be deemed to the final notification from 01.04.2020.
3. The matter was last considered on 28.09.2020 in the light of additional affidavit filed on behalf of MoEF&CC on 19.03.2020. The Tribunal observed that continued delay could not be appreciated and expeditious steps are required in the matter in the interest of protection of environment. The observations of the Tribunal are as follows: -
3. In pursuance of the above, an additional affidavit has been filed by the MoEF&CC on 19.03.2020 as follows:
6. That in compliance to the above said Order of this Hon’ble Tribunal, the submissions of all the States have been examined keeping in view the recommendations of the HLWG. The analysis of the response from the States, inter-alia, reveals the following:
i. That there is a concern of the States about prohibition of certain activities having implications on medical care, health care and education;
ii. That there is concern of States about certain areas within proposed notification that have since the time of submission of Gadgil Committee report and HLWG, undergone demographic, infrastructural changes. The HLWG report, published in 2012 was based on Census 2001, whereas in the intervening period Census 2011 is available and Census 2021 is due;
iii. The States have, therefore, excluded certain areas that are otherwise included in the draft notifications and HLWG report. However, some of the States have proposed new areas, in lieu of the proposed exclusions to compensate the overall area for ESA;iv. Overall matrix