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

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2330

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapati, Expert Member
K. Saravanan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 74 of 2021 (SZ) | I.A. Nos. 1 to 4 and 8 of 2025(SZ)



Advocates:
For the Applicant(s): Mr. A. Yogeshwaran
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sai Srujan Tayi for R1, Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG along with M/s. Adarsh Tripathi & Ajitesh Garg - I.A.

Office Memoranda allowing thermal power plants to change coal sources without Environmental Clearance amendment quashed for diluting EIA statutory safeguards, bypassing public hearing and violating Precautionary Principle as changes alter pollution load.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Sections 3 and 5; EIA Notification, 2006 - Regulation 7(2) - Thermal power plants - Change in coal source - Office Memoranda (OMs) dated 11.11.2020, 06.12.2023 and 07.01.2025 issued by Ministry allowing change in coal source (domestic to domestic, domestic to imported up to 30%, imported to domestic if same grade, etc.) without fresh Environmental Clearance (EC) or amendment - Held: OMs quashed as they dilute statutory safeguards, bypass EIA process including public hearing, exceed authority under EPA, violate Precautionary Principle, Sustainable Development, Intergenerational Equity and constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 48A - Change in coal source alters pollution load, emissions (SO2, NOx, PM, mercury, heavy metals), ash generation, water consumption necessitating prior EC amendment - Administrative OMs cannot create exemptions from delegated legislation without scientific basis or public participation - Fly ash utilisation, emission standards and water norms exist separately but do not justify exemption (Paras 4, 5, 9, 21, 26, 35, 37).

(B) National Green Tribunal Act - Zonal Benches - All benches exercise equal jurisdiction; no statutory hierarchy requiring pan-India matters to be heard only by Principal Bench (Para 2).

(C) Delegated Legislation - Limits - Executive instructions/OMs cannot dilute plenary environmental legislation or statutory notifications without legislative oversight, public consultation or scientific assessment (Paras 35, 36).

Facts of the case:
Application challenging OMs permitting thermal power plants to switch coal sources without fresh EIA/EC amendment, alleging bypass of safeguards leading to increased pollution, health risks, water contamination and climate impact. Matter transferred back to Southern Zone Bench upholding equal jurisdiction of zonal benches.

Findings of Court:
OMs lack scientific basis, permit unassessed pollution increase, contradict prior rulings requiring fresh EC for coal changes, rely on self-reporting without prior appraisal, and prioritise commercial interests over environment.

Issues: Whether OMs dated 11.11.2020 and amendments are sustainable in law; whether Ministry can exempt coal source changes from EC amendment when pollution load varies.

Ratio Decidendi: Change in coal source constitutes significant raw material change under EIA Notification triggering prior EC if pollution load increases; OMs create blanket exemptions inconsistent with statutory mandate, Precautionary Principle and environmental jurisprudence without addressing emission variations, ash handling or water impacts.

Result: Original Application allowed; OMs quashed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to om allowing coal source change without eia. (Para 1 , 2)
2. applicant's arguments on eia bypass and environmental risks. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. respondent's counter on safeguards and compliance conditions. (Para 11 , 12)
4. procedural simplification for coal source changes justified. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. emission, ash, water norms impacted by coal changes. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. eia notification requires ec amendment for pollution increase. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
7. om amendments limit certain coal changes without ec. (Para 24 , 25)
8. oms dilute eia statutory obligations and oversight. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
9. fly ash notifications progressively diluted by amendments. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
10. oms exceed limits of delegated legislation authority. (Para 35 , 36)
11. oms quashed for violating environmental safeguards. (Para 37)

JUDGMENT

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

1. The challenge in this application is to the OM dated 11.11.2020 bearing number F.No.-J-13012/8/2009-IA,II(T) issued by the MoEF&CC. The said OM allowed the thermal power plants to change their coal source without requiring fresh EIA or Environmental Clearance. According to the applicant this OM undermined the statutory environmental safeguards and facilitated increased pollution without regulatory oversight, and violated constitutional and environmental principles.

2. Considering the fact that the said OM has pan India significance, originally the Original Application was transferred to the Principal Bench on 06.03.2021. However, the same was challenged alleging that it created an artificial hierarchy among the NGT zonal benches which was not provided for under the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court before which the said challenge was made, ruled it in favour of the applicant holding that all the zonal benches of the NGT exercise equal jurisdiction and that there was no statutory basis for requiring matters of pan-India significance to be heard only by the Principal Bench. Consequently, the matter was transferred back by the Principal Bench, NGT to the Southern Zone for adjudication.

3. The Environmental concerns raised in the O.A by the applicant are:

EIA process bypassed:

4. The EIA Notification, 2006 mandates that the project listed in the Schedule should be established only after obtaining prior Environmental Clearance under the Notification which includes even the change in fuel source, the impugned OM effectively nullifies this requirement by allowing the thermal power plant to switch from imported coal to domestic coal or vice-versa without conducting EIA, public hearing or obtaining amendment to the Environmental Clearance. It is emphasised by the applicant that such a change is significant, as different types of coal having varying emission characteristics, ash content and calorific value which directly impact air and water pollution, necessitating thorough review.

Jurisdiction over reaching by MoEF&CC:

5. The applicant argued that MoEF&CC lacks the authority to dilute the statutory environmental safeguards through an administrative order under Section 3 and 5 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986. The Ministry is empowered only to take measures for protecting and improving the environment quality. The OM however does the opposite by taking away the regulatory standards thereby exceeding the Ministry’s jurisdiction and facilitating industrial operation at the cost of environment protection.

Increased Environment and public health risks:

6. It is specifically pointed out that shifting to a different coal type would alters the emission levels of pollutants like Sulfur dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen Odixes (Nox), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Mercury (HG), Arsenic (As), Lead (Pb) and particulate matters. The change in the emission levels does have far reaching environmental and health consequences including:

(i) Air pollution: The change in the different coal type

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