Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2926

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapat, 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 Applicant(s): Mr. A. Yogeshwaran
For 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 as they bypass EIA requirements, exceed delegated powers and violate precautionary principle by unassessed pollution increases.

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 dated 11.11.2020, 06.12.2023 and 07.01.2025 allowing change in coal source without prior Environmental Clearance amendment held unsustainable - Such changes alter pollution load, emissions, ash generation and water consumption, necessitating fresh EIA, public hearing and appraisal as per statutory mandate - OMs exceed authority of delegated legislation, issued without scientific basis, public participation or legislative procedure, violating Precautionary Principle, Sustainable Development and constitutional environmental safeguards under Articles 21 and 48A - Ministry cannot dilute statutory safeguards through administrative orders prioritising commercial interests over environmental protection - Blanket exemptions for blending coals or source switches without pollution load assessment undermine EIA process and regulatory oversight. (Paras 4, 5, 9, 21, 26, 35, 37)

(B) Environmental Governance - Limits of subordinate legislation and executive instructions - OMs lack legislative character, public consultation or gazette publication - Cannot create de facto exemptions from statutory Environmental Clearance requirements or weaken norms through procedural shortcuts - Regulatory shift towards ease of business cannot override environmental safeguards, especially amid underperformance in ash utilisation and pollution control. (Paras 35, 36)

Facts of the case:
Applicant challenged Office Memoranda permitting thermal power plants to change coal sources (domestic to domestic, imported to imported, blends, lignite) without Environmental Clearance amendment, alleging bypass of EIA process, increased pollution risks (SO2, NOx, PM, mercury, ash), health impacts, water contamination and violation of constitutional rights. Matter transferred between NGT benches, upheld by High Court affirming equal jurisdiction of zonal benches. Respondents defended OMs as simplifying procedures with safeguards like emission compliance, dust control, ash utilisation and rail transport, via subsequent amendments.

Findings of Court:
OM dated 11.11.2020 and amendments dated 06.12.2023 and 07.01.2025 quashed as inconsistent with EIA Notification, lacking scientific verification of pollution impacts and diluting statutory obligations.

Issues: Whether OMs allowing coal source changes without Environmental Clearance amendment are sustainable; whether Ministry exceeds jurisdiction under Environment (Protection) Act; impact on pollution load, precautionary principle and EIA integrity.

Ratio Decidendi: Changes in coal source significantly alter environmental impacts requiring prior Environmental Clearance under EIA Notification - OMs provide inadequate post-facto safeguards without preemptive assessment, contravening statutory scheme and principles of environmental protection.

Result: Original Application allowed; impugned 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 pollution risks. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. moef&cc counter on safeguards and compliance conditions. (Para 11 , 12)
4. framing issues on om sustainability and coal linkage. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. emission standards, ash, water norms inadequately addressed. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. coal change triggers eia under pollution load increase. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
7. om amendments still dilute eia requirements. (Para 24 , 25)
8. oms violate eia notification and precautionary principle. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
9. dilution of fly ash utilisation norms. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
10. limits on executive overreach via oms. (Para 34 , 35 , 36)
11. quashing of impugned oms. (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 would result in increased emission which can lead to the formation of pollutio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2926

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapat, Expert MemberK. Saravanan – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOriginal Application No. 74 of 2021 (SZ) | I.A. Nos. 1 to 4 and 8 of 2025(SZ)

Office Memoranda allowing thermal power plants to change coal sources without Environmental Clearance amendment quashed as they bypass EIA requirements, exceed delegated powers and violate precautionary principle by unassessed pollution increases.

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapat, 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)