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) 3576

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL BHOPAL (CENTRAL ZONE BENCH)
Sheo Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member
Rowghat Sangharh Samiti – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Appeal No. 01/2024(CZ)



Advocates:
For Appellant(s): Ms. Shalini Gera, Adv., Ms. Geeta Dahariya, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Utkarsh Jaswal, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv., Mr. Lalit Gupta, Adv., Mr. Shashank Pathak, Adv., Mr. Abhimanyu Shrivastav, Adv., Mr. Lalit Kumar Gupta, Adv., Dr. Sapna Aggarwal, Adv., Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv., Ms. Parul Khurana, Adv., Ms. Deeksha Prakash, Adv.

Temporary EC amendment for increased road ore transport upheld despite challenges, balancing national interest against environmental concerns via phased limits, mitigation, and infrastructure deadlines under sustainable development.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - EIA Notification, 2006 - Amendment to prior environmental clearance for temporary increase in road transportation of iron ore from 0.3 MTPA to 2.0 MTPA pending rail link completion - Challenge to amendment on grounds of ex post facto clearance, non-compliance with prior conditions, flawed environmental impact assessment, absence of fresh public hearing, road safety hazards, and air quality exceedances rejected - Amendment upheld as interim measure justified by national interest, security constraints, and EAC recommendations, subject to strict compliance with mitigation conditions including phased dispatch, road maintenance, dust suppression, and rail progress reporting - No fresh public hearing required for operational change without capacity expansion where original hearings conducted - Ex post facto operations condoned due to unavoidable delays from extremism, with safeguards imposed - Principles of sustainable development, precautionary principle, and polluter pays applied to balance ecology and development. (Paras 1-55)

(B) Environmental Rule of Law - Requires effective, accountable institutions, participatory decision-making, and integration of scientific data with legal principles - Courts to marshal available evidence for decisive action against violations despite data gaps - Balance between development and environment through proportionality and sustainable development. (Paras 46-54)

Facts of the case:
Appeal challenging amendment to environmental clearance allowing temporary road dispatch of maximum 2.0 MTPA iron ore to rail sidings pending rail link completion, alleging violations of prior clearances, flawed studies, ex post facto approval, road inadequacies causing accidents and pollution, non-compliance with conditions, and lack of public hearing.

Findings of Court:
Amendment valid for two years in phases (1.5 MTPA for 6 months from 01.01.2024, then 2.0 MTPA till 31.12.2025); prior operations condoned; detailed guidelines issued for truck speed limits, real-time monitoring, road maintenance, dust control, blasting precautions, crop insurance, CSR, and pollution monitoring.

Issues: Validity of EC amendment without fresh public hearing or comprehensive EIA; adequacy of road/traffic studies; compliance with prior conditions; ex post facto clearance legality; environmental and safety impacts of increased truck traffic.

Ratio Decidendi: Amendments to operational aspects like temporary road transport pending infrastructure do not require fresh public consultation if original hearings held and no production increase; national security delays justify interim measures with safeguards; environmental rule of law mandates balancing development needs with mitigation under sustainable development principle.

Result: Appeal dismissed; impugned order upheld with directions for compliance and monitoring.

Table of Content
1. challenge to ec amendment for road transport (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. appellant's grounds against ec violations (Para 4)

O R D E R

1. The Special Leave Petition arises from an interim order of a Single Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh dated 17 February 2021. The petition under article 226 of the Constitution is pending. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition at this stage. Since the High Court is seized of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the rights and contentions of the parties including all objections would have to be agitated in accordance with law before the High Court.

2. During the pendency of these proceedings, the petitioners have placed on the record a copy of the extension of the Environment Clearance which was granted on 29 October 2021. This Court has not adjudicated upon the legality of the EC or its extension having regard to the fact that the proceedings are pending before the High Court and the petitioners would be at liberty to pursue their rights and remedies.

3. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

4. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”

15. In response to the above, the learned counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Shalini Ghera had submitted that while they both deal with an amendment in the EC for the same Rowghat Iron Ore mining project, the circumstances of appeal are very different, in the following ways –

a) “In Mohan Singh Darro (supra), the relevant EC amendment was for a definite period – 5 years ending on 31.12.2021 and it was heard by the Hon’ble High Court at the end of this period, when only a few more months were left for its expiration. The High Court was assured by the Project Proponent that the railhead would reach Rowghat at the end of this period, i.e. by 31.12.2021 and this was considered by the Hon’ble Court while passing the order dated 17.02.2021.

The situation is vastly different today. The railhead has not yet reached Rowghat, and as per the Project Proponent, the railway would be operational only in 2027. Thus, this “interim mining” is not an arrangement merely for a few more months.

b) In Mohan Singh Darro (supra), the transportation was for only 0.3 million tonnes per annum of iron ore, but in the current amendment, the quantity of iron ore that is to be transported has been increased seven-fold. Thus, the impact on health, quality of life, destruction of crops and livelihood are proportionally much greater.

c) In Mohan Singh Darro (supra), the route under consideration was a short one, only 77 km, going through one district. However, the current evacuation corridor under consideration is 232 km + 58 km long, passing through 3 districts. Consequently, the number of impacted people is also much higher.

d) The current statutory appeal has important grounds of ex -post facto environmental clearance, misleading the EAC by suppressing relevant information, inadequate and incomplete studies on air pollution etc. which were not available at the time of Mohan Singh Darro. However, all the grounds taken at the time of Mohan Singh Darro are still available, since their scale has considerably enlarged, and thus a fresh look at their relative importance is warranted.”

16. The learned counsel for the Project Proponent Mr. Gaurav Bhatia has submitted that the matter was placed before the MoEF&CC for reconsideration in view of the law-and-order problem due to Naxalite affected area and the MoEF&CC considered the matter vide order dated 25.01.2022 and the issues raised were discussed and suitable order was passed accordingly. The relevant portion of the order is quoted below :

i. The Project Proponent submitted that due to delay in completion of rail link and handing over of forest land due to serious LWE (left wing extremism) disruption, mining operation could not commence. After ressolving issue of security and forest tree cutting of 24.18ha of land on 27.01.2021, mining operation (production and dispatch) started on 05.02.2021 and it was e

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