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) 4059

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 the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Shalini Gera, Adv., Ms. Geeta Dahariya, Adv.
For the Respondents: 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 amendments for increased road ore transport upheld pending rail completion, balancing national development needs against environmental concerns via strict phased safeguards, real-time monitoring and sustainable development principles.

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 on grounds of ex post facto clearance, non-compliance with prior conditions, flawed environmental impact assessment, inadequate public consultation, road safety hazards and air quality exceedances rejected - Original clearance envisaged rail transport; amendments justified by delays due to security issues in affected area - Expert Appraisal Committee recommendations accepted subject to phased increase (1.5 MTPA for 6 months w.e.f. 01.01.2024, then 2.0 MTPA till 31.12.2025), strict mitigative conditions including dust suppression, road maintenance, wheel washing, traffic marshals, real-time air monitoring linked to CPCB/SPCB servers, dense plantation along haul roads and accelerated rail progress - No fresh public hearing required as change temporary and integral to original project; prior hearings in 2007 sufficed - Ex post facto operations condoned given national interest in steel production, employment and economic development outweighing localized impacts under sustainable development principle - Balance struck between ecology and development; no perversity in authority's appraisal (Paras 1-6, 11-14, 32-36).

(B) Sustainable Development - Precautionary Principle - Polluter Pays - Public Trust Doctrine - Imperative to harmonize environmental protection with developmental needs; no development at cost of ecology but ecology must not paralyze public utility projects - Rule of law in environmental governance demands accountable institutions, participatory decision-making and scientific data integration; irreversible harm avoided through stringent safeguards rather than halting operations - Crop liability insurance, real-time pollution monitoring, speed limits (40 km/hr), vehicle tracking, debarment of violators, CSR for affected communities mandated - Rail completion timeline enforced (remaining stretch by June 2025) (Paras 44-55).

Facts of the case:
Appeal against amendment dated 21.12.2023 to 2009 environmental clearance for iron ore mine, permitting temporary road dispatch up to 2.0 MTPA to rail sidings via alternate routes (58-232 km) due to rail delays from security issues; appellants alleged violations, suppression of road width data, air quality exceedances, accidents (19 incidents, 16 fatalities), bypassed public hearing and poor compliance.

Findings of Court:
Amendment upheld; prior High Court dismissal of similar challenge and Supreme Court non-interference noted; baseline studies, traffic assessments validated; national steel security and employment prioritized; detailed mitigative regime imposed.

Issues: Validity of amendment sans fresh EIA/public hearing; adequacy of environmental studies; compliance history; roadworthiness and pollution impacts; ex post facto clearance legality.

Ratio Decidendi: Temporary EC amendments for transport mode changes permissible under EIA Notification where supported by expert appraisal, baseline data and safeguards; sustainable development mandates balancing ecology with public interest; appellate interference absent perversity; real-time monitoring and enforcement ensure compliance.

Result: Appeal dismissed; amendment sustained subject to extensive guidelines on rail acceleration, vehicle controls, pollution mitigation, road safety and CSR.

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

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