Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1663

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PUNE (WESTERN ZONE BENCH)
MR. DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J, DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, ACJ
Tanaji B. Gambhire – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondent
APPEAL NO.57 OF 2024 (WZ) | APPEAL NOS.58/2024 | APPEAL NOS.59/2024 | APPEAL NOS.60/2024 | APPEAL NOS.61/2024 | APPEAL NOS.62/2024 | APPEAL NOS.63/2024 | APPEAL NOS.64/2024 | APPEAL NOS.65/2024 | APPEAL NOS.66/2024 | APPEAL NOS.67/2024 | APPEAL NOS.68/2024 | APPEAL NOS.69/2024 | APPEAL NOS.70/2024 | APPEAL NOS.71/2024 | APPEAL NOS.72/2024 | APPEAL NOS.74/2024 | APPEAL NOS.75/2024 | APPEAL NOS.76/2024 | APPEAL NOS.77/2024 | APPEAL NOS.78/2024 | APPEAL NOS.79/2024 | APPEAL NOS.80/2024 | APPEAL NOS.81/2024 | APPEAL NOS.82/2024 | APPEAL NOS.83/2024 | APPEAL NOS.84/2024 | APPEAL NOS.85/2024 | APPEAL NOS.86/2024 | APPEAL NOS.87/2024 | APPEAL NOS.88/2024 | APPEAL NOS.89/2024 | APPEAL NOS.90/2024 | APPEAL NOS.91/2024 | APPEAL NOS.92/2024 | APPEAL NOS.93/2024 | APPEAL NOS.94/2024 | APPEAL NOS.95/2024 | APPEAL NOS.96/2024 | APPEAL NOS.97/2024 | APPEAL NOS.98/2024 | APPEAL NOS.99/2024 | APPEAL NOS.100/2024 | APPEAL NOS.101/2024 | APPEAL NOS.102/2024 | APPEAL NOS.103/2024 | APPEAL NOS.104/2024 | APPEAL NOS.105/2024 | APPEAL NOS.106/2024 | APPEAL NOS.107/2024 | APPEAL NOS.108/2024 | APPEAL NOS.109/2024 | APPEAL NOS.110/2024 | APPEAL NOS.111/2024 | APPEAL NOS.112/2024 | APPEAL NOS.113/2024 | APPEAL NOS.114/2024 | APPEAL NOS.119/2024 | APPEAL NOS.120/2024 | APPEAL NOS.121/2024 | APPEAL NOS.122/2024 | APPEAL NOS.123/2024 | APPEAL NOS.124/2024 | APPEAL NOS.125/2024 | APPEAL NOS.126/2024 | APPEAL NOS.127/2024 | APPEAL NOS.128/2024 | APPEAL NOS.129/2024 | APPEAL NOS.130/2024 | APPEAL NOS.131/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vijay Mhaske, Ms. Pradnya Bheke, Mr. Nitin Lonkar
For the Respondents: Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Mr. Savyasachi Bharadwaj, Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Ms. Disha Shetty, Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Mr. Rajat Jariwal, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Ms. Prerna Singh, Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Mr. Adwait Gokhale, Mr. Robin Vakil, Ms. Sonam Mhatre, Mr. Amit Mishra, Mr. Chaitanya Chavan, Mr. Sachin Gagan, Mr. Vaibhav Jathar, Mr. R.B. Mahabal, Ms. Supriya Dangare, Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, Mr. Maitreya P. Ghorpade, Mr. Ameya Patwardhan, Mr. Parimal Deshmukh, Mr. Rohit Gangawane, Mr. Nilesh Bhandari, Mr. Akash Kumawat, Mr. Vidyesh Dhamdhere, Mr. Saket Mone, Ms. Anchita Nair, Ms. Varsha Joshi, Mr. Angad Singh Gill, Mr. Sagar Jagdhane, Dr. Shrikant Kamat

As long as SEIAA's decision to grant Environmental Clearances was made before the expiration of its term, the subsequent issuance remains valid despite any delays in communication.

Headnote:The judgment analyzes the Environmental Clearances issued by SEIAA, Maharashtra, which appellants claim were invalid due to SEIAA's term expiration prior to issuance. The court examined underlying statutes and facts, concluding the SEIAA acted within legal frameworks. Key issues included the authority's powers at expiry and adherence to regulatory timelines. The court highlighted procedural inconsistencies in communications regarding EC but found no illegality in the issuance of clearances made before the term expired. Thus, the appeals were dismissed as without merit.

Table of Content
1. environmental clearances were challenged based on the operation of seiaa. (Para 1 , 2)
2. response from seiaa addressing the legitimacy of ec issuance procedures. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. procedural timelines in the environmental clearance process are significant. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. confirmation of seiaa’s legal standing to issue ec before term expiration. (Para 12 , 13)
5. final directions set forth for the seiaa regarding procedural compliance. (Para 14 , 15)

ORDER

1. All these appeals are being disposed of by this common order as the issues involved therein and the grounds raised while assailing the impugned Environmental Clearances are identical.

2. By filing these appeals, the appellants have challenged the Environmental Clearances (ECs) dated 02.02.2024, 06.02.2024, 07.02.2024 and 08.02.2024, issued by respondent No.2 – State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Maharashtra in favour of respondent No.4 – Project Proponent in respective appeals for the project, details of which have been mentioned in respective ECs, annexed to each of these appeals, mainly on the ground that on the date when the impugned ECs have been granted, SEIAA was not in operation as its term expired on 10.01.2024 as per the Notification dated 11.01.2021 issued by the MoEF&CC, wherein it is laid down that the Chairman and Members of the Authority shall hold office for a period of three years from the date of publication of the said Notification in the Official Gazette. Respondent No.3 – Pravin C. Darade, the then Member Secretary had no power to grant such EC after expiry of his term. The other grounds, which are mentioned in the memo of appeal are not found to be so important for our consideration.

3. The response of respondent No.2 – SEIAA to these appeals, through their reply-affidavit dated 11.06.2025 filed in Appeal No.33/2024, is to the effect that respondent No.1 – MoEF&CC issued an Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 02.08.2023, titled “Procedure for Consideration of Category `B’ Proposals at Central Level Due to the Non-functionality or Delay in Constitution of SEIAA/SEAC”, which laid down the procedure for handling EC proposals where SEIAAs or SEACs are not functional or delayed in their constitution. The OM categorises various situations where EC proposals might be delayed and one of such situations at serial No.(vi) therein was to the effect that the proposals approved by SEIAA, but minutes/letter NOT uploaded on PARIVESH Portal. In the above scenario, based on the request of the Member Secretary, SEIAA/State Government, a window of 15 days’ period was provided to the Member Secretary, SEIAA, extendable for a further period of 15 days, to only upload the minutes/letters for the proposals which were duly approved by SEIAA before it became non- functional. A copy of that OM dated 02.08.2023 is annexed as Annexure-3 to the reply-affidavit of respondent No.2 – SEIAA.

4. It is further submitted in the said reply-affidavit that SEAC and SEIAA recommended grant of EC to the Project Proponent during the validity of their term, but the procedure of uploading the minutes and issuing the EC letter could not be completed during respective valid terms, the MoEF&CC issued OM dated 02.08.2023, referred to above. The letter dated 09.01.2024 was addressed to the MoEF&CC when the term of SEAC and SEIAA were valid and the MoEF&CC, vide their e-mail dated 18.01.2024 extended the Login of SEIAA/SEAC till 25.01.2024, w.e.f. 10.01.2024 for uploading minutes/letter, which were duly approved by SEIAA. A copy of the e-mail dated 18.01.2024 sent by MoEF&CC is annexed as Annexure-5 to the reply.

5. Further it is stated in the reply that considering the amount of workload before SEIAA/SEAC, they requested once again on 24.01.2024 to MoEF&CC to grant further extension of 15 days w.e.f. 25.01.2024 and the MoEF&CC, vide their e-mail dated 25.01.2025, extended the Member Secretary, SEIAA, Maharashtra login upto 09.02.2024 to upload minutes/letter

Click Here to Read the rest of this document