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

2024 Supreme(SC) 267

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Sanjay Karol, JJ.
Noble M. Paikada – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 1628-1629 of 2021
Decided On : 21-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Nishtha Kumar, AOR Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, Adv. Mr. Shrom Sethi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exemption granted for the removal of ordinary earth for linear projects was found to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

Environmental Clearance - Environmental Protection Act, 1986 - Section 3, Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - The court struck down item 6 of the impugned notification and the amended impugned notification, as it was found to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also found non-compliance with the directions of the NGT in revisiting the impugned notification.

Fact of the Case:

The appeals challenged the impugned judgment and order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, and the order rejecting the review petition. The challenge was to the notification dated 28th March 2020, which modified earlier Environmental Clearance (EC) notifications. The specific challenge was to item 6 of the impugned notification.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned notification violated the directions issued by the NGT and was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also found that the exemption granted for the removal of ordinary earth for linear projects was illegal and ultra vires the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

Issues: The issues included the illegal invocation of the power under sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, and the arbitrariness of the exemption granted for the removal of ordinary earth for linear projects.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned notification was issued without any application of the mind and was vitiated. The exemption granted for the removal of ordinary earth for linear projects was found to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also found non-compliance with the directions of the NGT in revisiting the impugned notification.

Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeals and quashed item 6 in the impugned notification and the amended impugned notification. The court found no order as to costs.

Table of Contents

1. Appeal challenging NGT order on exemption from Environmental Clearance for extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and EP Rules. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )

2. Appellant contends exemption from EC for ordinary earth extraction in linear projects is arbitrary, violates Article 14, and bypassed statutory notice procedure; respondent argues MMDR Act amendments necessitated it. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 )

3. Item 6 of the impugned notification and amended impugned notification granting exemption from EC for ordinary earth extraction in linear projects is quashed; appeals are partly allowed. (Para 32 , 33 )

4. Was the power under sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of EP Rules validly invoked to dispense with the requirement of publication of notice under sub-rule (3)?

No. The court held that sub-rule (4) is an exception exercisable only on grounds of public interest, and the Central Government failed to assign reasons for invoking it in either the impugned notification or its counter affidavit, vitiating the decision-making process. (Para 19 , 22 , 23 )

5. Does item 6 of the impugned notification granting blanket exemption from EC for extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects violate Article 14 of the Constitution?

Yes. The court held that item 6 is a completely unguided and blanket exemption as it does not specify the quantum of earth, area of extraction, or define 'linear projects,' rendering it arbitrary and violative of Article 14. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 )

6. Does the amended impugned notification dated 30th August 2023, which added SOP compliance requirement to item 6, cure the vice of arbitrariness?

No. The court held that even the amended notification does not elaborate on 'linear projects,' does not specify the authority to issue SOPs, provides no enforcement mechanism, and imposes no restriction on the quantum of earth, continuing to suffer from arbitrariness. (Para 26 , 27 )

7. Does the Office Memorandum dated 21st August 2023 and the SOP provide adequate safeguards as directed by the NGT in its impugned order?

No. The court held that the SOP does not create any regulatory machinery, does not refer to item 6 at all, and merely refers to identification of borrow areas, failing to implement the NGT's directions in paragraphs 8 and 9. (Para 27 , 29 , 31 )

8. What is the court's position on item 7 of the impugned notification regarding dredging and de-silting of dams and reservoirs?

The court declined to entertain the challenge to item 7 as no respondents challenged the impugned notification, and directed that respondents must implement the NGT's directions regarding item 7 as per paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment. (Para 7 , 30 )

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 28th October 2020 (for short, ‘the impugned judgment’) passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, ‘the NGT’). There is also a challenge to the order dated 24th December 2020, by which, the NGT rejected the review petition filed by the appellant for seeking review of the impugned judgment.

2. A notification was issued on 14th September 2006 (for short, ‘the first EC notification’) by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short, ‘MoEF’) in exercise of powers under subsection (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the EP Act’) read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (for short, ‘the EP Rules’). Clause 2 of the first EC notification is material, which reads thus:

“2. Requirements of prior Environmental Clearance (EC):- The following projects or activities shall require prior environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory authority, which shall hereinafter referred to be as the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests for matters falling under Category 'A' in the Schedule and at State level the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for matters falling under Category 'B' in the said Schedule, before any construction work, or preparation of land by the project management except for securing the land, is started on the project or activity:

(i) All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification;

(ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification with addition of capacity beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector, that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold limits given in the Schedule, after expansion or modernization;

(iii) Any change in product – mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in Schedule beyond the specified range.”

3. The notification provided that the projects falling under categories A and B set out in the Schedule to the notification will require prior Environmental Clearance (EC) from the concerned Regulatory Authority. The Regulatory Authorities for different projects have been named in clause (2) of the first EC notification. For the A category, the Central Government in the MoEF was named as the Regulatory Authority. For projects in the B category, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short, ‘SEIAA’) was named as the Regulatory Authority. Various procedural aspects regarding applying for a grant of EC, its processing, etc., have been incorporated in the first EC notification. There were subsequent modifications to the first EC notification. Another notification was issued on 15th January 2016 (for short, ‘the second EC notification’), by which the first EC notification was partly modified. Clause 7B and Appendix-IX were added to the first EC notification, providing for an exemption to specific categories of projects from the requirement of obtaining EC. Item 6 in the said Appendix-IX reads thus:

“Appendix-IX

Exemption of certain cases from requirement of Environmental Clearance

The following cases shall not require prior environmental clearance, namely:

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

6. Dredging and de-silting of dams, reservoirs, weirs, barrages, river, and canals for the purpose of their maintenance, upkeep and disaster management.

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..”

Though the NGT struck down a part of the second EC notification, Appendix-IX was not touched.

4. In the Original Application subject matter of these appeals, the challenge before the NGT was to the notification dated 28th March 2020 (for short, ‘the impugned notification’), which modified earlier EC notifications. Appendix IX to the second EC notification provided for ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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