Environmental clearance upheld for thermal power project, but any relaxation of key pollution controls requires notice and hearing.

Environmental clearance for a thermal power project was upheld because the Central Government was not bound by the expert appraisal committee's opinion and had considered the relevant technical and ecological material before deciding. The clearance also was not invalidated for breaching coastal or ecologically sensitive area guidelines, as those safeguards were treated as context-dependent and the project had been re-sited with stringent pollution-control conditions, including stack, monitoring, and flue-gas measures. Concerns that the conditions might not be enforced were held premature, but any later relaxation of material environmental conditions required notice, hearing, and consideration of environmental consequences.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Central Government's clearance of the thermal power project at Dahanu was vitiated because it differed from the opinion of the expert appraisal committee and allegedly failed to consider relevant environmental material; (ii) whether the clearance was contrary to the environmental guidelines relating to ecologically sensitive areas and coastal regulation, including the distance requirements from the sea and High Tide Line; and (iii) whether the clearance was liable to be rejected because the imposed environmental conditions might not be effectively enforced or might later be relaxed.

Issue (i): Whether the Central Government's clearance of the thermal power project at Dahanu was vitiated because it differed from the opinion of the expert appraisal committee and allegedly failed to consider relevant environmental material.

Analysis: The limited scope of interference under Article 136 was emphasised in a matter involving competing public interest concerns. The Government was entitled to weigh the need for electrical power against environmental and ecological considerations. The expert committee's views were not binding on the Central Government. The record showed that the Government had before it not only the committee's report but also the State Government's expert recommendations and other technical material, and the decision was taken after reconsideration and response to the objections raised.

Conclusion: The clearance was not shown to be arbitrary or taken without application of mind, and the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the clearance was contrary to the environmental guidelines relating to ecologically sensitive areas and coastal regulation, including the distance requirements from the sea and High Tide Line.

Analysis: The guidelines were treated as general safeguards, not as rigid prohibitions divorced from local conditions. The peculiar requirements of supplying power to the Bombay suburban area and the need for proximity to sea water for operational purposes were relevant contextual factors. The Court also accepted that the project had been re-sited and subjected to stringent pollution-control safeguards, including requirements for a tall stack, electrostatic precipitators, a flue gas desulphurisation plant, and continuous monitoring. As to the High Tide Line objection, the material showed that the building site had been adjusted so as to maintain the required clearance.

Conclusion: The project clearance was not invalidated for breach of the environmental guidelines or coastal-distance requirements.

Issue (iii): Whether the clearance was liable to be rejected because the imposed environmental conditions might not be effectively enforced or might later be relaxed.

Analysis: The apprehension of unenforceability was held to be premature. The sanction itself contained a shutdown consequence for breach of conditions, and statutory mechanisms were available to secure compliance. At the same time, the Court considered it necessary to protect the environmental safeguards from being diluted without scrutiny and hearing to the affected objectors.

Conclusion: The clearance was sustained, but relaxation of the flue gas desulphurisation condition or any other material condition could not be permitted without notice and hearing to the petitioners and consideration of the consequences.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the environmental clearance for the Dahanu thermal power project and declined to interfere, while imposing protective directions to ensure continued compliance with the environmental conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: In reviewing environmental clearances for public projects, the Court will not substitute its own view for that of the executive if the decision is taken after considering all relevant materials and is supported by safeguards, but any later relaxation of material environmental conditions must follow a fair procedure and be tested for its environmental consequences.

---