Expressway projects under the EIA regime require prior clearance, contemporaneous data, and meaningful environmental appraisal.

An expressway-style peripheral ring road falls within the highway category under the EIA regime, so prior environmental clearance is required where the project is in substance a high-speed, access-controlled road with interchanges and toll plazas. The project was treated as commencing only after final notification following government sanction, not at the preliminary acquisition stage. The appraisal process was found non-compliant because the terms of reference had expired, the primary data were outdated, and the environmental impact assessment did not fully and coherently address forest land and tree-felling issues. The record also showed perfunctory scrutiny by the appraisal committee, with post facto attempts to cure defects held inadequate.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the peripheral ring road project commenced before the EIA Notification, 2006 came into force; (ii) whether the project fell within para 7(f) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006 so as to require prior environmental clearance; and (iii) whether the appraisal process and environmental impact assessment complied with the Notification and the Ministry's office memoranda on validity of terms of reference, primary data, forest clearance and consultant accreditation.

Issue (i): Whether the peripheral ring road project commenced before the EIA Notification, 2006 came into force?

Analysis: The obligation to seek prior environmental clearance arises after identification of the prospective site and before commencement of construction or preparation of land. Under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, the preliminary notification only initiates the acquisition scheme and objections process, while final governmental sanction under Section 18(3) and the publication of the final notification under Section 19(1) finalize the scheme and authorize execution. Treating the preliminary notification as the point of commencement would compel environmental appraisal for a scheme that may never materialize. The project site was finally identified only after the final notification issued after the scheme received sanction.

Conclusion: The project did not commence before the EIA Notification, 2006; it commenced only upon the final notification after government sanction.

Issue (ii): Whether the project fell within para 7(f) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006 so as to require prior environmental clearance?

Analysis: Para 7(f) covers highways, and the later clarification that highways include expressways was treated as declaratory of the existing position. The project was designed as a high-speed, access-controlled, divided road with interchanges and toll plazas, intended to decongest traffic and facilitate intercity connectivity. Those features brought it within the meaning of an expressway. The fact that no notification had been issued under the highway enactments did not take the project out of the environmental clearance regime once its actual character was examined.

Conclusion: The project was an expressway and fell within para 7(f); prior environmental clearance was required.

Issue (iii): Whether the appraisal process and environmental impact assessment complied with the Notification and the Ministry's office memoranda on validity of terms of reference, primary data, forest clearance and consultant accreditation?

Analysis: The terms of reference had expired when the final report was placed before the State Expert Appraisal Committee, and the primary data relied upon was older than the permissible period. The later office memoranda required contemporaneous data and, where necessary, fresh EIA process. The report also contained serious contradictions on forest land and tree felling, and the project proponent's later attempts to cure those defects were post facto and inadequate. In addition, the appraisal by the Committee was perfunctory and did not disclose cogent reasons. The process therefore suffered from non-compliance with the regulatory framework and from non-application of mind.

Conclusion: The appraisal process and the environmental impact assessment were not in compliance with the governing requirements and could not sustain the environmental clearance.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the environmental clearance failed, but the matter was not left without relief. The directions requiring a fresh rapid environmental impact assessment and further appraisal were maintained, and the decision-making process was held to be vitiated by delay, outdated data and inadequate scrutiny.

Ratio Decidendi: A project that is in substance an expressway falls within the highway category in the EIA regime, and environmental clearance must be based on a contemporaneous and properly appraised EIA prepared within the validity period of the terms of reference and supported by full disclosure of material environmental impacts.

---