Environmental clearance review requires full disclosure, proper EIA appraisal and substantive merits scrutiny by the appellate tribunal.

Environmental clearance under the 2006 notification depends on full and candid disclosure in Form 1, and a deficient EIA that omits forests, trees and other ecologically sensitive features will undermine the clearance process. The appraisal must also address sensitive zones, proper sampling, public consultation inputs and the project's full environmental impact; a narrow or perfunctory review is legally defective. An appellate tribunal is required to conduct a substantive merits review of the clearance challenge, and a brief disposal without engaging with material objections does not satisfy that function.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the environmental clearance was vitiated by non-disclosure in Form 1 and by a deficient EIA concerning forests, trees and ecologically sensitive features within the study area; (ii) Whether the EIA and appraisal process failed to consider ecologically sensitive zones, sampling requirements, public consultation inputs and the material environmental impact of the project; (iii) Whether the National Green Tribunal failed to undertake the merits review required in an appeal against environmental clearance.

Issue (i): Whether the environmental clearance was vitiated by non-disclosure in Form 1 and by a deficient EIA concerning forests, trees and ecologically sensitive features within the study area.

Analysis: Form 1 is the foundation of the clearance process under the 2006 notification. The project proponent was required to make a full and candid disclosure of ecological features within the study area, including forests and other sensitive areas. The report failed to disclose the material presence of forested areas and grossly understated the extent of tree felling, while describing the site as having only a few sparse trees. Such omissions impaired the formulation of Terms of Reference and led to a deficient EIA.

Conclusion: The clearance was vitiated by material non-disclosure and a defective environmental appraisal.

Issue (ii): Whether the EIA and appraisal process failed to consider ecologically sensitive zones, sampling requirements, public consultation inputs and the material environmental impact of the project.

Analysis: The study area included ecologically sensitive zones in the broader Western Ghats region, yet the EIA treated the project as acceptable merely because the site itself was outside a notified sensitive area. That approach ignored relevant environmental considerations. The sampling exercise was also perfunctory in respect of fauna and biodiversity, and the public consultation concerns were reduced to a narrow employment-related issue rather than the full range of environmental objections. The Expert Appraisal Committee relied on extraneous considerations and did not furnish a reasoned appraisal of the environmental consequences.

Conclusion: The appraisal process was legally defective and could not sustain the grant of clearance.

Issue (iii): Whether the National Green Tribunal failed to undertake the merits review required in an appeal against environmental clearance.

Analysis: The Tribunal disposed of the challenge in a brief manner without engaging in a substantive evaluation of the alleged defects in the EIA, the consultation process, or the Expert Appraisal Committee's reasoning. An appellate body under the National Green Tribunal Act is required to conduct a genuine merits review, especially where substantial questions of law arise from failure to consider vital materials and relevant considerations.

Conclusion: The Tribunal did not perform the merits review expected of it.

Final Conclusion: The environmental clearance could not stand because the decision-making process was flawed at multiple stages, and the matter had to be revisited by the expert body with proper safeguards.

Ratio Decidendi: In environmental clearance matters, the statutory process of disclosure, scoping, public consultation and appraisal must be strictly and transparently followed, and an appellate tribunal must conduct a substantive merits review where material environmental considerations have been ignored.

---