Environmental clearance for highway expansion turns on width thresholds, anti-segmentation limits, and inclusion of toll plazas in right of way.

Prior environmental clearance under the EIA notifications was held to depend not merely on National Highway expansion exceeding 100 km, but also on whether additional right of way or land acquisition crossed the prescribed width thresholds; the notification was construed literally as clear and unambiguous, so clearance was not required on facts where those limits were not breached. Segmentation of a highway project cannot be used to evade environmental scrutiny, although the broader legality of segmentation in appropriate cases was left for expert examination. Toll plazas and rest areas were treated as part of the right of way, and the project was held to fall within the notification's land acquisition framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether prior environmental clearance was required for the National Highway expansion under the Environmental Impact Assessment notifications; (ii) whether splitting the highway expansion into smaller packages to avoid environmental clearance was permissible; and (iii) whether toll plazas and rest areas formed part of the right of way for the purpose of the notifications.

Issue (i): whether prior environmental clearance was required for the National Highway expansion under the Environmental Impact Assessment notifications.

Analysis: The relevant notification was read to require prior environmental clearance only where the National Highway expansion exceeds 100 km and the additional right of way or land acquisition is greater than 40 metres on existing alignments and 60 metres on realignments or bypasses. The words of the notification were held to be clear and unambiguous, warranting a literal construction and giving effect to every word used.

Conclusion: Prior environmental clearance was not required merely because the project exceeded 100 km, since the land acquisition did not cross the prescribed width thresholds.

Issue (ii): whether splitting the highway expansion into smaller packages to avoid environmental clearance was permissible.

Analysis: While the Court accepted that a project cannot be segmented as a strategy to evade environmental scrutiny, it held that the larger question whether segmentation of a highway project beyond 100 km is permissible in law and in what circumstances is a matter requiring expert consideration. Accordingly, an expert committee was directed to examine the issue.

Conclusion: Segmentation as a device to evade environmental clearance was impermissible, but the broader permissibility of segmentation in appropriate cases was left for expert examination.

Issue (iii): whether toll plazas and rest areas formed part of the right of way for the purpose of the notifications.

Analysis: Relying on the project manual governing highway specifications, the Court held that the right of way includes the land width required for the project highway and its ancillary facilities. Toll plazas and rest areas were treated as falling within that concept and therefore within the land acquisition limits prescribed by the notification.

Conclusion: Toll plazas and rest areas were held to be included in the right of way.

Final Conclusion: The judgment of the High Court was set aside, the environmental clearance requirement was negatived on the facts of the project, and the appeals were allowed with directions on compliance and further expert examination.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory notification prescribing environmental clearance is clear and unambiguous, it must be given its plain meaning, and a project exceeding a specified length does not require clearance unless the additional right of way or land acquisition also crosses the prescribed threshold.

---