TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pon which the Environment Impact Assessment EIA report was based was collected more than three years prior to its submission to the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority SEIAA. The NGT was of the view that it was not necessary to adjudicate upon the other contentions that were urged in support of quashing the EC as there was a substantial delay in the preparation of the EIA report. Accordingly, the NGT directed the Appellant to conduct a fresh rapid EIA and clarified that the "project proponent will not proceed on the basis of the impugned Environmental Clearance." Assailing the order of the NGT, the Appellant, as project proponent, is in appeal before this Court. 2. In a bid to address the growing need for efficient commutation, address traffic congestion and connect the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (NICE road) with more access points, the Appellant formulated the PRR project scheme in 2005. A preliminary notification was issued on 27 May 2005 Under Section 17(1) and (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 BDA ACT, to acquire certain land for the execution of the project. The stated purpose of the project was: 1) To decongest the traffic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to their report, it would require felling of 16,685 trees. Added further by the counsel for the Appellant that if the proposed road is allowed to be constructed it would be above the underground pipe line already laid for transporting petroleum from Mangalore to Bangalore and if any leakages happens in future it would bring forth serious consequence... There exists a prima facie case in favour of the Appellant for granting an interim order of stay... The NGT noted the discrepancy between the submission of the Appellant and the existence of a reserved forest through which the proposed road was to pass. The NGT recorded that while the EIA report stated that only 200 trees would be cut for the proposed project, the report given by the Horticulture and Forest Department indicated that about 16,685 trees would be required to be felled for the proposed project. By its final order dated 8 February 2019, the NGT stayed the operation of the EC granted by the SEIAA. The relevant portion of the order reads: The Environmental Clearance was granted on 20.11.2014. Thus, the primary data was more than three years prior to the EIA report. There are omissions in the EIA repor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plied for the grant of an EC out of abundant caution; (iv) The first Respondent has challenged the grant of the EC by the SEIAA only because his appeal before the Karnataka High Court challenging the acquisition of land for the PRR project was unsuccessful. The present proceedings are merely a method of delaying the acquisition proceedings; (v) The SEAC acceded to the request of the Appellant to not forward to the SEIAA a recommendation for the closure of the proposal. The SEAC recommended to the SEIAA the grant of the EC to the project in question after due consideration of the EIA report in its 121st meeting between 11 and 18 November 2014; and (vi) All objections raised by the first Respondent concerning forests, the cutting of trees and the protection of the reservoir were adequately addressed in the EIA report submitted in 2014, on which basis an EC was granted to the PRR project. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first Respondent contended: (i) The term 'highway' or 'expressway' used in the 2006 Notification must be given a wide interpretation and not be restricted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which was granted by the SEIAA. 7. The rival submissions fall for our consideration. C Issues 8. Essentially this Court is required to decide: (i) Whether the PRR project commenced prior to the coming into force of the 2006 Notification; (ii) Whether the PRR project falls within the scope of para 7(f) of the Schedule to the 2006 Notification obliging the project proponent to seek a prior EC; and (iii) Whether the Appellant has complied with the conditions stipulated in the 2006 Notification and the OMs issued by the MoEF-CC from time to time. D Date of commencement of the PRR project 9. This Court is required to adjudicate whether it is the issuance of a preliminary notification Under Section 17 of the BDA Act or a final notification Under Section 19 of the BDA Act that constituted the identification of the proposed site for the project and marked its commencement for the purposes of the 2006 Notification. 10. On 27 January 1994, the MoEF, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) and Clause (v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 Act read with Clause (d) of Sub-rule 3 of Rule 5 of the En....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., all applications seeking an EC shall be made in the prescribed Form 1 and Supplementary Form 1A, if applicable which contains a detailed list of the extent and potential impact of the proposed project. The application must be submitted after the identification of the prospective site and prior to the commencement of any construction activity, or preparation of the land. Thus, the action by the project proponent that is relevant to the obligation to seek a prior EC under the 2006 notification is the identification of the prospective site for the execution of the proposed project. 12. Section 2(a) of the BDA Act defines "authority" as the Bangalore Development Authority constituted Under Section 3 of the Act. Chapter III of the Act deals with development schemes and the procedures that must be complied with in the carrying out of a development scheme. Under Section 15, the Appellant may draw up a detailed development scheme for the development of the Bangalore metropolitan area. Section 16(1) mandates that the Appellant must also provide, in the formulation of the scheme, the details of the land proposed to be acquired for the development scheme. Section 17 contemplates the issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ast known place of abode or business of such person; or (c) by registered post addressed to the usual or last known place of abode or business of such person. Section 17 stipulates that the Appellant shall, upon the preparation of a scheme Under Section 15, notify that a scheme has been prepared along with the specifications of the scheme, a map of the area comprised therein and the details of the land proposed to be acquired. The notification is forwarded to the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, which is granted thirty days to provide its comments to the Appellant authority for transmission to the government along with the scheme for sanction. Section 17(3) stipulates that a copy of the notification shall be published in the Official Gazette and affixed in conspicuous parts of the offices of the Appellant and the Corporation. Section 17(5) mandates that the Appellant shall serve on every person whose land is proposed to be acquired a notice to show-cause within thirty days on why the acquisition of the building or land must not take place. 13. Section 18 stipulates that where the procedure stipulated Under Section 17 is complete, the Appellant shall submit the scheme wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- (1) Upon sanction of the scheme, the Government shall publish in the official Gazette a declaration stating the fact of such sanction and that the land proposed to be acquired by the Authority for the purposes of the scheme is required for a public purpose. (2) The declaration shall state the limits within which the land proposed to be acquired is situated, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area and the place where a plan of the land may be inspected. (3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose and the Authority shall, upon the publication of the said declaration, proceed to execute the scheme. (4) If at any time it appears to the Authority that an improvement can be made in any part of the scheme, the Authority may alter the scheme for the said purpose and shall subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (5) and (6), forthwith proceed to execute the scheme as altered. (5) If the estimated cost of executing the scheme as altered exceeds, by a greater sum than five per cent the estimated cost of executing the scheme as sanctioned, the Authority shall not, without th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the suggestions received and thereafter forward to the Government the scheme for the grant of sanction. However, it is only upon the grant of sanction by the Government Under Section 18(3), that a final notification Under Section 19 is issued. It is only upon the grant of sanction by the Government that a proposed scheme is deemed to be finalized and carried into effect. 17. The 2006 Notification stipulates an obligation to commence the EIA process once a prospective site is identified and before the commencement of any construction or preparation of land. It may be possible that following the formulation of a scheme Under Section 15 and the issuance of a preliminary notification Under Section 17, government sanction is denied or the Appellant drops the proposed scheme prior to the grant of sanction or the issuance of the final notification. In such situations, if it were held that it is the issuance of the preliminary notification identifying the proposed site for the project that marked the commencement of the project for the purposes of the 2006 Notification, the Appellant would be under an obligation to carry out the EIA process for a proposed scheme which may not eventua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct 1956 or Section 3 of the Karnataka Highways Act 1964, does not fall within the ambit of the Schedule to the 2006 Notification. 21. Para 2 of the 2006 Notification 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 be referred to 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 S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I on an "as it is" basis. However, the Government of Karnataka, by its order dated 24 June 2008, withdrew the proposal to transfer the PRR project to the NHAI. 23. There is however another aspect of the matter that warrants the attention of this Court. Para 7(f) of the Schedule to the 2006 Notification has been amended Notifications dated 11 November 2007, 1 December 2009, 4 April 2011 and 22 August 2013. since the coming into force of the 2006 Notification. 24. Prior to the issuance of the 2006 Notification, a draft notification was published in the official Gazette on 15 September 2005 stipulating that comments may be sent to the MoEF-CC within sixty days from the date on which the notification was published. Para 7(f) of the Schedule to the draft notification reads: S. No. Project or Activity NIC code (2004) ISIC Code Category Conditions if any A A/B B (f) Roads Highways 45203* All new National Highways, Express ways and bypasses >= 30 Km Length Or All National Highways, Express way expansion projects >= 30 km length and additional right of way of more than 20m - All State Highway projects >= 30 km length O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mendments to EIA Notification, 2006" in October, 2009. Numerous comments were received by the Committee on various aspects of the draft notification including the proposed amendment to para 7(f) of the Schedule. The initial draft notification only sought to modify column 4 of para 7(f). However, comments were received by the Committee stating that a specific reference to expressways must be made. The Committee formulated its analysis in the following terms: Analysis: The main suggestion relates to expansion of the scope of the notification by including expressways, bypasses, Major district roads, tunneling for roads within city limits, peripheral roads around municipal corporation limits. There is also a request for expanding the right of way limit from 20 metres to 60 metres. BRO has sought exemption of their projects up to 50 kilometres. From the comments received, it is perceived that Expressways are different from Highways. However, keeping in view the objective of the Notification, it needs to be explicitly clarified in the Notification that Highways include Expressways. In regard to other items these may be considered separately. In regard to the proposal for enhanci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which was: (iv) to clear the confusion regarding treatment of assets of guarantors of the corporate debtor vis-a-vis the moratorium on the assets of the corporate debtor, it has been recommended to clarify by way of an explanation that all assets of such guarantors to the corporate debtor shall be outside scope of moratorium imposed under the Code; (Emphasis supplied) ... The Committee concluded that Section 14 does not intend to bar actions against assets of guarantors to the debts of the corporate debtor and recommended that an explanation to clarify this may be inserted in Section 14 of the Code. The scope of the moratorium may be restricted to the assets of the corporate debtor only. 33. The Report of the said Committee makes it clear that the object of the amendment was to clarify and set at rest what the Committee thought was an overbroad interpretation of Section 14. The Court noted that the Committee clarified that it was never intended that the moratorium Under Section 14 applied to personal guarantors of corporate debtors. Accordingly, an amendment was enacted to Section 14. The Court then proceeded to hold, relying on consistent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s at location of intersections. Generally, only fast-moving vehicles are allowed access on Expressways... An expressway is defined as an arterial highway designed for high-speed travel with the objective of reducing traffic and generally involving control of access. Other indicators are the provision of toll booths, divided carriageways and grade separators located at intersections. The assessment of whether a road project is an expressway is to be determined on a case by case basis. 32. In the present case, the stated purpose of the PRR project is thus: 1) To decongest the traffic in Bangalore City; 2) To cater intercity connectivity and intercity traffic; 3) To reduce pollution in the city 4) To reduce heavy vehicles traffic i.e., Lorry and Trucks 5) To decongest the traffic on outer ring road. The brief note submitted by the Appellant to this Court states that: ...the PRR proposed to be implemented by the BDA is an 8 lane divided road around Bangalore city is primarily ease the vehicular traffic congestion on its city roads. The proposed cross-section consists of 4 lane main road in each traffic direction and 3 lane ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce from SEIAA (Emphasis supplied) 33. The PRR project is expected to be an 8 lane main carriageway highway (4 + 4 bi-directional), along with a 6 lane road service road (3 + 3 bi-directional) having a right of way of 75 meters and total length of 63.5 kms. The EIA report stipulates that the PRR project was conceptualised with the salient purpose of decongesting the traffic in the city and catering to intercity connectivity and intercity traffic. This, it was stated, would significantly reduce pollution intensity and travel time. The EIA report clarifies that the project is designed to cater to high speed vehicular traffic with vehicles plying at speeds of 100 Kms/hr, where possible, and 80Kms/hr in other places. 34. Moreover, the report stipulates that the project also comprises of ten interchanges and sixteen toll booths. It is stated that access to the road is restricted only to national highways, state highways and major district roads. In this view of the matter, there is no doubt that the PRR project is an expressway falling within the ambit of para 7(f) of the Schedule to the 2006 Notification. The PRR project commenced on the issuance of the final notification Under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any progress on the EIA process. Acting upon the letter of the SEAC, the SEIAA, at its 66th meeting dated 17 May 2013 closed the file relating to the grant of EC for the PRR project and communicated its decision to the Appellant on 25 July 2013. By a letter dated 24 August 2013, the Appellant requested the SEIAA to re-open the file. The SEIAA, at its 71st meeting dated 3 September 2013 decided to re-open the file, subject to the payment of the requisite processing fee. A public hearing was conducted on 6 February 2014. The SEAC, at its 111th meeting dated 9 June 2014, decided to defer the consideration of the Appellant's proposal as the EIA report was not made available to the Committee members. By a letter dated 2 August 2014, the Appellant placed before the SEAC the EIA report which was prepared after the public hearing was conducted in February 2014. The SEAC, at its 115th meeting dated 11-12 August, 2014 noted numerous deficiencies in the information submitted by the Appellant and decided to obtain additional information which was communicated to the Appellant on 28 August 2014. 38. The Appellant provided to the SEAC a point-wise reply to the information sought along wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the basis of prevailing environmental conditions as on the date of its preparation, it is necessary to ensure that the EIA process is contemporary to the submission of information in Form 1 and the issuance of the ToR. The MoEF-CC, noting situations where some EIA reports were prepared belatedly on the basis of outdated ToRs, issued a notification on 22 March 2010 prescribing a time limit for the validity of ToRs which stated thus: Office Memorandum Sub: Time limit for validity of Terms of Reference (TORs) prescribed under EIA Notification, 2006 for undertaking detailed EIA studies for developmental projects requiring environmental clearance - Regarding. The EIA Notification, 2006 has prescribed a time limit for validity environmental clearance granted to a project. However, no time limit has been specifically provided under the EIA Notification for the TORs prescribed for undertaking detailed EIA studies. As a result, the TORs once prescribed would continue to be valid indefinitely, which is definitely not desirable because the TORs are very much site specific and are dynamic to some extent depending upon the site features, its land use and the nature of dev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s: ...2(iv) Extension of validity of TORs beyond the outer limit of three years for all projects or activities and four years for River Valley and HEP projects shall not be considered by the Regulatory Authority. In such cases, the project proponent will have to start the process de novo and obtain fresh TORs in case the proponent is still interested in pursuing the clearance for the project. Reuse of old baseline data (provided it is not more than 3 years old) for the purpose of preparation of fresh EIA and EMP report will be considered subject to due diligence by the EAC/SEAC which may make appropriate recommendations including the need for revalidation. Baseline data older than 3 years will not be used for preparation of EIA/EMP report. In any case, the PH shall have to be considered afresh in such cases. (Emphasis supplied) The MoEF-CC clarified that where the time period prescribed for the ToR has expired, the regulatory authority "shall not" consider any further extension and a project proponent seeking to continue the project must initiate the EIA process de novo. This includes the submission of fresh information in Form 1 and the prescription of a new ToR to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation was to prescribe a uniform validity period of four years for both ToRs and the primary data collected. However, the stipulation that a fresh EIA process must be undertaken where the ToR has expired was retained. 44. In the present case, the ToR was issued on 21 November 2009, prior to the issue of the OM dated 22 March 2010. Hence, by virtue of the notification, the Appellant was required to submit the EIA report within four years from the date of the issuance of the ToR i.e. before 21 November 2013. The SEAC was under a corresponding obligation to refuse the consideration of any EIA report prepared after the expiry of the ToR. Public hearing was conducted belatedly only on 6 February 2014 and the EIA report prepared thereafter was placed before the SEAC only on 2 August 2014, nearly a year after the ToR had expired. We cannot gloss over the failure of the project proponent to comply with the OMs issued by the MoEF-CC prescribing a time limit for the validity of the ToR. The decision of the SEAC to proceed with the EIA report as well as seek additional information from the project proponent despite the expiry of the ToR suffers from a non-application of mind and is unsust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... data as well as the analysis of the impact of the proposed PRR project on the environment in the 2014 report is similar to that in the 2010 Rapid EIA report. It appears that the EIA consultant has reproduced verbatim, portions of the Rapid EIA report which was prepared in the year 2010. No effort was taken by the Appellant to ensure the fresh collection of data in compliance with its obligations under the OMs issued by the MoEF-CC. In this view of the matter, the contention urged on behalf of the Respondents that there was a substantial delay in the carrying out of the EIA process, vitiating the process commends itself for our acceptance. 48. In the rejoinder and brief note of submissions filed before this Court by the Appellant, it was contended that any delay in the collection of primary data was remedied by the collection of fresh samples in reply to the questions raised by the SEAC in its 115th meeting dated 11-12 August, 2014. The primary data furnished in reply, it was urged, dated to the year 2014 and not 2010. In assessing this contention, it is necessary to advert to the questions raised by the SEAC to the Appellant. The SEAC, at its 115th meeting noted shortfalls in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... strip plantations on either side of the proposed road with suitable native fruit yielding shade bearing & fast growing species (instead of this consultant), to improve the micro climate. Committee decide to obtain additional information sought above and to recall the proposal alter receipt of the information. By its letter dated 12 November 2014, the Appellant provided to the SEAC a point-wise reply to the information sought along with additional samples on ground water, surface water and soil. 49. The questions framed by the SEAC and responses filed by the Appellant demonstrate that there existed serious deficiencies in the EIA report which was submitted to the SEAC. This included outdated data on the AAQ air analysis, soil quality, forest land and the number of trees to be planted. The SEAC noted certain shortfalls which concerned limited aspects of the EIA report including the baseline data of hardness of borewell water, soil analysis and forest land. In addition to this, the SEAC directed that certain samples collected were to be marked on the map submitted to the SEAC in the EIA Report. Significantly, the SEAC noted the discrepancy concerning the disclosure of the exist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... G Deficiencies in the EIA report G. 1 Accreditation of the EIA consultant 53. In the written submissions submitted by the Appellant, it was contended that the EIA process was undertaken on behalf of the Appellant by M/s. Ramky Enviro Engineers Pvt. Ltd., a non-accredited EIA consultant. This, it was submitted, was in contravention of the OM dated 2 December 2009 issued by the MoEF-CC mandating that only sector-specific accredited EIA consultants should be engaged to carry out the EIA process. 54. The MoEF-CC, by its notification dated 2 December 2009, mandated the registration of EIA consultants under the scheme of Accreditation and Registration of the National Accreditation Board of Education and Training/Quality Council of India. The relevant portion of the notification reads: ...It has been felt in the Ministry that there is a need to enhance the quality of EIA reports as the Consultants generally, undertake preparation of EIA/EMP Reports in many sectors and in some instances without requisite expertise and supporting facilities like laboratories for testing of samples, qualified staff etc. The good quality EIA Reports are prerequisites for improved decision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th respect to a) Variation in names of candidate in list of experts/persons included in EIA b) Implementation of QMS and c) Quality of EIA were observed. Ramky Enviro was asked to explain the reasons for shortfalls to Accreditation Committee (AC) ... Results of the Re-accreditation (RA) assessment are given below: Ramky Enviro Engineers have scored more than 60% as an organization and therefore qualifies for Cat. A EIA projects. However, in respect of Completeness and quality of EIA, the marks are less that 60% indicating scope of improvement vide points mentioned below in relevant section. 2.1.1 Scope of accreditation Sl. No. Sector No. as NABET Scheme Name of Sector Cat. 1 1 Mining A 2 40 Thermal Power plants A 3 20 Petrochemical based processing A 4 21 Synthetic organic processing A 5 1 Industrial estate/parks/SEZ A 6 32 TSDF A 7 38 Building and Large construction A 8 39 Area and Township projects A 56. The Committee noted the deficiencies in the performance of M/s. Ramky Enviro Engineers Pvt. Ltd. as an EIA consulta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The EIA report affirms at numerous places that 1.5 hectares of forest land will be affected by a part of the project. Despite this, the EIA report proceeds to state: Sl. No Type of Clearance Statutory Authority Applicability Project stage Responsibility 1 Prior Environmental Clearance under EIA Notification, 2006 SEIAA Applicable Pre Construction BDA 2 Forest Clearance under Forest Conservation Act, 1980 Karnataka State and Forest Dept & MoEF Not applicable Pre construction BDA 59. The EIA report proceeds on the assumption that no forest clearance is required despite the diversion of 1.5 hectares of forest land. No explanation has been provided by the Appellant either in the EIA report or in the written submissions before this Court as to why it was exempt from seeking the requisite forest clearance. The only indication of remedying the loss of forest cover provided in the EIA report is thus: 10.4 Afforestation Plan Affected Area - Around 1.50 Ha. Area proposed to be afforested - 4.5 Ha (three times the affected area) Afforestation Program will be implemented through the Forest Department,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailure of due process in the field of environmental governance. While the Appellant submitted to the EAC that it had already obtained the consent of the forest department to divert the proposed forest land, a contradictory stance was taken in the written submissions filed by the Appellant: It is stated herein that the PRR passes through 25 acres of forest land situated in Jarakabande Kaval Forest Area, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and since the alignment inevitably passed through this, the forest department was requested on 28.08.2018 to handover the forest land to the Appellant for the purpose of the PRR project. Thereafter, the forest department replied on 12.01.2019 requesting for alternate land of 25 acres. It was stated by the Appellant that it was only on 28 August 2018 that it sought to remedy its failure in obtaining the requisite forest clearance by requesting the forest department to handover the forest area involved in the project. The Appellant, in its rejoinder filed before this Court states: ...It is admitted that the PRR does indeed pass through the forest land in Jarakabande Kavalu forest area. It is also pertinent to point out here th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ataka SEIAA, there was no deficiency in the grant of the EC so long as specific conditions were imposed on the project proponent to seek the requisite clearance. 62. Prior to the notification, prior clearance from regulatory bodies or authorities was not required. The MoEF-CC, by a notification dated 31 March 2011, prescribed the procedure to be followed for projects which involve forest land in the grant of an EC. The relevant portion reads: ...In this regard, reference is also invited to para 8(v) of the EIA notification, 2006 which reads as follows: Clearances from other regulatory bodies or authorities shall not be required prior to receipt of applications or prior environmental clearance of projects or activities, or screening, or scoping, or appraisal, or decision by the regulatory authority concerned, unless any of these is sequentially dependent on such clearance either due to a requirement of law, or for necessary technical reasons. ... However, in view of the complexity of the issues involved, the matter has been considered further in the Ministry and in suppression of the earlier instructions, it has now been decided to adopt the fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of forestry clearance and make their recommendations on the project on its merits. After the EAC has recommended the project for environmental clearance, it would be processed on file for obtaining decision of the Competent Authority for grant of environmental clearance. In the cases where the Competent Authority has approved the grant of environmental clearance, the proponent will be informed of the same and a time limit of 12 months, which may be extended in exceptional circumstances to 18 months, a decision on which will be taken by the Competent Authority, will be given to the proponent to submit the requisite stage-I forestry clearance. The formal environmental clearance will be issued only after the stage-I forestry clearance has been submitted by the proponent. (iii) In the eventuality that the stage-I forestry clearance is not submitted by the project proponent within the prescribed time limit mentioned at para (ii) above, as and when the stage-I forestry clearance is submitted thereafter, such projects would be referred to EAC for having a relook on the proposal on case by case basis depending on the environmental merits of the project and the site. In such a situ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g, it proceeded to recommend to the SEIAA the grant of EC for the PRR project. The decision of the SEAC to recommend to the SEIAA the grant of the EC, despite the contradictory stand of the Appellant as well as its failure to furnish adequate reasons as to why it was exempt from seeking forest clearance, suffers from a non-application of mind. G. 3 Trees 67. In the written submissions filed before this Court, it was contended by the Respondents that there was a material concealment by the project proponent of the number of trees proposed to be felled for the PRR project. While the Appellant stated that only 200 - 500 trees were required to be felled, the number was in fact as high as 16,000 trees. The Appellant, as project proponent, stated in the 2014 EIA report: Around 519 plants are felled for the project; the minimum of three times the number of felled plant will be replanted in the nearby areas The Deputy Conservator of Forests, BDA, in a reply dated 24 April 2009 to a right to information query stated: With respect to the information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the number of trees that will be cut for the formation of the Periph....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8. Petronet MHB Ltd. was of the opinion that as the pipelines contain hazardous material which is highly inflammable, care should be taken to either relocate parts of the project or ensure that adequate safeguards were put in place. 70. The Respondents have placed on record the minutes of the meeting dated 2 February 2008 between the Appellant authority and the representatives of M/S. Petronet MHB Limited. It was noted that the proposed PRR project crosses the PETRONET pipeline at three locations - PRR CH 7600, PRR CH 29100 to 29500 and CH 31100 to 31800 and PRR CH 39500. It was agreed that a joint-inspection would take place for one crossing, while for the other two crossings it was agreed that the PRR project would be raised for clearance height. It was stated: The MD, M/S. Petronet MHB Limited agreed that the PRR may be taken over at higher level with a clearance of minimum 5.20 m from the ground level and the crossing shall be preferably at right angles. He also insisted that no supports shall be constructed within their Right of user (ROU) of 18.00. In this view of the matter, the Appellant sought to take adequate precautions to ensure that the proposed PRR proj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to be taken: Secretary, SEAC to submit the proposal to SEIAA accordingly. 72. The reasons furnished by the SEAC must be assessed with reference to the norm that it is required to submit reasons for its recommendation. The analysis by the SEAC is, to say the least, both perfunctory and fails to disclose the reasons upon which it recommended to the SEIAA the grant of EC for the PRR project. The SEAC proceeds merely on the reply furnished by the Appellant to the queries raised by the SEAC at its 115th meeting dated 11-12 August, 2014. In this view, the procedure followed by the SEAC suffers from a non-application of mind. 73. The SEAC is under an obligation to record the specific reasons upon which it recommends the grant of an EC. The requirement that the SEAC must record reasons, besides being mandatory under the 2006 Notification, is of significance for two reasons: (i) The SEAC makes a recommendation to the SEIAA in terms of the 2006 Notification. The regulatory authority has to consider the recommendation and convey its decision to the project proponent. The regulatory authority, as para 8(ii) of the 2006 Notification provides "(ii) The regulatory authority shall normally....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a proposed limestone mining project at Nongtrai Village, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. A three judge Bench of this Court rejected the challenge and upheld the grant of the EC to the proposed project. Chief Justice S H Kapadia noted that the doctrine of proportionality must be applied to matters concerning the environment as part of judicial review. The principles of judicial review in environmental matters have been enunciated thus: In the circumstances, barring exceptions, decisions relating to utilisation of natural resources have to be tested on the anvil of the well-recognised principles of judicial review. Have all the relevant factors been taken into account? Have any extraneous factors influenced the decision? Is the decision strictly in accordance with the legislative policy underlying the law (if any) that governs the field? Is the decision consistent with the principles of sustainable development in the sense that has the decision-maker taken into account the said principle and, on the basis of relevant considerations, arrived at a balanced decision? Thus, the Court should review the decision-making process to ensure that the decision of MoEF is fair and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, Portland, Oregon delivered on 29 October, 1970: My answer is yes. We are overdoing our litigation of the environment. I do not mean that there are necessarily too many lawsuits being filed on environmental issues, and that we should somehow cut back - I would not know how, in any case - the number of those suits by ten percent, twenty percent, or fifty percent. I do mean that a disproportionately large share of attention, effort and environmental concern is being focused on lawsuits. Lawsuits cannot accomplish, by themselves, solutions to the most pressing of our environmental problems. As a result, we are in some danger of leaving the most pressing environmental problems unsolved - or even made worse - because the commotion of litigation has persuaded us that something has been accomplished. Professor Corker draws attention to the idea that the environmental protection goes beyond lawsuits. Where the state and statutory bodies fail in their duty to comply with the regulatory framework for the protection of the environment, the courts, acting on actions brought by public spirited individuals are called to invalidate such actions. Equally important however, is to be c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... itself can pass legal muster. Equally, this Court must bear in mind the need to balance the development of infrastructure and the environment. We are of the view that while the need for a road project is factored into the decision-making calculus, equal emphasis should be placed on the prevailing state of the environment. The appeal which was filed before the NGT in 2015, was finally disposed of at a belated stage only in 2019. J Directions 83. Bearing in mind the need to bring about a requisite balance, we propose to issue the following directions Under Article 142 of the Constitution: (i) The Appellant is directed to conduct a fresh rapid EIA for the proposed PRR project; (ii) The Appellant shall, for the purpose of conducting the rapid EIA, hire a sector-specific accredited EIA consultant; (iii) The Appellant shall have due regard to the various deficiencies noted in the present judgment as well as ensure that additional precautions are taken to account for the prevailing state of the environment; (iv) The Appellant shall ensure that the requisite clearances under various enactments have been obtained and submitted to the SEAC prior to ....