Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 – C Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006 – Peripheral Ring Road Project – National Green Tribunal quashed the Environmental clearance granted to the appellant for the said PRR project – NGT was of the view that the primary data upon which the Environment Impact Assessment report was based was collected more than 3 years prior to its submission to the State Environment Impact Assessment D Authority – There was substantial delay in the preparation of the EIA report – Accordingly, the NGT directed the appellant to conduct a fresh rapid EIA and clarified the project proponent not to proceed on the basis of the impugned Environmental clearance – On appeal, held: In the instant case, there was failure of due process E commencing from issuance of the Terms of Reference and leading to the grant of the Environmental clearance for the PRR Project – The appellant, as project proponent sought to rely on an expired Terms of Reference and proceeded to prepare the final EIA report on the basis of outdated primary data – At the same time, the process leading to the grant of the Environmental clearance was replete F with contradictions on the existence of forest land to be diverted for the Project as well as the number of trees required to be felled – The State Expert Appraisal Committee, as an expert body abdicated its role and function by relying solely on the responses submitted to it by the appellant and failing to comply with its obligations under G the OMs issued by the MOEF-CC from time to time – The State Expert Appraisal Committee failed in its fundamental duty mandated to do under the 2006 Notification – Therefore, inter-alia, following directions issued: (i) The appellant directed to conduct a fresh rapid EIA for the proposed PRR project; (ii) The appellant, for the purpose of conducting the rapid EIA, hired a sector-specific accredited EIA Consultant; (iii) Appellant to ensure the requisite clearances under various enactments submitted to the State Expert Appraisal Committee prior to the consideration by it of the information submitted by the appellant in accordance with the OMs issued by the MOEF-CC from time to time; (iv) State Expert Appraisal Committee shall thereafter assess the rapid EIA report in accordance with the role assigned to it under the 2006 Notification and if it is of the opinion that the appellant has complied with the 2006 Notification as well as the directions issued by the Supreme Court, only then shall it recommend to the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority the grant of Environmental clearance for the proposed project – The order of the NGT directing the appellant to conduct a rapid EIA is upheld.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The protection of the environment is premised not only on the active role of courts, but also on robust institutional frameworks within which every stakeholder complies with its duty to ensure sustainable development. A framework of environmental governance committed to the rule of law requires a regime which has effective, accountable and transparent institutions. Equally important is responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision making. Environmental governance is founded on the rule of law and emerges from the values of our Constitution. Where the health of the environment is key to preserving the right to life as a constitutionally recognized value under Article 21 of the Constitution, proper structures for environmental decision making find expression in the guarantee against arbitrary action and the affirmative duty of fair treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution. Sustainable development is premised not merely on the redressal of the failure of democratic institutions in the protection of the environment, but ensuring that such failures do not take place. [Para 79][809-F-H; 810-AB]
2. In the present case, there has been a failure of due process commencing from issuance of the Terms of Reference and leading to the grant of the Environmental Clearance for the Peripheral Ring Road project. The appellant, as project proponent sought to rely on an expired ToR and proceeded to prepare the final Environment Impact Assessment report on the basis of outdated primary data. At the same time, the process leading to the grant of the EC was replete with contradictions on the existence of forest land to be diverted for the project as well as the number of trees required to be felled. [Para 80][810-B-C]
3. The State Expert Appraisal Committee, as an expert body abdicated its role and function by relying solely on the responses submitted to it by the appellant and failing to comply with its obligations under the OMs issued by the MoEF-CC from time to time. In failing to provide adequate reasons for its recommendation to the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority for the grant of an EC, it failed in its fundamental duty of ensuring both the application of mind to the materials presented to it as well as the furnishing of reasons which it is mandated to do under the 2006 Notification. [Para 81][810-D-E]
4. In this view of the matter, neither the process of decision making nor the decision itself can pass legal muster. Equally, this Court must bear in mind the need to balance the development of infrastructure and the environment. This Court is of the view that while the need for a road project is factored into the decisionmaking 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. [Para 82][810-E-F]
5. Bearing in mind the need to bring about a requisite balance, this Court proposes 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 the consideration by it of the information submitted by the appellant in accordance with the OMs issued by the MoEF-CC from time to time;
(v) The SEAC shall thereafter assess the rapid EIA report and other information submitted to it by the appellant in accordance with the role assigned to it under the 2006 Notification. If it is of the opinion that the appellant has complied with the 2006 Notification as well as the directions issued by this Court, only then shall it recommend to the SEIAA the grant of EC for the proposed project. The SEAC and the SEIAA would lay down appropriate conditions concerning air, water, noise, land, biological and socioeconomic environment and other conditions it deems fit; and
(vi) The appellant shall consult the requisite authority to ensure that no potential damage is caused by the project to the petroleum pipelines over which the proposed road may be constructed. [Para 83][810-D-H; 811-A-E]
State Bank of India v. V. Ramakrishnan (2018) 17 SCC
394 : [2018] 10 SCR 974; Lafarge Umiam Mining
Private Limited v. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 338 : [2011] 7 SCR 954 – relied on.
Shreeranganathan K P v. Union of India 2014 ALL (I) NGT Reporter (1) (SZ) 1 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.