Case Note & Summary
The appeals were lodged under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, challenging the National Green Tribunal's order that set aside an ex post facto environmental clearance granted by the Union of India. The clearance, dated 08.03.2019, was issued under paragraph 4.3 of the 2011 Notification under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, for the appellant's storage terminal and pipeline in Coastal Regulation Zone II. The appellant, engaged in edible oil processing, had purchased a storage facility and obtained permissions from various authorities to lay an underground pipeline from Chennai Port to the facility. However, the NGT found the storage terminal illegal because it was not located 'in' Chennai Port, as required by paragraph 8 of the 2011 Notification for storage of non-hazardous cargo like edible oil. The core legal issue was whether the ex post facto clearance was valid given the location violation. The appellants argued that the word 'in' in CRZ II should be interpreted more leniently than 'within' in CRZ I, allowing storage outside port limits, but the NGT rejected this. The Supreme Court heard arguments from senior counsel for both sides and analyzed the 2011 Notification's provisions. The court held that ex post facto clearance under paragraph 4.3 has only prospective operation and cannot validate activities prohibited under the Notification. Interpreting paragraph 8, the court affirmed that storage in CRZ II must be 'in' notified ports, meaning within port limits, and the facility's location outside Chennai Port rendered it illegal. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeals, upholding the NGT's order for removal of the storage facility and pipeline and imposition of environmental compensation on one appellant.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Coastal Regulation Zone - Ex Post Facto Clearance - Environment Protection Act, 1986, 2011 Notification, paragraph 4.3 - The appellant challenged the NGT order setting aside ex post facto clearance for a storage terminal and pipeline in CRZ II. The Supreme Court held that while ex post facto clearance under paragraph 4.3 is permissible with prospective effect, it cannot legalize activities that are inherently prohibited under the Notification. The clearance was invalid as the storage facility was not located 'in' the Chennai Port, violating paragraph 8. The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the NGT's directions for removal and environmental compensation. (Paras 1-2, 8-10) B) Environmental Law - Coastal Regulation Zone - Interpretation of 'In' vs 'Within' - Environment Protection Act, 1986, 2011 Notification, paragraphs 7, 8 - The appellants argued that storage in CRZ II, using 'in', should be interpreted more leniently than 'within' in CRZ I, allowing facilities outside port limits. The court rejected this, holding that 'in' in paragraph 8 for CRZ II requires the activity to be located within the notified port, not outside. The distinction did not permit storage outside port limits, making the construction illegal. (Paras 9-10) C) Environmental Law - Coastal Regulation Zone - Prohibited Activities - Environment Protection Act, 1986, 2011 Notification, paragraphs 3, 4, 7, 8 - The storage terminal for edible oil was constructed in CRZ II without prior clearance. The court found the activity contrary to the 2011 Notification, as storage of non-hazardous cargo like edible oil is permitted only 'in' notified ports under paragraph 8. Since the facility was outside Chennai Port, it was illegal, warranting removal and compensation. (Paras 2, 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the ex post facto clearance granted under paragraph 4.3 of the 2011 Notification for a storage terminal and pipeline in Coastal Regulation Zone II was valid, given that the storage facility was not located 'in' the Chennai Port as required by paragraph 8 of the Notification.
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upheld NGT order that ex post facto clearance is invalid as storage facility not located 'in' Chennai Port under paragraph 8 of 2011 Notification, directed removal of storage facility and pipeline, and upheld environmental compensation for one appellant
Law Points
- Ex post facto environmental clearance under paragraph 4.3 of the 2011 Notification has prospective operation only
- Interpretation of 'in' versus 'within' in Coastal Regulation Zone notifications
- Storage of non-hazardous cargo in CRZ II is permissible only 'in' notified ports
- not outside port limits
- Construction of storage facility and pipeline without prior clearance is illegal and warrants removal and environmental compensation
