Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a batch of civil appeals filed under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 by real estate developers' associations and companies against a National Green Tribunal order dated 09.08.2024 in Original Application No.93 of 2024 (CZ). The appellants included CREDAI, Godrej Properties Ltd., and Sai Sahara Developers Ltd., while respondents were Union of India and others. The NGT had allowed an original application filed by Respondent No.3 and directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to ensure that all building and construction projects falling wholly or partly within 5 km of protected areas, critically or severely polluted areas, eco-sensitive areas, and inter-state boundaries be treated as Category A projects and appraised at the Central Level by the Sectoral Expert Appraisal Committee. The NGT further directed either strict implementation of EIA 2006 Notification or issuance of a clarificatory notification. The NGT reasoned that General Conditions under EIA 2006 apply to Items 8(a) and 8(b), and the 2014 notification excluding their applicability had been quashed by Kerala High Court in One Earth One Life v. MoEF, thereby reviving General Conditions. The appellants, though not parties before NGT, claimed to be directly affected as their ongoing and proposed projects faced indefinite delays. CREDAI, the apex body of private developers, argued that General Conditions were never intended to apply to Items 8(a) and 8(b), as Column 5 of the Schedule did not stipulate their application, unlike other items where expressly provided. It contended that the 2014 notification was clarificatory, issued pursuant to Supreme Court's direction in Okhla Bird Sanctuary, and that the Kerala High Court quashed it only on procedural grounds, not on substantive correctness. CREDAI also challenged NGT's jurisdiction under Sections 14, 15 and 2(m) of NGT Act, arguing no substantial environmental question or personal grievance was raised, citing Techi Tagi Tara. It highlighted MoEF&CC's consistent view that SEIAA/SEAC appraisal is equally rigorous and decentralisation is a conscious legislative choice. Godrej Properties Ltd. adopted these submissions and emphasized policy paralysis: neither State nor Central authority was appraising projects, stalling five projects and harming homebuyers. The Court recorded these contentions and, in the available text, had not yet delivered a final decision. The excerpt ended during the submissions of counsel for Godrej Properties Ltd. No operative direction from the Supreme Court was provided. The case involves interpretation of EIA 2006 Notification, interplay of judicial review of environmental regulations, and the extent of NGT's jurisdiction over policy matters. The Court was called upon to decide whether the NGT's order should be set aside and whether State-level environmental clearance for building and township projects should be restored.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance - Applicability of General Conditions to Building and Township Projects - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Sections 3(1), 3(2)(v); EIA 2006 Notification - The National Green Tribunal held that General Conditions apply to Items 8(a) and 8(b) after the Kerala High Court quashed the 2014 exclusion notification; appellants argued that Column 5 omission indicates non-applicability and that the 2014 notification was clarificatory. The Supreme Court recorded these arguments but did not render a final decision in the available text. (Paras 3, 3.1, 5.1-5.5) B) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance - Legislative Intent and Decentralisation - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; EIA 2006 Notification - Appellants contended that State-level appraisal for Items 8(a) and 8(b) was a conscious legislative choice to promote decentralisation, supported by In Re: Construction of Park at Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary; NGT's direction to Central-level appraisal frustrates this intent. (Paras 5.2, 5.9) C) National Green Tribunal - Jurisdiction - Substantial Environmental Question and Academic Issues - National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Sections 14, 15, 2(m) - Appellants argued NGT jurisdiction is confined to substantial environmental questions arising in a lis between parties, and that Respondent No.3's application was not maintainable as it lacked personal grievance; reliance placed on Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari. (Paras 5.7, 5.7.1) D) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance - Effect of Quashing Clarificatory Notification - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; EIA 2006 Notification - NGT held that quashing of EIA 2014 Notification by Kerala High Court revived General Conditions for Items 8(a) and 8(b); appellants contended the High Court quashed only on procedural grounds, not on substantive correctness, and that MoEF&CC consistently maintained exemption, so automatic revival is untenable. (Paras 3.1, 5.3-5.5) E) Administrative Law - Environmental Clearance - Regulatory Vacuum and Appraisal Authority - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; EIA 2006 Notification - NGT's direction led to a situation where neither State SEIAA nor Central SEAC was appraising projects under Items 8(a) and 8(b), causing policy paralysis; Godrej Properties Ltd. submitted that five projects were stalled and homebuyers prejudiced. (Paras 6.2-6.4) F) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance - Office Memoranda on Polluted Areas - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; EIA 2006 Notification - Appellants argued that Office Memorandum dated 31.10.2019 was inapplicable to Items 8(a) and 8(b), and subsequent Office Memorandum dated 13.03.2020 clarified that SEIAA/SEAC would continue to govern such projects. (Para 5.10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the National Green Tribunal erred in directing that building and township projects within 5 km of protected areas, critically/seriously polluted areas, eco-sensitive areas, and inter-state boundaries be treated as Category A and appraised at Central Level; whether General Conditions under EIA 2006 apply to Items 8(a) and 8(b); whether NGT had jurisdiction under Sections 14, 15 and 2(m) of NGT Act; whether appeals under Section 22 are maintainable
Law Points
- General Conditions under EIA 2006 Notification not applicable to Items 8(a) and 8(b) absent express stipulation
- Column 5 omission reflects legislative intent
- EIA 2014 Notification clarificatory
- quashing on procedural grounds does not revive General Conditions
- NGT jurisdiction under Sections 14 15 2(m) limited to substantial environmental questions in a lis
- decentralisation to State level is conscious legislative choice
- NGT direction causing regulatory vacuum
