Case Note & Summary
The dispute centered on the validity of an Environmental Clearance (EC) obtained by a project proponent for a construction project in Maharashtra. The appellant, M/s Sai Baba Sales Pvt. Ltd., initially constructed a project below the 20,000 sq. meter threshold under the 2006 EIA notification, not requiring an EC. Upon expansion to 49,012 sq. meters, the proponent applied for an EC, but the regime changed with the MoEFCC notification dated 9.12.2016, designating local authorities like the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC) as competent to grant ECs for projects between 20,000 and 50,000 sq. meters. Accordingly, the proponent obtained an EC from PCMC on 28.11.2017. However, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) later invalidated certain clauses of the 2016 notification in a batch matter on 8.12.2017. An original applicant filed OA No. 83/2019 in 2019, alleging unauthorized construction without a valid EC, leading the NGT to find the EC invalid and direct coercive action for post-8.12.2017 construction, but protected existing constructions based on the ratio in Goan Real Estate and Construction Ltd. Vs. Union of India. The Supreme Court considered appeals under Section 22 of the NGT Act against the NGT's judgment dated 18.1.2021. The core legal issue was whether the EC was valid under the amended regime and the effect of the NGT's invalidation. The appellant argued compliance with the applicable procedure and that the NGT's order did not nullify existing ECs, while the original applicant contended the EC was illegitimate post-invalidation. The Court analyzed the chronological facts, noting the proponent acted within the legal framework, obtaining necessary sanctions and applying to the competent authority as per the 2016 notification. It emphasized that the NGT's Committee report indicated the PCMC was the competent authority at the time, and the NGT's invalidation did not provide guidance on existing ECs. The Court held the EC was validly granted, protecting the existing constructions, but upheld the NGT's direction for future construction to require a fresh EC from the competent authority under the current regime, thus partially allowing the appeals by affirming the EC's validity while maintaining conditions for further development.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance - Validity Under Amended Regime - Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Notification dated 9.12.2016 - Project Proponent initially constructed below threshold limit without EC, then expanded project and obtained EC from PCMC under 2016 notification after regime change - Court held EC valid as it was granted by competent authority at relevant time, complying with applicable procedure, and NGT's invalidation did not nullify existing ECs - Construction already raised protected (Paras 3-15). B) Environmental Law - Judicial Review of Environmental Clearance - Retrospective Effect of NGT Orders - National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Section 22 - NGT invalidated certain clauses of 2016 notification but did not nullify ECs granted under it - Court held NGT's order did not have retrospective effect to invalidate EC obtained prior to judgment, and no guidance was provided on implications for existing ECs - Existing constructions allowed to stand (Paras 12-16). C) Environmental Law - Limitation for Environmental Challenges - Cause of Action Accrual - National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Original Applicant filed OA in 2019 alleging construction without EC - NGT rejected limitation challenge, finding cause of action arose in 2017 when threshold limit exceeded - Court did not overturn this finding, implying challenge was timely (Para 14). D) Environmental Law - Future Construction Requirements - Fresh Environmental Clearance - Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 - NGT directed further construction only after securing EC from competent authority under current regime - Court upheld this direction, requiring Project Proponent to obtain fresh EC for any future expansion (Para 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Project Proponent possesses a validly granted Environmental Clearance (EC) under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification dated 14.9.2006, and the implications of the NGT's invalidation of certain clauses of the MoEFCC notification dated 9.12.2016 on the EC granted by the local authority.
Final Decision
Supreme Court held the Environmental Clearance obtained from PCMC on 28.11.2017 is valid as it was granted by the competent authority under the amended regime at the relevant time. The existing constructions are protected, but further construction requires a fresh Environmental Clearance from the competent authority under the current regime. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification compliance
- validity of Environmental Clearance (EC) under amended regime
- protection of existing constructions
- retrospective application of judicial orders
- limitation period for environmental challenges
