Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner No.1, NAREDCO West Foundation, is the Maharashtra chapter of the National Real Estate Development Council, representing over 400 real estate developers. The Petitioner was aggrieved by the inaction of Respondent No.2, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), in repeatedly deferring proposals for environmental clearance submitted by its members. The deferrals were based on an email dated 23 September 2022 from the Registrar of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which drew SEIAA's attention to a judgment and order dated 13 September 2022 passed by the NGT in Appeal Nos.22 of 2016. In that judgment, the NGT held that recreational ground must be provided at ground level, open to sky, and capable of tree plantation, and directed that projects failing to provide such recreational ground should not be allowed to proceed. Consequently, SEIAA began deferring all proposals for environmental clearance, citing the NGT judgment as the reason. The Petitioner challenged this practice, arguing that SEIAA was not a party to the NGT proceedings and that the NGT judgment did not impose a blanket ban on environmental clearances. The Petitioner contended that SEIAA must independently apply its mind to each proposal and not mechanically defer decisions. The Respondents, including Union of India, SEIAA, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, State of Maharashtra, and NGT, defended the deferrals. The High Court analyzed the issue and held that SEIAA's action of deferring proposals solely based on the NGT email was unsustainable. The Court emphasized that SEIAA is a statutory authority under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, and must exercise its own judgment. The NGT judgment did not direct SEIAA to defer all proposals; it only laid down general principles regarding recreational ground. Therefore, SEIAA was directed to consider each proposal on its merits and not defer them solely on the ground of the NGT judgment. The Court allowed the petition, quashing the deferral decisions and directing SEIAA to process the proposals in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance - Deferral of Proposals - SEIAA cannot defer proposals for environmental clearance solely on the basis of an email from NGT drawing attention to a judgment, without independently applying its mind to the facts of each case - Held that SEIAA must consider each proposal on its own merits and cannot mechanically defer decisions based on a general direction (Paras 1-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether SEIAA can defer proposals for environmental clearance solely on the basis of an email from NGT drawing attention to a judgment, without independently applying its mind to the facts of each case.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the deferral decisions and directing SEIAA to consider each proposal on its merits and not defer them solely on the ground of the NGT judgment.
Law Points
- Environmental Clearance
- Recreational Ground
- NGT Judgment
- Deferral of Proposals
- SEIAA's Powers
- Application of Mind
