High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Petition Challenging NGT Order on Environmental Clearance for Hotel Construction in Coastal Zone. Court upholds NGT's finding that construction violated CRZ Notification and EIA Notification, requiring prior environmental clearance.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA
  • 302
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, M/s. Leading Hotels, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), West Zone, Pune. The NGT had allowed an appeal filed by respondents No.1 to 3 (local residents) and respondent No.4 (Goa Foundation) against an environmental clearance granted by the Goa State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for the construction of a hotel by the petitioner in Tiracol, Goa. The petitioner sought to quash the NGT order, arguing that the NGT lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and that the order was erroneous on merits. The High Court heard extensive arguments from all parties. The court examined the jurisdiction of the NGT under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and found that the NGT had jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders of SEIAA, as such orders are made under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. On merits, the court considered the applicability of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011, and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. The NGT had found that the petitioner's construction was within the CRZ area and required prior environmental clearance, which had not been obtained. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the petitioner had not produced any valid clearance and the construction was illegal. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the NGT's order was correct and that the petitioner had not made out any case for interference. The decision was delivered by a Division Bench consisting of F.M. Reis and K.L. Wadane, JJ., on 30 June 2015.

Headnote

A) Environmental Law - Jurisdiction of National Green Tribunal - Section 16 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Maintainability of Appeal - The issue was whether an appeal against an order of SEIAA granting environmental clearance lies before the NGT under Section 16 of the NGT Act. The court held that the NGT has jurisdiction to entertain such appeals as the order of SEIAA is a decision under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the NGT Act provides for appeals against any order or decision made under that Act. (Paras 3-5)

B) Environmental Law - Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011 - Applicability to Construction - The court examined whether the construction of a hotel by the petitioner violated CRZ Notification. The NGT had found that the construction was within the CRZ area and required prior environmental clearance. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the petitioner had not obtained the necessary clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006. (Paras 6-8)

C) Environmental Law - Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 - Requirement of Prior Clearance - The court considered whether the petitioner's construction required prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification. The NGT had held that the construction was a 'new project' and required clearance. The High Court agreed, stating that the petitioner had not shown any valid clearance and the construction was illegal. (Paras 9-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the National Green Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order of the Goa State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) granting environmental clearance, and whether the impugned order of the NGT was sustainable on merits.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the NGT had jurisdiction and its order was correct on merits. The court found that the petitioner's construction was in violation of CRZ Notification and EIA Notification, and no interference was warranted.

Law Points

  • Jurisdiction of National Green Tribunal under Section 16 of NGT Act
  • 2010
  • Maintainability of appeal against order of SEIAA
  • Applicability of CRZ Notification
  • 2011
  • Environmental Impact Assessment Notification
  • 2006
  • Requirement of prior environmental clearance for construction in CRZ area
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015:BHC-GOA:1400-DB

WRIT PETITION NO. 433/2015

2015-06-30

F.M. REIS, K.L. WADANE

2015:BHC-GOA:1400-DB

Shri V. Dhond, Senior Advocate with Shri Shivan Desai, Shri Sanket More and Shri J. Supekar for petitioner; Shri Sanjay Upadhya for respondents No.1 to 3; Smt. Norma Alvares for respondent No.4; Shri D. Lawande, Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No.5; Shri P. Dangui, Additional Govt. Advocate for respondents No.6 to 10

M/s. Leading Hotels

Shri. Anthony Mendes, Agnel Godinho, Juze Godinho, Goa Foundation, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, Goa State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Goa State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), Biodiversity Management Committee (BMC), State of Goa, National Green Tribunal

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which had set aside an environmental clearance granted by SEIAA for construction of a hotel.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to quash the NGT order and uphold the environmental clearance granted by SEIAA.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was aggrieved by the NGT order which found that the construction violated CRZ and EIA notifications and lacked prior environmental clearance.

Previous Decisions

The NGT had allowed an appeal by respondents No.1 to 4 and set aside the environmental clearance granted by SEIAA.

Issues

Whether the National Green Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order of SEIAA granting environmental clearance? Whether the impugned order of the NGT was sustainable on merits, particularly regarding the applicability of CRZ Notification and EIA Notification?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the NGT lacked jurisdiction under Section 16 of the NGT Act as the order of SEIAA was not a decision under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Respondents argued that the NGT had jurisdiction and that the construction violated CRZ and EIA notifications, requiring prior clearance.

Ratio Decidendi

The NGT has jurisdiction under Section 16 of the NGT Act to hear appeals against orders of SEIAA granting environmental clearance, as such orders are made under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Construction in CRZ area without prior environmental clearance under EIA Notification is illegal.

Judgment Excerpts

We have heard extensively Shri V. Dhond, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Norma Alvares, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and Shri S. Updhya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3. The main grievance of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the National Green Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the order of the National Green Tribunal, West Zone, Pune, which had allowed an appeal by respondents No.1 to 4 and set aside the environmental clearance granted by SEIAA for the petitioner's hotel construction. The High Court heard the matter and dismissed the petition on 30 June 2015.

Acts & Sections

  • National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Section 16
  • Environment (Protection) Act, 1986:
  • Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011:
  • Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petitioner in Tenancy Dispute Due to Delayed Suo-Motu Inquiry Under Section 84-C of Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Three-Year Delay in Initiating Inquiry Held Unreasonable, Forfeiture Order Quashed.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Petition Challenging NGT Order on Environmental Clearance for Hotel Construction in Coastal Zone. Court upholds NGT's finding that construction violated CRZ Notification and EIA Notification, requiring prior envi...