Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) dated 8 February 2019 quashing the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted to the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) for the development of an eight-lane Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) connecting Tumkur Road to Hosur Road, totaling 65 kilometers. The NGT held that the primary data for the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report was collected between December 2009 and February 2010, more than three years prior to its submission to the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) in October 2014, rendering the EC invalid. The NGT directed a fresh rapid EIA. The BDA appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered three issues: whether the PRR project commenced before the EIA Notification 2006 came into force; whether the project falls under para 7(f) of the Schedule to the 2006 Notification requiring prior EC; and whether the appellant complied with the procedure under the Notification. The appellant argued that the project commenced in 2005 with a preliminary notification under the BDA Act, that the PRR is not a National or State Highway, and that the EC was obtained out of abundant caution. The respondents contended that the term 'highway' should be interpreted broadly, that the primary data was stale, and that there were material omissions in the EIA report regarding forest land, tree felling, and petroleum pipelines. The Supreme Court, while not deciding the first two issues, upheld the NGT's finding that the primary data was over three years old, citing the OM dated 22 March 2010 which requires EIA reports to be based on data not older than three years. The Court noted that the ToR was valid for four years and the EIA report was submitted after its expiry. The Court also observed discrepancies in the EIA report, such as the number of trees to be cut (200 vs 16,685 as per the Forest Department) and the suppression of the Thippagondanahalli Reservoir catchment area. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the NGT's order to conduct a fresh rapid EIA and not proceed on the basis of the impugned EC.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance - Staleness of Primary Data - EIA Notification 2006, para 7(f) - OM dated 22 March 2010 - The NGT quashed the EC granted to the PRR project on the ground that primary data was collected more than three years prior to submission of the EIA report. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the data collected between December 2009 and February 2010 was over four years old when the EIA report was placed before SEAC/SEIAA in October 2014, rendering the EC invalid. (Paras 1, 4, 6) B) Environmental Law - Highway Definition - Applicability of EIA Notification 2006 - Para 7(f) of Schedule to EIA Notification 2006 - The Court considered whether the PRR project, not being a National or State Highway under the respective Acts, falls within the ambit of 'highway' under the Notification. The issue was left open as the appeal was decided on other grounds. (Paras 5, 6, 8) C) Environmental Law - Project Commencement - Prospective Application of EIA Notification 2006 - The appellant argued that the project commenced in 2005 before the 2006 Notification came into force. The Court did not finally decide this issue as the appeal was disposed of on the staleness of data ground. (Paras 5, 8) D) Environmental Law - Deficiencies in EIA Report - Forest Land, Trees, Pipeline - The NGT noted discrepancies in the EIA report regarding forest land, number of trees to be cut (200 vs 16,685), and proximity to petroleum pipelines. The Supreme Court did not adjudicate these issues in detail but noted them as additional grounds supporting the NGT's decision. (Paras 1, 4, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Peripheral Ring Road project commenced prior to the EIA Notification 2006; whether the project falls under para 7(f) of the Schedule to the 2006 Notification requiring prior environmental clearance; and whether the appellant complied with the procedure under the EIA Notification 2006, particularly regarding the staleness of primary data.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the NGT order dated 8 February 2019. The Court affirmed that the primary data for the EIA report was collected more than three years prior to its submission, rendering the EC invalid. The NGT's direction to conduct a fresh rapid EIA and not proceed on the basis of the impugned EC was upheld.
Law Points
- Environmental Clearance
- EIA Notification 2006
- Validity of EIA data
- Primary data staleness
- Highway definition
- Prospective application of notification
- Project commencement
- SEAC appraisal
- Forest clearance
- Tree felling discrepancy
- Petroleum pipeline proximity
- Thippagondanahalli Reservoir catchment area
- OM dated 22 March 2010
- ToR validity period
- NGT Act Section 16
- BDA Act 1976
