Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-000731 – 2023 |
| Diary Number | 3263/2023 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding on all tribunals and courts interpreting limitation under Section 16(h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing NGT precedents (Save Mon, Medha Patkar) and the first-accrual principle |
| Type of Law | Environmental law; statutory interpretation; limitation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The obligation to “communicate” an environmental clearance is shared among the MoEF&CC, project proponent and Pollution Control Boards under the EPA 1986 and EIA Notification 2006. The limitation period under Section 16(h) begins on the earliest date any duty bearer completes a clear and accessible public communication of the EC. This “first accrual” approach prevents litigants from picking later notifications to extend limitation. Quashing of belated appeals is required where the 30-day plus 60-day condonation window expires from that first communication. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All tribunals and courts hearing environmental clearance appeals under the National Green Tribunal Act |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and tribunals on limitation issues in environmental and public-law appeals |
| Follows | Save Mon Region Federation & Anr. v. Union of India (2013, NGT); Medha Patkar & Ors. v. MOEF & Ors. (2013, NGT) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that the 30-day appeal period under Section 16(h) begins from the earliest public communication of the EC by any duty bearer (MoEF&CC, project proponent or SPCB).
- Confirms “communication” is an in rem obligation, requiring accessible publication, not personal service.
- Confirms that publishing the fact of EC and outlining key conditions suffices; printing the entire clearance text in newspapers is not mandatory.
- Reaffirms the first-accrual principle prevents later notifications from resetting limitation.
- Provides binding guidance to counter delay-condonation arguments based on RTI disclosures or staggered communications.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Statutory Scheme and Public-Law Character
- Section 16(h) of the NGT Act allows a 30-day appeal period from “communication” of an EC; proviso permits up to 60 days condonation.
- Environmental clearance appeals serve a public purpose; the term “any person aggrieved” requires in rem and liberal construction.
-
Plurality of Duty Bearers under EIA Notification 2006, Clause 10
- MoEF&CC/SEIAA must upload the EC on its portal and notice boards.
- Project proponent must advertise in two local newspapers, display on its website and notify local bodies.
- SPCBs and local bodies must display the EC for 30 days.
-
First-Accrual Principle
- When multiple agencies share a communication duty, limitation begins on the earliest date one agency completes the public notice.
- Supreme Court adopted the principle from Khatri Hotels and Save Mon to avoid fragility in limitation start-dates.
-
Application to Facts
- EC dated 05.01.2017 was uploaded on the MoEF&CC portal and advertised by the proponent by 11.01.2017.
- Appeal filed on 19.04.2017 therefore lay beyond the 30 + 60 day window.
- Delay-condonation rejected; appeal dismissed as time-barred.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Talli Gram Panchayat)
- Limitation should run from RTI reply dated 14.02.2017 or from the date of the last communication by statutory bodies.
- Project proponent failed to publish the entire EC text in local newspapers.
- NGT single-member dismissal and restoration orders were procedurally flawed.
Respondents (Union of India & Project Proponent)
- Public communication by MoEF&CC on 05.01.2017 and newspaper advertisements on 11.01.2017 triggered limitation.
- Delay beyond 90 days is incurable; appeal barred.
- Publication of EC factum and conditions satisfies Clause 10 (EIA Notification).
Factual Background
In January 2017 the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change granted an environmental clearance for limestone mining over 193.33 ha in Gujarat. The Gram Panchayat of Talli village learned of the EC only after an RTI reply on 14.02.2017 and filed an appeal before the NGT on 19.04.2017 along with a delay-condonation application. The NGT dismissed the appeal for limitation; the Supreme Court remanded for a full-bench hearing. On remand, the NGT found the EC was first communicated on 05.01.2017 via online upload and local publicity, held the appeal time-barred and dismissed it. The Supreme Court affirmed that decision.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 16(h), National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: 30-day appeal period from “communication” of an EC; 60-day condonation proviso.
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and EIA Notification, 2006 (Clause 10): concurrent duties on MoEF&CC, project proponent, SPCBs and local bodies to publicize EC.
- “Communication” construed liberally and in rem; fixed commencement by first public notice avoids uncertainty and abuse of process.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – reaffirms NGT’s interpretation of communication obligations and first-accrual principle under Section 16(h).