When Does the Limitation Period Under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act Commence—Upon the Earliest Communication of Environmental Clearance by Any Duty Bearer?

 

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

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR

Precedent Value Binding authority
Overrules / Affirms Affirms NGT’s interpretation of “communication” under Section 16(h)
Type of Law
  • Environmental Law
  • Tribunal jurisdiction
  • Limitation
Questions of Law
  • How to interpret “communication” for accrual of limitation under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act
  • Which duty bearer’s act triggers the limitation period
Ratio Decidendi The Court held that “communication” under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act is in rem, not in personam, and must be construed liberally to serve public law objectives. When multiple duty bearers (MoEF&CC, project proponent, SPCB) are obliged to publicise an environmental clearance (EC), the limitation period begins on the earliest date any one of them completes its communication obligations. The first-accrual principle applies: the right to appeal first accrues on that earliest communication, even if subsequent publications occur later. The upload of the EC on the MoEF&CC website on 05 Jan 2017 sufficed to start the 30-day period, and the appeal filed on 19 Apr 2017 thus fell outside the maximum condonable period.
Judgments Relied Upon
  • Khatri Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2011) 9 SCC 126
  • Save Mon Region Federation & Anr. v. Union of India, 2013 (1) All India NGT Reporter 1
  • Medha Patkar & Ors. v. Ministry of Environment & Forests, 2013 SCC OnLine NGT 63
  • V. Sundar Proprietor Chemicals, India v. Union of India & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine NGT 145
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court
  • Interpretation of Section 16(h) as in rem right to appeal
  • Obligations under EIA Notification 2006 Clause 10
  • First accrual principle from Khatri Hotels
  • Liberal construction for public-law remedies
  • Consistent NGT precedents requiring earliest communication to trigger limitation
Facts as Summarised by the Court The MoEF&CC granted EC on 05 Jan 2017 for limestone mining in Gujarat. The appellant Gram Panchayat learned of the EC via RTI on 14 Feb 2017 and filed an NGT appeal with condonation. The NGT dismissed for delay; the SC remanded. On rehearing, the NGT found the EC was uploaded on the MoEF&CC website on 05 Jan 2017 and dismissed the appeal as beyond the 90-day limit. The Gram Panchayat appealed under Section 22 of the Act.

Practical Impact

Category Impact
Binding On National Green Tribunal and all subordinate courts
Persuasive For Other High Courts and environmental tribunals
Follows
  • Save Mon Region Federation & Anr. v. Union of India (2013)
  • Medha Patkar & Ors. v. MoEF (2013)

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

  • Clarifies that limitation under Section 16(h) NGT Act begins from the earliest communication of EC by any duty bearer.
  • Confirms MoEF&CC website upload on the grant date constitutes complete communication.
  • Affirms that a summary advertisement of EC conditions satisfies project proponent’s publication requirement.
  • Reinforces the first-accrual principle, preventing reliance on later communications to extend limitation.
  • Establishes that appeal beyond 30 + 60 days from earliest communication is time-barred, even if other publications occur later.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

  1. Section 16(h) imposes a 30-day limitation, extendable by 60 days, from “communication” of EC.
  2. “Communication” is in rem, aimed at the public, and duty bearers include MoEF&CC, project proponent, SPCBs (EIA Notification 2006).
  3. First-accrual principle (Khatri Hotels): limitation begins when the right to appeal first accrues upon earliest communication.
  4. NGT precedents (Save Mon; Medha Patkar) held that the earliest complete publication by any stakeholder triggers the period.
  5. Application: EC was uploaded on MoEF&CC website on 05 Jan 2017—limitation began that day; appeal on 19 Apr 2017 was beyond the maximum 90 days.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Gram Panchayat):

  • Limitation should commence when they actually received EC via RTI (14 Feb 2017) or last communication.
  • Communication obligations did not synchronise; only actual notice to them should count.
  • Project proponent failed to publish full EC conditions in newspapers, rendering communication incomplete.

Respondents (Union of India et al. / Project Proponent):

  • MoEF&CC’s upload of EC on 05 Jan 2017 constituted complete service to public domain.
  • Duty bearers collectively fulfilled EIA Notification 2006 Clause 10; earliest date suffices.
  • Appeal filed on 19 Apr 2017 exceeded even the maximum 90-day period.

Factual Background

The Ministry granted EC for limestone mining on 05 Jan 2017. The Talli Gram Panchayat filed an NGT appeal with condonation, asserting they learned of the EC via RTI on 14 Feb 2017. The NGT Western Zone Bench initially dismissed for default; the Supreme Court remanded for merits. On rehearing, the NGT found the EC was publicly uploaded on 05 Jan 2017 and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The Gram Panchayat then filed this civil appeal under Section 22 of the NGT Act.

Statutory Analysis

  • Section 16(h), NGT Act 2010: 30-day limit from communication of EC; proviso allows additional 60 days on sufficient cause.
  • EIA Notification 2006, Clause 10: Requires MoEF&CC, SEIAA, project proponent to publicise EC by website upload, newspaper advertisement, display for specified periods.
  • First-accrual principle: multiple communications, but limitation runs from earliest complete communication (Khatri Hotels).

Alert Indicators

  • ✔ Precedent Followed – Upholds NGT and Supreme Court precedents on earliest communication triggering limitation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

No comments to show.