Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 226
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Ss. 14, 16, 22
Maintainability of writ petition against NGT order – Alternative statutory remedy – Scope
Availability of statutory appeal under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act does not oust the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is maintainable where challenge is on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice. Pendency of writ petition since 2021 with affidavits exchanged is an additional factor justifying entertainment.
(Paras 29–38, 85(i)–(ii))
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – S. 16
“Person aggrieved” – Locus standi – Resident of affected village
Resident of the village where mining operations are carried on is a “person aggrieved” within the meaning of Section 16 of the NGT Act, as environmental degradation directly impacts the right to clean environment under Article 21 of the Constitution. Such person cannot be treated as a stranger or busybody.
(Paras 39–48, 85(B))
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Ss. 14, 15
Powers of NGT – Suo motu jurisdiction – Preventive and remedial role
National Green Tribunal is a sui generis expert body with wide jurisdiction not confined to adjudication of lis between parties. Tribunal has preventive, remedial and supervisory functions and is empowered to take suo motu cognizance of environmental issues. Tribunal is not restricted only to grounds raised in appeal.
(Paras 58–65, 85(C)(iii)–(iv))
Environmental Clearance – Appraisal process – Judicial review
Where the National Green Tribunal, on examination of record, finds non-consideration of material environmental aspects, absence of detailed ecological study, lack of district survey and replenishment assessment, and non-application of relevant guidelines by EAC and MoEF&CC, it is justified in keeping Environmental Clearance in abeyance and remitting the matter for fresh consideration. Such order does not suffer from perversity or jurisdictional error.
(Paras 51–57, 69, 85(C)(ii))
Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016
Applicability – Not confined to river sand mining
Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 apply not only to river sand mining but also to sand mining from other sources. The object of the Guidelines is ecological protection and sustainable exploitation of sand resources, and they cannot be narrowly construed.
(Paras 70–72, 85(C)(v))
Environmental Clearance – Grant prior to later notifications
Environmental Clearance granted prior to 2021 notification does not enjoy immunity if it is found to be contrary to the law, guidelines and statutory requirements prevailing at the time of grant. Prior grant does not preclude interference where illegality or non-compliance is established.
(Paras 75, 85(C)(vi))
Ex-post facto Environmental Clearance – Scope
Grant of ex-post facto Environmental Clearance is not a matter of right. It lies within the domain of the competent authority and must be considered strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view binding Supreme Court precedents, polluter-pays principle and environmental safeguards.
(Paras 76–84, 85(C)(vii))
Principles of Natural Justice
Where Environmental Clearance is only kept in abeyance and matter is remitted for reconsideration with opportunity of hearing to all parties, no violation of principles of natural justice is made out warranting interference under Article 226.
(Paras 73–74, 85(C)(i))
ANALYSIS (COURT-STYLE, ISSUE-WISE)
1. Maintainability of Writ Petition
The Court undertakes an extensive survey of constitutional jurisprudence to reaffirm that Article 226 jurisdiction forms part of the basic structure. While Section 22 of the NGT Act provides a statutory appeal, it does not bar writ jurisdiction. The Court emphasizes self-restraint, not lack of power. Given allegations of jurisdictional error and natural justice violation, coupled with long pendency, the writ petition was entertained.
(Paras 29–38)
2. Locus Standi under Section 16 NGT Act
The Court applies settled principles on “person aggrieved” and contextual interpretation of locus standi in environmental matters. Unlike private disputes, environmental litigation affects community rights. A village resident affected by mining operations has direct environmental interest and legal injury. Hence, the appeal before NGT was competent.
(Paras 39–48)
3. Nature and Scope of NGT’s Powers
Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court characterises NGT as an expert, sui generis forum whose mandate transcends traditional adversarial adjudication. Its powers under Sections 14 and 15 include preventive and restorative jurisdiction, enabling examination of broader ecological issues even beyond pleadings.
(Paras 58–65)
4. Validity of NGT’s Interference with EC
The Tribunal recorded detailed findings on ecological sensitivity, absence of district survey, lack of replenishment study, improper appraisal by EAC, mechanised mining concerns, and environmental impact over decades. The High Court finds these conclusions based on record and consistent with environmental jurisprudence. Keeping EC in abeyance is held to be proportionate and lawful.
(Paras 51–57, 69)
5. Applicability of SSMMG, 2016
Rejecting the petitioner’s narrow interpretation, the Court holds that the Guidelines are framed for sustainable sand mining in general, not limited to riverbeds. Ecological rationale governs applicability, not the source alone.
(Paras 70–72)
6. Ex-post facto Environmental Clearance
The Court recognises that while ex-post facto EC is not absolutely barred, it is exceptional and conditional. Its grant must comply with prevailing Supreme Court law and cannot override environmental protection principles. The issue is left open for competent authority at reconsideration stage.
(Paras 76–84)
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
A resident of an environmentally affected area has locus standi as a “person aggrieved” under Section 16 of the NGT Act to challenge Environmental Clearance.
-
The National Green Tribunal is a sui generis expert body with wide preventive, remedial and suo motu jurisdiction, not confined to issues expressly raised by parties.
-
Environmental Clearance granted without proper appraisal, ecological study, district survey, or compliance with applicable guidelines can be lawfully kept in abeyance by the NGT.
-
Availability of appeal under Section 22 of the NGT Act does not bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice is alleged.
-
Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 apply to sand mining from all sources, not merely river sand.
-
Ex-post facto Environmental Clearance is not a right and must be considered strictly in accordance with law and binding Supreme Court precedent.
No comments:
Post a Comment