The Supreme Court of India has held that the period of limitation for filing an appeal against the grant of Environmental Clearance (EC) under Section 16(h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act), begins to run from the earliest date on which the order is “communicated” by any of the designated duty bearers.
A Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed the appeal filed by Talli Gram Panchayat, affirming the decision of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Western Zone Bench, Pune, which had rejected the appeal as barred by limitation.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the grant of Environmental Clearance to the project proponent (Respondent No. 4) for limestone mining over an extent of 193.3269 hectares in Talli and Bambor villages, Gujarat. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) granted the EC on January 5, 2017.
The appellant, Talli Gram Panchayat, challenged this EC before the NGT under Section 16(h) of the Act. As the appeal was filed after the statutory period, it was accompanied by a Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay. The appellant contended that they only became aware of the EC through a reply received under the Right to Information Act on February 14, 2017. Consequently, they argued that the limitation period should be calculated from that date or from the last communication received from the authorities.
The NGT dismissed the appeal, holding it was filed beyond the maximum condonable period of 90 days. Following a remand by the Supreme Court on July 11, 2022, to consider the matter on merits including limitation, the Tribunal again dismissed the application for condonation of delay. This led to the present Civil Appeal No. 731 of 2023 before the Supreme Court.
Arguments and Legal Issues
The primary legal issue before the Court was the determination of the date on which the EC is considered “communicated” to an “aggrieved person” for the purpose of calculating limitation under Section 16(h) of the Act.
The appellant argued that the limitation should be reckoned from the date they acquired knowledge via the RTI reply. Further, it was contended that the project proponent failed to publish the entirety of the EC in the two local newspapers as required by Clause 10 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, thereby failing in the duty to communicate.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court interpreted Section 16(h) of the Act, which allows an aggrieved person to file an appeal within 30 days from the date the order is “communicated to him,” with a further condonable period not exceeding 60 days.
The Bench observed that the obligation to communicate the EC rests on a “plurality of duty bearers,” namely:
- The MoEF&CC
- The Project Proponent
- The Pollution Control Board(s)
The Court noted that since these duties are performed by different authorities, the dates of compliance may not synchronize. Applying the principle of “first accrual,” the Court held:
“When obligation to communicate the decision vests in multiple authorities, it is appropriate to infer that the communication is complete when the ‘person aggrieved’ receives information from the earliest of the communication.”
Citing the precedent in Khatri Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (2011), the Court reiterated that when a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the limitation begins from the date the right to sue first accrues.
The Court affirmed the view taken by the Tribunal in Save Mon Region Federation & Anr. vs. Union of India (2013) and Medha Patkar & Ors. v. Ministry of Environment & Forests (2013), stating:
“In view of the interpretation that we have given in Section 16(h), coupled with the consistent rulings of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the period of limitation will commence from the earliest of the date on which the communication is carried out by any of the duty bearers.”
On Newspaper Publication Requirements
Addressing the appellant’s argument regarding the incompleteness of the newspaper advertisements, the Court rejected the contention that the entire EC must be published. The Bench termed such an interpretation of Clause 10 of the EIA Notification as “pedantic.”
The Court observed:
“It will be sufficient compliance, if the project proponent publishes the grant of the EC, and indicates therein the substance of the conditions and safeguards. While it is the project proponent’s responsibility to publish grant of EC in its favour, it is no part of the legal requirement that the entirety of the environmental clearance is published in the newspaper.”
The Court relied on the Tribunal’s decision in V. Sundar Proprietor Chemicals, India v. Union of India & Ors. (2015), agreeing that if the advertisement conveys the factum of the EC and where details can be accessed, it constitutes complete communication.
Decision
Examining the facts, the Court noted that the EC granted on January 5, 2017, was uploaded on the MoEF&CC website on the same day. Additionally, the Project Proponent had submitted copies to the Panchayat on January 9, 2017, and published advertisements in local newspapers on January 11, 2017.
The Court concluded:
“Given the NGT’s finding that the EC was uploaded and made publicly accessible on 05.01.2017, 30 days limitation period will commence from that date. If so, the maximum period of 90 days expired by the time the appellant filed its appeal on 19.04.2017.”
The Supreme Court upheld the NGT’s dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation and dismissed Civil Appeal No. 731 of 2023. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.
