Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dedicated Freight Corridor ... vs Society For Protection Of Environment ... on 4 January, 2023
Bench: M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8762 OF 2016
DEDICATED FREIGHT CORRIDOR CORPORATION OF INDIA
LTD & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SOCIETY FOR PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY
(SPENBIO) & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9070 OF 2016
O R D E R
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order(s) passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 31.05.2016 and 05.07.2016 by which the following directions were issued, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. and Another have preferred the present Appeals:
“1. We hold and declare that the project in question, that is, the Metro Construction from Noida to Greater Noida is a project covered under Entry 8(b) of the Schedule to the Notification of 2006.
2. We direct the respondent No.1, the project proponent to obtain Environmental Clearance for the project in question as expeditiously as possible and in any case not beyond three months from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. The Signature Not Verified application in Form 1A shall be submitted within Digitally signed by R Natarajan one week from today to SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh. It Date: 2023.01.06 17:01:44 IST Reason: shall dispose of the application as Category B-1 project as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, not later than the period aforestated. 2
3. SEIAA shall impose conditions, both in regard to the remedial measures as well as for completion of the project in terms of the Notification of 2006 and protection of the environment and ecology in that area.
4. We make it clear that if the work already executed by the project proponent has caused any irretrievable loss to environment, ecology and nature, the SEIAA would be well within its rights even to direct demolition of such constructed portion.
5.The order granting Environmental Clearance shall be specific in regard to the remedial as well as precautionary measures that are required to be taken by the project proponent.
6. In the event the project proponent does not comply with the directions issued under the Environmental Clearance, the project work shall be liable to be stopped forthwith.” At the outset, it is required to be noted that, while issuing notice in the present Appeals, vide order dated 16.09.2016, this Court had stayed the impugned orders passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi pending further orders from this Court.
It is reported and it is not in dispute that thereafter, the entire Metro Rail Project in Delhi and Noida has been completed and the metro rail is running and being used by the public at large. In that view of the matter when the entire metro rail project is complete and the metro rail is running, the clock cannot be put back and the same shall not be even in the larger public interest. Under the circumstances, we propose to dispose of the present Appeals keeping the questions of law open. However, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents has prayed to consider the 3 questions of law on merits. We refuse to accede to the said prayer.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, more particularly, when the entire metro rail project is complete and the metro rail in Delhi and Noida is being run and is being used by the public at large, we dispose of the present Appeals by observing that the impugned directions reproduced hereinabove are not to be acted upon in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. However, the questions of law, if any, more particularly, whether with respect to the rail project/metro rail project, the environmental clearance is required or not and other questions of law, if any, are kept open to be considered in appropriate proceedings and the present order shall not be cited as a precedent in any other matters/cases.
With this, both the Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.
.......................... J. (M.R. SHAH) .......................... J. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) New Delhi;
January 04, 2023.
4 ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.4 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 8762/2016 DEDICATED FREIGHT CORRIDOR CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS SOCIETY FOR PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY (SPENBIO) & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 9070/2016 (XVII) Date : 04-01-2023 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Appellant(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, Sr. Adv./SG Mr. Tarun Johri, AOR Mr. Ankur Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Vishwajeet Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Annam Venkatesh, AOR Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Dhuli Shiva Shankar, Adv.
Ms. Agrimaa Singh, Adv.
Ms. Ritumbara Garg, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Ms. Sanjana Thomas, Adv.
Ms. Ayushma Awasthi, Adv.
Ms. Mantika Vohra, Adv.
Ms. Namrata Caleb, Adv.
Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. S.K. Singhania, Adv.
Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Akshay Nain, Adv.
Mr. T.S. Sabarish, Adv.
Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K., Adv.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR 5 Mr. Ravindra Raizada, AAG Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Ashiwan Mishra L, Adv.
Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Adv.
Mr. Bhuwan Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv.
Ms. Neha Das, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Both the Appeals stand disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file)