Madras High Court
Pandarinathan Govindarajulu vs The Union Of India on 8 January, 2020
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 04.10.2019
Pronounced on : 08.01.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019
and WMP.Nos.21095, 1519, 14941 & 14942 of 2019
1. Pandarinathan Govindarajulu ... Petitioner in WP.21883/2019
2. Traffic Dr.K.R.Ramaswamy ... Petitioner in WP.15217/2019
3. Rajangam & 59 Others ... Petitioners in WP.14941/2019
-Vs-
1.The Union of India
Represented by the Secretary
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
Indira Paryavaran Bhavan
Jor Bagh, New Delhi. ... 1st Respondent in WP.21883/2019
2.The National Highways Authority of India
Rep by its Project Director
No.26, VGP Nagar
Vazhudareddy Post
Villupuram. ... 2nd Respondent in WP.21883/2019
3.The Chief Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
... 1st Respondent in WP.15217/2019
4.The Secretary
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways Transport Bhavan,
Government of India
1, Parliament Street,, New Delhi – 110 001.
... 2nd Respondent in WP.15217/2019
http://www.judis.nic.in1/41
W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019
5.The Secretary
Ministry of Highways and Minor Ports
Government of India
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
... 3rd Respondent in WP.15217/2019
6.The Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Ministry for Environment
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
... 4th Respondent in WP.15217/2019
7. Director, Impact Assessment Division
Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change
Indira Parayavaran Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Vayu Wing
Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi – 110 003.
... 5th Respondent in WP.15217/2019
8.The District Collector
I Floor, Collectorate
Camp Office, Nagapattinam – 611 001.
... 6th Respondent in WP.15217/2019
9.National Highways Authority of India (NHAII)
Rep. By its Chairman
No.G5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka
New Delhi – 110 075. ... 1st Respondent in WP.14997/2019
10.The Project Director
National Highways Authority of India (NHAII)
(Ministry of Road Transport and Highways)
No.19, Govindasamty Nagar
Vazhuda Reddy Post
Villupuram. ... 2nd Respondent in WP.14997/2019
11.The Competent Authority /
Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways No.45-A
District Collectorate
Nagapattinam. ... 3rd Respondent in WP.14997/2019
12.The District Collector
Nagapattinam District
District Collectorate, Nagapattinam.
... 4th Respondent in WP.14997/2019
http://www.judis.nic.in2/41
W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019
Prayer in WP.21883 of 2019:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
second respondent to obtain environmental clearance under the EIA,
Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 for the construction/laying
of Villupuram – Nagaipatnam Section of NH-45A, cease all activity related to
the construction / laying of Villupuram – Nagaipatnam Section of NH-45A.
Prayer in WP.15217 of 2019:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents to consider the representation / complaint dated 15.05.2019,
Misc.78/2019 and direct the respondents to stop the land acquisition and
scrap the project of National / State Highway the NHAII 45-A, New No.332,
Villupuram – Nagapattinam Phase 4 Sattanathapuram- Nagapattinam Project
in this corridor and restore such land thus acquired from the innocent
villagers.
Prayer in WP.14997 of 2019:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records relating to impugned notification published on
24.04.2018 in “Daily Thanthi” Tamil Newspaper under Section 3D and 3G(3)
of the National Highways Act, 1956 issued by the third respondent and quash
the same and consequently, forbear the respondents and their subordinates
from forming four lanes road in National Highways No.45A (Villupuram-
Puducherry-Cuddalore-Nagapattinam) in between from KM 108.860 to KM
153.100 - from KM 166.950 to KM 183.600 through the petitioners' lands
and also to consider alternative route i.e., S.No.358/1 to S.No.291/2 I,
Thalachangadu as suggested by the petitioners.
In WP.No.21883 of 2019:
For Petitioner : Mr.Yogeshwaran.A
for Ms.Poongkhulali.B
For Respondents : Mr.G.Karthikeyan
Assistant Solicitor General [R1 & R2]
http://www.judis.nic.in3/41
W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019
In WP.No.15217 of 2019:
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Arvind
For Respondents : Mr.R.Udhayakumar,
Special Government Pleader
[R1 to R4, R6]
Mr.G.Karthikeyan
Assistant Solicitor General [R5]
In WP.No.14997 of 2019:
For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian
for Mr.Balu.K
For Respondents : Mr.Mr.G.Karthikeyan
Additional Solicitor General [R1 & R2]
Mr.R.Udhayakumar
Special Government Pleader [R3 & R4]
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by N.SESHASAYEE, J.,]
1. Another standoff between cause of environment and call of development. The challenge herein relates to the project of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) involving expansion of NH-45A that runs between Villupuram and Nagapattinam, for a distance of 179.555 kms, as part of its Bharatmala Pariyojana Project. No Environmental Impact Assessment (henceforth, EIA) study was undertaken to evaluate the environmental viability of the project, whereas, the Notification in S.O.1533 issued by Ministry of Environment and Forest, dated 14.09.2006, under Rule 5 (3) of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986, and, as amended Vide notification in S.O.2559 (E) issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, dated 22.08.2013, mandates EIA http://www.judis.nic.in4/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 compliance for projects of laying new or expanding existing National Highways. The relevant item in the Notifications is reproduced here.
Project or Activity Category with threshold limit Conditions if any 7 Physical Infrastructure including Environmental Services 7(f) Highways i) New National 1) New State General Highways and Highways; and conditions shall apply.
ii) Expansion of ii) Expansion of
National Highways National / State
greater than 30 Highways greater
KM, involving than 30 km
additional right of involving
way greater than additional right of
20m involving land way greater than
acquisition and 20m involving
passing through land acquisition.
more than one
State
7(f)(ii) Highways i) New National 1) New State General
Highways and Highways; and conditions
shall apply.
ii) Expansion of ii) Expansion of
National Highways National / State
greater than 100 Highways greater
KM, involving than 30 km
additional right of involving
way or land additional right of
acquisition greater way greater than
than 40m on 20m involving
existing alignments land acquisition.
and 60m on re-
alignments or by-
passes.
The non-compliance of EIA is the eye of the litigious storm here. This is
sought to be backed by few ancillary issues.
http://www.judis.nic.in5/41
W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019
2.1 The NHAI adopted a strategy to segment the entire distance of 179.555 kms into four segments, and brought out four separate notifications. The details are as below :
Package No. Name of the Project Length of
Package
I Four laning of Villupuram (km.0/000) 29.000
– Puducherry (km.29/000) Section of
NH45A
II Four laning of Puducherry 38.000
(km.29/000) – Poondiankupam
(km.67/000) Section of NH45A
III Four laning of Poondiankuppam 56.800
(km.67/000) – Satanathapuram
(km.123/800) Section of NH45A
IV Four laning of Satanathapuram 55.755
(km.123/800) – Nagapattinam
(km.179/555) Section of 45A
Total 179.555
The estimated total cost of the project was Rs.6431.71 crores. 2.2 NHAI had invited tenders for the execution of the work, and entered into four Concession Agreements dated 23.04.2018 with M/s Villupuram Highway Construction Pvt. Ltd., covering a stretch of 29.0 k.m., followed by two Concession Agreements both dated 5-05-2018, one with M/s IRB PP Project Pvt. Ltd., and the other with M/s TRB PS Highway Pvt. Ltd., and the last agreement, dated 03-12-2018 with M/s Welspun Sattanathapuram Nagapattinam Road Pvt., Ltd., 2.3 The project involves both widening of the existing road and also laying of http://www.judis.nic.in6/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 new roads for formation of bye-passes. It may be broadly stated that the formation of bye-passes along the stretch of 179.555 km. are conceived for avoiding the cities/towns/villages on route. This necessarily involved acquisition of agricultural lands under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. Three petitions have been filed in Public Interest, challenging either the project in toto, or the land acquisition specifically. They are tabulated as below:
WP.No. Nature of challenge Section to which
the subject matter
relates *
WP.14997/2019 Notification concerning (III & IV)
(By owner's of land ) acquisition of land between
KM-108.86 to 153, 166.95 to
183.6
WP.15219/2019 To consider the IV Section
(PIL espousing the representation of the
cause of petitioner to stop acquisition
Satyanathapuram – of land
Nagapattinam )
WP.21883/2019 To drop the entire project I to IV
(PIL) and the land acquisition
* Refer table in paragraph 2.1 above
2.4 Even though WP.15217/2019 is styled as a Public Interest Litigation, the nature of prayer is only for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. WP.14997/2019 concerns only with an objection to the intended acquisition of the petitioners' land for the project. WP.21883/2019, however attacks the very project itself. Hence, if this Court were to hold in favour of the petitioner in WP.21883/2019, then the other two petitions would necessarily become http://www.judis.nic.in7/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 otiose. Therefore, WP.21883/2019 is taken as the principal case.
3. 1 The crux of the contentions in WP.21883/2019 are:
● In terms of the EIA Notifications (extracted in paragraph 1 above), for the development of any National Highways for a length over 100 kms., environmental clearance based on an EIA study is mandatory. Since, the total distance covered in the proposed expansion of NH-45A between Villupuram-Nagapatinam is 179.555 k.ms, obtaining environmental clearance is indispensable. It is to avoid obtaining environmental clearance, the entire distance of 179.555 km has been artificially and arbitrarily split up into four segments, ensuring in the process that each of the segment fell within 100 kms. as to avoid the mandatory EIA. This is contrary to the spirit behind the aforesaid notifications.
● Without the EIA clearance, it is impermissible for the authorities to acquire the lands for the project. Reliance was placed on M.Velu v. State of Tamil Nadu [2010 SCC Online Mad 2736] 3.2 The petitioner in WP.15217/2019, also contends about the need for obtaining the Environmental Clearance, in terms of the EIA norms, but limits it to the last of the four segments indicated. He also pleads that the proposed Bharatmala project is not required, and instead, the ongoing, slow-paced http://www.judis.nic.in8/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 four-laning of the ECR project could be expedited. He also reiterates the other averments made in WP.No.21883/2019.
3.3 The petitioners in WP.14997/2019, however, do not focus much on Environmental Clearance, but challenge the intended land acquisition for the project on the grounds of, (a) inconvenient alignment; (b) that the proposed new road is contemplated along thickly populated areas, with a middle school, two temples, three ponds (each measuring more than 3 acres), churches, residential and commercial buildings etc., on the proposed route.
The allegations stated can be broadly classified as one falling under the category of personal difficulties that the land owners might have to undergo if the project were to become a reality. There have been protests, and a peace meeting was held on 16-04-2018.
4. The National Highways Authority of India has filed separate counters in all the three writ petitions. Its contentions can be broadly divided into three:
One defending the allegation of EIA non-compliance; and the other relating to legality of the acquisition proceedings. And the third one appears to be a sub- dued challenge to locus standi of the petitioners.
(a) Defending EIA non-compliance:
● Expansion of NH-45A for a stretch of 179.555 k.m has passed the scrutiny of the domain experts of the NHAI. It involves expansion of existing roads, and also the laying of by-pass roads to avoid towns on http://www.judis.nic.in9/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 the route. Including 11 proposed railway over-bridges, several bridges are proposed to be built. The estimated total cost of the entire project is Rs.6431.71 crores. If the total length of 179.555 km. is treated as one project, then it may have to be handed over to a single Concessionaire as one package, and it might take more than 6 years to complete the project. However, the intention of NHAII was to complete the entire project in 30 months. It is hence, the entire length of the project was divided into four convenient parts, and because each of the part falls outside the EIA criterion, the EIA study based environmental clearance is not required. Emphasis was made in particular to the amendment brought to the EIA criterion Vide S.O.2559 (E) dated 22.8.2013, referred to above, as per which, no EIA clearance was required for any distance up to 100 km.
(b) Legality of land acquisition:
● Notification under Sec. 3A of the National Highway Act, 1956, has been made after adhering to the procedure prescribed.
● Necessary notices in terms of the statute were given to the landowners, that they had participated in the enquiry. During enquiry their primary concern was on the compensation to be paid, and not on the land acquisition.
(c) Locus standi So far as the petitioner in W.P.No:21883/2019 is concerned, contrary to the title he asserts over certain lands which are part of the lands http://www.judis.nic.in10/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 acquired for the project, the said land belongs to the Arulmigu Ramalingaswamy temple, Sirkali. Hence, he lacked the locus standi.
(d) Other aspects:
Due to salinity of the soil/water, for a length of 0.67 k.m., CRZ clearance is required in two locations. A survey was made by the IIT, Madras, and its report is submitted to CRZMA, and the same is pending approval, but the process is underway. (See counter in W.P.15217/2019) The Arguments
5.1 Mr.Yogeshwaran, the counsel for the petitioner in WP.No.21883/2019 led the arguments, with other counsel complementing the same. The arguments in essence are three-fold:
● The notification in S.O.1533 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, dated 14.09.2006, provides for mandatory environmental clearance for different categories of economic or socio-economic activity, and the need to make an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) is sine quo non for the same. The schedule provided in this notification, lists different heads of activity. In this, the head in Sl.No.7(f) deals with the Highways. This notification inter alia requires that in cases of “Expansion of National Highways, greater than 30 k.m.
involving additional right of way greater than 20m involving land acquisition and passing through more that one State”, environmental clearance is required. Consequentially, EIA has to be undertaken. This http://www.judis.nic.in11/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 notification was subsequently amended, Vide S.O.No.2559 (E) by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, dated 22.08.2013, as per which, environmental clearance is required only for the “Expansion of National Highways greater than 100 km involving additional right of way, or land acquisition greater than 40m on existing alignment and 60m on re-alignments or by-passes.” So far as the present project of four laning of NH-45A is concerned, the total stretch from Villupuram to Nagapattinam runs for 179.555 kms, out of which, road widening on the existing road is to take place only for a distance of 37% and for the remainder 63% of the road-length, new roads have to be laid, for which, vast tracts of agricultural lands are being acquired. In other words, new roads are going to be laid for a distance of 116.71 km. This would now require environmental clearance even in terms of S.O.2559(E), referred to above. Notwithstanding the fact, this stretch runs as one continuous length, just to kill the need to obtain environmental clearance, and to avoid the mandatory EIA study, the project is artificially segmented into four parts with a view to circumvent the requirements of the amended 7(f). Nowhere in the world this artificial segmentation is judicially recognised, approved or tolerated.
● Be that as it may, the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Union Government, has brought out the EIA Guidance Manual for the National http://www.judis.nic.in12/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 Highways. This document though may not have a statutory sanctity, yet binds the NHAI, while undertaking its projects. Paragraph No. 2.3 in Chapter II of the said Manual is titled “Summary of the Project Detail”, which requires noting down the length and width of the new alignment of the road proposed to be formed in the agricultural lands and also in the forest area. Chapter III of the Manual is specifically allotted for the Authorities to 'Analyse the Alternatives' open to them while undertaking the project. It is not currently in dispute that for laying the new roads, for about 63% of the entire length, fertile agricultural lands are going to be acquired, bridges will be built, which pose serious threat, not only to the livelihood of the agriculturists, but will also create an ecological imbalance by affecting the natural flora and fauna which may have found a natural habitat for themselves, and all life that this entire stretch of 179.555 k.m. supports. Through maneuvering the project by an arbitrary and artificial segmentation of the entire road length of the project, the NHAI, in effect has ignored the very instructions in the Manual provided by the Government of India for any Highway project.
● As per the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) specifications, a four-lane National Highway shall have a width of 60 mtrs. However, NHAI has admitted in paragraph 6(c)(7) of its counter in WP.No. 15217/2019 that the average width of the present road between Villupuram and http://www.judis.nic.in13/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 Nagapattinam is about 7 mtrs, which implies that, it hardly fits in with the character of a National Highway. Hence, to declare it as a National Highway, in terms of the National Highways Act, 1956, itself, is bad in law, and hence, the present road as it exists now does not even pass the test to be termed as a National Highway.
5.2 In this regard, it may be pertinent to point out that the same NHAI, in its project to upgrade a state highway and NH-348 B and NH-348 BB, as part of the same Bharatmala scheme in Maharashtra, has gone for EIA clearance. NHAI, has again complied with EIA requirements for its eight lane Greenfield Highway project on NH-148N covering a distance of 204.606 k.m. in Rajasthan as part of the Bharatmala Pariyojana. This makes it evident that NHAI knew about the need to go for EIA, that it was not averse to the idea of EIA, still it has chosen to comply with it selectively.
6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted in defense :
(a) The petitioner in WP.21883/2019 lack locus standi as the land over which they claim a right does not belong to them and it belongs to the Ramalingaswamy temple. The petitioners in W.P.No.14997/2019 have all appeared during the enquiry before the Land Acquisition Authority, and have only insisted on the payment of compensation for the lands acquired. In other words, they were keen on the monetary compensation for their lands, and have no objection to the land http://www.judis.nic.in14/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 acquisition.
(b) So far as the segmentation alleged over the four-parts project, the entire project cost runs to over Rs.6431.71 crores, and if the entire project is taken as a whole, then it may have to be handed over to one Concessionaire who might consume more than six years for implementing the project. It is to avoid this, and to expedite the completion of the project within a time frame of 30 months, the entire distance was divided into four convenient parts. And, it is being implemented as four separate parts, under four separate notifications for acquisition of lands covered in their respective stretch.
Discussion:
7.1 Should the NHAI have gone for an EIA study, and should it have waited for the environmental clearance, before embarking on the expansion of NH- 45A, covering a total stretch of 179.555 k.m., and, whether, by segmenting the entire stretch into four blocks, each falling within 100 k.m., (which is the minimum distance that invites mandatory EIA norm) is a permissible strategy that EIA regime accommodates, are the core points in controversy. 7.2 (a) An opening statement, based essentially on the pleadings may be made. While the petitioners focused primarily on the EIA non-compliance, NHAI was seen addressing them in a different frequency, when its pleadings http://www.judis.nic.in15/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 are seen concentrated chiefly on the legality-issue of land acquisition besides the issue of locus standi. This frequency-variance resonated more during the arguments.
7.2 (b) Both sides cited several authorities/literature, that matched their line of contentions. Accordingly, while the petitioners placed reliance on those authorities on environment and EIA, the learned Assistant Solicitor General opted for those on land acquisition, its legality, and the permissibility or otherwise, of the scope of judicial review in matters of administrative decisions guided by expert opinions. They will be referred to, and to the extent required, at the appropriate places in this Order. A. Preludial Statement on Environmental law:
8.1 Environment may be best described as a microcosm in the incomprehensible vastness of cosmic space. An attempt to explain space therefore, may aid in appreciating what environment signifies. A less complicated definition of space is, that which separates things, and includes that which things occupy. With its molecular existence in space, our environment may now be explained as, all that separates those that exist in earth, and include them - the life and the lifeless - the naturally born, and the artificially created. Environment offers critical space, vital for supporting nature's creations, man included. Till Man stretched his ambitions beyond securing to himself the bare necessities for his existence, and began expanding his frontiers beyond that which nature could afford, Nature itself http://www.judis.nic.in16/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 balanced the space for all its creations. Lives were created and became extinct, leaving the space for another life to occupy. The mountains are born, of tectonic shifts, perched their peaks in the emptiness of the space above, only to be swallowed by the waves, and to stay hidden in the darkness of the ocean-depths. Still, every life obeyed the Rules of Nature, and submitted to its command, and have showed supreme exemplification of their, rather unconscious, realization, that they are but mere licensees in Planet Earth, and that they have no right greater than that which are required for securing their short stay here.
8.2 But, not Man. The essential man established civilizations, built empires and castles, killed lives to declare his belief in his invincibility, only to stand as a helpless loser to witness their destruction every time Nature asserted its wisdom. He prided his intelligence, and pierced into unfathomable frontiers in science, which ordinary animal instinct for survival could hardly match. Still, he refused to believe that he too, is but a mere licensee in planet earth, and that, as a licensee, he has no greater right than a licensee that law understands: Use the facility that nature offers, but don't try appropriating it. 8.3 The essential man, however, trapped in an unifocal vision of his own uplift, tried appropriating it. And, he took it to a bleeding point that Nature could no longer hide its cry. There then has dawned on the jurisprudential panorama, the environmental jurisprudence, as an intervenient, or more appropriately, an intercedent legal necessity, to bring in a balance between http://www.judis.nic.in17/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 nature's arrangement of its space, and use for all its creation, and man's temptations to own it for himself. It is a legislative contrivance, an artificial effort, to balance man's brazenness to intervene with Nature, and Nature's right to stay for another generation, and for yet another generation. It is not a check on his felt and compelling need for development, but only a limitation on the extent to which his intent to intervene with his environment may go. 9.1 The emergence of environmental jurisprudence is traced to the public trust doctrine, conceptualization of which is attributed to Justinian II of the early Romans. It declared that the mountains and the rivers, the seas and the sky, the water and the air, are public wealth that belongs to all, that the Governments of the time are but trustees for the public with control over them, and have their power inbuilt in them, to preserve that which nature has provided for the benefit of all. It thus follows that it is the duty of the Governments as trustees of the public to regulate, or control the exploitation of the public wealth that they constitute. The contemporary environmental jurisprudence is shaped only on the platform that the public trust doctrine has provided. See: M.C.Mehta Vs Kamalnath & Others, [(1997)1 SCC 388], Association for Environment Protection Vs State of Kerala & Others [AIR 2013 SC 2500].
9.2 In the Indian context, Article 21, with its stretchable quality to define the http://www.judis.nic.in18/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 right to life, accommodates a person's right to near ideal environment, but it is more pronounced where the Constitution prescribed its directive to the State in Article 39(b) (where the emphasis is on public ownership of resources), and Article 48-A (where insistence is on preservation of environment and promotion of compassion) through which it imposed duties on the State, and then proceeds to cast a Fundamental Duty on the citizens in Article 51-A(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures in Article 51-A(g). It is a Constitutional imperative that, in a democracy, which We, the People, have structured for ourselves, with its wafer thin - line differentiating the State and the citizens, the primary responsibility rests with every citizen to preserve the environment.
9.3 On this plane was enacted the Environment (Protection) Act,1986. The preamble to the Act inter alia says, that the enactment was based on, “the decisions (that) were taken at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in June, 1972, in which India participated, to take appropriate steps for the protection and improvement of human environment”. But, it may have to be added that when the Environment (Protection) Act was legislated, the compulsions were not just traceable to the convention held on the other side of the Baltic sea, as our Constitution carried its own aspiration that our environment is, and should be, preserved as provided in the Directive in Articles 48-A, read alongside Article 51-A(g). http://www.judis.nic.in19/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 10.1 Sec. 2(a) of the Environment (Protection)Act defines environment as:
“Environment” includes water, air and land and the inter-relationship which exists among and between water, air and land, and human beings, other living creatures, plants, microorganism and property”. The definition of environment, is therefore, not just limited to those that occupy the environmental space, but also includes the inter-relationship between them. It cannot be wider than this. To regulate indiscriminate exploitation of environment during developmental activity, Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection)Rules, 1986, vested the Central Government with the power to impose, “Prohibition & Restrictions on the location of industries and carrying on processes and operation in different area.” Thus began the EIA regime. 10.2 In Hanuman Laxman Aroskar Vs Union of India [2019(5) Scale 484], the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the Environmental Rule of Law as below:
“ Environmental Rule of Law
126. Fundamental to the outcome of this case is a quest for environmental governance within a rule of law paradigm.
Environmental governance is founded on the need to promote environmental sustainability as a crucial enabling factor which ensures the health of our eco system.
127. Since the Stockholm Conference, there has been a dramatic expansion in environmental laws and institutions across the globe. In many instances, these laws and institutions http://www.judis.nic.in20/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 have helped to slow down or reverse environmental degradation. However, this progress is also accompanied, by a growing understanding that there is a considerable implementation gap between the requirements of environmental laws and their implementation and enforcement – both in developed and developing countries alike. The environmental rule of law seeks to address this gap.
128. The environmental rule of law provides an essential platform underpinning the four pillars of sustainable development – economic, social, environmental, and peace. It imbues environmental objectives with the essentials of rule of law and underpins the reform of environmental law and governance. The environmental rule of law becomes a priority particularly when we acknowledge that the benefits of environmental rule of law extend far beyond the environmental sector. While the most direct effects are on protection of the environment, it also strengthens rule of law more broadly, supports sustainable economic and social development, protects public health, contributes to peace and security by avoiding and defusing conflict, and protects human and constitutional rights. Similarly, the rule of law in environmental matters is indispensable “ for equity in terms of the advancement of the Sustainable Development Goals, the provision of fair access by assuring a rights-based approach, and the promotion and protection of environmental and other socio-economic rights.”
129. Amartya Sen argues for a broadening of the notion of sustainable development which is the most dominant theme of environmental literature, from a need-based standard to a standard based on freedoms. Thus recharacterized, it encompasses the preservation, and when possible even the expansion of the substantive freedoms and capabilities of people http://www.judis.nic.in21/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 today without compromising the capability of future generations to have similar – or more – freedoms. The intertwined concepts of environmental rule of law thus further intragenerational as well as intergenerational equity.” B. Consideration of Arguments:
11. Four arguments, two each by the petitioners and the respondent, can be addressed immediately. The argument concerning the petitioners are (a) Their challenge to proposed alignment, and suitability of the proposed expansion of the road; and (b) as to whether NH-45A with its width around 7m can be termed a National Highway. The one that relates to respondents are:(i) On the locus standi of petitioners in W.P.21883/2019; and (ii) legality of acquisition.
12.1 First, to the contention of the petitioners in W.P.14997/2019. This pertains to their objection to the very need for the project Bharatmala, and the undesirability of the alignment of the proposed road. Several reams of printed papers are already made available by the Courts of this country that the power of judicial review does not stretch into the Executive's legitimate domain of policy-making. Still, this Court often witnesses tireless attempts to drag it into areas where the Courts show utmost reluctance. In plain terms this Court holds that it will not enter into spheres earmarked for the Executive, where not even malafide is pleaded.
12.2 The other argument of the petitioners is that as per Roads Congress http://www.judis.nic.in22/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 (IRC) specifications, a National Highway must have a minimum width of 60 meters, and since the existing NH-45A has only a width of 5.5 k.m to 7 m (refer the counter in WP.No. 15217/2019) the said road does not even qualify for being notified as a National Highway in order that it could be expanded. First, this argument does not find support in the pleadings of the petitioners. Second, Sec.2(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956, does not stipulate anything as to the minimum width of the road for declaring an existing road as a National Highway. Third, merely because a notified National Highway did not have road-width as prescribed by IRC, it does not automatically cease to be a National Highway.
13.1 Turning to the two points referable to the respondents, the issue of petitioners' locus standi (which is seen subdued or camouflaged in the pleading, but heard louder during arguments), according to NHAI, the petitioners in W.P. 15217/2019 attempt to canvass their private cause behind the mask of EIA, in that they challenge the project after they had participated in the land acquisition proceedings. And, so far as the land acquisition proceedings are concerned, the contention of NHAI is that, not a single provision of law on land acquisition was ignored. These contentions, in the view of this Court, literally beg the question.
13.2(a) The need to submit to the EIA regime is statutory in character, and it is contemplated at the point where the Executive is still in the process of evaluating the environmental viability of a project. The EIA study, in the http://www.judis.nic.in23/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 context, is what ought to be undertaken, before a project goes out of its designer's desk. See paragraph 94 of the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in P.V. Krishnamoorthy Vs The Government of India and Others [2019(3) CTC 113]. And, land acquisition proceedings take place not when a developmental policy is designed, but at the point when it is implemented. It may be that the land acquisition may conform to the relevant provisions of National Highways Act, but that has no reflective effect to validate a developmental activity without an environmental clearance, which in law requires one.
13.2 (b)The compulsions on the Executive to undertake an EIA study for an intended developmental activity is imposed by the statute, and not by few men of the locality where the project is to be implemented. EIA is non- negotiable, and hence, neither express approval, nor tacit concessions by the landowners who might lose their lands to the project, can replace the statutory requirement to go for a EIA study. Hence, a few landowners participating in the land acquisition proceedings cannot be a fait accompli, to estop them from challenging the legality of the very project for EIA non- compliance.
13.2 (c) Even if these landowners choose not to challenge the project for bypassing EIA requirements, still any project that requires EIA study for its launch is assailable by any environmentally sensitive citizen. And, the fact http://www.judis.nic.in24/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 that the challenge is from those who are to lose their land for the project, makes no difference. EIA is imposed by the statute on the planners, and hence the planners should listen to the statute, and may not look to the landowners.
Is the segmenting-strategy justifiable?
14. What is segmentation? A passage, from the judgement of the United State District Court in Old Town Neighborhood Association V Kauffman [S.D.Ind,2002] explains it lucidly. (This Court, with humility, respects every source of information and knowledge, no matter who has said it.) The American experience has been that, its planners attempted at inventing methods to avoid the requirements of The National Environment Policy Act, 1969. One instant-solution they developed was to segmentize the project which required environmental clearance. Set in this context, the 'Law of Segmentation is sxplained as below:
“ 'Segmentation' or 'piecemealing' is an attempt by an agency to divide artificially a 'major federal action' into smaller components to escape the application of NEPA to some of its segments.” Save Barton Creek Ass'n v. Federal Highway Admin., 950 F.2d 1129, 1140 (5th Cir. 1992); Dickman v. City of Santa Fe, 724 F. Supp. 1341, 1345 (D.N.M. 1989) (“The rule against segmentation was developed to insure that interrelated projects, the overall effect of which may be environmentally significant; not be artificially divided into smaller, less significant actions”). Segmentation may be proper or improper. See Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque v. Barnhart, 906 F.2d 1477, 1483 (10th Cir. 1990). Generally, improper segmentation http://www.judis.nic.in25/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 is found only where a federal project has been segmented with the purpose of avoiding compliance with NEPA. Save Barton Creek, 950 F.2d at 1139; cf. 40 C.F.R. 1506,i(c) (while agency is preparing environmental impact statement, no other federal action may be taken unless it can be independently justified, has its own environmental impact statement, and will not limit alternatives in subsequent projects).
Judge Cummings wrote for the Seventh Circuit about segmentation in Swain v.Brinegar, 542 F.2d 364 (7th Cir. 1976) (en banc). He described the balance that must be struck:
Segmentation of highway projects, although necessary to make their design and construction more manageable, can limit the usefulness of environmental impact studies in two significant ways. First, the project can be divided into small segments; although the individual environmental impact might be slight, the cumulative consequences could be devastating. Second, the location of the first segment may determine where the continuation of that roadway is to be built. In such a case, preparation of the EIS for the extension is no more than a formal task because the decision- maker's ability to choose a different route no longer exists. On the other hand, an EIS need not consider the long-term visions of highway designers and urban engineers when they suggest comprehensive plans which may take years to construct, if they are to be built at all. The information contained in an EIS for such a comprehensive plan is likely to be speculative, irrelevant to the specific question before the decision-maker, and outdated by the time the choice must be made. To require the preparation of such an EIS would http://www.judis.nic.in26/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 surely impose an undue burden on the state and federal agencies”.
15.1 The segmentation-strategy appears to have evolved itself into a ready- referencer-strategy for administrators/planners elsewhere in the world too, for negotiating environmental issues and, the planners have attempted to experiment this strategy to circumnavigate the directives on environmental preservation in their scheme for development. The facts in Commission of the European Communities Vs Kingdom of Spain [Case C-227/01, dated 16-09-2004], provides a case-study material on this aspect. The issue there is about the failure to comply with the Directives on the environmental assessment connected with laying a supplementary railway track for 13.2 k.m., of which a 7.64 k.m. section covers a new route, which forms part of a project that goes by the name the Mediterranean corridor, which covers a distance of 251 k.m. The European Court of Justice held: “If the argument of the Spanish Government were upheld, the effectiveness of Directive....could be seriously compromised, since the national authorities concerned would need only to split up a long-distance project into successive shorter section in order to exclude from the requirements of the Directive both the project as a whole and the sections resulting from that division.” 15.2 There are Indian experiences too, where the planners have risked ignoring the EIA, only to be reminded by the Court to follow it. A classic instance is seen in Deepak Kumar Vs State of Haryana [(2012)4 SCC http://www.judis.nic.in27/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 629]. The facts that led to the intervention of the court involved grant of mining leases for mining minor minerals by the state of Haryana, with each lease covering an extent of less of 5 hectares, whereas EIA study is made mandatory for any mining activity in excess of 5.0 hectares. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
“9. We find that it is without conducting any study on the possible environmental impact on/in river beds and elsewhere the auction notices have been issued. We are of the considered view that when we are faced with a situation where extraction of alluvial material within or near a river bed has an impact on the rivers physical habitat characteristics, like river stability, flood risk, environment degradation, loss of habitat, decline in biodiversity, it is not an answer to say that the extraction is in block of less than 5 hectares, separated by one kiolemeter, because their collective impact may be significant, hence the necessity of a proper environmental assessment plan....” (emphasis supplied) Another instance was seen in a matter which the National Green Tribunal had an occasion to decide in Citizens for Green Doon and Others Vs Union of India [2018 SCC OnLine NGT 1777], the issue was environment Vs road expansion in the Himalayan ranges situated in the State of Uttrakhand. The planners, (the NHAI) adopted similar a logic that it has adopted in the present case, by ensuring that a road expansion project involving 16 bypasses/realignments over a stretch of 889 k.m. was broken into smaller sections, each falling with 100 k.m. The NGT then found an occasion to state:
http://www.judis.nic.in28/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 “41. We, thus propose to first consider the question whether there is violation of law in undertaking the project without mandatory in terms of the said provisions, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in terms of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with statutory notifications, particularly Notification dated 14.09.2006. Further question is whether even if such assessment is not mandatory in terms of said provisions, is such assessment necessary under the environment jurisprudence principles? On such assessment, what are the safeguards which may render the project sustainable and make it consistent with the principle of inter-generational equity.
42. As regards the question whether EIA is mandatorily required, it may be noted that EIA has been recognised as the most valuable, inter-disciplinary and objective decision-making tool with respect to alternate routes for development, process technologies and project sites. It is considered an ideal anticipatory mechanism allowing measures that ensure environmental compatibility in our quest for socio-economic development. In fact, the whole concept is based on jurisprudential principle of 'Sustainable Development' and 'Precautionary Principle' though statutory basis has been provided to the same for effective enforcement.” It then proceeded to consider if EIA was necessary de hors the statutory scheme. Ultimately it held that though, EIA was not statutorily required, yet directed EIA compliance. In arriving at his conclusion the NGT has considered all the leading authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject, but not Deepak Kumar Vs State of Haryana [(2012)4 SCC 629]. The reasoning of the NGT later came to be approved by the Judgement of the http://www.judis.nic.in29/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 08-08-2019, in C.A. 8518-8520 of 2018 (The Hon'ble Supreme Court, though has modified the direction issued by the NGT, yet has not disturbed the reasoning of the NGT for issuing the directions).
16.1 NHAI now appears to have been sucked into testing the segmentation- strategy by dividing the stretch of 179.555 k.m. into four parts, ensuring in the process that each segmented portion falls below 100 k.m. Its defense for segmentation is the administrative expediency aimed to achieve the accomplishment of the project expeditiously, and if this statement were to be trusted, then avoiding EIA, in its view, is only incidental to its strategy, and not a motive behind it.
16.2 This Court sees through the pall of pretended innocence behind the NHAI's segmentation-strategy, and finds its argument fallacious and distractive. It focuses on the implementation part of the project, when the issue is the legality of the very conception of the project for its non- compliance of the statutory imperatives on environmental clearance. It mixes up and overlaps two aspects, which in the ordinary course will follow a certain sequence: Exploring inter alia the environmental viability of the project at stage-I, followed by its implementation at stage-II. Both are independent issues.
16.3 A policy decision in designing a project is entirely different from a policy http://www.judis.nic.in30/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 involved in deciding how the project as designed is implemented. Therefore, it is not impossible to treat the entire stretch of 179.555 k.m. as a single project, and to subject it to the rigour of EIA to explore its environmental viability at the first stage, and then to segment it into as many convenient parts as may be considered necessary for expeditious execution through as many Concessionaires as may be required. A felt need for dividing the entire project into different segments for simultaneous execution of a developmental project, though may be appreciable, yet it cannot be a justification for avoiding EIA requirements. Therefore, any argument such as the one advanced in favour of segmentation of a project will only engineer statutory abuse, and sound the death-knell for EIA. The Court cannot countenance it.
17. There is yet another reasoning that supports this conclusion. Even on a plain understanding of Item 7(f)(ii) in S.O.2559(E) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests provided dated 22.08.2013 (see paragraph 1), EIA is neither implementation centric, nor concessionaire centric, but is project centric.
18. These aspects apart, Chapter 3 of EIA Guidance Manual for National Highways, requires the NHAI to explore the alternatives for every project it undertakes. It is part of its EIA requirement. So avoidance of EIA in the instant case has also resulted in a failure to explore the alternatives available to the NHAI. It needs to be emphasised that several hectares of fertile http://www.judis.nic.in31/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 agricultural lands are proposed to be consumed by the project-road expansion. Several trees are likely to be felled. Is it not necessary at least to know the number of trees that may be lost? Or, how many water bodies are likely to affected, or, if any water bodies or trees serve as a natural habitat for any species? This explains the significance of the EIA, and the need for exploring alternatives. It is hence, every time the planner is tempted to avoid EIA with his ingenuity, Courts insist in a sterner voice of its indispensability.
19. There is yet another allied, but equally significant issue. The NHAI has admitted in its counter in WP.No.15217/2019 that it requires CRZ clearance at two locations, for which it had obtained a report from IIT, Madras, and submitted it for the consideration of CRZMA. That approval has not yet been obtained. It needs to be stated that the EIA study and its consequential enabling of an environmental clearance is entirely different from the CRZ clearance. In Secretary, Kerala State Coastal Management Authority Vs DLF Universal Ltd., [(2018) 2 SCC 203], environmental clearance was obtained by a realtor for its construction activity, but it failed to obtain the approval of CRZMA. Relying on a few earlier authorities, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held (at page 219-221):
“45. In Anil Hoble v. Kashinath Jairam Shetye [(2016) 10 SCC 701], it was held that any illegal structure falling within the “No Development Zone” (200 m from the HTL) in a CRZ-III area was directed to be demolished and even the permission granted by the Coastal Zone Management Authority was of no avail. Similarly, the http://www.judis.nic.in32/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 practice of regularising unauthorised constructions effected by erring buildings in violation of law has not found approval from this Court and humanitarian and equitable grounds found no place in the same.
46. In UT of Lakshadweep v.Seashells Beach Resort [(2012) 6 SCC 136], it has been observed as under :
“30. The High Court's order in Seashells Beach Resort v. Union of India, [(2012) SCC Online Ker 949], proceeds entirely on humanitarian and equitable considerations, in the process neglecting equally, if not more, important questions that have an impact on the future development and management of the Lakshadweep Islands. We are not, therefore, satisfied with the manner in which the High Court has proceeded in the matter.
31. The High Court obviously failed to appreciate that equitable considerations were wholly misplaced in a situation where the very erection of the building to be used as a resort violated the CRZ requirements or the conditions of land use diversion. No one could in the teeth of those requirements claim equity or present the administration with a fait accompli. The resort could not be commissioned under a judicial order in disregard of serious objections that were raised by the administration, which objections had to be answered before any direction could issue from a writ court.”
51. We also make it clear that in the future, wherever permissions are required to come and are to be obtained before commencement of construction, it would be no answer that activity can be carried on without obtaining the permissions.... ” http://www.judis.nic.in33/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019
20.1 In M.C. Mehta Vs Union of India & Others [AIR 2004 SC 4016], the Hon'ble supreme Court has underscored the supremacy accorded to environmental concerns, when it declared: “in case of doubt.... protection of environment would have precedence over the economic interest.” This leaves the Executive/planners with no choice or option to avoid an EIA study on grounds of efficient implementation of the project. 20.2 In the instant case, inasmuch as, a non-criterion in administrative exigency (intending speedy implementation of the project), is made a criterion for segmentation, this Court holds that segmenting the entire stretch of 179.555 k.m. is arbitrary and artificial and also violative of the environmental laws of this country, but this decision is limited to EIA and CRZ approval alone, and not as concerning its implementation.
21. A survey of judicial pronouncements on environment protection brings to surface a disappointing state of affairs. Notwithstanding the primacy granted to the environment by the Constitution and in the legislative initiatives, anti- environmental tendencies and temptations that try to outmaneuver it, continue their sporadic display. This is worrisome. The planners ought not to approach EIA as an allergen, but as an opportunity (beckoning their scientific temper) to formulate environmentally viable http://www.judis.nic.in34/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 developmental projects. Courts may be the sentinel guard, but unless the legislations on environment are engraved in the conscience of men, the planners included, our Constitutional hopes and dreams of preserving our environment will be in peril of being defeated, not by any aliens, but by, We, the People.
What is the road ahead for the project?
22.1 The EIA is a holistic narrative which encompasses within its fold the theme of both sustainable development and precautionary doctrine. It brings in efficiency and effectiveness in resolving a conflict between the environment and development. And, the Courts cannot ignore the legislative spirit in balancing the need for development alongside the preservation of environment.
22.2 Therefore, the project-expansion of NH-45A need not be shelved, nor the concessionaire agreements already into, need be cancelled, nor the land acquisition proceedings should be dropped. They may be put on hold, and the NHAI is now required to undertake an EIA study, and to go for environmental clearance as well as the CRZ approval from such statutory authorities as have been constituted, and then to proceed with the work, if the project is cleared for its environmental viability. It is not an ex post facto environmental clearance, but an aspect of balancing development with environmental concerns. There have been instances where the court has directed EIA study during the implementation of a project that requires http://www.judis.nic.in35/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 environmental clearance. Reference may be made to the decision of the First bench of this Court in Puducherry Environment Protection Association Vs Union of India [(2017) 8 MLJ 513].
23. Before parting with this case, this Court intends to record that the earlier experience in this State viz a viz the Authorities complying with the environmental restoration through planting of trees, has been deplorable. About two decades back the four-laning of the major National Highways was undertaken. Several thousands of trees were felled across the State, but hardly any tree was planted for restoring the environment that was lost. Promises are made, and undertakings are given that every tree lost will be replaced with ten saplings and grown, but they are flouted with impunity and forgotten with convenience. If this project takes off again in terms of the directions herein below given, then it is indispensable for the NHAI to ensure that environmental restoration is accorded priority. The Decision
24. This court now issues the following directions:
a) The present project of expansion of NH-45A covering a stretch of 179.555 k.m. shall be put on hold, and the present status quo is directed to be maintained.
b) That the project proponent (NHAI) shall undertake a EIA study and obtain environmental clearance.
c) The NHAI is also directed to obtain approval from CRZMA for CRZ http://www.judis.nic.in36/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 clearance for two locations that it has indicated in its counter in W.P.15217/2019.
d) Once the necessary clearances are obtained as mentioned in (b) and
(c) above, the project can proceed. If the EIA study to be undertaken provides any contra-indicators to the NHAI's plan of development of NH-45A, it will be at liberty to make necessary alterations and modifications to make the project environmentally viable.
e) If after ensuring the environmental viability of the project, its implementation resumes, the project proponent, and subject to the terms of the contract, the concessionaire, should first identify the places for planting the saplings of the same variety, preferably native- trees, for every tree felled, and it must be grown first. Possibility of forming a “Miyawaki forest” has to be explored as well.
f) This Court proposes to form a Committee to monitor the compliance of the direction given in (e) above, and hence, before resumption of the project, NHAI is required to approach this Court.
25. Accordingly, W.P.21883/2019 is partly allowed in terms of the directions in paragraph 24 above. In view of this, W.P.15217/2019 and W.P.14997/2019 are closed as no orders are necessary. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[M.S.N.J.,] [N.S.S.J.,]
http://www.judis.nic.in37/41
W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019
08.01.2020
ds
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
http://www.judis.nic.in38/41
W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019
To :
1.The Secretary,
Union of India
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bagh, New Delhi.
2.The National Highways Authority of India Rep by its Project Director No.26, VGP Nagar, Vazhudareddy Post, Villupuram.
3.The Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
4.The Secretary Ministry of Road Transport & Highways Transport Bhavan, Government of India 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110 001.
5.The Secretary Ministry of Highways and Minor Ports Government of India Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
6.The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Ministry for Environment Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
7. Director, Impact Assessment Division Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change Indira Parayavaran Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Vayu Wing Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi – 110 003.
8.The District Collector I Floor, Collectorate Camp Office, Nagapattinam – 611 001.
http://www.judis.nic.in39/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019
9.National Highways Authority of India (NHAII) Rep. By its Chairman No.G5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka New Delhi – 110 075.
10.The Project Director National Highways Authority of India (NHAII) (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) No.19, Govindasamy Nagar Vazhuda Reddy Post, Villupuram.
11.The Competent Authority / Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition) National Highways No.45-A District Collectorate Nagapattinam.
12.The District Collector Nagapattinam District District Collectorate, Nagapattinam.
http://www.judis.nic.in40/41 W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., and N.SESHASAYEE, J., Pre-delivery order in W.P.Nos.21883, 15217 & 14997 of 2019 08.01.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in41/41