Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. MoEF had issued the first Notification on 29th June, 1992 while the second was issued on 4th May, 1994 and the third on 17th September, 2006. Variation of eligibility criteria in these three Notifications according to the petitioners is not only disadvantageous to the interest of the environment but is also in contradiction to the qualifications provided in Appendix VI to the Notification of 2006.

7. According to the applicant, the MoEF has failed to appreciate the significance of the appraisal process as part of the Environmental Clearance procedure under the Notification of 2006 and has been appointing persons as Chairperson and members of the EAC who do not have the requisite expertise on the necessary issues of environmental significance. Given the complex nature of environment issue, it is essential that the EAC should have been composed of people who are well versed with social and environmental context of development related decision making. Since the Notification of 2006 recognizes the need to obtain expert opinion on the environmental impact of a proposed project, before an Environment Clearance is granted to the project, hence it requires the impact assessment agency to consult with a Committee of Experts. The composition of the Committee as laid down in both the Notifications of 1992 and 1994, reflected the inter-disciplinary approach required to analyse the impact of a project. Under the Notification of 1992, the Chairperson/members had to be outstanding and experienced ecologists or environmentalists or technical professionals in the relevant development sector having demonstrated interest in environment conservation and sustainable development. The Notification of 1994 removed the requirement for demonstrating interest in environment conservation and sustainable development. Chairperson could be an outstanding and experienced ecologist or environmentalist or technical professional with wide managerial experience in the relevant development sector. The technical professional or any person with managerial experience in the relevant development sector was no longer required to have any relation with environmental conservation or sustainable development. The Notification of 2006 modified the requirements even further with regard to the Chairperson. The Chairperson now has to be an outstanding expert with experience in environmental policy, management or public administration with wide experience in the relevant development sector. The words 'environmentalist' and 'ecologist' were entirely left out in this Notification and the emphasis has shifted from environment to management and public administration

22. The Appendix VI of the Notification of 2006 in turn refers to paragraph 5 of the said Notification which provides for composition of EAC's and SEAC's. The expression 'shall consist of only professional experts fulfilling the following eligibility criteria' in Paragraph 1 of Appendix VI clearly suggests that it is only the persons fulfilling the criteria according to Appendix VI, who would be eligible for being considered as members of the EAC. This essence of appointment as Members of the EAC certainly gets diluted by amendment of Paragraph 2. The professionalism referred to in Appendix VI has to be in the field of environment and not in connection with non environmental sciences. Even the amended Paragraph 2 has to be read in conjunction with Paragraph 1 of Appendix VI. By virtue of omission of Paragraph 4, the appointment of chairperson remains in vacuum as no specific criteria has been provided in Appendix VI. It may be possible for the MoEF to act by administrative order as a stop gap arrangement, but certainly cannot make it as a permanent feature. It must amend Appendix VI and provide the eligibility criteria for the Chairperson of EAC/SEAC in accordance with the Notification of 2006, the provisions of the Act of 1986 and in the best interest of the environment. It will not be in the interest of any of the stakeholders to leave such a significant appointment (Chairperson) in vacuum, when eligibility of other appointments are provided by exercise of subordinate legislation. Improper exercise of administrative power for such a vital aspect of Environmental Clearance is likely to give rise to arbitrariness. This may even result in avoidance of the prescribed eligibility criteria. Thus, we are of the considered view that it will neither be permissible nor in the interest of the environment, or any of the stakeholders, to appoint persons from only administrative or management field, without having specific experience in the field of environment. Therefore, under the legislative scheme of the referred Acts, Notification of 2006 and Appendix VI to the said Notification, an appointment contrary to or against the spirit of these statutory provisions, would certainly lead to adverse impacts on environmental issues, which are to be dealt with by these specialized bodies in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Acts. However, the contention of the Respondents as to whether the Tribunal can examine the validity of such Notification or not, and whether it falls within the ambit of Section 14 of the NGT Act is a question that still remains to be answered.

27. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal thus, would extend to all civil cases which raise the substantial question of environment and arise from the implementation of the Acts stated in Schedule I of the NGT Act. There has to be thus, a direct nexus between the cases brought before the Tribunal and a substantial question relating to environment. The 'cause of action' as contemplated under the provisions of the NGT Act would be complete only when the stated three ingredients, i.e. firstly, civil cases, secondly, concerns or raises a substantial question of environment or an enforcement of a legal right relating to environment and lastly that such question arises in regard to implementation of the Schedule Acts, are fulfilled. In the case of Kehar Singh (supra), the Tribunal unambiguously stated the principle that there has to be a direct nexus or link between the case advanced by the applicant and the substantial question relating to environment. It has to be a civil dispute raising an environmental issue and arising from any/or all of the Scheduled Acts.

The Chairperson or Members who are to deal with complex environmental issue while considering grant of Environment Clearance or otherwise to the proposed projects must be possessed of appropriate qualification and experience in that field. They are expected to discharge functions of an expert body that has serious ramifications not only on the rights of the parties before it but even upon the development of the country. The appointment of appropriate people with desired qualification thus would be of concern and within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam v Sristikar Dowerah & Ors AIR 1957 SC 414 was concerned with the question of excessive delegation where, while referring to the desirability of requisite qualifications of the members of the Tribunal, the Court observed as under: