Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, for the first time, by filing a counter affidavit in the month of January 2024, the respondents tried to clarify that there was a typographical error in issuing the notification dated 22.12.2014, stating that no objections or suggestions were received. He would submit that, even though suggestions or objections were received, as admitted by the respondent Department, there is no discussion about the same in the final notification. He would further submit that, even otherwise, the final notification is totally different from the draft notification earlier issued on 11.09.2014. He would submit that, in the draft notification, it is specifically mentioned that the project or activities covered under the notification will be residential buildings, commercial buildings, hotels, hospitals, hostels, office blocks, Information Technology / Software Development Units / Parks, whereas by the final notification, certain buildings like industrial sheds, schools, colleges and hostel for educational institutions are excluded, which was not the intention of the Department while issuing the draft notification. He therefore would submit that, on both these grounds, the notification dated 22.12.2014 is required to be quashed and set aside.

10. On the other hand, learned Central Government Counsel would submit that, since there was a mistake on the part of the authority while issuing the final notification dated 22.12.2014, in stating that no objections or suggestions were received to the draft notification, they tried to correct the same by informing the Ministry of Law and Justice. However, the Legislative Department of the Ministry of Law and Justice by communication dated 29.09.2016, informed that it is not possible to amend the notification. By taking us through the counter affidavit, he would submit that the objections received by the Department have been considered and thereafter, the notification has been issued. In answer to the contention regarding the change in the final notification, he would submit that, earlier, almost all the buildings having specified built up area were required to obtain environmental clearance certificate. However, buildings like industrial sheds, schools, colleges and hostel for educational institutions have been exempted by final notification. He would submit that, the change was brought about considering the nature of activity carried out in these buildings. Therefore, there is no adverse effect on the public at large as far as the environment is concerned. He would submit that, under Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Government is empowered to modify the Rules and therefore, the petition may be dismissed.

13. In the said notification, in the second paragraph, the public at large was invited to raise objections or suggestions. Accordingly, the Department had received many objections and suggestions from various institutions or individuals throughout the country, evident from the counter filed by the respondents. However, if we see the language of the final notification dated 22.12.2014, it has been specifically stated that no objections or suggestions were received in response to the earlier notification dated 11.09.2014. Final notification dated 22.12.2014 reads as under:-

In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition requires consideration. Accordingly, the same is allowed. Notification dated 22.12.2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. Needless to say, the respondent authority may issue fresh notification, in accordance with law. It is made clear that the petition is entertained only on the above ground. Other contentions raised in this writ petition have not been examined on merits.