Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Section 20 of NGT Act reads thus:

"20.Tribunal to apply certain principles:- The Tribunal shall, while passing any order or decision or award, apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle."

12. Speaking of the appellate jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal, Section 16 of NGT Act reads:

38

"16.Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction: - Any person aggrieved by, -

21. Pointing to Section 16 of the NGT Act, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents would vehemently urge that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions of NGT Act. Clause (h) of Section 16 of the NGT Act stipulates an order granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. As far as Clause (i) of Section 16 of NGT Act is concerned, it is not applicable because it contemplates an appeal only against the refusal to grant environmental clearance. Sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act will not be applicable to the present case, since the appellant cannot qualify his appeal under the said provisions for the reason that there was no substantial question relating to environment which has arisen out the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I of the Act. Equally Section 15 will not also be applicable, as the appellant is not entitled to any relief of compensation or any order under Section 15 of the NGT Act and hence the appellant must be able to show that his appeal squarely lies under Section 16(h) of the Act. The appeal is not maintainable unless the appellant is able to substantiate that the area where the subject complex is constructed, is a notified area where such processes or activities shall not be carried out or can be carried out with certain safeguards as per Environment (Protection) law. In the instant case, the requirements of sub section (h) of Section 16 of the NGT Act have not been met. The above provision under sub section (h) of Section 16 of NGT Act is a replica of Section 3(2)(v) of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 prohibits location of industries and carrying on operations. It also obliges the Government to impose prohibition only by way of notification. So far as the location in question is concerned, no such notification has been issued and hence the appellant cannot rest his appeal under Section 16(h) of the Act. The statute does not provide for any appeal against the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 16.5.2012 granting Environmental Clearance. In the absence of any provision of appeal for challenging the said proceedings, the appellant cannot maintain the appeal.

23. Countering to the above contentions, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has to show that the appeal rests on any one of the grounds envisaged under Section 16 of the NGT Act and in the instant case, the appeal made by the appellant squarely falls under Section 16(h) of the Act. Section 16(h) deals with two parts (1) restricted areas and (2) shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Central Government by its notification dated 14.9.2006, an elaborate one, notified that any project or activity should be done in the manner in which it was stipulated in that particular notification and hence Section 16(h) should be read along with the Environment (Protection) Act. A bare reading of the said notification would reveal that the restrictions envisaged in the said notification are applicable to all projects and activities throughout India and hence it is equally applicable to the present disputed area. It is not in doubt that the impugned EC falls within Section 16(h) of the Act which is in respect of a prohibited area. Hence, the question whether the disputed area is a restricted one or not does not arise. Rule 2(aa) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, defines area which means area where hazardous substances are handled. Admittedly, in the proposed project, handling of hazardous substances is involved and hence it would automatically fall within the ambit of the Acts and Rules. As far as the second part of Section 16(h) of the Act that the activity should be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act is concerned, it is the case of the appellant that Form I and Form IA did not speak about the proper safety measures and they have not been adopted and thus the appellant has a case and a grievance to put forth before the Tribunal. Hence it would be quite clear that the appeal made by the appellant squarely falls under Section 16(h) of the Act.

24. After considering the rival submissions made and also looking into the relevant legal provisions, this Court is unable to agree with the contentions put forth by the respondents. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, Sections 14 and 15 of NGT Act have no application to the present factual position, though the appellant has mentioned those provisions in the appeal grounds. As could be seen from the provisions of Section 16 of the NGT Act, grant of EC can be challenged only on either of the two grounds envisaged under Section 16(h) of the Act. While the challenge can be made against refusal to grant under Section 16(i) of the Act, the grant of EC under Section 16 can be agitated in an appeal firstly, if the environmental clearance is granted in the area in which industries, operations and processes are prohibited and secondly, if the industries, operations or processes, etc., shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Environmental Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.9.2006, an elaborate one, was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) and Clause (v) of sub section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Clause (d) of sub rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. It could be seen from the said Notification that any project or activity should be done in the manner in which it is stipulated in that notification. Hence Section 16(h) of the NGT Act should be read along with Environment (Protection) Rules as well as the said notification of 2006. Number of restrictions are envisaged for different projects and activities. It is the case of the appellant that the area in which the complex in question, is situated, is not fit for functioning of the Multi Super Specialty Hospital. Apart from that, according to Rule 2(aa) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, area means where the hazardous substances are handled. Even Form I and Form IA put forth by the respondents for EC would reveal that there is handling of hazardous substances which no doubt can be carried out subject to certain safeguards under Environment (Protection) Act. It is pertinent to point out that Clause 15 of the impugned Environmental Clearance reads that any appeal against environmental clearance shall lie with the National Green Tribunal if preferred within 30 days as prescribed under Section 16 of the NGT Act. It is evident that the authority which granted EC, has made it clear that appeal would lie against the grant of EC before the Tribunal and hence it would not be proper on the part of the respondents to state that appeal would not lie. All the above would clearly indicate that the appeal made by the appellant would squarely fall within Section 16(h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and hence the contentions put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that the appeal is not maintainable since the appellant is not an aggrieved person and that the appeal does not fall under any one of the grounds envisaged under Section 16 of the Act have to be rejected as devoid of merits. Thus, the additional questions are answered accordingly.