Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) Final EIA Report
(ii) A copy of the video tape or CD of the public hearing proceedings
(iii) A copy of the final layout plan
(iv) A copy of the project feasibility report.

51. The regulatory authority must examine the documents "strictly with reference to the ToR" and communicate any inadequacy to the EAC or the SEAC, as the case may be, within 30 days of receipt of the documents. Within sixty days of the receipt of all the documents, the EAC or the SEAC, as the case may be, shall complete the appraisal process as prescribed in Appendix V. Within the next fifteen days, the EAC or the SEAC shall make categorical recommendations to the concerned regulatory authority to either grant the EC on the O.A. No.63/2024(CZ) Abdul Kalam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

stipulated terms and conditions or reject the application, together with reasons. The appraisal of projects which are not required to undergo the public consultation process or the submission of an EIA is to be carried out on the basis of the prescribed application Form 1 or Form 1A, as applicable.

52. The MoEFCC or the SEIAA shall thereafter consider the recommendations of the EAC or the SEAC and convey its decision to the applicant within 45 days of receipt of the recommendations. The regulatory authorities shall normally accept the recommendations of the EAC or the SEAC, as the case may be. Where there is a disagreement, the regulatory authority shall ask for a reconsideration of the recommendation within 45 days of the receipt of the recommendations. This decision shall be conveyed to the applicant. The EAC or the SEAC shall then reconsider its recommendation within a further period of 60 days and make its recommendations to the regulatory authority. The regulatory authorities shall then take a decision after considering the views communicated to it and convey the decision to the applicant within the next 30 days.

20. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on (2025): KER: 38052 (Thomas Mathai Vs. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority) decided on 29th May, 2025, in W.P. (C) No.31130 of 2024 where it was held that there is no reason to take another view different from the well considered recommendation of the Expert Body State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) and in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar Vs. Union of India: (2019) 15 SCC 401, underscored the primacy of the recommendation made by the SEAC and its binding nature on SEIAA in normal circumstances." It was also held that in case SEIAA is to overlook the recommendations made by the Expert Body (SEAC), they have to state reason and the matter will have to be sent back to SEAC for re-consideration which obviously was not reflected by the impugned order.

(iii) The authorized members of the SEAC/EAC may inspect any site connected with the project in respect of which the prior Environmental Clearance is sought (5d),
(iv) The EAC and the SEAC shall function on the principle of collective responsibility (5e),
(v) Screening, scoping, ToR, recommendation is to be done by the EAC or the SEAC (7 (i), (ii) & (iii)),
(vi) Appraisal means detailed scrutiny by the Expert Appraisal Committee or the SEAC and appraisal shall be made by the SEAC in a O.A. No.63/2024(CZ) Abdul Kalam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.