Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. 'Cause of action', therefore, must be read in conjunction with and should take colour from the expression 'such dispute'. Such dispute will in turn draw its meaning from Section 14(2) and consequently Section 14(1) of the NGT Act. These are inter- connected and inter-dependent. 'Such dispute' has to be considered as a dispute which is relating to environment. The NGT Act is a specific Act with a specific purpose and object, and therefore, the cause of action which is specific to other laws or other objects and does not directly relate to environmental issues would not be 'such dispute' as contemplated under the provisions of the NGT Act. The dispute must essentially be an environmental dispute and must relate to either of the Acts stated in Schedule I to the NGT Act and the 'cause of action' referred to under Sub-section (3) of Section 14 should be the cause of action for 'such dispute' and not alien or foreign to the substantial question of environment. The cause of action must have a nexus to such dispute which relates to the issue of environment/substantial question relating to environment, or any such proceeding, to trigger the prescribed period of limitation. A cause of action, which in its true spirit and substance, does not relate to the issue of environment/substantial question relating to environment arising out of the specified legislations, thus, in law cannot trigger the prescribed period of limitation under Section 14(3) of the NGT Act. The term 'cause of action' has to be understood in distinction to the nature or form of the suit. A cause of action means every fact which is necessary to establish to support the right to obtain a judgment. It is a bundle of facts which are to be pleaded and proved for the purpose of obtaining the relief claimed in the suit. It is what a plaintiff must plead and then prove for obtaining the relief. It is the factual situation, the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court remedy against another. A cause of action means every fact which, if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which, taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. The expression 'cause of action' has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense, cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit including not only the infraction coupled with the right itself. To put it more clearly, the material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. (Refer: Rajasthan High Court Advocates Asson. V. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 294]; Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ramai v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1975) 2 SCC 671]; A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem [(1989) 2 SCC 163]; Bloom Dekor Limited v. Sujbhash Himatlal Desai and Ors. with Bloom Dekor Limited and Anr. v. Arvind B. Sheth and Ors. [(1994) 6 SCC 322]; Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair v. Narayanan Nair and Ors. [(2004) 3 SCC 277]; Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr. [(2004) 8 SCC 100]; Liverpool and London S.P. and I. Asson Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I and Anr.[(2004) 9 SCC 512]; Prem Chand Vijay Kumar v. Yashpal Singh and Anr. [(2005) 4 SCC 417]; Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Ors. v. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Ors. [(2006) 3 SCC 100])

19. It is evident from the above facts that the establishment of the STP at the site in question or the substituted Khasra numbers came to public light and became a contentious issue between the Government and the public at large raising health and environmental issues in the year 2013. It is noteworthy that all the representations, objections, etc. were made to the declaration notified in the newspapers on 19th May, 2013 that the STP was going to be set up at the site in question.

23. Another important aspect is that the location, the Khasra number, etc. sought to be acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act could be changed by the competent authority while issuing the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court, vide its order dated 21st December, 2012 permitted the change of Khasra number by agreement. In other words, the very location of the STP, from the initial site, stood changed to khasra number recorded in the order of the High Court. These were very material changes but fell within the field of acquisition proceedings. They do not have any impact on environmental issues in regard to establishment of the STP.

28. The judicial precedents by various Courts, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, have expanded Article 21 of the Constitution of India to include the right to clean and decent environment. Right to live with human dignity, hence includes, the right to clean environment, as no human being can properly enjoy his life and living unless the environment surrounding him is hygienic, clean and decent. This is the concept of environment as understood under the Indian Environmental and Constitutional jurisprudence. When one makes a conjoint reading of the Act of 1986 and other environment legislations along with the provisions of the NGT Act, only one conclusion is possible and that is, that the Legislature intended to give environment the widest meaning on the one hand and protection to the same of highest order on the other. It has equated the right to clean environment to the fundamental rights enshrined in Chapter III of our Constitution and has also provided for effective and expeditious disposal of the environmental issues. Once the environment is understood in its wide spectrum and correct perspective, then all the matters which cause or are likely to cause environmental pollution or injury would be the matters covered under the provisions of the above referred legislations. The Notification of 2006 deals with the manner and methodology in accordance with which the EC is to be granted to various projects and activities. Under Regulation 2 of the Notification of 2006, it is prescribed that the projects or activities which are specified in the Schedule to the Notification of 2006, would require EC from the competent authority. Projects falling under Category 'A' in the Schedule of the Notification of 2006 would require EC from the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) while the projects falling in the Category 'B' would be required to be granted EC by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). Such projects should take EC before any actual or even preparatory works are carried out by the project proponent except to the extent of securing land for the project. All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule would require such clearance. The expansion or modernization of the projects or activities, which crosses the threshold limits given in the Schedule, would also require such clearance. Thereafter the process of categorization of the project, selection of site, screening, scoping and appraisal has to be followed, finally culminating into grant or refusal of the EC by the said authorities. The Schedule to the Notification of 2006 refers to various projects and activities that would require such environmental clearance. In the present case, the applicant has placed reliance upon Clause 7(h) and (i) of the Schedule, which is relatable to Regulation 2 and 7 of the Notification of 2006. The said entries of the Schedule read as under: -