Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.46 seconds)
Gutha Gunasekhar vs Union Of India on 11 May, 2023 cites

Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs Anil V. Tharthare on 3 December, 2019

58. Reverting to the contention that there is no illegality in splitting a project into phases it is pertinent to fall back on decision reported in Keystone Realtors Private Limited Vs. Anil V. Tharthare and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 66, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed in respect of the EIA Notification, 2006 that "In a case where the text of the provisions requires interpretation, this Court must adopt an interpretation which is in consonance with the object and purpose of the legislation or delegated legislation as a whole. The EIA Notification was adopted with the intention of restricting new projects and the expansion of new projects until their environmental impact could be evaluated and understood. It could not be disputed that as the size of the project increases, so does the magnitude of the project‟s environmental impact. This Court could not adopt an interpretation of the EIA Notification which would permit, incrementally or otherwise, project proponents to increase the construction area of a project without any oversight from the Expert Appraisal Committee or the SEAC, as applicable. It was true that there may exist certain situations where the expansion sought by a project proponent is truly marginal or the environmental impact of such expansion was non-existent. However, it was not for this Court to lay down a bright-line test as to what constitutes a „marginal‟ increase and what constitutes a material increase warranting a fresh Form 1 and scrutiny by the Expert Appraisal Committee. If the government in its wisdom were to prescribe that a one-time „marginal‟ increase in project size, within the threshold limit stipulated in the Schedule, could be subject to a lower standard of scrutiny without diluting the urgent need for environmental protection, conceivably this Court may give effect to such a provision. This would be subject to any challenge on the ground of their being a violation of the precautionary principle. However, as the EIA Notification currently stands, an expansion within the 24 limits prescribed by the Schedules would be subject to the procedure set out in the notification.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 35 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Bengaluru Development Authority vs Mr. Sudhakar Hegde on 17 March, 2020

69. The importance of appraisal by the SEAC - AP prior to the grant of EC has been emphasised in several cases by National Green Tribunal and the Hon‟ble High Courts. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Bengaluru Development Authority Vs. Mr. Sudhakar Hegde and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2566 of 2019 held that appraisal by the SEAC being structured and defined by the EIA Notification, 2006, the SEAC is required to conduct a detailed scrutiny of the application and other documents submitted by the applicant for the grant of EC. It was also held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 39 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1