NOBLE M. PAIKADA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTUAL ASPECTS : These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dtd. 28/10/2020 (for short, 'the impugned judgment') passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, 'the NGT'). There is also a challenge to the order dtd. 24/12/2020, by which, the NGT rejected the review petition filed by the appellant for seeking review of the impugned judgment.

(2.) A notification was issued on 14/9/2006 (for short, 'the first EC notification') by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short, 'MoEF') in exercise of powers under subsec. (1) and clause (v) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short, 'the EP Act') read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (for short, 'the EP Rules'). Clause 2 of the first EC notification is material, which reads thus:

(3.) The notification provided that the projects falling under categories A and B set out in the Schedule to the notification will require prior Environmental Clearance (EC) from the concerned Regulatory Authority. The Regulatory Authorities for different projects have been named in clause (2) of the first EC notification. For the A category, the Central Government in the MoEF was named as the Regulatory Authority. For projects in the B category, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short, 'SEIAA') was named as the Regulatory Authority. Various procedural aspects regarding applying for a grant of EC, its processing, etc., have been incorporated in the first EC notification. There were subsequent modifications to the first EC notification. Another notification was issued on 15/1/2016 (for short, 'the second EC notification'), by which the first EC notification was partly modified. Clause 7B and Appendix-IX were added to the first EC notification, providing for an exemption to specific categories of projects from the requirement of obtaining EC. Item 6 in the said Appendix-IX reads thus: