MANTEC CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. Vs. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE (I.A. DIVISION) AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mantec Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter 'Mantec') has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside an order dated 23.08.2016 (hereafter 'the impugned order') passed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (hereafter 'MoEF') rejecting Mantec's representation, thereby reaffirming its earlier decision dated 09.02.2016, debarring Mantec from preparing any Environmental Impact Assessment ('EIA' in short)/Environment Management Plan ('EMP' in short) Reports and appearing before the Expert Appraisal Committee/State Expert Appraisal Committees/State Coastal Zone Management Authorities across the country for a period of one year. The order dated 09.02.2016 was issued on the ground that the EIA report prepared by Mantec was for clearance of 13 activities/projects at Kandla Port, whereas the Terms of Reference ('ToR' in short) issued by MoEF was only for 3 activities.

(2.) Mantec contests the allegation that it had expanded the ToR, essentially, on three grounds. First, it is stated that the notice inviting tender issued by Kandla Port Trust, respondent No. 2 was in respect of 18 activities (subsequently reduced to 13) and, therefore, Mantec always believed that it was required to make report in respect of 13 activities. Second, that Mantec's report was considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee of MoEF in its 136th meeting wherein it was decided that the proposal shall be considered further and no objections were raised as to the activities covered by Mantec in its report. And third, that the ToR issued by MoEF specifically required Mantec to carry out Comprehensive Impact Assessment of the existing and future planned activities, which indisputably included the activities for which the notice inviting tender had been issued. It is Mantec's case that the above clearly establish that there were sufficient reasons for Mantec to proceed to make its report regarding the 13 activities as covered under the ToR. However, notwithstanding the same, even if it is assumed that Mantec had misread the ToR, the same was bona fide and thus, there would be no ground to blacklist/debar Mantec from preparing EIA/EMP Reports and appearing before the concerned authorities.

(3.) The relevant facts to address the controversy in the present petition are briefly set hereafter.