PANDARINATHAN GOVINDARAJULU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Another standoff between cause of environment and call of development. The challenge herein relates to the project of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) involving expansion of NH-45A that runs between Villupuram and Nagapattinam, for a distance of 179.555 kms, as part of its Bharatmala Pariyojana Project. No Environmental Impact Assessment (henceforth, EIA) study was undertaken to evaluate the environmental viability of the project, whereas, the Notification in S.O.1533 issued by Ministry of Environment and Forest, dtd. 14/9/2006, under Rule 5 (3) of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986, and, as amended Vide notification in S.O.2559 (E) issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, dtd. 22/8/2013, mandates EIA compliance for projects of laying new or expanding existing National Highways. The relevant item in the Notifications is reproduced here.

(2.) The NHAI adopted a strategy to segment the entire distance of 179.555 kms into four segments, and brought out four separate notifications. The details are as below :

(3.) The crux of the contentions in WP.21883/2019 are: ? In terms of the EIA Notifications (extracted in paragraph 1 above), for the development of any National Highways for a length over 100 kms., environmental clearance based on an EIA study is mandatory. Since, the total distance covered in the proposed expansion of NH-45A between Villupuram-Nagapatinam is 179.555 k.ms, obtaining environmental clearance is indispensable. It is to avoid obtaining environmental clearance, the entire distance of 179.555 km has been artificially and arbitrarily split up into four segments, ensuring in the process that each of the segment fell within 100 kms. as to avoid the mandatory EIA. This is contrary to the spirit behind the aforesaid notifications.