BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MR. SUDHAKAR HEGDE & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 755 · Decided: 17-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
755
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
MR. SUDHAKAR HEGDE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2566 of 2019)
MARCH 17, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Environment (Protection)
Rules, 1986 – Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 –
Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006 – Peripheral Ring
Road Project – National Green Tribunal quashed the Environmental
clearance granted to the appellant for the said PRR project – NGT
was of the view that the primary data upon which the Environment
Impact Assessment report was based was collected more than 3 years
prior to its submission to the State Environment Impact Assessment
Authority – There was substantial delay in the preparation of the
EIA report – Accordingly, the NGT directed the appellant to conduct
a fresh rapid EIA and clarified the project proponent not to proceed
on the basis of the impugned Environmental clearance – On appeal,
held: In the instant case, there was failure of due process
commencing from issuance of the Terms of Reference and leading
to the grant of the Environmental clearance for the PRR Project –
The appellant, as project proponent sought to rely on an expired
Terms of Reference and proceeded to prepare the final EIA report
on the basis of outdated primary data – At the same time, the process
leading to the grant of the Environmental clearance was replete
with contradictions on the existence of forest land to be diverted
for the Project as well as the number of trees required to be felled –
The State Expert Appraisal Committee, as an expert body abdicated
its role and function by relying solely on the responses submitted to
it by the appellant and failing to comply with its obligations under
the OMs issued by the MOEF-CC from time to time – The State Expert
Appraisal Committee failed in its fundamental duty mandated to do
under the 2006 Notification – Therefore, inter-alia, following
directions issued: (i) The appellant directed to conduct a fresh rapid
EIA for the proposed PRR project; (ii) The appellant, for the purpose
[2020] 5 S.C.R. 755
755
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
756
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
of conducting the rapid EIA, hired a sector-specific accredited EIA
Consultant; (iii) Appellant to ensure the requisite clearances under
various enactments submitted to the State Expert Appraisal Committee
prior to the consideration by it of the information submitted by the
appellant in accordance with the OMs issued by the MOEF-CC
from time to time; (iv) State Expert Appraisal Committee shall
thereafter assess the rapid EIA report in accordance with the role
assigned to it under the 2006 Notification and if it is of the opinion
that the appellant has complied with the 2006 Notification as well
as the directions issued by the Supreme Court, only then shall it
recommend to the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority
the grant of Environmental clearance for the proposed project –
The order of the NGT directing the appellant to conduct a rapid
EIA is upheld.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The protection of the environment is premised
not only on the active role of courts, but also on robust
institutional frameworks within which every stakeholder complies
with its duty to ensure sustainable development. A framework of
environmental governance committed to the rule of law requires
a regime which has effective, accountable and transparent
institutions. Equally important is responsive, inclusive,
participatory and representative decision making. Environmental
governance is founded on the rule of law and emerges from the
values of our Constitution. Where the health of the environment
is key to preserving the right to life as a constitutionally recognized
value under Article 21 of the Constitution, proper structures for
environmental decision making find expression in the guarantee
against arbitrary action and the affirmative duty of fair treatment
under Article 14 of the Constitution. Sustainable development is
premised not merely on the redressal of the failure of democratic
institutions in the protection of the environment, but ensuring
that such failures do not take place. [Para 79][809-F-H; 810-A-
B]
2. In the present case, there has been a failure of due
process commencing from issuance of the Terms of Reference
and leading to the grant of the Environmental Clearance for the
Peripheral Ring Road project. The appellant, as project proponent
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
757
sou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.