LexGAJUBHA JADEJA JESAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R. [2022] 17 S.C.R. 282 282 GAJUBHA JADEJA JESAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 2020) AUGUST 10, 2022 [HEMANT GUPTA AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.] National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – s. 21 – Jurisdiction of Tribunal under – Permission granted by State Pollution Control Board to Project Proponent, who had applied for consent to establish Cold Rolled Coils of stainless steel – It was alleged that the project proponent had set up the unit in violation of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification dated 14.09.2006 and prior environmental clearance was required – Application filed before the Tribunal – On basis of the recommendation of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), Tribunal granted a period of at least one year to operate for the purpose – Applicant challenged the time granted by the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant period for obtaining Environmental Clearance – The Project Proponent, aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal, challenged the findings recorded that Environmental Clearance is required – During pendency of the appeals before the Supreme Court, the Project Proponent was served with the closure notice by the State Pollution Control Board – Held: No error in the order passed by the Tribunal – The order of the Tribunal is based upon recommendation of the EAC which suggested that one year time should be granted to the industry to comply with the EIA notification dated 14.9.2006 – In the instant case, in view of the amendment in the EIA notification dated 20.7.2022, the unit has time to seek Environmental Clearance in terms of the time line mentioned in the notification – Therefore, the order of closure of the unit cannot be sustained. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. No error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is based upon recommendation of the EAC which suggested that one year time should be granted to the industry to comply with the EIA notification dated 14.9.2006. A B C D E F G H 283 The stand of the Ministry as well as the Project Proponent is that there was ambiguity in the EIA notification 2006. 1689 units have come up in the country on the basis of CTE and CTO regime. It is not a case of ambiguous interpretation in respect of one or two units but the entire country was having the same interpretation that Re-Rolling Steel Plants do not require a prior Environmental Clearance. The ambiguity has been removed only on 20.7.2022 when the notification has been amended, as reproduced above. Since there was ambiguity earlier, the Tribunal had granted time to the Project Proponent to comply with the requirement of Environmental Clearance. Direction of the Tribunal is, in fact, arising out of scope of powers conferred on the Tribunal under Section 21 of the NGT Act. [Paras 18 and 19][291-E-G; 292-A] 2. Out of 1689 units in the country, the applicant has chosen the Project Proponent as it appears to be a motivated petition to target the Project Proponent though the Cold Steel Rolling Mills in the country were operating under the same regime. Not only the Project Proponent, but the 15 countries, also has suffered immensely on account of closure of the unit which was export oriented unit. It may be noticed that the Gujarat State Pollution Control Board has chosen the Project Proponent to serve with a closure notice on 25.6.2021. The unit is lying closed since then. In view of the amendment in the EIA notification dated 20.7.2022, the unit has time to seek Environmental Clearance in terms of the time line mentioned in the notification. Therefore, the order of closure of the unit cannot be sustained. [Para 24][296-D-F] Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha & Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 897; Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Dastak NGO & Ors 2022 SCC Online SC 362 – relied on. Common Cause v. Union of India & Ors (2017) 9 SCC 499 : [2017] 13 SCR 361; Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019) 15 SCC 401 : [2019] 5 SCR 916; Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Rohit Prajapati & Ors (2020) 17 SCC 157 – referred to. GAJUBHA JADEJA JESAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. A B C D E F G H 284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R. Case Law Reference [2017] 13 SCR 361 referred to Para 21 [2019] 5 SCR 916 referred to Para 22 [2020] 17 SCC 157 referred to Para 23 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3116 of 2020. From the Judgment and Order da
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.