HANUMAN LAXMAN AROOSKAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1030 · Decided: 16-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · 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
1030
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1030
1030
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROOSKAR
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
M.A. No.965 of 2019 IN
(Civil Appeal No. 12251 of 2018)
JANUARY 16, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Environment – Environmental clearance for a greenfield
airport – The Union of India sought a direction that the minutes of
the fortieth meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) dated
23.4.2019 be taken on the record so that the embargo imposed by
the Supreme Court on the Environmental clearance (EC) for a
greenfield airport at Mopa Goa can be lifted – Earlier, the Supreme
Court in its judgment reported as Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union
of India (2019 SCC Online 441) held that the process leading up to
the grant of an Environmental clearance on 28.10.2015 was flawed
– Held: On reading of the process leading upto the instant proceedings,
it cannot be said that EAC has, it its appraisal process, ignored the
concerns which were highlighted by the Supreme Court – The EAC
has adequately addressed four areas i.e. (i) Forests; (ii) Ecologically
sensitive areas; (iii) Western Ghats and (iv) Flora & Fauna and has
laid down additional conditions to ensure the adequate protection
of the environment – A comprehensive process has been followed by
the EAC bearing in mind the requirements of the Airport Guidance
Manual – The process which has been adopted by the EAC and its
ultimate conclusions must be scrutinized, in the course of judicial
review, in the context of the limitations which were attached to the
Court conducting a merits based review – Earlier, the Court did not
quash the EC but suspended it until the EAC revisited its
recommendations in the light of the concerns which were expressed
by the Supreme Court – Having assessed the process which took
place following the judgment of the Supreme Court and outcome, it
would be difficult to hold that it fails to meet the standards which
the Court applies in the course of judicial review in the environmental
matters – The minutes of the meeting of the EAC dated 23.4.2019
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1031
are taken on record – The additional conditions which have been
imposed by the EAC shall, together with the original conditions of
the EC dated 28.10.2015 and the directions issued by the NGT be
cumulatively observed – Also in the earlier judgment, the Supreme
Court noted abject failure of the project proponent to provide
complete information on the existence of reserved forests – In the
proceedings that followed the judgment, the project proponent sought
to remedy its failure by taking into account additional information
on the significant aspects of the environment – In the process leading
to the grant of the EC as well as the Registry of its suspension by
the Supreme Court, numerous mitigatory conditions have been
imposed on the project proponent – To ensure the oversight of the
project by a specialized body to ensure compliance with the
directions cumulatively issued by the Court, the National
Environmental Engineering Research Institute to be appointed to
oversee compliance with directions cumulatively issued by the
Supreme Court – The suspension on the EC accordingly, stand lifted.
Disposing of the Miscellaneous Application, the Court
HELD: 1. During the course of the judgment which was
rendered by this Court on 29 March 2019, certain flaws were
noticed in the process leading up to the grant of an EC on 28
October 2015. The project proponent had not complied with its
obligation to make a full disclosure of information on material
aspects of the environment in Form 1 as an intrinsic part of the
EIA process. This Court specifically recorded its concerns on
vital aspects which had not been adequately addressed by the
EAC. Having noticed the flaws in the process and the deficiencies
in the decision making process of the EAC, the Court directed
the EAC to revisit the recommendations made by it for the grant
of an EC including the conditions which it had formulated, having
regard to the specific concerns which were highlighted in the
judgment. Thereafter if the EAC were to allow the construction
to proceed, it was directed to impose additional conditions to
protect the terrestrial eco-systems. The EAC was under a specific
mandate to lay down conditions pertaining to air, water, noise,
land and the biological and socio-economic environment. During
the course of this judgment, this Court has traced the process as
it evolved befor

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