SANGHAR ZUBER ISMAIL versus MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 31-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
525
SANGHAR ZUBER ISMAIL
v.
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS AND
CLIMATE CHANGE AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 4543 of 2021)
AUGUST 31, 2021
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, M R SHAH
AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Environmental law: Marine environment – Environmental
clearance granted on 5 January 2021 in favour of the second
respondent (project proponent) for expansion of capacity of its
refinery situated in the petro-chemical complex at Vadinar, District
Devbhumi Dwarka, Gujarat from 20 MMTPA to 46 MMTPA –
Appellant challenged before the NGT that the expansion was likely
to cause an adverse impact on the marine environment, both in terms
of the mangroves and marine biology – Based on the statement of
project proponent that all the EC conditions would be duly complied
with and due mitigation measures would be taken to ensure the safety
of mangroves and marine environment, NGT proceeded to observe
that it did not find any ground to interfere with the grant of the EC
– It, however, directed the project proponent to ensure that all
necessary safeguards are adopted and EC conditions are duly
complied with – A three member Committee was constituted in that
regard – Held: The NGT merely based its conclusion on the statement
which was made by the project proponent and did not conduct an
independent appraisal of the grounds of challenge – NGT did not
deal with the substantive grounds of challenge in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction – Constitution of an expert committee did not
absolve the NGT of its duty to adjudicate – The adjudicatory
function of the NGT cannot be assigned to committees, even expert
committees – The decision has to be that of the NGT – The NGT has
been constituted as an expert adjudicatory authority under an Act
of Parliament – The discharge of its functions cannot be obviated
by tasking committees to carry out a function which vests in the
NGT.
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 525
525
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.4543 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.06.2021 of the National
Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in Appeal No.5 of 2021
(WZ).
Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Ms. Dharita P Malkan, Ms. Deepa
Gorasia, Alok Kumar, Ms. Nandini Chhabra, Ms. Bhavna Sarkar,
Ms. Khushboo Vinodray Malkan, Advs. for the Appellant.
Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Somiran Sharma, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed
O R D E R
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1.
Admit.
2.
This appeal arises from a judgment of the National Green
Tribunal dated 8 June 2021 at the Principal Bench, New
Delhi.
3.
The appeal before the NGT arose from the grant of an
environmental clearance on 5 January 2021 in favour of
the second respondent for the expansion of the capacity of
its refinery situated in the petro-chemical complex at Vadinar,
District Devbhumi Dwarka, Gujarat from 20 MMTPA to
46 MMTPA. The main challenge before the NGT, as
recorded in paragraph 3 of the decision is that the expansion
was likely to cause an adverse impact on the marine
environment, both in terms of the mangroves and marine
biology. The NGT noted that its attention been drawn to
the EIA/EMP study prepared by CSIR–NEERI. Having
extracted from the study, the NGT noted the submission of
senior counsel for the second respondent that all the EC
conditions would be duly complied with and due mitigation
measures would be taken to ensure the safety of mangroves
and marine environment.
4.
Having recorded the statement of the second respondent,
the NGT proceeded to observe that it did not find any ground
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
527
to interfere with the grant of the EC. It, however, directed
the project proponent to ensure that all necessary safeguards
are adopted and EC conditions are duly complied with. A
three member Committee was constituted in that regard.
5.
The NGT was seized with a substantive appeal under the
provisions of Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act
2010. Section 16(h) reads thus:
“16. Any person aggrieved by –
(a) to (g)
xxx
xxx
xxx
(h) an order made, on or after the commencement
of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, granting
environmental clearance in the area in which any
industries, operations or processes or class of
industries, operations and processes shall not be
carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain
safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act
1986.”
6.
The specific ground before the NGT was that the expansion
of the 

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