{"id":212692,"date":"2019-03-30T00:26:18","date_gmt":"2019-03-29T18:56:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=212692"},"modified":"2019-04-05T10:45:39","modified_gmt":"2019-04-05T05:15:39","slug":"environmental-clearance-for-development-of-airport-at-mopa-goa-to-be-revisited","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/03\/30\/environmental-clearance-for-development-of-airport-at-mopa-goa-to-be-revisited\/","title":{"rendered":"Environmental Clearance for development of Airport at Mopa, Goa to be revisited"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: <\/strong>In a case challenging the grant of an Environmental Clearance (EC) for the development of a greenfield international airport at Mopa in Goa, the Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, JJ directed Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) to revisit the conditions subject to which it granted its EC within a month.<\/p>\n

Appraisal by the EAC<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

The Court explained \u2018Appraisal by the EAC\u2019 as structured and defined by the 2006 notification. It said that the process of appraisal is defined to mean \u201ca detailed scrutiny\u201d by the EAC of the application and other documents like the EIA report and the outcome of the public consultation, including the public hearing proceedings, submitted by the applicant to the regulatory authority for the grant of an EC. The EAC is under a mandate to conduct the process of appraisal in \u201ca transparent manner\u201d. On the conclusion of these proceedings, the EAC has to make \u201ccategorical recommendations\u201d to the regulatory authority. The recommendations made by the EAC to the regulatory authority must be based on \u201creasons\u201d. Considering this, the Court noticed,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThat the project proponent must submit all information and data without concealing relevant features is a basic hypothesis and expectation of the 2006 notification. The EAC has, in the brief reasons which are contained in para 3.1.2, not applied its mind at all to the environmental concerns raised in relation to the project nor do its reasons indicate an appraisal of those concerns by evaluating the impact of the project.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Hence, the Court said the appraisal by the EAC in the present case neither the process of decision making nor the decision itself can pass legal muster<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n

Failure of due process<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n
On EAC:<\/span><\/h5>\n
\n

\u201cThe EAC, as an expert body abdicated its role and function by taking into account circumstances which were extraneous to the exercise of its power and failed to notice facets of the environment that were crucial to its decision making. The 2006 notification postulates that normally, the MoEFCC would accept the recommendation of the EAC. This makes the role of the EAC even more significant.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

On NGT:<\/span><\/h5>\n
\n

\u201cThe NGT is an adjudicatory body which is vested with appellate jurisdiction over the grant of an EC. The NGT dealt with the submissions which were urged before it in essentially one PART J 90 paragraph. It failed to comprehend the true nature of its role and power under Section 1(h) and Section 20 of the NGT Act 2010. In failing to carry out a merits review, the NGT has not discharged an adjudicatory function which properly belongs to it.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Directions<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n