Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 1331
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2023
TALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
1. The date on which environment clearance (EC) granted to the
project proponent is “communicated” to “any person aggrieved” is relevant
for calculating the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section
1
16(h) of the Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Considering the fact that such
communication is the obligation of plurality of duty bearers and to “any
person”, we have interpreted Section 16(h) of the Act to hold that limitation
will commence from the earliest of the date on which the communication
is carried out by any of the duty bearers. Having considered the legal and
factual submissions of the appellant, we have come to the conclusion that
Signature Not Verified
the appeal filed by the appellant is beyond the mandatory period of
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2025.11.19
16:25:30 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
1
limitation. We have thus affirmed the judgment of the Tribunal and
dismissed the appeal.
Facts:
2. The respondent being the project proponent, applied and obtained
an EC for limestone mining covering an extent of 193.3269 hectares at
Talli and Bambor villages in Gujarat from the Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) on 05.01.2017. The appellant,
the Gram Panchayat of village Talli, sought to challenge this EC before
the National Green Tribunal by filing an appeal under Section 16(h) of the
Act. However, as there was delay, the appeal was accompanied by a
Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal. It was contended therein that the grant of EC was known to them
only through the reply dated 14.02.2017 received under the Right to
Information Act. It was therefore contended that limitation must
commence either from 14.02.2017 or from the last of the communications
received from the authorities who had the duty to intimate the appellant.
3. By its order dated 29.01.2018, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for
default and even the subsequent application for restoration was also
dismissed on 16.07.2021. Challenging these orders, the appellant filed a
civil appeal before this Court, primarily contending that such orders could
not have been passed by a single member of the Tribunal. Accepting the
2
submission, this Court by its order dated 11.07.2022 allowed the appeals
and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for consideration and
disposal on merits. While remanding, this Court directed the Tribunal to
consider all questions, including the issue relating to limitation. After
restoration of the appeal, the Tribunal heard the appeal and the
accompanying application for condonation of delay and proceeded to
dismiss the application on the ground that the appeal was filed after the
maximum condonable period of 90 days as such barred by limitation.
Thus, the present Civil Appeal under Section 22 of the Act.
4. We heard Mr. Sanjay Parikh, senior counsel, assisted by Mr.
Abhimanue Shrestha, advocate for the appellant and Mr. Pinaki Mishra,
senior counsel, for the respondents.
Analysis:
5. Section 16 of the Act, to the extent that it is relevant for our purpose
is extracted herein below for ready reference;
“ Sec. 16. Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction - Any person
aggrieved by,-
(a)…
(b)….
(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 (29 of 1986).
…
3
may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or
decision or direction or determination is to him, prefer
communicated
an appeal to the Tribunal:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was
prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said
period, allow it to be filed under this section within a further period not
exceeding sixty days.”
6. Section 16(h) provides that “ any person aggrieved… may’ within a
period of 30 days from the date of the ‘ communication ’ of the order
granting EC prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. The proviso enables the
Tribunal to allow a further period, not exceeding 60 days, if in the opinion
of the Tribunal, the appellant is prevented by sufficient cause. In the
normal course, a communication is completed when the order impugned
is served on an applicant/suitor personally, through mail or publication, as
the case may be. However, in the context of Section 16(h), two distinct
features must be borne in mind for a proper understanding of the
expression ‘communicated’ to him. Firstly , the communication
contemplated under Section 16(h) is to sub-serve a public purpose of
2
enforcing any legal right relating to environment ’. Environmental issues
are not always adversarial, rather they operate as public law concerns.
The expression “any person aggrieved” in Section 16(h), read with
Sections 2(c), (g), (j) and (m) of the Act must therefore receive a liberal
construction as ‘communication’ contemplated herein Section 16(h) is
intended to be in rem and not in personam. There is therefore an
2
This is evident from the preamble and other substantive provisions of the Act.
4
obligation on a duty bearer to ensure that appealable decisions are
properly declared and easily accessible. Secondly , the said obligation to
“communicate” the order vests in plurality of duty holders being the, (i)
MoEF&CC, (ii) project proponent, and (iii) the Pollution Control Board(s).
Keeping in mind the features, we will now interpret Section 16(h) to
determine the date by which multiple authorities or persons, the duty
bearers, will communicate the orders to any person aggrieved.
7. When we say multiple authorities or plurality of duty bearers have
the obligation to communicate, it is because of the legal regime under the
Environment Protection Act, 1986, read with enforceable subordinate
legislation made thereunder. In exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of
the Environment Protection Act, read with Rule 5 of the Environment
Protection Rules, the MoEF&CC issued the Environment Impact
Assessment Notification 2006, (EIA Notification, 2006). Paragraph 10 of
the said notification places certain obligations on MoEF&CC or the SEIAA
and the project proponent, the same is reproduced below for ready
reference;
"10.
Post Environmental Clearance Monitoring-
(i) (a) In respect of Category 'A' projects, it shall be mandatory for the
Project Proponent to make public the environmental clearance
granted for their project along with the environmental conditions and
safeguards at their cost by prominently advertising it at least in two
local newspapers of the district or State where the project is located
and in addition, this shall also be displayed in the Project Proponent's
website permanently.
5
(b) In respect of Category 'B' projects, irrespective of its clearance by
, the shall prominently advertise in
MoEF/SEIAA Project Proponent
the newspapers indicating that the project has been accorded
Environment Clearance and the details of MoEF website where it is
displayed.
(c) The Ministry of Environment and Forest and the State/Union
Territory level Environmental Impact Assessment Authorities
(SEIAAs), as the case may be shall also place the environmental
clearance in the public domain on Government portal.
(d) The copies of the environmental clearance shall be submitted by
the Project Proponents to the Heads of local bodies, Panchayats, and
Municipal Bodies in addition to the relevant offices of the Government
who in turn has to display the same for 30 days from the date of
receipt.”
8. The EC granted by MoEF&CC or, as the case may be, the SEIAA
invariably requires the Centre or the State Pollution Control Boards, being
the statutory regulators, to ensure compliance of the conditions imposed
on the project proponent as a pre-condition for grant of EC. Thus, the
cumulative mandate flowing out of the Environment Protection Act and the
Rules and Regulations made thereunder, including the EIA Notification
2006, require the MoEF&CC, the project proponent and the Pollution
Control Boards to communicate, to make public, advertise, place in public
domain either through the Governmental Portal or to display in their office
the information about the grant of EC.
9. In view of the concurrent obligations of MoEF&CC the project
proponent and the Pollution Control Boards to communicate grant of the
EC, the question that arises for consideration, is to identify the day when
the ‘ communication’ of the EC is complete on the ‘person aggrieved’ for
commencement of period of limitation for filing appeal under Section 16(h)
6
of the Act. When the duty to communicate is the obligation of more than
one authority or individual, it is natural or inevitable that the dates by which
they comply with their respective obligations do not synchronise. The
dates by which MoEF&CC could upload its decision on its website, project
proponent advertise the EC in the two local newspapers and the dates by
which Pollution Control Board would display the EC on its notice board
may not be the same.
10. When obligation to communicate the decision vests in multiple
authorities, it is appropriate to infer that the communication is complete
when the ‘person aggrieved’ receives information from the earliest of the
communication. Following the principle of first accrual , which postulates
that when a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of
limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to suit first accrues.
3
In Khatri Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Union of India , this Court held; “… if a suit is
based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to
run from the date when the right to sue first accrues . To put it differently,
successive violation of the right will not give rise to fresh cause and the
suit will be liable to be dismissed if it is beyond the period of limitation
counted from the day when the right to sue first accrued .”
3
(2011) 9 SCC126 also followed in Rajeev Gupta v. Prashant Garg (2025 SCC OnLine SC 889).
7
11. It is of course a condition precedent that the communication must
be clear and complete and if this condition is satisfied, it is logical to
conclude that the person aggrieved cannot pick and choose later
communications from other duty bearers for reckoning the period of
limitation. It is the first accrual that would trigger the period of limitation
prescribed under Section 16(h) of the Act.
4
12. In Save Mon Region Federation & Anr. vs. Union of India , decided
way back in 2013, the Tribunal recounted the concurrent obligations of
MoEF&CC, the project proponent and others to communicate the grant of
EC to any person aggrieved and hold that where different stake holders
are to communicate the order, the earliest date on which the
communication is carried out, shall be the date for reckoning limitation;
“10. The date on which the order of Environmental Clearance is
communicated to the public at large, shall be the date from which
the period of limitation shall reckon, as contemplated under Section
16 of the Act. Communicating the order, in other words, shall mean
putting the order in the public domain in its complete form and as
per the mode required under the provision of the NGT Act of the
Regulation 2006. The limitation shall start running and shall be
computed as referred to in Para 19 of the judgment. Where different
acts by different stakeholders are complied with at different dates,
the earliest date on which complete communication is carried out,
shall be the date for reckoning of limitation.”
4
2013(1) All India NGT Reporter 1.
8
13. This decision is again reiterated in the subsequent decision of
5
Medha Patkar & Ors. v. Ministry of Environment & Forests, UOI and Ors.
“ 12. From the above dictum, it is clear that a communication would
mean putting it in public domain and completing the acts as are
contemplated in the EIA Notification of 2006, read with conditions
of the EC and the provisions of the Act. In terms of the scheme of
the notification and law, there are three stakeholders in the process
of grant of environmental clearance:
(a) Project Proponent
(b) Ministry of Environment and Forests and
(c) Other agencies which are required to fulfil their obligations to
make the communication complete in terms of the provisions of the
Act and the notification concerned.
…
15. …Complete performance of its obligations imposed on it by the
order of environmental clearance would constitute a communication
to an aggrieved person under the Act. In other words, if one set of
the above events is completed by any of the stakeholders, the
limitation period shall trigger. If they happen on different times and
after interval, the one earliest in point of time shall reckon the period
of limitation. Communication shall be complete in law upon
fulfilment of complete set of obligations by any of the stakeholders.
Once the period of limitation is prescribed under the provisions of
the Act, then it has to be enforced with all its rigour. Commencement
of limitation and its reckoning cannot be frustrated by
communication to any one of the stakeholders. Such an approach
would be opposed to the basic principle of limitation.
The Tribunal must adopt a pragmatic and practical approach
16.
that would also be in consonance with the provisions of the Act
providing limitation. Firstly, the limitation would never begin to run
and no act would determine when such limitation would stop
running as any one of the stakeholders may not satisfy or comply
with all its obligations prescribed under the Act. To conclude that it
is only when all the stakeholders had completed in entirety their
respective obligations under the respective provisions, read with the
notification of 2006, then alone the period of limitation shall begin to
run, would be an interpretation which will frustrate the very object of
the Act and would also cause serious prejudice to all concerned.
Firstly, this completely frustrates the purpose of prescription of
limitation. Secondly, a project proponent who has obtained
environmental clearance and thereafter spent crores of rupees on
establishment and operation of the project, would be exposed to
uncertainty, danger of unnecessary litigation and even the
possibility of jeopardizing the interest of his project after years have
5
2013 SCC Online NGT 63.
9
lapsed. This cannot be the intent of law. The framers of law have
enacted the provisions of limitation with a clear intention of
specifying the period within which an aggrieved person can invoke
the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It is a settled rule of law that once
the law provides for limitation, then it must operate meaningfully and
with its rigour. Equally true is that once the period of limitation starts
running, then it does not stop...”
14. In view of the interpretation that we have given in Section 16(h),
coupled with the consistent rulings of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion
that the period of limitation will commence from the earliest of the date on
which the communication is carried out by any of the duty bearers.
Application of the law to the facts of the present case:
15. We will now examine the law as declared hereinabove to the facts
of the present case to ascertain the compliance of these statutory
requirements by the MoEF&CC (Respondent No.1), the Project
Proponent (Respondent No.4), and the State Pollution Control Board
(SPCB). This examination is necessary to determine the specific date
from which the period of limitation commenced. The status of compliance
with respect to the communication of the EC is summarized in the table
below, as also reproduced in the order impugned before us.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 1331
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2023
TALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
1. The date on which environment clearance (EC) granted to the
project proponent is “communicated” to “any person aggrieved” is relevant
for calculating the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section
1
16(h) of the Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Considering the fact that such
communication is the obligation of plurality of duty bearers and to “any
person”, we have interpreted Section 16(h) of the Act to hold that limitation
will commence from the earliest of the date on which the communication
is carried out by any of the duty bearers. Having considered the legal and
factual submissions of the appellant, we have come to the conclusion that
Signature Not Verified
the appeal filed by the appellant is beyond the mandatory period of
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2025.11.19
16:25:30 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
1
limitation. We have thus affirmed the judgment of the Tribunal and
dismissed the appeal.
Facts:
2. The respondent being the project proponent, applied and obtained
an EC for limestone mining covering an extent of 193.3269 hectares at
Talli and Bambor villages in Gujarat from the Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) on 05.01.2017. The appellant,
the Gram Panchayat of village Talli, sought to challenge this EC before
the National Green Tribunal by filing an appeal under Section 16(h) of the
Act. However, as there was delay, the appeal was accompanied by a
Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal. It was contended therein that the grant of EC was known to them
only through the reply dated 14.02.2017 received under the Right to
Information Act. It was therefore contended that limitation must
commence either from 14.02.2017 or from the last of the communications
received from the authorities who had the duty to intimate the appellant.
3. By its order dated 29.01.2018, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for
default and even the subsequent application for restoration was also
dismissed on 16.07.2021. Challenging these orders, the appellant filed a
civil appeal before this Court, primarily contending that such orders could
not have been passed by a single member of the Tribunal. Accepting the
2
submission, this Court by its order dated 11.07.2022 allowed the appeals
and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for consideration and
disposal on merits. While remanding, this Court directed the Tribunal to
consider all questions, including the issue relating to limitation. After
restoration of the appeal, the Tribunal heard the appeal and the
accompanying application for condonation of delay and proceeded to
dismiss the application on the ground that the appeal was filed after the
maximum condonable period of 90 days as such barred by limitation.
Thus, the present Civil Appeal under Section 22 of the Act.
4. We heard Mr. Sanjay Parikh, senior counsel, assisted by Mr.
Abhimanue Shrestha, advocate for the appellant and Mr. Pinaki Mishra,
senior counsel, for the respondents.
Analysis:
5. Section 16 of the Act, to the extent that it is relevant for our purpose
is extracted herein below for ready reference;
“ Sec. 16. Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction - Any person
aggrieved by,-
(a)…
(b)….
(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 (29 of 1986).
…
3
may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or
decision or direction or determination is to him, prefer
communicated
an appeal to the Tribunal:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was
prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said
period, allow it to be filed under this section within a further period not
exceeding sixty days.”
6. Section 16(h) provides that “ any person aggrieved… may’ within a
period of 30 days from the date of the ‘ communication ’ of the order
granting EC prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. The proviso enables the
Tribunal to allow a further period, not exceeding 60 days, if in the opinion
of the Tribunal, the appellant is prevented by sufficient cause. In the
normal course, a communication is completed when the order impugned
is served on an applicant/suitor personally, through mail or publication, as
the case may be. However, in the context of Section 16(h), two distinct
features must be borne in mind for a proper understanding of the
expression ‘communicated’ to him. Firstly , the communication
contemplated under Section 16(h) is to sub-serve a public purpose of
2
enforcing any legal right relating to environment ’. Environmental issues
are not always adversarial, rather they operate as public law concerns.
The expression “any person aggrieved” in Section 16(h), read with
Sections 2(c), (g), (j) and (m) of the Act must therefore receive a liberal
construction as ‘communication’ contemplated herein Section 16(h) is
intended to be in rem and not in personam. There is therefore an
2
This is evident from the preamble and other substantive provisions of the Act.
4
obligation on a duty bearer to ensure that appealable decisions are
properly declared and easily accessible. Secondly , the said obligation to
“communicate” the order vests in plurality of duty holders being the, (i)
MoEF&CC, (ii) project proponent, and (iii) the Pollution Control Board(s).
Keeping in mind the features, we will now interpret Section 16(h) to
determine the date by which multiple authorities or persons, the duty
bearers, will communicate the orders to any person aggrieved.
7. When we say multiple authorities or plurality of duty bearers have
the obligation to communicate, it is because of the legal regime under the
Environment Protection Act, 1986, read with enforceable subordinate
legislation made thereunder. In exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of
the Environment Protection Act, read with Rule 5 of the Environment
Protection Rules, the MoEF&CC issued the Environment Impact
Assessment Notification 2006, (EIA Notification, 2006). Paragraph 10 of
the said notification places certain obligations on MoEF&CC or the SEIAA
and the project proponent, the same is reproduced below for ready
reference;
"10.
Post Environmental Clearance Monitoring-
(i) (a) In respect of Category 'A' projects, it shall be mandatory for the
Project Proponent to make public the environmental clearance
granted for their project along with the environmental conditions and
safeguards at their cost by prominently advertising it at least in two
local newspapers of the district or State where the project is located
and in addition, this shall also be displayed in the Project Proponent's
website permanently.
5
(b) In respect of Category 'B' projects, irrespective of its clearance by
, the shall prominently advertise in
MoEF/SEIAA Project Proponent
the newspapers indicating that the project has been accorded
Environment Clearance and the details of MoEF website where it is
displayed.
(c) The Ministry of Environment and Forest and the State/Union
Territory level Environmental Impact Assessment Authorities
(SEIAAs), as the case may be shall also place the environmental
clearance in the public domain on Government portal.
(d) The copies of the environmental clearance shall be submitted by
the Project Proponents to the Heads of local bodies, Panchayats, and
Municipal Bodies in addition to the relevant offices of the Government
who in turn has to display the same for 30 days from the date of
receipt.”
8. The EC granted by MoEF&CC or, as the case may be, the SEIAA
invariably requires the Centre or the State Pollution Control Boards, being
the statutory regulators, to ensure compliance of the conditions imposed
on the project proponent as a pre-condition for grant of EC. Thus, the
cumulative mandate flowing out of the Environment Protection Act and the
Rules and Regulations made thereunder, including the EIA Notification
2006, require the MoEF&CC, the project proponent and the Pollution
Control Boards to communicate, to make public, advertise, place in public
domain either through the Governmental Portal or to display in their office
the information about the grant of EC.
9. In view of the concurrent obligations of MoEF&CC the project
proponent and the Pollution Control Boards to communicate grant of the
EC, the question that arises for consideration, is to identify the day when
the ‘ communication’ of the EC is complete on the ‘person aggrieved’ for
commencement of period of limitation for filing appeal under Section 16(h)
6
of the Act. When the duty to communicate is the obligation of more than
one authority or individual, it is natural or inevitable that the dates by which
they comply with their respective obligations do not synchronise. The
dates by which MoEF&CC could upload its decision on its website, project
proponent advertise the EC in the two local newspapers and the dates by
which Pollution Control Board would display the EC on its notice board
may not be the same.
10. When obligation to communicate the decision vests in multiple
authorities, it is appropriate to infer that the communication is complete
when the ‘person aggrieved’ receives information from the earliest of the
communication. Following the principle of first accrual , which postulates
that when a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of
limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to suit first accrues.
3
In Khatri Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Union of India , this Court held; “… if a suit is
based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to
run from the date when the right to sue first accrues . To put it differently,
successive violation of the right will not give rise to fresh cause and the
suit will be liable to be dismissed if it is beyond the period of limitation
counted from the day when the right to sue first accrued .”
3
(2011) 9 SCC126 also followed in Rajeev Gupta v. Prashant Garg (2025 SCC OnLine SC 889).
7
11. It is of course a condition precedent that the communication must
be clear and complete and if this condition is satisfied, it is logical to
conclude that the person aggrieved cannot pick and choose later
communications from other duty bearers for reckoning the period of
limitation. It is the first accrual that would trigger the period of limitation
prescribed under Section 16(h) of the Act.
4
12. In Save Mon Region Federation & Anr. vs. Union of India , decided
way back in 2013, the Tribunal recounted the concurrent obligations of
MoEF&CC, the project proponent and others to communicate the grant of
EC to any person aggrieved and hold that where different stake holders
are to communicate the order, the earliest date on which the
communication is carried out, shall be the date for reckoning limitation;
“10. The date on which the order of Environmental Clearance is
communicated to the public at large, shall be the date from which
the period of limitation shall reckon, as contemplated under Section
16 of the Act. Communicating the order, in other words, shall mean
putting the order in the public domain in its complete form and as
per the mode required under the provision of the NGT Act of the
Regulation 2006. The limitation shall start running and shall be
computed as referred to in Para 19 of the judgment. Where different
acts by different stakeholders are complied with at different dates,
the earliest date on which complete communication is carried out,
shall be the date for reckoning of limitation.”
4
2013(1) All India NGT Reporter 1.
8
13. This decision is again reiterated in the subsequent decision of
5
Medha Patkar & Ors. v. Ministry of Environment & Forests, UOI and Ors.
“ 12. From the above dictum, it is clear that a communication would
mean putting it in public domain and completing the acts as are
contemplated in the EIA Notification of 2006, read with conditions
of the EC and the provisions of the Act. In terms of the scheme of
the notification and law, there are three stakeholders in the process
of grant of environmental clearance:
(a) Project Proponent
(b) Ministry of Environment and Forests and
(c) Other agencies which are required to fulfil their obligations to
make the communication complete in terms of the provisions of the
Act and the notification concerned.
…
15. …Complete performance of its obligations imposed on it by the
order of environmental clearance would constitute a communication
to an aggrieved person under the Act. In other words, if one set of
the above events is completed by any of the stakeholders, the
limitation period shall trigger. If they happen on different times and
after interval, the one earliest in point of time shall reckon the period
of limitation. Communication shall be complete in law upon
fulfilment of complete set of obligations by any of the stakeholders.
Once the period of limitation is prescribed under the provisions of
the Act, then it has to be enforced with all its rigour. Commencement
of limitation and its reckoning cannot be frustrated by
communication to any one of the stakeholders. Such an approach
would be opposed to the basic principle of limitation.
The Tribunal must adopt a pragmatic and practical approach
16.
that would also be in consonance with the provisions of the Act
providing limitation. Firstly, the limitation would never begin to run
and no act would determine when such limitation would stop
running as any one of the stakeholders may not satisfy or comply
with all its obligations prescribed under the Act. To conclude that it
is only when all the stakeholders had completed in entirety their
respective obligations under the respective provisions, read with the
notification of 2006, then alone the period of limitation shall begin to
run, would be an interpretation which will frustrate the very object of
the Act and would also cause serious prejudice to all concerned.
Firstly, this completely frustrates the purpose of prescription of
limitation. Secondly, a project proponent who has obtained
environmental clearance and thereafter spent crores of rupees on
establishment and operation of the project, would be exposed to
uncertainty, danger of unnecessary litigation and even the
possibility of jeopardizing the interest of his project after years have
5
2013 SCC Online NGT 63.
9
lapsed. This cannot be the intent of law. The framers of law have
enacted the provisions of limitation with a clear intention of
specifying the period within which an aggrieved person can invoke
the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It is a settled rule of law that once
the law provides for limitation, then it must operate meaningfully and
with its rigour. Equally true is that once the period of limitation starts
running, then it does not stop...”
14. In view of the interpretation that we have given in Section 16(h),
coupled with the consistent rulings of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion
that the period of limitation will commence from the earliest of the date on
which the communication is carried out by any of the duty bearers.
Application of the law to the facts of the present case:
15. We will now examine the law as declared hereinabove to the facts
of the present case to ascertain the compliance of these statutory
requirements by the MoEF&CC (Respondent No.1), the Project
Proponent (Respondent No.4), and the State Pollution Control Board
(SPCB). This examination is necessary to determine the specific date
from which the period of limitation commenced. The status of compliance
with respect to the communication of the EC is summarized in the table
below, as also reproduced in the order impugned before us.
| SN | Entity | Responsibility | Compliance | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. | MOEFCC | |||
| As per EIA<br>Notification<br>2006<br>Clause 10 | Place the<br>environmental<br>clearance in the public<br>domain on<br>Government portal | EC letter signed on 5<br>Jan 2017, scanned on 5<br>Jan 2017 at 6:56:21<br>pm, and NIC confirmed<br>that the same was<br>uploaded on 5 Jan<br>2017 at xxx | Fully<br>Complied<br>on 5-1-<br>2017 |
10
| As per<br>NGT Order<br>in Save<br>Mon Case | MoEF shall put the<br>complete order of<br>Environmental<br>Clearance on its<br>website and the same<br>can be downloaded<br>without any hindrance<br>or impediments within<br>seven days of such<br>order, which would<br>remain uploaded for at<br>least 90 days. | EC letter is available till<br>date at<br>http://environmentcle<br>arance.nic.in/onlinese<br>archnewrk.aspx?autoi<br>d=5017&proposal_no=I<br>A/GJ/MIN/34113/20<br>15&typep=EC | Fully<br>Complied<br>on 5-1-<br>2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MoEF shall put it on its<br>notice board of the<br>Principal as well as the<br>Regional Office for a<br>period of at least 30<br>days. It should be<br>accessible to the<br>public at large without<br>impediments | No proof submitted that<br>EC was put on notice<br>board. | Not<br>Complied. | ||
| B. | Project<br>Proponent | |||
| As per EIA<br>Notification<br>2006<br>Clause 10 | To make public the<br>environmental<br>clearance granted for<br>their project along with<br>the environmental<br>conditions and<br>safeguards at their<br>cost by prominently<br>advertising it at least in<br>two local newspapers<br>of the district | Advertisement<br>intimating receipt of EC<br>letter published but the<br>advertisements does<br>not include<br>environmental<br>conditions and<br>safeguards. | Not<br>Complied. | |
| Display in the project<br>proponent’s website<br>permanently | No proof submitted that<br>EC was put on<br>website. | Not<br>Complied. | ||
| Submit to the Heads<br>of local bodies,<br>Panchayats and<br>Municipal Bodies in<br>addition to the<br>relevant offices of the<br>Government | Complied and proof<br>submitted of receipt of<br>the same on 9 Jan<br>2017. | Fully<br>complied<br>on<br>11.1.2017 | ||
| As per<br>NGT Order<br>in Save<br>Mon Case | Project Proponent<br>uploads the<br>Environmental<br>Clearance order with<br>its environmental<br>conditions upon its | No proof submitted that<br>EC was put on website. | Not<br>Complied. |
11
| website as well as<br>publishes the same in<br>the newspapers | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project Proponent<br>publishes<br>Environmental<br>Clearance order with<br>its environmental<br>conditions and<br>safeguards in 2<br>newspapers. | Advertisement<br>intimating receipt of EC<br>letter published but the<br>advertisements does<br>not include<br>environmental<br>conditions and<br>safeguards. | Not<br>Complied. | ||
| The project proponent<br>also has to submit a<br>copy of the EC to the<br>heads of the local<br>authorities,<br>panchayats and local<br>bodies of the district | Complied and proof<br>submitted | Fully<br>complied<br>on<br>11.1.2017 | ||
| As per EC<br>Letter | A copy of clearance<br>letter will be marked to<br>concerned Panchayat | Complied and proof<br>submitted of receipt of<br>the same on 9 Jan<br>2017. | Fully<br>complied<br>on<br>11.1.2017 | |
| The project authorities<br>should advertise at<br>least in two local<br>newspapers widely<br>circulated, one of<br>which shall be in the<br>vernacular language of<br>the locality concerned,<br>within 7 days of the<br>issue of the clearance<br>letter informing that the<br>project has been<br>accorded<br>environmental<br>clearance and a copy<br>of the clearance letter<br>is available with the<br>State Pollution Control<br>Board and also at web<br>site of the Ministry of<br>Environment, Forest<br>and Climate Change at<br>www.environmentclear<br>ance.nic.in and a copy<br>of the same should be<br>forwarded to the<br>Regional Office. | Advertised in 2<br>newspapers on 11 Jan<br>2017 that the project<br>has been accorded<br>environmental<br>clearance and a copy of<br>the clearance letter is<br>available with the State<br>Pollution Control Board<br>and also at web site of<br>the Ministry of<br>Environment, Forest<br>and Climate Change at<br>www.environmentclear<br>ance.nic.in. | Fully<br>Complied<br>on<br>9.1.2017 | ||
| C. | SPCB |
12
| As per EIA<br>Notification<br>2006<br>Clause 10 | Nil | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| As per<br>NGT Order<br>in Save<br>Mon Case | Government agencies<br>are expected to<br>display the order of<br>environmental<br>clearance for a period<br>of 30 days on its<br>website or publish on<br>notice board, as the<br>case may be. | No proof submitted by<br>SPCB. | Not<br>Complied | |
| As per EC<br>Letter | State Pollution Control<br>Board should display a<br>copy of the clearance<br>letter at the Regional<br>office, District Industry<br>Centre and Collector's<br>office/ Tehsildar's<br>Office for 30 days | No proof submitted by<br>SPCB. | Not<br>Complied | |
| D. | Village<br>Panchayat | |||
| As per EIA<br>Notification<br>2006<br>Clause 10 | Display the EC for 30<br>days from the date of<br>receipt. | No proof submitted by<br>SPCB. | Not<br>Complied | |
| As per<br>NGT Order<br>in Save<br>Mon Case | Local bodies are<br>expected to display the<br>order of environmental<br>clearance for a period<br>of 30 days on its<br>website or publish on<br>notice board, as the<br>case may be. | No proof submitted by<br>SPCB. | Not<br>Complied |
16. It is evident from the table extracted hereinabove that the EC
granted on 05.01.2017 was uploaded on the website of the MoEF&CC on
the very same day. It is also clear that the Project Proponent has taken
steps for compliance, such as submitting the EC to the concerned
Panchayats, which was acknowledged on 09.01.2017. Further, by also
13
advertising the grant of the EC in two local newspapers on 11.01.2017 the
duty to communicate is completed.
17. NGT returned a definitive factual finding that the EC dated
05.01.2017 was uploaded on the MoEF&CC website on 05.01.2017 and
found that there is " enough proof thereof on record ". This finding implies
that the EC was placed in public domain and was accessible and
downloadable. The NGT specifically rejected the appellant's contention
that they came to know about the EC only through an RTI application on
14.02.2017, terming it a "pretext to bring the said appeal within the period
of limitation".
18. Given the NGT's finding that the EC was uploaded and made
publicly accessible on 05.01.2017, 30 days limitation period will
commence from that date. If so, the maximum period of 90 days expired
by the time the appellant filed its appeal on 19.04.2017. There is no error
in the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal, it has rightly dismissed the appeal
on the ground of limitation.
19. It is also argued by the appellant that the project proponent has
failed to publish the entirety of the EC in the two newspapers as mandated
by Clause 10 of the EIA Notification. This argument is based on the
premise that if there is a failure to publish the entirety of the EC in the
newspapers, the project proponent would have failed in its duty 'to
14
communicate'. In our opinion, interpreting Clause 10 of the EIA
Notification in this manner would be pedantic, rather than subserving the
purpose and object of the statutory requirement of communicating and
publishing the grant of EC.
20. It will be sufficient compliance, if the project proponent publishes the
grant of the EC, and indicates therein the substance of the conditions and
safeguards. While it is the project proponent’s responsibility to publish
grant of EC in its favour, it is no part of the legal requirement that the
entirety of the environmental clearance is published in the newspaper. In
Save Mon (Supra), the Tribunal held that the project proponent must
publish the “factum” of EC along with the conditions at its own expense.
A detailed discussion of this issue is also found in a subsequent decision
6
in V. Sundar Proprietor Chemicals, India v. Union of India & Ors. , which
is relevant for this context. We are in agreement with the principle that;
“34. … In the instant case, the respondents have placed 2 publications
made one in English and another in Tamil as early as in 5/2015 which
clearly indicate that it was publicly notified through the said publications
that the project in question has been granted the EC. It was also further
stated in the publications that the EC is available with the TNPCB and
can also be seen in the website of SEIAA, Tamil Nadu in the link at
http://www.seiaa.tn.gov.in. Thus there were clear notices to the public
at large to the effect that the EC was granted to the project in question
an d complete and comprehensive information was available on the
website of the TNPCB. The comments made by the counsel that the
advertisement made in both the newspapers did not even contain the
particulars and conditions attached to the EC in question cannot be
countenanced. The size of the advertisement is immaterial but what it
conveys is material. The judgment of the Principal Bench of NGT made
in Save Mon Region Federation and Lobsang Choedar v. Union of
6
2015 SCC Online NGT 145.
15
India, Manu/GT/0029/2013 lends full support to the case of respondents
that if done as above then it has to be taken as a complete
communication. The period of limitation has to be reckoned from
05.09.2014, i.e., date of publications made as contended by the learned
th th
counsel for the 10 and 11 respondents.”
21. In the order impugned before us, the Tribunal has considered all
the arguments in detail and has come to the correct conclusion that there
is complete and effective communication of the order granting
environmental clearance.
22. For the reasons stated above, Civil Appeal No. 731 of 2023 against
the judgment and order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the National Green
Tribunal, Western Zone Bench, Pune in MA No. 262 of 2017 (WZ) in
Appeal No. 36 of 2017(WZ) is hereby dismissed.
23. Parties shall bear their own costs.
………………………………....J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
………………………………....J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 19, 2025
16