2021 (3) TMI 1465 - SC - Indian Laws

Environmental clearance for construction of the Greenfield International Airport, Bhogapuram, Vishakapatnam - Interpretation of the Communication Requirement under Section 16 of the NGT Act - Applicability of the General Clauses Act regarding computation of time for filing appeals - Approach of the court in considering the application for condonation of delay - sufficient cause in terms of Section 16 of the NGT Act. Interpretation of the communication requirement under Section 16 of the NGT Act - HELD THAT - Environmental disputes relating to forests, biodiversity, air and water are complicated in nature; resolving and expeditiously disposing of these cases is not possible without a separate special court. Environmental courts or tribunals have been a long-standing demand for other reasons too. For effective prevention and control of environmental protection, there was an urgent need for a separate environmental court or tribunal to adjudicate without much delay. India is a party to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (known as the Stockholm Conference), 1972 where it made commitments relating to safeguarding of natural resources and developing international law, and to provide compensation to victims of pollution and other environmental degradation. India is also a signatory to the Rio Declaration adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development at Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The Rio Declaration states that participating states must make suitable environmental legislation regarding effective access to the people, to judicial and administrative proceedings, including remedies. The court noted that to be a member of the NGT, the individual had to possess specified academic qualifications, including a master s degree in science with a doctorate in engineering or technology, with prescribed experience in certain domains. To be an administrative member, the individual should possess fifteen years administrative experience including experience of five years in dealing with environmental matters in the Central or State Government or in a reputed national or state level institution. The court proceeded to hold in HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR FEDERATION OF RAINBOW WARRIORS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2019 (3) TMI 2072 - SUPREME COURT , that the grant of environmental clearance to a greenfield airport in Goa did not receive proper merits review by the NGT. Given the nature of jurisdiction which the NGT has been invested with, the substantial questions of law that arise in the present case, are whether the approach to the issue of limitation by the NGT was correct, and whether on a correct interpretation of law, the appeal under Section 16 was filed within the 90 days period, in the facts of this case. Applicability of General Clauses Act - HELD THAT - Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 stipulates that when the last date for doing something falls on a public holiday, the act shall be considered as done. if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open . This provision applies to all Central Acts enacted after the said Act was brought into force - It is also noticeable that there is no indication in the NGT Act that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act cannot be applied. It is therefore, held that the provision applies proprio vigore to all appeals filed under the NGT Act. Approach of the court in considering the application for condonation of delay - sufficient cause in terms of Section 16 of the NGT Act - HELD THAT - While it is unexceptionable for the Project Applicant to argue that the Limitation Act is per se inapplicable to proceedings under the NGT Act, given that the basic, and outer period of limitation for filing an appeal have been enacted, nevertheless, what constitutes sufficient cause, is left to the discretion of the tribunal. Here, the court discerns a surfeit of authority on what the term denotes, and the general approach of the court, in dealing with delay. It is relevant to consider whether the NGT s refusal to exercise discretion, in the facts and circumstances of this case, was erroneous. The court is conscious of the fact that exercise of discretion, per se, is a fact dependent one, and considerable latitude should be given to the court or tribunal of the first instance, in the performance of that task. Nevertheless, as decided, cases and judgments have shown that the exercise of discretion does at times, call for appellate scrutiny by this court - this court is of the opinion that given the mandate of the NGT Act, the exercise of discretion, as was done in this case, to reject the appeal by dismissing the application for condonation of delay, on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown, was erroneous and based on a narrow reading of the law. An appeal to the NGT in such matters is no ordinary matter; it has the potential of irrevocably changing the environment with the possibility of likely injury. Application of judicial mind by an independent tribunal in such cases, at the first appellate stage, is almost a necessity. This court is of the opinion that the impugned order of NGT has to be and is, therefore set aside. The delay in filing the appeal before the NGT is hereby condoned; the parties shall now appear and proceed to argue the appeal on its merit, which shall then be disposed in accordance with law - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Interpretation of the communication requirement under Section 16 of the NGT Act.
2. Applicability of the General Clauses Act regarding computation of time for filing appeals.
3. Whether the NGT correctly exercised discretion in denying condonation of delay.
4. The role of expert advice in preparing appeals concerning environmental clearances.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the Communication Requirement under Section 16 of the NGT Act:

The appellant challenged the interpretation of "communication" under Section 16 of the NGT Act, arguing that communication should not be limited to publication on the Central Government's website but should include dissemination to affected parties. The appellant emphasized that environmental clearance conditions required the Project Applicant to publish the decision in local vernacular dailies and communicate it to local communities through Panchayats. The appellant argued that the purpose of these conditions is to ensure that affected parties are adequately informed, thereby enabling them to exercise their right to appeal effectively.

2. Applicability of the General Clauses Act Regarding Computation of Time for Filing Appeals:

The appellant contended that the appeal was filed within the permissible time frame, as the last day of the 90-day period fell on a Sunday. Citing Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, the appellant argued that the appeal should be considered timely if filed on the next working day. The court agreed, stating that Section 10 applies to all Central Acts, including the NGT Act, and confirmed that the appeal was filed within the extended period prescribed.

3. Whether the NGT Correctly Exercised Discretion in Denying Condonation of Delay:

The appellant sought condonation of delay, citing the voluminous nature of the documents and the need for expert advice. The NGT denied this request, stating that no sufficient cause was shown. The Supreme Court, however, held that the NGT's refusal to condone the delay was erroneous. It emphasized that "sufficient cause" should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice, especially in environmental matters where technical expertise is crucial. The court noted that the appellant's need for expert advice and the complexity of the documentation provided a reasonable explanation for the delay.

4. The Role of Expert Advice in Preparing Appeals Concerning Environmental Clearances:

The court recognized the necessity of expert advice in environmental cases, given the technical and complex nature of such disputes. It acknowledged that individuals challenging environmental clearances require scientific and legal expertise to prepare and substantiate their appeals. The court found merit in the appellant's argument that obtaining such advice justified the delay in filing the appeal, and it underscored the importance of ensuring that affected parties have meaningful access to justice.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the NGT's order, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and directed the parties to argue the appeal on its merits before the NGT. The judgment underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that procedural technicalities do not hinder access to justice, particularly in environmental matters where the stakes are high and the issues complex.