Limitation for NGT Appeal Starts from Earliest Communication of Environmental Clearance, Says Supreme Court
A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal by the Talli Gram Panchayat challenging the National Green Tribunal’s dismissal of its appeal as time‑barred under Section 16(h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, against the grant of environmental clearance for limestone mining.
The Court held that the date on which an environmental clearance (EC) is “communicated” to “any person aggrieved” for the purpose of Section 16(h) is the earliest date on which any of the duty bearers—the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), the project proponent, or the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB)—effected the communication. The Bench observed that the communication contemplated by Section 16(h) is in rem and serves a public purpose, and that limitation runs from the first accrual of the right to appeal. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court affirmed the Tribunal’s factual finding that the EC dated 05.01.2017 was uploaded on the MoEF&CC website on that date and that the appeal, filed on 19.04.2017, exceeded the maximum condonable period of 90 days; it dismissed the appeal.
Background
The respondent project proponent obtained EC on 05.01.2017 for limestone mining over 193.3269 hectares in Gujarat. The Talli Gram Panchayat filed an appeal under Section 16(h) before the NGT and a miscellaneous application for condonation of delay, contending that it came to know of the EC only upon receiving an RTI reply dated 14.02.2017 and that limitation should therefore commence from that date or from the last of the communications by duty bearers. The NGT initially dismissed the appeal for default and later refused restoration; this Court restored the matter by order dated 11.07.2022 and remanded it to the Tribunal to decide on the merits including limitation.
The Bench analysed Section 16(h) and Clause 10 of the EIA Notification, 2006, which imposed concurrent obligations on the MoEF&CC (or SEIAA), the project proponent and the SPCB to place the EC in the public domain, advertise it in local newspapers and submit copies to local bodies. The Court emphasised that “communication contemplated under Section 16(h) is to sub‑serve a public purpose of enforcing any legal right relating to environment” and that the expression “any person aggrieved” warranted a liberal construction. The Court relied on earlier NGT decisions in Save Mon Region Federation and Medha Patkar, and the principle in Khatri Hotels, to conclude that when multiple stakeholders are obliged to communicate, the earliest complete communication triggers the limitation period.
On facts, the NGT found on record that the MoEF&CC uploaded the EC on 05.01.2017, the project proponent submitted copies to local authorities (acknowledged 09.01.2017) and advertised in two local newspapers on 11.01.2017. The Tribunal rejected the Gram Panchayat’s RTI‑based date as a “pretext to bring the said appeal within the period of limitation.” The Supreme Court held that publication need not reproduce the entirety of the EC but must indicate the fact of grant and the substance of conditions; literal non‑publication of every clause did not vitiate the communication. Consequently, the appeal was time‑barred, the Tribunal’s order was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 731 of 2023 Case Title: Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Senior Counsel; Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Senior Counsel