- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Goa Foundation (I) v. Union Of India .
Factual and Procedural Background
The Court considered an affidavit dated 7-12-2004 filed by Mr G.V. Subrahmanyam, Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests, annexing a list of industry-sector projects granted ex post facto environmental clearance up to 14-5-2004. The list stated that 95 industry projects had received such clearance. The Court also noted that a notification dated 27-1-1994 prohibits construction work for projects covered by the notification until environmental clearance is obtained, and that the last extension for seeking environmental impact clearance was under a circular dated 14-5-2002 requiring applications by 31-3-2003. The Court recorded that this circular had been commented upon in an earlier decision. During the hearing, counsel drew the Court’s attention to a Parliamentary answer indicating a larger number of proposals for ex post facto clearance and the continued operation of many units without prior clearance. The Court then issued directions for further information by affidavit and adjourned the matter.
Legal Issues Presented
The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| M.C Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118, JT (2004) 4 SC 181 Ed. | The Court’s prior comments on the Ministry of Environment and Forests circular dated 14-5-2002 extending time to seek environmental impact clearance (applications to be filed by 31-3-2003). | The Court referenced this precedent to note that the 14-5-2002 circular had already been examined/commented upon by the Court in earlier proceedings. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court juxtaposed the Ministry’s affidavit (indicating 95 industry projects granted ex post facto clearance up to 14-5-2004) with information drawn from a Parliamentary answer stating that, by 31-3-2003, the Government had received 465 proposals for ex post facto clearance (249 industry and 216 mining). The Court reasoned that even after accounting for the 95 industry projects mentioned in the affidavit, a substantial number of industry projects would still remain potentially operating without clearance, in addition to the mining-sector proposals. Given the notification dated 27-1-1994 prohibiting construction prior to clearance, and the need to ensure compliance with the environmental impact assessment notification “in letter and spirit,” the Court directed the Additional Solicitor General to take instructions and file an affidavit detailing: (i) units operating in violation of the 27-1-1994 notification, (ii) steps taken regarding remaining proposals, and (iii) other relevant compliance facts.
Holding and Implications
DIRECTION ISSUED AND MATTER ADJOURNED: The Court directed the Additional Solicitor General to file an affidavit within four weeks addressing units operating in violation of the notification dated 27-1-1994, steps taken regarding remaining proposals for ex post facto clearance, and other relevant facts regarding compliance with the environmental impact assessment notification.
The direct effect was to require the Union/concerned authorities to place further compliance information on record within a fixed timeline; the proceeding was not finally disposed of. The order does not indicate any broader implications or the laying down of new precedent.
Order
1. We have perused the affidavit filed by Mr G.V Subrahmanyam, Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests, dated 7-12-2004, along with which list of projects in the industry sector which have been accorded ex post facto environmental clearance up to 14-5-2004 has been annexed. As per the said list, 95 projects in the industry sector have been accorded ex post facto environmental clearance. The notification dated 27-1-1994, inter alia, prohibits construction work, preliminary or otherwise, relating to setting up of the project till environmental clearance is obtained. The nature of the projects to which the said notification applies has been indicated in the notification itself. The last extension granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to seek environment impact clearance was in terms of the circular dated 14-5-2002 whereunder the application had to be filed by 31-3-2003. The said circular has been commented upon by this Court in M.C Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118, JT (2004) 4 SC 181 Ed..
2. Our attention has been drawn by Mr Panjwani, learned counsel, to the answer given in Parliament by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Environment and Forests relating to the units operating without prior environmental clearance. The answer states that the Government had received 465 proposals for ex post facto environmental clearance by 31-3-2003 of which 249 are in the industry sector and 216 in the mining sector. Even if 95 projects in the industry sector, referred to above, are reduced from the aforesaid figure of 249, it will still leave many projects in the industry sector going on without clearance besides 216 projects in the mining sector. A copy of the answer given by the Minister on the floor of the House has been handed over by Mr Panjwani to learned Additional Solicitor General. Let learned Additional Solicitor General take instructions and file an affidavit as to the units operating in violation of the notification dated 27-1-1994, steps taken regarding the remaining proposals and the other relevant facts in regard to the compliance with the environmental impact assessment notification in letter and spirit. This shall be done by filing an affidavit within a period of four weeks.
3. The matter is adjourned.
Court Masters
Alert