Summary
The Court set aside the National Green Tribunal’s dismissal of a challenge to environmental clearance for a major refinery expansion. The Tribunal had relied on the developer’s assurances without independently assessing the alleged impacts on mangroves and marine biology. The existing project’s compliance did not resolve risks from expansion, and appointing an expert committee could not replace the Tribunal’s adjudication. The statutory appeal was restored for fresh disposal, with all merits contentions left open.
Issues
- Whether the NGT could dismiss an environmental-clearance appeal on assurances of compliance without independently deciding the substantive objections.
- Whether appointment of an expert committee discharged the Tribunal’s adjudicatory duty.
Provisions considered
- Section 16(h), National Green Tribunal Act, 2010In exercising appellate jurisdiction over environmental clearance, the NGT had to independently assess the grounds of challenge and decide them itself. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
Held
- The absence of an ongoing environmental grievance against the existing refinery did not determine whether the proposed expansion would adversely affect mangroves and marine biology. Those objections required independent appraisal. (¶¶ 3, 6, 7)
- The project proponent’s assurance that clearance conditions and safeguards would be observed was insufficient to dispose of the substantive statutory appeal without examining its grounds. (¶¶ 3, 4, 7, 8)
- Expert committees could not substitute for the expert Tribunal’s adjudicatory responsibility. The decision had to be the NGT’s own; constituting a committee did not absolve it from deciding the appeal. (¶ 8)
- The impugned order was set aside and the appeal restored to the NGT for fresh disposal. All parties’ rights and contentions on merits remained open. (¶¶ 9, 10)
Result
Appeal allowed; NGT order set aside and environmental-clearance appeal restored for fresh adjudication, with merits left open.