Summary
The Court restored an NGT application challenging forest clearances and allowed an appeal against a tree-felling permission disclosed only during the Supreme Court proceedings. Original environmental jurisdiction was available on these facts and had not improperly circumvented an appeal. Failure to publish the permission, coupled with an incorrect RTI response, impaired access to remedies. A short tree-felling restraint and special filing protection enabled adjudication without deciding the clearance merits.
Issues
- Whether the NGT wrongly rejected the original application as circumvention of its appellate jurisdiction.
- How nondisclosure of the tree-felling permission affected access to challenge and appropriate interim relief.
Provisions considered
- Section 14, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010Original jurisdiction extended to the substantial environmental questions arising from implementation of the forest legislation on these facts. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- Section 16(e), National Green Tribunal Act, 2010The subsequently disclosed tree-felling permission was amenable to appeal, with the underlying Central clearance open to challenge in that process. (¶¶ 8, 9, 12, 14, 18, 19)
Held
- Under the applicable linear-project circular, in-principle clearance was not an unrestricted authorization to commence non-forest activity. The prescribed conditions, competent State-authority order and public disclosure were required. The order was treated as appealable under the forest and NGT legislation. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 12, 14)
- The DFO’s response stated that no tree-felling order existed although the earlier permission was later produced in Court. That incorrect information and lack of publication undermined transparency, accountability and the ability of affected persons to pursue legal remedies. (¶¶ 5, 11)
- Before the NGT, the tree-felling permission had not been disclosed or placed in the public domain. The Tribunal therefore erred in treating the original application as circumvention of appeal and in relying on Stage-I clearance alone to reject the challenge. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- The NGT had to consider each ground in the appellant’s brief written submissions and give a reasoned merits decision. The Supreme Court expressed no clearance-merits view and granted only temporary protection to enable the appellate challenge. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Result
Appeals allowed; NGT dismissal set aside and original application restored. Liberty granted to appeal the DFO’s 27 August 2021 permission. Further tree felling restrained until 26 November 2021. An appeal filed within one week was to be entertained on merits without limitation rejection and listed the next working day; further interim relief could be sought from the NGT.