Summary
The Court protected four constructed buildings under environmental clearance obtained from the municipal authority when it was competent to grant it. Later partial invalidation of the governing notification did not justify adverse action against these structures on the facts, where appraisal defects were not alleged and substantial investment and third-party interests had arisen. Legitimate expectation supported stability and fairness in applying the changed regime. Construction of the remaining buildings, however, required fresh clearance under the applicable framework.
Issues
- Whether the four constructed buildings could retain the benefit of clearance granted by the then-competent municipal authority.
- Whether that clearance also authorised future construction after the regulatory change.
Held
- The project proponent had followed the applicable process and obtained clearance from PCMC when its Environmental Cell was the competent authority. The tribunal’s expert committee acknowledged that competence, and no defective appraisal was alleged. The later invalidation and State clarification did not direct adverse action against the pre-existing structures. (¶¶ 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Legitimate expectation required due consideration of predictability and fairness where the proponent acted under the existing regime, invested substantially and created third-party interests. It did not create an unqualified right against more compelling public interest, but supported protection in these circumstances. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- The four constructed buildings were to be treated as covered by valid environmental clearance with all legal consequences. This protection included the fourth building whose superstructure was complete and internal works remained. The Court did not decide the retrospective implications for other projects. (¶¶ 18, 19, 26)
- The remaining buildings could not be constructed on the strength of the November 2017 municipal clearance. Fresh clearance from the competent authority under the currently applicable framework was required for that further construction. (¶¶ 26, 27)
Result
Appeals disposed of without costs. The four constructed buildings were protected under valid environmental clearance; the remaining construction required fresh clearance under the applicable framework.