In 2020, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) dismissed a complete of twenty-two appeals, principally by native residents towards inexperienced clearances issued to twenty initiatives. As many as 11, half of those dismissals, an evaluation by The Indian Express of the orders exhibits, had been on the technical floor that appellants didn’t strategy the Tribunal in time.
Under the NGT Act, 2010, a clearance could be challenged by an affected social gathering inside 30 days whereas the Tribunal has the authority to condone one other 60 days’ delay given “sufficient cause”. This time restrict applies from the day of communication as each regulators and builders are legally required to position each undertaking clearance within the public area.
The NGT’s transfer raises questions of due course of for 2 key causes:
One, of the 11 dismissals due to delay, as many as 5 had been filed inside 44 to 90 days, properly throughout the outer restrict.
ExplainedRaises query of due course ofTribunal can’t wait indefinitely however six of the 11 appeals had been filed between 44-90 days, underneath the outer time restrict. Most had been by residents in rural areas who stated they wanted time for paperwork. The quantity for 2020 was highest share in 4 years.
One was filed on Day 91 and one other 4 had been filed inside two months past the 90-day restrict.
Ironically, the NGT itself, in its orders, acknowledged that the “provision relating to condonation of delay should be construed liberally and ought not to be approached in a pedantic manner.” It additionally added that “no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard and the basic guiding factor is advancement of substantial justice.”
At the identical time, although, the tribunal’s dismissal orders held the appellants “lethargic” or “careless” and their grounds for searching for condonation of delay “sketchy and superficial” or “vague and nebulous”.
The tribunal additionally disregarded pleas that sure stakeholders, similar to agriculturists, may lack the wherewithal to observe routinely varied authorities portals for info on such clearances.
Two, the variety of appeals dismissed final 12 months on the bottom of delays is the best ever as a share of all appeals, 40 per cent — nearly twice the share between 2017 and 2019.
The 11 appeals dismissed embody these associated to clearances given to sand mining in Ganga (Uttarakhand); Bhogapuram greenfield airport (Andhra Pradesh); a thermal energy plant (Telangana); and coal and limestone mines (Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, and Gujarat).
Significantly, in November, the SC issued notices in a minimum of two appeals that had been dismissed due to delay: the Penganga coal mine in Maharashtra’s Chandrapur district and the airport in Andhra Pradesh.
“Projects cannot be implemented if their clearances are open to scrutiny indefinitely. But concerns of the project-affected must also be addressed. Over the years, the tribunal has been sensitive to both aspects. There should be no deviation from that approach because the law seeks a balance,” stated a former knowledgeable member of the tribunal.
“The tribunal’s test of independence and expertise is in its function as the appellate authority. It is surprising if the NGT shies away from hearing appeals on merit even when they are filed within 90 days. Not even 1% of projects are appealed against and the appellants, often project-affected people from the hinterlands, deserve to be heard within the limits of reasonability,” stated Ritwick Dutta, environmental lawyer and founding father of Delhi-based Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment.
Consider the appeals dismissed in 2020 with purpose for delay and the NGT’s response:
Expansion of Kusmunda opencast coal mine in Chhattisgarh’s KorbaAppeal filed: Day 90Appellant’s plea: Came to know of the environmental clearance (EC) “at a very belated stage and there was delay in consulting the advocate.”NGT: “The grounds and explanations submitted totally sketchy and superficial…for condonation of delay, day to day explanation is required to be submitted by the appellant.”
Expansion of Penganga opencast coal mine in Maharashtra’s ChandrapurAppeal filed: Day 90Appellant’s plea: Delay in acquiring a replica of the EC, journey to Delhi, lawyer delayNGT: “…the grounds vague and nebulous… reflects the lethargic manner (of) the Appellant.”
Expansion of limestone mining in Gujarat’s Gir-Somnath district.Appeal filed: Day 87Appellant’s plea: Delay due to voluminous paperwork, journey from Gujarat to Pune; attorneys searching for technical assist from consultants.NGT: “…the Appellant had been lethargic in his efforts to file the Appeal.”
Stone quarries in KeralaAppeal filed: Day 55Appellant’s plea: Came to find out about EC on its receipt underneath RTI.NGT dominated: “…no satisfactory reason stated.”
Municipal Solid Waste Management Facility in Bangalore Rural districtAppeal filed: Day 44Appellant’s plea: Had to acquire paperwork underneath RTI Act earlier than searching for knowledgeable opinion.NGT dominated: “Very difficult to believe” that he got here to know in regards to the EC from the RTI reply which “has been stated only for the purpose of saving the limitation and nothing more.”
Greenfield airport at Bhogapuram, Andhra PradeshAppeal filed: Day 91Appellant’s plea: Filed inside 90 days technically because the EC was printed within the native newspapers after per week’s delay.NGT dominated: The EC was uploaded on the ministry’s web site the day it was granted. “The Tribunal has no power to condone the delay” past 90 days.
Sandmining in Ganga in Uttarakhand’s HaridwarAppeal filed: Day 142Appellant’s plea: Filed two appeals towards authentic EC…invoked Section 14 of the Limitation Act which holds that the time spent in one other civil continuing towards the identical social gathering for a similar aid be excluded in computing time bar.NGT dominated: “Appellant… has not been able to satisfy the Tribunal that he was prevented by sufficient cause…”
4×270 MW thermal energy plant in Telengana’s Bhadradri districtAppeal filed: Day 138Appellant’s plea: Tribunal closed for summer season trip by the point the appellant collected paperwork… enchantment filed on reopening day, returned twice for defects.NGT dominated: “The reasons are not sufficient.”
Ashti Lift Irrigation Scheme III in Maharashtra’s Beed districtAppeal filed: Day 129Appellant’s plea: Limitation ought to be interpreted to entertain utility, to not reject it.NGT dominated: “Legislative command must take precedence over equitable principle…”
Sand mining in Umaria district, Madhya PradeshAppeal filed: Day 145Appellant’s plea: Investigated and obtained paperwork underneath RTI ActNGT dominated: “We are not satisfied with the explanation.”
The different dismissed enchantment towards an Organic Waste Management Plant in Maharashtra’s Pune district was late by nearly 4 years.
In 2010, the NGT had changed the National Environmental Appellate Authority (NEAA) which got here underneath extreme criticism for failing to fulfil its objective. The Delhi High Court had noticed in a 2009 order: “…most of the appeals disposed of thus far (by NEAA) have in fact been dismissed, comprised as it is of retired bureaucrats…The NEAA is, therefore, at present neither an effective nor an independent mechanism for redressing the grievances of the public.”
