1    

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

 Civil Appeal No 12251 of 2018  

Hanuman Laxman Aroskar                                  ...Appellant    

        Versus  

Union of India                                 ...Respondent           

WITH      

Civil Appeal No 1053  of 2019  

Federation of Rainbow Warriors                               ...Appellant    

        Versus  

Union of India and Ors                                               ...Respondents                             

2    

J U D G M E N T         

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J      

Index    A Introduction   

B Submissions   

C Scheme of the 2006 notification and the Guidance manual for Airports  

C.1 EIA process  

C.2 Guidance manual for airports  

 D Forests  

E Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZs)  

F Sampling Points  

F.1 Air Quality  

F.2 Water Quality  

F.3 Noise Quality  

F.4 Flora and Fauna  

F.5 Felling of Trees  

 G  Public Consultation   

H Appraisal by the EAC  

I The appellate jurisdiction of the NGT: the requirement of a merits review  

J Environmental Rule of Law  

K Directions

PART A   

3    

A Introduction  

1 An appeal was filed before the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal1  

at New Delhi challenging the grant of an Environmental Clearance2 for the  

development of a greenfield international airport at Mopa in Goa.  The NGT, by its  

judgment dated 21 August 2018 came to the conclusion that the present case “is not  

a case where the project compromises with the environment”. While affirming the EC,  

the NGT came to the conclusion that “further safeguards for environmental protection  

need to be incorporated”. The NGT, accordingly, proceeded to formulate additional  

conditions, while affirming the grant of the EC.  

 2 Village Mopa is situated in North Goa, in close proximity to the inter-state  

boundary which the state shares with Maharashtra. The site of the proposed airport  

lies at a distance of 35 kilometres from Panaji, the capital of Goa. The village of Mopa  

is situated in Pernem taluka. The site for the development of the airport is situated on  

a tabletop plateau which rises to a height of 150 to 180 meters above mean sea level  

and is surrounded by steep slopes. The soil is predominantly of a laterite character.   

The airport which presently serves the region is situated at Dabolim, Goa.    

 3 Since the airport at Dabolim is saturated in terms of its capacity for annual air  

traffic, the state government initiated a process in 1997 to commission studies and  

project reports for a proposed international airport, which include the following:  

(i) A project report prepared by Engineers and Management Associates, Spain in  

1997;  

(ii) A preliminary technical feasibility study prepared by the Airports Authority of  

India in May 1998;                                                         1 NGT  2 EC

PART A   

4    

(iii)  A final feasibility report for the proposed airport at Goa prepared by the  

International Civil Aviation Organisation, Montreal, Canada in August 2005;  

(iv)  A Goa dual airport study prepared by the International Civil Aviation  

Organisation in August 2007;   

(v) A report of a Six Member Committee chaired by the Chief Minister of Goa in  

2008 to “look into all aspects relating to construction of an international airport  

at Mopa, Goa”; and  

(vi) A document styled as the “Airport Master Plan” dated 10 February 2012,  

submitted to the Public Private Partnership3 cell of the Government of Goa by  

Ammann & Whitney, USA envisaging: “consultancy services for preparation of  

master plan, preliminary project report, tender document and project  

management services for the proposed greenfield airport and  

commercial/industrial and allied development near Mopa in the State of Goa”.  

 4 On 1 May 2000, the Government of India communicated its approval for the  

setting up of an airport at Mopa and for the closure of the existing airport for civilian  

operations on the commissioning of the new airport.  Subsequently, on 1 July 2010,  

the earlier decision was modified to allow for the continuation of civilian aircraft  

operations at Dabolim even after the commissioning of the new airport. The process  

of land acquisition commenced in 2008 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.   

Originally, the land area anticipated for the development of the project was pegged at  

4,500 acres. During the pendency of project appraisals, the area required for the  

proposed airport stood reduced to 2,271 acres.   

                                                      3 PPP

PART A   

5    

5 On 14 September 2006, the Government of India in the Ministry of  

Environment and Forests4 issued a notification5 mandating a prior EC for Category  

‘A’ projects (specified in the Schedule) by the Union Government and for Category ‘B’  

projects at the state level by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment  

Authority6.  Following the 2006 notification, the MoEF placed an EIA Guidance  

Manual for Airports7 in the public domain in February 2010.  The stages of scoping,  

public consultation and appraisal, leading up to the grant of the EC for the proposed  

airport are governed by the express terms of the 2006 notification.   

 6 In March 2011, the State of Goa, as the project proponent submitted Form 1  

as stipulated in the 2006 notification to the MoEF. On 8 March 2011, the State of Goa  

applied for Terms of Reference8 to the MoEF. The ToR were finalized on 11 and 12  

May 2011 by the Expert Appraisal Committee9 constituted under the 2006  

notification.  On 1 June 2011, the MoEF issued the ToR for the preparation of the  

Environmental Impact Assessment10 report. The ToR was valid for a period of two  

years until 31 May 2013.  On 22 November 2012, the Government of Goa revised the  

project boundary by decreasing the project area from 4,500 acres to 2,271 acres. At  

its meetings on 28 and 29 January 2013, the EAC recommended an amendment to  

the ToR as requested by the state government and granted an extension to the  

validity of the ToR until 31 May 2014.  On 19 June 2013, the MoEF communicated its  

approval for the amendment of the ToR and for the extension of its validity.    

                                                      4 MoEF, later renamed as MoEFCC in 2014  5 S.O. 1533 (‘2006 notification’)  6 SEIAA  7 Guidance manual  8 ToR  9 EAC  10 EIA

PART A   

6    

7 On 3 October 2014, the state government floated a tender for the development  

of a greenfield international airport project on a PPP basis. On 20 October 2014, the  

Directorate of Civil Aviation, Government of Goa submitted a draft EIA report to the  

Goa State Pollution Control Board, requesting it to initiate steps to conduct a public  

hearing.  A public hearing was conducted at the project site on 1 February 2015.  The  

EAC, at its meetings held on 9-11 March 2015, recommended an extension of the  

validity of the ToR for another year ending on 31 May 2015.  

 8 On 20 May 2015, the State of Goa submitted a final EIA report to the  

MoEFCC, seeking the grant of an EC for the project.  On 29 May 2015, the MoEFCC  

communicated its approval for extending the validity of the ToR until 31 May 2015.  

Between 24 and 26 June 2015, the EAC, at its 149th meeting, deliberated on the EIA  

report and sought additional information from the project proponent, inter alia, on:   

• “10 years data regarding rainfall in the area;  

• Drawing of traffic circulation plan for smooth  

circulation of Traffic in the area;  

• Minimum 20% energy conservation measures should  

be adopted in incorporating provisions for use of LED,  

star rated AC’s, and a revised energy conservation  

plan to be submitted;  

• Measures taken to comply with the CPCB guidelines  

formulated for noise pollution control in Airport area to  

be submitted.”  

 In the meantime, a representation was submitted by the Federation of Rainbow  

Warriors, one of the appellants before this Court to the EAC.  The EAC, at its 151st  

meeting held on 7-9 September 2015, deliberated upon the representation and  

sought a clarification from the project proponent on the issues raised.  On 28  

September 2015, the project proponent submitted its reply to the representation. The  

EAC, at its 152nd meeting on 20 October 2015, sought a further clarification from the

PART A   

7    

project proponent on the reply submitted by the Federation of Rainbow Warriors. At  

that meeting, the EAC recommended the grant of an EC for the project.    

 9 On 28 October 2015, the MoEFCC, as the regulatory authority under the 2006  

notification for Category ‘A’ projects, communicated its approval for the grant of an  

EC. Following the grant of the EC, the tender process which had been initiated on 3  

October 2014 was concluded on 26 August 2016.  Consequent to the opening of the  

final bids, a technical scrutiny, evaluation coupled with pre-bid meetings,  

deliberations on the draft concession agreement and other required steps, GMR Goa  

International Airport Limited11 was awarded the contract on a revenue sharing of  

36.99 percent to the State of Goa. On 8 November 2016, the concession agreement  

was executed between the Government of Goa and GGIAL for the development and  

operation of the airport with the concession period of 40 years.  Upon financial  

closure, the three-year period for the construction of the airport commenced on 4  

September 2017.  The target date for the commissioning of the first phase of the  

project is 3 September 2020.   

 10 The grant of the EC was challenged before the Western Zonal Bench of the  

NGT12 by the Federation of Rainbow Warriors.  Hanuman Laxman Aroskar also filed  

an appeal13 before the Western Zonal Bench of the NGT. These appeals were  

subsequently renumbered14 before the Principal Bench of the NGT at New Delhi. On  

7 November 2017, the NGT issued an ad-interim order restraining the cutting or  

felling of trees in the area designated as the site of the proposed airport. On 22  

November 2017, the order of restraint was modified on the statement of the Advocate  

                                                      11 GGIAL  12 Appeal No. 61 of 2015  13 Appeal No. 1 of 2016  14 Appeal Nos. 5 and 6 of 2018

PART A   

8    

General of Goa that the state shall not cut or fell any trees, nor allow it to take place  

without valid permission from the lawful authority for a fortnight thereafter in order to  

enable the appellants to pursue their remedies.  On 6 February 2018, the Deputy  

Conservator of Forests granted permission for felling 21,703 trees at the airport site.   

The appellate authority under the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act  

198415 dismissed the appeal on 7 March 2018.   

 11 On 8 March 2018, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at its seat at Goa  

set aside the order of the Deputy Conservator of Forests and remanded the matter to  

be heard by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. On 2 April 2018, the Principal  

Chief Conservator of Forests stipulated several conditions for the cutting and the  

felling of trees at the site of the airport including: (i) enumeration of trees; and (ii) the  

plantation of ten times the number of trees felled. Upon being moved in a Public  

Interest Litigation16, the High Court by its order dated 25 April 2018 allowed the  

exercise of enumeration to be carried out. As a result, 54,676 trees were  

enumerated, including the 1,548 trees which had been felled earlier in terms of the  

order dated 6 February 2018 of the Deputy Conservator of Forests. On 13 January  

2018, the High Court issued final directions in the PIL directing the State of Goa to  

approach the NGT seeking permission for felling and cutting trees. The state was  

directed to carry out the cutting and felling of trees only after prior permission was  

granted by the NGT.    

                                                      15 Act 6 of 1984  16 PIL

PART B   

9    

12 A Miscellaneous Application17 was filed by the State of Goa before the NGT on  

2 July 2018 seeking permission for the felling of trees. By its judgment dated 21  

August 2018, the NGT disposed of both the appeals and the Miscellaneous    

Application filed by the State of Goa, upholding the EC and imposing additional  

conditions to safeguard the environment. This Court has been informed that the  

felling of trees was initiated on 3 September 2018 and completed on 14 January  

2019. Assailing the judgment of the NGT, two appeals have been filed before this  

Court: one by Hanuman Laxman Aroskar18 and the other by the Federation of  

Rainbow Warriors19.   

  13 On 18 January 2019, notice was issued in the appeals and an order of status  

quo was passed by this Court. The appeals were admitted for hearing and final  

disposal.  

B Submissions   

 14 We have heard Ms Anitha Shenoy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  

appellants.  Mr K K Venugopal, learned Attorney General20 for India appeared on  

behalf of the State of Goa. Mr Atmaram S Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor  

General21 of India appeared on behalf of the MoEFCC. Mr Parag P Tripathi, learned  

Senior Counsel and Ms Aastha Mehta, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the  

Concessionaire.  

 15 Ms Anitha Shenoy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants  

urged that the EIA report which is carried out under the terms of the 2006 notification  

                                                      17 MA No. 975 of 2018  18 Civil Appeal No. 12251 of 2018  19 Civil Appeal No. 1053 of 2019  20 AG  21 ASG

PART B   

10    

is a tool to evaluate the environmental consequences of a proposed activity.  The  

proposed international airport, being a Category ‘A’ project, is governed by the  

second, third and fourth stages of scoping, public consultation and appraisal  

respectively envisaged under the 2006 notification. In addition to the 2006  

notification, the Guidance manual furnishes a significant sign post in the procedure  

envisaged prior to the grant of an EC. The project proponent is required to submit  

Form 1 complete with relevant details of the proposed project and the status of the  

environment. The ToR which is finalized by the EAC is founded on the disclosures  

which are made by the project proponent. In this backdrop, the principal submissions  

urged by the appellants before the Court are as follows:  

(i) There were material concealments by the project proponent in failing to  

disclose that as many as 54,676 trees were required to be felled. Form 1,  

which was submitted by the project proponent, was silent in regard to the  

number of trees required to be felled. The final EIA report, while dealing with  

the biological environment in clause 2.1.5 contains the following statement:  

“2.1.5 Biological environment  

Construction phase  

Impacts (Significance-Medium)  

The area acquired for proposed airport has only few trees,  

mainly bushes.  These will be cleared during site  

preparation.”   

Contrary to the above assertion is the statement contained in the counter  

affidavit filed by the State of Goa:  

“..I say that the permissions which have been obtained for  

cutting of 54,676 trees have been granted by the concerned  

authorities in terms of the relevant statutory provisions and  

after laying down various conditions.  I say that the context in  

which it was mentioned as sparse trees has to be seen from  

the huge area of the land.  The land being 2133 acres, it  

would proportionally work out to about 25 trees in an area of 1  

acre, i.e. 4000 sq. metres., which is one tree in an area of  

about 160 sq. metres.”

PART B   

11    

The submission urged by the appellants is that the purpose of the EIA report is  

to form an assessment of the state of environment as it exists in reality.  The  

project proponent is duty bound to make a proper disclosure and the highest  

level of transparency is required. Accompanying Form 1 is a declaration of the  

project proponent that the EC will be liable to be rejected in the event of a  

suppression or mis-statement of material facts. The State of Goa filed a  

Miscellaneous Application before the NGT seeking permission to fell around  

55,000 trees. This is a clear indicator that the original statement by the project  

proponent in Form 1 as well as in clause 2.1.5 of the EIA report that only a few  

trees were required to be felled is factually incorrect;  

 (ii) There was a concealment of Ecologically Sensitive Zones22 in the State of  

Maharashtra. In terms of the Guidance manual, primary data through  

measures and full surveys; and secondary data from secondary sources have  

to be collected.  Primary data includes the study area within 10 kilometres  

radius from the Aerodrome Reference Point23 and covers one season other  

than the monsoon. Secondary data includes data collected within an aerial  

distance of 15 kilometres for the parameters which are specifically mentioned  

in column 9 (III) of Form 1 of the 2006 notification and covers one full year. In  

the present case, while furnishing details of ESZs falling within an aerial  

distance of 15 kilometres, the EIA report stipulates that there were none in the  

State of Maharashtra. The State of Goa has also averred in its counter that  

there are no ESZs within a radius of 15 kilometres from the ARP and that there  

are no reserve forests in that radius. After hearings had begun before the  

                                                      22 ESZ  23 ARP

PART B   

12    

NGT, a letter was addressed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on  

12 February 2018 to the Director of Civil Aviation stating that a list of reserved  

forests had been notified under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 in  

Sawantwadi Forest Division of Sindhudurg district in Maharashtra which was  

obtained from the working plan of Sawantwadi Forest Division (2014-15 to  

2023-24). The letter stated that there was no reserved forest notified under  

Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 in the Sawantwadi Forest Division,  

within a radius of 15 kilometres from the ARP.  On this aspect, it was urged on  

behalf of the appellants that restrictions come into force as soon as a  

notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 is issued. Under the  

Forest Conservation Act 1980, any use of forest land for non-forest purposes  

requires prior permission of the Union Government, as elaborated in the  

judgment of this Court in TN Godavarman Thirumalpad v Union of India24  

(“Godavarman”).  The purpose of elucidating forest areas which fall within an  

aerial distance of 15 kilometres from the project site is to enable an  

assessment to be made of the impact of the project on forested areas. Failure  

to mention forests in the State of Maharashtra was a significant omission in the  

EIA report;  

 (iii)  Form 1 requires a disclosure of the details of ESZs within an aerial distance of  

15 kilometres of the project boundary. The EIA report rests content in stating  

that Pernem taluka is not included in an ESZ by the High Level Working  

Group25 constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr K Kasturirangan, Member  

(Science), Planning Commission26. The project proponent, in response to the  

                                                      24 (1997) 2 SCC 267  25 HLWG  26 Kasturirangan report

PART B   

13    

disclosures required for areas which are important or sensitive for ecological  

reasons – wet lands, water sources or other water bodies, costal zone,  

biospheres, mountains and forests, left the required details blank.  In this  

context, it was urged by the appellants that the purpose of the EIA report was  

not only to make an assessment of the project site but also of an area  

surrounding the project site within an aerial distance of 15 kilometres. The  

HLWG recognized that there were ESZs. In the present case, several villages  

are situated at a bare distance of 1.5 kilometres from the project site in  

Maharashtra.  Yet, there was no disclosure of this fact and the EIA report  

merely recorded that Pernem taluka is not included in an ESZ;   

 (iv) The State of Maharashtra comprises nearly 40 per cent of the study area. Yet,  

there was no sampling of soil, air and water in Maharashtra. Sampling was  

carried out in 2011 and 2014-15 in Goa but no sampling site is situated in  

Maharashtra.  In the absence of baseline data generated with regard to  

environmental parameters in the State of Maharashtra surrounding the project  

site, the EIA report suffers from a gross deficiency; and  

  (v) The EIA report is grossly deficient in failing to notice wildlife in the surrounding  

forests.  On the contrary, the appellants have relied on a rapid survey  

conducted to assess the presence of various mammals in the study area.   

Moreover, no avi-faunal study was done.  

 16 Apart from the above submissions, Ms Shenoy has urged that the stages of  

public consultation and appraisal under the 2006 notification are crucial to the  

assessment process. As far as the public consultation is concerned, the draft EIA is  

given before the hearing. During the course of the public consultation, as many as 70

PART B   

14    

persons spoke, 1,150 representations were received and 1,586 persons are stated to  

have participated. The range of concerns expressed during the course of the public  

consultation covered a variety of environmental issues. Amongst them was the  

presence of perennial springs, the porous nature of the laterite plateau where  

permeation is a source of drainage for water collection and the existence of cashew  

plantations on which the livelihood of the local residents depends. Under the 2006  

notification, the State Pollution Control Board27 was required to collate the issues  

raised and the response of the project proponent, before submitting required  

documents to the EAC. Before the EAC, the project proponent in its presentation,  

indicated that the objections were only about employment opportunities. The project  

proponent clearly failed in its duty to appraise the EAC about serious environmental  

concerns which were raised during the course of the public consultation.  

 17 On the aspect of appraisal, it has been urged that the minutes of the EAC  

meeting recommending the grant of an EC contain, as learned counsel for the  

appellants submitted, “not a line on the EIA report”.  The EAC was required to state  

its reasons for recommending the grant of an EC in terms of the 2006 notification.  

The reasons must indicate that there was an appraisal by the EAC. In the present  

case, the recommendations of the EAC are based on vague considerations such as:  

(i) larger public interest; (ii) non-concealment of the facts by the project proponent;  

and (iii) the delay which had occurred in the process. The submission urged is that  

the EAC, as an expert body, has failed to furnish reasons; acted on the basis of  

considerations which are not germane to the exercise of its functions and failed to  

apply its mind to relevant considerations including the environmental consequences  

of the project.  

                                                      27 SPCB

PART B   

15    

 18 Finally, it has been submitted that under Section 16(h) of the National Green  

Tribunal Act 2010,28 an appellate remedy is provided against the order granting EC.   

By virtue of the provisions of Section 20, the NGT is under a mandate to apply the  

principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter  

pays principle while passing any order, decision or making the award. An appeal lies  

before this Court under Section 22 from an order, decision or award of the Tribunal  

on a substantial question of law as specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil  

Procedure, 1908. The NGT, by virtue of its adjudicatory authority under Section  

16(h), is entrusted with a duty to conduct a merits review. The failure to consider  

materials on a vital issue constitutes a substantial question of law as does the failure  

to consider vital issues in the proceedings before it. In the present case, the Tribunal  

has merely relied on the process conducted by the EAC and its recommendations,  

abdicating its own jurisdiction to conduct a merits review.  

 19 Mr ANS Nadkarni, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the MoEFCC urged  

that the EIA report, besides dealing with environmental concerns, addresses the  

impact of the project during both the phases of construction and operation. The EAC  

is sourced from experts from outside the government. The airport project was  

conceived in 1996; consultants were appointed and three sites were initially short-

listed.  It was in 2011 that the ToR were sought by and given to the project proponent  

by the EAC. The draft EIA was placed for public consultation in 2014 and the final  

EIA report came to be submitted in 2015. The EAC deferred consideration of the EIA  

report on three occasions, including among them to consider the representation filed  

by the Federation of Rainbow Warriors.  

                                                      28 NGT Act 2010

PART B   

16    

 20 Countering the submission of the appellants on the non-disclosure of reserved  

forests in Form 1, the learned ASG urged the following submissions:   

(i)  The submission of the appellants was not raised either in the public hearing or  

in the grounds urged before the NGT, but was addressed in the written  

submissions filed before the NGT and when a map of the Surveyor General of  

India was produced;   

(ii)  Table 2.1.5 of the EIA report states that there is no reserved forest in the State  

of Maharashtra while delineating ESZs within 15 kilometres from the project  

boundary. The report proceeded on the plain meaning of the Indian Forest Act  

1927 according to which it is only upon the issuance of a notification under  

Section 20 that a reserved forest is declared;   

(iii)  As a matter of fact, within the area of 15 kilometres from the project boundary  

in the State of Maharashtra, no reserved forest stands declared under Section  

20(2) of the Indian Forest Act 1927;   

(iv)  The decision in Godavarman (supra) which adopts the ordinary meaning of  

the expression ‘forest’ is site specific: the MoEFCC follows it scrupulously even  

if there is a notification under Section 4 while considering the diversion of  

forest land for non-forest uses. The decision in Godavarman (supra) has also  

been explained in the decision of this Court in Construction of Park at Noida  

near Okhla Bird Sanctuary Anand Arya v Union of India29 (‘Okhla Bird  

Sanctuary’);   

(v)  The Guidance manual notices that environmental facets which have to be  

considered in relation to airport development are categorized into seven  

groups: (a) land use; (b) water quality; (c) air quality; (d) noise pollution; (e)  

                                                      29 2011(1) SCC 744

PART B   

17    

biological environment; (f) socio-economic changes and occupational health;  

and (g) solid waste management. Baseline data of these environmental facets  

is ascertained through primary data extending to one season while secondary  

data extending to a year is gathered in terms of the Guidance manual and the  

distance specified in paragraph 4.1; and  

(vi)  The EIA report records that the surrounding land use of the airport site is  

predominantly forest land. Land use and land cover specifically for a 10  

kilometre radius from the airport site in Maharashtra is also set out in Chapter  

II of the EIA report, which indicates a reference to the forest area. Annexure IX  

of the EIA report incorporates land use with land cover maps, both for Goa and  

Maharashtra in the 10 kilometre radius, which includes forested areas within  

the State of Maharashtra; Annexure X of the EIA report elucidates surface  

water bodies both in Maharashtra and in Goa in the radius of 10 kilometres  

while Annexure XI provides a hydro-geo-morphological map of Goa and  

Maharashtra.  In other words, it was urged that: (i) a legally designated forest  

under the Indian Forest Act 1927 requires a notification under Section 20;  

however, at the same time, (i?i) the EIA report contains a clear disclosure of  

the presence of forest areas in both the States of Goa and Maharashtra within  

a radius of 10 kilometres including areas of dense forest.  

 21 As regards the lack of sampling points in Maharashtra, the learned ASG  

urged that while all the six sampling points for ambient air quality within 10 kilometres  

of the study area were in Goa, the air quality which was being tracked was within the  

stipulated radius and was not confined to the State of Goa. Similarly, in studying the  

water environment, the ground water quality was measured at four locations in Goa  

within 10 kilometres of the study area. As regards the monitoring of noise, nine

PART B   

18    

sampling points were chosen within the State of Goa in accordance with the Central  

Pollution Control Board30 guidelines. The monitoring of noise environment, both at  

the construction and operational phases, has similarly been dealt with in the EIA  

report. The learned ASG urged that the choice of the sampling locations was not  

arbitrary: though the sampling points were not in Maharashtra, data required was  

tracked across a radius of 10 kilometres from the ARP which also included the State  

of Maharashtra.   

 22 Dealing with the submission that no avi-faunal study was carried out, it was  

urged that the EIA report specifically deals with this aspect in paragraph 4.6 of  

Chapter II which elucidates that 385 species of plants belonging to 88 plant families  

were documented and identified in the 10 kilometres radial distance of the proposed  

project site. The study similarly dealt with faunal diversity. As many as 86 species of  

birds were observed in the course of the avi-faunal study, which has been elucidated  

in table 4.17 of the EIA report.  

 23 On the issue of ESZs, the learned ASG urged that there is a specific reference  

to the Kasturirangan report, under the heading of ‘Environmentally Sensitive Zones’  

in Chapter IV of the EIA report.  The EIA report notices that the proposed airport site  

falls in Pernem taluka of North Goa which has not been included in the ESZs mapped  

by the HLWG. Annexure XVI of the EIA report is a notification dated 13 November  

201331 of the MoEF, which contains a list of villages (state, district and taluk-wise)  

identified by the HLWG. Paragraph 9 of the 2013 notification which has been issued  

under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 specifies the categories of  

new and expansion projects which are prohibited in the ESZ. The proposed airport  

                                                      30 CPCB  31 2013 notification  

PART B   

19    

project does not fall within the prohibited category. Moreover, since the site of the  

proposed airport was not included in an ESZ, the prohibition imposed by the 2013  

notification had no application.  

 24 The learned ASG has also urged that the report of the HLWG on Western  

Ghats, submitted on 15 April 2013, stipulates certain development restrictions in  

ESZs which are as follows:   

(i) A complete ban on mining, quarrying and sand mining;   

(ii) A complete ban on thermal power projects while hydro power projects may be  

permitted subjected to conditions;   

(iii) A strict prohibition on ‘red category’ industries;   

(iv) A prohibition on building and construction projects of 20,000 square metres;   

(v) All other infrastructure and development projects/schemes would be subject to  

the grant of an EC as Category ‘A’ projects under the 2006 notification; and   

(vi) All development projects within 10 kilometres of the Western Ghats ESZ and  

requiring ECs shall be regulated in accordance with the 2006 notification.    

Based on the above recommendation of the HLWG, it was submitted that the  

proposed airport project, which falls under Category ‘A’ projects as delineated by the  

2006 notification, is regulated by it and does not attract a blanket prohibition.  

 25 The submission that the EAC had failed to apprise the environmental  

consequences of the project and should have applied its mind to environmental  

concerns has been countered by relying on the Minutes of the meetings conducted  

by the EAC:

PART B   

20    

(i) At its 149th meeting held on 26 June 2015, the EAC sought additional  

information on six distinct aspects upon receiving the presentation by the  

project proponent;  

(ii) At its 151st meeting held on 7-9 September 2015, the EAC took note of a  

representation filed by the Federation of Rainbow Warriors and deferred  

further consideration of proposal for the grant of EC. The project proponent  

was called upon to submit a response to the issues raised in the  

representation; and  

(iii) At its 152nd meeting held on 20 October 2015, the EAC dealt with clarifications  

issued by the project proponent to the concerns raised by Rainbow Warriors  

and proceeded to recommend the project for the grant of an EC subject to the  

stipulated conditions.   

 On 28 October 2015, the EC was granted by the Union Government. On the basis of  

the procedure which was followed by the EAC, the following submissions have been  

urged:   

(i) The application of mind by the EAC can be inferred and seen from the record;   

(ii) Where considered necessary, the EAC sought information outside the EIA  

report;   

(iii) Having appraised the EIA report, the EAC imposed site specific conditions;  

and   

(iv) The EAC consists of experts in the field and once it has been shown that all  

relevant considerations were borne in mind, this Court must give due  

deference to their view.  

PART B   

21    

26 Mr K K Venugopal, learned Attorney General, appearing on behalf of the State  

of Goa, urged the following submissions:   

(i)  The proposed project for setting up an international airport at Mopa has been  

on the drawing board for nearly two decades. Successive studies were  

commissioned to assess the feasibility of the project from diverse sources,  

both within and outside government. This includes studies by private  

organisations as well as reports by the Airports Authority of India, the  

International Civil Aviation Organisation and the six member Committee  

constituted by the state government under the auspices of the Chief Minister;  

(ii) The setting up of an airport is an imminent need, since the existing airport at  

Dabolim has reached a saturation point and is unable to cater to the growing  

volume of passenger traffic into Goa;  

(iii) Tourism, it has been urged, is a major source of revenue for the state, with the  

banning of mining activities. A balance must be drawn between development  

and the environment.  A distinction needs to be drawn between overwhelming  

environmental objections which are not reversible and incapable of  

amelioration, and cases such as the present where the environmental  

consequences of project are capable of being countered by suitable measures;  

and  

(iv)  Objections primarily based on a defect in procedure should not be sufficient to  

quash a project conceived in public interest with vast benefits for the  

development of the state and for the members of the travelling public. It was  

urged that there was no major environmental objection and the challenge to  

the EIA report is not substantial enough to overcome the interests of three

PART B   

22    

million passengers. The expected inflow is anticipated to reach 30 million in  

2030.    

 27 On the aspect of the felling of trees, the learned AG submitted that following  

the order of the Bombay High Court, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests  

passed an order on 2 April 2018 providing for: (i) enumeration of all trees covered by  

the project site; (ii) issuance of tree felling permission by the Deputy Chief  

Conservator of Forests; and (iii) plantation of ten times the number of trees felled  

under the supervision of the forest department. Thereafter, when the High Court was  

moved in a PIL, an order was passed on 13 June 2018 that the grant of permission  

for felling trees and the actual felling of trees will be carried out only after the NGT  

granted permission in the pending proceedings.  A Miscellaneous Application  

seeking permission for the felling of trees was instituted before the NGT.  In its final  

order dated 21 August 2018, the NGT disposed of both the appeals as well as the  

Miscellaneous Application. Moreover, the NGT has specifically dealt with the felling of  

trees in the course of its distinction.  

 28 On behalf of the concessionaire, Mr Parag P Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel  

and Ms Astha Mehta, learned counsel urged that upon the grant of an EC, a  

concession agreement was executed by it with the State of Goa on 8 November  

2016. Possession of the project site was handed over on 4 September 2017 and  

work commenced on 3 March 2018. The indicative capital for Phase 1 of the  

development is Rs 1,900 crores while the cost of the entire project is likely to be Rs  

3,000 crores. The State of Goa has incurred a total expenditure of Rs 240 crores for  

land acquisition, rehabilitation, road widening, consultancy and other related aspects  

while the concessionaire has thus far incurred an expenditure of Rs 230 crores as on

PART C   

23    

18 January 2019. 14.06 per cent of the project work has been completed and a  

manpower consisting of 1500 persons has been mobilized at the site together with  

plant and machinery.   

 29 The concessionaire has stated that it has tied up with a consortium of banks  

and the servicing of the loans is linked to project milestones.  As on 18 January 2019,  

the major works in progress include: (i) site preparation and earth works such as  

excavation and filling up of runways, taxiways, aprons and parking bays; (ii) PTB-

foundations and column works; and (iii) excavation of the foundations for the ATC  

building. The concessionaire has submitted that apart from the plantation of ten trees  

for every single tree which has been felled, the forest department identified about 500  

trees for transplantation, which process is being carried out. In this background, it has  

been submitted that the project should not be interdicted.  The concessionaire, it has  

been urged, is committed to the completion of the project which accords with all the  

approvals that have been received.  

 30 The rival submissions now fall for our consideration.  

C Scheme of the 2006 notification and the Guidance manual for Airports  

 C. 1 EIA Process  

 31 The objective of the EIA process is to ensure that environmental and  

developmental concerns are appropriately balanced on the basis of the most  

accurate information available.  

 32 The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act 1976, which came into force  

with effect from 3 January 1977, inserted Article 48A to the Constitution which

PART C   

24    

mandates that the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and  

safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Article 51A(g) of the Constitution  

places a corresponding duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural  

environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for  

living creatures. Following the decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on  

the Human Environment held at Stockholm32 in June 1972 in which India participated,  

Parliament enacted the Environment Protection Act 1986 to protect and improve the  

environment and prevent hazards to human beings, other living creatures, plants and  

property.   

 33 On 27 January 1994, the MoEF, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-

section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the 1986 Act read with  

clause (d) of sub-rule 3 of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, issued  

a notification33 imposing restrictions and prohibitions on the expansion and  

modernisation of any activity or new project unless an EC was granted under the  

procedure stipulated in the notification. Under the notification, any person  

undertaking a new project or expanding and modernizing an existing project was  

required to submit an application to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and  

Forests, New Delhi.   

 34 The application, which was to be made in accordance with the Schedule  

provided in the notification was to be submitted with a project report which included  

with it an EIA Report, an Environment Management Plan34 and the details of a public  

hearing which had been carried out in accordance with guidelines issued by the  

                                                      32 Stockholm Conference  33 S.O. 60(E) (‘1994 notification’)  34 EMP

PART C   

25    

Central Government from time to time. Limited exceptions to the public hearing  

process and the submission of an EIA were provided.  

 35 MoEF as the Impact Assessment Agency35 would then evaluate the application  

and reports submitted. The IAA was empowered to constitute a committee of experts,  

if necessary, which would have a right of entry into and inspection of the site during  

or after the commencement of the preparations relating to the project. The IAA would  

prepare a set of recommendations based on the documents furnished by an  

applicant within 90 days from the receipt of the documents and a decision would be  

conveyed to the applicant within 30 days thereafter. The EC granted was valid for a  

period of five years and a successful applicant was required to submit half-yearly  

reports to the IAA. Concealing factual data or submitting false or misleading  

information would make the application liable for rejection and would lead to the  

cancellation of any EC36 granted on that basis.  

 36 The 1994 notification was amended to reflect the growing protection accorded  

to the environment.   

 37 On 14 September 2006, MoEF released another notification37 in supersession  

of the previous notification.   

 38 The 2006 notification directed thus:    

“…on and from the date of its publication the required  

construction of new projects or activities or the expansion or  

modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the  

Schedule to this notification entailing capacity addition with  

change in process and or technology shall be undertaken in  

any part of India only after the prior environmental clearance  

from the Central Government or as the case may be, by the  

                                                      35 IAA  36 EC  37 S.O. 1533 (‘2006 notification’)

PART C   

26    

State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, duly  

constituted by the Central Government under sub-section (3)  

of section 3 of the said Act, in accordance with the procedure  

specified hereinafter in this notification.”  

 39 There are significant differences between the 1994 notification and the 2006  

notification. They are:  

(i) The 2006 notification categorically states that an EC must be granted by the  

regulatory authority prior to the commencement of any construction work or  

preparation of land;   

(ii) The 2006 notification divides all projects into Category ‘A’ and Category ‘B’  

projects. The MoEFCC continues to regulate projects of a large scale  

(Category ‘A’), while the SEIAA regulate comparatively smaller projects  

(Category ‘B’);  

(iii) Under the 1994 notification, an applicant was required to submit an application  

along with all reports including the EIA report at the time of the application.  

Under the 2006 notification, prior to the preparation of the EIA report by the  

applicant, the concerned authority formulates comprehensive ToR on the basis  

of the information furnished by the applicant addressing all relevant  

environmental concerns. This forms the basis for the preparation of the EIA  

report. A pre-feasibility report must also be submitted with the application  

unless exempted in the notification. Under the 2006 notification, a draft EIA is  

first prepared and it is only after the public consultation process that a final EIA  

report must be prepared addressing all the concerns raised during public  

consultation;

PART C   

27    

(iv) The 2006 notification stipulates the creation of a regulatory body at the state  

level – SEIAA comprising members with expertise in the field of environmental  

laws which is charged with granting ECs for Category ‘B’ projects;   

(v) Under the 1994 notification, the final approval was granted by the IAA. Under  

the 2006 notification, though the final regulatory approval is granted by the  

MoEFCC or the SEIAA, as the case may be, the approval is to be based on  

the recommendations of the EAC functioning in the MoEFCC or the State  

Expert Appraisal Committees38 which are constituted for that specific purpose;   

(vi) Under the 2006 notification, the application can be rejected by the regulatory  

authority on the basis of the recommendation of the EAC or the SEAC, as the  

case may be, at the preliminary stage itself, prior to public consultation; and  

(vii) Under the 1994 notification, the public hearing process was overseen by the  

State Pollution Control Boards39 which would constitute a public hearing panel  

for the purpose. Under the 2006 notification, the public consultation process is  

expanded to include the receipt of written comments from concerned persons.  

The public hearing component was to be overseen by the SPCBs or the Union  

Territory Pollution Control Committee40.  

 40 The salient objective which underlies the 2006 notification is the protection,  

preservation and continued sustenance of the environment when the execution of  

new projects or the expansion or modernization of existing projects is envisaged. It  

imposes certain restrictions and prohibitions based on the potential environmental  

impact of projects unless prior EC has been granted by the concerned authority. The  

EC is required before any construction work, or preparation of land (except for  

                                                      38 SEAC  39 SPCB  40 UTPCC

PART C   

28    

securing the land) is started on the project or activity listed in the Schedule to the  

notification. The process stipulated under the 2006 notification is illustrated by the  

following flow-chart:  

PART C   

29    

41 Based on the spatial extent of the potential impact and the potential impacts on  

human health and natural and man-made resources, the 2006 notification  

categorizes all projects into Category ‘A’ and Category ‘B’ projects. The MoEFCC in  

the Central Government and the SEIAA at the state level constitute the regulatory  

authorities for the purposes of the notification. Category ‘A’ projects require prior  

environmental clearance from the MoEFCC, based on the recommendation of the  

EAC constituted by the Central Government for this purpose. Category ‘B’ projects  

will require prior environmental clearance from the SEIAA, based on the  

recommendations of the SEAC. Where no SEIAA or SEAC has been constituted,  

Category ‘B’ projects are treated as Category ‘A’ projects.   

 42 Once a prospective site has been identified by the applicant for the proposed  

project, all applications seeking an EC shall be made in the prescribed Form 1 and  

Supplementary Form 1A41, if applicable. The application must be submitted prior to  

the commencement of any construction activity, or preparation of the land at the site.  

A pre-feasibility report must also be submitted with the application except in the  

cases of construction projects in item 8 of the Schedule, for which a conceptual plan  

must be submitted. The significance of the information furnished by the applicant in  

Form 1 shall be explored shortly.   

 43 The process to obtain environmental clearance as stipulated by the notification  

for new projects42 comprises a maximum of four stages, all of which may not apply  

depending on the specific case stipulated under the notification:  

1) Screening;  

                                                      41 Only for construction projects listed under item 8 of the Schedule  42 Applications for EC for expansions or modernization of existing units as stipulated under the notification are made  in Form 1 and shall be considered by the EAC or the SEAC within 60 days, which will decide on the due diligence  necessary including the preparation of the EIA and public consultations and the application shall be appraised  accordingly for the grant of environmental clearance.  

PART C   

30    

2) Scoping;  

3) Public Consultation; and  

4) Appraisal.  

 44 SCREENING – This step is restricted only to Category ‘B’ projects. This stage  

entails an examination of whether the proposed project or activity requires further  

environmental studies for the preparation of an EIA for its appraisal prior to the grant  

of an EC. Those projects requiring an EIA are further categorized as Category ‘B1’  

projects and remaining projects are categorized as Category ‘B2’ projects. Category  

‘B2’ projects do not require an EIA. The categorization is in accordance with the  

guidelines issued in this regard by the MoEFCC from time to time.  

 45 SCOPING – At this stage, the EAC or the SEAC, as the case may be,  

formulates detailed and comprehensive Terms of Reference which address all  

relevant environmental concerns for the preparation of the EIA. Amongst other  

things, the information furnished by the applicant in Form 1/Form 1A along with the  

proposed ToR by the applicant form the basis for the preparation of the ToR. The  

ToR must be conveyed to the applicant within 60 days of the receipt of Form 1, failing  

which, the ToR proposed by the applicant shall be deemed as approved.  

Significantly, applications for EC may be rejected by the regulatory authority at this  

stage itself on the recommendation of the EAC or the SEAC, as the case may be,  

and the decision along with reasons is to be communicated to the applicant within 60  

days of receipt of application.   

 46 PUBLIC CONSULTATION – Prior to this stage, a Summary EIA is prepared in the  

format given in Appendix IIIA on the basis of the ToR furnished to the applicant. This  

stage involves the process “by which the concerns of local affected persons and

PART C   

31    

others who have plausible stake in the environmental impacts of the project or activity  

are ascertained with a view of taking into account all the material concerns in the  

project or activity design as appropriate.” The detailed procedure is stipulated in  

Appendix IV. Subject to the exceptions provided in the 2006 notification, all Category  

‘A’ and Category ‘B1’ projects shall undertake the public consultation process.   

This stage comprises two components:  

(i) A public hearing at the site or in its close proximity – district-wise to be carried  

out in the manner prescribed in Appendix IV; and  

(ii) Procurement of written responses from concerned persons having a plausible  

stake in the environmental aspects surrounding the project.  

 47 The State Pollution Control Board43 or the Union Territory Pollution Control  

Committee44 is charged with conducting the public hearing in the manner stipulated in  

Appendix IV and forwarding the proceedings to the regulatory authority within 45  

days of a request from the applicant. The regulatory authority is empowered to  

engage another public agency or authority to carry out the process within a further  

period of forty-five days in case the SPCB or the UTPCC does not adhere to the  

prescribed time period stipulated in the notification. The public hearing should be  

arranged in a “systematic, time bound and transparent manner” to ensure the “widest  

possible public participation at the project site(s) or in its close proximity District-

wise”. The public hearing proceeding is filmed and a copy of the video is submitted to  

the concerned regulatory authority.   

                                                      43 SPCB  44 UTPCC

PART C   

32    

48 Within seven days of receiving a written request to initiate the public  

consultation process, the SPCB or the UTPCC shall place the Summary EIA and the  

application on their website and invite responses. The concerned authority may also  

make use of other appropriate media in addition to publication on their website to  

ensure wide publicity of the project. On a written request from any concerned person,  

the authority will make available a hard copy of the Draft EIA for inspection at a  

notified place during office hours till the date of the public hearing. A duty is placed  

on the authority to forward all responses and comments received at this stage to the  

applicant through the quickest available means.   

 49 After the public consultation process, the applicant is duty bound to address all  

the material environmental concerns expressed during the process and make  

appropriate changes to the Draft EIA and EMP. The applicant shall then forward the  

final EIA report to the regulatory authority to initiate the next stage. Alternatively, the  

applicant may submit a supplementary report to the Summary EIA and EMP.  

 50 APPRAISAL - This stage involves detailed scrutiny by the EAC or the SEAC of  

all the documents submitted by the applicant for the grant of EC. The appraisal is  

carried out in a transparent manner in a process to which the applicant shall be  

invited for furnishing clarification in person or through an authorized representative.  

Appendix V stipulates that the following documents are also submitted to the  

regulatory authority:  

(i) Final EIA Report    

(ii) A copy of the video tape or CD of the public hearing proceedings  

(iii) A copy of the final layout plan    

(iv) A copy of the project feasibility report.

PART C   

33    

51 The regulatory authority must examine the documents “strictly with reference  

to the ToR” and communicate any inadequacy to the EAC or the SEAC, as the case  

may be, within 30 days of receipt of the documents. Within sixty days of the receipt of  

all the documents, the EAC or the SEAC, as the case may be, shall complete the  

appraisal process as prescribed in Appendix V. Within the next fifteen days, the EAC  

or the SEAC shall make categorical recommendations to the concerned regulatory  

authority to either grant the EC on the stipulated terms and conditions or reject the  

application, together with reasons. The appraisal of projects which are not required to  

undergo the public consultation process or the submission of an EIA is to be carried  

out on the basis of the prescribed application Form 1 or Form 1A, as applicable.   

 52 The MoEFCC or the SEIAA shall thereafter consider the recommendations of  

the EAC or the SEAC and convey its decision to the applicant within 45 days of  

receipt of the recommendations. The regulatory authorities shall normally accept the  

recommendations of the EAC or the SEAC, as the case may be. Where there is a  

disagreement, the regulatory authority shall ask for a reconsideration of the  

recommendation within 45 days of the receipt of the recommendations. This decision  

shall be conveyed to the applicant. The EAC or the SEAC shall then reconsider its  

recommendation within a further period of 60 days and make its recommendations to  

the regulatory authority. The regulatory authorities shall then take a decision after  

considering the views communicated to it and convey the decision to the applicant  

within the next 30 days.   

 53 If no decision is communicated to the applicant within the time prescribed, the  

applicant may proceed according to the recommendation of the EAC or the SEAC  

recommending either the grant or rejection of the EC. The decision of the regulatory

PART C   

34    

authority and the final recommendations of the EAC or the SEAC shall be public  

documents on the expiry of the prescribed timelines. Deliberate concealment and/or  

the submission of false or misleading information material to the steps involved in the  

grant of an EC make the application liable for rejection and cancellation of any EC  

granted on that basis.   

 54 The 2006 notification embodies the notion that the development agenda of the  

nation must be carried out in compliance with norms stipulated for the protection of  

the environment and its complexities. It serves as a balance between development  

and protection of the environment: there is no trade-off between the two. The  

protection of the environment is an essential facet of development. It cannot be  

reduced to a technical formula. The notification demonstrates an increasing  

awareness of the complexities of the environment and the heightened scrutiny  

required to ensure its continued sustenance, for today and for generations to come. It  

embodies a commitment to sustainable development. In laying down a detailed  

procedure for the grant of an EC, the 2006 notification attempts to bridge the  

perceived gap between the environment and development.    

 55 It is for this reason that the EAC and SEAC comprise experts in the field of  

environmental law. The Chairperson of the EAC shall be a person who is an  

“outstanding and experienced environmental policy expert or expert in management  

or public administration with wide experience in the relevant development sector”.  

Appendix VI to the 2006 notification stipulates that the EAC and the SEAC comprise  

15 members who are either ‘experts’ or ‘professionals’. Experts must have atleast 15  

years of relevant experience in the field or an advanced degree (PhD) with 10 years

PART C   

35    

of relevant experience. Where experts are not available, professionals may be  

appointed to the EAC.   

 56 The EAC and the SEAC are charged with evaluating the information submitted  

by the applicant in Form 1/Form 1A and preparing comprehensive ToR which guide  

the preparation of the EIA reports. Given that these bodies comprise experts in the  

field of environmental law, the recommendation of the EAC or the SEAC to grant EC  

to an applicant or reject the application is normally accepted by the regulatory  

authority.   

 57 The regulatory authority at the state level (SEIAA) which is charged with the  

approval or rejection of an application for EC comprises three members who possess  

the qualifications in the field as prescribed in Appendix VI. Significantly, sub clause  

(7) of paragraph 3 of the 2006 notification stipulates that all decisions of the SEIAA  

shall be unanimous and taken in a meeting. Given the environmental consequences  

of a proposed project, no difference of opinion is provided for in the grant of an EC at  

the state level. It is further mandated that the project management submit half-yearly  

compliance reports to the regulatory authority in respect of the EC and conditions.   

 58 Under the 2006 notification, the process of obtaining an EC commences from  

the production of the information stipulated in Form 1/Form 1A. Crucial information  

regarding the particulars of the proposed project is sought to enable the EAC or the  

SEAC to prepare comprehensive ToR which the applicant is required to address  

during the course of the preparation of the EIA. Some of the information sought is  

produced thus:

PART C   

36    

(i) Construction, operation or decommissioning of the project involving actions,  

which will cause physical changes in the locality (topography, land use,  

changes in water bodies, etc.);  

(ii) Use of natural resources for construction or operation of the Project (such as  

land, water, materials or energy, especially any resources which are non-

renewable or in short supply);  

(iii) Use, storage, transport, handling or production of substances or materials,  

which could be harmful to human health or the environment or raise concerns  

about the actual or perceived risks to human health;  

(iv) Production of solid wastes during construction, operation or decommissioning;   

(v) Release of pollutants or any hazardous, toxic or noxious substances to air;  

(vi) Generation of noise and vibration, and emissions of light and heat;  

(vii) Risks of contamination of land or water from releases of pollutants into the  

ground or into sewers, surface waters, groundwater, coastal waters or the sea;  

(viii) Risk of accidents during construction or operation of the project, which could  

affect human health or the environment; and  

(ix) Environment sensitivity which includes, amongst other things, the furnishing of  

the following details:  

a. Areas protected under international and national legislation;  

b. Ecologically sensitive areas; and   

c. Areas used by protected, important or sensitive species of flora or fauna.  

 59 Under the 2006 notification, the EC process is based on the information  

provided by the applicant in Form 1. That the information provided in Form 1 is  

crucial can be borne from the following circumstances:  

PART C   

37    

(i) The EAC or the SEAC, as the case may be, formulates comprehensive ToRs  

on the basis of the information furnished in Form 1 which addresses all  

possible environmental concerns. It is on the basis of the ToR, that further  

studies and the EIA are carried out on the impact of the proposed project on  

the environment;   

(ii) At the appraisal stage, the regulatory authority examines the documents  

submitted by the applicant “strictly with reference to the ToR” and  

communicates any inadequacy to the EAC or the SEAC;  

(iii) Category B2 projects, which do not require scoping, are evaluated by the  

SEAC on the basis of the information furnished by the applicant in Form 1  

alone;   

(iv) The appraisal of all projects or activities which are not required to undergo  

public consultation, or submit an EIA report, shall be carried out on the basis of  

the prescribed application Form 1 and Form 1A as applicable; and   

(v) An application for extension of the validity of the EC for certain projects is to be  

made by submitting a revised Form 1 within the validity period.  

 60 The information provided in Form 1 serves as a base upon which the process  

stipulated under the 2006 notification rests. An applicant is required to provide all  

material information stipulated in the form to enable the authorities to formulate  

comprehensive ToR and enable concerned persons to provide comments and  

representations at the public consultation stage. The depth of information sought in  

Form 1 is to enable the authorities to evaluate all possible impacts of the proposed  

project and provide the applicant an opportunity to address these concerns in the  

subsequent study. Missing or misleading information in Form 1 significantly impedes  

the functioning of the authorities and the process stipulated under the notification. For

PART C   

38    

this reason, any application made or EC granted on the basis of a defective Form 1 is  

liable to be rejected immediately. Clause (vi) of paragraph 8 of the notification  

provides thus:  

“Deliberate concealment and/or submission of false or  

misleading information or data which is material to screening  

or scoping or appraisal or decision on the application shall  

make the application liable for rejection, and cancellation of  

prior environmental clearance granted on that basis.  

Rejection of an application or cancellation of a prior  

environmental clearance already granted, on such ground,  

shall be decided by the regulatory authority, after giving a  

personal hearing to the applicant, and following the principles  

of natural justice.”  

C.2 Guidance manual for airports  

 61 In February 2010, the MoEF brought out its Guidance manual for airports. The  

need for a sector specific manual arose because the 2006 notification “re-engineered  

the entire EC process” under its earlier avatar of 1994 and new sectors were  

incorporated into the ambit of the EC process. The 2006 notification noted that as  

many as 39 developmental sectors require prior ECs. Sector specific manuals, it was  

hoped, would bring about standardisation in the quality of appraisal and obviate  

potential inconsistencies between the work performed by SEIAAs and SEACs.  

Chapter IV of the Guidance manual, which is titled ‘Description of Environment’,  

prescribes the study area for carrying out an EIA:  

“Primary data through measurements and field surveys; and  

secondary data from secondary sources are to be collected in  

the study area within 10 km radius from Aerodrome  

Reference Point (ARP). Primary data should cover one  

season other than monsoon and secondary data is to cover  

one full year. The basis for selection of these criteria is that  

the aircraft gains a height of 1000ft in this area below which  

noise and air pollution are generated maximum during its take  

off stage. Secondary data should be collected within 15 km  

aerial distance for the parameters as specifically mentioned at  

column 9 (III) of Form I of EIA Notification, 2006. Details of  

secondary data, the method of collection of secondary data,

PART C   

39    

should be furnished. Similarly, the proposed locations of  

monitoring stations of water, air, soil and noise etc should be  

shown on the study area map.”  

   62 Baseline data of environmental parameters which may be affected by airport  

activities is collected through primary monitoring in the study area and through  

secondary sources. The baseline data facilitates the evaluation of the predicted  

impact on environmental attributes in the study area by using scientific analysis and  

EIA methodologies. The object is to also aid in the preparation of an EMP that would  

outline measures for improving environmental quality as well as retain the scope for  

future expansions in a sustainable manner. The Guidance manual specifically  

requires collection of baseline data on the following: (i) land environment; (ii) water  

environment; (iii) air environment; (iv) noise environment; (v) biological environment;  

(iv) socio-economic environment and (vii) solid waste.   

The importance of collecting data on land environment is emphasised in the following  

extract:  

“The terrain and hill slope, general slope and elevation of the  

area, the flow direction of streams and rivers, the water  

bodies and wet lands and the vegetation which together  

describe the physiography of the land, will control the  

drainage pattern in the region. Land farms, terrain, may get  

affected due to construction of airport. It may require large  

scale quarrying, dredging and reclamation, which may cause  

changes in the topography. This in turn may affect the  

drainage pattern of the land / terrain. Baseline data pertaining  

to existing land at the proposed project area including the  

description of terrain hill slopes, terrain features, slope and  

elevation are to be collected. Study of land use pattern,  

habitation, cropping pattern, forest cover, environmentally  

sensitive places etc., is to be undertaken by employing  

remote sensing techniques and ground truthing. Ecological  

features of forest area; agricultural land; grazing land; wildlife  

sanctuary land & national parks; migratory routes of fauna;  

water bodies; and drainage pattern including the orders of the  

drain and water sheds are to be described. Settlements in the  

study area may be delineated with respect to ARP on the site

PART C   

40    

map. High rise buildings, industrial areas and zones,  

slaughter houses and other features of flight safety  

importance may also be marked on the map. Secondary data  

from Central Water Board GOI; State ground water  

department, State Irrigation Department is to be obtained.  

Geomorphology of the region is to be clearly delineated.  

Study of land use patterns, habitation, cropping pattern, and  

forest cover data is undertaken. Information on the location of  

water bodies, drainage, forests, surface travel routes with  

respect to the project site is obtained within the study area  

and plotted on a map. This map will show the natural slopes  

and the drainage patterns, which give a guideline while  

planning the drains in the airport project. The drains help in  

discharge of storm water from the airport to avoid flooding  

and water logging in the project area.”  

 The study of the water environment is necessitated for the following reasons:  

“Ground water quality is important, as change in its chemical  

parameters will affect the water quality. Airport activities  

during construction / operation may have impact on ground  

water quality. Due to airport construction existing low areas  

may be reclaimed with dredged spoil. The pollutants from  

dredged spoil are likely to enter into the ground water. This is  

likely to increase sedimentation of pollutants in airport area,  

which may migrate in time to the neighbouring ground water.  

Also runoff from solid waste if any, may percolate into the  

ground and may contaminate the ground water. Hence, they  

need to be studied through primary surveys and secondary  

sources. Monitoring locations are to be finalized as per CPCB  

norms which can represent the baseline conditions.”  

 On the aspect of air environment, the Guidance manual emphasises that:  

“Aircraft engines produce emissions that are similar to other  

emissions resulting from any oil-based fuel combustion.  

These, like any exhaust emissions, can affect local air quality  

at ground level. It is emissions from aircraft below 1,000ft,  

above the ground (typically around 3km from departure or, for  

arrivals, around 6km from touchdown) that are chiefly  

involved in influencing local air quality. These emissions  

disperse with the wind and blend with emissions from other  

sources such as emissions from domestic sources, emissions  

from industries and from surface transport.”  

PART C   

41    

Local emissions attributed to aircraft operations at airports include Oxides of  

Nitrogen45, Carbon Monoxide46, Hydrocarbons47, Sulphur Dioxide48, and particulate  

matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5).  

 63 The Guidance manual brings into focus the biological environment. It  

acknowledges that airport operations may alter eco-systems, threaten endangered  

species and disturb the movement and breeding patterns of wildlife. In this context,  

the collection of baseline data on sensitive habitats and wild or endangered species  

in the project area is contemplated.  The Guidance manual stipulates thus:  

“Airport operations may cause change in local ecosystems,  

threaten endangered species, and disturb movements and  

breeding patterns of local wildlife.  Airports are located within  

a variety of settings (both urban and rural), which support  

habitats and species of their own, some of which will have  

direct interaction with those located on the airport and vice  

versa.  Some local areas will also be designated for their  

nature conservation value. The biological environment of the  

airport should hence be seen as an integral component of the  

wider landscape scale ecological network. To accomplish  

this,  

• Baseline data from field observations for various  

terrestrial and aquatic systems are to be generated.  

• Comparison of the data with authentic past records to  

understand changes is undertaken.    

• Environmental components like land, water, flora and  

fauna are characterized and,  

• The impact of airport development on vegetation  

structure in and around project site is to be  

understood.  

Data on sensitive habitats, wild or endangered species in the  

project area also is to be collected from Zoological Survey of  

India (ZSI), Botanical Survey of India (BSI), Wildlife Institute  

of India (WII) and Ministry of Earth Sciences.  Wildlife  

symbolizes the functioning efficiency of the entire eco  

system.  Just as wild flora needs special treatment for  

preservation and growth, wild fauna as well deserves  

specific conservatory pursuits for posterity.  As per Wildlife  

Act (1972), the various wild animals are enlisted in the  

schedules of wildlife Act based on the intensity of threat to

                                                      45 NOx  46 CO  47 HC  48 SO2

PART D   

42    

them as rare, endangered, threatened, vulnerable etc.  

Primary data on survey of the wild animals and birds in the  

study area is collected and identified with the classification  

into various schedules taken from secondary data.”  

64 It is in the backdrop of the 2006 notification and the Guidance manual that it  

becomes necessary to assess the process that was adopted in the present case and  

its outcome.  

D Forests  

 65 The essence of the challenge to the EC is two-fold:   

(i) Form 1, which was filed by the project proponent, did not contain any  

disclosure of the name or identity of forests within an aerial distance of 15  

kilometres. Item  2 under the heading of ‘Environmental Sensitivity’ requires a  

clear disclosure of “areas which are important or sensitive for ecological  

reasons – wet lands, water sources or other water bodies, coastal zone,  

biospheres, mountains and forests”; and   

(ii) Table 2.1 of Chapter II of the EIA report delineates ESZs within an aerial  

distance 15 kilometres from the project boundary. For the State of Goa, the  

table indicates the presence of forests but not of protected forests. For the  

State of Maharashtra, Table 2.1 indicates that there were neither reserved nor  

protected forests within 15 kilometres from the project boundary.   

 66 The learned ASG made an earnest effort to support this by urging that a  

reserved forest is one which is notified under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act  

1927. The issuance of a notification under Section 4, it was urged, is indicative only  

of an intent and a forest stands reserved under sub-section (2) of Section 20 only  

upon the issuance of a notification.  The ASG submitted that the reliance which the

PART D   

43    

appellants placed on the Survey of India map is misplaced as, in the absence of a  

notification under Section 20, a forest cannot be regarded as being reserved.   

In the alternative, it was urged that as a matter of fact, the EIA report (save and  

except Table 2.1) takes into account the forest cover surrounding the site and within  

the prescribed aerial distance. As regards Form 1, the learned ASG submitted that at  

that stage, the project proponent may not be expected to be aware of all the features  

of the environment and hence the omission to refer to forests and other areas which  

are sensitive ecologically should be discountenanced.   

 67 We cannot gloss over the patent and abject failure of the State of Goa as the  

project proponent in failing to disclose wet lands, water sources, water bodies,  

biospheres, mountains and forests within an aerial distance of 15 kilometres as  

required by Form 1.  The disclosure in Form 1 constitutes the very foundation of the  

process which is initiated on the basis of the information supplied by the project  

proponent. Following the disclosure in Form 1, ToR are formulated, and this leads to  

the preparation of the EIA report. A duty is cast upon the project proponent to make a  

full, complete and candid disclosure of all aspects bearing upon the environment in  

the area of study. The project proponent cannot profess an ignorance about the  

environment in the study area. The project proponent is bound by the highest duty of  

transparency and rectitude in making the disclosures in Form 1.   

 68 There can be no manner of doubt that Form 1 is an important ingredient in the  

entire process envisaged under the 2006 notification. Hence, clause (vi) of para 8 of  

the 2006 notification provides that deliberate concealment or submission of false or  

misleading information or data which is material to screening or scoping or appraisal  

or decision on the application shall make the application liable for rejection and lead

PART D   

44    

to the cancellation of a prior EC granted on that basis. The declaration which is  

required of the project proponent is to a similar effect.    

 69 We are unable to accept the submission that the disclosure required was of  

reserved forests comprehended within a notification under sub-section (2) of Section  

20 of the Indian Forest Act 1927. Form 1 requires a disclosure of areas which are  

important or sensitive for ecological reasons, among them, being “forests”.  The  

expression “forests” is used without reference to a statutory or artificial definition and  

must hence incorporate a meaning which bears upon the ordinary description of the  

term. The expression “forests”, means a forest as commonly understood, without  

reference to a notification under the Indian Forest Act 1927 or any other statutory  

enactment. Such an interpretation will subserve the purpose of an EIA. The purpose  

is to ensure that all relevant facets of the environment are noticed, that base-lines are  

documented, and that the potential impact of a project or activity on the environment  

is assessed. Forests are forests without reference to recognition in a statutory form  

devised for a specific purpose.   

 70 The need to construe the expression ‘forests’ in a broad and generic sense  

was emphasized in the decision of this Court in Godavarman (supra). This Court  

held:  

“4. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was enacted with a  

view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in  

ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made  

therein for the conservation of forests and for matters  

connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of  

the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word  

‘forest’ must be understood according to its dictionary  

meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised  

forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or  

otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest  

(Conservation) Act. The term ‘forest land’, occurring in  

Section 2, will not only include ‘forest’ as understood in the

PART D   

45    

dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the  

government record irrespective of the ownership.”  

71 Subsequently, in Okhla Bird Sanctuary (supra), this Court explained the  

position:  

“Almost all the orders and judgments of this Court defining  

“forest” and “forest land” for the purpose of the FC Act were  

rendered in the context of mining or illegal felling of trees for  

timber or illegal removal of other forest produce or the  

protection of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.”  

In Okhla Bird Sanctuary (supra), trees had been planted with an intent to set up an  

urban park. This Court found it “inconceivable” that those trees would turn into a  

forest “within a span of ten to twelve years and the land, which was for agricultural  

use would be converted into forest land”. Hence, the decision was based on a  

factually distinguishable situation. The decision emphasises that in construing the  

term forest, courts must have due regard both to text and to context.    

 72 In the context of the 2006 notification and the underlying purpose of facilitating  

an EIA report, the expression ‘forests’ must receive its ordinary and natural  

connotation. The effort must not be o overlook and destroy forests but to notice and  

protect them.  

 73 Having said this, we must delve into the alternate submission that the EIA  

report does, as a matter of fact, consider the prevalence of forested areas both in  

Goa and in Maharashtra within the study area. In this context, para 2 of the Executive  

Summary introducing the EIA report acknowledges that the “surrounding land use of  

the airport site is predominantly forest land”. In the context of land environment, the  

EIA report records that “forest is the predominant land use in the study area”. The

PART D   

46    

EIA report acknowledges that territories in Maharashtra fall within one kilometre from  

the proposed greenfield airport. Villages falling in Goa and Maharashtra within the 10  

kilometre radius were considered for assessment. Para 2.3.1 of Chapter II deals with  

land use.  Land use/land cover statistics for a 10 kilometre radius from the Mopa  

airport in the State of Maharashtra have been tabulated. Among them is the  

following:  

Sr.No. Description Area (Sq.M.) Area  

(Ha)  

5 Forest-Tree Clad  

Area- Dense  

66341913.84 6634.19  

Similarly para 4.4 in Chapter IV, which is titled ‘description of environment  

statistically’, provides thus:  

“Surrounding land use of the airport site is predominantly  

forest land. The northern and eastern side of site is reserve  

forest areas, whereas western side is barren and village  

cultivated land. The existing land use plan is attached as  

Annexure IX.”  

74 The presence of a “diverse system set as dense and open forest, cultivated  

lands, sand dune vegetation, wet lands and human habitation” is noticed in para 4.6  

dealing with the biological environment. Annexure IX to the EIA report provides land  

use/land cover maps for both Goa and Maharashtra in the study area. The maps in  

Annexure IX cover forested areas in Maharashtra and Goa within an aerial boundary  

of 10 kilometres from the project site. Annexure XI contains the hydro-geo-

morphological maps for Goa and Maharashtra.   

 75 Though the EIA report adverts to the presence of forests within the study area  

in Goa and Maharashtra, we have to consider whether this by itself warrants the  

grant of an EC inspite of the fact that there has been a patent failure on part of the

PART D   

47    

project proponent to make a transparent and candid disclosure of material facts in  

Form 1. Information furnished in Form 1 is crucial to the preparation of the ToR by  

the EAC. The EAC comprises of experts. It is constituted, among other reasons, for  

the specific purpose of assessing the information furnished in Form 1 and preparing  

comprehensive ToR. There is an intrinsic link between the disclosures in Form 1  

which constitute the basis for formulating the ToR and between the ambit of the EIA  

report required by the ToR and the final EIA report. The ToR guide the preparation of  

the EIA report. A failure to disclose information in Form 1 impairs the functioning of  

the EAC in the preparation of the ToR and in consequence, leads to preparation of a  

deficient EIA report.   

 76 The submission that the EIA report deals with the prevalence of forested areas  

and warrants the grant of an EC cannot be accepted for yet another reason. EACs  

and SEACs are conferred with the authority to reject applications for the grant of an  

EC at the stage of scoping itself, prior to the preparation of the ToR. The application  

may be rejected on the basis of the information furnished by the project proponent in  

Form 1. Claiming an EC as a matter of right merely because the EIA report has  

assessed parameters that were omitted in Form 1, bypasses the authority of the EAC  

and SEAC to reject an application at the preliminary stage and cannot be  

countenanced. The regulatory authority is required to assess the final documents  

submitted to it “strictly with reference to the ToR” and communicate to the EAC and  

SEAC any discrepancies between the EIA report and the ToR. A deficient ToR on the  

basis of the non-disclosure of material information in Form 1 impedes this process.   

 77 The failure on part of a project proponent to disclose material information in  

Form 1 as stipulated under the 2006 notification has a cascading effect on the salient

PART E   

48    

objective which underlies the 2006 notification. The 2006 notification represents an  

independent code with the avowed objective of balancing the development agenda  

with the protection of the environment. An applicant cannot claim an EC, under the  

2006 notification, based on substantial or proportionate compliance with the terms  

stipulated in the notification. The terms of the notification lay down strict standards  

that must be complied with by an applicant seeking an EC for a proposed project.  

The burden of establishing environmental compliance rests on a project proponent  

who intends to bring about a change in the existing state of the environment.  

Whereas, in the present case, there has thus been a patent failure on part of the  

project proponent to make mandatory disclosures stipulated in Form 1 under the  

2006 notification, that must have consequences in law. There can be no gambles  

with the environment: a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ approach is simply unacceptable;  

unacceptable if we are to preserve environmental governance under the rule of law.   

E Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZs)  

 78 The substratum of the case of the appellants is based on the following extract  

contained in the EIA report:  

“Ecologically Sensitive Zones Ministry of Environment and  

Forests had constituted a High Level Working Group (HLWG)  

under the Chairmanship of Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Member  

(Science), Planning Commission vide office order dated  

17.08.2012 to study the preservation of the ecology,  

environmental integrity and holistic development of the  

Western Ghats in view of their rich and unique biodiversity.  

HLWG submitted its report to the MoEF on 15th April 2013.  

HLWG identified 37% of natural landscape having high  

biological richness, low forest fragmentation, low population  

density and containing Protected Areas, World Heritage Sites  

and Tiger and Elephant corridors as an Ecologically Sensitive  

Areas (ESA). The present proposed airport site is falling  

under Pernem taluka of North Goa district. The Pernem  

taluka has not been included in the Ecologically Sensitive  

Areas submitted by HLWG. The MoEF order on ESA is  

attached as Annexure XVI.”

PART E   

49    

According to Ms Shenoy, the EIA report notices the Kasturirangan report submitted  

on 15 April 2013. The submission is that the EIA report has conveniently glossed  

over the areas adverted to by the Kasturirangan report as an ESZ. This includes  

those areas which fall within the study area on the ground that Pernem taluka, where  

the project site is situated, has not been included as an ESZ. In this context, reliance  

is placed on a draft notification dated 3 October 2018 issued by MoEFCC under  

which the Union Government has proposed to notify 56,825 square metres spread  

across six states – Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu as  

the Western Ghats ESZ. The preamble to the draft notification adverts to the steps  

taken by the Union Government between 2013 and 2016 in pursuance of the report  

of the HLWG. This includes draft notifications issued on 10 March 2014 and 4  

September 2015. The draft notification dated 3 October 2018 emphasises the  

importance of the Western Ghats as a global biodiversity hot spot:  

“WHEREAS, Western Ghats is an important geological  

landform on the fringe of the west coast of India and it is the  

origin of Godavari, Krishna, Cauvery and a number of other  

rivers and extends over a distance of approximately 1500  

kilometres from Tapti river in the north to Kanyakumari in the  

south with an average elevation of more than 600 metres and  

traverses through six States namely, Gujarat, Maharashtra,  

Goa, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu;  

AND WHEREAS, Western Ghats is a global biodiversity  

hotspot and a treasure trove of biological diversity and it  

harbours many endemic species of flowering plants, endemic  

fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and  

invertebrates and it is also an important center of evolution of  

economically important domesticated plant species such as  

pepper, cardamom, cinnamom, mango and jackfruit;  

AND WHEREAS, Western Ghats has many unique habitats  

which are home to a variety of endemic species of flora and  

fauna such as Myristica swamps, the flat-topped lateritic  

plateaus, the Sholas and wetland and riverine Eco-systems;  

AND WHEREAS, UNESCO has included certain identified  

parts of Western Ghats in the UNESCO World Natural  

Heritage List because Western Ghats is a Centre of origin of

PART E   

50    

many species as also home for rich endemic biodiversity and  

hence a cradle for biological evolution;”  

79 Ms Shenoy has emphasised that sixteen villages in the Taluka of Sawantwadi  

of the district of Sindhudurg which fall within the study area have been mapped as an  

ESZ in the annexure to the draft notification dated 3 October 2018. They are:    

“State District Taluk Village Name  

Maharashtra Sindhudurg Sawantwadi Tamboli  

Maharashtra Sindhudurg Sawantwadi Kumbhavade  

Maharashtra Sindhudurg Sawantwadi Degave  

Maharashtra Sindhudurg Sawantwadi Banda  

Maharashtra Sindhudurg Sawantwadi Padve  

Majgaon  

Maharashtra Sindhudurg Sawantwadi Ronapal  

Maharashtra Sindhudurg Sawantwadi Padve  

Maharashtra Sindhudurg Sawantwadi Dandeli  

Maharashtra Sindhudurg Sawantwadi Madura  

Maharashtra Sindhudurg Sawantwadi Dingne  

Maharashtra Sindhudurg Sawantwadi Aros  

Maharashtra Sindhudurg Sawantwadi Galel  

Maharashtra Sindhudurg Sawantwadi Kondure  

Maharashtra Sindhudurg Sawantwadi Satarda  

Maharashtra Sindhudurg Sawantwadi Dongarpal  

Maharashtra Sindhudurg Sawantwadi Sateli Tarf  

Soundal”  

80 A comparison of the above villages with Annexure IX of the EIA report  

indicates that several of the above villages which have been mapped as ESZs in the

PART E   

51    

draft notification fall within the 10 kilometre buffer from the project site. Hence, the  

submission of Ms Shenoy merits a close analysis.   

 81 The EIA report has rested content with the observation that Pernem taluka,  

where the project site is situated, is not an ESZ. That is not sufficient or adequate,  

since the purpose of the EIA report is to make an assessment of ESZs which fall  

within the study area. Mr Nadkarni’s response to the above submission is that: (i)  

neither the Mopa plateau nor Pernem taluka constitute a part of the Western Ghats;  

(ii) the HLWG chaired by Dr Kasturirangan recommended a prohibition of specified  

activities while for other activities, the 2006 notification was required to be followed;  

(iii) the EIA report, while considering the project, has also adverted to the  

Kasturirangan report; and (iv) infrastructure projects except in the prohibited category  

are permissible, subject to an EIA.   

 82 The report of the HLWG dated 15 April 2013 recommends that there should be  

a complete ban on mining, quarrying and sand mining activity in the ESZ. Similarly, it  

recommends that no thermal power project should be allowed in ESZs and that all  

‘red category’ industries should be strictly banned. Building and construction projects  

of 20,000 square metres and above should not be allowed. However, all other  

infrastructure and development projects, which have been recommended, should be  

subject to the grant of ECs under Category ‘A’ projects of the 2006 notification.   

 83 The Union Government issued a notification on 13 November 2013 in  

pursuance of Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 to the effect that  

from the date of the issuance of those directions, no pending case or fresh case shall  

be considered by the EACs/MOEF or SEACs/SEIAAs covering the following  

industries:

PART E   

52    

(a) Mining, quarrying and sand mining;  

(b) Thermal power plants;  

(c) Building and construction projects of 20,000 square metres area and above;  

(d) Township and area development projects with an area of 50 hectares and above  

and/or with a built-up area of 1,50,000 square metres and above; and  

(e) ‘Red category’ industries.   

84 The submission of the ASG is that there is no prohibition on setting up a  

Category ‘A’ project in an ESZ.  An infrastructure project such as an airport does not  

fall within the range of prohibited activities. What is necessary is that the project must  

be assessed in terms of the 2006 notification.   

 85 The glaring deficiency which emerges from the EIA report is its failure to notice  

the existence of ESZs within a buffer distance of 10 kilometres of the project site. On  

one hand, the EIA report takes note of the HLWG report dated 15 April 2013. But, on  

the other hand, the EIA report ignores the existence of ESZs within the study area on  

the ground that the project site is not situated in an ESZ. That, as we have seen,  

can never be accepted as an adequate response. The purpose and object of the EIA  

report is to map areas, understand their vulnerabilities, and conduct a study on a  

scientific basis of the impact of the proposed project on an ecologically sensitive  

terrain. The EIA report fails to meet a classical requirement of administrative law: to  

take into account a relevant consideration namely, that within the study area which  

has to be considered, there is the presence of ESZs.   

 86 In deducing the impact of a proposed activity on an ESZ, it is not sufficient to  

take recourse to a generic assessment of a proposed activity on the ecology of the

PART F   

53    

study area. The EIA report must factor in those specific features which make an area  

ecologically sensitive. These would encompass all aspects of environmental concern  

which render the area ecologically sensitive. This would include wet lands, water  

sources, water bodies, costal zones, biospheres, mountains and forests. The  

vulnerabilities of each of them must be studied as distinctive components together  

with a holistic analysis of their existence in a chain of bio-diversity. Where an area is  

ecologically sensitive because of the presence of flora or fauna requiring protection,  

that must be specifically adverted to and studied. The deficiency of the EIA report  

emanates from its failure to notice that the purpose of the study was not only to  

determine whether the project site is ecologically sensitive.  Confining itself to this  

aspect, the EIA report failed to consider a crucial and relevant consideration.  

F Sampling Points  

 87 The submission of the appellants is that the Guidance manual requires the  

collection of primary data through measures and field studies in the study area within  

10 kilometres radius from the ARP.  Secondary data has to be collected within a 15  

kilometres aerial distance for the parameters mentioned in Colum 9(III) of Form 1 of  

the 2006 notification. In the present case, it was urged that not a single sampling  

station with reference to any of the parameters is situated in Maharashtra. As a  

result, no sampling sites for any of the parameters fall within 40% of the study area.   

Consequently, no primary data collection was done despite the carrying out of two  

samples in 2011 and 2014 respectively. In response to this submission, it has been  

urged that all sampling points were based on para 4.1 of the Guidance manual.  As a  

result, it was submitted that areas within Goa and Maharashtra were studied along

PART F   

54    

with impact studies.  In order to assess the submission, it is necessary to refer to  

relevant aspects of the EIA report:  

F.1 Air quality  

88 In order to study the ambient air quality in terms of Suspended Particulate  

Matter, Respirable Particulate Matter, SO2, NOX, CO and HC, Ambient Air Quality  

monitoring stations were set up at six locations. They are at Sinechaadvin, Katwal,  

Mopa village, Pernem, Nagzor and Patradevi. All are in Goa. The location at  

Patradevi was on the border shared by Goa with Maharashtra. The study area  

extended to a radial distance of 10 kilometres from the ARP. We accept the  

submission of the ASG that they would hence cover areas falling within both Goa and  

Maharashtra. Para 4.1.2 of Chapter IV of the EIA report sets out the baseline data  

collected at the monitoring stations.  Since the entire study area within a radius of 10  

kilometres was considered for monitoring air quality, we accept the submission that  

the location of the sampling points within Goa did not preclude the monitoring of air  

quality within the study area.  

F.2 Water quality  

89 Para 4.2 of the EIA report states that ground water quality was measured at  

four locations: Mopa village, Pernem, Dargal and Patradevi marked within 10  

kilometres of the study area. The surface water quality was measured at three  

locations: Chapora river, Tiraikol river and Nala near Mopa village within 10  

kilometres of the study area. The impact assessment is contained in the EIA report.  

The Mopa plateau is at a height of 155 metres above mean sea level and water from  

the plateau flows down to the rivers in the State of Goa.  The laterite plateau is an

PART F   

55    

important source of drainage by providing natural channels for water. The impact of a  

greenfield airport on the closing of natural channels which feed the water bodies has  

not been scientifically mapped or studied.   

F.3 Noise quality  

90 While monitoring the noise quality, the EIA report covered a radius of 10  

kilometres. In order to obtain baseline data of noise quality, nine monitoring stations  

were chosen in the study area.  While it is true that all nine locations were situated in  

the State of Goa, one (Patradevi) was situated on the border shared between Goa  

and Maharashtra.  The EIA report contains an impact study and the study area  

covered includes both the states.  

F.4 Flora and fauna  

91 The EIA report indicates that the area surrounding the site for the proposed  

airport has dense forests49.  These total up to nearly 6,634.19 hectares50. Ms Shenoy  

has urged that it is impossible that the fauna found by the project proponent through  

both primary sampling and secondary sources was only limited to animals such as:  

domestic dog, cat and cattle, common house mouse, rat and mongoose, jackal and  

the three striped palm squirrel. This, in her submission, is a clear indication that the  

EIA report is faulty and clearly incorrect.   

 92 While dealing with the above submissions, it is necessary to note that the  

Guidance manual contains a specific reference to the collection of data of sensitive  

                                                      49 See for instance para 2.0 of the executive summary and para 2.3.1 of Chapter I  50 See Para 2.3.1, Chapter II

PART F   

56    

habitats and wild/endangered species in the project area. The Guidance manual  

stipulates thus:  

“Data on sensitive habitats, wild or endangered species in the  

project area also is to be collected from Zoological Survey of  

India (ZSI), Botanical Survey of India (BSI), Wildlife Institute  

of India (WII) and Ministry of Earth Sciences. Wildlife  

symbolizes the functioning efficiency of the entire eco system.   

Just as wild flora needs special treatment for preservation  

and growth, wild fauna as well deserves specific conservatory  

pursuits for posterity”.  

93 The grievance is that no data has been collected from the State of  

Maharashtra and all secondary data collected by the project proponent related only  

to the State of Goa.  There is substance in the submission which has been urged on  

behalf of the appellant. A reading of the counter affidavit filed by the State of Goa  

would seem to support the appellant’s submission. It is stated:  

“I say that several recognised publications and research  

papers were referred to in order to verify and assess the data  

collected, to name a few of the publications:  

i. Birds of Goa by Heinz Lainer & Rahul Alvares;  

ii. The Goan Jungle Book by Nirmal Kulkarni;  

iii. A photographic guide to Butterflies of Goa by Parag  

Ragnekar;  

iv. Flora of Goa, Diu, Daman, Dadra and Nagarhaveli  

(Vol.1) by RS Rao;  

v. Flora of Goa, Diu, Daman, Dadra and Nagarhaveli  

(Vol.2) by RS Rao;  

vi. Red data book published by Botanical Survey of  

India;  

vii. Study materials published in Goa ENVIS Centre were  

also referred.”  

The appellant, on the other hand, has sought to rely upon several independent  

studies including the following:  

“a. A rapid survey to assess mammal presence at Barazan  

Plateau, Mopa, Goa, India conducted by Girish Punjabi  

(Wildlife Biologist) and Atul S Borker (Full Member of  

IUCN/SSC Otter Specialist Group) that Schedule I species  

such as gaur, leopard and Indian Pangolin; Schedule II

PART F   

57    

species such as giant squirrel, common palm civet; Schedule  

III species such as sambar, wild pig and Schedule IV species  

such as Indian hare, Indian porcupine.  

The report also mentions the presence of the Sawantwadi –  

Dodamarg wildlife corridor within the 10 km proposed project  

site.  

b. Report on one day survey conducted to find evidence of  

Otter presence at Mopa, Goa conducted by Atul Borker (Full  

Member of IUCN/SSC Otter Specialist Group) that found that  

a perennial stream on the plateau had presence of the  

smooth coated otter, that falls within Schedule II of the  

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.  

c. Report on two days survey to find evidence of plant and  

bird species at Mopa Plateau conducted by Aparna Watve  

(Ecologist) and Sanjay Thakur (Wildlife Biologist) that found  

Schedule I species such as the Indian peafowl and the  

Dipcadi concanese which is critically endangered.  The study  

clearly mentions that the EIA study is entire deficit as it does  

not accurately consider the flora and fauna of the area as well  

as the number of trees to be cut.”   

94 We find that the collection of both primary and secondary data of fauna in the  

EIA report was perfunctory. The primary study is not based on data collected from  

acknowledged sources such as the Zoological Survey of India, Wildlife Institute of  

India and Ministry of Earth Sciences as required under the Guidance manual.  

Similarly, as regard avi-faunal studies, the EIA report lists 385 plant species in table  

4.15 of Chapter IV, titled ‘Description on Environment’.  It also states that 86 species  

of birds were observed during the survey in the 10 kilometre study area from the  

proposed site. Column 9 (III) of Form 1 refers to “areas” in the following terms:  

“areas which are used by protected, important or sensitive  

species of flora or fauna for breeding, foraging, nesting,  

resting, over wintering or migration”.  

The above column was left blank by the project proponent in Form 1. According to  

the Guidance manual, secondary data has to be collected within an aerial distance of

PART F   

58    

15 kilometres for the parameters specifically specified in column 9(III) of Form 1 of  

the 2006 notification. This was evidently not done. A careful avi-faunal study was  

necessary, having due regard to the fact that the proposed project is an airport site.  

Bearing in mind the profile of airport operations, foraging or nesting by bird species in  

and around the airport must not be discarded. It must be accepted that in a project  

involving the setting up of an airport, the EIA report must deal with the impact of the  

airport on birds and likewise the impact of birds on aircraft operations.   

F.5 Felling of Trees  

95 Para 2.1.5 of the executive summary to the EIA report deals with the biological  

environment.  Para 2.1.5 stipulates thus:  

“The area required for proposed airport has only few  

trees, mainly bushes. These will be cleared during site  

preparation.”          (Emphasis supplied)  

Similarly, Chapter II which deals with project description specifies in para 2.3.1 that  

“vegetation and trees are sparse at the site”. That the trees which were required to  

be felled were far from “few” is evident from the reply filed by the State of Goa in the  

present proceedings where it has been stated that permissions were granted for the  

felling of 54,676 trees. The EIA report ignored them. The submission in the EIA  

report that there were only sparse trees is sought to be explained by the state from  

the perspective of the large area of the land proposed for the project. It is sought to  

be explained that since the total area is 2,133 acres, the number of trees would  

proportionately work out to about 25 trees in an area of one acre (about one tree in  

an area of 160 square metres).  In terms of the order passed by the Bombay High  

Court in the PIL, to which we have adverted earlier, the Principal Chief Conservator  

of Forests, Goa passed an order on 2 April 2018 providing for (i) the enumeration of

PART F   

59    

all trees; (ii) exploring the possibility of transplanting existing trees which could be  

safely transplanted into ground areas; (iii) issuance of tree cutting permission by the  

Deputy Conservator of Forests; and (iv) planting of ten times the number of trees  

felled by the concessionaire under the supervision of the Forest Department.    

 96 On 6 February 2018, the Deputy Conservator of Forests had granted  

permission for felling of 21,703 trees. Following the dismissal of an appeal under  

Section 15 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act 1984 filed by the  

Federation of Rainbow Warriors, a Writ Petition was filed before the Bombay High  

Court51. The High Court set aside the order of the Deputy Conservator of Forests and  

remanded the proceedings to the Principal Chief Conservator who passed the order  

which has been noted above. Following the order of the Principal Chief Conservator,  

54,676 trees were enumerated. The competent authority granted permission for the  

felling of trees thereafter on the following dates: (i) 1,422 trees by an order dated 20  

April 2018; (ii) 18,408 trees by an order dated 24 July 2018 and (iii) 33,298 trees by  

an order dated 1 October 2018. Following this exercise, the felling of trees was  

completed on 18 January 2019.  The Bombay High Court having directed that the  

order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests shall be subject to the specific  

permission of the NGT in the pending proceedings, a Miscellaneous Application was  

moved before the NGT. While disposing of the main appeal, the NGT also disposed  

of the Miscellaneous Application and under the head of ‘Biological Environment’, the  

following directions have been issued:  

“E. Biological Environment  

1. Efforts be made to transplant the trees to other locations  

in the same vicinity by using appropriate mechanical  

devices which are available these days.  

                                                      51 WP No. 1 of 2018

PART F   

60    

2. Efforts be made to plant indigenous species which are tall  

in size rather than small saplings.  

3. Concerns have been raised by appellants with regard to  

plant species ‘Dipcadi concanense’ which has been  

claimed to be a threatened plant.  This claim of the  

appellants have been negated by the respondent by  

producing a documentation of Botanical Survey of India,  

Western Regional Centre, Pune, Maharashtra titled as “A  

Note on Occurrence and Distribution of Dipcadi  

concanense”.  By invoking Precautionary Principle, we  

direct the Project Proponent to draw up a Conservancy by  

Plan/Scheme for ‘Dipcadi concanense’ in collaboration  

with Forest Department, State of Goa and Botanical  

Survey of India and ensure its implementation.”  

97 We express our serious displeasure with the manner in which the EIA report  

made an attempt to gloss over the existence of trees.  The EIA report prevaricated by  

recording that the area required for the proposed airport has only a few trees, mostly  

bushes. The EIA report states that vegetation and trees are sparse at the site. A  

photograph and a google map image are put forth as illustrations in figure 2.3 of  

Chapter II. To realise later that the project involved the felling of 54,676 trees is  

indicative of the cavalier approach to the issue and a process of fact finding which is  

parsimonious with the truth. Post facto explanations are inadequate to deal with a  

failure of due process in the field of environmental governance. The State of Goa  

would have us gloss over the felling of trees by submitting that 54,676 trees over a  

project area of 2,133 acres averages out to 25 trees per acre or one tree over an  

area of 160 square metres. This is a fallacious approach to the issue.  Mathematical  

averages cannot displace factual data about the actual number of trees which were  

affected by the project. The EIA report ought to have scrutinized the number of trees,  

their nature and longevity. Issues such as the extent to which the trees or some of  

them were capable of being transplanted had to be considered in the EIA report. The  

location of the trees is also significant. In a given case, if the trees appear in clusters

PART F   

61    

or in a dense formation in segments of the project site, it would be necessary to  

determine whether felling all of them was necessary for the project to be  

implemented.  

 98 In the written submissions which have been filed by the State of Goa, it has  

been submitted that of the 54,676 tees which were felled: (i) 32,193 trees  

representing 59% had a girth of 30 to 50 centimeters; (ii) 19,903 trees representing  

36% had a girth of 50 to 100 centimeters; and (iii) ‘only 2,580 trees’ had a girth  

exceeding 100 centimeters. The Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act,  

1984 defines the expression “tree” in Section 2(j) in the following terms:   

“S. 2(j) - “tree” means any woody plant whose branches  

spring from and are supported upon the trunk or the body and  

whose trunk or body is not less than ten centimeters in  

diameter at a height of one meter from the ground level and  

includes coconut palm.”  

This definition has been highlighted to indicate that it incorporates a stringent  

meaning of the expression ‘trees’. The point, however, is simple: there was a glaring  

omission of the factual existence of as many as 54,676 trees in the EIA report. For  

project proponents, the environment may not possess a human voice. But the  

purpose of prescribing an EIA report is precisely to undertake a baseline study on all  

aspects of the environment and to anticipate the impact of a projected activity on the  

environment. Ignoring any component of the environment amounts to a serious  

dereliction of duty which detracts from the rule of law in matters of environmental  

governance.   

 99 The order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests mandating  

transplantation, where possible, and the plantation of ten trees for every tree felled  

provides a measure of rectification. But there is a reason why issues pertaining to

PART G   

62    

vegetational cover must be taken seriously in the EIA process. The formula of  

planting a set number of trees for every existing tree felled must be alive to the fact  

that the survival of new plantations is replete with uncertainty. The survival of  

transplanted trees is equally a matter of uncertainty.  Though the development of  

infrastructure may necessitate the felling of trees, the process stipulated under the  

2006 notification must be transparent, candid and robust. A regulatory regime for  

environmental governance is based on the hypothesis that all stakeholders will act  

with rectitude. Hiding significant components of the environment from scrutiny is not  

an acceptable modality to secure project approvals. There was a serious lacuna in  

regard to disclosures and appraisal on this aspect of the controversy.  

G  Public Consultation   

 100 The importance of public consultation is underscored by the 2006 notification.   

Public consultation, as it states, is “the process by which the concerns of local  

affected persons and others who have a plausible stake in the environmental impacts  

of the project or activity are ascertained with a view to take into account all the  

material concerns in the project or activity design as appropriate”. This postulates two  

elements. They have both, an intrinsic and an instrumental character. The intrinsic  

character of public consultation is that there is a value in seeking the views of those  

in the local area as well as beyond, who have a plausible stake in the project or  

activity. Public consultation is a process which is designed to hear the voices of those  

communities which would be affected by the activity. They may be affected in terms  

of the air which they breathe, the water which they drink or use to irrigate their lands,  

the disruption of local habitats, and the denudation of environmental eco-systems  

which define their existence and sustain their livelihoods.  

PART G   

63    

101 Public consultation involves a process of confidence building by giving an  

important role to those who have a plausible stake.  It also recognizes that apart from  

the knowledge which is provided by science and technology, local communities have  

an innate knowledge of the environment. The knowledge of local communities is  

transmitted by aural and visual traditions through generations. By recognizing that  

they are significant stakeholders, the consultation process seeks to preserve  

participation as an important facet of governance based on the rule of law.  

Participation protects the intrinsic value of inclusion.   

 102 The 2006 notification postulates:   

(i) A public hearing at or in close proximity to the project site to ascertain the  

views of “locally affected persons”;   

(ii) Obtaining written responses from “other concerned” individuals having a  

“plausible stake” in the environmental aspects of the project or the activity;   

(iii) The duty of the SPCB to conduct hearings and to forward the proceedings to  

the regulatory authority within the stipulated time;   

(iv) Placing on the website of the Pollution Control Board a summary of the EIA  

report in the prescribed format and the making available of the draft EIA report  

by the regulatory authority on a written request by any person concerned, for  

inspection;   

(v) The duty of the applicant to address all material concerns expressed during  

the process of public consultation;   

(vi) The making of appropriate changes in the draft EIA and EMP; and   

(vii) The submission of the final EIA report by the applicant to the regulatory  

authority for appraisal.   

PART G   

64    

Each of these features is crucial to the success of a public consultation process.  

Public consultation cannot be reduced to a mere incantation or a procedural formality  

which has to be completed to move on to the next stage. Underlying public  

consultation is the important constitutional value that decisions which affect the lives  

of individuals must, in a system of democratic governance, factor in their concerns  

which have been expressed after obtaining full knowledge of a project and its  

potential environmental effects.    

 103 Apart from the intrinsic value of public consultation, it serves an instrumental  

function as well.  The purpose of ascertaining the views of stakeholders, is to account  

for all the material concerns in the design of the proposed project or activity. For this  

reason, the process of public consultation involves several important stages. The  

Pollution Control Board is under a mandate to forward the proceedings to the  

regulatory authority. The project proponent must address all material environmental  

concerns and make appropriate changes in the draft EIA and EMP. The project  

proponent may even submit a supplementary report to the draft EIA.  Each of these  

elements is crucial to the design features of the 2006 notification. A breach will  

render the process vulnerable to challenge on the ground that: (i) significant  

environmental concerns have not been taken into account; (ii) there was an absence  

of a full disclosure when the EIA report was put up for consultation; and (iii) concerns  

which have been expressed by persons affected by the project have not been  

adequately dealt with or analysed.   

 104 The public consultation was held on 1 February 2015 at Mopa.  Nearly 70  

persons spoke on the occasion and 1,586 persons signed the attendance sheet.  

PART G   

65    

1,150 representations were received. Some of the environmental concerns  

expressed during the public hearing are catalogued below:  

(i) Mopa plateau has multiple water sheds and the discharge of water goes down  

to the rivers;  

(ii) Nearly forty springs would be affected along with flora and fauna;  

(iii) The public hearing had been conducted in an area where the land was barren  

and with no plantation;  

(iv) The impact on river Chapora, which is within a 10 kilometre radius from the  

project, has not been adequately analysed;   

(v) Mopa plateau has a natural mechanism for ground water recharge;  

(vi) Protection of the Western Ghats is necessary, particularly with the view to not  

disturb flora and fauna;  

(vii) The EIA report has not been made available to the affected areas and Gram  

Panchayats in the buffer zone;  

(viii) Local plantations would be affected;  

(ix) The number of trees to be felled by the project proponent has not been  

specified in the EIA report;  

(x) The Dodamarg Wildlife Sanctuary had been ‘sanitized’ by the High Court;  

(xi) Forest clearance had not been obtained;  

(xii) The sacred groves of the area have not been described, including the Barazan  

which will be lost;  

(xiii) The slopes sustain cashew plantations with nearly forty lakh cashew trees  

resulting in an annual income of Rs Fifty crores; and  

(xiv) No study has been carried out in the 10 kilometre radius falling in Maharashtra.  

PART G   

66    

105 These concerns are at the forefront of the debate in the present case. What is  

significant, is the manner in which they were projected before the EAC at its 149th  

meeting on 26 June 2015 where the project proponent made a presentation.  The  

Minutes of the meeting recorded the following observations of the project proponent:  

“x. Public Hearing was conducted on 01.02.2015 at Simechen  

Adven, Mopa, Goa.  The major issues raised during public  

hearing and responses sought from the project  

proponent related to employment opportunities.”  

                                                               (Emphasis supplied)  

On the basis of a factual analysis, Ms Shenoy has submitted that only seven out of  

the 68 objections dealt with the issue of employment. Evidently, the project  

proponent failed to address the other significant concerns in the manner which is  

required by the 2006 notification.   

106 In Utkarsh Mandal v Union of India52, the Delhi High Court has succinctly  

summarized the duty of the EAC to apply its mind to the objections raised in the  

course of public hearings:  

“It is that body that has to apply its collective mind to the  

objections and not merely the MoEF which has to consider  

such objections at the second stage.  We therefore hold that  

in the context of the EIA Notification dated 14th September  

2006 and the mandatory requirement of holding public  

hearings to invite objections it is the duty of the EAC, to whom  

the task of evaluating such objections has been delegated, to  

indicate in its decision the fact that such objections, and the  

response thereto of the project proponent, were considered  

and the reasons why any or all of such objections were  

accepted or negatived.  The failure to give such reasons  

would render the decision vulnerable to attack on the ground  

of being vitiated due to non-application of mind to relevant  

materials and therefore arbitrary.”  

                                                      52 (2009) SCC Online Del 3836

PART H   

67    

107 Crucial objections and environmental concerns which were raised during the  

consultative process were reduced to a single issue by the project proponent before  

the EAC: the need for employment opportunities. The project proponent failed in its  

duty to inform the EAC. The record does not indicate a critical appraisal or analysis  

by the EAC. The EAC was duty bound to apply its mind to the environmental  

concerns raised by stakeholders. The duty of the project proponent to place fairly all  

the environmental concerns raised during the public hearing is the crucial link in the  

appraisal by the EAC. The Minutes of the meeting indicate that there was no fair and  

complete disclosure of the objections which were raised during the public hearing  

before the EAC. There is evidently a failure in the process of applying and  

implementing the norms laid down in the 2006 notification in this regard.    

 H Appraisal by the EAC  

 108 Appraisal by the EAC is structured and defined by the 2006 notification. The  

process of appraisal is defined to mean “a detailed scrutiny” by the EAC of the  

application and other documents like the EIA report and the outcome of the public  

consultation, including the public hearing proceedings, submitted by the applicant to  

the regulatory authority for the grant of an EC. The EAC is under a mandate to  

conduct the process of appraisal in “a transparent manner”.  On the conclusion of  

these proceedings, the EAC has to make “categorical recommendations” to the  

regulatory authority either for: (i) the grant of a prior environmental clearance on  

stipulated terms and conditions; or (ii) the rejection of the application. The  

recommendations made by the EAC to the regulatory authority must be based on  

“reasons”.    

PART H   

68    

109 The EAC, at its 149th meeting held on 26 June 2015, considered the EIA report  

and sought a clarification from the project proponent on the following six aspects:  

“i. There is a need to superimpose the layout plan showing  

the drainage pattern including natural drainage, construction  

in the area on superimposed map showing clear topography  

of the region;  

ii. 10 year data regarding rain fall in the area;  

iii. Justification on sustainability of existing traffic and  

transportation arrangements especially at inter-section points  

of the approach road to the airport needs to be submitted;  

iv. A traffic circulation plan needs to be evolved for smooth  

running of traffic in the area;  

v. Measures taken to comply with the CPCB guidelines  

formulated for noise pollution control in airport areas to be  

submitted; and  

vi. Minimum 20% energy conservation measures should be  

adopted incorporating provisions for use of LED, star rated  

ACs etc. Revised Energy Conservation Plan to be submitted.”  

110 A representation was received from the Federation of Rainbow Warriors,  

consequent to which the consideration was deferred and the project proponent was  

requested to submit a “point-wise reply to the issues raised” in the representation.  

The EAC, at its 152nd meeting held on 20 October 2015, observed that the project  

proponent had provided “pointwise clarifications to the concerns raised by the  

‘NGO’”. The EAC noted thus:  

• “The EIA report has been updated by the PP after taking  

into account the issues raised in the public hearing and  

the same has been put in public domain.  

• The project is outside the ESZ delineated by the Dr  

Kasturirangan Committee and TERI.  

• The project envisages construction of rain water  

harvesting pits within the plot area, which would  

contribute to ground water recharge.  Hence, the  

objection of NGO in this regard does not hold.  

• The biological data in respect of flora and fauna was  

collected by the functional area experts of M/s Engineers  

India Limited and not by M/s Pragati Labs stationed at

PART H   

69    

Goa during November, 2014 to January, 2015 for  

collection of ambient air quality, noise, water quality, soil,  

socio-economics.”  

Following the above statement, the EAC recommended the grant of an EC subject to  

certain conditions.  Para 3.1.2 of the Minutes of the EAC is as follows:  

“The Committee noted the peculiar circumstances of the case  

and the difficulties in land acquisition which led to delay in  

preparation of the EIA report, and the larger public interest  

involved.  

Keeping in view the fact that the project proponent has not  

concealed facts and circumstances of the case and the  

project is in the public interest, the Ministry may take an  

appropriate view on the objection that the public hearing  

could not have been held, in the absence of valid TOR,  

though the validity has been extended twice and regularized  

subsequently.  The Committee also noted that the public  

hearing was attended by about 3000 people and hence there  

is substantive and active public participation as required  

under the law for public consultation.  

The PP further provided their reply to the rebuttal by the said  

NGO on various issues.  

The EAC, after deliberations, recommended the project for  

grant of EC subject to the above and the following:-  

• The project proponent shall ensure availability of  

adequate land at the junction of the Mopa Airport  

road and Mumbai/Goa NH 17 for traffic circulation/  

management and to provide for all the traffic  

interchanges and proposed clover.  

• The approach and exit roads to the airport would be   

approved from the NHAI and should be according to  

IRC norms.  

• A perusal of the Topo sheet superimposed on the  

runway area indicates that the extreme end of the  

runway is covering the drainage area partly.  The  

drainage area which is under the runway needs to be  

channelized. The area between the parallel taxi way  

and run way needs to be handled carefully to drain  

the water from the area in the outfall.”  

PART H   

70    

111 The above explanation must be assessed with reference to the norm that the  

EAC is required to submit reasons for its recommendation. The above extract  

indicates that the EAC has adverted to the following circumstances:   

(i) The “peculiar circumstances” of the case;   

(ii) The difficulties in land acquisition which led to a delay in the preparation of the  

EIA report;   

(iii) The “larger public interest” involved;   

(iv) The project proponent had not concealed facts and circumstances of the case;   

(v) The project is in the public interest; and   

(vi) The project proponent had provided a reply to the rebuttal by Rainbow  

Warriors on various issues.   

This analysis of the EIA report is, to say the least, sketchy and perfunctory and  

discloses an abdication of its functions by the EAC. The requirement that the EAC  

must record reasons, besides being mandatory under the 2006 notification, is of  

significance for two reasons:   

(i) The EAC makes a recommendation to the regulatory authority in terms of the  

2006 notification. The regulatory authority has to consider the recommendation  

and convey its decision to the project proponent.  The regulatory authority, as  

para 8(ii) provides, shall normally accept the recommendations of the EAC.  

Where it disagrees, it would request reconsideration, stating the reasons for its  

disagreement. In turn, the EAC will consider the observations of the regulatory  

authority and furnish its views within a stipulated period; and   

(ii) The grant of an EC is subject to an appeal before the NGT under Section 16 of  

the NGT Act 2010.  

PART H   

71    

The reasons furnished by the EAC for its recommendation are a basic link in the  

ultimate decision of the regulatory authority. They constitute substantive material  

which will be considered by the Tribunal when it considers a challenge to the grant of  

an EC.   

 112 What, then, do the reasons which have been furnished by the EAC tell us?  

The EAC relies on the “peculiar circumstances of the case” as the basis of its  

recommendation. What the peculiar circumstances are, is left for pure guess work or  

surmise. The EAC refers to the delay in acquisition proceedings, a larger public  

interest and the fact that the project proponent “has not concealed facts and  

circumstances”.  Each one of the reasons which has weighed with the EAC betrays a  

lack of comprehension of the true nature of its function under the 2006 notification.  

The EAC has failed to consider relevant circumstances bearing on the environmental  

impact of the project and has instead considered circumstances extraneous to its  

function. That the project proponent, according to the EAC, has not concealed facts  

and circumstances is not reason enough to warrant a grant of an EC. Moreover, even  

this hypothesis (as we have seen earlier) is incorrect. There is no analysis of the EIA  

report. The EAC has failed to answer to the call to its expertise.  

 113 Clause (vi) of para 8 of the 2006 notification stipulates thus:   

“(vi) Deliberate concealment and/or submission of false or  

misleading information or data which is material to screening  

or scoping or appraisal or decision on the application shall  

make the application liable for rejection, and cancellation of  

prior environmental clearance granted on that basis.   

Rejection of an application or cancellation of a prior  

environmental clearance already granted, on such ground,  

shall be decided by the regulatory authority, after giving a  

personal hearing to the applicant, and following the principles  

of natural justice.”  

PART H   

72    

Deliberate concealment or the submission of false or misleading information or data  

material for screening, scoping, appraisal or decision on the application makes it  

liable for rejection. That the project proponent must submit all information and data  

without concealing relevant features is a basic hypothesis and expectation of the  

2006 notification. The EAC has, in the brief reasons which are contained in para  

3.1.2, not applied its mind at all to the environmental concerns raised in relation to  

the project nor do its reasons indicate an appraisal of those concerns by evaluating  

the impact of the project.   

 114 The EAC is an expert body. It must speak in the manner of an expert. Its remit  

is to apply itself to every relevant aspect of the project bearing upon the environment.  

It is not bound by the analysis which is conducted in the EIA report. It is duty bound  

to analyse the EIA report. Where it finds it deficient it can adopt such modalities  

which, in its expert decision-making capacity, are required. The reasons which are  

furnished by the EAC constitute a live link between its processes and the outomce of  

its adjudicatory function. In the absence of cogent reasons, the process by its very  

nature, together with the outcome stands vitiated.    

 115 Mr ANS Nadkarni, learned ASG urged that the EAC had, in its 149th meeting,  

sought additional information on six issues. Subsequently, at its 151st meeting, it  

deferred consideration upon the representation filed by the Federation of Rainbow  

Warriors and at its 152nd meeting, it analysed the response of the project proponent  

to the representation. Hence, the EAC must be deemed to have applied its mind.  

This approach is completely flawed.  At its 149th meeting, the EAC specifically called  

for a clarification on six issues. The next meeting was deferred.  The Minutes of the  

152nd meeting contain no assessment of whether the clarifications which were sought

PART I   

73    

by the EAC had been replied to its satisfaction by the project proponent.  The  

objection to the modalities adopted by the EAC, however, are more fundamental. The  

Minutes of the 152nd meeting indicate that the EAC primarily, if not exclusively, dealt  

with the “pointwise clarifications” of the project proponent to the representation by the  

Federation of Rainbow Warriors. Dealing with a representation is not exhaustive of  

the function of the EAC.  Arguably, if no representation was received, or if a  

representation submitted by an individual objector is found to be incorrect, that by  

itself is no ground to recommend an EC.   

 116 The EAC, as an expert body, has to scrutinize all relevant aspects of the  

project or activity proposed, including its impact on the environment. In taking that  

decision, the EIA report is an input for its analysis. The scrutiny and appraisal has to  

be undertaken by the EAC as an expert body and its reasons must reflect that this  

has been done. As the Minutes indicate, the non-application of mind by the EAC is  

evident with reference to the presence of 15 ESZs in the study area. The EAC notes  

that the project is outside the ESZ delineated by the Kasturirangan Committee. In the  

absence of a critical analysis, the EAC failed in discharging its duties under the 2006  

notification. The recommendations of the EAC furnish a guide for the MoEFCC.  

Indeed, the 2006 notification stipulates that the recommendations of the EAC would  

normally be accepted. Consequently, a failure of due process before the EAC, as in  

the present case, must lead to the invalidation of the EC.    

 I The appellate jurisdiction of the NGT: the requirement of a merits   

          review  

 117 The NGT is entrusted with appellate jurisdiction under Section 16 of the NGT  

Act 2010.  Section 16(h) provides thus:

PART I   

74    

“16 Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction. - Any person  

aggrieved by,-  

…  

(h) an order made, on or after the commencement of the  

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, granting environmental  

clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or  

processes or class of industries, operations and processes  

shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to  

certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act,  

1986 (29 of 1986);”  

Section 20 mandates that the Tribunal shall, while passing any order, decision or  

award, apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle  

and the polluter pays principle. Several decisions of this Court have given meaning to  

these principles53.  

 118 The decision of the NGT indicates that several significant submissions were  

urged before it. The entire analysis by the NGT is contained in one paragraph of its  

judgment dated 21 August 2018 which is extracted below:  

“27. We find that the Expert Appraisal Committee had before  

it point wise reply of the project proponent which we have  

already quoted above. Therein delay in land acquisition  

process and collection of fresh baseline data are mentioned.  

It is also mentioned that data for Maharashtra was also  

considered. Other issues duly explained are hydro-geological  

features and data with regard to flora and fauna, socio-

economic profile, topography, vegetation, observance of due  

procedure in public hearing, relevance of study with regard to  

ecosensitive areas of Western Ghats, feasibility of proposed  

airport in terms of cost benefit analysis as well as  

environmental cost benefit analysis. EAC also considered the  

data compiled by various offices. Mere fact that different  

opinions have been expressed by other experts is not enough  

to hold that EAC did not apply its mind. The rehabilitation  

programme was also produced before the EAC”.  

                                                      53 Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union Of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647; M C Mehta v Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC  388; M C Mehta v Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 353; A P Pollution Control Board v Prof M V Nayudu (Retd.),  (1999) 2 SCC 718; Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664; Indian Council for Enviro  Legal Action v Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 161

PART I   

75    

The next paragraph contains a brief reference to the fact that the requirement of a  

study over a distance of 15 kilometres is in regard to the collection of secondary data.   

The above paragraph, in our view, does not fulfil the requirement of a merits review  

by an expert adjudicatory body vested with appellate jurisdiction.   

 119 The NGT Act provides for the constitution of a Tribunal consisting both of  

judicial and expert members. The mix of judicial and technical members envisaged  

by the statute is for the reason that the Tribunal is called upon to consider questions  

which involve the application and assessment of science and its interface with the  

environment.  In order to be eligible for appointment as an expert member, a person  

must fulfill the following qualifications prescribed in Section 5(2):  

“(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as an  

Expert Member, unless he,  

(a) has a degree in Master of Science (in physical  

sciences or life sciences) with a Doctorate degree or Master  

of Engineering or Master of Technology and has an  

experience of fifteen years in the relevant field including five  

years practical experience in the field of environment and  

forests (including pollution control, hazardous substance  

management, environment impact assessment, climate  

change management, biological diversity management and  

forest conservation) in a reputed National level institution; or  

(b) has administrative experience of fifteen years including  

experience of five years in dealing with environmental matters  

in the Central or a State Government or in a reputed National  

or State level institution.”    

The NGT is an expert adjudicatory body on the environment.  

 120 In two of its previous decisions, the NGT has shown the path along with which  

it must traverse in arriving at its decisions. In Save Mon Region Federation v Union  

of India54, the grant of an EC to a 780 Megawatts Hydroelectric Project in Tawang  

                                                      54 2013 (1) All India NGT Reporter 1

PART I   

76    

district of Arunachal Pradesh was challenged. The NGT framed the question before it  

in broad terms:  

“…the material issue, therefore, that needs to be answered in  

the present Appeal is as to whether the process of grant of  

prior EC to the project in question suffers from vice of faulty  

scoping process or not.”  

Having reviewed the information furnished in Form 1 by the project proponent as well  

as the multiple reports on record on the bird species involved in the site for the  

proposed project, the NGT held that facts material to the case were not present  

before the EAC and the consequent ‘vacuum in the EIA report’ lead to aberrations in  

the appraisal process conducted by it. Suspending the EC granted to the project, the  

NGT accepted the contention which was urged before it that the NGT has the  

‘authority to take an appropriate decision on the facts placed before it’ and ‘set aside  

or suspend the EC’.  

Similarly, in Shreeranganathan K P v Union of India55, the grant of an EC to the  

KGS Aranmula International Airport Project was challenged. The NGT found fault  

with the process leading to up to the grant of the EC since sector specific issues had  

not been dealt with.  The NGT extensively reviewed the information submitted by the  

project proponent in Form 1, the deficiencies in the EIA report, the process of  

appraisal conducted by the EAC and the sector specific guidelines laid down with  

regard to the constructions of airports and held thus:  

“182. … a duty is cast upon the EAC or SEAC as the case  

may be to apply the cardinal principle of Sustainable  

Development and Principle of Precaution while screening,  

scoping, and appraisal of the projects or activities. While so, it  

is evident in the instant case that the EAC has miserably  

failed in the performance of its duty not only as mandated by  

the EIA Notification, 2006, but has also disappointed the legal  

                                                      55 2014 ALL (I) NGT Reporter (1) (SZ) 1

PART I   

77    

expectations from the same. For a huge project as the one in  

the instant case, the consideration for approval has been  

done in such a cursory and arbitrary manner without taking  

note of the implication and importance of environmental  

issues. …Thus, the EAC has not conducted itself as  

mandated by the EIA Notification, 2006 since it has not made  

proper appraisal by considering the available materials and  

objections in order to make proper evaluation of the project  

before making a recommendation for grant of EC.  

187…the Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there is no  

option but to scrap the impugned EC granted by the MoEF to  

the 3rd respondent/project proponent for setting up the  

Aranmula airport”  

121 The failure to consider materials on a vital issue and indeed the non-

consideration of vital issues raises a substantial question of law leading to the  

invoking of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act 2010. The  

failure of process in the present case has been compounded by the absence of a  

merits review by the NGT.  

 122 The learned ASG has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Lafarge  

Umiam Mining Private Limited v Union of India56 (“Lafarge”) to contend that the  

failure to disclose the presence of trees should not lead to the invalidation of the EC.  

In that case, an application was made under the 1994 notification for the grant of an  

EC to a proposed limestone mining project at Nongtrai Village, East Khasi Hills  

District, Meghalaya. EC was granted for the project in 2001. Pursuant to a letter by  

the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to the MoEF drawing attention to the non-

disclosure of forests, the project proponent applied for a revised EC and forest  

clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980. An ex post facto EC along with  

forest clearance was granted in 2010. Challenging the grant of the EC, it was urged  

                                                      56 (2011) 7 SCC 338

PART I   

78    

that there was a failing on part of the project proponent to disclose the presence of  

forests on the proposed project site.   

 123 A three judge Bench of this Court rejected the challenge and upheld the grant  

of the EC to the proposed project. This Court relied, among other factors, on the  

following: (i) the mining of limestone in the Khasi Hills dates back to 1763 and is an  

integral part of the culture of the Nongtrai Village; (ii) the site was cleared after  

thorough consultation with the custodian of the land, who decided to lease the land  

for the mining project following the loss of revenue caused due to mining by the  

unorganized sector; (iii) the Headman of the Nongtrai and the village durbar, who  

participated at the public hearing and filed written submissions before this Court,  

supported the project and certified that no damage would be caused to adjacent  

lands; (iv) at the stage of site clearance, the MoEF had before it certificates by the  

Executive Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council and the DFO, Khasi  

Hill Division, Shillong, certifying that there were no forests in the proposed project  

site; (v) the DFO certified that that the proposed mining site was not a forest as  

defined in Godavarman (supra); (vi) the 2006 notification was not applicable; and  

(vii) the MoEF had, at multiple stages, sought clarifications from the project  

proponent and had undertaken requisite care and caution to protect the environment.  

Upholding the grant of the EC and the forest clearance, this Court held thus:   

“120…The word “development” is a relative term. One  

cannot assume that the tribals are not aware of principles of  

conservation of forest. In the present case, we are satisfied  

that limestone mining has been going on for centuries in  

the area and that it is an activity which is intertwined with  

the culture and the unique landholding and tenure  

system of Nongtrai Village. On the facts of this case, we are  

satisfied with the due diligence exercise undertaken by MoEF  

in the matter of forest diversion. Thus, our order herein is  

confined to the facts of this case.”      (Emphasis supplied)   

PART I   

79    

124 The decision of this Court in Lafarge (supra), was based on the facts  

summarized above. Significantly, the standard of judicial review which must be  

applied in cases relating to the environment has been formulated by the three judge  

Bench in Lafarge (supra). Chief Justice S H Kapadia noted that the doctrine of  

proportionality must be applied to matters concerning the environment as part of  

judicial review. The principles of judicial review in environmental matters have been  

enunciated thus:   

“In the circumstances, barring exceptions, decisions relating  

to utilisation of natural resources have to be tested on the  

anvil of the well-recognised principles of judicial review. Have  

all the relevant factors been taken into account? Have any  

extraneous factors influenced the decision? Is the decision  

strictly in accordance with the legislative policy underlying the  

law (if any) that governs the field? Is the decision consistent  

with the principles of sustainable development in the sense  

that has the decision-maker taken into account the said  

principle and, on the basis of relevant considerations, arrived  

at a balanced decision? Thus, the Court should review the  

decision-making process to ensure that the decision of MoEF  

is fair and fully informed, based on the correct principles, and  

free from any bias or restraint.”   

125 In a recent three judge Bench decision of this Court in Mantri Techzone Pvt.  

Ltd. v Forward Foundation57, this Court had the occasion to construe the provisions  

of Section 22 of the NGT Act 2010. Speaking for the Bench, Justice Abdul Nazeer  

held that the test to determine whether a substantial question of law arises (within the  

meaning of Section 100 of CPC) was formulated in the decision of a Constitution  

Bench in Sir Chunilal v Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v Century Spinning and  

Manufacturing58, where it was held thus:  

“The proper test for determining whether a question of law  

raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be  

whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly

                                                      57 (2019) 4 SCALE 218  58 1962 Supp. (3) SCR 549

PART J   

80    

and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so  

whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not  

finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the  

Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for  

discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by  

the highest court or the general principles to be applied in  

determining the question are well settled and there is a mere  

question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is  

palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial  

question of law.”  

Re-appreciation of the ‘factual matrix’ has been held to be distinct from a substantial  

question of law. In the present case, we have indicated the basis for the invocation of  

the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 22. There was a failure to follow binding  

norms under the 2006 notification. There were serious flaws in the decision-making  

process.  Relevant material has been excluded from consideration and extraneous  

circumstances were borne in mind. The EAC as an expert body abdicated its  

obligations to make an expert determination based on reasons. The NGT as an  

adjudicatory body failed to exercise the jurisdiction entrusted to it under Section 16(h)  

read with Section 20 of the NGT Act 2010 by merely deferring to the decision to  

recommend and grant an EC. The parameters in regard to the existence of  

substantial questions of law have hence been established in the classical or  

conventional sense of that expression.      

J Environmental Rule of Law  

 126 Fundamental to the outcome of this case is a quest for environmental  

governance within a rule of law paradigm. Environmental governance is founded on  

the need to promote environmental sustainability as a crucial enabling factor which  

ensures the health of our eco system.  

PART J   

81    

127 Since the Stockholm Conference, there has been a dramatic expansion in  

environmental laws and institutions across the globe. In many instances, these laws  

and institutions have helped to slow down or reverse environmental degradation.  

However, this progress is also accompanied, by a growing understanding that there  

is a considerable implementation gap between the requirements of environmental  

laws and their implementation and enforcement – both in developed and developing  

countries alike.59 The environmental rule of law seeks to address this gap.  

128 The environmental rule of law provides an essential platform underpinning the  

four pillars of sustainable development— economic, social, environmental, and  

peace.60 It imbues environmental objectives with the essentials of rule of law and  

underpins the reform of environmental law and governance.61 The environmental rule  

of law becomes a priority particularly when we acknowledge that the benefits of  

environmental rule of law extend far beyond the environmental sector. While the most  

direct effects are on protection of the environment, it also strengthens rule of law  

more broadly, supports sustainable economic and social development, protects  

public health, contributes to peace and security by avoiding and defusing conflict,  

and protects human and constitutional rights.62 Similarly, the rule of law in  

environmental matters is indispensable “for equity in terms of the advancement of  

the Sustainable Development Goals63, the provision of fair access by assuring a  

                                                      59 United Nations Environment Programme, First Environmental Rule of Law Report. Available at  https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/27279/Environmental_rule_of_law.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowe d=y  60 Ibid  61 Ibid  62 Ibid  63 SDGs

PART J   

82    

rights-based approach, and the promotion and protection of environmental and other  

socio-economic rights.”64  

129 Amartya Sen argues for a broadening of the notion of sustainable development  

which is the most dominant theme of environmental literature, from a need-based  

standard65 to a standard based on freedoms.66 Thus recharacterized, it encompasses  

the preservation, and when possible even the expansion of the substantive freedoms  

and capabilities of people today without compromising the capability of future  

generations to have similar - or more - freedoms. The intertwined concepts of  

environmental rule of law thus further intragenerational as well as intergenerational  

equity.  

 130 Decision 27/9 which was adopted by the United Nations Environment  

Programme’s67 Governing Body at its first universal session in 2013 on ‘Advancing  

Justice, Governance and Law for Environmental Sustainability’ was the first  

internationally negotiated document to establish the term ‘environmental rule of  

law.’ It declared that “the violation of environmental law has the potential to  

undermine sustainable development and the implementation of agreed  

environmental goals and objectives at all levels and that the rule of law and good  

governance play an essential role in reducing such violations”. It thus urged  

governments and organisations to reinforce cooperation to combat noncompliance  

with environmental laws towards achieving sustainable development. It also called  

upon the Executive Director to assist with the “development and implementation of  

environmental rule of law with attention at all levels to mutually supporting  

                                                      64 UN Environment, Environmental Rule of Law. Available at https://www.unenvironment.org/explore- topics/environmental-rights-and-governance/what-we-do/promoting-environmental-rule-law-0  65 Bruntdland definition of Sustainable Development  66 Amartya Sen, Sustainable Development and our responsibilities. Available at  http://www.comitatoscientifico.org/temi%20SD/documents/SEN%20Responsibility&SD%2010.pdf  67 UNEP

PART J   

83    

governance features, including information disclosure, public participation,  

implementable and enforceable laws, and implementation and accountability  

mechanisms including coordination of roles as well as environmental auditing and  

criminal, civil and administrative enforcement with timely, impartial and independent  

dispute resolution.” Similarly, the first United Nations Environment Assembly in 2014  

adopted resolution 1/13, which calls upon countries “to work for the strengthening of  

environmental rule of law at the international, regional and national levels.”  

 131 In 2016, the First World Environmental Law Congress, cosponsored by the  

International Union for Conservation of Nature and UN Environment, adopted the  

IUCN World Declaration on the Environmental Rule of Law68 which outlines 13  

principles for developing and implementing solutions for ecologically sustainable  

development:  

(i) Obligation to Protect Nature  

(ii) Right to Nature and Rights of Nature  

(iii) Right to Environment.  

(iv) Ecological Sustainability and Resilience  

(v) In Dubio Pro Natura  

(vi) Ecological Functions of Property  

(vii) Intragenerational Equity  

(viii) Intergenerational Equity  

(ix) Gender Equality  

(x) Participation of Minority and Vulnerable Groups  

(xi) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples  

                                                      68 IUCN, Environmental Rule of Law. Available at ://www.iucn.org/commissions/world-commission-environmental- law/wcel-resources/environmental-rule-law

PART J   

84    

(xii) Non-regression  

(xiii) Progression  

132 Dhvani Mehta’s doctoral thesis69 explores this idea of environmental rule of law  

in the Indian context by analysing the functioning of the three institutions of the  

government with regard to environmental law. It develops a framework to assess  

whether the environmental rule of law in India is being strengthened or weakened,  

through an analysis of the legal instruments of each of the institutions of  

government—statutes, executive orders, and judicial decisions. The indicators on the  

basis of which this is done are: a) the capacity of statutes to guide behaviour (one of  

the organising principles of the rule of law) by clearly articulating goals or balancing  

competing interests; b) the ability of the executive to take flexible but reasoned  

decisions grounded in primary legislation; and c) the ability of the judiciary to apply  

statutory interpretation and consistent standards of judicial review to give effect to  

environmental rights and principles.   

 133 In 2015, the International community adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable  

Development and its 17 SDGs70. These 17 goals are:  

(i) Eradication of poverty;  

(ii) Eradication of hunger;  

(iii) Good health and well-being;  

(iv) Quality education;  

(v) Gender equality;  

(vi) Clean water and sanitation;  

(vii) Affordable and clean energy;  

                                                      69 Dhvani Mehta, The Environmental Rule of Law in India, University of Oxford, 2017. Available at  https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:730202ce-f2c4-4d2f-9575-938a728fe82a  70 SDGs

PART J   

85    

(viii) Decent work and economic growth;  

(ix) Industry, innovation and infrastructure;  

(x) Reduced inequalities;  

(xi) Sustainable cities and communities;  

(xii) Sustainable consumption and production;  

(xiii) Climate action;  

(xiv) Protecting life below water;  

(xv) Life on land;  

(xvi) Peace, justice and strong institutions; and  

(xvii) Partnerships to achieve the goals.  

 134 Each of these goals has a vital connection to the others. Together, they  

provide an agenda for human development: development in a manner which accords  

adequate protection to the environment. The UNEP recognises that the natural  

environment – forests, soils and wet lands – contributes to the management and  

regulation of water availability and water quality, strengthening the resilience of water  

sheds and complements investments in physical infrastructure and institutional and  

regulatory arrangements for water access and disaster preparedness.   

 135 SDG 13 emphasises the urgent action required to combat climate change and  

its impacts. This is based on the recognition that extreme weather events such as  

heat waves, droughts, floods and tropical cyclones have aggravated the need for  

water management, pose a threat to food security, increase health risks, damage  

critical infrastructure and interrupt the provision of basic civil services.   

 136 The statistics on climate change indicate that:   

PART J   

86    

(i) Between 1880 and 2012, average global temperatures have increased by 0.85  

degrees Celsius;  

(ii) Between 1901 and 2010, as ocean expanded, the global average sea level  

has risen by 19 centimeters;   

(iii) Since 1990, global emissions of CO2 increased by almost 50 per cent; and  

(iv) Between 2000 and 2010, emissions grew at a more rapid rate than each of the  

three decades preceding it.  

 137 In this backdrop, SDG 16 emphasises the need to protect, restore and  

promote sustainable use and management of terrestrial eco systems and forests,  

combat desertification of river lands, prevent land degradation and halt the loss of  

biodiversity. Terrestrial eco systems provide a range of eco system services including  

the capture of carbon, maintenance of soil quality, provision of habitat for biodiversity,  

maintenance of water quality and regulation of water flow together with control over  

erosion. Maintenance of eco systems is hence crucial to efforts to combat climate  

change, mitigate and reduce the risks of natural disasters including floods and  

landslides. In this backdrop, promoting environmental justice and ensuring strong  

institutions is quintessential to promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for  

sustainable development. SDG 16 therefore construes the promotion of the rule of  

law as intrinsic towards implementing multilateral environmental agreements and  

progressing towards internationally agreed environmental goals.   

 138 On 2 October 2016, India ratified the Paris Agreement71 on climate change  

which reaffirmed the goal of ‘limiting global temperature increase to well below 2  

degrees Celsius, while pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees above  

                                                      71 Entered into force on 4 November 2016

PART J   

87    

pre-industrial levels’. Article 5 of the Agreement encourages parties to conserve  

and enhance sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases, which includes forests.  

Under its Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement, India  

made the following three commitments72:  

(i) Greenhouse gas emission intensity of its Gross Domestic Product will be  

reduced by 33-35% below 2005 levels by 2030;  

(ii) 40% of India’s power capacity would be based on non-fossil fuel sources;  

and  

(iii) An additional ‘carbon sink’ of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent  

through additional forest and tree cover will be created by 2030.  

 139 In March 2019, UNEP released the Global Environment Outlook themed  

‘Healthy Planet, Healthy People’.73 Noting clear ‘links between human health and the  

state of the environment’, the report concludes that clean-up and efficiency  

improvements are not adequate to pursue the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs and  

achieve the internationally agreed environmental goals on pollution control. Instead,  

‘transformative change’ which reconfigures basic social and production systems and  

structures is needed. This includes well-designed policies on institutional frameworks,  

social practices, cultural norms and values along with their implementation,  

compliance and enforcement. In this view, a systemic and integrated policy action74  

would ensure that a “healthy environment is a prerequisite and foundation for  

economic prosperity, human health and well-being”75  

                                                      72 India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution: Working Towards Climate Justice at P. 29, submitted to the  UNFCCC secretariat  73 Global Environment Outlook 6, UNEP, 4 March 2019  74 Global Environment Outlook 6, UNEP, 4 March 2019  75 Ibid

PART J   

88    

140 The rule of law requires a regime which has effective, accountable and  

transparent institutions. Responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative  

decision making are key ingredients to the rule of law. Public access to information is,  

in similar terms, fundamental to the preservation of the rule of law. In a domestic  

context, environmental governance that is founded on the rule of law emerges from  

the values of our Constitution. The health of the environment is key to preserving the  

right to life as a constitutionally recognized value under Article 21 of the Constitution.  

Proper structures for environmental decision making find expression in the guarantee  

against arbitrary action and the affirmative duty of fair treatment under Article 14 of  

the Constitution.   

 141 The 2006 notification must hence be construed as a significant link in India’s  

quest to pursue the SDGs. Many of those goals, besides being accepted by the  

international community of which India is a part, constitute a basic expression of our  

own constitutional value system. Our interface with the norms which the international  

community has adopted in the sphere of environmental governance is hence as  

much a reflection of our own responsibility in a context which travels beyond our  

borders as much as it is a reflection of the aspirations of our own Constitution. The  

fundamental principle which emerges from our interpretation of the 2006 notification  

is that in the area of environmental governance, the means are as significant as the  

ends. The processes of decision are as crucial as the ultimate decision. The basic  

postulate of the 2006 notification is that the path which is prescribed for disclosures,  

studies, gathering data, consultation and appraisal is designed in a manner that  

would secure decision making which is transparent, responsive and inclusive.   

PART J   

89    

142 Repeatedly, it has been urged on behalf of the State of Goa, MoEFCC and the  

concessionaire that the need for a new airport is paramount with an increasing  

volume of passengers and consequently the flaws in the EIA process should be  

disregarded. The need for setting up a new airport is a matter of policy. The role of  

the decision makers entrusted with authority over the EIA process is to ensure that  

every important facet of the environment is adequately studied and that the impact of  

the proposed activity is carefully assessed. This assessment is integral to the project  

design because it is on that basis that a considered decision can be arrived at as to  

whether necessary steps to mitigate adverse consequences to the environment can  

be strengthened.   

 143 In the present case, as our analysis has indicated, there has been a failure of  

due process commencing from the non-disclosure of vital information by the project  

proponent in Form 1. Disclosures in Form 1 are the underpinning for the preparation  

of the ToR. The EIA report, based on incomplete information has suffered from  

deficiencies which have been noticed in the earlier part of this judgment including the  

failure to acknowledge that within the study area contemplated by the Guidance  

manual, there is a presence of ESZs.   

 144 The EAC, as an expert body abdicated its role and function by taking into  

account circumstances which were extraneous to the exercise of its power and failed  

to notice facets of the environment that were crucial to its decision making. The 2006  

notification postulates that normally, the MoEFCC would accept the recommendation  

of the EAC. This makes the role of the EAC even more significant. The NGT is an  

adjudicatory body which is vested with appellate jurisdiction over the grant of an EC.  

The NGT dealt with the submissions which were urged before it in essentially one

PART J   

90    

paragraph. It failed to comprehend the true nature of its role and power under  

Section 16(h) and Section 20 of the NGT Act 2010. In failing to carry out a merits  

review, the NGT has not discharged an adjudicatory function which properly belongs  

to it.   

 145 In this view of the matter, neither the process of decision making nor the  

decision itself can pass legal muster. Equally, as an area requiring balance between  

development of infrastructure and the environment, we are of the view that  

appropriate directions should be issued by this Court, which would ensure that while  

the need for a public project as significant as an international airport is duly factored  

into the decision making calculus, such development proceeds on a considered view  

of the importance of the prevailing state of the environment. Bearing in mind the need  

to bring about a wholesome balance between the development of infrastructure of an  

airport and the preservation of the environment, we have come to the conclusion that  

time bound directions should be issued.  

146 Bearing in view the necessity to maintain a balance between the need for an  

airport and environmental concerns, we are of the view that it would be appropriate if  

the EAC is directed to revisit the conditions subject to which it granted its EC on the  

basis of the specific concerns which have been highlighted in this judgment. Such an  

exercise primarily is for the EAC to carry out in its expert decision making capacity.   

The EAC is entrusted with that function as an expert body. The role of judicial review  

is to ensure that the rule of law is observed.  Hence, we propose by the directions  

which we will issue under Article 142 of the Constitution, to direct the EAC to revisit  

the conditions for the grant of an EC.  While doing so, it would be open to the EAC to  

have due regard to the conditions which were incorporated in the order of the NGT

PART K   

91    

and to suitably modulate those conditions in pursuance of the liberty which we have  

preserved to it.  To facilitate an expeditious decision, we propose to direct the EAC to  

carry out this exercise in a prescribed time schedule during which period, the EC  

shall remain suspended.  We propose to direct that after the EAC has formulated its  

views, they shall be placed before this Court in a Miscellaneous Application in the  

present proceedings, so as to enable the Court to pass final orders.  The  

Miscellaneous Application may be filed either by the State of Goa as the project  

proponent or by the MoEFCC.  We clarify that no other Court or Tribunal shall  

entertain any challenge to the ultimate decision of the EAC and final orders thereon  

shall be passed by this Court in the present proceedings.       

 K Directions  

 147 We accordingly issue the following directions:  

 (i) The EAC shall revisit the recommendations made by it for the grant of an EC,  

including the conditions which it has formulated, having regard to the specific  

concerns which have been highlighted in this judgment;  

(ii) The EAC shall carry out the exercise under (i) above within a period of one  

month of the receipt of a certified copy of this order;  

(iii) Until the EAC carries out the fresh exercise as directed above, the EC granted  

by the MoEFCC on 28 October 2015 shall remain suspended;  

(iv) Upon reconsidering the matter in terms of the present directions, the EAC, if it  

allows the construction to proceed will impose such additional conditions which  

in its expert view will adequately protect the concerns about the terrestrial eco  

systems noticed in this judgment. The EAC would be at liberty to lay down

PART K   

92    

appropriate conditions concerning air, water, noise, land, biological and socio-

economic environment;  

(v) The EAC shall have due regard to the assurance furnished by the  

concessionaire to this Court that it is willing to adopt and implement necessary  

safeguards bearing in mind international best practices governing greenfield  

airports;   

(vi) We grant liberty to the State of Goa as the project proponent and the  

MoEFCC, as the case may be, to file the report of the EAC before this Court in  

the form of a Miscellaneous Application so as to facilitate the passing of  

appropriate orders in the proceedings; and  

(vii) No other Court or Tribunal shall entertain any challenge to the report that is to  

be submitted before this Court by the EAC in compliance with the present  

order.  

148 Before we part with the present case, we consider it appropriate to record a  

finding on the bona fides of the appellants before this Court. It was briefly urged by  

the respondents that the appellants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court based  

on a personal agenda and consequently, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.  

This argument cannot be accepted. We accept the submission of Ms Shenoy,  

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, that the non-consideration of  

vital issues by the EAC has led to the invocation of the statutory remedy available to  

them under Section 22 of the NGT Act 2010. Vague aspersions on the intention of  

public-spirited individuals does not constitute an adequate response to those  

interested in the protection of the environment. If a court comes to the finding that the  

appeal before it was lacking bona fides, it may issue directions which it thinks

PART K   

93    

appropriate in that case. In cases concerning environmental governance, it is a duty  

of courts to assess the case on its merits based on the materials present before it.  

Matters concerning environmental governance concern not just the living, but  

generations to come. The protection of the environment, as an essential facet of  

human development, ensures sustainable development for today and tomorrow.  

   149 The learned Attorney General for India has presented the submissions before  

this Court with his characteristic sense of objectivity and candour. We wish to record  

our appreciation for the able assistance rendered to this Court by Ms Anitha Shenoy,  

learned counsel for the petitioner,  Mr ANS Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor  

General for the MoEF, Mr Parag P Tripathi, learned senior counsel and Ms Aastha  

Mehta, learned counsel for the concessionaire.   

 150 The appeal is allowed in the above terms.  There shall be no order as to costs.  

 Civil Appeal No 1053 of 2019  

 151 This appeal is also disposed of in the same terms, conditions, directions and  

observations as in Civil Appeal No 12251 of 2018.  

…………...…...….......………………........J.                            [Dr DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD]  

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.                            [HEMANT GUPTA]   

   New Delhi;   March 29, 2019