Limitation For Filing Appeal U/S.16 (h) Of NGT Act Will Commence From Earliest Date On Which Communication Is Carried Out By Duty Bearers: Supreme Court

The Apex Court made such an observation while holding that the appeal filed by the appellant was beyond the mandatory period of limitation.

The Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held, “The date on which environment clearance (EC) granted to the project proponent is “communicated” to “any person aggrieved” is relevant for calculating the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 16(h) of the Green Tribunal Act, 2010. 1 Considering the fact that such communication is the obligation of plurality of duty bearers and to “any person”, we have interpreted Section 16(h) of the Act to hold that limitation will commence from the earliest of the date on which the communication is carried out by any of the duty bearers.”

Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh represented the Appellant, while Advocate Vanita Bhargava represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The respondent, being the project proponent, applied and obtained an EC for limestone mining at Talli and Bambor villages in Gujarat from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). The appellant, the Gram Panchayat of village Talli, sought to challenge this EC before the National Green Tribunal by filing an appeal under Section 16(h). However, as there was a delay, the appeal was accompanied by a Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was contended therein that the grant of EC was known to them only through the reply dated February 14, 2017, received under the Right to Information Act. It was therefore contended that the limitation must commence either from February 14, 2017 or from the last of the communications received from the authorities who had the duty to intimate the appellant.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default, and even the subsequent application for restoration was also dismissed on July 16, 2021. Challenging these orders, the appellant filed a civil appeal contending that such orders could not have been passed by a single member of the Tribunal. The Court allowed the appeals and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the appeal was filed after the maximum condonable period of 90 days, as such barred by limitation. Thus, the present Civil Appeal came to be filed under Section 22.

Reasoning

Noting that the environmental issues are not always adversarial, rather they operate as public law concerns, the Bench held that the expression “any person aggrieved” in Section 16(h), read with Sections 2(c), (g), (j) and (m) of the Act must receive a liberal construction as ‘communication’ contemplated herein Section 16(h) is intended to be in rem and not in personam. “There is therefore an obligation on a duty bearer to ensure that appealable decisions are properly declared and easily accessible. Secondly, the said obligation to “communicate” the order vests in plurality of duty holders being the, (i) MoEF&CC, (ii) project proponent, and (iii) the Pollution Control Board(s). Keeping in mind the features, we will now interpret Section 16(h) to determine the date by which multiple authorities or persons, the duty bearers, will communicate the orders to any person aggrieved”, it added.

The Bench also stated, “Thus, the cumulative mandate flowing out of the Environment Protection Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, including the EIA Notification 2006, require the MoEF&CC, the project proponent and the Pollution Control Boards to communicate, to make public, advertise, place in public domain either through the Governmental Portal or to display in their office the information about the grant of EC.”

As per the Bench, when the obligation to communicate the decision vests in multiple authorities, it is appropriate to infer that the communication is complete when the ‘person aggrieved’ receives information from the earliest of the communications. “In view of the interpretation that we have given in Section 16(h), coupled with the consistent rulings of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the period of limitation will commence from the earliest of the date on which the communication is carried out by any of the duty bearers”, it held.

Given the NGT's finding that the EC was uploaded and made publicly accessible on January 5, 2017, the Bench stated that the 30-day limitation period would commence from that date. “If so, the maximum period of 90 days expired by the time the appellant filed its appeal on 19.04.2017. There is no error in the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal, it has rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation”, it added.

The Bench was of the view that it would be sufficient compliance if the project proponent publishes the grant of the EC and indicates therein the substance of the conditions and safeguards. “While it is the project proponent’s responsibility to publish grant of EC in its favour, it is no part of the legal requirement that the entirety of the environmental clearance is published in the newspaper. In Save Mon (Supra), the Tribunal held that the project proponent must publish the “factum” of EC along with the conditions at its own expense”, it noted.

Holding that the Tribunal had come to the correct conclusion that there was complete and effective communication of the order granting environmental clearance, the Bench dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1331)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, AOR Abhimanue Shrestha, Advocates Sridevi Panikkar, Pritesh Patni, Satwik Patikh, Kritika

Respondent: Advocates Vanita Bhargava, Ajay Bhargava, Nandita Chauhan, Tijil Thakur, AOR Khaitan & Co., Advocates Aastha Mehta, AOR Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Prerana Mohapatra, AOR Swati Ghildiyal

Click here to read/download Judgment