Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari & Ors, Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No.

1359/017, Judgement
of 22 September 2017

Certainly, let's break down the key components of the judgment in Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari &
Ors:

**Facts:**
•The National Green Tribunal (NGT) expressed concerns about the lack of expertise and qualifications in some
appointments to State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs).
•The NGT directed state governments to reconsider these appointments and issued guidelines for future
appointments.
•The case involves an appeal against the NGT's decision, specifically challenging the NGT's jurisdiction in directing
the reevaluation of appointments and laying down guidelines.

**Issues:**
•Whether the NGT had the jurisdiction to direct state governments to reconsider appointments and provide
guidelines for SPCB appointments.
•Whether the appointments to the SPCBs constitute a substantial question related to the environment falling
under the NGT's purview.
•Whether the NGT's intervention in appointment matters is justified or if it should be a matter for constitutional
courts.

**Observations:**
•The NGT expressed concern about the lack of expertise in some SPCB appointments.

•The NGT directed the state governments to reconsider appointments and issued guidelines due to a perceived
casual approach in making these appointments.
•The judgment notes the failure of state governments to appoint professionals and experts despite
recommendations from various committees.
•The court acknowledges the importance of appointing qualified individuals to SPCBs for effective implementation
of environmental laws.
•The court observes that the NGT exceeded its jurisdiction in intervening in appointment matters and issuing
guidelines.

**Provisions and Case Laws Cited:**

•The judgment refers to the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, specifically Section 14 and Section 15, to establish
the scope of the NGT's jurisdiction.
•Section 2(m) of the Act is cited to define the term "dispute" in the context of the Act.

•Reference is made to constitutional provisions, including Article 48A, Article 51A(g), and Article 21, to emphasize
the importance of environmental protection.
4. The judgment cites case law, such as Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department, to define the term
"dispute" and establish the nature of disputes within the context of the NGT Act.

**Decision:**
•The court sets aside the NGT's decision, holding that the NGT exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the
reevaluation of SPCB appointments and laying down guidelines.
•The court emphasizes that the appointment of Chairpersons and members of SPCBs does not constitute a
substantial question related to the environment within the NGT's jurisdiction.
•The court leaves it open for individuals who were removed from their positions following the NGT's order to
challenge their removal in appropriate proceedings.
•The court directs the executive in all states to frame appropriate guidelines or recruitment rules within six months
for the appointment of qualified professionals and experts to SPCBs, considering statutory and constitutional
requirements and institutional needs.

In summary, the judgment emphasizes the importance of qualified appointments to SPCBs for effective
environmental governance, while also clarifying the limitations of the NGT's jurisdiction in matters related to
appointments. The court directs states to take corrective measures and frame appropriate guidelines for future
appointments.

University of Delhi v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change & Ors. NGT Principal Bench,
Appeal No. 112/2018, MANU/GT/0014/2021

Certainly, I can provide an elaboration of the case "University of Delhi v. Ministry of Environment Forest and
Climate Change & Ors." The details you've provided seem to be part of the larger context. Below is an elaboration
based on the information you've shared:

**Case Overview:**
-**Title:** University of Delhi v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change & Ors.

-**Bench:** NGT Principal Bench

- **Appeal No.:** 112/2018

- **Citation:** MANU/GT/0014/2021

**Facts of the Case:**

•**Land Acquisition and NOC:** The case begins with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) granting a No Objection
Certificate (NOC) for the acquisition of defense lands for the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC).

•**Land Acquisition for MRTS:** The land acquisition for the Mass Rapid Transport System (MRTS) was notified by
the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) in 2000 and
2001.
3.**Permission for Development:** DMRC granted permission to M/s Young Builders Private Limited to develop
properties on a portion of the acquired land for a Group Housing Residential Project.

4.**University's Objections:** The University of Delhi raised concerns about the construction of a high-rise
building near its campus. The objections could include issues related to environmental impact, traffic, and general
concerns about the effect on the university's ambiance.

5.**Environmental Clearance (EC):** Despite objections, environmental clearance (EC) was granted to M/s Young
Builders Private Limited by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) in 2018.

6.**NGT's Interim Order:** The National Green Tribunal (NGT) issued an interim order in 2020, directing a joint
committee to conduct a carrying capacity study and evaluate the project's viability.

7.**Supreme Court's Intervention:** The Supreme Court set aside the NGT's interim order and directed the NGT
to consider the matter on its merits.

8.**NGT's Consideration:** The NGT, after considering the material on record, concluded that the project did not
appear to be viable and suspended the environmental clearance pending further consideration.

9.**Committee's Report:** A committee was appointed to assess the viability of the project, and its report
indicated that the project seemed viable with minimal environmental impacts.

10.**University's Objections to the Committee's Report:** The University of Delhi challenged the committee's
report, raising various objections to the assessment. The objections covered a range of issues, including
environmental impact, traffic analysis, and compliance with various regulations.

11.**NGT's Decision:** The NGT, considering the stand of the project proponent, disposed of the appeal as
infructuous, as the project proponent intended to apply for fresh environmental clearance.

12.**Fresh Environmental Clearance:** A fresh environmental clearance was subsequently granted to M/s Young
Builders Private Limited on May 21, 2021.

13.**Subsequent Appeal by the University:** The University of Delhi appealed the fresh environmental clearance,
and the hearing is concluded with the order reserved.

**Issues Raised:**

-Delhi.
The case involves issues related to environmental clearance for a group housing complex near the University of
-Concerns raised by the University include environmental impact, traffic analysis, noise pollution, and other
aspects related to the project's viability.

**Observations:**
-The NGT observed that the project did not appear to be viable initially.

-A committee was appointed to assess the viability, and its report indicated that the project seemed viable with
minimal environmental impacts.

**Decision:**
-The NGT, considering the stand of the project proponent (M/s Young Builders Private Limited) to apply for fresh
environmental clearance, disposed of the appeal as infructuous.
-A fresh environmental clearance was subsequently granted to M/s Young Builders Private Limited.

-The University of Delhi appealed the fresh environmental clearance, and the hearing is concluded with the order
reserved.

Please note that for more detailed insights, it would be beneficial to refer to the complete judgment or order,
including specific legal arguments presented by each party and any additional observations made by the tribunal.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, Supreme Court, 7 Oct. 2021

**Case Overview: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha & Ors.**

**Citation:** Civil Appeal No. 12122-12223 of 2018

**Date of Judgment:** October 7, 2021

**Appellant:** Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

**Respondent:** Ankita Sinha and others

**Bench/Judge:** A.M. Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy, and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.

**Statutes/Constitution Involved:** Constitution of India, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

**Important Sections/Articles:**
- Constitution of India: Article 21, 32, 47, 48(A), 51(A)(g),
226.
- NGT Act, 2010: Section 2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 29, 33.

**Abstract:**

The Supreme Court, on October 7, 2021, declared that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) is vested with Suo Motu
powers to take cognizance based on letters, representations, and media reports. The judgment was delivered by
Hon’ble Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy, and C.T. Ravi Kumar on a batch of petitions raising the issue of
whether NGT has Suo Motu jurisdiction. The Court held that the NGT, established under the National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010, must be seen as a generous institution with wide-ranging powers beyond mere adjudication. It
emphasized the increasing visibility of environmental impact on climate change and granted discretion to the NGT
to exercise Suo Moto power to prevent adverse environmental consequences for future generations.

**Introduction:**

The case involves a crucial question of whether the NGT has Suo Motu powers. The NGT, established in 2010, is a
specialized body for the rapid disposal of environmental cases. The case emerged from the NGT taking Suo Motu
cognizance based on an article titled "Garbage Gangs of Deonar: The Kingpins and Their Multi–Crore Trade" on the
online news portal, The Quint. The NGT's action led to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai being
directed to pay compensation for environmental damage.

**Key Points:**

•**NGT's Suo Motu Action:** The NGT took Suo Motu cognizance based on a media report describing the
mismanagement of solid waste at the Deonar dumping site and its adverse effects on people and the environment.

•**Inspection and Report:** Following NGT's orders, inspections were conducted by authorities such as Central
Pollution Control Board, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The
report revealed violations of Solid Waste Management Rules 2016.

•**NGT's Directive and Compensation:** NGT, noting evident damage to the environment and public health,
ordered the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to pay 5 crores as compensation.

•**Appeal to Supreme Court:** The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai appealed to the Supreme Court,
challenging NGT's power to take Suo Motu cognizance.

**Issues Before the Supreme Court:**

•Whether the NGT has the power to exercise Suo Motu Jurisdiction in the discharge of its functions under the
National Green Tribunal Act 2010?
•Whether NGT can take issues directly based on a news report or letter?

•Is there any provision in NGT that allows it to take cases on its own?

**Related Provisions:**
-Constitution of India: Articles 21, 32, 47, 48(A), 51(A)(g), 226.

- NGT Act, 2010: Section 2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 29, 33.

**Arguments:**
-Appellant argued that NGT, being a creature of statute, cannot act on its motion or exercise the power of judicial
review.
-Respondent argued that NGT has a special role with Sui Generis characteristics and broad powers to adjudicate
substantial questions relating to the environment.

**Judgment:**

The Supreme Court declared that NGT has the power to exercise Suo Motu jurisdiction in the discharge of its
functions under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The Court emphasized the need for NGT to be a generous
institution with a duty to protect the environment. The judgment acknowledged NGT's role in enforcing
fundamental rights related to a healthy environment and granted guidelines for Suo Motu actions.

**Conclusion:**

The judgment expands NGT's powers, allowing it to take Suo Motu action in environmental matters. It underscores
the importance of quick intervention to prevent environmental damage and aligns NGT's role with the broader
objective of protecting fundamental rights related to a healthy environment.

Pahwa Plastics Pvt Ltd. vs Dastak Ngo and others, Supreme Court, 25 March, 2022

**Case: M/S Pahwa Plastics Pvt Ltd v Dastak NGO and Ors**

**Facts:**

Pahwa Plastics Pvt Ltd sought ex post facto Environmental Clearance (EC) for its units manufacturing Formaldehyde.
The Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) granted Consent to Establish (CTE) in 2016. An Expert Appraisal
Committee recommended the grant of Terms of Reference (ToR) after scrutinizing the application. Meanwhile,
DASTAK NGO filed a plea to quash the ex post facto EC order, claiming the units operated without proper clearance.

**Issues:**

The central question was whether a unit, compliant with pollution norms, employing 8000 workers, and
contributing significantly to the economy, could be shut down for a technical irregularity of lacking prior
environmental clearance.

**Observations:**
•The appellant applied for EC, and the Expert Appraisal Committee recommended ToR.

•3.The
Theunits
courtadhered to environmental
acknowledged norms, causing
the large workforce no pollution hazards.
and economic
contribution.
4.The court cited Electrosteel Steels Limited v. Union of India, emphasizing the negative consequences of shutting
down establishments for technical irregularities.

5.Sustainable development was recognized as integral to Article 21 by the court, citing N D Jayal and Another v
Union of India and Others.

**Decision:**

The court held that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) erred in directing the closure of units. The court set aside the
NGT order, allowing the units to continue operations. It emphasized the importance of obtaining EC, but also
recognized the permissibility of ex post facto approvals, ensuring a balanced approach to environmental protection
and economic development.

**Case Laws:**

4.Electrosteel Steels Limited v. Union of India: Emphasized the negative consequences of shutting down
establishments for technical irregularities.

5.N D Jayal and Another v Union of India and Others: Recognized sustainable development as integral to Article 21,
emphasizing a balance between the right to environment and the right to development.

This case sets a precedent for considering economic contributions and livelihoods while addressing technical
irregularities in environmental clearances, reinforcing the principle of sustainable development in Indian
environmental jurisprudence.

Save Mon Region Federation v. Union Of India, NGT, Principal Bench, 07 April, 2016

Abstract:

The case of Save Mon Region Federation and Ors. versus Union of India and Ors. revolves around the appeal filed
by the Save Mon Region Federation, an organization, and a social activist challenging the environmental clearance
granted to a hydro venture worth INR 6,400 crores. The project, the Nyam Jang Chhu Hydroelectric Project, posed a
threat to the habitat of endangered species such as the Black-necked Crane, red panda, and snow leopard,
protected under the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. Despite court orders to suspend clearance and conduct a new
environmental assessment, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) ultimately ruled in favor of the hydro plant.

Key Words: Birds, protection, activists, environment, hydro venture Introduction:

The case, Appeal No. 39 Of 2012, involves the Save Mon Region Federation and a social activist challenging the
environmental clearance granted to the Nyam Jang Chhu Hydroelectric Project. The project's proximity to the
wintering site of the Black-necked Crane, a Schedule I species, and other endangered species raised environmental
concerns. The court suspended clearance and directed a new proposal for environmental clearance, along with an

analysis by the Ministry of Environment and

Forest.
Brief Facts of the Case:

Save Mon Region Federation and the social activist opposed the Environmental Clearance for the 780 MW Nyam
Jang Chhu Hydroelectric Project in Arunachal Pradesh. The project involved significant environmental impact,
including the diversion of a river, extensive tunneling, and land acquisition. The appeal focused on the faulty
scoping process, inadequate public discussion, and the lack of consideration for the project's cumulative impacts.

Issues of the Case:

The primary issue was the grant of Environmental Clearance to the Nyam Jang Chhu Hydroelectric Project and the
legality of the existing order. The case was decided by the Principal Bench.

Arguments from the Appellant Side:

The appellants contested the Environmental Clearance based on a faulty scoping process, including concealment of
information, submission of misleading data, and lack of consideration for critical aspects. They also highlighted
issues with the public discussion process and alleged negligence in the evaluation of the project by the
Environmental Appraisal Committee (EAC) and Ministry of Environment and Forest.

Arguments from the Respondent Side:

The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, along with other respondents, defended the
Environmental Clearance, asserting that due process was followed. They presented evidence of formal proceedings,
public consultations, and expert assessments supporting the project's approval.

Legal Aspects:

The case involved two key statutes, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, aimed at protecting forests and their
ecological components, and the Environmental Clearance Regulations of 2006, focused on minimizing
environmental damage caused by industrial projects.

Views of the Court:

The court emphasized the importance of sustainable development and public consultation in environmental
decision-making. It noted deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report, highlighting omissions
related to wildlife and ecosystem impact.

Overview of the
Judgment:
The court suspended the Environmental Clearance and directed the Ministry of Environment and Forest to
conduct an environmental flow study for the protection of the Black-necked Crane. All studies were mandated to
undergo public consultation, and a fresh appraisal of the project was ordered, considering new information and
public comments.

Conclusion:

The National Green Tribunal stressed the need for sustainable development and public involvement in
environmental decision-making. The judgment suspended the Environmental Clearance, emphasizing the
importance of comprehensive studies and public consultations for projects with potential environmental impacts.