Allowed

Universal Resources through Partner Subash Chand Bansal v. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority)

NGT5 May 2026Appeal No. 12/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the appeal against rejection of environmental clearance for a dolomite mine. It quashed the SEIAA order for ignoring SEAC recommendations, violating EIA Notification 2006, and remitted the matter for fresh expert appraisal without procedural delay.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 25.08.2025 was quashed and set aside. The matter was remitted to SEAC for re-appraisal within one month.

Universal Resources through Partner Subash Chand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.01

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (Through Video Conferencing)

¶3

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) (I.A.No.135/2025 & I.A.No.153/2025)

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶5

M/s Universal Resources, Through its Partner & Authorized Representative Shri Shubhash Chand Bansal Having office at M.I.G-2, Housing Board Colony, District Katni (MP)

¶6

...Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Through Member Secretary, Paryavaran Parisar, E-5, Area Colony, Bhopal M.P. …Respondents

¶9

COUNSELS FOR APPELLANTA(S):

¶10

Mr. Mr. Rohit Sharma Adv.

¶11

COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

Mr. Sachin Kumar Verma Adv. for MPSEIAA

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶15

Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order : 29.04.2026 Date of uploading of order on website : 05.05.2026

¶16

¶17

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

By means of filing this Appeal, the Appellant has prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Respondent State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Madhya Pradesh, rejecting the proposal of the Appellant for grant of Prior Environmental Clearance for Bhadawar Dolomite Mine (Open Cast Semi-Mechanized Method) over an area of 1.777 ha. situated at Village Bhadawar, Tehsil Badwara, District Katni (M.P.); and to direct the Respondent Authority to reconsider the proposal of the Appellant for grant of Environmental Clearance in accordance with law and on the basis of the recommendations made by the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) in its 739^th , 750^th , 754^th and 785^th meetings, after affording a personal hearing to the Appellant.

¶20

Notices were issued to the Respondent to file the reply. Reply has been filed.

¶21

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶22

Contentions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant are that the present case pertains to the grant of Prior Environmental Clearance for Bhadawar Dolomite Mine (Open Cast Semi-Mechanized Method) having an area of 1.777 ha. (mineable area 1.477 ha.) with a proposed production capacity of 50,704 TPA, situated at Khasra Nos. 640, 639, and 649, Village Bhadawar, Tehsil Badwara, District Katni (M.P.), in the name of Shri Subhash Chand Bansal, Partner, M/s Universal Resources. The Appellant obtained transfer of a dolomite mining lease in its favour from the previous lessee, Shri K. Durga Rao S/o Shri K. Apparao, on 17.06.2022. The lease was transferred to the Appellant by the Madhya Pradesh Mineral Resources Department vide order No.

¶23

¶24

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶25

2832/456/2022/12/2. After the transfer, it was realised that the Environmental Clearance granted to the previous lessee had been issued by DEIAA. Accordingly, instead of seeking transfer of EC from DEIAA to SEIAA, the Appellant preferred to file a fresh application for grant of EC on 25.01.2023. Since the lease of the Appellant falls under the B-1 category, the procedure of obtaining Terms of Reference, preparation of a pre-feasibility report, grant of Terms of Reference, preparation of the draft EIA, conduct of public hearing, and submission of the final EIA was duly followed. Accordingly, the public hearing of the lease area took place on 18.08.2023, wherein no objections were raised, and the file was thereafter processed further by the Respondent Department.

¶26

It is further argued that the final Environmental Impact Assessment report was submitted by the Appellant on 11.12.2023, and the matter was placed before the Madhya Pradesh State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), which, in its 739th meeting held on 23.04.2023, recommended issuance of Environmental Clearance in favour of the Appellant and forwarded the matter to SEIAA for approval. The Respondent SEIAA, in its 849th meeting, observed that in view of the Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change dated 07.05.2024, mining leases executed on the basis of ECs granted by DEIAA after 13.09.2018 were prohibited from operation, except in cases where such ECs had been re-appraised and found valid by SEIAA or where fresh ECs had been granted by SEIAA. Consequently, SEIAA remanded the matter to SEAC for re-appraisal. On 14.05.2024, the Madhya Pradesh State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), in its 750th meeting, reaffirmed its earlier recommendation for issuance of Environmental Clearance in favour of the Appellant and forwarded the

¶27

¶28

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶29

proposal to SEIAA for consideration. Subsequently, in its 754th meeting held on 20.05.2024, SEAC again resolved to maintain its original recommendation for grant of Environmental Clearance in favour of the Appellant. Thereafter, the SEIAA, in its 856th meeting, once again remanded the matter back to SEAC with the observation that the stand taken by SEIAA in its meeting dated 14.05.2024 would remain unchanged. Further, SEIAA, in its 859th meeting held on 05.06.2024, decided to delist the EC application of the Appellant on the ground that leases which had obtained EC from DEIAA after 13.09.2018 would be considered only after obtaining the opinion of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and thereafter the matter was re-listed before the SEAC in its meeting on 15.04.2025 and after due consideration the Committee recommended for grant of Environmental Clearance.

¶30

Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant are that consequently all of sudden on 13.08.2025 when the 889th Minutes of Meeting took place of SEIAA the application of the EC was dismissed by SEIAA with the following observation:-

¶31

“परियोजनाप्रस्तावककोलीजहस्ताांतिणहुईहैतथाउक्तलीजकेखसिापांचशालाअनुसािटायवल लैण्डहैजजसकीकलेक्टि कटनीसेसत्याजपत सहमजत भीप्रकिण मेंप्रस्ु त नहीांकीगईहैए लीज क्षेत्रकेपासआबादीस्थितहै।अतः प्राजिकिणद्वािा प्रकिण में जवस्ृ चचाा व पिामशा उपिाांत जनणाय त जलया गया जक उपिोक्त सांवेदनशीलता के दृजिगत प्रकिण को जनिस्त जकया जाता है। तदानुसाि परियोजना प्रस्तावक व सवासांबांजितोां को सूजचत जकया जाये।

¶32

English Translation:

¶33

The lease has been transferred to the project proponent; furthermore, according to the Khasra Panchshala (land records) pertaining to the said lease, the land is classified as Tribal Land, yet no verified consent from the Collector of Katni regarding this matter has been submitted in the case file. Additionally, a human settlement is situated in the vicinity of the leased area. Therefore, following detailed discussion and consultation on the matter, the Authority has decided to reject the proposal. Accordingly, the project proponent and all concerned parties shall be duly informed.”

¶34

¶35

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ)

¶36

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶37

Assessment Authority

¶38

Thereafter, on 25.08.2025, the impugned order was issued, formally communicating the rejection of Environmental Clearance to the Appellant. Immediately upon receiving the said order, the Appellant approached the Respondent Authority and apprised it of the factual inconsistencies and inadvertent errors contained therein, pointing out that the observations recorded in the impugned order were contrary to the documents available on record. The Respondent accordingly advised the Appellant to submit a detailed written clarification, and in compliance thereof, on 05.09.2025, the Appellant furnished a comprehensive representation along with all relevant supporting documents.

¶39

For easy reference, the impugned order Annexure-A/1 dated 25.08.2025 issued by the SEIAA is quoted below:-

¶40

¶41

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶42

In response to the above contentions, learned Counsel for the Respondent/SEIAA Mr. Sachin K. Verma has submitted that the siting requirement provided in the format of the District Mining Branch with regard to the minimum distance has not been disclosed by the Project Proponent and it was near the human habitation as provided in the rules and further that the Khasra on which the subjective mining site is located is tribal land for which a permission of District Collector was required and further that the close proximity of the blasting can create cracks in the walls, undermine building foundations and cause significant psychological distress to inhabitants and, thus, the same was turned down by the SEIAA.

¶43

In response to the above contention, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the record contained valid Bhu-Sahmati from landholders for Khasra Nos. 354/8, 355, and 356/3, and a certified Khasra Panchshala extract showing that Khasra Nos. 354/3 and 356/2 are Government land. The conclusion that "no verified consent was produced" is the result of incomplete perusal of the file and amounts to

¶44

¶45

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) Assessment Authority

¶46

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶47

a perverse finding unsupported by evidence. The Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by entering into matters of title and ownership. Questions relating the nature of land or ownership fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Revenue and Mining Departments. The function of SEIAA under the EIA Notification, 2006, is confined to appraisal of environmental feasibility and impact. By rejecting the proposal on alleged absence of Collector's consent or by describing the land as "tribal land", SEIAA has travelled beyond its mandate and acted ultra vires the statutory Notification.

¶48

It is further submitted that the allegation regarding proximity or to is habitation environmental sensitivity factually incorrect and contradicted by the approved EIA/EMP. The Final EIA/EMP Report establishes that the nearest habitation lies 150 metres away in the north-east direction and that a 50-metre non-mining buffer with green-belt plantation (0.25 ha) has been provided, in conformity with the CPCB siting criteria and the Hon’ble NGT (Principal Bench) judgment in O.A. No. 304/2019 (Residents of Gram Tirathgarh v. SEIAA, Chhattisgarh). The Authority, without any field verification or counter-study, presumed sensitivity in disregard of the scientific record. The Respondent ignored the consistent and binding recommendations of the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC). SEAC, after exhaustive appraisal of the EIA, baseline data, and public hearing proceedings, recommended issuance of EC in its 739th, 750th, 754th, and 785th meetings. The Respondent could not have departed from these expert recommendations without recording specific, science-based reasons. Its disagreement based on administrative assumptions is contrary to the principle laid down by this Hon’ble Tribunal in M.P. State Mining Corporation Ltd. v. SEIAA (M.P.), 2020 SCC

¶49

¶50

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ)

¶51

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶52

Assessment Authority

¶53

OnLine NGT 1121, that SEIAA cannot arbitrarily override the expert technical findings of the committee. The impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. No notice of hearing was issued to the Appellant before the rejection, nor was any opportunity provided to explain alleged deficiencies regarding consent or habitation distance of the Collector. The order was thus rendered in breach of audi alteram partem and stands vitiated.

¶54

It is further submitted that the repeated remanding and delisting of the proposal by SEIAA caused unjustified delay and procedural prejudice. The proposal remained pending between SEAC and SEIAA for over a year, contrary to Clause 8(iii) of the EIA Notification, 2006, which mandates time-bound decisions. Such administrative indecision deprived the Appellant of a fair and expeditious consideration as envisaged under law. The impugned order violates the doctrine of proportionality and the principle of sustainable development embodied in Sections 15 and 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The project of the Appellant covers only 1.777 ha., proposes semi-mechanised mining with proper environmental safeguards, and ensures full compliance with mitigation and restoration measures. The rejection in absence of demonstrated environmental harm is disproportionate and inconsistent with sustainable development principles. The decision is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Several other dolomite and limestone mining leases in Katni District have been granted EC under comparable conditions. The selective rejection of the proposal of the Appellant despite identical compliance, amounts to hostile discrimination lacking rational basis. The impugned order defeats the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Having fulfilled every statutory

¶55

¶56

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ)

¶57

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶58

Assessment Authority

¶59

requirement—lease transfer, preparation of EIA, conduct of public hearing, and multiple SEAC appraisals—the Appellant had a legitimate expectation that its proposal would be decided objectively. The abrupt rejection without any new material violates that expectation. The order reflects colourable exercise of power. The Respondent Authority, instead of examining the environmental aspects of the project, relied on extraneous considerations such as revenue permissions and lease lineage, thereby misusing its statutory discretion. Such action warrants interference under Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. 13. The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.08.205 discloses that it was

¶60

firstly placed on 23.04.2024 and was recommended for Environmental Clearance. On second time, the matter was placed on 13.08.2025 and it was resolved that on 14.05.2024, in view of the MoEF&CC guidelines, it was directed that the Environmental Clearance granted by the DIEAA is required to be re-appraised and the matter was remitted back to the SEAC. The matter was again placed before the SEAC third time on 14.05.2024 and on fourth time on 20.05.2024 and recommendation was in favour of grant of EC after appraisal of all relevant provisions. Again on 29.05.2024, the SEAC recommended for the Environmental Clearance. The matter was remitted back again to the SEAC and SEAC on 15.04.2025 and it was resolved that the case is reviewed by the Committee in light of the previous recommendations and found fit to recommend for grant of Environmental Clearance, hence, Committee decided to standby SEAC’s earlier recommendations made in SEAC dated 23.04.2024 and 20.05.2024. After the consideration by the SEAC for more than three times, there was no objection on part of the Appraisal Committee nor anything was communicated to the aggrieved and all of

¶61

¶62

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ)

¶63

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶64

Assessment Authority

¶65

sudden vide impugned order, the matter was turned down and rejected by the SEIAA on the ground of tribal land for which the permission of the District Collector was required and further that the siting criteria has not been followed. It is to be noted that the matter was filed afresh as per Annexure-A/2 and the matter was discussed on all the points vide meeting dated 23.04.2024 which is quoted below:-

¶66

¶67

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶68

परियोजनाप्रस्तावकद्वािाप्रस्ुीकिण त केदौिानसजमजतकोअवगतकिायाजकयहखदानवर्ा 2022 नवीनपरियोजनाप्रस्तावककोहस्तान्तरितहुईहैतथालीज स्तान्तिणकेउपिान्तकोई उत्खननकायानहीांहुआहै।परियोजनाप्रस्तावकद्वािाकायाालयकलेक्टि ( खजनजशाखा ) जजला कटनीकेकमाांक 918/khanij/2023, कटनीजदनाांक 04.05.2023 अनुसाि kml (based on DGPS coordinates) प्रस्ु त जकयागयातथाउनकेद्वािाअवगतकिाया गयाजकबेरियि जोन खुदाहुआ हैजजसका अजतक्रमण लीज केपास कीखदान वालोांकेद्वािा जकया गया है। सजमजतद्वािापरियोजनाप्रस्तावककोजनदेशजदयेजकपुिानीपूवापयााविणीयस्वीकृजतकापालन 06 माहकेअन्दिकिवायेंगे।

¶69

उपिोक्तखदान कोपूवामेंजिया जजला स्तिीय सजमजतद्वािा पयााविणीय स्वीकृजत प्रदान कीगई थी , जजसकीशतोंकेपालनप्रजतवेदनएवांअन्यजबन्दुओांकेदृजिगतपुनामूल्ाांकनहेतुसजमजतके समक्षप्रस्ुीकिण त जकयागयाहै।सजमजतद्वािाई . सी . मेंअजििोजपतशतोंकीसमीक्षाकीगई।

¶70

¶71

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶72

Submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant are that EIA has been submitted which was discussed by the SEAC and satellite imaginary does not disclose any habitation or any violation of siting criteria. The final EIA/EMP report contains the terms of difference and compliance of the ToR conditions and the SEAC examines all these things and nothing was found violating the any norms. With regard to the lease or order of the Collector, reply has been filed as Annexure-A/8 and explanation has been submitted by the Project Proponent which is as follows:-

¶73

It is further argued that the necessary order for transfer of the mines was issued by the concerned Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh and required order from the Collector has also submitted which was examined

¶74

¶75

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶76

by the SEAC quoted above, but without disclosing any material things surprisingly the decision was taken by the SEIAA against the recommendations of the SEAC which is as per EIA Notification not tenable.

¶77

Learned Counsel for the Respondent/SEIAA Mr. Verma has highlighted the provisions of 247 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959, and in reply thereof, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the above provisions and matters were seriously discussed and considered by the resolution dated 23.04.2024 by the SEAC and with regard to the payment of compensation, necessary condition has been imposed which finds place in the recommendations itself and it is a matter to be decided by the SDO or Collector concerned after the final decision taken by the authorities concerned.

¶78

On the issue of expert report or recommendation of EAC/SEAC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2019) 15 SCC 401: Hanuman Laxman Aroskar

¶79

Vs. Union of India & Ors. , has observed as follows:-

¶80

“………………….….x……………x………………….x………….…….x……….

¶81

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.

¶82

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 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 Stockholm in June 1972 in which India participated, Parliament enacted the Environment Protection Act 1986 to protect and improve the environment and

¶83

¶84

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) Assessment Authority

¶85

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶86

prevent hazards to human beings, other living creatures, plants and property.

¶87

33. On 27 January 1994, the MoEF, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (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 notification 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.

¶88

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 Plan and the details of a public hearing which had been carried out in accordance with guidelines issued by the Central Government from time to time. Limited exceptions to the public hearing process and the submission of an EIA were provided.

¶89

35 MoEF as the Impact Assessment Agency 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.

¶90

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

¶91

37. On 14 September 2006, MoEF released another notification37 in supersession of the previous notification.

¶92

¶93

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶94

38 The 2006 notification directed thus:

¶95

“…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 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.”

¶96

39. There are significant differences between the 1994 notification and the 2006 notification. They are:

¶97

(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;

¶98

(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

¶99

‘B’);

¶100

(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;

¶101

(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 Committees which are constituted for that specific purpose; (vi) Under the 2006

¶102

¶103

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶104

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 Boards 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 Committee.

¶105

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 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:

¶106

¶107

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶108

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.

¶109

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 prefeasibility 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.

¶110

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:

¶111

1) Screening;

¶112

2) Scoping;

¶113

3) Public Consultation; and

¶114

4) Appraisal.

¶115

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

¶116

¶117

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) Assessment Authority

¶118

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶119

‘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.

¶120

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.

¶121

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 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:

¶122

(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

¶123

(ii) Procurement of written responses from concerned persons having a plausible stake in the environmental aspects surrounding the project.

¶124

47. The State Pollution Control Board or the Union Territory Pollution Control Committee 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

¶125

¶126

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ)

¶127

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶128

Assessment Authority

¶129

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 Districtwise”. The public hearing proceeding is filmed and a copy of the video is submitted to the concerned regulatory authority.

¶130

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.

¶131

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.

¶132

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:

¶133

(i) Final EIA Report

¶134

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

¶135

(iii) A copy of the final layout plan

¶136

(iv) A copy of the project feasibility report.

¶137

51. The regulatory authority must examine the documents “strictly with reference to the ToR” and communicate any inadequacy to the EAC or

¶138

¶139

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶140

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.

¶141

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.

¶142

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 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.

¶143

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

¶144

¶145

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) Assessment Authority

¶146

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶147

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.

¶148

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 of relevant experience. Where experts are not available, professionals may be appointed to the EAC.

¶149

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.

¶150

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.

¶151

¶152

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶153

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:

¶154

(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.);

¶155

(ii) Use of natural resources for construction or operation of the Project (such as land, water, materials or energy, especially any resources which are nonrenewable or in short supply);

¶156

(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;

¶157

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

¶158

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

¶159

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

¶160

(vii) Risks of contamination of land or water from releases of pollutants into the ground or into sewers, surface waters,

¶161

groundwater, coastal waters or the sea;

¶162

(viii) Risk of accidents during construction or operation of the

¶163

project, which could affect human health or the environment; and

¶164

(ix) Environment sensitivity which includes, amongst other

¶165

things, the furnishing of the following details:

¶166

a. Areas protected under international and national

¶167

legislation;

¶168

b. Ecologically sensitive areas; and

¶169

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

¶170

¶171

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶172

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:

¶173

(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;

¶174

(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;

¶175

(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;

¶176

(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

¶177

(v) An application for extension of the validity of the EC for certain projects is to be made by submitting a revised Form

¶178

1 within the validity period.

¶179

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 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:

¶180

¶181

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) Assessment Authority

¶182

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶183

“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.”

¶184

………….x………….x…………x………….x……………

¶185

G. Public Consultation

¶186

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.

¶187

106. In Utkarsh Mandal v Union of India, 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:

¶188

“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

¶189

¶190

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶191

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 nonapplication of mind to relevant materials and therefore arbitrary.”

¶192

H Appraisal by the EAC

¶193

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”.

¶194

…………..x……………..x………………..x…………..x…………………….. 128. The environmental rule of law provides an essential platform underpinning the four pillars of sustainable development— economic, social, environmental, and peace. It imbues environmental objectives with the essentials of rule of law and underpins the reform of environmental law and governance. 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. Similarly, the rule of law in environmental matters is indispensable “for equity in terms of the

¶195

¶196

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶197

advancement of the Sustainable Development Goals, the provision of fair access by assuring a rights-based approach, and the promotion and protection of environmental and other socio-economic rights. 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 standard to a standard based on freedoms. 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.

¶198

130. Decision 27/9 which was adopted by the United Nations Environment Programme’s 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 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.”

¶199

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

¶200

¶201

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ)

¶202

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶203

Assessment Authority

¶204

Environmental Rule of Law which outlines 13 principles for developing and implementing solutions for ecologically sustainable development:

¶205

(i) Obligation to Protect Nature (ii) Right to Nature and Rights of Nature (iii) Right to Environment. (iv) Ecological Sustainability and Resilience

¶206

(v) In Dubio Pro Natura (vi) Ecological Functions of Property

¶207

(vii) Intragenerational Equity

¶208

(viii) Intergenerational Equity

¶209

(ix) Gender Equality

¶210

(x) Participation of Minority and Vulnerable Groups (xi) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (xii) Non-regression (xiii) Progression

¶211

132. Dhvani Mehta’s doctoral thesis 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.

¶212

133. In 2015, the International community adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 SDGs. These 17 goals are:

¶213

(i) Eradication of poverty;

¶214

(ii) Eradication of hunger;

¶215

(iii) Good health and well-being;

¶216

(iv) Quality education; (v) Gender equality;

¶217

(vi) Clean water and sanitation;

¶218

(vii) Affordable and clean energy;

¶219

(viii) Decent work and economic growth;

¶220

(ix) Industry, innovation and infrastructure;

¶221

¶222

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶223

(x) Reduced inequalities;

¶224

(xi) Sustainable cities and communities;

¶225

(xii) Sustainable consumption and production;

¶226

(xiii) Climate action;

¶227

(xiv) Protecting life below water;

¶228

(xv) Life on land;

¶229

(xvi) Peace, justice and strong institutions; and

¶230

(xvii) Partnerships to achieve the goals.

¶231

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.

¶232

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.

¶233

136. The statistics on climate change indicate that:

¶234

(i) Between 1880 and 2012, average global temperatures have increased by 0.85 degrees Celsius;

¶235

(ii) Between 1901 and 2010, as ocean expanded, the global average sea level has risen by 19 centimeters;

¶236

(iii) Since 1990, global emissions of CO2 increased by almost 50 per cent; and

¶237

(iv) Between 2000 and 2010, emissions grew at a more rapid rate than each of the three decades preceding it.

¶238

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

¶239

¶240

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶241

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.

¶242

138. On 2 October 2016, India ratified the Paris Agreement 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 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 commitments:

¶243

(i) Greenhouse gas emission intensity of its Gross Domestic Product will be reduced by 33-35% below 2005 levels by 2030;

¶244

(ii) 40% of India’s power capacity would be based on non-fossil fuel sources; and

¶245

(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.

¶246

139. In March 2019, UNEP released the Global Environment Outlook themed ‘Healthy Planet, Healthy People’. 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 action would ensure that a

¶247

¶248

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶249

“healthy environment is a prerequisite and foundation for economic prosperity, human health and well-being.

¶250

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.

¶251

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.”

¶252

Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on (2025): KER: 38052 ( Thomas Mathai Vs. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority ) decided on 29^th May, 2025, in W.P. (C) No.31130 of 2024 where it was held that there is no reason to take another view different from the well considered recommendation of the Expert Body State Expert Appraisal Committee

¶253

¶254

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ)

¶255

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶256

Assessment Authority

¶257

(SEAC) and in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar Vs. Union of India: (2019) 15 SCC 401, underscored the primacy of the recommendation made by the SEAC and its binding nature on SEIAA in normal circumstances.” It was also held that in case SEIAA is to overlook the recommendations made by the Expert Body (SEAC), they have to state reason and the matter will have to be sent back to SEAC for re-consideration which obviously was not reflected by the impugned order.

¶258

Our attention has also been drawn towards the para nos.41.5, 41.6, 54, 58, 118, 123.8, and 124 of Hanuman Laxman Aroskar case noted above, which categorically held that the recommendation of the Expert Body (SEAC) or for that matter EAC to grant EC to an applicant or to reject the same, is to be accepted by the regulatory authority, normally SEAC recommendation shall ordinarily be accepted in case the regulatory body disagree, it will have to send back to SEAC for re-consideration. Such reconsidered recommendation received form SEAC has to be considered by the regulatory body and a decision has to be taken which have been made final.

¶259

The SEAC considered the present matter several times or for more than three times, we notices a clear dereliction of the duty and compliance of the EIA Notification on the following points:-

¶260

(i) Non-compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar case, noted above,

¶261

(ii) Non-compliance of the mandate and dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

¶262

(iii) Not considering the recommendations of the SEAC,

¶263

(iv) Non-consideration is not an omission but a deliberation,

¶264

¶265

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) Assessment Authority

¶266

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶267

We have also examined the EIA Notification issued on 14^th September, 2006, issued by the MoEF&CC which provides the requirement of prior EC. Section 2 provides as follows:-

¶268

“ 2. Requirements of prior Environmental Clearance (EC) :- The

¶269

following projects or activities shall require prior environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory authority, which shall hereinafter referred to be as the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests for matters falling under Category 'A' in the Schedule and at State level the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for matters falling under Category 'B' in the said Schedule, before any construction work, or preparation of land by the project management except for securing the land, is started on the project or activity:

¶270

(i) All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification;

¶271

(ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification with addition of capacity beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector, that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold limits given in the Schedule, after expansion or modernization;

¶272

(iii) Any change in product mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in Schedule beyond the specified range.

¶273

3. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority:- (1) A

¶274

State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority hereinafter referred to as the SEIAA shall be constituted by the Central Government under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 comprising of three Members including a Chairman and a Member Secretary to be nominated by the State Government or the Union territory Administration concerned.

¶275

(2) The Member-Secretary shall be a serving officer of the concerned State Government or Union territory administration familiar with environmental laws.

¶276

(3) The other two Members shall be either a professional or expert fulfilling the eligibility criteria given in Appendix VI to this notification.

¶277

¶278

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶279

(4) One of the specified Members in sub-paragraph (3) above who is an expert in the Environmental Impact Assessment process shall be the Chairman of the SEIAA.

¶280

(5) The State Government or Union territory Administration shall forward the names of the Members and the Chairman referred in subparagraph 3 to 4 above to the Central Government and the Central Government shall constitute the SEIAA as an authority for the purposes of this notification within thirty days of the date of receipt of the names. (6) The non-official Member and the Chairman shall have a fixed term of three years (from the date of the publication of the notification by the Central Government constituting the authority).

¶281

(7) All decisions of the SEIAA shall be unanimous and taken in a meeting.

¶282

4. Categorization of projects and activities:-

¶283

(i) All projects and activities are broadly categorized in to two categories Category A and Category B. based on the spatial extent of potential impacts and potential impacts on human health and natural and man made resources.

¶284

(ii) All projects or activities included as Category 'A' in the Schedule, including expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities and change in product mix, shall require prior environmental clearance from the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) on the recommendations of an Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) to be constituted by the Central Government for the purposes of this notification;

¶285

(ii) All projects or activities included as Category 'B' in the Schedule, including expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities as specified in sub paragraph (ii) of paragraph 2, or change in product mix as specified in sub paragraph (iii) of paragraph 2, but excluding those which fulfill the General Conditions (GC) stipulated in the Schedule, will require prior environmental clearance from the State/Union territory Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). The SEIAA shall base its decision on the recommendations of a State or Union territory level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) as to be constituted for in this notification. In the absence of a duly constituted SEIAA or SEAC, a Category 'B' project shall be treated as a Category 'A' project,

¶286

………….x……………x……………………x……………………x…………….

¶287

¶288

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶289

8.Grant or Rejection of Prior Environmental Clearance (EC): (i) The regulatory authority shall consider the recommendations of the EAC or SEAC concerned and convey its decision to the applicant within forty five days of the receipt of the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned or in other words within one hundred and five days of the receipt of the final Environment Impact Assessment Report, and where Environment Impact Assessment is not required, within one hundred and five days of the receipt of the complete application with requisite documents, except as provided below. (ii) The regulatory authority shall normally accept the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned. In cases where it disagrees with the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned, the regulatory authority shall request reconsideration by the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned within forty five days of the receipt of the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned while stating the reasons for the disagreement. An intimation of this decision shall be simultaneously conveyed to the applicant. The Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned, in turn, shall consider the observations of the regulatory authority and furnish its views on the same within a-further period of sixty days. The decision of the regulatory authority after considering the views of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned shall be final and conveyed to the applicant by the regulatory authority concerned within the next thirty days.

¶290

(iii) In the event that the decision of the regulatory authority is not communicated to the applicant within the period specified in subparagraphs (1) or (ii) above, as applicable, the applicant may proceed as if the environment clearance sought for has been granted or denied by the regulatory authority in terms of the final recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned.

¶291

(iv) On expiry of the period specified for decision by the regulatory authority under paragraph (i) and (ii) above, as applicable, the decision of the regulatory authority, and the final recommendations of the

¶292

¶293

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶294

Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned shall be public documents.

¶295

(v) Clearances from other regulatory bodies or authorities shall not be required prior to receipt of applications for prior environmental clearance of projects or activities, or screening, or scoping, or appraisal, or decision by the regulatory authority concerned, unless any of these is sequentially dependent on such clearance either due to a requirement of law, or for necessary technical reasons.

¶296

(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.”

¶297

The Notification provides that the SEIAA has to act in accordance with the procedure specified hereinafter in this notification as follows:-

¶298

(i) The SEIAA shall base its decision on the recommendation of State or Union Territory Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) as to be constituted in this notification,

¶299

(ii) The Expert Appraisal Committee or the SEAC at the State shall screen, scope and apprise projects or activities of Category A or Category B respectively and shall met at least once in every month.

¶300

(iii) The authorized members of the SEAC/EAC may inspect any site connected with the project in respect of which the prior Environmental Clearance is sought (5d),

¶301

(iv) The EAC and the SEAC shall function on the principle of collective responsibility (5e),

¶302

(v) Screening, scoping, ToR, recommendation is to be done by the EAC or the SEAC (7 (i), (ii) & (iii)),

¶303

¶304

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶305

(vi) Appraisal means detailed scrutiny by the Expert Appraisal Committee or the SEAC and appraisal shall be made by the SEAC in a transparent manner in a proceeding to which the applicant shall be invited for furnishing necessary clarification.

¶306

(vii) The SEAC shall make categorical recommendation to the regulatory authority concerned either for a grant of prior Environmental Clearance on stipulated terms and conditions or rejection of the application for prior Environmental Clearance together with the reasons for the same (iv) Stage 4 – Appraisal,

¶307

(viii) The appraisal by the SEAC shall be completed within 60 (sixty) days of the receipt of the final Environment Impact Assessment Report and such report shall be placed before the competent authority for final decision within 15 (fifteen) days.

¶308

Again if we examined the provisions contained in Section 8 for grant or rejection of Environmental Clearance, it makes clear as follows:-

¶309

(i) The regulatory authority shall normally accept the recommendation of the Committee or the SEAC,

¶310

(ii) In case where it disagrees with the recommendation of the Expert Appraisal Committee or the SEAC, the regulatory authority shall request re-consideration by the SEAC,

¶311

(iii) It shall be done within 45 days of the receipt of the recommendation of the Expert Appraisal Committee or the SEAC,

¶312

(iv) Stating the reasons for disagreement,

¶313

(v) An intimation of this decision shall be simultaneously conveyed to the applicant,

¶314

¶315

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) Assessment Authority

¶316

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶317

(vi) The SEAC in turn shall consider the obserations of the regulatory authority and furnish its views on the same,

¶318

(vii) Within a further period of 60 days,

¶319

The perusal of the order impugned expresses that the SEAC considered and re-considered the matter for more than three times but all of a sudden, the opinion was taken otherwise which was not in consonance with SEAC opinion without giving any reason and without affording any opportunity to the affected person which is against the provisions as discussed above.

¶320

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further raised the issue of deemed clearance.

¶321

The Five Members Bench of the Tribunal in the matters of S .P. Muthuraman vs. Union of India , OA No. 37/2015 and Manoj Mishra vs. Union of India , OA No. 213/2014 vide judgment dated 07.07.2015, had considered the issue of deemed clearance under Clause-8(iii) of the EIA Notification and had held that for invoking Clause-8(iii) all the requisite proceedings such as preparation of Terms of Reference and submission of final EIA report in terms of the EIA Notification, 2006 must be completed and there should be unambiguous recommendation by the SEAC and EAC for granting or refusing to grant the environmental clearance. The Tribunal in this order has considered in detail the issue of "deemed clearance" under Clause-8(iii) as follows:-

¶322

"Discussion on Issue No. 4

¶323

4. Are the private Respondents entitled to claim any benefit on the strength of deeming provisions as contained in Para 8 (iii) of the Notification of 2006 and if so, to what effect?

¶324

95. The submission on behalf of Respondent no. 7, 8 and 9 that they would be deemed to have been granted Environmental Clearance in

¶325

¶326

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) Assessment Authority

¶327

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶328

relation to their projects on the strength of Para 8, of the Notification of 2006, can be bifurcated into two distinct classes. The first being with reference to the projects of Respondent no. 7 and 8 where the contention is that they had applied for obtaining Environmental Clearance for their project and the same had been recommended by the SEAC in its meeting dated 17th June, 2014 and 30th September, 2013 respectively. Despite such recommendation being in their favour, the SEIAA did not grant or refuse Environmental Clearance within 45 days of such recommendation as per Para 8(i) of the Notification of 2006. Therefore, as per Respondent 7 and 8 since the period of 45 days has lapsed, therefore, they would be entitled to the 'deemed sanction' of Environmental Clearance in terms of Para 8 of the Notification of 2006, the regulatory authority having failed to take any final view on the Project Proponent's application. It is their case that the 'deemed sanction' would follow in terms of Para 8(iii) and the view expressed by the SEAC would be deemed to have been accepted by the regulatory authority and therefore, the Applicant is entitled to be conveyed the said order in terms thereof.

¶329

The second class of contention would be with reference to the contention of Respondent no. 9 that it had applied for obtaining Environmental Clearance for its project in the year 2012, which application was re-filed in the year 2013. The SEIAA had failed to act within the time limit provided in Clause 8 (i) of the Notification of 2006, ie. 105 days. This failure on the part of the SEIAA would result in grant of Environmental Clearance in favour of the Project Proponent on the principle of 'deeming fiction'. It is the case of Respondent no. 9 that SEIAA had only responded after two years by communicating that the operation of the impugned Office Memoranda has been stayed by the National Green Tribunal and therefore their application for Environmental Clearance has been delisted till further order by the Tribunal.

¶330

96. Contrary to the above, the Applicant contends that there is nothing in Para 8 of the Notification of 2006, which is remotely suggestive of any deeming fiction. It is a provision that merely prescribes a period within which certain acts are required to be done without specifying any consequences thereof. Furthermore, none of the Respondents have filed applications with all the relevant documents as required under law. They have not even filed their applications for Environmental

¶331

¶332

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) Assessment Authority

¶333

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶334

Clearance complete in all respects. They have played a fraud with law and in any case misrepresented facts before SEIAA. Even after filing the application for Environmental Clearance, they have violated their undertakings to SEIAA and carried on with the constructions of their projects. This firstly would disentitle them from claiming any relief on the premise of 'deeming fiction' contained under Para 8 of the Notification of 2006, and in any case their acts and deeds would vitiate their entire application for grant of Environmental Clearance. The effect of 'deeming fiction' would thus never accrue in their favour. Once the provisions of the Notification of 2006 are not strictly complied with, the question of invoking 'deeming fiction' in terms of Para 8 of the Notification of 2006 would not even arise as these Project Proponents have not complied with the basic ingredients of these provisions.

¶335

97. We must make a note of the fact that none of the other parties, including the MoEF or SEIAA had raised the plea of 'deeming fiction' either in their oral or written submissions. Before adverting to the discussion on merits of these contentions, it will be appropriate to refer to Para 8 of the Notification of 2006 which reads as under:

¶336

"8. Grant or Rejection of Prior Environmental Clearance (EC): (i) The regulatory authority shall consider the recommendations of the EAC or SEAC concerned and convey its decision to the Applicant within forty five days of the receipt of the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned or in other words within one hundred and five days of the receipt of the final Environment. Impact Assessment Report, and where Environment Impact Assessment is not required, within one hundred and five days of the receipt of the complete application with requisite documents, except as provided below.

¶337

(ii) The regulatory authority shall normally accept the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned. In cases where it disagrees with the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned, the regulatory authority shall request reconsideration by the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned within forty

¶338

¶339

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ)

¶340

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶341

Assessment Authority

¶342

five days of the receipt of the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned while stating the reasons for the disagreement. An intimation of this decision shall be simultaneously conveyed to the Applicant. The Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned, in turn, shall consider the observations of the regulatory authority and furnish its views on the same within a further period of sixty days. The decision of the regulatory authority after considering the views of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned shall be final and conveyed to the Applicant by the regulatory authority concerned within the next thirty days.

¶343

(iii) In the event that the decision of the regulatory authority is not communicated to the Applicant within the period specified in sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) above, as applicable, the Applicant may proceed as if the environment clearance sought for has been granted or denied by the regulatory authority in terms of the final recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned."

¶344

98. First and foremost we have to examine what is a deeming fiction, when it operates and what are its ingredients? The expressions 'deemed' and 'deeming fiction' have been described in P RAMANATHA AIYAR'S Law Lexicon 3rd edition, 2012 as follows:

¶345

"Deemed: The word 'deemed' is used to impose an artificial

¶346

construction of a word or phrase in a statute that would not otherwise prevail. Sometimes it is used to put beyond doubt a particular construction that might otherwise be uncertain. Sometimes it is used to give a comprehensive description that includes what is obvious, what is uncertain and what is impossible. St. Aubyn (L.M.) v. A.G., 1952 AC15

¶347

Deeming fiction: A supposition of law that a thing is true without inquiring whether it be so or not, that it may have the effect of truth so far as it is consistent with justice.

¶348

¶349

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ)

¶350

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶351

Assessment Authority

¶352

The word "deemed" is used in various senses. Sometimes, it means "generally regarded". At other time, it signifies taken prima facie to be', while in other case, it means, 'taken conclusively. Its various meanings are, 'to deem' is 'to hold in belief, estimation or opinion'; to judge; adjudge; decide; considered to be; to have or to be of an opinion; to esteem; to suppose, to think, decide or believe on considerations."

¶353

99. Deeming fiction in a provision of a statute is indicative of the intention of the framers of law that they expect compliance to the requirements of the provision in a prescribed time frame. In some cases, it may prescribe proper consequences of default while in others it may be just require compliance simplicitor. When such words are used in a statute, they would provide the meaning for some matters or things and the way in which it is to be adopted. Furthermore, every provision of a statute is brought into by legislature with a particular object in mind; no word used by the legislature is therefore futile. Normally, such words should be interpreted with the aid of examining the whole scheme of an enactment, like the Notification of 2006 in the present case. Therefore, impact of the expression used under paragraph 8 should be examined and interpreted in light of the entire scheme of the Notification of 2006. The concept of 'deeming fiction' should be understood and interpreted by applying the principle of strict construction. Every requirement preceding the stage from which 'deeming fiction' operates must be specified in all respects and the principle of substantial compliance would have no application for determining the controversy in issue. A Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Laxmi Suiting v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2014 ALL (1) NGT REPORTER (2) DELHI 1, while dealing with the essentials and ingredients of 'deeming fiction' contained in Section 25(7) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short 'Water Act') held as under:-

¶354

"33. A deeming provision creates a legal fiction. When a statute enacts that something shall be deemed to have been done, which in fact and in truth has not been done, the court is entitled and bound to ascertain for what purpose and between what persons the statutory fiction is to be resorted to. After ascertaining the purpose, full effect must be given to the statutory fiction and it should be carried out to its

¶355

¶356

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶357

logical conclusion and to that end, it would be proper and even necessary to assume all those facts on which alone the fiction can operate. In other words, the facts and requirements of the fiction must be satisfied. It has, in fact, also been held by some courts that the word 'deemed' when used in a statute establishes a conclusive or rebuttal presumption, depending upon the context.

¶358

34. Another legal principle of construing the legal fiction is that the law cannot be extended beyond its purpose.

¶359

The Supreme Court, in the case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (AIR 1955 SC 661) stated that the legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose. A legal fiction is to be limited to that purpose for which it was created and should not be extended beyond that legitimate field. This approach was reiterated by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar (AIR 1992 SC 1417), wherein while dealing with Clause 5(3)(ii) of the Import (Control) Order, held that fiction created was the proper implementation of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 and to hold the licensee responsible for anything and everything that happens from the time of import till the goods are cleared through Customs and it was also held that the fiction cannot be employed to attribute ownership of imported goods to the importer in a case where he abandons them ie. in a situation where the importer does not pay or receive the documents of title. Reference can also be made to the case of Rajkumar Khurana v. State of NCT of Delhi [(2009) 6 SCC 72).

¶360

35. Section 25(7) is intended to provide for the deemed fiction only where the law is complied with. The obvious reason for providing the deeming fiction under Section 25 of the Water Act is to ensure that the Board does not unduly withhold the application of an industry or a unit which has acted in accordance with the law and has moved the application for establishment/operation complete in all respects to the Board. The intention of the framers of law is to balance the relationship between the industry and the Board. It is not intended to give any undue or unlawful

¶361

¶362

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶363

advantage to either of the two. The Board must not be able to frustrate the establishment of a project merely by delaying its decision on the application. It is also not intended to give any right to the industry to start its operation without obtaining consent of the Board or even making an application for that purpose. On the principle aforestated, it will not be permissible to stretch the provisions of Section 25 of the Water Act to give protection to the class of persons who are polluters and are even covered under the specified category contemplated under Section 25(5) supra.

¶364

36. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the Applicants are not entitled to the benefit or advantage of the deeming fiction of law contemplated under Section 25(7) of the Water Act inter alia but specifically for the following reasons:

¶365

(i) The Applicants did not submit applications, as contemplated under Section 25(2) of the Water Act, complete in all respects to the Board."

¶366

In the above backdrop, let us now examine as to what is the object and essential features contained in Para 8 of the Notification of 2006. The Notification of 2006 has been issued by the Ministry in exercise of the statutory powers vested in it under Section 3 of the Act of 1986 and Rule 5 of the Rules of 1986. The Notification has been issued for the purposes of effectively ensuring environmental protection and for implementing the provisions contained in the Principal Act. The purpose is to ensure that the project and the activities as stated in the Schedule to the Notification of 2006 only and only commence construction after the Project Proponent has obtained the Environmental Clearance and that is why Para 2 of the Notification of 2006 requires prior Environmental Clearance from the regulatory authority. The whole scheme of the Notification of 2006 does not postulate any relaxation of this mandatory requirement. Thus, there is unquestionable and undisputable legal obligation upon the Project Proponent to seek prior Environmental Clearance before the commencement of any activity in relation to the project in question. Such obligation is to be complied with as per Form 1 or supplementary Form 1A, as the case may be, to be submitted to the concerned regulatory authority. Form 1 has various

¶367

¶368

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶369

columns which would be incapable of being filled and it will be impracticable, if not impossible, for an applicant to furnish the requisite data supported by appropriate analysis, as contemplated in the various columns of Form 1. Still further, the requirement on the part of the Project Proponent would be to have a complete EIA report on the basis of ToR which again is relatable to the application (Form 1) submitted by the Project Proponent. The authorities are neither required under any law nor under any memorandum of practice to conduct any inspection to verify the contents of the application or the physical situation existing on the site. The averments in the application are normally taken to be correct. It is evident from the record before us that Project Proponents have violated the law and because of their intentional violation and illegal acts of the private Respondents, compliance to the provisions of Notification of the 2006, has been rendered impracticable. The provisions of Para 8(i) to 8(iii) would come into play only when an Applicant complies with his statutory obligations and satisfies the essential requirements of this provision strictly. Indisputably these private Respondents have not done so. Until and unless a complete, comprehensive application in accordance with Form 1 and supplementary Form 1A as per Appendix I and II of the Notification of 2006 respectively, complete in all respects, is submitted, nothing contained in these provisions would come into play much less than it would enable the Project Proponents to claim any advantage or benefit on the plea of deemed fiction.

¶370

100. There is a definite process required to be followed, Le., Screening, Scoping and Appraisal, in addition to Public Consultation, which would lead to passing of an order granting or refusing Environmental Clearance in terms of the Notification of 2006, in cases where SEAC has recommended grant or refusal of Environmental Clearance. The matter then has to be placed before the regulatory authority, Le. SEIAA, which is empowered to alter such recommendation of SEAC, agree with the same or take completely contra view. However, where it proposes to disagree with the recommendations of SEAC, the SEAC would be required to give its views within 60 days from the date when the file was returned to it by SEIAA for reconsideration and intimation would also be given to the Project Proponent before it takes the final view. It is only when the requirements of Para 8(i) and (ii) have been complied with that any 'deeming fiction' in terms of Para 8(iii) can come into play. After the view of SEAC is considered by the regulatory authority, then

¶371

¶372

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) Assessment Authority

¶373

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶374

it would convey its decision within next 30 days to the Project Proponent. It is only if the decision of the regulatory authority is not intimated that the Project Proponent may proceed as if the Environmental Clearance sought for has been granted or denied by the regulatory authority in terms of the final recommendations of the EAC or the SEAC as the case may be. The word 'deemed' has to be construed differently with reference to the provisions of the Act where it is so used. When a statute enacts that something shall be deemed to have been done, which in fact and in reality was not done, the court is entitled and in fact bound to ascertain for what purposes and between what persons such statutory fiction is to be resorted to and full effect must then be given to the statutory fiction and it should be carried to its logical conclusion. It has been time and again emphasized in various judgments of various courts, including that of the Supreme Court, that the Court has to ascertain the purpose of the legal fiction, as the term 'deemed' has been used for manifold purposes (Refer: The State of Bombay u. Pandurang Vinayak Chaphalkar and Ors., AIR 1953 SC 244 and B.B. Chibber u. Anand Lok Cooperative GRP Housing Society Ltd., AIR 2001 Delhi 348). These Principles were also reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661, where the Court held as under:

¶375

*29. In The Bengal Immunity Company Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. MANU/SC/0083/1955: AIR 1955 SC 661, the majority in the Constitution Bench have opined that legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose."

¶376

101. 'Deeming fiction' as an established concept of law, has to be construed strictly and completely according to the facts and circumstances of a case. The dimension of its application would depend upon the language of the provisions where 'deeming fiction' is contained, its purpose and the object sought to be achieved under those provisions and the attendant circumstances of a particular case. It is neither possible nor permissible to prescribe a strait-jacket formula for applicability of this fiction in law. Upon a bare reading of Para 8(i) of the Notification 2006, it is evident that it does not contain any 'deeming fiction'. On the contrary, it only prescribes a time period within which the application for grant of Environmental Clearance should be decided and order is to be communicated to the Project

¶377

¶378

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶379

Proponent. This clause does not provide for any consequences if the said decision was not taken within the prescribed time.

¶380

102. Para 8 (i) provides that the regulatory authority has to convey its decision to the Applicant within 45 days of the receipt of the recommendation of the EAC or SEAC, as the case may be, or convey its decision within 105 days of the receipt of the final Environment Impact Assessment report. In case where Environment Impact Assessment is not required, then, within 105 days of the receipt of the complete application with requisite document (emphasis supplied). Para 8 (ii) further provides that the regulatory authority shall normally accept the recommendation of the EAC or SEAC but wherever it decides to disagree with such recommendations, regulatory authority shall request reconsideration by the EAC or SEAC as the case may be, within 45 days of the receipt of the recommendations made to it, along with reason for its disagreement. Such intimation of decision is also to be conveyed to the Applicant.

¶381

103. EAC or SEAC as the case may be, in turn, shall consider the observations of the regulatory authority and furnish its views on the same within a further period of 60 days. Whereupon, the regulatory authority, after considering the view as furnished by the EAC or SEAC as the case may be, should take its decision, which shall be final and which would be conveyed to the Applicant within the next 30 days. In other words this entire exercise has to be completed within 135 days. Both these Paras Le. 8(i) and 8(ii) do not provide for any consequences of default. It is Para 8(iii) of the Notification of 2006, which provides for a kind of deeming fiction. In terms of this Para, if the decision of the regulatory authority is not communicated to the Applicant within the period specified in Para 8 (1) & (ii), the Applicant may proceed as if the Environmental Clearance sought for has been granted or denied by the regulatory authority in terms of the final recommendations of the EAC or SEAC as the case may be. For the provision of Para 8(iii) to become effective the following conditions are required to be satisfied:-

¶382

(1) The application submitted by the Applicant to the SEIAA or the MoEF as the case may be, should be complete in all respects along with requisite documents.

¶383

(2) All the requisite proceedings contemplated under the Notification of 2006 must be completed, Le. preparation of Terms of Reference (ToR) and submission of final EIA report

¶384

¶385

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶386

(3) There should be unambiguous recommendation by the SEAC or EAC, for granting or refusing to grant the Environmental Clearance. After submission of the final EΙΑ report (wherever required) and upon completing the procedure prescribed under Clause 8(ii), the matter should remain pending and the Applicant uninformed of the order, for the period of 105 days or 135 days, as the case may be.

¶387

104. It is only thereafter that the deeming fiction contained in Para 8(iii) can operate, but even then, the clear mandate of the Legislature is that the Environmental Clearance to a Project should not be deemed to have been granted to the Project Proponent. It will only be the recommendation of the EAC or SEAC that would enable the Applicant to proceed with his project in terms of the said recommendations. The limited operation of the deeming fiction under Para 8, is only the final recommendation of the EAC or the SEAC, as the case may be, that would operate by fiction of law as the order of the regulatory authority. It is because of the default on the part of the regulatory authority to pass the final order that results in invoking the principle of 'deeming fiction' as contemplated under Para 8(iii) of the Notification of 2006.”

¶388

It is further argued that Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru vide order dated 21.08.2024 passed in W.P. No.10181 of 2024 ( M/s. Siddhasiri Souharda Sahakari Nivamitha v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board & Anr., ) discussed the matter of non-assigning the reason or inaction on the recommendation of the SEAC or the EAC and held as

¶389

follows:-

¶390

"21. The respondent Board has not taken any viable defence before the Court as to why recommendation by Expert Appraisal Committee is not acceptable. The Board is unable to point out any other view possible on the recommendation of Expert Appraisal Committee. The Board has not assigned any reasons for its inaction on the recommendation of Expert Appraisal Committee within 45 days. In such circumstances, it is not open to the Board to contend that EC is not automatic on expiry of 45 days of Expert Appraisal Committee recommendation.

¶391

22. Once statute or the notification mandates time bound action, any compliance required is to be within the time frame. This requirement is

¶392

¶393

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ)

¶394

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶395

Assessment Authority

¶396

observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Electrosteel Steels Limited Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2023) 6 SCC 615.

¶397

23. Even before the Court, Board has not pointed out any impactable concern in the recommendation of Expert Appraisal Committee disentitling the petitioner to EC, Board has not pointed out any violation under any statute by the petitioner thereby disentitling either EC or CFO."

¶398

The Respondent has further raised the issue of siting criteria or other matters which have been discussed in the reply submitted by the Respondent and we have to examine the statutory provisions. Rest of the matters are required to be re-considered by the SEAC which has been duly considered by the Committee more than thrice.

¶399

On the basis of above discussion and legal provisions, our directions are as follows:-

¶400

(1) The Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 is quashed and set-aside being in violation of and not in consonance with statutory provisions of EIA Notification, 2006, quoted above.

¶401

(2) The matter is remitted back to the SEAC to re-visit the matter with regard to the recommendation for grant of Environmental Clearance including the conditions which it has formulated and SEAC shall carry out the exercise within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and after re-considering the matter, the matter should be finalized by the competent authority according to statutory provisions of EIA Notification, 2006, quoted above.

¶402

¶403

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) Assessment Authority

¶404

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶405

With these observations, the Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) along with pending

¶406

I.As., if any, stand disposed of .

¶407

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶408

Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM

¶409

05^th May, 2026, Appeal No.12/2025 (I.A.No.135/2025 & I.A.No.153/2025) AK&K

¶410

M/s Universal Resources Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact

¶411

¶412

Appeal No.12/2025(CZ) Assessment Authority

Universal Resources through Partner Subash Chand Bansal v. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Universal Resources through Partner Subash Chand Bansal v. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harun Abdullabhai Mala vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

M/S Charminar Jointings Pvt. Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

Miot Hospitals Private Limited vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

M/S. Gmsbags Biotech Private Limited vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (Kspcb) Represented by Its Chairman

Jagat Choudhary S/O Sh. Vijay Choudhary vs Union of India

Anil Kanti Prasad Poddar vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board

Anil Kanti Prasad Poddar vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board

Anil Kanti Prasad Poddar vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board

Priyesh Kumar Pandey vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Shaukat Khan Kayamkhani vs State of Rajasthan through Its Chief Secretary Government of Rajasthan

Narendra Singh Bradwal vs Union of India

Universal Resources through Partner Subash Chand Bansal vs Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority)

Bakir Ali Rangwala S O Haji Ghulam Ali vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary

Bakir Ali Rangwala S O Haji Ghulam Ali vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary