S.16 of NGT Act, 2010 : Supreme Court Explains the Provision

S.16 of NGT Act, 2010 : Supreme Court Explains the Provision and Law on Grant of Environmental Clearance

In case of Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India [2025] GCtR 1767 (SC), it was held that the date on which environment clearance (EC) granted to the project proponent is “communicated” to “any person aggrieved” is relevant for calculating the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act, 2010. 

Considering the fact that such communication is the obligation of plurality of duty bearers and to “any person”, S.16 (h) of Act has to be interpreted to hold that limitation will commence from the earliest of the date on which the communication is carried out by any of the duty bearers.

Section 16(h) of NGT Act, 2010 provides that “any person aggrieved… may’ within a period of 30 days from the date of the ‘communication’ of the order granting EC prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. The proviso enables the Tribunal to allow a further period, not exceeding 60 days, if in the opinion of the Tribunal, the appellant is prevented by sufficient cause. In the normal course, a communication is completed when the order impugned is served on an applicant/suitor personally, through mail or publication, as the case may be. However, in the context of Section 16(h), two distinct features must be borne in mind for a proper understanding of the expression ‘communicated’ to him. Firstly, the communication contemplated under Section 16(h) is to sub-serve a public purpose of enforcing any legal right relating to environment’. Environmental issues are not always adversarial, rather they operate as public law concerns. The expression “any person aggrieved” in Section 16(h), read with Sections 2(c), (g), (j) and (m) of the Act must therefore receive a liberal construction as ‘communication’ contemplated herein Section 16(h) is intended to be in rem and not in personam. There is therefore an obligation on a duty bearer to ensure that appealable decisions are properly declared and easily accessible. Secondly, the said obligation to “communicate” the order vests in plurality of duty holders being the, (i) MoEF&CC, (ii) project proponent, and (iii) the Pollution Control Board(s). Keeping in mind the features, one has to interpret Section 16(h) to determine the date by which multiple authorities or persons, the duty bearers, will communicate the orders to any person aggrieved. 

When it is said multiple authorities or plurality of duty bearers have the obligation to communicate, it is because of the legal regime under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, read with enforceable subordinate legislation made thereunder. In exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the Environment Protection Act, read with Rule 5 of the Environment Protection Rules, the MoEF&CC issued the Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006, (EIA Notification, 2006). Paragraph 10 of the said notification places certain obligations on MoEF&CC or the SEIAA and the project proponent.

The EC granted by MoEF&CC or, as the case may be, the SEIAA invariably requires the Centre or the State Pollution Control Boards, being the statutory regulators, to ensure compliance of the conditions imposed on the project proponent as a pre-condition for grant of EC. Thus, the cumulative mandate flowing out of the Environment Protection Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, including the EIA Notification 2006, require the MoEF&CC, the project proponent and the Pollution Control Boards to communicate, to make public, advertise, place in public domain either through the Governmental Portal or to display in their office the information about the grant of EC.