The NGT in this judgment while deciding the challenge to Forest Clearance, expanded the meaning of person aggrieved and concluded any citizen has right to protect the environment.
Cause title: Vimal Bhai and others v MoEF and others
Case Number: Appeal Number 5 0f 2011
Bench: Justice C V Ramalu and Dr. D K Agrawal
Date of Judgement: 14th December 2011
The NGT in this judgment while deciding the challenge to Forest Clearance, expanded the meaning of person aggrieved and concluded any citizen has right to protect the environment. They also asked to conduct cumulative assessment and update the elements of cost benefit analysis in forest clearance.
The appeal filed against Forest Clearance (FC) on June 2011 under which deforestation of 80.507 Hectares of Govt. Forest land diverted for construction of 65m high diversion dam across river Alakhnanda near village Helong in Chamoli district of Uttarakhand state for the purpose of generating hydroelectricity power.
Following questions arise for considerations in this appeal:
a) Whether the appellants can be called as aggrieved and /or injured person(s) as defined under the National Green Tribunal (for short NGT) Act and the appeal is maintainable by them;
b) Whether the appellants are justified in raising grounds that may be available for challenging the EC or its conditions in the guise of challenging the grant of present FC;
c) Whether the FC granted in favour of project proponent is in consonance with the principles of sustainable development and precautionary measures;
After discussing all these questions court came to the view of that no substantial merits calling for interference into the FC, in question, granted by Ministry of Forest and Environment.
However, before disposing of this appeal Tribunal gave few directions during hearing of this appeal. The tribunal held that under the preamble and section 20 of NGT Act, 2010 it has vast jurisdiction to decide the environmental disputes such as enforcement of legal rights relating to environment, compensation, damages to persons and property, and matters connected therewith and incidental thereto including conservation of natural resources. The tribunal considering article 48-A and 51 A (g) held that the statutory provisions are subservient to the constitutional mandates. The person as defined or person aggrieved as occurs in Section 2(j) 16 and 18 (2) of the NGT Act cannot be placed above every citizen as appears in Article 51A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, once the mandate is of every citizen, any person can approach this Tribunal complaining environmental threat in the activities of the State or any organization or individual.
The Tribunal also directed the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) to setup an appropriate committee of experts drawn from IITR and WII in the preparation of CIA report of the five projects considered in WII report to integrate the physical, biological and social impacts in making comprehensive cumulative impact assessment report and frame appropriate conclusions and recommendations within a reasonable timeframe for consideration and final review by the Ministry of Environment and Forest to avoid any unforeseen environmental and ecological threat in the study area.
To ensure sound evaluation of forestland diversion proposals MoEF was asked to prepare the guidelines for cost benefit analysis, may be updated/modified to provide clear instructions regarding the various cost and benefit elements to be incorporated for the purpose of arriving at cost benefit ratio and applications for Forest Diversion will be done following the prescribed procedure.
Read more
