TALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.         

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2023

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA and ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ 

Overview of the case

This case broadly involves the point of time from which the period of limitation would begin to run for filing an appeal before the National Green Tribunal under Section 16(h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, impugning the grant of an Environmental Clearance. A controversy arose on account of a challenge to the granted EC by Talli Gram Panchayat, based on their contention that the limitation begins from the date they actually came to know of the same through an RTI response. The Supreme Court examined whether or not the appeal had been filed within the time permitted by law and clarified how “communication” of an EC is to be understood, particularly in cases where multiple authorities have obligations to publicize or disseminate the same. It is essentially a case about the interpretation of limitation, obligation to communicate ECs, and the need for a pragmatic approach to rule out interminable uncertainty in environmental litigation.

Facts of the case 

The project proponent received an EC from the MoEF&CC on 05.01.2017 for limestone mining in Gujarat. The Talli Gram Panchayat filed an appeal before the NGT along with an application for condonation of delay on 19.04.2017 stating that the Panchayat knew of the EC only on 14.02.2017 by virtue of an RTI reply. The NGT dismissed the appeal as time-barred, concluding that limitation starts from the first date on which the EC is made public, which in the instant case was the upload on the MoEF&CC website on 05.01.2017. Earlier, the proceedings, after having been dismissed for default, had been restored by the Supreme Court, but the NGT, after reconsideration of the matter, again dismissed the appeal on limitation. The Gram Panchayat moved the Supreme Court impugning this finding on the ground of non-compliance by various authorities in publishing and communicating the EC.

Issues Involved

1. When does “communication” of an Environmental Clearance occur for the purpose of limitation under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act?
2. Whether the appeal filed by the Panchayat was within the maximum permissible period of 90 days, that is 30 days plus 60 condonable days.
3. Whether incomplete publication by the project proponent – for example, advertisement not containing full EC conditions – affects the starting point of limitation.
4. Whether knowledge acquired through RTI can shift the limitation period, especially when the EC was already in the public domain earlier.

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court confirmed the conclusion reached by the NGT and dismissed the appeal filed by the Panchayat. It concluded that limitation starts from the date when any duty-bearer first communicated or publicised the EC, because communication under Section 16(h) is intended to be in rem, to be undertaken for public awareness, and not just personal service. Since the MoEF&CC had made the EC available to the public on its website on 05.01.2017, there was complete communication here. As such, the appeal filed on 19.04.2017 would certainly be beyond the maximum permissible 90 days. It rejected the contention that publication must involve the whole of the EC, or limitation would begin to run on the date when RTI was made. It held that once limitation has begun, it does not stop or get rejuvenated because of subsequent communications. 

The appeal was dismissed.