Talli Gram Panchayat vs Union Of India

2025 INSC 1331 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2023

TALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

1. 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 Green Tribunal Act, 2010. 1 Considering the fact that such

communication is the obligation of plurality of duty bearers and to “any

person”, we have interpreted Section 16(h) of the Act 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. Having considered the legal and

factual submissions of the appellant, we have come to the conclusion that Signature Not Verified

the appeal filed by the appellant is beyond the mandatory period of Digitally signed by KAPIL TANDON Date: 2025.11.19 16:25:30 IST Reason: 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

1 limitation. We have thus affirmed the judgment of the Tribunal and

dismissed the appeal.

Facts:

2. The respondent being the project proponent, applied and obtained

an EC for limestone mining covering an extent of 193.3269 hectares at

Talli and Bambor villages in Gujarat from the Ministry of Environment,

Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) on 05.01.2017. The appellant,

the Gram Panchayat of village Talli, sought to challenge this EC before

the National Green Tribunal by filing an appeal under Section 16(h) of the

Act. However, as there was delay, the appeal was accompanied by a

Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) for condonation of delay in filing the

appeal. It was contended therein that the grant of EC was known to them

only through the reply dated 14.02.2017 received under the Right to

Information Act. It was therefore contended that limitation must

commence either from 14.02.2017 or from the last of the communications

received from the authorities who had the duty to intimate the appellant.

3. By its order dated 29.01.2018, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for

default and even the subsequent application for restoration was also

dismissed on 16.07.2021. Challenging these orders, the appellant filed a

civil appeal before this Court, primarily contending that such orders could

not have been passed by a single member of the Tribunal. Accepting the

2 submission, this Court by its order dated 11.07.2022 allowed the appeals

and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for consideration and

disposal on merits. While remanding, this Court directed the Tribunal to

consider all questions, including the issue relating to limitation. After

restoration of the appeal, the Tribunal heard the appeal and the

accompanying application for condonation of delay and proceeded to

dismiss the application on the ground that the appeal was filed after the

maximum condonable period of 90 days as such barred by limitation.

Thus, the present Civil Appeal under Section 22 of the Act.

4. We heard Mr. Sanjay Parikh, senior counsel, assisted by Mr.

Abhimanue Shrestha, advocate for the appellant and Mr. Pinaki Mishra,

senior counsel, for the respondents.

Analysis:

5. Section 16 of the Act, to the extent that it is relevant for our purpose

is extracted herein below for ready reference;

“Sec. 16. Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction - Any person aggrieved by,-

(a)…

(b)….

(h) an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986).

…

3 may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal:

Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed under this section within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”

6. Section 16(h) 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 2’. 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

2 This is evident from the preamble and other substantive provisions of the Act.

4 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, we will now 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.

7. When we say 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 same is reproduced below for ready

reference;

"10. Post Environmental Clearance Monitoring-

(i) (a) In respect of Category 'A' projects, it shall be mandatory for the Project Proponent to make public the environmental clearance granted for their project along with the environmental conditions and safeguards at their cost by prominently advertising it at least in two local newspapers of the district or State where the project is located and in addition, this shall also be displayed in the Project Proponent's website permanently.

5 (b) In respect of Category 'B' projects, irrespective of its clearance by MoEF/SEIAA, the Project Proponent shall prominently advertise in the newspapers indicating that the project has been accorded Environment Clearance and the details of MoEF website where it is displayed.

(c) The Ministry of Environment and Forest and the State/Union Territory level Environmental Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs), as the case may be shall also place the environmental clearance in the public domain on Government portal.

(d) The copies of the environmental clearance shall be submitted by the Project Proponents to the Heads of local bodies, Panchayats, and Municipal Bodies in addition to the relevant offices of the Government who in turn has to display the same for 30 days from the date of receipt.”

8. 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.

9. In view of the concurrent obligations of MoEF&CC the project

proponent and the Pollution Control Boards to communicate grant of the

EC, the question that arises for consideration, is to identify the day when

the ‘communication’ of the EC is complete on the ‘person aggrieved’ for

commencement of period of limitation for filing appeal under Section 16(h) 6 of the Act. When the duty to communicate is the obligation of more than

one authority or individual, it is natural or inevitable that the dates by which

they comply with their respective obligations do not synchronise. The

dates by which MoEF&CC could upload its decision on its website, project

proponent advertise the EC in the two local newspapers and the dates by

which Pollution Control Board would display the EC on its notice board

may not be the same.

10. When obligation to communicate the decision vests in multiple

authorities, it is appropriate to infer that the communication is complete

when the ‘person aggrieved’ receives information from the earliest of the

communication. Following the principle of first accrual, which postulates

that when a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of

limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to suit first accrues.

In Khatri Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 3, this Court held; “…if a suit is

based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to

run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. To put it differently,

successive violation of the right will not give rise to fresh cause and the

suit will be liable to be dismissed if it is beyond the period of limitation

counted from the day when the right to sue first accrued.”

3 (2011) 9 SCC126 also followed in Rajeev Gupta v. Prashant Garg (2025 SCC OnLine SC 889). 7

11. It is of course a condition precedent that the communication must

be clear and complete and if this condition is satisfied, it is logical to

conclude that the person aggrieved cannot pick and choose later

communications from other duty bearers for reckoning the period of

limitation. It is the first accrual that would trigger the period of limitation

prescribed under Section 16(h) of the Act.

12. In Save Mon Region Federation & Anr. vs. Union of India4, decided

way back in 2013, the Tribunal recounted the concurrent obligations of

MoEF&CC, the project proponent and others to communicate the grant of

EC to any person aggrieved and hold that where different stake holders

are to communicate the order, the earliest date on which the

communication is carried out, shall be the date for reckoning limitation;

“10. The date on which the order of Environmental Clearance is communicated to the public at large, shall be the date from which the period of limitation shall reckon, as contemplated under Section 16 of the Act. Communicating the order, in other words, shall mean putting the order in the public domain in its complete form and as per the mode required under the provision of the NGT Act of the Regulation 2006. The limitation shall start running and shall be computed as referred to in Para 19 of the judgment. Where different acts by different stakeholders are complied with at different dates, the earliest date on which complete communication is carried out, shall be the date for reckoning of limitation.”

4 2013(1) All India NGT Reporter 1.

8

13. This decision is again reiterated in the subsequent decision of

Medha Patkar & Ors. v. Ministry of Environment & Forests, UOI and Ors.5

“12. From the above dictum, it is clear that a communication would mean putting it in public domain and completing the acts as are contemplated in the EIA Notification of 2006, read with conditions of the EC and the provisions of the Act. In terms of the scheme of the notification and law, there are three stakeholders in the process of grant of environmental clearance:

(a) Project Proponent

(b) Ministry of Environment and Forests and

(c) Other agencies which are required to fulfil their obligations to make the communication complete in terms of the provisions of the Act and the notification concerned.

…

15. …Complete performance of its obligations imposed on it by the order of environmental clearance would constitute a communication to an aggrieved person under the Act. In other words, if one set of the above events is completed by any of the stakeholders, the limitation period shall trigger. If they happen on different times and after interval, the one earliest in point of time shall reckon the period of limitation. Communication shall be complete in law upon fulfilment of complete set of obligations by any of the stakeholders. Once the period of limitation is prescribed under the provisions of the Act, then it has to be enforced with all its rigour. Commencement of limitation and its reckoning cannot be frustrated by communication to any one of the stakeholders. Such an approach would be opposed to the basic principle of limitation.

16. The Tribunal must adopt a pragmatic and practical approach that would also be in consonance with the provisions of the Act providing limitation. Firstly, the limitation would never begin to run and no act would determine when such limitation would stop running as any one of the stakeholders may not satisfy or comply with all its obligations prescribed under the Act. To conclude that it is only when all the stakeholders had completed in entirety their respective obligations under the respective provisions, read with the notification of 2006, then alone the period of limitation shall begin to run, would be an interpretation which will frustrate the very object of the Act and would also cause serious prejudice to all concerned. Firstly, this completely frustrates the purpose of prescription of limitation. Secondly, a project proponent who has obtained environmental clearance and thereafter spent crores of rupees on establishment and operation of the project, would be exposed to uncertainty, danger of unnecessary litigation and even the possibility of jeopardizing the interest of his project after years have

5 2013 SCC Online NGT 63.

9 lapsed. This cannot be the intent of law. The framers of law have enacted the provisions of limitation with a clear intention of specifying the period within which an aggrieved person can invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It is a settled rule of law that once the law provides for limitation, then it must operate meaningfully and with its rigour. Equally true is that once the period of limitation starts running, then it does not stop...”

14. In view of the interpretation that we have given in Section 16(h),

coupled with the consistent rulings of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion

that the period of limitation will commence from the earliest of the date on

which the communication is carried out by any of the duty bearers.

Application of the law to the facts of the present case:

15. We will now examine the law as declared hereinabove to the facts

of the present case to ascertain the compliance of these statutory

requirements by the MoEF&CC (Respondent No.1), the Project

Proponent (Respondent No.4), and the State Pollution Control Board

(SPCB). This examination is necessary to determine the specific date

from which the period of limitation commenced. The status of compliance

with respect to the communication of the EC is summarized in the table

below, as also reproduced in the order impugned before us.

SN Entity Responsibility Compliance Remarks A. MOEFCC As per EIA Place the EC letter signed on 5 Fully Notification environmental Jan 2017, scanned on 5 Complied 2006 clearance in the public Jan 2017 at 6:56:21 on 5-1-

Clause 10 domain on pm, and NIC confirmed 2017 Government portal that the same was uploaded on 5 Jan 2017 at xxx

10 As per MoEF shall put the EC letter is available till Fully NGT Order complete order of date at Complied in Save Environmental http://environmentcle on 5-1- Mon Case Clearance on its arance.nic.in/onlinese 2017 website and the same archnewrk.aspx?autoi can be downloaded d=5017&proposal_no=I without any hindrance A/GJ/MIN/34113/20 or impediments within 15&typep=EC seven days of such order, which would remain uploaded for at least 90 days. MoEF shall put it on its No proof submitted that Not notice board of the EC was put on notice Complied. Principal as well as the board. Regional Office for a period of at least 30 days. It should be accessible to the public at large without impediments B. Project Proponent As per EIATo make public the Advertisement Not Notification environmental intimating receipt of EC Complied. 2006 clearance granted for letter published but the Clause 10 their project along with advertisements does the environmental not include conditions and environmental safeguards at their conditions and cost by prominently safeguards. advertising it at least in two local newspapers of the district Display in the project No proof submitted that Not proponent’s website EC was put on Complied. permanently website. Submit to the Heads Complied and proof Fully of local bodies, submitted of receipt of complied Panchayats and the same on 9 Jan on Municipal Bodies in 2017. 11.1.2017 addition to the relevant offices of the Government As per Project Proponent No proof submitted that Not NGT Order uploads the EC was put on website. Complied. in Save Environmental Mon Case Clearance order with its environmental conditions upon its

11 website as well as publishes the same in the newspapers Project Proponent Advertisement Not publishes intimating receipt of EC Complied. Environmental letter published but the Clearance order with advertisements does its environmental not include conditions and environmental safeguards in 2 conditions and newspapers. safeguards. The project proponent Complied and proof Fully also has to submit a submitted complied copy of the EC to the on heads of the local 11.1.2017 authorities, panchayats and local bodies of the district As per EC A copy of clearance Complied and proof Fully Letter letter will be marked to submitted of receipt of complied concerned Panchayat the same on 9 Jan on 2017. 11.1.2017 The project authorities Advertised in 2 Fully should advertise at newspapers on 11 Jan Complied least in two local 2017 that the project on newspapers widely has been accorded 9.1.2017 circulated, one of environmental which shall be in the clearance and a copy of vernacular language of the clearance letter is the locality concerned, available with the State within 7 days of the Pollution Control Board issue of the clearance and also at web site of letter informing that the the Ministry of project has been Environment, Forest accorded and Climate Change at environmental www.environmentclear clearance and a copy ance.nic.in. of the clearance letter is available with the State Pollution Control Board and also at web site of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change at www.environmentclear ance.nic.in and a copy of the same should be forwarded to the Regional Office. C. SPCB

12 As per EIA Nil Notification 2006 Clause 10 As per Government agencies No proof submitted by Not NGT Order are expected to SPCB. Complied in Save display the order of Mon Case environmental clearance for a period of 30 days on its website or publish on notice board, as the case may be. As per EC State Pollution Control No proof submitted by Not Letter Board should display a SPCB. Complied copy of the clearance letter at the Regional office, District Industry Centre and Collector's office/ Tehsildar's Office for 30 days D. Village Panchayat As per EIA Display the EC for 30 No proof submitted by Not Notification days from the date of SPCB. Complied 2006 receipt. Clause 10 As per Local bodies are No proof submitted by Not NGT Order expected to display the SPCB. Complied in Save order of environmental Mon Case clearance for a period of 30 days on its website or publish on notice board, as the case may be.

16. It is evident from the table extracted hereinabove that the EC

granted on 05.01.2017 was uploaded on the website of the MoEF&CC on

the very same day. It is also clear that the Project Proponent has taken

steps for compliance, such as submitting the EC to the concerned

Panchayats, which was acknowledged on 09.01.2017. Further, by also

13 advertising the grant of the EC in two local newspapers on 11.01.2017 the

duty to communicate is completed.

17. NGT returned a definitive factual finding that the EC dated

05.01.2017 was uploaded on the MoEF&CC website on 05.01.2017 and

found that there is "enough proof thereof on record". This finding implies

that the EC was placed in public domain and was accessible and

downloadable. The NGT specifically rejected the appellant's contention

that they came to know about the EC only through an RTI application on

14.02.2017, terming it a "pretext to bring the said appeal within the period

of limitation".

18. Given the NGT's finding that the EC was uploaded and made

publicly accessible on 05.01.2017, 30 days limitation period will

commence from that date. If so, the maximum period of 90 days expired

by the time the appellant filed its appeal on 19.04.2017. There is no error

in the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal, it has rightly dismissed the appeal

on the ground of limitation.

19. It is also argued by the appellant that the project proponent has

failed to publish the entirety of the EC in the two newspapers as mandated

by Clause 10 of the EIA Notification. This argument is based on the

premise that if there is a failure to publish the entirety of the EC in the

newspapers, the project proponent would have failed in its duty 'to

14 communicate'. In our opinion, interpreting Clause 10 of the EIA

Notification in this manner would be pedantic, rather than subserving the

purpose and object of the statutory requirement of communicating and

publishing the grant of EC.

20. It will be sufficient compliance, if the project proponent publishes the

grant of the EC, and indicates therein the substance of the conditions and

safeguards. While it is the project proponent’s responsibility to publish

grant of EC in its favour, it is no part of the legal requirement that the

entirety of the environmental clearance is published in the newspaper. In

Save Mon (Supra), the Tribunal held that the project proponent must

publish the “factum” of EC along with the conditions at its own expense.

A detailed discussion of this issue is also found in a subsequent decision

in V. Sundar Proprietor Chemicals, India v. Union of India & Ors. 6, which

is relevant for this context. We are in agreement with the principle that;

“34. … In the instant case, the respondents have placed 2 publications made one in English and another in Tamil as early as in 5/2015 which clearly indicate that it was publicly notified through the said publications that the project in question has been granted the EC. It was also further stated in the publications that the EC is available with the TNPCB and can also be seen in the website of SEIAA, Tamil Nadu in the link at http://www.seiaa.tn.gov.in. Thus there were clear notices to the public at large to the effect that the EC was granted to the project in question and complete and comprehensive information was available on the website of the TNPCB. The comments made by the counsel that the advertisement made in both the newspapers did not even contain the particulars and conditions attached to the EC in question cannot be countenanced. The size of the advertisement is immaterial but what it conveys is material. The judgment of the Principal Bench of NGT made in Save Mon Region Federation and Lobsang Choedar v. Union of

6 2015 SCC Online NGT 145.

15 India, Manu/GT/0029/2013 lends full support to the case of respondents that if done as above then it has to be taken as a complete communication. The period of limitation has to be reckoned from 05.09.2014, i.e., date of publications made as contended by the learned counsel for the 10th and 11th respondents.”

21. In the order impugned before us, the Tribunal has considered all

the arguments in detail and has come to the correct conclusion that there

is complete and effective communication of the order granting

environmental clearance.

22. For the reasons stated above, Civil Appeal No. 731 of 2023 against

the judgment and order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the National Green

Tribunal, Western Zone Bench, Pune in MA No. 262 of 2017 (WZ) in

Appeal No. 36 of 2017(WZ) is hereby dismissed.

23. Parties shall bear their own costs.

………………………………....J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

………………………………....J. [ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 19, 2025

16