BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MR. SUDHAKAR HEGDE & ORS.

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MR. SUDHAKAR HEGDE & ORS.

The SEAC and project proponent relied on an expired ToR and outdated primary data; the SEAC failed to apply its mind and furnish adequate reasons; there were material contradictions regarding forest land diversion and number of trees to be felled; accordingly the NGT's direction that the appellant must conduct a fresh rapid EIA was upheld and the matter was remitted to SEAC/SEIAA subject to compliance with EIA Notification 2006, MoEF-CC OMs and specified directions of the Court.

Parties
Appellant; Project Proponent: Bengaluru Development Authority; Respondent; Public Spirited Objector: Mr. Sudhakar Hegde
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (civil Appeal No. 2566 of 2019) From National Green Tribunal / Final Disposal by Supreme Court; Appeal Disposed
Outcome
Appeal disposed; Supreme Court upheld the NGT order directing the appellant to conduct a fresh rapid EIA and issued further directions; EC cannot be relied upon pending compliance with directions and requisite clearances.
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment (eia) Procedure, Environmental Clearance (ec), Validity of Terms of Reference (to R) and Primary Data, Duties of Expert Appraisal Committee/state Expert Appraisal Committee (seac), Forest Land Diversion and Forest Clearance, Accreditation of EIA Consultants, Pipeline Safety and Infrastructure Planning
Environmental Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Forestry Law Environmental Impact Assessment (eia) Procedure Environmental Clearance (ec) Validity of Terms of Reference (to R) and Primary Data Duties of Expert Appraisal Committee/state Expert Appraisal Committee (seac) +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bengaluru Development Authority

Appellant; Project Proponent

Mr. Sudhakar Hegde

Respondent; Public Spirited Objector

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (civil Appeal No. 2566 of 2019) From National Green Tribunal / Final Disposal by Supreme Court; Appeal Disposed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) project commenced prior to the coming into force of the EIA Notification 2006
  2. 2 Whether the PRR project falls within para 7(f) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification 2006 (i.e. whether it is an expressway/highway requiring prior EC)
  3. 3 Whether the project proponent complied with the procedures and time limits under the EIA Notification 2006 and subsequent MoEF-CC OMs (ToR validity, primary data age, public consultation, appraisal)

Ratio Decidendi

The SEAC and project proponent relied on an expired ToR and outdated primary data; the SEAC failed to apply its mind and furnish adequate reasons; there were material contradictions regarding forest land diversion and number of trees to be felled; accordingly the NGT's direction that the appellant must conduct a fresh rapid EIA was upheld and the matter was remitted to SEAC/SEIAA subject to compliance with EIA Notification 2006, MoEF-CC OMs and specified directions of the Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed; Supreme Court upheld the NGT order directing the appellant to conduct a fresh rapid EIA and issued further directions; EC cannot be relied upon pending compliance with directions and requisite clearances.

Orders

  • The appellant (BDA) is directed to conduct a fresh rapid EIA for the proposed Peripheral Ring Road project.
  • For the rapid EIA the appellant shall hire a sector-specific accredited EIA consultant.