Supreme Court clarifies the limitation period for appeals under the National Green Tribunal Act: Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India (2 March 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 2 March 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 106
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
Can an appeal to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) be dismissed solely on the grounds of delay, even if the delay was due to the complexity of the case and the need for expert consultation? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a recent case, clarifying the interpretation of limitation periods under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The court examined whether the NGT correctly rejected an appeal against an environmental clearance for a major airport project, emphasizing the importance of access to justice in environmental matters. The judgment was authored by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao concurring.

Case Background

The case revolves around an appeal filed by Sridevi Datla (the appellant) against the environmental clearance granted to the fifth respondent, M/s Bhogapuram International Airport Corporation Ltd. (the Project Applicant), for the construction of a Greenfield International Airport at Bhogapuram, Vishakapatnam. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF) had granted environmental clearance on 14 August 2017, after considering the views of various stakeholders. The Project Applicant then published the approval in an English daily on 13 September 2017.

Aggrieved by this environmental clearance, the appellant filed an appeal before the NGT on 13 November 2017, along with an application for condonation of delay. The appellant explained that the delay was due to the voluminous nature of the clearance documents and the time required to consult with technical experts and lawyers in Delhi. The NGT, however, rejected the condonation application and dismissed the appeal, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) rejected the appellant’s application for condonation of delay, which was filed along with the appeal against the environmental clearance. The NGT held that the appeal was time-barred because it was filed beyond the prescribed period of 30 days from the date of communication of the order. The NGT also stated that no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision at issue is Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which provides for appeals to the NGT. The section states:

“16. Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction. -Any person aggrieved by… (h) an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, granting environmental clearance…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.”

This section establishes a 30-day limitation period for filing an appeal from the date of communication of the order, with a provision for a further 60-day extension if sufficient cause is shown for the delay. The Supreme Court also considered Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which states that if the last day for doing something falls on a public holiday, the act can be done on the next working day.

The Court also discussed the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, framed under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. This notification requires that environmental clearances be published within seven days from the date of uploading on the website.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the communication of the order should not be limited to the publication on the MoEF website. Instead, it should include dissemination of the decision to affected parties, including local communities, through local newspapers and Panchayats, as stipulated in the environmental clearance. The appellant also contended that the appeal was within time because the 90-day period ended on a Sunday and should be extended to the next working day as per Section 10 of the General Clauses Act. Finally, the appellant argued that the delay was due to the complexity of the case and the need for expert advice, which constituted sufficient cause for condonation.

The Union of India (UOI) argued that the limitation period should be calculated from the date the decision was uploaded on the MoEF website (14 August 2017). The UOI also contended that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to the NGT Act. The UOI highlighted that the environmental clearance was published within seven days of being uploaded. It was further argued that the appeal was filed beyond the 90-day limit, and the NGT was correct in rejecting the condonation application.

The Project Applicant supported the UOI’s arguments, stating that the project was conceived in public interest and that the appellant, being an interested party due to land acquisition, should have been vigilant in pursuing her rights. The Project Applicant argued that the NGT’s decision was correct and that the appeal to the Supreme Court should be limited to substantial questions of law.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant lies in the interpretation of ‘communication’ to include not just the publication on a website but also active dissemination to the affected communities, highlighting the need for a more inclusive approach in environmental clearances.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the approach to the issue of limitation by the NGT was correct?
2. Whether on a correct interpretation of law, the appeal under Section 16 was filed within the 90 days period, in the facts of this case?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

Authorities Viewed by the Court:
✓ The Court followed Kaushalya Rani v Gopal Singh [1964 (4) SCR 982], Collector of Excise & Customs v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. [(2009) 5 SCC 791], Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. [(2001) 8 SCC 470], and Patel Bros. v. State of Assam [(2017) 2 SCC 350] to hold that the Limitation Act is inapplicable to proceedings under the NGT Act, as the NGT Act has its own limitation period.
✓ The Court applied H.H. Raja Harinder Singh v. S. Karnail Singh [1957 SCR 208], Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil [(1996) 1 SCC 169], and Mohd. Ayub v. State of U.P. [(2009) 17 SCC 70] to hold that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applies to the NGT Act.
✓ The Court also relied on G. Ramegowda v. Land Acquisition Officer [(1988) 2 SCC 142], Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013) 12 SCC 649], Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh [(2010) 6 SCC 786], and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai [(2012) 5 SCC 157] to interpret the term “sufficient cause” liberally and to hold that the NGT’s approach was erroneous.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the need to ensure access to justice, especially in environmental matters. The Court emphasized that the NGT was established as an expert body to address complex environmental issues and that appeals to the NGT are not ordinary matters, given their potential impact on the environment. The Court was also concerned that a narrow interpretation of limitation periods would undermine the purpose of the NGT Act. The Court highlighted that the appellant had shown bona fides and was not negligent, and the delay was due to the complexity of the case.

The Court also noted that the NGT’s approach was based on a narrow reading of the law and that the exercise of discretion, as was done in this case, was erroneous. The Court emphasized that the term “sufficient cause” is relative and fact-dependent and should be interpreted liberally in favor of justice.

The ratio of Fact:Law indicates that the Court’s decision was more influenced by legal considerations (70%) than by the specific facts of the case (30%). While the factual aspects of the case were considered, the court’s reasoning was predominantly based on the interpretation of legal provisions and principles.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
✓ The Court noted that the NGT Act provides for a 30-day limitation period for appeals, with a provision for a further 60-day extension if sufficient cause is shown.
✓ The Court held that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applies to the NGT Act, meaning that if the last day for filing an appeal falls on a public holiday, the appeal can be filed on the next working day.
✓ The Court emphasized that the term “sufficient cause” should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice, and that the delay in this case was due to the complexity of the case and the need for expert advice.
✓ The Court also noted that the NGT’s approach was based on a narrow reading of the law and that the exercise of discretion, as was done in this case, was erroneous.

The court did not consider any alternative interpretations. The final decision was reached by considering the need for access to justice, the complexity of environmental matters, and the importance of a liberal interpretation of limitation periods.

The Supreme Court set aside the NGT’s order, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and directed the parties to appear before the NGT to argue the appeal on its merits. The Court held that the NGT had erred in rejecting the appeal solely on the grounds of delay and that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The court emphasized the importance of access to justice in environmental matters.

“Environmental disputes are complicated and entail expertise in diverse fields…for their determination in an effective and speedy fashion, that is not possible within the regular judicial and administrative set up in India.”

“The expression ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay.”

“An appeal to the NGT in such matters is no ordinary matter; it has the potential of irrevocably changing the environment with the possibility of likely injury. Application of judicial mind by an independent tribunal in such cases, at the first appellate stage, is almost a necessity.”

There were no dissenting opinions.

The decision has significant implications for future cases involving appeals to the NGT. It clarifies that the limitation period should be interpreted liberally, and that the NGT should consider the complexity of environmental issues and the need for expert advice when deciding whether to condone delays. The decision also ensures that parties who are affected by a project are not denied access to justice due to procedural technicalities.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but emphasized the importance of existing principles of liberal interpretation of limitation periods and access to justice.

Key Takeaways

• The limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act should be computed by applying Section 10 of the General Clauses Act.
• The term “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally in favor of justice.
• The NGT should consider the complexity of environmental issues and the need for expert advice when deciding whether to condone delays.
• Parties affected by a project should not be denied access to justice due to procedural technicalities.
• The NGT has a crucial role in adjudicating environmental disputes, and its decisions should be made with a view to ensure access to justice and environmental protection.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the NGT’s order and directed the parties to appear before the NGT to argue the appeal on its merits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applies to appeals filed under the NGT Act, and the term “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally. This decision clarifies the interpretation of limitation periods under the NGT Act and ensures that parties are not denied access to justice due to procedural technicalities. The Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that the NGT, as a specialized tribunal, must adopt a flexible approach in procedural matters to ensure that environmental disputes are adjudicated on their merits. This decision does not introduce a change in the previous position of law but rather clarifies and reinforces existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India is significant for its clarification of the limitation period for appeals under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The Court emphasized that the NGT should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delays, especially in cases involving complex environmental issues. By applying Section 10 of the General Clauses Act and emphasizing the importance of access to justice, the Supreme Court has ensured that the NGT remains an effective forum for addressing environmental disputes.