Raza Ahmad vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Background
In 2007, Steel Authority of India (SAIL) and Jayprakash Associates set up Bhilai Jaypee Cement Limited to build a cement grinding unit on 34.59 acres of SAIL land at Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, that had been designated "green belt" in the city's 1991 Development Plan. An Environmental Clearance (EC) for the project was granted on 1 May 2008. The appellant alleged the EC was wrongly issued and the construction illegal, and after the State government later (in February 2011) formally changed the land's designated use from "green belt" to "industrial purpose" based on that EC, he filed a public interest writ petition in the Chhattisgarh High Court in September 2011 seeking to quash both the EC and the land-use notification and to have the land restored. The High Court transferred the case to the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which dismissed it as time-barred and for lack of jurisdiction over the state land-use notification.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court agreed that the challenge to the 2008 Environmental Clearance was barred by limitation, since it was raised in September 2011, more than three years after the EC's publication in May 2008, and the appellant's counsel conceded this. However, the Court held that the appellant's separate argument: that the 2011 change in land use itself violated specific conditions of the EC (such as the requirement to develop a green belt buffer and obtain other statutory clearances): was a distinct claim potentially within the NGT's original jurisdiction under Section 14 of the NGT Act (since the EC traces its authority to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, a scheduled statute), even though the NGT correctly held it had no jurisdiction over the state Town and Country Planning Act notification as such. Since this claim was raised in September 2011, within roughly six months of the February 2011 notification (the limitation period under Section 14(3), extendable by up to 60 days for sufficient cause), the Court remitted the matter to the NGT solely to decide whether sufficient cause exists to condone any delay and, if so, to decide the case on its merits, expressing no opinion on the underlying merits itself.
Lesson Learnt
Challenging an environmental clearance itself is subject to a strict limitation period, but a separate claim that a later government action (such as a land-use change) breaches specific conditions attached to that clearance can be a distinct cause of action with its own limitation clock, and tribunals like the NGT should assess such claims independently rather than treating them as time-barred merely because a related, earlier challenge to the clearance itself is out of time.