Environmental Law

M.P. Patil v. Union of India

Appeal No. 12 of 2012; judgment dated 13 Mar 2014

Citation: Appeal No. 12 of 2012; judgment dated 13 Mar 2014
Court: National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench
Date: 13 Mar 2014
Bench: Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson); U.D. Salvi (Judicial Member); G.K. Pandey, A.R. Yousuf & R.C. Trivedi (Expert Members)

Facts

NTPC proposed the 3 × 800 MW Kudgi Super Thermal Power Project in Karnataka.
The Ministry granted environmental clearance on 25 January 2012.
The appellant alleged that:
fertile irrigated land was incorrectly described as barren or dry;
public-hearing concerns were not properly answered;
the rehabilitation and resettlement plan was incomplete;
ambient-air monitoring locations were unsuitable;
coal sources had changed;
alternative sites and cumulative effects were inadequately examined.
The project involved major land acquisition and significant public investment.
By the time of adjudication, NTPC had acquired land and incurred substantial expenditure.

Whether material deficiencies in the EIA and appraisal process required cancellation of the environmental clearance.
Whether the EAC had adequately considered public-hearing concerns and rehabilitation.
Whether the project could be permitted through additional conditions under sustainable development.

Environmental decisions may be reviewed where authorities:
consider irrelevant material;
ignore material considerations;
act arbitrarily;
fail to comply with the Terms of Reference.
Sustainable development requires a balance between economic development and ecological protection.
Precautionary and polluter-pays principles apply under Section 20 of the NGT Act.
Public consultation must provide the EAC with the actual concerns and ground realities faced by affected persons.
Rehabilitation is an important component where environmental approval leads to large-scale livelihood displacement.

The Tribunal found genuine defects in the appraisal.
A comprehensive R&R plan had not been available during the public hearing.
This deprived affected persons of the opportunity to evaluate:
compensation;
livelihood restoration;
employment;
treatment of landless workers;
consequences of losing agricultural land.
The public raised concerns about air pollution, ash, groundwater, crops, water withdrawal and peacock populations.
The EAC recorded these issues but did not fully resolve every deficiency.
However, the Tribunal did not consider cancellation the only lawful remedy.
NTPC was a public-sector undertaking and large amounts of public money had already been committed.
Electricity generation was also relevant to regional development.
The Tribunal applied a balancing approach:
irreversible environmental harm could not be allowed;
public investment need not be wasted if strict conditions could control the impact.
It therefore treated sustainable development as conditional permission—not unconditional project approval.
NTPC had to implement enhanced pollution control, rehabilitation and monitoring measures.
The project’s environmental load had to remain within prescribed limits.
Livelihood loss had to be addressed through an effective R&R scheme rather than merely monetary land acquisition.

The NGT did not cancel the environmental clearance.
It sustained the project subject to strengthened conditions concerning:
comprehensive rehabilitation and resettlement;
employment and livelihood measures;
strict pollution-control compliance;
environmental monitoring;
protection of affected communities.
The judgment recognised defects in the original process but concluded that they could be addressed without abandoning the entire public project.
It is an example of remedial environmental adjudication through conditions and monitoring.
Use this case for: conditional preservation of an environmental clearance despite deficiencies, where strict corrective measures can secure sustainable development.