Calcutta High Court directs SEIAA to consider Environmental Clearance application afresh

Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Calcutta High Court observed that the adjournment of the petitioner no.1’s application as per the Minutes dated June 14, 2022, has no factual or legal basis, and this cannot be sustained, accordingly quashed the impugned decision.

The petitioner is dissatisfied with the decision of June 14, 2022, given in the Minutes of a meeting of the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) adjourning petitioner no.1’s application for ‘Environmental Clearance’.

The petitioner had applied as a Project Proponent (PP) for a project related to petitioner no.1’s business of consulting on energy safety audits, ecological studies, biomonitoring, solid waste management, and environment-related study and research.

According to SEIAA the application for ‘Environmental Clearance’ was adjourned for two reasons:

1. Petitioner (PP) had not submitted the conversion certificate

2. The stay granted by the Calcutta High Court dated April 28, 2016, was no longer in effect.

The petitioners were dissatisfied with the SEIAA’s second reason, which stated that the petitioners must provide a National Accreditation Board of Education and Training (NABET) accreditation for any project submitted for environmental clearance. Resultantly, the petitioners were directed to hire a NABET accredited Environmental Consultant Organization for the project.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the SEIAA’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s order dated October 15, 2020, is patently wrong.

Counsel further cited orders issued by the Gujarat and Karnataka High Courts that stayed the office memoranda and notifications requiring NABET accreditation.

The learned counsel for the state placed an Apex Courts order dated October 15, 2020, to submit that the earlier order dated March 28, 2018, in the same criminal appeal has been continued.

As per the submissions made by the counsels of the parties, Court noted that the controversy revolved around the interpretation of the High Court orders related to the impugned office memoranda and notification requiring NABET accreditation for working as a consultant for any project requiring environmental clearance and the Apex Courts order dated October 15, 2020.

To put the order in context, several notifications and Office Memoranda were issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests concerning NABET accreditation for all organizations working in the area of Environmental Impact Assessment.

By notification dated March 3, 2016, a new paragraph was added to the previous memoranda by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change, which empowered NABET or the Quality Council of India, or any other agency as notified by the Ministry, to prepare the ‘Environmental Impact Assessment Report’ and appear before the concerned Expert Appraisal Committee for environmental clearance.

Court further noted that the order dated April 28, 2016, was referred to in the impugned SEIAA decision, wherein the authority has held that the protection given to the petitioner no longer exists in light of the Apex Courts order dated October 15, 2020.

The court opined that the Apex Courts decision must be viewed in light of SEIAA’s interpretation and the October 15, 2020 order was passed about Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018), wherein it was stated that in all pending cases where a stay against the proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is in effect, the stay will expire six months from the date of the Supreme Court’s judgment.

The single-judge bench laid down three reasons why the High Court is not inclined to accept SEIAA’s interpretation of the Apex Courts order, as follows:

1. The Supreme Court focused on the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 and the recommendations made to the Act for the expeditious disposition of a trial. The Supreme Court's subsequent direction in all pending cases to limit the duration of a stay order to six months must thus be seen in the specific facts of Asian Resurfacing and the order of October 15, 2020, was issued in the same set of Criminal Appeals as the previous order issued by the Supreme Court on March 28, 2018.
2. The Stay of the trial of civil or criminal proceedings cannot be equated with the stay of Office Memoranda/Notifications. Apart from the obvious differences, the orders of the Supreme Court were in specific relation to pending civil and criminal proceedings which were stalled due to the orders of stay.
3. Article 226(3) of the Constitution serves as a safeguard against the indefinite continuation of ex-parte interim orders, as well as the designated route to which an aggrieved party may resort. To be sure, neither the respondents nor the relevant Ministry have invoked this provision or filed any applications with the High Courts to vacate the stay orders.

Subsequently, Court stated that the SEIAA's explanation of Supreme Court orders to benefit the respondents or the Ministry is completely out of context and resultantly, the reasons are given in the contested decision for the orders to stay against the notifications no longer exist.

Conclusively, Court held that the document issued by the NABET to petitioner no.1 on February 27, 2012, shows that it was granted conditional accreditation as indicated in the contents of the document, and the accreditation was given for 3 years from August 21, 2011, although it is unknown whether or not the same was renewed after 2014.

Accordingly, while disposing of the petition, Court directed the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority to consider the petitioner’s application afresh, and come to a reasoned order within 6 weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Case Title: Pacific Scientific Consultancy Private Limited and Others v. The State of West Bengal and Others.