Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that the limitation period for appealing an environmental clearance begins when the clearance is first made available to the public through any authorised mode of disclosure. Addressing a challenge brought by a local body against the clearance issued for a mining project, the Court determined that the initial online publication by the Ministry constituted effective communication, thereby activating the statutory time limit. As the appeal was lodged after the maximum permissible period, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s dismissal. The ruling clarifies that the earliest public communication—whether by the Ministry, project proponent, or regulatory authority—marks the starting point for computing limitation in such matters.

The case concerns an appeal filed by a village panchayat challenging the environmental clearance granted on 05.01.2017 to a project proponent for limestone mining over 193.3269 hectares in Talli and Bambor villages of Gujarat. The panchayat filed an appeal under Section 16(h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, contending that it became aware of the clearance only upon receiving a reply under the Right to Information Act on 14.02.2017. A Miscellaneous Application was filed seeking condonation of delay. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default on 29.01.2018, and the subsequent restoration application was also dismissed. The Supreme Court remanded the matter for consideration on merits, directing the Tribunal to consider all issues including limitation. On restoration, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal again, holding that it was filed beyond the maximum permissible period of 90 days. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that limitation must begin only when the last of the duty-bearing authorities communicated the clearance. The respondents submitted that the clearance had been uploaded on the MoEF&CC website on 05.01.2017, and therefore communication was complete on that date. The dispute centered on the correct date of “communication” for computing limitation under Section 16(h).

Also Read: Supreme Court Recalls Vanashakti Judgment Restricting Post-Facto Environmental Clearances Through 2:1 Majority; Justice Bhuyan Records Dissent

The Court recorded that the relevant issue was “the date on which environment clearance (EC) granted to the project proponent is ‘communicated’ to ‘any person aggrieved’” for calculating limitation under Section 16(h). It stated that limitation “will commence from the earliest of the date on which the communication is carried out by any of the duty bearers.” It observed that communication under Section 16(h) “is intended to be in rem and not in personam” and that duty bearers include “(i) MoEF&CC, (ii) project proponent, and (iii) the Pollution Control Board(s).”

The Court recorded the obligations under the EIA Notification, 2006, noting the requirement that authorities “place the environmental clearance in the public domain on Government portal” and that project proponents “advertise it at least in two local newspapers.” It further stated that multiple authorities completing communication on different dates requires following “the principle of first accrual,” meaning limitation begins when the earliest complete communication occurs.

Quoting the Tribunal in Save Mon Region Federation, the Court noted: “The limitation shall start running… where different acts by different stakeholders are complied with at different dates, the earliest date on which complete communication is carried out, shall be the date for reckoning of limitation.” It also referenced Medha Patkar, stating: “If one set of the above events is completed by any of the stakeholders, the limitation period shall trigger.”

The Court recorded that the MoEF&CC had uploaded the clearance on 05.01.2017 and that this was a “definitive factual finding” of the Tribunal with “enough proof thereof on record.” It noted the Tribunal’s rejection of the appellant’s RTI-based contention as a “pretext to bring the said appeal within the period of limitation.” It stated that as the EC “was uploaded and made publicly accessible on 05.01.2017,” limitation commenced on that date.

The Court observed that the appellant’s argument regarding incomplete publication in newspapers was “pedantic,” and agreed with the principle that publication need only convey the “factum” of the EC, citing V. Sundar: “The size of the advertisement is immaterial but what it conveys is material.”

Also Read: “It’s A Mess”: Delhi HC Slams BCI On Foreign Law Firm Rules; Cautions Against ‘Castigating’ CMS IndusLaw & Dentons; Interim Bar Extended

It concluded that the Tribunal had “considered all the arguments in detail” and reached the correct conclusion regarding limitation.

The Court ordered: “Civil Appeal No. 731 of 2023 against the judgment and order dated 03.01.2023… is hereby dismissed. There is no error in the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal, it has rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. Parties shall bear their own costs.” It also noted that the findings reflect that “the appeal filed by the appellant is beyond the mandatory period of limitation” and therefore dismissed.

 Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, AOR Mr. Satwik Parikh, Adv. Ms. Kritika, Adv.
For the Respondents: M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Vanita Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Adv. Ms. Nandita Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Tijil Thakur, Adv. Ms. Aastha Mehta, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Ms. Prerana Mohapatra, Adv. Ms. Prina Sharma, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR

Case Title: Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1331
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 731 of 2023
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; Justice Atul S. Chandurkar