The Supreme Court stated that NGT cannot perform its duties just by depending on the report from the court commissioner without taking into account the views of the parties involved.
The Supreme Court overturned the National Green Tribunal’s decision that designated the area around Gokulpur Talab as a no development zone. The Court stated that the Tribunal cannot fulfill its role by only relying on a report from the Court Commissioner without considering the arguments from both sides. Three appeals were made to the Supreme Court against the National Green Tribunal’s ruling in New Delhi. One appeal was from the State Government, another from the Special Armed Forces, and the third from private individuals affected by the Tribunal’s orders. The Division Bench, consisting of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, emphasized that a tribunal must thoroughly evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by both parties.
Senior Advocate M.C. Dhingra represented the appellants, while AOR Sugandha Anand represented the respondents. The respondents had submitted an Original Application seeking protection for the area known as Bajrang Nagar Pahadi in Karondi village, Jabalpur District, Madhya Pradesh. In 2016, the NGT appointed a former expert member as a Court Commissioner to prepare a report. Based on this report, the Tribunal declared a one-kilometer radius around Gokulpur Talab as a no development zone. The appellants, unhappy with this decision, argued that implementing the NGT’s orders would halt all development activities. They pointed out that the State of Madhya Pradesh’s concerns about the direct and indirect catchment area were not taken into account by the NGT.
The Bench observed that the Master Plan did not identify the area in question as a direct catchment for Gokulpur Talab or the Narmada River. However, the NGT failed to consider the objections from the State of Madhya Pradesh in its response and simply accepted the Court Commissioner’s recommendations. It was highlighted that if the Court Commissioner’s report is accepted, a 12.32 square kilometer area around the lake would need to be designated as a no-development zone, significantly impacting construction in Jabalpur City. The Bench remarked, “The NGT’s order shows no independent analysis, just an acceptance of the Court Commissioner’s report.”
The Court also referenced its recent ruling in Benzo Chem Industrial Private Limited v. Arvind Manohar Mahajan and Others, criticizing the NGT for relying on external materials for its decisions. The Bench emphasized that the Tribunal must not rely solely on the Court Commissioner’s report without considering the positions of the involved parties. Consequently, the Bench allowed the appeals, annulled the contested judgments, and stated, “It is important to note that the development permission granted after approval from the State Environment Impact Assessment Agency (SEIAA) remains valid. Additionally, if a specific timeframe is set for these activities, the period from the stay issued by the NGT until now will be excluded.”
Cause Title: S. N. Dubey & Ors. v. Raman Khandelwal & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 931]
