| File Note: |
The opinion tendered by the SLO has been examined….The legal opinion has been tendered in light of the order passed by the Hon’ble SC in the matter of Vanashakti v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No.166 of 2025 on 058.2024 (Copy attached)….Thus here the examination of the issues related to said CWP is important ……………….The gist of the matter is as follows……………………
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vanashakti v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No.166 of 2025 examined the validity of the MoEF&CC Notification dated 29.01.2025 (S.O. 523(E)) and the Office Memorandum dated 30.01.2025 issued under the EIA Notification, 2006. The matter related to the interpretation and applicability of Entry 8(a) and Entry 8(b) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006, which deal with Building and Construction Projects and Townships / Area Development Projects respectively (Para 1)………………...
The Notification dated 29.01.2025 amended Entry 8 of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006. The notification clarified that “General Conditions” would not apply to projects falling under Entry 8(a) and 8(b). It also clarified the definition of “built-up area”, stating that built-up area includes the covered area on all floors together including basement and other service areas forming part of the building or construction project. This clarification was issued to remove ambiguity regarding computation of built-up area for the purpose of environmental clearance under the EIA Notification (Paras 13, 38–39)……………….
The said notification further inserted Note-1 under Column 5 of Entry 8(a) which provided that industrial sheds, schools, colleges and hostels for educational institutions shall not be included within the scope of Entry 8(a) for the purpose of environmental clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006, subject to adoption of certain environmental management measures such as solid and liquid waste management, rainwater harvesting, sustainable environmental management practices and use of recycled materials (Para 13)………………...
Subsequently, the Office Memorandum dated 30.01.2025 was issued by the MoEF&CC to clarify the applicability of the above notification. The OM clarified that the provisions of the Notification dated 29.01.2025 would also apply to the State of Kerala, where the applicability of the EIA Notification to construction projects had been the subject matter of earlier litigation and judicial orders (Paras 44–45)……………………….
During the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the validity of the said notification and OM on the ground that they diluted the environmental safeguards provided under the EIA Notification, 2006. The Court examined the scheme of the EIA Notification, 2006 and observed that the Schedule to the notification consists of five columns and wherever General Conditions were intended to apply to any project or activity, the same were specifically mentioned in Column-5 of the Schedule. Since Entry 8(a) and 8(b) did not provide for applicability of General Conditions in the original notification, the Court held that such conditions were not applicable to these entries (Paras 15–19, 26–27)…………………….
However, with regard to Note-1 inserted under Entry 8(a), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that construction projects exceeding 20,000 square meters built-up area are capable of causing significant environmental impact irrespective of the purpose of the building. The Court found that there was no rational basis for exempting industrial sheds, schools, colleges and hostels from environmental scrutiny and therefore the exemption granted through Note-1 was arbitrary and contrary to the object of environmental protection (Paras 42–43).
With respect to the Office Memorandum dated 30.01.2025, the Court held that the OM merely clarified the applicability of the notification and did not dilute the environmental safeguards provided under the EIA Notification, 2006. Hence the OM was found to be legally valid (Paras 44–45)…………………..
Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court partly allowed the writ petition and held that Note-1 inserted in Entry 8(a) by the Notification dated 29.01.2025 is liable to be quashed, while the remaining portion of the notification is valid. The Court also upheld the Office Memorandum dated 30.01.2025 (Para 47)…………………………..
The legal opinion rendered in the case of M/s Omaxe Royal Nest, Village Thakarwal, Ludhiana examines the applicability of Entry 8(a) or 8(b) of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 relating to Township and Area Development Projects……………………….
The Supreme Court judgment dated 05.08.2025 in Vanashakti v. Union of India dealt with a different issue, namely the validity of the MoEF&CC Notification dated 29.01.2025 and the exemption granted under Note-1 to Entry 8(a) for certain categories of buildings such as industrial sheds, schools, colleges and hostels. The said judgment only quashed the exemption under Entry 8(a) and does not relate to the threshold criteria for township/area development projects under Entry 8(b). Therefore, the legal opinion in the present case, which is based on Entry 8(b) of the EIA Notification, 2006, is not directly governed by the judgment in Vanashakti v. Union of India……………………….
It is worth to mention here that while disposing of the said CWP the Court also observed that State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs) are statutory expert bodies constituted under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and are competent to assess the environmental impacts of projects within the respective States and Union Territories (Paras 35–37)…………………………..
SEIAA, Punjab vide letter no. 417 dated 03.06.2024 has communicated to Board that the projects having total area less than 50 Ha but built up area more than 20000 sqm shall be apprised as per the provisions of category 8(a) of the Schedule appended to the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 (Copy attached)……………Thus there is no doubt that the project is required to obtain EC…..
Recommended as per my previous note dated 07.01.2026………
|
