DHANANJAYA Y.CHANDRACHUD,J. - (1.) The Union of India in the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change [MoEF-CC] moved these proceedings, seeking a direction that the Minutes of the fortieth meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee [EAC] dated 23 April 2019 be taken on the record so that the embargo imposed by this Court on the Environmental Clearance [EC] for a greenfield airport at Mopa Goa can be lifted. This follows upon the judgment dated 23 April 2019 which was rendered on a challenge addressed to this Court against a decision of the National Green Tribunal [NGT] upholding the EC, subject to compliance with certain conditions. By the judgment of this Court, reported as Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v Union of India, (2019) SCCOnline SC 441, the process leading up to the grant of an EC on 28 October 2015 was held to be flawed. The directions that were imposed by the Court were formulated in the following terms: "175. ... (i) The EAC shall revisit the recommendations made by it for the grant of an EC, including the conditions which it has formulated, having regard to the specific concerns which have been highlighted in this judgment; (ii) The EAC shall carry out the exercise under (i) above within a period of one month of the receipt of a certified copy of this order; (iii) Until the EAC carries out the fresh exercise as directed above, the EC granted by the MoEFCC on 28 October 2015 shall remain suspended; (iv) Upon reconsidering the matter in terms of the present directions, the EAC, if it allows the construction to proceed will impose such additional conditions which in its expert view will adequately protect the concerns about the terrestrial eco systems noticed in this judgment. The EAC would be at liberty to lay down appropriate conditions concerning air, water, noise, land, biological and socio-economic environment; (v) The EAC shall have due regard to the assurance furnished by the concessionaire to this Court that it is willing to adopt and implement necessary safeguards bearing in mind international best practices governing greenfield airports; (vi) We grant liberty to the State of Goa as the project proponent and the MoEFCC, as the case may be, to file the report of the EAC before this Court in the form of a Miscellaneous Application so as to facilitate the passing of appropriate orders in the proceedings; and (vii) No other Court or Tribunal shall entertain any challenge to the report that is to be submitted before this Court by the EAC in compliance with the present order." Pending the completion of the process mandated in the above terms, this Court suspended the EC which had been granted on 28 October 2015. The directions issued by this Court required the EAC: (i) To revisit its recommendations for the grant of the EC including the conditions which it had imposed; and (ii) To impose, in the event that it allowed the construction of the airport to proceed additional conditions to adequately protect the concerns governing the terrestrial eco-systems noticed in the judgment, besides formulating conditions pertaining to air, water, noise, land, biological and socio-economic environment. While doing so, the EAC was under a mandate to take into consideration the specific concerns which were highlighted in the judgment.
(2.) The basis of the directions that were issued by this Court was formulated in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment which reads thus: "174.Bearing in view the necessity to maintain a balance between the need for an airport and environmental concerns, we are of the view that it would be appropriate if the EAC is directed to revisit the conditions subject to which it granted its EC on the basis of the specific concerns which have been highlighted in this judgment. Such an exercise primarily is for the EAC to carry out in its expert decision making capacity. The EAC is entrusted with that function as an expert body. The role of judicial review is to ensure that the rule of law is observed. Hence, we propose by the directions which we will issue under Article 142 of the Constitution, to direct the EAC to revisit the conditions for the grant of an EC. While doing so, it would be open to the EAC to have due regard to the conditions which were incorporated in the order of the NGT and to suitably modulate those conditions in pursuance of the liberty which we have preserved to it. To facilitate an expeditious decision, we propose to direct the EAC to carry out this exercise in a prescribed time schedule during which period, the EC shall remain suspended. We propose to direct that after the EAC has formulated its views, they shall be placed before this Court in a Miscellaneous Application in the present proceedings, so as to enable the Court to pass final orders. The Miscellaneous Application may be filed either by the State of Goa as the project proponent or by the MoEFCC. We clarify that no other Court or Tribunal shall entertain any challenge to the ultimate decision of the EAC and final orders thereon shall be passed by this Court in the present proceedings."
(3.) Essentially, the concerns which were highlighted in the judgment of this Court related to the need to preserve the biodiversity of the Western Ghats. These concerns have been the subject of a seminal exercise carried out in 2013 by a High Level Working Group [HLWG] on the Western Ghats chaired by Dr K Kasturirangan [Kasturirangan Committee report]. The report of the HLWG has been dwelt upon in the earlier judgment and continues to be a focal point of the continuing debate in the present case. The HLWG was constituted under the auspices of the MoEF-CC. Its report dated 15 April 2013 is a valuable contribution to the preservation of biodiversity in the pristine environment of the Western Ghats.;