EIA Notification 2006 | SEIAA Must Provide Reasoned Dissent to Override SEAC Recommendations : NGT Central Zone

The National Green Tribunal Central Zone has delivered a significant ruling affirming that state-level environmental authorities cannot arbitrarily override expert recommendations without providing reasoned justification, reinforcing the procedural integrity of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process under the 2006 Notification. This judgment clarifies the binding nature of expert committee opinions and the limits of administrative discretion in environmental clearance decisions.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, M/s Universal Resources, sought Prior Environmental Clearance (EC) for a dolomite mining project in Village Bhadawar, Tehsil Badwara, District Katni, Madhya Pradesh. The proposed project involved open-cast semi-mechanized mining over an area of 1.777 hectares, with a mineable area of 1.477 hectares and a production capacity of 50,704 tonnes per annum. The land in question comprised Khasra Nos. 640, 639, and 649, which the appellant acquired through a lease transfer from the previous lessee, Shri K. Durga Rao, on 17.06.2022. The transfer was formally approved by the Madhya Pradesh Mineral Resources Department via Order No. 2832/456/2022/12/2.

Key Facts

• The appellant filed a fresh EC application on 25.01.2023, as the previous EC issued by the District EIA Authority (DEIAA) could not be transferred under post-2018 guidelines.
• The project fell under Category B-1, mandating full compliance with the EIA Notification, 2006.
• The public hearing was conducted on 18.08.2023, with no objections raised by local stakeholders.
• The Final Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Management Plan (EMP) were submitted on 11.12.2023.
• The appellant submitted certified land records (Khasra Panchshala) showing Khasra Nos. 354/3 and 356/2 as Government land, and Bhu-Sahmati (landholder consent) for Khasra Nos. 354/8, 355, and 356/3.
• The nearest human habitation was documented to be 150 metres away in the north-east direction, with a 50-metre non-mining buffer zone and green belt plantation of 0.25 hectares, as per the approved EMP.
• The appellant submitted a letter from the District Mining Branch, Katni, dated 04.05.2023 (Ref: 918/khanij/2023), confirming compliance with land use and DGPS coordinates.

Procedural History

• 17.06.2022: Lease transferred to appellant by Madhya Pradesh Mineral Resources Department.
• 25.01.2023: Fresh EC application filed with SEIAA.
• 18.08.2023: Public hearing conducted; no objections recorded.
• 11.12.2023: Final EIA/EMP submitted.
• 23.04.2024: SEAC (739th Meeting) recommended grant of EC.
• 14.05.2024: SEAC (750th Meeting) reaffirmed recommendation.
• 20.05.2024: SEAC (754th Meeting) again recommended EC.
• 05.06.2024: SEIAA (859th Meeting) delisted the application pending Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) opinion.
• 15.04.2025: SEAC (785th Meeting) reviewed the matter and reiterated its recommendation for EC.
• 13.08.2025: SEIAA (889th Meeting) rejected the application without prior notice or hearing.
• 25.08.2025: Impugned order issued rejecting EC on grounds of "tribal land" and absence of Collector’s consent, and alleged violation of siting criteria.
• 05.09.2025: Appellant submitted detailed clarification with supporting documents.
• 29.04.2026: Hearing concluded before NGT Central Zone.
• 05.05.2026: Judgment uploaded.

The Parties' Positions

For the Appellant

• The SEAC had unanimously recommended EC on four occasions (23.04.2024, 14.05.2024, 20.05.2024, 15.04.2025), based on exhaustive review of EIA, EMP, public hearing transcripts, and land records.
• The impugned order relied on extraneous, non-environmental grounds: alleged absence of Collector’s consent and classification of land as "tribal land" - issues falling exclusively under Revenue Department jurisdiction.
• The siting criteria were fully complied with: 150-metre buffer to habitation, 50-metre green belt, and no violation of CPC B norms.
• The SEIAA failed to provide any reasoned dissent, violating Clause 8(ii) of the EIA Notification, 2006.
• The rejection was procedurally flawed: no personal hearing, no notice of adverse findings, and no opportunity to respond to the allegations.
• The delay of over a year (from April 2024 to August 2025) constituted administrative arbitrariness and violated Clause 8(iii) on time-bound decisions.
• The decision was discriminatory: other similar dolomite mines in Katni district received EC under identical conditions.

For the Respondent (SEIAA)

• The project site was located on land classified as "tribal land" under Khasra Panchshala records, requiring prior consent of the District Collector under Section 247 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.
• No verified consent from the Collector was submitted in the file.
• The nearest habitation was allegedly within prohibited distance, posing risks of structural damage and psychological distress due to blasting.
• The EIA/EMP did not adequately address these concerns.
• The SEIAA was entitled to reject the application on grounds of non-compliance with statutory land use norms.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought:

• Quashing of the impugned order dated 25.08.2025.
• Direction to SEIAA to grant EC in accordance with SEAC’s recommendations.
• Costs and compensation for delay and procedural prejudice.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) can reject an Environmental Clearance application on grounds extraneous to environmental impact, and whether it may override the unanimous, repeated recommendations of the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) without providing specific, science-based reasons as mandated by the EIA Notification, 2006.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

The appellant relied on Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019) 15 SCC 401, which held that SEAC recommendations are binding unless the SEIAA provides reasoned dissent and refers the matter back for reconsideration. The appellant cited Clause 8(ii) of the EIA Notification, 2006, which mandates that any disagreement by SEIAA must be communicated with reasons and referred back to SEAC for re-examination. The appellant further relied on Thomas Mathai v. SEIAA (KER: 38052, 29.05.2025), where the Karnataka High Court held that SEIAA cannot ignore SEAC recommendations without assigning reasons. The appellant argued that the SEIAA’s reliance on land classification and Collector’s consent was ultra vires, as these are matters of revenue and title, not environmental appraisal. The absence of a personal hearing violated the principles of natural justice under Article 14 of the Constitution.

For the Respondent

The respondent contended that the SEIAA had a duty to ensure compliance with all statutory requirements, including land use permissions under the Land Revenue Code. It argued that proximity to habitation and potential for structural damage justified rejection, even if the EIA report claimed compliance. The respondent maintained that the SEIAA retained ultimate authority to reject applications on grounds of public interest and statutory compliance, irrespective of SEAC recommendations.

The Court's Analysis

The Tribunal conducted a meticulous review of the EIA Notification, 2006, particularly Clause 8, which governs the grant or rejection of Environmental Clearance. The Court emphasized that the Notification establishes a structured, expert-driven process: screening, scoping, public consultation, and appraisal by SEAC, followed by final decision by SEIAA.

"The regulatory authority shall normally accept the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned. In cases where it disagrees with the recommendations... the regulatory authority shall request reconsideration by the Expert Appraisal Committee... while stating the reasons for the disagreement."

The Court held that the SEIAA’s rejection on the grounds of "tribal land" and absence of Collector’s consent was a clear departure from its statutory mandate. The EIA Notification does not empower SEIAA to adjudicate land title or revenue permissions - these are exclusively within the domain of the Revenue Department. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had submitted certified land records and a letter from the District Mining Branch confirming land status and compliance with DGPS coordinates.

The Court further observed that the SEAC had reviewed the application four times, each time recommending clearance. The SEIAA’s decision to reject the application without referring it back to SEAC for reconsideration, and without assigning any environmental or technical reason, amounted to a violation of Clause 8(ii). The Tribunal cited Hanuman Laxman Aroskar to affirm that SEAC’s recommendations are not advisory but form the substantive basis for decision-making.

The Court also found the rejection order violated the principles of natural justice. No notice was issued to the appellant prior to rejection, no opportunity was afforded to respond to the allegations of "tribal land" or proximity to habitation, and no personal hearing was conducted as required under Clause 8(vi). The Tribunal held that such procedural lapses vitiate the order.

Regarding the allegation of proximity to habitation, the Court noted that the Final EIA/EMP clearly stated the nearest settlement was 150 metres away, with a 50-metre buffer zone, in compliance with CPC B norms and the precedent in Residents of Gram Tirathgarh v. SEIAA, Chhattisgarh. The SEIAA’s rejection based on mere presumption, without field verification or counter-study, was arbitrary.

The Tribunal also rejected the respondent’s argument that the delay justified rejection. The delay was caused by the SEIAA’s repeated remands and delisting, not by the appellant. Clause 8(iii) of the Notification provides for deemed clearance only if the regulatory authority fails to act within prescribed timelines, but the Court held that the appellant’s case did not meet the threshold for deemed clearance because the SEIAA had not failed to act - it had acted improperly.

The Verdict

The appeal was allowed. The impugned order dated 25.08.2025 was quashed and set aside. The matter was remitted to the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) for re-consideration of the EC application in accordance with the EIA Notification, 2006. The SEAC was directed to complete its re-examination within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The SEIAA was directed to take a final decision within 45 days of receiving the SEAC’s re-considered recommendation, strictly in accordance with Clause 8(ii) of the Notification. Costs of Rs. 50,000 were awarded to the appellant.

What This Means For Similar Cases

SEAC Recommendations Are Binding Unless Reasoned Dissent Is Given

• Practitioners must now argue that any rejection of an EC application by SEIAA that ignores SEAC recommendations without assigning specific, technical, or environmental reasons is legally unsustainable.
• A mere reference to non-environmental issues like land title, revenue permissions, or administrative policy cannot justify rejection.
• The burden shifts to SEIAA to prove that its disagreement is grounded in environmental science, not bureaucratic convenience.

Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable

• No EC application can be rejected without a personal hearing if the grounds involve allegations of non-compliance or misrepresentation, as mandated by Clause 8(vi).
• Failure to issue notice or afford opportunity to respond renders the order void ab initio under principles of natural justice.
• Delays caused by SEIAA’s own procedural indecision cannot be used to penalize applicants.

Land Classification Is Not an Environmental Issue

• SEIAA’s jurisdiction is confined to environmental impact, not land ownership or revenue classification.
• If land is classified as tribal, forest, or revenue land, the applicant must be directed to obtain the relevant revenue clearance - but SEIAA cannot use the absence of such clearance as a basis for rejecting EC.
• Applicants should proactively submit all revenue-related documents (e.g., Collector’s consent, land records) to preempt jurisdictional challenges, but cannot be penalized for SEIAA’s failure to distinguish environmental from revenue mandates.