The National Green Tribunal has delivered a decisive affirmation of procedural integrity in environmental governance, holding that executive orders granting Environmental Clearances without SEIAA approval are legally void. This judgment reinforces the mandatory role of statutory bodies under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, and reiterates that environmental protection cannot be subordinated to administrative expediency.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Monu Raja, challenged the grant of 10 Environmental Clearances (ECs) for sand mining leases in Madhya Pradesh, alleging systematic circumvention of statutory procedures under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. These ECs were issued by executive officers - specifically the Executive Director and Principal Secretary, Environment - without referral to the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), despite clear legal mandates requiring unanimous decision-making by the SEIAA.
Procedural History
- 2012: Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana established that riverbed mining requires comprehensive environmental assessment, rejecting piecemeal approvals.
- 2016: NGT in Satendra Pandey v. MoEF&CC directed alignment of state EIA procedures with Deepak Kumar, mandating EIA, EMP, and public consultation for all leases above 5 hectares.
- 2018: Madhya Pradesh SEIAA issued revised guidelines attempting to dilute public consultation requirements for B-2 category leases.
- 2024: Nine ECs for sand quarries were granted by executive order under the "deemed approval" provision, bypassing SEIAA meetings entirely.
- 2026: Original Application No. 31/2026(CZ) filed before NGT Central Zone Bench, Bhopal, challenging these clearances.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought declaration that the impugned ECs are void ab initio, cessation of mining activities, revocation of all illegally granted clearances, and directions to the SEIAA to re-adjudicate applications in strict compliance with the EIA Notification, 2006.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Environmental Clearances issued by executive officers without unanimous approval by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), as mandated under Section 3(7) of the EIA Notification, 2006, are legally valid, or whether such bypassing renders them void ab initio.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana and Satendra Pandey v. MoEF&CC to argue that the EIA process is a statutory, not discretionary, framework. They emphasized that Section 3(7) of the EIA Notification, 2006, requires all SEIAA decisions to be unanimous and taken in a formal meeting. The executive issuance of ECs without SEIAA deliberation, they contended, constituted a direct violation of Section 3, Section 2, and Section 6 of the Notification, rendering the clearances ultra vires and void. They further cited Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Lafarge Umiam Mining to underscore the judiciary’s consistent stance against administrative overreach in environmental matters.
For the Respondent
The Respondents did not file a written submission prior to the hearing. The Tribunal noted the absence of any defense or justification for the executive issuance of ECs, and the failure to place the matter before the SEIAA despite repeated representations by the SEIAA Chairman. The Tribunal treated this silence as an admission of procedural failure.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal conducted a rigorous statutory interpretation of the EIA Notification, 2006, particularly Section 3(7), which explicitly states: "All decisions of the SEIAA shall be unanimous and taken in a meeting." The Court held that this is not a procedural formality but a substantive legal requirement designed to ensure transparency, collective expertise, and accountability.
"The grant of Environmental Clearance by an executive officer without placing the matter before the SEIAA, without discussion, without deliberation, and without unanimous decision, is not merely a procedural lapse - it is a fundamental breach of statutory mandate."
The Tribunal distinguished between administrative convenience and legal compliance, rejecting the notion that "deemed approval" could override mandatory statutory procedures. It emphasized that the Precautionary Principle and Principle of Sustainable Development, enshrined in Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, demand strict adherence to procedural safeguards. The Court further held that the SEIAA’s statutory composition - comprising experts and professionals under Appendix VI - exists precisely to prevent arbitrary decisions by non-expert bureaucrats.
The Tribunal also rejected the argument that executive orders could be ratified retrospectively. It held that once a statutory process is bypassed, the resulting action cannot be validated by subsequent approval. The clearances were therefore declared void ab initio.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The National Green Tribunal held that Environmental Clearances issued without unanimous approval by the SEIAA in accordance with Section 3(7) of the EIA Notification, 2006, are void ab initio and have no legal force. The Tribunal directed immediate cessation of mining activities under the impugned ECs and ordered the SEIAA to re-adjudicate all applications in strict compliance with the law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
SEIAA Approval Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must now treat any EC issued without a formal SEIAA meeting as legally invalid, regardless of whether it bears official stamps or signatures.
- Challenges to ECs can be framed on the ground of non-compliance with Section 3(7), even if the project appears environmentally benign.
- Administrative orders granting ECs under "deemed approval" provisions are vulnerable to nullification if SEIAA consultation was never sought.
Public Consultation Cannot Be Diluted by Notification
- The Tribunal reaffirmed that public consultation under Stage III of the EIA process is mandatory for all leases above 5 hectares, whether individual or clustered.
- States cannot unilaterally amend EIA procedures to reduce public participation; any such amendment must be notified by MoEF&CC and withstand judicial scrutiny under Deepak Kumar.
- Petitioners may now cite Satendra Pandey to challenge state notifications that attempt to exempt B-2 category projects from public hearings.
Executive Overreach Will Be Voided Ab Initio
- No retrospective validation is possible for actions that bypass statutory bodies.
- Legal opinions must now advise clients that any EC obtained through executive fiat is at high risk of being set aside.
- Environmental NGOs and affected communities have a stronger basis to seek injunctions against mining or construction activities based on illegally granted ECs.
