# Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 1112
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-09-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 10043 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/confederation-of-real-estate-developers-association-of-india-credai-v-union-of-38051
- **Pages:** 37

## Headnote

Whether the General Conditions (GC) under the EIA 2006
Notification, are applicable to Item 8(a) (Building and Construction
Projects) and Item 8(b) (Township and Area Development Projects)
of the Schedule thereto, and, if so, whether such projects
when situated within 10 km (subsequently reduced to 5 km) of
environmentally sensitive areas are required to be appraised as
Category A projects by the Central Expert Appraisal Committee
(Central EAC), rather than being considered by the State Expert
Appraisal Committees (SEACs) and the State/UT Environment
Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs).
Headnotes†
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - s.22 - Wildlife (Protection)
Act, 1972 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - NGT allowed
the original application filed by Respondent No.3 holding inter
alia that the GC under the EIA 2006 Notification applies to Items
8(a) and 8(b) - Respondent No.1-MoEF&CC was directed to
ensure that all building and construction projects falling wholly
or partly within 5 km of protected areas, critically polluted
areas (CPAs), severely polluted areas (SPAs), eco-sensitive
zones, or inter-State boundaries be treated as Category A
projects requiring appraisal by the Sectoral Expert Appraisal
Committee (Central EAC) - The Tribunal reasoned that since
the EIA 2014 Notification had been quashed by the Kerala High
Court, the exclusion of Items 8(a) and 8(b) from the GC no
longer survived - Further, Respondent No.1 was also directed
either to strictly implement the EIA 2006 Notification, or to
issue a clarificatory notification - Challenge to:
* Author
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
95
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
Held: 1.1 In the aftermath of the impugned order, the MoEF&CC
issued Notification dtd.29.01.2025, once again inserting in Column
5 of Item 8 (a) Note expressly providing that "General Conditions
shall not apply" - The Notification recorded that it was issued in the
backdrop of the Kerala High Court judgment dtd.06.03.2024 and the
NGT's order dtd.09.08.2024 - A consequential Office Memorandum
dtd.30.01.2025 was issued, clarifying that the Notification would
apply to the State of Kerala. [Para 21]
1.2 The latest notification dtd.29.01.2025 was issued by Respondent
No.1 on the basis of the order impugned in these appeals - The
said Notification, together with the aforesaid consequential official
Memorandum was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition (C)
No.166 of 2025 whereby the Notification and the Office Memorandum
were upheld, save and except Note 1 to Entry 8(a), which was
struck down - It was held that wherever the delegated legislation
intended the General Conditions to apply, the Schedule itself made
a specific provision, and consequently Entries 8(a) and 8(b) did not
attract the applicability of the General Conditions - With respect to
the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 of the NGT, this Court found
that the Tribunal had failed to construe the EIA 2006 Notification in
its correct perspective - A plain reading of the Notification revealed
that the General Conditions were never attracted to projects falling
under Items 8(a) and 8(b). [Paras 23, 24.1]
1.3 While upholding the 2025 Notification, this Court set aside Note 1
in Column 5 of Item 8(a), holding that the exclusion of projects such
as industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels for educational
institutions was inconsistent with the object and scheme of the
Environment Protection Act, 1986 - With respect to the OM dated
30.01.2025, it was further held that the 2025 Notification would
apply to the State of Kerala as well - Thus, the 2025 Notification
(excluding Note 1 to Entry 8(a)) and the OM dated 30.01.2025
were upheld, and the writ petition was allowed in part. [Para 24.3]
1.4 The decision so rendered has a direct bearing on the present
appeals - Since the issues raised herein already stand adjudicated,
it is neither necessary nor proper to re-examine them afresh - The
view so

## Text

_Characters 0–39,963 of 74,946. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39963 for what follows._

[2025] 10 S.C.R. 94 : 2025 INSC 1112
Confederation of Real Estate Developers
Association of India (CREDAI)
v.
Union of India & Others
(Civil Appeal No. 10043 of 2024)
12 September 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the General Conditions (GC) under the EIA 2006
Notification, are applicable to Item 8(a) (Building and Construction
Projects) and Item 8(b) (Township and Area Development Projects)
of the Schedule thereto, and, if so, whether such projects
when situated within 10 km (subsequently reduced to 5 km) of
environmentally sensitive areas are required to be appraised as
Category A projects by the Central Expert Appraisal Committee
(Central EAC), rather than being considered by the State Expert
Appraisal Committees (SEACs) and the State/UT Environment
Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs).
Headnotes†
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - s.22 - Wildlife (Protection)
Act, 1972 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - NGT allowed
the original application filed by Respondent No.3 holding inter
alia that the GC under the EIA 2006 Notification applies to Items
8(a) and 8(b) - Respondent No.1-MoEF&CC was directed to
ensure that all building and construction projects falling wholly
or partly within 5 km of protected areas, critically polluted
areas (CPAs), severely polluted areas (SPAs), eco-sensitive
zones, or inter-State boundaries be treated as Category A
projects requiring appraisal by the Sectoral Expert Appraisal
Committee (Central EAC) - The Tribunal reasoned that since
the EIA 2014 Notification had been quashed by the Kerala High
Court, the exclusion of Items 8(a) and 8(b) from the GC no
longer survived - Further, Respondent No.1 was also directed
either to strictly implement the EIA 2006 Notification, or to
issue a clarificatory notification - Challenge to:
* Author
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
95
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
Held: 1.1 In the aftermath of the impugned order, the MoEF&CC
issued Notification dtd.29.01.2025, once again inserting in Column
5 of Item 8 (a) Note expressly providing that "General Conditions
shall not apply" - The Notification recorded that it was issued in the
backdrop of the Kerala High Court judgment dtd.06.03.2024 and the
NGT's order dtd.09.08.2024 - A consequential Office Memorandum
dtd.30.01.2025 was issued, clarifying that the Notification would
apply to the State of Kerala. [Para 21]
1.2 The latest notification dtd.29.01.2025 was issued by Respondent
No.1 on the basis of the order impugned in these appeals - The
said Notification, together with the aforesaid consequential official
Memorandum was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition (C)
No.166 of 2025 whereby the Notification and the Office Memorandum
were upheld, save and except Note 1 to Entry 8(a), which was
struck down - It was held that wherever the delegated legislation
intended the General Conditions to apply, the Schedule itself made
a specific provision, and consequently Entries 8(a) and 8(b) did not
attract the applicability of the General Conditions - With respect to
the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 of the NGT, this Court found
that the Tribunal had failed to construe the EIA 2006 Notification in
its correct perspective - A plain reading of the Notification revealed
that the General Conditions were never attracted to projects falling
under Items 8(a) and 8(b). [Paras 23, 24.1]
1.3 While upholding the 2025 Notification, this Court set aside Note 1
in Column 5 of Item 8(a), holding that the exclusion of projects such
as industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels for educational
institutions was inconsistent with the object and scheme of the
Environment Protection Act, 1986 - With respect to the OM dated
30.01.2025, it was further held that the 2025 Notification would
apply to the State of Kerala as well - Thus, the 2025 Notification
(excluding Note 1 to Entry 8(a)) and the OM dated 30.01.2025
were upheld, and the writ petition was allowed in part. [Para 24.3]
1.4 The decision so rendered has a direct bearing on the present
appeals - Since the issues raised herein already stand adjudicated,
it is neither necessary nor proper to re-examine them afresh - The
view so taken by the coordinate Bench in Writ Petition (C) No.166 of
2025 is fully agreed with - Thus, the impugned order dtd.09.08.2024
of the NGT, on the basis of which the 2025 Notification was
subsequently issued and which has been upheld by this Court,
does not survive for consideration - The 2025 Notification, excluding
Note 1 to Entry 8(a), presently holds the field. [Paras 23, 24.3, 25]
96
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
In Re: Construction of Park at Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary
[2010] 15 SCR 783 : (2011) 1 SCC 744; Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra
Singh Bhandari [2017] 12 SCR 956 : (2017) 11 SCC 734; East
India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [1963] 3 SCR
338 : AIR 1962 SC 1893; Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya
Pradesh [1955] 2 SCR 589 : AIR 1955 SC 781; B.N.Tiwari v. Union
of India [1965] 2 SCR 421 : AIR 1965 SC 1430; Vanashakti v. Union
of India, W.P. (C) No. 166 of 2025; In Re: News Item published in
'The Asian Age'; Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati [2020]
10 SCR 677 : (2020) 17 SCC 157; Mantri Techzone v. Forward
Foundation [2019] 4 SCR 995 : (2019) 18 SCC 494; Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha [2021] 10 SCR 1 :
(2022) 13 SCC 401; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v. V.B.R. Menon
[2023] 5 SCR 215 : (2023) 7 SCC 368; Workmen of American
Express v. Management (1985) 4 SCC 71; SEBI v. Ajay Agarwal
[2010] 3 SCR 70 : (2010) 3 SCC 765 - referred to.
One Earth One Life v. MoEF Decision dated 06.03.2024 of the
High Court of Kerala in WP (C) No. 3097 of 2016 - referred to.
Vkrant Tongad, Karukampally Vijayan Biju, M/s. Ardent Steel Ltd.
Decision of NGT - referred to.
List of Acts
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972;
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016.
List of Keywords
Confederation of Real Estate Developers' Associations of India
(CREDAI); EIA 2006 Notification; General Conditions (GC); Item
8(a); Building and Construction Projects; Item 8(b); Township and
Area Development Projects; Projects within 10 km (subsequently
reduced to 5 km); Environmentally sensitive areas; Category A
projects; Central Expert Appraisal Committee (Central EAC); State
Expert Appraisal Committees (SEACs); State/UT Environment
Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs); Environmental protection;
Building and Construction Projects; Township and Area Development
Projects; Judicial propriety; Critically Polluted Areas (CPAs); Severely
Polluted Areas (SPAs); Eco-sensitive zones; Inter-State Boundaries;
Office Memorandum; Ongoing and proposed real estate projects;
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
97
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
Private real estate developers; Godrej Properties Ltd.; Sai Sahara
Developers Ltd.; Central Pollution Control Board; Eco-sensitive
areas; Environmental Clearance; Clarificatory notification.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10043 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2024 of the National
Green Tribunal, Central Zonal Bench, Bhopal in OA No. 93 of 2024
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 5532 and 5533 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Devdutt Kamat, Mukul Rohtagi, Atmaram Nadkarni, Sr. Advs.,
Ms. Pushpa Ganediwala, Pai Amit, Nikhil Pahwa, Abhiyudaya Vats,
Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Kapil Madan, Devansh Srivastava,
E. C. Agrawala, Samit Shukla, Ms. Saakshi Saboo, Keshav Sehgal,
Ms. Vaibhavi Bhalerao, For M/s.Trilegal.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv.,
Vanshdeep Dalmia, Ms. Anisha Jain, Ms. Shambhavi Singh,
Ms. Sharmishtha Shukla, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Swarupma
Chaturvedi, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Ms. Shurya Rai, Vishnu
Shankar Jain, Avijit Roy, Kunal Cheema, Akash Kakade, Somanatha
Padhan, Ms. Sonam Mhatre, Ms. Sakshi Mehta, Swetab Kumar,
Bhushan Mahendra Oza, Siddharth Sharma, Amber Dwivedi,
Kuldeep Sharma, Himanshu Nayyar.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
R. Mahadevan, J.
1.
We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants, including the intervenor, the learned Additional Solicitor
General of India appearing for Respondent No. 1, and the learned
senior counsel for Respondent No. 3. We have also perused the
materials available on record.
98
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2.
The appellants herein are the Confederation of Real Estate
Developers' Associations of India1 (Civil Appeal No.10043 of 2024),
Godrej Properties Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 5532 of 2025), and Sai Sahara
Developers Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.5533 of 2025). These appeals have
been preferred under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act,
20102, assailing the final order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the
National Green Tribunal, Central Zone Bench, Bhopal3 in Original
Application No. 93 of 2024 (CZ).
3.
By the impugned order, the NGT allowed the original application filed
by Respondent No. 3, and directed Respondent No. 1, Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change4 to ensure that all building
and construction projects falling wholly or partly within 5 km of the
following categories: -
(i)
protected areas notified under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,
(ii)
critically polluted areas and severely polluted areas identified
by Respondent No. 2, Central Pollution Control Board5,
(iii) eco-sensitive areas notified under Section 3(2) of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 19866, and
(iv) inter-state boundaries
shall be treated as 'Category A' projects and appraised at the Central
Level by the Sectoral Expert Appraisal Committee7. Respondent No.
1 was further directed either to strictly implement the Environmental
Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.20068, or to issue a
clarificatory notification.
3.1. In arriving at its conclusion, the NGT held, inter alia, that -
(i)
The "General Conditions" under the EIA 2006 Notification
are applicable to projects and activities covered under
1
In short, "CREDAI"
2
In short, "the NGT Act"
3
In short, "NGT"
4
In short, "MoEF&CC"
5
In short, "CPCB"
6
In short, "the EP Act"
7
In short, "Central SEAC"
8
In short, "EIA 2006 Notification"
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
99
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
item 8(a) - Building and Construction Projects, and item
8(b) - Township and Area Development Projects of the
Schedule thereto; and
(ii)
The Notification dated 22.12.20149 issued by MoEF&CC,
inserting a Note under items 8(a) and 8(b) excluding the
applicability of the General Conditions, stood quashed by
judgment dated 06.03.2024 of the High Court of Kerala
in One Earth One Life v. MoEF10 . Consequently, the
General Conditions now stand revived and are applicable
to projects and activities under items 8(a) and 8(b) of the
EIA 2006 Notification.
4.
Although the appellants were not parties before the NGT, they are
directly and substantially affected by the impugned order, as the
findings and directions therein have an adverse bearing on their
ongoing and proposed real estate projects, resulting in indefinite
delays in execution and completion. The appellants, therefore,
invoking their statutory right of appeal under Section 22 of the NGT
Act, have approached this court with the instant appeals.
5.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal
No.10043 of 2024 submitted that the appellant - CREDAI - is the
apex body of private real estate developers in India, established in
1999 with the objective of transforming the real estate sector and
promoting housing and habitat. It represents more than 13,000
developers across 230 city chapters in 21 States, and plays a
significant role in policy formation concerning the real estate industry.
The members of the appellant undertake projects falling within items
8(a) - Building and Construction Projects, and Item 8(b) - Township
and Area Development Projects - of the Schedule to the EIA 2006
Notification.
5.1. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the "General
Conditions" (GC) under the EIA 2006 Notification are inapplicable
to Items 8(a) and 8(b). The said Notification issued by the
MoEF&CC under Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(v) of the EP Act,
prescribes the process for obtaining environmental clearance
for projects and activities listed in its Schedule. Paragraph 2
9
In short, "EIA 2014 Notification"
10
WP (C) No. 3097 of 2016
100
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
stipulates that projects under Category A are to be appraised
at the Central Level by the Expert Appraisal Committee,
whereas Category B projects are to be considered by the
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority11. Paragraph
4 further bifurcates Category B into B1 and B2 projects, with
B1 projects requiring submission of an EIA report, and B2
projects being exempt.
5.1.1. It was further submitted that the Schedule itself contains
five columns: Columns 1 and 2 specify the project/
activity; Columns 3 and 4 indicate whether they fall
under Category A or Category B; and Column 5 records
conditions, if any. Under this framework, Item 8(a) -
Building and Construction projects - is classified as
B2, and Item 8(b) - Township and Area Development
projects - is classified as B1. Crucially, Column 5
against these items contains no stipulation that the
General Conditions shall apply. By contrast, wherever
the legislature intended the General Conditions to apply,
it has expressly so provided - for example, Items 1(a),
1(c), 1(d), 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), 5(d) to 5(k), 6(b), and
7(d) to 7(i). The deliberate omission in respect of Items
8(a) and 8(b), it was argued, unmistakably reflects
legislative intent.
5.2. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in In Re: Construction
of Park at Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary12, wherein, this
Court, after referring to the minutes of a high-level meeting
chaired by the Hon'ble Prime Minister on 06.07.2006, noted
that the decision to exclude Items 8(a) and 8(b) from the sweep
of the General Conditions was consciously taken to promote
decentralisation. Paragraph 84 of the Judgment expressly
observed that "the question of application of general condition
to the projects/activities listed in the schedule also needs to
be put beyond any debate or dispute". Consistent with this,
11
In short, "SEIAA"
12
(2011) 1 SCC 744
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
101
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
the EIA Notification dated 22.12.201413 inserted in Column 5
against Items 8(a) and 8(b), the explicit stipulation: "General
Conditions shall not apply".
5.3. It was also submitted that the NGT, relying on the Kerala High
Court's judgment in One Earth One Life v. MoEF (supra),
erroneously concluded in Paragraph 40 of the impugned order
that the General Conditions are "undisputably applicable" to
Items 8(a) and 8(b).
5.4. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the EIA 2014
Notification was merely clarificatory, issued pursuant to this
Court's directions in Okhla Bird Sanctuary, reaffirming what
was already implicit in the scheme of the EIA 2006 Notification -
namely, that the General Conditions were never intended to
apply to Items 8(a) and 8(b). The absence of such stipulation in
Column 5 against these entries itself establishes this position.
5.5. It was further submitted that the Kerala High Court set aside
the EIA 2014 Notification only on procedural grounds, i.e.,
deviation from the draft notification and inadequate consideration
of objections. The High Court did not pronounce upon the
substantive correctness of the clarification or the underlying
legal position. In fact, the consistent view of the MoEF&CC, as
reflected in several Office Memoranda and its Counter Affidavit
before this Court, was that Items 8(a) and 8(b) are exempt
from the General Conditions. The NGT's assumption that the
quashing of the EIA 2014 Notification automatically revives
the applicability of General Conditions is, therefore, untenable.
5.6. Thereafter, the learned Senior Counsel drew our attention to
paragraph 41 of the impugned order, whereby the NGT issued
consequential directions. It was urged that since those directions
rest entirely on the erroneous finding in paragraph 40, they
are without legal foundation and defeat the very purpose of
decentralization - a purpose expressly recognized by this Court
in Okhla Bird Sanctuary.
5.7. Regarding the maintainability of the application, the learned
Senior Counsel argued that the jurisdiction of the NGT under
13
In short, "EIA 2014 Notification"
102
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Sections 14, 15, and 2(m) of the NGT Act, is confined to
substantial environmental questions arising in a lis between
parties, and not to academic or abstract issues. Reliance was
placed on Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari14,
wherein this Court cautioned against the NGT transgressing its
statutory mandate by entertaining policy-oriented or academic
questions.
5.7.1. On this basis, it was submitted that the application of
Respondent No. 3 before the NGT was not maintainable,
as it was not founded on any personal grievance or
demonstrable nexus with the projects concerned.
Sections 14 and 15 contemplate reliefs such as
compensation, restitution of property, or restoration of
the environment - all of which necessarily presuppose
the existence of a claimant seeking redress. In the
absence of such a claim, the proceedings were beyond
the NGT's jurisdiction.
5.8.
The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that Respondent
No. 1 - MoEF&CC - in its pleadings, categorically clarified that
the scrutiny conducted at the State Level by SEIAA / SEAC
is of the same rigour as that undertaken by the Central EAC.
These bodies, though constituted by the Central Government,
are manned by experts meeting the eligibility criteria under
the EIA 2006 Notification, and are fully competent to appraise
projects and grant environmental clearances.
5.9.
It was submitted that the decentralization of Items 8(a) and
8(b) to the State Level was a conscious legislative choice,
designed to secure timely and effective decision-making. The
NGT's order directing such projects to be shifted to the Central
Authority, frustrates legislative intent, overburdens the Centre,
and causes avoidable delays.
5.10. It was also argued that the NGT's reliance on Respondent
No. 3's submission, premised on the Office Memorandum
dated 31.10.2019, is misplaced. That Memorandum dealing
with projects in critically polluted areas15 and specially polluted
14
(2017) 11 SCC 734
15
In short, "CPA"
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
103
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
areas16 is inapplicable to projects under Items 8(a) and 8(b).
The subsequent Office Memorandum dated 13.03.2020
clarified that the earlier Memorandum dated 24.05.2011 would
continue to govern projects under Items 8(a) and 8(b), which
would remain within the jurisdiction of SEIAA / SEAC. The
order in O.A. No. 1038 of 2019, which formed the basis of
the 31.10.2019 Memorandum, did not direct any change in
the appraisal process for such projects.
5.11. In conclusion, it was urged that the impugned order of the
NGT is vitiated by want of jurisdiction, misreading of statutory
notifications, disregard of legislative intent, and failure to
follow binding precedent. The order, apart from causing grave
prejudice to stakeholders, does not advance any genuine or
substantial environmental objective, and accordingly, deserves
to be set aside.
6.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in Civil
Appeal No. 5532 of 2025 submitted that the appellant - Godrej
Properties Ltd.- is a public limited company forming part of the
Godrej Industries Group, which has diversified business interests
including real estate development. The appellant is amongst the
fastest growing luxury real estate developers in the country, with a
portfolio of approximately 239 million square feet of development
comprising 79 ongoing projects and 34 forthcoming projects across
India. A substantial portion of its customer base is located in Mumbai.
6.1. The learned Senior Counsel adopted the submissions advanced
on behalf of CREDAI.
6.2. It was further submitted that pursuant to the directions issued by
the NGT, there is presently no authority competent to appraise
applications for Environmental Clearance in respect of projects
falling under Items 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule. By virtue of
the impugned order, the State SEACs have been precluded
from granting Environmental Clearance for such projects; and,
as stated by the Union of India in its reply affidavit in CA. No.
10043 of 2024, the Central Authority is also not in a position
to appraise these projects.
16
In short, "SPA"
104
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
6.3. It was also pointed out that this policy paralysis has severely
prejudiced the appellant's ongoing projects as well as
hundreds of homebuyers. Of the five projects presently under
consideration, four pertain to expansion of Environmental
Clearances already granted under the EIA 2006 Notification,
while one project involves a fresh application filed before the
SEIAA. During the pendency of the present appeal, in order
to avoid delay and protect the interests of stakeholders, the
appellant submitted all five projects to the Central SEAC for
appraisal. However, as matters stand, neither the State SEIAA
nor the Central SEAC is appraising the projects, leaving the
appellant without any effective remedy.
6.4. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as a
direct consequence, more than 1,469 flat purchasers are
affected, whose homes are at stake, since the appellant
has already created third party rights on the strength of the
Environmental Clearances initially granted by the SEIAA.
Additionally, approximately 613 families whose houses are
being redeveloped by the appellant are indefinitely deprived
of possession. All these projects are registered under the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). The
appellant is therefore bound by statutory as well as contractual
obligations to complete construction and hand over possession
within the prescribed timelines. Non-compliance would expose
the appellant to serious consequences under RERA, including
liability to pay interest for delayed possession, imposition of
penalties, and directions to ensure timely completion and
delivery of flats. In effect, the appraisal process for projects
under Items 8(a) and 8(b) has come to a complete standstill by
reason of the impugned order, resulting in cascading adverse
consequences not only for the appellant but also for thousands
of innocent stakeholders.
7.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in Civil
Appeal No.5533 of 2025 submitted that the appellant - Sai Sahara
Constructions -is a partnership firm engaged in the business of
purchase and sale of land and construction of residential and
commercial buildings under the trade name "Sai Sahara Developers".
The firm was constituted by a Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2022
at Nashik, Maharashtra.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
105
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
7.1. It was contended that the NGT passed the impugned order
based on a fundamentally flawed reading of the Okhla Bird
Sanctuary judgment. A contextual interpretation of paragraph
84, alongside paragraphs 59 and 60 of the judgment, makes
it clear that the legislative intent was to exempt Items 8(a) and
8(b) under the EIA 2006 Notification from the operation of the
General Conditions. The authority to determine the level of
appraisal lies exclusively with the legislature and the competent
authority under the EIA framework. Since State-level appraisal for
these items is expressly mandated, the NGT lacked jurisdiction
to alter this statutory scheme. The omission of any condition in
Column 5 for Items 8(a) and 8(b), unlike other entries, reflects a
deliberate legislative choice to exclude the General Conditions.
This interpretation is further supported by the plain language
of the Notification and multiple Office Memoranda issued by
MoEF&CC. Accordingly, by reinterpreting an unambiguous
statutory scheme, the NGT overstepped its jurisdiction, contrary
to the principle of strict interpretation and the binding precedent
in Okhla Bird Sanctuary.
7.2. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Kerala
High Court's judgment quashing the EIA 2014 Notification does
not alter the existing legal framework, as the 2014 Notification
was purely clarificatory. The original EIA 2006 Notification never
extended the General Conditions to Items 8(a) and 8(b), which
deal with building and construction projects. Moreover, the
Kerala High Court's decision has no binding effect outside its
territorial jurisdiction and cannot determine the interpretation
of law by other High Courts or by this Tribunal. The principle
of stare decisis operates only within the territorial limits of the
concerned Court. Paragraphs 41 and 42 of the impugned order,
however, led to indefinite delays not only in the appellant's
project but also in numerous real estate projects across the
country. Such delays jeopardise the financial and practical
viability of these projects, and the blanket suspension of
environmental clearances has had a cascading impact on
housing development, thereby infringing the fundamental rights
to shelter and livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution
for thousands of affected persons, including slum dwellers,
society members, and homebuyers.
106
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7.3. It was also contended that the impugned order failed to consider
the Office Memoranda dated 24.05.2011 and 13.03.2020, which
clearly stated that the General Conditions are inapplicable to
projects under Items 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule. These
Memoranda reaffirmed that, since the inception of the EIA 2006
Notification, such projects have consistently been appraised
at the State level by SEAC/SEIAA. However, Respondent
No. 3 suppressed these crucial documents and failed to place
them before the NGT, leading to their non-consideration in the
impugned order.
7.4. On the issue of jurisdiction, learned Senior Counsel referred to
the Preamble of the NGT Act, which emphasizes that the Tribunal
is constituted for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases
relating to environmental protection and conservation of natural
resources, including the enforcement of legal rights relating to
the environment and the grant of relief and compensation for
damages to persons and property.
7.4.1. Reference was also made to Chapter III of the Act, which
deals with the jurisdiction, powers, and procedure of
the Tribunal. In particular, Sections 14 and 15, confine
its jurisdiction to civil cases involving a substantial
question relating to the environment, and to disputes
capable of settlement through relief, compensation, or
restitution. On a combined reading of these provisions,
it was submitted that the Tribunal's jurisdiction does not
extend to abstract policy issues or to directions in the
nature of mandamus against the MoEF&CC.
7.5. It was further submitted that in the present case, Respondent
No. 3 approached the Tribunal suo motu, without any existing
lis or locus, seeking directions to classify and appraise certain
building and construction projects as Category A at the
Central level and to extend the General Conditions to Item
8 of the Schedule. Such directions fall outside the Tribunal's
jurisdiction. The Notification under challenge in WP (C) No. 166
of 2025 is purely clarificatory, reaffirming the pre-existing legal
position that the General Conditions do not apply to Items 8(a)
and 8(b).
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
107
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
7.6. In view of the above submissions, the learned Senior Counsel
prayed that the impugned order of the NGT be set aside and
the present appeal allowed.
8.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Intervenor - Ricardo
Constructions Pvt., Ltd., submitted that the Intervenor became the
lawful owner of the project pursuant to a registered conveyance
deed dated 29.06.2019, executed after the erstwhile promoter failed
to complete the development and defaulted on loan repayments,
leading to SARFAESI proceedings in 2019. The project is situated at
Village Mulund, Jata Shankar Dosa Marg, Mulund (W), Mumbai, on
plots bearing CTS Nos. 661/1/4 to 661/1/8. The Intervenor planned
an expansion comprising 10 residential buildings. Out of these, 5
buildings (1A, 3, 4, 7, 8) were completed prior to the EIA Notification;
3 buildings (5, 6, 9) obtained Environmental Clearance on 03.09.2014;
and 2 new buildings (1B and 2) are presently proposed. The project
enjoys excellent connectivity, being 0.39 km from Mulund Railway
Station and 14 km from Mumbai International Airport, with hospitals,
schools, colleges, and banks in close proximity. Since the project
site is located 1.06 km from Sanjay Gandhi National Park and
Thane Creek Flamingo Sanctuary, it falls within Category A under
the EIA 2006 Notification. Accordingly, the Intervenor applied to the
Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) on 09.09.2024 and also obtained
Consent to Establish and Operate from the Maharashtra Pollution
Control Board on 02.08.2024, valid up to 02.08.2025. The estimated
project cost is approximately Rs. 980 crores.
8.1. It was submitted that the General Conditions under the EIA
2006 Notification, are inapplicable to Building and Construction
Projects. Items 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule expressly leave
Column 5 (Conditions, if any) blank, whereas in other categories,
where General Conditions apply, the same are specifically
mentioned. This Court in Okhla Bird Sanctuary clarified that
General Conditions do not apply to Building and Construction
Projects. Hence, even prior to the 2014 amendment, Items 8(a)
and 8(b) stood exempt from General Conditions.
8.2. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the Kerala
High Court in One Earth One Life v. MoEF (supra) quashed
the EIA 2014 Notification only insofar as it operated within the
108
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
State of Kerala. That judgment has no application beyond the
territorial jurisdiction of that High Court. Reliance was placed
on the decision of this Court in East India Commercial Co.
Ltd. v. Collector of Customs17, wherein, it was held that
judgments of High Courts are binding only within their respective
territorial jurisdiction. The NGT, therefore, erred in extending the
effect of the Kerala High Court's judgment across the country,
thereby stalling thousands of projects nationwide without legal
justification.
8.3. It was further urged that the quashing of the 2014 Notification
does not result in automatic revival of the pre-existing regime
of General Conditions. It is a settled principle that annulment
of a law or notification does not ipso facto revive an earlier law
unless there is an express provision to that effect. Reference
was made to the Doctrine of Eclipse as explained in Bhikaji
Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh18, which holds
that a law rendered inoperative is not obliterated but remains
in a dormant state, and does not automatically revive unless
re-enacted or specifically revived. Since there was no such
revival in the present case, the General Conditions cannot be
applied to Item 8 projects.
8.4. Finally, it was contended that the impugned order of the NGT is
vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice. The order
has a far-reaching impact on construction projects across the
country, including the Intervenor's project, yet no opportunity of
hearing was afforded to affected stakeholders. This omission
amounts to a clear violation of the principle of audi alteram
partem. The NGT, by misinterpreting the scope of its jurisdiction
and the EIA Notification, has exceeded its authority. Hence, the
impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Court to rectify
the legal error, prevent undue losses, and safeguard the rights
of lawful project developers.
9.
Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing
for Respondent No.1, made the following submissions:
17
AIR 1962 SC 1893
18
AIR 1955 SC 781
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
109
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
9.1. The Ministry, in exercise of its powers under Section 3(1) and
clause (v) of Section 3(2) of the Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986, issued S.O. 1533(E) dated 14.09.2006 (principal
notification) mandating prior Environmental Clearance (EC)
for projects listed in the Schedule thereto. The EC is granted
following the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process
laid down in the notification, as amended from time to time.
9.2. The EIA 2006 Notification prescribes "General Conditions" (GC),
which provide for the re-categorization of certain Category 'B'
projects as Category 'A' where they are located, wholly or partly,
within 5 km or 10 km, as the case may be, of: (i) Protected Areas
under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, (ii) Critically Polluted
Areas notified by CPCB, (iii) Notified Eco-Sensitive Areas, or
(iv) Inter-State / International boundaries. However, GC applies
only where expressly mentioned in Column 5 of the Schedule.
Since no such reference was made in respect of items 8(a) and
8(b), the General Conditions were never applicable to them.
This was clarified by an Office memorandum dated 24.05.2011,
which specifically stated that Building and Construction Projects
[8(a)] and Township / Area Development Projects [8(b)] do not
attract GC, even in critically polluted areas and hence, remain
within SEIAA jurisdiction.
9.3. A further Notification dated 22.12.2014 amended the EIA 2006
Notification to explicitly reaffirm that GC did not apply to items
8(a) and 8(b). However, the High Court of Kerala in One Earth
One Life v. MoEF&CC (supra), quashed the 2014 Notification
on the sole technical ground that the final notification differed
from the draft, while leaving liberty to the Ministry to issue a
fresh notification.
9.4. Subsequently, the NGT, by the impugned order dated
09.08.2024, directed Respondent No.1 either to comply with
the provisions relating to GC applicability to Items 8(a)and
8(b) or issue a clarificatory notification. That order proceeded
on a misreading of the Kerala High Court's judgment. In fact,
Items 8(a) and 8(b) were never subject to GC, even under the
principal notification.
9.5. Pursuant to the NGT's directions, the Ministry prepared a draft
clarificatory notification, which was referred to the Ministry of
110
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Law and Justice (MoLJ) for vetting. MoLJ opined that since the
2014 Notification had substituted Entry 8, and the Kerala High
Court had quashed the substituted entry, the original entry did
not automatically revive. Relying on B.N.Tiwari v. Union of
India19 MoLJ advised that a fresh notification was necessary to
reinsert the provision. A legal vacuum thus arose, necessitating
issuance of a fresh notification. Accordingly, a draft notification
dated 07.11.2024 was published, inviting objections and
suggestions. After considering 668 responses and consulting the
Expert Appraisal Committee, the Ministry finalized and issued
a notification dated 29.01.2025, explicitly reiterating that GC
does not apply to items 8(a) and 8(b).
9.6. This notification was challenged in Vanashakti v. Union of
India [W.P. (C) No. 166 of 2025], wherein this Court granted
an exparte stay on 24.02.2025. Consequently, another legal
vacuum has arisen, and the Ministry is unable to process any
application under item 8.
9.7. On the competence of SEIAAs and SEACs, it was submitted
that these bodies were constituted to decentralize decisionmaking, avoid delays, and ensure efficiency in granting ECs.
SEACs comprise experts of comparable standing to members
of Central EACs, with eligibility criteria prescribed in Appendix
VI of the EIA 2006 Notification. Both SEIAAs and SEACs,
being constituted by the Central Government are technically
competent to appraise projects under Item 8. Directing that such
projects be appraised only by MoEF&CC would create inequality,
encourage forum-shopping, and overburden MoEF&CC, thereby
frustrating the timelines prescribed under EIA 2006 Notification
and undermining the efficiency of the decentralized system.
9.8. In these circumstances, it was urged that the NGT's order
dated 09.08.2024, founded on an erroneous interpretation of
the Kerala High Court's decision, be quashed, that Respondent
No. 3 be restrained from engaging in forum-shopping, and that
the settled position - that Items 8(a) and 8(b) are not subject
to GC and remain within SEIAA jurisdiction - be reaffirmed.
19
AIR 1965 SC 1430
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
111
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India
(CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others
10. The learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 3 however,
submitted that Original Application No. 93 of 2024 was filed before
the NGT in pursuance of Respondent's commitment to environmental
protection, particularly to ensure that Building and Construction
Projects - among the most pollution-intensive industries in the
country - are subjected to higher scrutiny by sector-specific Expert
Appraisal committees (EACs) at the Central Level. Such projects,
especially those located in CPA, SPA, Eco-Sensitive Zones or
Protected Areas, demand rigorous appraisal by experts with relevant
domain expertise.
10.1. It was urged that the NGT correctly appreciated the statutory
mechanism notified on 24.10.2019 under Section 5 of the EP
Act, which covers both CPA and SPA areas. While the General
Conditions expressly refer only to CPA areas, a cumulative
reading of the mechanism and the notification led the Tribunal
to rightly conclude that projects within CPA/SPA, including
Building and Construction Projects, must be appraised at the
Central level by sectoral EACs. In so holding, the NGT relied
on Clause 7(i)(III)(i)(d), Appendix VI of EIA 2006, its earlier
decisions in Vkrant Tongad, Karukampally Vijayan Biju, M/s.
Ardent Steel Ltd., and this Court's decision in In Re: News
Item published in 'The Asian Age'.
10.2. It was further submitted that subsequent to the impugned order,
MoEF&CC issued Notification dated 29.01.2025 inserting Note
2 in Item 8 to clarify that "General Conditions do not apply".
That notification has been challenged in Vanashakti v. Union
of India [WP (C) No. 166 of 2025], and operation thereof has
been stayed by this Court on 24.02.2025. Hence, the issue of
GC applicability is sub judice. Even so, the mechanism dated
24.10.2019 operates independently of GC applicability. That
mechanism issued under Section 5 of the EP Act and upheld
by this Court's judgment dated 25.02.2022 in a batch of Civil
Appeals (CA Nos. 2218-2219, 2220-2221, 2434, 2463, 33193321 of 2020), continues to mandate that all projects within
5 km of CPA/SPA be treated as Category A and appraised at
the Central Level.
10.3. The learned Senior Counsel further placed reliance on the suo
motu proceedings in OA No. 1038 of 2018 [News item in 'The
112
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Asian Age' by Sanjay Kaw] wherein, the NGT noted the grave
environmental impact of high pollution in CPA/SPA, temporarily
prohibited new activities, and directed MoEF&CC to evolve a
mechanism for stringent scrutiny of projects in such areas.