# TALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2022] 7 S.C.R. 126
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-07-11
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 383-384 of 2022
- **Bench:** Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, A. S. Bopanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/talli-gram-panchayat-v-union-of-india-and-others-36197
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - s.4(4)(c) - National Green
Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011 - Amendment in r.3
- By notification, a proviso was inserted in r.3 of the 2011 Rules,
which allowed the constitution of a single member Bench in
exceptional circumstances - The said notification was challenged
- Before the Supreme Court on 11.01.2018, the Attorney General
of India assured that the rule which is under challenge shall be
rectified in consonance with the 2010 Act - However on 29.01.2018,
a single member of the NGT dismissed an application for
condonation of delay, which was filed by the appellant - On
31.01.2018, Supreme Court in the petition challenging the validity
of the government order directed that the Chairperson of the NGT
shall not constitute a single member Bench and each bench shall
consist of one judicial member and an expert member - Appellant
preferred an application for recall of the order of the single member
dated 29.01.2018 and condonation of delay - The Tribunal dismissed
both the applications by an order dated 16.07.2021 - On appeal,
held: The single member of the NGT who dismissed the application
for condonation of delay submitted by the appellant on 29.01.2018
had, in other cases, abstained from passing any judicial order on
the ground that there was a stay on the composition of a single
member bench - Propriety warranted that a consistent course of
action should have been followed by the NGT, once the assurance
which was held out before Supreme Court by the Attorney General,
was brought to its knowledge - The phraseology of the order that
the Supreme Court dated 31.01.2018 intended that there be an
interdict on the constitution of single member benches constituted
in purported exercise of the power conferred by the rule - The
assumption of jurisdiction by a single member Bench clearly stands
vitiated - The Single member could not have passed an order in
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 126
126
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
127
view of the proviso to s. 4(4)(c) of the Act - The impugned order
dated 16.07.2021 and original order of NGT dated 29.01.2018 set
aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The single member of the NGT who dismissed
the application for condonation of delay submitted by the appellant
on 29 January 2018 had, in other cases, abstained from passing
any judicial order on the ground that there was a stay on the
composition of a single member bench. Similar orders were passed
on the same day in other cases as well. However, the single member
dismissed the application for condonation of delay filed by the
appellant though he did not pass any order in the other cases in
view of the assurance that was made by the Attorney General
before this court. The order of this court on 11 January 2018
notes the assurance of the Attorney General that the rule under
challenge would be rectified to bring it in accord with the Act and
the judgments of this court. True, the order of this Court does
not specifically record a direction for stay. This must however,
be understood in the perspective of the fact that the Attorney
General had placed a solemn assurance before the Court that
the rule would be rectified to bring it in conformity with the parent
enactment and the decisions of this Court. Implicit in this is the
settled principle that delegated legislation must be in conformity
with the enactment of the legislature which authorises its making.
A rule cannot rise above the source of power. Propriety warranted
that a consistent course of action should have been followed by
the NGT, once the assurance which was held out before this court
by the Attorney General, was brought to its knowledge. The order
of this Court on 31 January 2018 directed that "in the meantime,
the Chairperson shall not constitute a Single Member Bench....".
The phrase "in the meantime' elucidates that during the time the
executive deliberates on the dissonance of the Rule with the Act
and judgments, there shall be a restraint on its imp

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
TALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 383-384 of 2022)
JULY 11, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - s.4(4)(c) - National Green
Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011 - Amendment in r.3
- By notification, a proviso was inserted in r.3 of the 2011 Rules,
which allowed the constitution of a single member Bench in
exceptional circumstances - The said notification was challenged
- Before the Supreme Court on 11.01.2018, the Attorney General
of India assured that the rule which is under challenge shall be
rectified in consonance with the 2010 Act - However on 29.01.2018,
a single member of the NGT dismissed an application for
condonation of delay, which was filed by the appellant - On
31.01.2018, Supreme Court in the petition challenging the validity
of the government order directed that the Chairperson of the NGT
shall not constitute a single member Bench and each bench shall
consist of one judicial member and an expert member - Appellant
preferred an application for recall of the order of the single member
dated 29.01.2018 and condonation of delay - The Tribunal dismissed
both the applications by an order dated 16.07.2021 - On appeal,
held: The single member of the NGT who dismissed the application
for condonation of delay submitted by the appellant on 29.01.2018
had, in other cases, abstained from passing any judicial order on
the ground that there was a stay on the composition of a single
member bench - Propriety warranted that a consistent course of
action should have been followed by the NGT, once the assurance
which was held out before Supreme Court by the Attorney General,
was brought to its knowledge - The phraseology of the order that
the Supreme Court dated 31.01.2018 intended that there be an
interdict on the constitution of single member benches constituted
in purported exercise of the power conferred by the rule - The
assumption of jurisdiction by a single member Bench clearly stands
vitiated - The Single member could not have passed an order in
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 126
126
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
127
view of the proviso to s. 4(4)(c) of the Act - The impugned order
dated 16.07.2021 and original order of NGT dated 29.01.2018 set
aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The single member of the NGT who dismissed
the application for condonation of delay submitted by the appellant
on 29 January 2018 had, in other cases, abstained from passing
any judicial order on the ground that there was a stay on the
composition of a single member bench. Similar orders were passed
on the same day in other cases as well. However, the single member
dismissed the application for condonation of delay filed by the
appellant though he did not pass any order in the other cases in
view of the assurance that was made by the Attorney General
before this court. The order of this court on 11 January 2018
notes the assurance of the Attorney General that the rule under
challenge would be rectified to bring it in accord with the Act and
the judgments of this court. True, the order of this Court does
not specifically record a direction for stay. This must however,
be understood in the perspective of the fact that the Attorney
General had placed a solemn assurance before the Court that
the rule would be rectified to bring it in conformity with the parent
enactment and the decisions of this Court. Implicit in this is the
settled principle that delegated legislation must be in conformity
with the enactment of the legislature which authorises its making.
A rule cannot rise above the source of power. Propriety warranted
that a consistent course of action should have been followed by
the NGT, once the assurance which was held out before this court
by the Attorney General, was brought to its knowledge. The order
of this Court on 31 January 2018 directed that "in the meantime,
the Chairperson shall not constitute a Single Member Bench....".
The phrase "in the meantime' elucidates that during the time the
executive deliberates on the dissonance of the Rule with the Act
and judgments, there shall be a restraint on its implementation.
Thus, it is evident from the phraseology of the order that this
Court intended that there be an interdict on the constitution of
single member benches constituted in purported exercise of the
power conferred by the rule. The assumption of jurisdiction by a
single member Bench clearly stands vitiated. The Single member
TALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT v. UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
could not have passed an order in view of the proviso to Section
4(4)(c) of the NGT Act 2010 which states that the number of
expert members hearing the appeal or application shall be equal
to the number of judicial members, mandating that there shall be
at least one expert member on the Bench. [Para 12][133-F; 134A-F]
Save Mon Region Federation v. Union of India 2013
(1) All India NGT Reporter 1; Goa Foundation,
through its Secretary v. Goa Tourism Development
Corporation (OA No. 156/2016); Rajabhau Pawar v.
The State of Goa through its Chief Secretary (OA No.
97/2016); The Goa Foundation v. Goa State EIAA (OA
No. 33/2015) - referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 383384 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2021 of the National
Green Tribunal, Principal Bench in MA No. 03 of 2019 & MA No. 04 of
2019 in MA No. 262 of 2017 in Appeal No. 36 of 2017 (WZ).
Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv., Abhimanue Shrestha, Satwik Parikh,
Divyansh Khurana, Shivam Tomar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ruchi
Kohli, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Digvijay Dam, Ms. Poornima Singh,
G.S. Makkar, Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Ajay Bhargava, Ms. Shweta Kabra,
Ms. Prerna Singh, M/s. Khaitan & Co., Ms. Archana Pathak Dave,
Ms. Aastha Mehta, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. These appeals arise from an order dated 16 July 2021 of the
National Green Tribunal1. The appellant challenged the grant of an
environmental clearance to Ultratech Cement Limited2 by a letter dated
5 January 2017. The NGT by the impugned judgment dismissed the
applications to recall the order of a single member and for condonation
of delay.
1 "NGT"
2 "Fourth respondent"
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
129
2. By a letter dated 5 January 2017, the Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change3 granted an environment clearance to the
fourth respondent for limestone mining with a total production capacity
of 0.53 million tonnes per annum at villages Talli and Bambor situated in
Taluka Talenja, of the District of Bhavnagar in the State of the Gujarat.
The fourth respondent served a copy of the environment clearance upon
the Talathi-Cum-Mantri of the Gram Panchayat on 12 January 2017
through a letter dated 9 January 2017. The fourth respondent also issued
a public notice on the grant of the environmental clearance on 11 January
2017 in Gujarati in "Saurashtra Samachar" and in English, in "Gujarat
Samachar". The appellant challenged4 the environmental clearance which
was granted to the fourth respondent under Section 16 of the NGT Act on
several grounds including the following:
"a) The area is ecologically sensitive, as the same has been notified
as Brujad Gir. The same has been concealed by the Project
Proponent.
b) Out of the total area of 193.3269 Ha., 155.3269 a is the private
agricultural land. The consent of all the land holders, mandatory
under the Mines and Minerals Developments Act has not been
obtained by the Project Proponent. Such, land holders have also
not been given any opportunity in the process, while the decision
affects their land rights protected under Art. 300A of the
Constitution.
c) The area falls within the catchment area of four bandharas,
proposed to be constructed to provide for water for irrigation and
drinking.
d) The mining if permitted would have severe effect of environment
and ecology and also the life and livelihood of the villagers."
3. The appellant obtained leave to file an application for
condonation of delay5 since the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed
period of 30 days. The fourth respondent contended that the notice was
published in the newspapers on 11 January 2017 and the letter was served
upon the Talathi-cum-Mantri on 12 January 2017 and therefore, the period
of limitation must be calculated from these dates. However, the appellant
TALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT v. UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
3 "MoEFCC"
4 Appeal No. 36 of 2017
5 MA 262 of 2017 in Appeal No. 36 of 2017
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
contended that the publication was not in conformity with the statutory
requirements under Clause 10 of the Environment Impact Assessment
Notification as interpreted in Save Mon Region Federation v. Union
of India6. The appellant argued that the environment clearance certificate
must be uploaded on the website and has to be accessible and
downloadable to the public. The appeal along with the application for
condonation of delay was heard on 24 November 2017. In view of the
position of law in Save Mon Region Federation (supra), the Tribunal
sought a clarification on whether the environment clearance which was
uploaded on the website was accessible to and could have been
downloaded by the public.
4. On 1 December 2017, the MoEFCC introduced an amendment
to the National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules 20117 by
Notification GSR No. 1473(E)8. By the Notification, a proviso was
inserted in Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules which allowed the constitution of
single member Benches in exceptional circumstances. Rule 3 of the 2011
Rules, as amended by the notification reads as follows:
"Distribution of business amongst the different ordinary
place or places of Sittings of Tribunal.- (1) The Chairperson
may constitute a bench of two or more members consisting of at
least one Judicial member and one Expert member.
[Provided that in exceptional circumstances the Chairperson may
constitute a single Member Bench]"
5. Subsequently, by an office order dated 5 December 2017, the
Chairperson of the National Green Tribunal, in exercise of powers
conferred under Rule 3(1) of the 2011 Rules constituted single member
Benches at the Regional Benches due to a shortage of members. The
office order read as follows:
"In exercise of powers conferred under Rule 3(1) of the National
Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules 2011 as amended
vide Gazatte Notification No. G.S.R 1473 (E) dated 01st December,
2017 of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Government of India and in view of the exceptional circumstances
prevailing in the National Green Tribunal on account of the shortage
6 2013 (1) All India NGT Reporter 1
7 "2011 rules"
8 "notification"
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
131
of the Members, necessitating constitution of a Single Member
Bench at the Regional Branches of the Tribunal. Accordingly, a
Single Member Bench is constituted in the Regional Benches at
NGT SZB (Chennai), NGT CZB (Bhopal), NGT WZB (Pune) &
NGT EZB (Kolkata) to conduct business of the Tribunal which
shall be fully empowered to deals with the matters in accordance
with law."
6. The National Green Tribunal Bar Association (Western Bench)
instituted a petition9 under Article 32 of the Constitution, for challenging
the notification dated 1 December 2017 and the office order issued by
the Chairperson of the NGT on 5 December 2017 on the ground that
they contravened Section 4(4)(c) of the NGT Act 2010 which requires
each Bench to consist of an equal number of judicial and expert members.
This Court while hearing the petition on 11 January 2018, issued the
following directions:
"Let a copy of this petition be supplied to Mr. PS Narasimha,
learned ASG assisting Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney
General of India. It is assured by Mr. Venugopal that the rule
which is under challenge shall be rectified in consonance with the
Act, and also in consonance with the spirit of the judgments of this
Court."
7. On 29 January 2018, a single member of the NGT dismissed
the application for condonation of delay which was filed by the appellant,
for non-prosecution. The order of the single member reads as follows:
"The applicant is absent.
All the Respondents in chorus seek dismissal of this Application
pointing out lack of diligence of the Applicant in the prosecution
of this case.
Perused the record. As the Respondents pointed out the
applicant has shown no diligence in prosecution of this case.
Hence, the Application MA No. 262/2017 stands rejected with no
order as to costs."
On 31 January 2018, this Court in the petition challenging the validity
of the government order directed that the Chairperson of the NGT shall
9 WP (C) No. 1235 of 2017
TALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT v. UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
not constitute a single member Bench and each bench shall consist of
one judicial member and an expert member. Subsequently, the acting
Chairperson of the NGT issued an order that no single member Bench
shall be constituted in any zonal benches with immediate effect.
8. The counsel for the appellant preferred an application for recall
of the order of the single member dated 29 January 201810 along with an
application for condonation of delay in moving the application a year
after the order sought to be recalled was passed11. The applications
were taken up for hearing two years after they were filed. By an order
dated 16 July 2021, the Tribunal dismissed both the applications observing
that even if the prayer for recall of the order is granted, the application
of condonation of delay in filing the appeal cannot be allowed. The Tribunal
observed that the only ground of the appellant in seeking condonation of
delay is that they did not have knowledge of the grant of the environment
clearance. It held that such a contention cannot be accepted since the
environment clearance was duly uploaded and that the period of limitation
must be calculated from when the order was uploaded. It was observed:
"Even if we grant the prayer for recall, the fact remains that MA
No. 262/2017 (WZ), Bambor Gram Panchayat & Ors. v. Ministry
of Environment & Forest & Ors., which is for condonation of
delay in filing the appeal, cannot be accepted as ground pleaded is
that the appellant did not have knowledge of the grant of EC. EC
was duly uploaded and individual knowledge is not the starting
point. The EC was granted on 05.01.2017 while the appeal was
filed on 19.4.2017 beyond the prescribed period of limitation and
also the period of limitation for which this Tribunal can condone."
9. The appellant instituted these proceedings for challenging the
order of the Tribunal on the ground that the order passed by the single
member on 29 January 2018 is null and void because the constitution of
a bench comprising of a single member is in contravention of Section
4(4)(c) of the NGT Act 2010. The appellant also contended that the
lawyer who was previously engaged to represent it returned the file
because he was appointed as a Government Advocate and that he had
brought this information to the notice of the Tribunal. The appellant urged
that the lawyer subsequently engaged by the appellant was not provided
any notice of the hearing in spite of the fact that the appeal was taken
10 MA No. 3 of 2019
11 MA No. 4 of 2019
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
133
up after a long gap in time. The appellant thus set up the plea of a violation
of the principles of natural justice.
10. Opposing these submissions, the fourth respondent contended
that:
(i)
The order of environment clearance was communicated
on 5 January 2017 and the Tribunal does not have the power
to condone a delay beyond 90 days under the proviso to
Section 16 of the NGT Act 2010, even if sufficient cause
is shown;
(ii)
The conduct of the appellant has been negligent because
he has not appeared before the Tribunal on multiple
occasions; and
(iii)
The single member was not coram non judice at the time of
the passing of the order on 29 January 2018 since the order
of this Court directing that single member benches shall not
be constituted was passed two days later, on 31 January
2018.
11. The issue before this Court is whether a single member of the
Tribunal could have dealt with the proceedings and dismissed the
applications for restoration and for condonation of delay on 29 January
2018 after the Attorney General of India had assured this Court on
11 January 2018 that the proviso to Rule 3 would be rectified in
consonance with the Act and the judgments of this Court. On 31 January
2018 this Court also directed the Chairperson of the NGT not to constitute
single member Benches.
12. The single member of the NGT who dismissed the application
for condonation of delay submitted by the appellant on 29 January 2018
had, in other cases, abstained from passing any judicial order on the
ground that there was a stay on the composition of a single member
bench. In an order dated 23 January 2018,12 the member noted as follows:
"Learned Counsel for the contesting parties are present. They
submit the case be taken up for hearing after sometime in view of
stay may be with regard to composition of Single Member Bench
of this Tribunal. Request accepted. List for further proceedings
on 1st March, 2018."
12 Goa Foundation, through its Secretary v. Goa Tourism Development Corporation
(OA No. 156/2016)
TALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT v. UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
Similar orders were passed on the same day in other cases as well.13
However, the single member dismissed the application for condonation of
delay filed by the appellant though he did not pass any order in the other
cases in view of the assurance that was made by the Attorney General
before this court. The order of this court on 11 January 2018 notes the
assurance of the Attorney General that the rule under challenge would
be rectified to bring it in accord with the Act and the judgments of this
court. True, the order of this Court does not specifically record a direction
for stay. This must however, be understood in the perspective of the fact
that the Attorney General had placed a solemn assurance before the
Court that the rule would be rectified to bring it in conformity with the
parent enactment and the decisions of this Court. Implicit in this is the
settled principle that delegated legislation must be in conformity with the
enactment of the legislature which authorises its making. A rule cannot
rise above the source of power. Propriety warranted that a consistent
course of action should have been followed by the NGT, once the
assurance which was held out before this court by the Attorney General,
was brought to its knowledge. The order of this Court on 31 January
2018 directed that "in the meantime, the Chairperson shall not constitute
a Single Member Bench....". The phrase "in the meantime' elucidates
that during the time the executive deliberates on the dissonance of the
Rule with the Act and judgments, there shall be a restraint on its
implementation. Thus, it is evident from the phraseology of the order
that this Court intended that there be an interdict on the constitution of
single member benches constituted in purported exercise of the power
conferred by the rule. The assumption of jurisdiction by a single member
Bench clearly stands vitiated. The Single member could not have passed
an order in view of the proviso to Section 4(4)(c) of the NGT Act 2010
which states that the number of expert members hearing the appeal or
application shall be equal to the number of judicial members, mandating
that there shall be at least one expert member on the Bench.
13. We accordingly allow the appeals and set aside the impugned
order of the NGT dated 16 July 2021. The original order of the NGT
dated 29 January 2018 shall stand set aside. Appeal No 36 of 2017 shall
stand restored to the file of the NGT for disposal afresh. All the rights
and contentions of the parties including on the issue of limitation are
13 Rajabhau Pawar v. The State of Goa through its Chief Secretary (OA No. 97/2016);
the Goa Foundation v. Goa State EIAA (OA No. 33/2015);
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
135
kept open. This Court has expressed no expression on the merits of the
appeals.
14. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Ankit Gyan
Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)
TALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT v. UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]