Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India

Two appellants challenged the environmental clearance for a greenfield international airport at Mopa in Goa. The National Green Tribunal had upheld it. The Supreme Court held that the clearance process was flawed and suspended the clearance, while sending the matter back to the Expert Appraisal Committee for a fresh look within one month.

Quick Revision

Read the full judgment: Indian Kanoon (unofficial copy)

Parties

Hanuman Laxman Aroskar — appellant in Civil Appeal No. 12251 of 2018; challenged the environmental clearance before the NGT.

Federation of Rainbow Warriors — appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1053 of 2019; challenged the clearance before the NGT and sent a representation to the EAC.

Union of India — respondent; acted through the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC), which granted the clearance.

State of Goa — project proponent; submitted Form 1 and the EIA report.

GMR Goa International Airport Limited (GGIAL) — the concessionaire; awarded the contract to develop and run the airport for a 40 year concession.

Procedural History

1. The Federation of Rainbow Warriors appealed against the clearance before the Western Zonal Bench of the NGT (Appeal No. 61 of 2015). Hanuman Laxman Aroskar filed Appeal No. 1 of 2016. Both were renumbered as Appeal Nos. 5 and 6 of 2018 before the Principal Bench at New Delhi (para 10).
2. On 7 November 2017 the NGT restrained the felling of trees. On 22 November 2017 it modified the order on a statement by the Advocate General (para 10).
3. On 22 November 2017 the order was modified on the Advocate General's statement. Goa would not cut or fell trees, or allow it, without valid permission from the lawful authority for a fortnight, to let the appellants pursue their remedies (para 10).
4. On 6 February 2018 the Deputy Conservator of Forests granted permission to fell 21,703 trees. The appellate authority under the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 dismissed the appeal on 7 March 2018 (para 10).
5. On 8 March 2018 the Bombay High Court at Goa set that order aside and remanded the matter to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (para 11).
6. On 2 April 2018 the Principal Chief Conservator set conditions, including enumeration of trees and planting ten times the number felled. On 25 April 2018 the High Court, in a PIL, allowed enumeration, and 54,676 trees were counted (para 11).
7. The High Court directed that trees be felled only after prior NGT permission. The State of Goa filed a Miscellaneous Application before the NGT on 2 July 2018 (paras 11-12).
8. On 21 August 2018 the NGT disposed of both appeals and the application. It upheld the clearance and added conditions (paras 1, 12).
9. On 18 January 2019 this Court issued notice and passed a status quo order. The appeals were admitted for final disposal (para 13).

Facts

1. Village Mopa is in Pernem taluka, North Goa, near the border with Maharashtra. It is 35 kilometres from Panaji. The site is a tabletop plateau of 150 to 180 metres, with laterite soil (para 2).
2. The Dabolim airport is saturated. Goa began studies in 1997 for a new airport, with six reports listed by the Court, ending with an Airport Master Plan of 10 February 2012 (para 3).
3. The six studies were as follows (para 3).
   • A project report by Engineers and Management Associates, Spain (1997).
   • A preliminary technical feasibility study by the Airports Authority of India (May 1998).
   • A final feasibility report by ICAO, Montreal (August 2005).
   • A Goa dual airport study by ICAO (August 2007).
   • A report of a Six Member Committee chaired by the Chief Minister of Goa (2008).
   • An Airport Master Plan of 10 February 2012 by Ammann and Whitney, USA, submitted to the PPP cell of the Government of Goa.
4. On 1 May 2000 the Government of India approved the airport. On 1 July 2010 it allowed Dabolim to continue civil operations. Land acquisition began in 2008 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The area fell from 4,500 to 2,271 acres (para 4).
5. The MoEF issued the notification S.O. 1533 on 14 September 2006, and placed an EIA Guidance Manual for Airports in the public domain in February 2010 (para 5).
6. In March 2011 Goa submitted Form 1. On 1 June 2011 MoEF issued the Terms of Reference (ToR), valid until 31 May 2013. The ToR were later amended and extended to 31 May 2014 and then to 31 May 2015 (paras 6-8).
7. Goa applied for ToR on 8 March 2011, and the EAC finalised them on 11-12 May 2011. On 22 November 2012 Goa reduced the project area from 4,500 to 2,271 acres. On 28-29 January 2013 the EAC recommended amending the ToR and extending validity to 31 May 2014, which MoEF approved on 19 June 2013. On 9-11 March 2015 the EAC recommended a further extension to 31 May 2015, which MoEFCC approved on 29 May 2015 (paras 6-8).
8. On 3 October 2014 Goa floated a tender on a PPP basis. On 20 October 2014 the draft EIA was sent to the Goa State Pollution Control Board. The public hearing was held on 1 February 2015 (para 7).
9. On 20 May 2015 Goa filed the final EIA report. The EAC met on 26 June 2015 (149th meeting), 7-9 September 2015 (151st) and 20 October 2015 (152nd), when it recommended the clearance (para 8).
10. At the 149th meeting the EAC sought 10 years of rainfall data, a traffic circulation plan, at least 20% energy conservation measures and CPCB noise measures. The Federation of Rainbow Warriors sent a representation. The EAC deliberated on it at the 151st meeting (7-9 September 2015), and the proponent replied on 28 September 2015. At the 152nd meeting on 20 October 2015 the EAC sought a further clarification on that reply, and then recommended the EC (para 8).
11. On 28 October 2015 the MoEFCC granted the environmental clearance (EC) (para 9).
12. The tender was concluded on 26 August 2016. GGIAL was awarded the contract at 36.99 per cent revenue share to Goa. The concession agreement was signed on 8 November 2016 for 40 years (para 9).
13. The construction period of three years began on 4 September 2017. The target for the first phase is 3 September 2020 (para 9).
14. Tree felling began on 3 September 2018 and was completed on 14 January 2019, according to the information given to the Court. The judgment also gives 18 January 2019 as the completion date in para 96 (paras 12, 96).
15. Of the 54,676 trees enumerated, 1,548 had been felled earlier under the order of 6 February 2018. Para 11 gives 13 January 2018 as the date of the High Court's final PIL directions, and para 27 gives 13 June 2018. The Miscellaneous Application was MA No. 975 of 2018, and the writ petition before the High Court was WP No. 1 of 2018 (paras 11, 12, 27, 96).
16. The concessionaire said the cost of phase 1 is Rs 1,900 crores and of the whole project Rs 3,000 crores. Goa had spent Rs 240 crores, and the concessionaire Rs 230 crores. 14.06 per cent of work was complete (paras 28-29).

Issues Raised

1. Was the clearance valid, when Form 1 failed to disclose forests, wetlands and other sensitive areas within 15 kilometres of the project (paras 65-77)?
2. Was the EIA report deficient about Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZs), sampling points, flora and fauna, and the felling of trees (paras 78-99)?
3. Was the public consultation and its use before the EAC in accordance with the 2006 notification (paras 100-107)?
4. Did the EAC properly appraise the project and give reasons (paras 108-116)?
5. Did the NGT carry out the merits review that Sections 16(h) and 20 of the NGT Act require, and does a substantial question of law arise under Section 22 (paras 117-125)?
6. What relief is appropriate to balance development and the environment (paras 142-147)?

Arguments Contended

For the appellants (Ms Anitha Shenoy):

• The project proponent concealed that 54,676 trees had to be felled. Accompanying Form 1 was a declaration that the EC is liable to be rejected on suppression or mis-statement of material facts. The proponent must make a proper disclosure with the highest level of transparency. Form 1 was silent, and the EIA report said the area had only few trees, mainly bushes (para 15(i)).
• The State of Goa's counter affidavit and its application to the NGT seeking to fell about 55,000 trees show the statement was incorrect (para 15(i)).
• The EIA report said there were no ESZs or reserved forests in Maharashtra within 15 kilometres. A letter of 12 February 2018 from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests said no forest was notified under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (para 15(ii)).
• Restrictions arise on a Section 4 notification, and T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India ((1997) 2 SCC 267) gives a wide meaning to forest. Failure to mention Maharashtra's forests was a significant omission (para 15(ii)).
• Form 1 requires details of ESZs within 15 kilometres. The EIA report said only that Pernem taluka is not in an ESZ. Villages in Maharashtra lie 1.5 kilometres away (para 15(iii)).
• The proponent left blank the details asked for wet lands, water sources, other water bodies, coastal zone, biospheres, mountains and forests. The HLWG recognised ESZs (para 15(iii)).
• Maharashtra is nearly 40 per cent of the study area, but no soil, air or water sampling was done there (para 15(iv)).
• The report ignored wildlife in the surrounding forests. It relied on a rapid survey, and no avi-faunal study was done (para 15(v)).
• In the public consultation, about 70 persons spoke, 1,150 representations came in and 1,586 people took part. Concerns included perennial springs, laterite plateau drainage and cashew plantations. The proponent told the EAC the objections were only about employment (para 16).
• The EAC minutes contain not a line on the EIA report. Its reasons were vague: larger public interest, non-concealment and delay (para 17).
• The NGT under Section 16(h) has a duty of merits review and must apply the principles in Section 20 of the NGT Act. Failing to consider vital issues raises a substantial question of law under Section 22 The Tribunal merely relied on the process conducted by the EAC and its recommendations, abdicating its own jurisdiction to conduct a merits review. Failure to consider vital issues is itself a substantial question of law (para 18).

For the respondents:

• MoEFCC (ASG Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni): the EIA report covers construction and operation. The EAC has outside experts. The airport was conceived in 1996, the ToR were given in 2011, and the EAC deferred the report three times (para 19).
• MoEFCC: the forest point was not raised at the public hearing or in the grounds before the NGT. Table 2.1.5 rests on Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. No reserved forest is declared within 15 kilometres in Maharashtra (para 20(i)-(iii)).
• MoEFCC: Godavarman is site specific and was explained in Okhla Bird Sanctuary ((2011) 1 SCC 744). The report records forest as the predominant land use, with Annexures IX, X and XI covering both states (para 20(iv)-(vi)).
• MoEFCC: the sampling points are in Goa but the readings covered the 10 kilometre radius. There were six air, four ground water and nine noise points. 385 plant species and 86 bird species were recorded (paras 21-22).
• MoEFCC: Pernem is not in the ESZs mapped by the HLWG. The notification of 13 November 2013 bars only listed activities in ESZs, and an airport is not one of them. The HLWG report of 15 April 2013 allows other projects with an EC (paras 23-24).
• MoEFCC: the EAC meetings of 26 June, 7-9 September and 20 October 2015 show application of mind. The EAC includes experts, so the Court should defer (para 25).
• MoEFCC: the EAC sought information outside the EIA report where necessary, and imposed site specific conditions after appraising the EIA report (para 25).
• State of Goa (Attorney General Mr. K.K. Venugopal): the project has been on the drawing board for two decades. Dabolim is saturated. Tourism is a major source of revenue (para 26(i)-(iii)).
• State of Goa: development must be balanced with the environment. Objections on procedure should not quash a project in public interest that will serve three million passengers, rising to 30 million in 2030 (para 26(iii)-(iv)).
• Goa distinguished overwhelming environmental objections that are irreversible and incapable of amelioration from cases where the consequences can be countered by suitable measures. It said tourism is a major source of revenue with the banning of mining (para 26(iii)).
• State of Goa: tree felling followed the High Court order, the Principal Chief Conservator's order of 2 April 2018 and the NGT's decision (para 27).
• Concessionaire (Mr. Parag P. Tripathi): the project has progressed under the concession agreement of 8 November 2016. Money has been spent, banks are involved, and ten trees are planted for each felled tree, with about 500 trees identified for transplantation. The project should not be interdicted (paras 28-29).

Court's Reasoning

The judgment is by Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. for the Bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, JJ. Paragraph numbers are those of the judgment.

Chandrachud, J. (for the Bench)

Introduction and background

1. Noted: The NGT held that this is not a case where the project compromises with the environment. It upheld the EC and added conditions. (para 1)
2. Noted: The site details, the earlier studies, the approvals of 2000 and 2010 and the land acquisition are set out as in Facts. (paras 2-4)
3. Noted: The stages from Form 1 to the EC of 28 October 2015, the tender, the concession, the tree-felling proceedings and the NGT judgment of 21 August 2018 are recorded. (paras 5-12)
4. Noted: The Court issued notice on 18 January 2019 and passed a status quo order. (para 13)
5. Noted: The Court heard the appellants' counsel, the Attorney General for Goa, the ASG for MoEFCC and counsel for the concessionaire. The submissions are recorded as in Arguments. (paras 14-29)
6. Noted: The rival submissions now fall for consideration. (para 30)

The EIA process and the 2006 notification

1. Noted: The EIA process aims to balance environmental and developmental concerns on the most accurate information available. (para 31)
2. Noted: Article 48A (inserted with effect from 3 January 1977) directs the State to protect and improve the environment. Article 51A(g) puts a duty on every citizen. The Environment Protection Act, 1986 followed the Stockholm Conference of 1972. (para 32)
3. Noted: The notification of 27 January 1994 (S.O. 60(E)) barred new projects and expansion without an EC. It required an application, an EIA report, an Environment Management Plan and a public hearing. (paras 33-34)
4. Noted: The Impact Assessment Agency evaluated the application, could appoint a committee of experts, and recommended within 90 days. The EC was valid for five years. Concealment or false information made the application liable for rejection and cancellation of an EC. (para 35)
5. Noted: The 1994 notification was amended and then superseded on 14 September 2006 by S.O. 1533. (paras 36-38)
6. Noted: The 2006 notification differs from the 1994 notification in seven ways. (para 39)
   • An EC must come before any construction or land preparation.
   • Projects are Category A (MoEFCC) or Category B (SEIAA).
   • Terms of Reference come before the EIA report. A draft EIA is prepared first, and the final EIA follows the consultation.
   • SEIAAs are set up at state level.
   • Final approval rests on recommendations of the EAC or the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC).
   • An application can be rejected at the scoping stage.
   • Public consultation includes written comments, and the public hearing stays with the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB).
7. Noted: The 2006 notification aims at the protection, preservation and continued sustenance of the environment. Its process is shown by a flow-chart. (para 40)
8. Noted: Category A projects need an EC from MoEFCC on the EAC's recommendation. Category B projects need one from the SEIAA on the SEAC's recommendation. Where no SEIAA exists, Category B projects are treated as Category A. (para 41)
9. Noted: Applications are made in Form 1 (and Form 1A for construction projects). A pre-feasibility report goes with it. (para 42)
10. Noted: The four stages are screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal. A footnote says applications to expand or modernise existing units are made in Form 1 and are considered by the EAC or SEAC within 60 days. (para 43)
11. Noted: Screening applies only to Category B projects and sorts them into B1 and B2. Category B2 projects need no EIA. (para 44)
12. Noted: Scoping means the EAC or SEAC forms detailed ToR within 60 days of Form 1, failing which the applicant's proposed ToR are deemed approved. An application can be rejected at this stage with reasons. (para 45)
13. Noted: Public consultation has two parts: a public hearing near the site and written responses. It takes the concerns of persons with a plausible stake into account. It applies to all Category A and B1 projects, with exceptions. (para 46)
14. Noted: The SPCB conducts the hearing and forwards the proceedings within 45 days. The hearing must be systematic, time bound and transparent and is filmed. (para 47)
15. Noted: The SPCB puts the Summary EIA on its website within seven days and makes a hard copy of the Draft EIA available. It must forward the responses to the applicant. (para 48)
16. Noted: The applicant must address all material concerns and change the Draft EIA and EMP. It then submits the final EIA report or a supplementary report. (para 49)
17. Noted: In appraisal the EAC or SEAC scrutinises all documents in a transparent manner, and the applicant may clarify in person. Appendix V lists the documents: the final EIA report, a copy of the video of the hearing, the final layout plan and the feasibility report. (para 50)
18. Noted: The regulatory authority examines the documents strictly with reference to the ToR and points out gaps within 30 days. The EAC completes appraisal in 60 days and gives categorical recommendations with reasons in the next 15 days. (para 51)
19. Noted: The regulatory authority normally accepts the EAC's recommendation. If it disagrees, the EAC reconsiders within 60 days, and a decision follows within 30 days. (para 52)
20. Noted: If no decision comes in time, the applicant may proceed on the EAC's recommendation. Concealment or false or misleading material information makes the application liable for rejection and cancellation of the EC. (para 53)
21. Held: The 2006 notification balances development and environmental protection. There is no trade-off between the two, and protection is an essential facet of development. It cannot be reduced to a technical formula and embodies a commitment to sustainable development. (para 54)
22. Noted: The EAC and SEAC have experts. The Chairperson must be an outstanding environmental policy expert or expert in management or public administration. Appendix VI requires 15 members, experts with 15 years of experience or a PhD with 10 years. (para 55)
23. Noted: These bodies prepare ToR, and their recommendations are normally accepted. The SEIAA has three members and, under sub-clause (7) of para 3 of the notification, its decisions must be unanimous and taken in a meeting. Half-yearly compliance reports are required. (paras 56-57)
24. Noted: The Court lists the information sought in Form 1. It includes physical changes, use of natural resources, harmful substances, solid waste, pollutants, noise, contamination risks, accident risks and environmental sensitivity. (para 58)
25. Noted: Form 1 is crucial, because ToR, appraisal, Category B2 evaluation and extension of validity all depend on it. (para 59)
26. Held: Missing or misleading information in Form 1 impedes the authorities. An application or EC based on a defective Form 1 is liable to be rejected immediately. The Court quotes clause (vi) of para 8 of the 2006 notification, which requires a personal hearing before rejection or cancellation. (para 60)

The Guidance Manual for Airports

1. Noted: The MoEF issued the Guidance Manual in February 2010 to standardise appraisal. Chapter IV sets the study area at 10 kilometres from the Aerodrome Reference Point (ARP) for primary data covering one season other than monsoon. Secondary data covers one year within 15 kilometres for the parameters in column 9(III) of Form 1. (para 61)
2. Noted: Baseline data covers land, water, air, noise, biological, socio-economic and solid waste aspects. The Court extracts the manual's text on land, water and air, including the local emissions of oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter. (para 62)
3. Noted: The manual treats the biological environment as part of the wider ecological network. Data on sensitive habitats and wild or endangered species comes from the ZSI, BSI, WII and the Ministry of Earth Sciences. The Wildlife Act, 1972 schedules are used. (para 63)
4. Noted: The Court now assesses the process in this case. (para 64)

Forests

1. Noted: The challenge is two-fold. Form 1 did not disclose forests within 15 kilometres, and Table 2.1 of the EIA report showed neither reserved nor protected forests in Maharashtra. (para 65)
2. Noted: The ASG argued that a reserved forest exists only on a notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. He said Form 1 is filled when the proponent may not know all features, so omissions should be overlooked. (para 66)
3. Held: The Court cannot gloss over "the patent and abject failure" of the State of Goa to disclose wet lands, water sources, water bodies, biospheres, mountains and forests. Form 1 is the foundation of the process. The proponent owes a full, complete and candid disclosure and cannot claim ignorance. (para 67)
4. Held: Form 1 is important, so clause (vi) of para 8 lets the authority reject the application on concealment. The declaration by the proponent is to the same effect. (para 68)
5. Held: Form 1 asks about forests without any statutory definition. So the word has its ordinary meaning, and it is not limited to a notification under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. This serves the purpose of an EIA. (para 69)
6. Noted: Godavarman held that forest is understood by its dictionary meaning, and covers reserved, protected and other forests. Forest land includes any area recorded as forest in government records. (para 70)
7. Noted: Okhla Bird Sanctuary said the earlier orders were made in the context of mining, illegal felling and protected areas. It dealt with planted trees for an urban park that could not become forest in ten to twelve years. Courts must have regard to text and context. (para 71)
8. Held: In the 2006 notification the expression forests has its ordinary and natural meaning. The effort must be to notice and protect forests. (para 72)
9. Noted: The EIA report does record forest as the predominant land use, with territory in Maharashtra within one kilometre. It tabulates 6,634.19 hectares of dense forest in the 10 kilometre radius. Para 4.4 says the northern and eastern sides of the site are reserve forest areas. (para 73)
10. Noted: Para 4.6 notes dense and open forest. Annexure IX has land use maps and Annexure XI has hydro-geomorphological maps for Goa and Maharashtra. (para 74)
11. Held: Even so, the patent failure to disclose in Form 1 is not cured. Form 1 guides the ToR and, through them, the EIA report. A failure in Form 1 leads to a deficient EIA report. (para 75)
12. Held: An EC cannot be claimed as of right because the EIA report covers items missed in Form 1. That would bypass the power of the EAC and SEAC to reject at scoping. (para 76)
13. Held: The 2006 notification is an independent code. An applicant cannot claim an EC on substantial or proportionate compliance. The burden of showing compliance rests on the proponent. There can be no gambles with the environment. (para 77)

Ecologically Sensitive Zones

1. Noted: The EIA report says the HLWG under Dr. K. Kasturirangan (report of 15 April 2013) identified 37 per cent of the Western Ghats as ecologically sensitive. It says Pernem taluka is not included. Ms Shenoy relied on the draft notification of 3 October 2018, which proposes 56,825 square metres across six states as Western Ghats ESZ and calls it a global biodiversity hotspot. (para 78)
2. Noted: Sixteen villages in Sawantwadi taluka of Sindhudurg district are mapped as ESZ in the draft notification. (para 79)
3. Noted: Several of these villages fall within the 10 kilometre buffer of the project site. (para 80)
4. Held: Saying that Pernem taluka is not an ESZ is not sufficient, since the EIA must assess ESZs within the study area. The ASG argued that Mopa plateau and Pernem taluka are not part of the Western Ghats, and that the HLWG allows other infrastructure with an EC. (para 81)
5. Noted: The HLWG report recommends bans on mining, thermal power projects, red category industries and buildings of 20,000 square metres and above. Other projects need an EC as Category A projects. (para 82)
6. Noted: The notification of 13 November 2013 under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 bars consideration of five classes of projects, including mining, thermal plants and red category industries. (para 83)
7. Noted: The ASG says an airport is not prohibited and must be assessed under the 2006 notification. (para 84)
8. Held: The EIA report failed to notice ESZs within a 10 kilometre buffer, though it cited the HLWG report. It fails to meet a classical requirement of administrative law: to take into account a relevant consideration. (para 85)
9. Held: A generic assessment of ecology is not enough. The report must study the features that make an area ecologically sensitive, including wetlands, water sources, coastal zones, mountains and forests, and the flora or fauna needing protection. (para 86)

Sampling points

1. Noted: The appellants said no sampling station was in Maharashtra, which is 40 per cent of the study area. The response was that sampling followed para 4.1 of the Guidance Manual. (para 87)
2. Held: On air quality, all six stations are in Goa, but Patradevi is on the border and the 10 kilometre radius was studied. The Court accepts the ASG's submission. (para 88)
3. Noted: Ground water was measured at four places and surface water at three. The Mopa plateau flows to the rivers, and the laterite plateau is an important source of drainage. (para 89)
4. Held: The impact of a greenfield airport on closing the natural channels that feed the water bodies has not been scientifically mapped or studied. (para 89)
5. Held: On noise, all nine stations are in Goa, one on the border, and the study covered both states. (para 90)
6. Noted: The EIA report records dense forests of about 6,634.19 hectares. Ms Shenoy urged that it is impossible for fauna to be limited to domestic dog, cat, cattle, mouse, rat, mongoose, jackal and the three striped palm squirrel. (para 91)
7. Noted: The Guidance Manual requires data on sensitive habitats and wild or endangered species. (para 92)
8. Held: There is substance in the complaint that no data was collected from Maharashtra. The counter affidavit lists only Goa publications. (para 93)
9. Noted: The appellants relied on independent studies. One is a rapid survey at Barazan Plateau, which found Schedule I species such as gaur, leopard and Indian pangolin, and a Sawantwadi-Dodamarg wildlife corridor. Others found smooth coated otter, Indian peafowl and the critically endangered Dipcadi concanense. (para 93)
10. Held: The primary and secondary fauna data in the EIA report was perfunctory. It is not based on the ZSI, WII and Ministry of Earth Sciences. Column 9(III) of Form 1 was left blank, and a careful avi-faunal study was necessary for an airport. (para 94)
11. Noted: In an airport project the EIA report must deal with the impact of the airport on birds and the impact of birds on aircraft operations. Foraging or nesting by bird species in and around the airport must not be discarded. Secondary data within 15 kilometres was evidently not collected. (para 94)
12. Noted: Para 2.1.5 of the executive summary says the area has only few trees, mainly bushes. Chapter II says trees are sparse. Goa's reply shows permission for 54,676 trees, and Goa's explanation is 25 trees per acre on 2,133 acres. (para 95)
13. Noted: The order of 2 April 2018 of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests provided for four things. (para 95)
    • Enumeration of all trees.
    • Exploring safe transplanting of existing trees.
    • Tree cutting permission by the Deputy Conservator of Forests.
    • Planting ten times the number felled by the concessionaire, under Forest Department supervision.
14. Noted: The tree-felling record is set out. Permissions were 1,422 trees on 20 April 2018, 18,408 on 24 July 2018 and 33,298 on 1 October 2018. The NGT directions on transplanting and planting tall indigenous species and a conservation plan for Dipcadi concanense (on the precautionary principle) are extracted. (para 96)
15. Held: The Court expresses serious displeasure at the way the EIA report glossed over the trees. Post facto explanations cannot cure a failure of due process, and averages cannot replace facts. The report should have examined the number, nature and longevity of the trees, and whether they could be transplanted. (para 97)
16. Noted: The location of the trees is significant. If trees stand in clusters or dense formation, the report must ask whether felling all of them was necessary. A photograph and a google map image were offered as illustrations in figure 2.3. (para 97)
17. Noted: Goa said 59 per cent of the trees had a girth of 30 to 50 centimetres, 36 per cent 50 to 100 centimetres, and only 2,580 exceeded 100 centimetres. The Court quotes the definition of tree in Section 2(j) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984. (para 98)
18. Held: Ignoring any component of the environment is a serious dereliction of duty. The purpose of an EIA is a baseline study of all aspects of the environment. (para 98)
19. Held: Planting ten trees for each felled and transplanting provide a measure of rectification. But survival is uncertain, and hiding significant components from scrutiny is not acceptable. There was a serious lacuna in disclosure and appraisal on this aspect. (para 99)

Public consultation

1. Noted: The notification defines public consultation. It has an intrinsic and an instrumental character. Its intrinsic value lies in hearing the voices of communities affected in the air, water, habitats and livelihoods. (para 100)
2. Held: Public consultation builds confidence and recognises the innate knowledge of local communities. It preserves participation as a facet of governance based on the rule of law. (para 101)
3. Noted: The notification's seven features are listed, from the hearing near the site to submission of the final EIA. (para 102)
4. Held: Public consultation cannot be reduced to "a mere incantation or a procedural formality". It rests on the value that decisions affecting lives must factor in concerns expressed after full knowledge. (para 102)
5. Held: Consultation also serves an instrumental function. A breach makes the process vulnerable on three grounds. Significant concerns were not taken into account, there was no full disclosure when the EIA was put up, or concerns were not dealt with. (para 103)
6. Noted: The hearing was on 1 February 2015 at Mopa. About 70 persons spoke, 1,586 signed the sheet, and 1,150 representations were received. The Court lists 14 concerns, including watersheds, forty springs, ground water recharge, the Western Ghats, the number of trees, the Dodamarg Wildlife Sanctuary, forest clearance, sacred groves, cashew plantations and the lack of study in Maharashtra. (para 104)
7. Noted: The concerns also included these points. (para 104)
   • The hearing was held on barren land with no plantation.
   • The impact on the Chapora river within 10 kilometres was not analysed.
   • The EIA report was not made available to affected areas and Gram Panchayats in the buffer zone.
   • The Dodamarg Wildlife Sanctuary had been sanitized by the High Court.
   • Cashew slopes with nearly forty lakh trees give an annual income of Rs 50 crores.
8. Noted: Before the EAC on 26 June 2015 the proponent said the major issues raised at the hearing related to employment opportunities. Ms Shenoy submitted that only seven of 68 objections were on employment. (para 105)
9. Held: The proponent evidently failed to address the other significant concerns in the manner the 2006 notification requires. (para 105)
10. Noted: Utkarsh Mandal v. Union of India (2009 SCC Online Del 3836), a Delhi High Court decision, held that the EAC must indicate that the objections were considered and give reasons for accepting or rejecting them. (para 106)
11. Held: The proponent reduced crucial concerns to one issue, employment. The record shows no critical appraisal by the EAC. There was a failure in applying the norms of the 2006 notification. (para 107)

Appraisal by the EAC

1. Noted: Appraisal means a detailed scrutiny in a transparent manner. The EAC must make categorical recommendations for or against the EC, based on reasons. (para 108)
2. Noted: At the 149th meeting on 26 June 2015 the EAC sought clarification on six aspects. These included a layout plan on a topography map, 10 year rainfall data, traffic plans, noise measures and 20 per cent energy conservation. (para 109)
3. Noted: On the representation of the Federation of Rainbow Warriors, the EAC deferred consideration. At its 152nd meeting on 20 October 2015 it said the EIA was updated, and the project was outside the ESZ delineated by the Kasturirangan Committee and TERI. It then recommended the EC. (para 110)
4. Noted: Para 3.1.2 of the minutes refers to the peculiar circumstances of the case, difficulties in land acquisition and the larger public interest. It says the proponent did not conceal facts and asks the Ministry to take a view on the objection about the public hearing and the ToR validity. The public hearing was attended by about 3000 people. (para 110)
5. Noted: The EAC notes say rain water harvesting pits would aid ground water recharge, so the NGO's objection does not hold. Biological data was collected by functional area experts of Engineers India Ltd, and not by Pragati Labs. The EAC added conditions on land at the Mopa airport road and NH 17 junction, NHAI-approved approach roads to IRC norms, and channelizing the drainage area under the runway. It asked the Ministry to take a view on the objection that the public hearing could not be held without a valid ToR. (para 110)
6. Held: The reasons are sketchy and perfunctory and show an abdication of its functions by the EAC. Recording reasons is mandatory. They are a basic link in the regulatory authority's decision, and the NGT considers them on appeal under Section 16. (para 111)
7. Held: The peculiar circumstances are left to guesswork. The EAC considered extraneous circumstances and not the environmental impact. Non-concealment is not enough reason for an EC, and it is also incorrect. "The EAC has failed to answer to the call to its expertise." (para 112)
8. Held: The EAC has not applied its mind to the environmental concerns. Its reasons show no appraisal of the project's impact, though clause (vi) of para 8 makes concealment a ground for rejection. (para 113)
9. Held: The EAC must speak as an expert. It is not bound by the EIA report and must analyse it. Reasons are a live link between its process and outcome. Without cogent reasons, the process and outcome stand vitiated. (para 114)
10. Held: The ASG's submission that the EAC deferred and asked for clarifications is completely flawed. The 152nd meeting minutes show it dealt mainly with the Rainbow Warriors' representation. Dealing with a representation does not exhaust the EAC's function. (para 115)
11. Noted: The minutes of the 152nd meeting contain no assessment of whether the clarifications sought at the 149th meeting were answered to the EAC's satisfaction. Arguably, if no representation was received, or if a representation by an individual objector is found incorrect, that by itself is no ground to recommend an EC. (para 115)
12. Held: The EAC failed with reference to the 15 ESZs in the study area. In the absence of a critical analysis, it failed in its duties. A failure of due process before the EAC must lead to the invalidation of the EC. (para 116)

The appellate jurisdiction of the NGT

1. Noted: Section 16(h) of the NGT Act, 2010 gives an appeal against an order granting an EC. Section 20 requires the Tribunal to apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle. (para 117)
2. Noted: Several decisions of this Court give meaning to these principles, as listed in the footnote. (para 117)
3. Held: The NGT dealt with the submissions in one paragraph. That does not fulfil "the requirement of a merits review by an expert adjudicatory body vested with appellate jurisdiction". (para 118)
4. Noted: In its paragraph 27 the NGT said the EAC had the point-wise reply on delay in land acquisition, fresh baseline data, Maharashtra data, hydro-geology, flora and fauna, the public hearing, the relevance of the Western Ghats ESZ and cost-benefit analysis. It said the mere fact that other experts expressed different opinions is not enough to hold that the EAC did not apply its mind. The next paragraph only noted that the 15 kilometre study is for secondary data. (para 118)
5. Noted: The NGT Act provides for judicial and expert members because the Tribunal deals with science and its interface with the environment. Section 5(2) sets the qualifications of an Expert Member. The NGT is an expert adjudicatory body on the environment. (para 119)
6. Noted: Save Mon Region Federation v. Union of India (2013 (1) All India NGT Reporter 1) suspended an EC for a 780 megawatt project in Tawang because facts were missing before the EAC and there was a vacuum in the EIA report. (para 120)
7. Noted: Shreeranganathan K.P. v. Union of India (2014 ALL (I) NGT Reporter (1) (SZ) 1) scrapped an EC for the Aranmula airport, because the EAC failed to appraise. (para 120)
8. Noted: In Save Mon the NGT framed the question as a faulty scoping process, and said it has authority to take an appropriate decision on the facts placed before it and to set aside or suspend the EC. In Shreeranganathan it found that sector specific issues were not dealt with. It held that the EAC had miserably failed in its duty and it had no option but to scrap the EC (paragraphs 182 and 187 of that decision). (para 120)
9. Held: Failing to consider materials on a vital issue, and not considering vital issues, raise a substantial question of law under Section 22. The failure of process here was compounded by the absence of merits review by the NGT. (para 121)
10. Noted: The ASG relied on Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited v. Union of India ((2011) 7 SCC 338). In that case, a three-judge Bench upheld an EC for limestone mining at Nongtrai, though forests had not been disclosed. (paras 122-123)
11. Noted: In Lafarge the application was under the 1994 notification, for a limestone project at Nongtrai Village, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, and the EC was granted in 2001. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests then drew attention to the non-disclosure of forests. The proponent applied for a revised EC and forest clearance, and an ex post facto EC with forest clearance was granted in 2010. The ASG argued that non-disclosure of trees should not invalidate the EC. (para 122)
12. Noted: Lafarge rested on facts. Mining there dated back to 1763 and was tied to the village's culture. The village durbar supported the project, the MoEF had certificates that there was no forest, and the 2006 notification did not apply. The order was confined to those facts. (para 123)
13. Held: Lafarge was based on its own facts. It also sets the standard of judicial review for the environment, including the doctrine of proportionality. The Court asks whether relevant factors were considered, whether extraneous factors influenced the decision, whether it follows legislative policy, and whether it is consistent with sustainable development. (para 124)
14. Noted: Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. v. Forward Foundation ((2019) 4 SCALE 218) applied the test of a substantial question of law from Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1962 Supp. (3) SCR 549). Re-appreciation of facts is distinct. (para 125)
15. Held: A substantial question of law arises here. There was a failure to follow binding norms, relevant material was excluded, and extraneous circumstances were considered. The EAC abdicated its obligations, and the NGT merely deferred to the EAC. (para 125)
16. Noted: The Sir Chunilal test says a question is substantial if it is of general public importance, or directly and substantially affects the parties' rights and is open, not finally settled, or not free from difficulty. It is not substantial if the question is settled or the plea is palpably absurd. Mantri Techzone was written by Justice Abdul Nazeer. The Court held the parameters of a substantial question of law were established in the classical or conventional sense. (para 125)

Environmental rule of law

1. Noted: The outcome depends on a quest for environmental governance within a rule of law paradigm. (para 126)
2. Noted: Since Stockholm there has been an expansion of environmental laws, but a large implementation gap remains. The environmental rule of law seeks to address it. (para 127)
3. Noted: It underpins the four pillars of sustainable development (economic, social, environmental and peace) and strengthens rule of law more broadly. (para 128)
4. Noted: Amartya Sen's view moves sustainable development from needs to freedoms. This furthers intragenerational and intergenerational equity. (para 129)
5. Noted: UNEP Decision 27/9 of 2013 first used the term environmental rule of law. Resolution 1/13 of the UN Environment Assembly (2014) called for strengthening it. (para 130)
6. Noted: The IUCN World Declaration on the Environmental Rule of Law (2016) sets out 13 principles for ecologically sustainable development. (para 131)
   • Obligation to protect nature; right to nature and rights of nature; right to environment.
   • Ecological sustainability and resilience; in dubio pro natura (when in doubt, decide for nature); ecological functions of property.
   • Intragenerational equity; intergenerational equity; gender equality.
   • Participation of minority and vulnerable groups; indigenous and tribal peoples.
   • Non-regression; progression.
7. Noted: Dhvani Mehta's thesis, The Environmental Rule of Law in India, assesses whether the rule is being strengthened in India through statutes, executive orders and judicial decisions. (para 132)
8. Noted: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of 2015 has 17 goals. (para 133)
   • Eradication of poverty; eradication of hunger; good health and well-being; quality education; gender equality.
   • Clean water and sanitation; affordable and clean energy; decent work and economic growth; industry, innovation and infrastructure; reduced inequalities.
   • Sustainable cities and communities; sustainable consumption and production; climate action; protecting life below water; life on land.
   • Peace, justice and strong institutions; partnerships to achieve the goals.
9. Noted: The goals are connected, and together give an agenda for development that protects the environment. UNEP says forests, soils and wetlands help manage water. (para 134)
10. Noted: SDG 13 concerns climate change. The climate statistics quoted are a rise of 0.85 degrees Celsius from 1880 to 2012, a sea level rise of 19 centimetres from 1901 to 2010, and a rise of nearly 50 per cent in CO2 emissions since 1990. Emissions from 2000 to 2010 grew faster than in each of the three earlier decades. (paras 135-136)
11. Noted: Terrestrial ecosystems matter for carbon capture, soil, water and disaster mitigation. The Court's text calls this goal SDG 16, though the list in para 133 places life on land at number (xv). It says the goal treats the rule of law as intrinsic to environmental agreements. (para 137)
12. Noted: India ratified the Paris Agreement on 2 October 2016. It made three commitments: cutting emission intensity by 33-35 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, 40 per cent non-fossil power capacity, and an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes through forest and tree cover. (para 138)
13. Noted: The UNEP Global Environment Outlook 6 (March 2019) says clean-up is not enough and a transformative change is needed. (para 139)
14. Held: Environmental governance founded on the rule of law arises from constitutional values. The health of the environment is key to the right to life under Article 21. Proper decision structures find expression in Article 14. (para 140)
15. Held: The 2006 notification is a link in India's quest to pursue the SDGs. In environmental governance "the means are as significant as the ends". The process of decision is as crucial as the decision. (para 141)

Conclusion and relief

1. Held: The argument that the need for a new airport is paramount does not excuse flaws in the EIA process. The need for an airport is a matter of policy. The decision makers must ensure every facet of the environment is studied. (para 142)
2. Held: There was a failure of due process starting with non-disclosure in Form 1. The EIA report failed to acknowledge ESZs in the study area. (para 143)
3. Held: The EAC abdicated its role by considering extraneous circumstances. The NGT dealt with the submissions in one paragraph and failed to carry out a merits review under Sections 16(h) and 20. (para 144)
4. Held: Neither the process nor the decision can pass legal muster. The Court will give time-bound directions to balance development with the environment. (para 145)
5. Held: The Court will direct the EAC to revisit the conditions, in its expert capacity, under Article 142 of the Constitution. It may consider the NGT's conditions. The EC stays suspended in the meantime. The EAC's views go before this Court in a Miscellaneous Application, and no other court or tribunal will entertain a challenge. (para 146)
6. Held: The directions are in the Judgement below. (para 147)
7. Held: The argument that the appellants acted on a personal agenda is rejected. The Court accepts that the EAC's non-consideration of vital issues led them to use the remedy under Section 22 of the NGT Act. If a court finds an appeal lacked bona fides, it may issue appropriate directions. It is the court's duty in environmental governance to assess the case on its merits. Vague aspersions do not answer public-spirited individuals. Governance concerns generations to come. (para 148)
8. Noted: The Court records its appreciation for the assistance of the Attorney General and counsel. (para 149)
9. Held: The appeal is allowed in these terms, with no order as to costs. Civil Appeal No. 1053 of 2019 is disposed of on the same terms. (paras 150-151)

Authorities

• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (spelt Thirumalpad in the source) ((1997) 2 SCC 267): forest has its dictionary meaning. Applied to hold forests in Form 1 has its ordinary meaning (paras 15, 20, 70).
• Construction of Park at Noida near Okhla Bird Sanctuary, Anand Arya v. Union of India (2011 (1) SCC 744): explained Godavarman. Distinguished on its facts (paras 20, 71).
• Utkarsh Mandal v. Union of India ((2009) SCC Online Del 3836): the EAC must give reasons on public hearing objections. Quoted (para 106).
• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India ((1996) 5 SCC 647); M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath ((1997) 1 SCC 388); M.C. Mehta v. Union of India ((1997) 2 SCC 353); A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) ((1999) 2 SCC 718); Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India ((2000) 10 SCC 664); Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India ((2011) 8 SCC 161): decisions giving meaning to Section 20 NGT Act principles (para 117, footnote 53).
• Save Mon Region Federation v. Union of India (2013 (1) All India NGT Reporter 1) and Shreeranganathan K.P. v. Union of India (2014 ALL (I) NGT Reporter (1) (SZ) 1): NGT decisions showing the path of merits review (para 120).
• Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited v. Union of India ((2011) 7 SCC 338): distinguished as confined to its facts. Its standard of judicial review is adopted (paras 122-124).
• Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. v. Forward Foundation ((2019) 4 SCALE 218) and Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1962 Supp. (3) SCR 549): test for a substantial question of law (para 125).
• Other sources:
  • Amartya Sen, Sustainable Development and Our Responsibilities (para 129).
  • UNEP Decision 27/9 and Resolution 1/13 (para 130).
  • IUCN World Declaration on the Environmental Rule of Law (para 131).
  • Dhvani Mehta, The Environmental Rule of Law in India (para 132).
  • UNEP First Environmental Rule of Law Report and Global Environment Outlook 6 (paras 127, 139).
  • Paris Agreement (para 138).
• Names as spelt in the source text: TN Godavarman Thirumalpad v Union of India; Construction of Park at Noida near Okhla Bird Sanctuary Anand Arya v Union of India; Sir Chunilal v Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v Century Spinning and Manufacturing.

Provisions mentioned

• 2006 EIA notification (S.O. 1533, 14 September 2006): requires prior EC for listed projects; sets the stages of screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal; clause (vi) of para 8 allows rejection or cancellation for concealment.
• 1994 notification (S.O. 60(E), 27 January 1994): earlier EC regime, superseded in 2006.
• Section 3 and Section 5, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Rule 5, Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986: source of the notifications; Section 5 was used for the notification of 13 November 2013 on ESZs.
• National Green Tribunal Act, 2010:
  • Section 5(2): qualifications of an Expert Member.
  • Section 16(h): appeal against an EC.
  • Section 20: duty to apply sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.
  • Section 22: appeal to the Supreme Court on a substantial question of law.
• Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: substantial question of law (para 18, 125).
• Section 4 and Section 20, Indian Forest Act, 1927: notification of intent to reserve, and declaration of a reserved forest (paras 15, 20, 66, 69).
• Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Section 2(i)): use of forest land for non-forest purposes needs prior permission (paras 15, 70).
• Section 15 and Section 2(j), Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984: appeal, and the definition of tree (paras 10, 96, 98).
• Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: schedules of species used by the Guidance Manual and the studies (paras 63, 93).
• Land Acquisition Act, 1894: land acquisition for the airport (para 4).
• Article 14, Article 21, Article 48A, Article 51A(g) and Article 142, Constitution: fair treatment; right to life and a healthy environment; State duty to protect the environment; citizens' duty; power to do complete justice, used for the directions (paras 32, 140, 146).
• Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976: inserted Article 48A with effect from 3 January 1977 (para 32).
• Article 5, Paris Agreement: encourages parties to conserve and enhance sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases, including forests (para 138).
• Appendices IIIA, IV, V and VI of the 2006 notification: Summary EIA format, public hearing procedure, appraisal documents and EAC membership (paras 46, 50, 55).

Judgement

1. The EAC must revisit its recommendations for the grant of the EC, and the conditions it formulated, having regard to the specific concerns in this judgment (para 147(i)).
2. The EAC must do this within one month of receiving a certified copy of the order (para 147(ii)).
3. The EC granted by the MoEFCC on 28 October 2015 remains suspended until the EAC completes the fresh exercise (para 147(iii)).
4. If the EAC allows construction to proceed, it must impose additional conditions that adequately protect the terrestrial ecosystems noticed in the judgment. It may lay down conditions on air, water, noise, land, biological and socio-economic environment (para 147(iv)).
5. The EAC must have due regard to the concessionaire's assurance that it will adopt safeguards based on international best practices for greenfield airports (para 147(v)).
6. The State of Goa as project proponent, or MoEFCC, may file the EAC's report before this Court as a Miscellaneous Application, so that orders can be passed (para 147(vi)).
7. No other court or tribunal may entertain any challenge to the EAC's report (para 147(vii)).
8. The appeal is allowed in these terms, with no order as to costs. Civil Appeal No. 1053 of 2019 is disposed of on the same terms, conditions, directions and observations (paras 150-151).

Legal Principle / Ratio

The 2006 notification is an independent code, and full and candid disclosure in Form 1 is its foundation. An EAC must apply its expert mind and record reasons, and the NGT must carry out a merits review of an EC. A failure of process at these stages invalidates the EC, and substantial compliance is not enough. In the Court's words, "There can be no gambles with the environment".

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

The Court did not stop the project, and it gave the EAC one month. It suspended the EC and sent the matter to the EAC, with the report to come back to this Court. The judgment also records that trees were already felled and that work was in progress. It does not discuss what happens if the EAC does not allow construction to proceed.

Article 142 is used to bar other forums. The Court directs that no other court or tribunal may entertain a challenge to the EAC's report. This keeps the final decision with the Supreme Court. The judgment does not discuss the effect on the NGT's appellate role under Section 16(h).

Lafarge is treated as a case on its own facts. The Court relies on Lafarge for the standard of review and holds its result was confined to its facts. The judgment does not set out a test for when non-disclosure of forests may be excused.

Significance

• The Court held that full and candid disclosure in Form 1 is a duty of the proponent, and that forests in Form 1 has its ordinary meaning.
• It held that the EAC must give reasons and must apply its expert mind, and that the NGT must carry out a merits review.
• It set out the environmental rule of law and said that in environmental governance the means are as significant as the ends.
• It suspended a large infrastructure clearance and remitted it to the expert body under Article 142.

Exam-Important Points

• Facts in one line: the EC for the Mopa airport in Goa was challenged. The NGT upheld it, and the Supreme Court suspended it and sent it to the EAC.
• Rule: Form 1 is the foundation of the EC process. Missing or misleading information makes an application liable to be rejected (clause (vi) of para 8).
• Rule: forests in Form 1 has its ordinary meaning, and is not limited to a notified reserved forest.
• Rule: the EAC must record reasons and analyse the EIA report. Considering extraneous circumstances is an abdication of function.
• Rule: the NGT must carry out a merits review under Sections 16(h) and 20. A failure to do so raises a substantial question of law under Section 22.
• Trap: the Court did not quash the EC. It suspended it and gave the EAC one month, and no other court or tribunal may hear a challenge to the EAC's decision.
• Trap: Lafarge was distinguished as confined to its facts. It was not overruled.
• Costs: no order as to costs.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. Paragraph numbers follow the official Supreme Court judgment text; law reports may number the same paragraph differently.