1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1811 -1812 OF 2015 M/s IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited …Appellant Versus T. Muruganandam & Others …Respondents J U D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 23.05.2012 in Appeal No. 17/2011 and judgment and order dated 10.11.2014 in Appeal No. 50/2012 passed by the National Green Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NGT’), M/s IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited has preferred the present appeals. 2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under: The appellant herein has been incorporated in the year 2006 to implement the Project for establishing a 2x600 MW and 3x800 MW (aggregating to 3600 MW) imported coal based thermal power plant at village Kottatai, Ariyagoshti, Villianallur and Silambimangalam in Chidambram Taluk, District Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu. Now the appellant 9 complied with within the time stipulated in the response of the project proponent. 4.6 Making above submissions and praying for keeping the question of law , if any, namely, “Whether for the project like th is, a cumulative impact assessment study is required or not” open and also the question, “whether an appeal before the NGT against the corrigendum to the EC and the additional conditions imposed as per the corrigendum to the EC would be maintainable or not ” and keeping the aforesaid questions(s) of law open, it is prayed to dispose of the present appeals by permitting the appellant to continue the power plants which are in operation since 2015. 5. Shri Shiv Mangal Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the MoEF has submitted that as such the appellant had never challenged earlier conditions imposed while issuing the EC and the first judgment and order passed by the NGT dated 23.05.2012 and even the corrigendum dated 14.08.2012 issued by the MoEF impo sing additional conditions and therefore the appellant is bound by the conditions imposed while issuing the EC and corrigendum to the EC dated 14.08.2012 and the appellant has to comply with all the conditions imposed while issuing EC as well as additional conditions imposed vide corrigendum dated 14.08.2012. He has pointed out certain non - 10 compliances/part compliances of certain conditions and the response by the appellant. Therefore, he has submitted that if this Court is inclined to permit the appellan t to continue with the power plants in the public interest, in that case, the appellant may be directed to comply with all the conditions imposed while issuing EC as well as additional conditions imposed while issuing corrigendum dated 14.08.2012. 6. Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioners has prayed that in case this Court is inclined to permit the appellant to continue with the power plants as per the EC and the corrigendum dated 14.08.2012 which are in oper ation since 2015, in that case, the question of law, namely, “whether for the project like this conducting a cumulative environment impact assessment study is must or not”, may be kept open as so many other such projects may come and that on conducting cum ulative environment impact assessment study, the Tribunal may consider the said issue in detail. 6.1 Insofar as maintainability of appeal before the NGT against the order of corrigendum is concerned, it is submitted that against the additional conditions i mposed vide corrigendum dated 14.08.2012, an appeal would be maintainable before the NGT against the corrigendum to the EC. 11 7. Having heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel appea ring on behalf of the MoEF and original petitioners and the facts narrated hereinabove, it is to be noted that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the appellant has commenced two power plants in Phase - I, which are in operation since September, 2015. The appellant is operating two units of 600MW since September, 2015 and April, 2016, which presently supply power to approximately 40 lakhs households. The power plants are situated in an energy deficit State (Tamil Nadu). Thus, closing the power plants/units would adversely affect power sector of the State and which shall not be in the larger public interest, more particularly the power deficient State of Tamil Nadu. 7.1 However, at the same time, the appellant has to comply with all the conditions imposed while issuing EC as well as the additional conditions imposed vide corrigendum to the EC dated 14.08.2012. From the compliance report dated 20.09.2022 (latest compliance report) and the response of the project proponent, it appears that by and large there is a substantial compliance of the conditions imposed while issuin g EC as well as the additional conditions imposed vide corrigendum to the EC dated 14.08.2012. There do not appear to be any fundamental breaches or non -compliance of the conditions imposed while issuing EC 12 as well as additional conditions imposed vide co rrigendum to the EC dated 14.08.2012. However, some conditions are still partly complied with, which have been responded by the appellant and has agreed to comply with the same. The particulars of the specific conditions, part compliances and the respons e to the same are as under: 13 14 15 16 17 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and subject to compliance of the conditions imposed while issuing EC and the additional conditions imposed vide corrigendum to the EC dated 14.08.2012 and subject to the conditions/additional conditions which are partly complied with, to be complied with within the time suggested in the response of the appellant/project propone nt, reproduced hereinabove and keeping the larger question of law, namely, “whether for the project like this, a cumulative impact assessment study is required or not”, open and to be decided in an appropriate case, we dispose of the present appeals by per mitting/allowing the appellant/project proponent to continue with the power plants which are in operation since September, 2015 and April, 2016 on the conditions as above, i.e., subject to compliance of all the conditions mentioned in the EC as well as additional conditions imposed vide corrigendum to the EC dated 14.08.2012 and to fully comply with the conditions which are 18 partly complied with within the stipulated time as suggested and prayed by the appellant company, prayed in response to the compliance report dated 20.09.2022, reproduced hereinabove. 9. Now so far as the issue, “whether against the corrigendum to the EC along with additional conditions, an appeal before the NGT would be maintainable or not” is concerned, having heard learned counsel app earing on behalf of the respective parties, we are of the opinion that an aggrieved person may always challenge the corrigendum to the EC, however, the appeal will be restricted to the corrigendum to the EC on additional conditions only, if the original EC is not under challenge and/or the original EC has been confirmed by the NGT earlier on certain conditions which have not been challenged. 10. The present appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. We make it clear that the present order shall not be cited as a precedent in any other matter. …………………………………J [M.R. SHAH] NEW DELHI; ……………………………….J. FEBRUARY 17 , 2023 [C.T. RAVIKUMAR] 19