M/S SAI BABA SALES PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA

284                      [2021]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   11 S.C.R. 284              [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A                    M/S SAI BABA SALES PVT. LTD.
                                       v.
                              UNION OF INDIA
                         (Civil Appeal No. 595 of 2021)
B                           NOVEMBER 26, 2021
          [R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ]
             Environmental Laws: Environmental clearance (EC) for
      building project – On facts, Project Proponent-construction project
      made substantial compliance by obtaining the EC from the competent
C
      local authority – Subsequent changes in EC regimes – Effect of –
      Validity of the grant of EC to Project Proponent, challenged to –
      NGT held that further construction cannot be made without
      environment impact assessment, but protected the constructions
      already made by the appellant-Project Proponent on the basis of
D     the EC issued by the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation as
      per the notification – On appeal, held: Project Proponent can
      legitimately expect a certain degree of stability in the manner in
      which environmental regime is set and how the applications are
      processed – Public interest might possibly diminish the degree of
      legitimate expectation for a party but a balance has to be found –
E
      Project Proponent is not expected to anticipate the changes in EC
      regimes, especially as a result of judicial interventions, and keep
      revisiting the sanctioned clearances by the competent authority or
      even raze down validly constructed structures – Neither can it be
      expected to knock the doors of an authority, not empowered at the
F     relevant time, to process its applications – On facts, the appellant
      acted on the EC and made substantial investments – They adhered
      to the applicable legal framework during the concerned period, as
      such cannot be pushed to a precipice and be made to fall – Doing
      so would be inequitable – Moreover, third-party interests have also
      come up –Thus, the order passed by NGT protecting the completed
G
      construction is endorsed and four constructed buildings are to be
      treated to be under a valid EC with all legal consequences –
      However, for any further construction proposed they must secure
      fresh clearance as required – Doctrine of legitimate expectation.

H
                                      284
    M/S SAI BABA SALES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA                    285


      Disposing of the appeals, the Court                             A
      HELD: 1.1 When the Project Proponent initially wanted to
apply for the EC it had obtained the requisite layout sanction for
applying to the SEIAA. As such, it was operating well within the
applicable procedure, prior to the amendment. After grant of such
sanction, while the construction was underway, the amendment          B
came about on 9.12.2016 whereby, the local authority such as the
Municipal Corporation was made the competent authority to grant
EC. In the changed circumstances, the Project Proponent
necessarily had to apply to the PCMC as during the interregnum
before the NGT’s judgment on 8.12.2017, SEIAA was not the
competent authority to consider application for EC. The Project       C
Proponent was therefore, complying with the regime set out by
the amended notification. It is apposite to note that the Committee
appointed by the NGT, in its report dated 11.8.2020 had clearly
indicated that when the Project Proponent had received the EC
on 28.11.2017, the competent authority to issue the EC was the        D
Environmental Cell of the PCMC. Thus, it is the discernible
understanding as part of the NGT’s own expert Committee that
the Project Proponent had obtained the EC from the competent
authority of the relevant time-the PCMC. [Para 15][292-C-F]
       1.2 Moreover, only after the earlier judgment of the NGT       E
on 8.12.2017 in the OA No. 677/2016, the State of Maharashtra
issued a clarification on 29.1.2018 directing that the Municipal
authorities should not process pending applications. But neither
the decision of the NGT nor of the Maharashtra Government
categorically gave any guidance as to the implication on the EC
obtained by the Project Proponent, on the strength of which, a        F
substantial measure of construction was already made. It is also
necessary to note that in the subsequent notification issued on
14.11.2018 and 15.11.2018 by the MoEFCC, the power to grant
EC continued to vest in the local authority such as the PCMC,
with the only change being that it is the municipality itself and     G
not its Environmental Cell which is empowered to grant the EC.
The said notifications of the MoEFCC is stayed by the Delhi High
Court on 26.11.2018 in the WP(C) No. 12517/2018. [Para 16][292-
G-H; 293-A-B]

                                                                      H
286            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A           1.3 The Committee constituted by the NGT to report on
      the building project did not underscore any major deviation but
      instead found that the Project Proponent had made substantial
      compliance by obtaining the EC from the competent local
      authority. Moreover the OA, neither before the NGT or this
      Court, ever contended that appraisal done by the PCMC’s
B
      Environmental Cell was defective or any different from one done
      by SEIAA. Both processes are also similarly structured. This
      may be the reason why the NGT in the impugned judgment itself
      protected the already made construction. However, the Project
      Proponent was restrained from making any further construction
C     without obtaining clearance from the statutory EC and adhering
      to the environmental norms. [Para 17][293-C-E]
            1.4 The NGT rightly protected the already erected buildings
      and this protection in our view, should not be impacted by the
      earlier judgment of the NGT on 8.12.2017 in the OA No. 677/
D     2016 whereby certain portions of the MoEFCC’s 9.12.2016
      notification were invalidated and direction was issued to the
      Ministry to revisit the said notification. Importantly, neither the
      NGT’s invalidation order nor the subsequent clarifications by the
      State of Maharashtra, have suggested any adverse action against
      the pre-existing structures. As the expert body exclusively
E     occupying the environmental field, the NGT has assessed the
      factual circumstances to consciously lean towards protecting the
      already constructed structures. Nothing more need be added on
      this aspect. It is also not necessary in this appeal to venture into
      the question of the retrospective implication of the invalidation
F     of certain parts of the 2016 Notification for other project
      proponents, which may have gained their ECs in the interregnum.
      [Para 19][293-G-H; 294-A-B]
            1.5 In situations of this nature, the Doctrine of Legitimate
      Expectation is attracted. The principle of the rule of law such as,
G     Regularity, Predictability and Certainty in Government’s dealings
      with the Public, must operate in the present matter. The Project
      Proponent can legitimately expect a certain degree of stability in
      the manner in which environmental regime is set and how the
      applications are processed. The actions of the authorities are

H
    M/S SAI BABA SALES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA                    287


expected to adhere to the prevalent norms only, without the           A
element of uncertainty for the executed project. The more
compelling public interest might possibly diminish the degree of
legitimate expectation for a party but a balance has to be found.
In the instant matter, appellant has acted on the EC and made
substantial investments. They cannot be pushed to a precipice
                                                                      B
and be made to fall. Doing so would be inequitable particularly
when, the appellant has scrupulously adhered to the applicable
legal framework during the concerned period. Moreover, third-
party interests have also cropped up in the interregnum. [Para
20, 24][294-B-D; 295-G-H; 296-A-B]
      1.6 A Project Proponent is not expected to anticipate the       C
changes in EC regimes, especially as a result of judicial
interventions, and keep revisiting the sanctioned clearances by
the competent authority or even raze down validly constructed
structures. Neither can it be expected to knock the doors of an
authority, not empowered at the relevant time, to process its         D
applications. Such a scenario would render the process akin to a
Sisyphean task, eternally inconclusive and never ending. [Para
25][296-B-C]
      1.7 As seen, the NGT in the impugned judgment has
protected the completed construction and, on this aspect, it is       E
deemed appropriate to endorse the same. The four constructed
buildings are resultantly to be treated to be under a valid EC
with all legal consequences. It is, however, made clear that if any
further construction is proposed by the appellant with the
sanctioned layout, the same should not be done on the strength
of the EC granted on 28.11.2017 by the PCMC. In other words,          F
if the Project Proponent wishes to construct the remaining
buildings, they must secure fresh clearance from the competent
authority, as per the currently applicable framework. [Para
26][296-D-E]
      Goan Real Estate and Construction Ltd. v. Union of              G
      India (2010) 5 SCC 388; Food Corporation of India v.
      M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993) 1 SCC
      71 – referred to.

                                                                      H
288             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A             Attorney General of Hong Kong v. NgYuen Shiu (1983)
              2 AC 629 : (1983) 2 WLR 735 – referred to.
              Judicial Review by De Smith – referred to.
                              Case Law Reference
B     (2010) 5 SCC 388                 referred to               Para 14
      (1993) 1 SCC 71                  referred to               Para 22
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 595 of
      2021.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 18.01.2021 of the National
C
      Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 83/2019(WZ).
              With
              Civil Appeal No. 5768 of 2021
           Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Ninad Laud, Saurabh Kulkarni, Ivo.
D     D’Costa, Ms. Anshula Vijay Kumar Grover, Nitin Lonkar, Mrs. Sonali
      Suryawanshi, Shankey Agrawal, Advs. for the Appellant.
            Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Ms. Ruchi
      Kohli, Sughosh Subramaniam, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Mukesh Verma,
      Shashank Singh, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo
E     Joseph, Anish R. Shah, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Ms. Qurratulain, Brij Kishor
      Sah, Ms. Damini Hajela, Aditya S. Jadhav, Nitin Lonkar, Mrs. Sonali
      Suryawanshi, Shankey Agarwal, Advs. for the respondents.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F             HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
            1. Heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing
      for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 595/2021. Mr. Lonkar Nitin
      representing the Original Applicant before the National Green Tribunal.
      Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appears
      for the Ministry of Environment & Forest. The Government of
G
      Maharashtra and the State Pollution Control Board are represented by
      Mr. Rahul Chitnis and Mr. Mukesh Verma, learned counsel respectively.
            2. These two appeals are filed under Section 22 of the National
      Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short “the NGT Act”) assailing the judgment
      and final order dated 18.1.2021 in the OA No. 83/2019. Under the
H
     M/S SAI BABA SALES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA                           289
                  [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

impugned judgment, the NGT held that further constructioncannot be            A
made withoutenvironment impact assessment, but protected the
constructions already made by the appellant, M/s Sai Baba Sales Pvt.
Ltd. (“Project Proponent”) on the basis of the Environmental Clearance
(“EC” for short) issued by the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
(“PCMC” for short) as per the notification dated 9.12.2016. The Original
                                                                              B
Applicant, on the other hand, is aggrieved by the decision of the NGT to
protect the standing construction and limiting the impact of the impugned
judgment on further construction to be made by the project proponent.
      3. The main issue that arises for consideration in these matters is
whether the Project Proponent herein possesses a validly granted
Environmental Clearance (EC) under the Environmental Impact                   C
Assessment (EIA) notification dated 14.9.2006. The 2006 EIA notification
provided that the projects above 20,000 sq. meter and below 1,50,000
sq. meter should obtain an EC from the State Environment Impact
Assessment Authority (SEIAA) of the Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change (MoEFCC).                                                  D
       4. For deciding the issue, the necessary facts in brief are that the
Project Proponent initially conceived a project of 15,040 sq. mtrs. (below
the EC threshold limit of 20,000 sq. mtrs.) and it approached the PCMC
for a lay out order which was a prerequisite, to obtain an EC from the
SEIAA of the MoEFCC. The application was processed and the Building           E
Permission Department of the PCMC granted the commencement
certificate to the Project Proponent for an area of 15,040 sq. mtrs. and
approved the plan under the sanction letter dated 14.5.2013. With such
permission, the Project Proponent could construct the permitted structures,
and since the built up area was less than the threshold limit of 20000 sq.
mtrs., the EC permission was not needed for the intended construction.        F

       5. The Project Proponent builder then applied and was granted
additional FSI as it intended to expand the project to one with built up
area of 49,012 sq. mtrs. and for this they approached the PCMC for a
lay out order, which as noted earlier was essential to obtain an EC from
the SEIAA of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change           G
(MoEFCC). The required approval was issued by the Corporation on
28.11.2016.
     6. Under the Ministry’s notification dated 9.12.2016, the EIA regime
was altered to indicate that the EC could be obtained from the
                                                                              H
290             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     Environmental Cell of a local authority, such as the PCMC. The State of
      Maharashtra opted for the new regime and adopted the environmental
      condition stipulated in the MoEFCC notification dated 9.12.2016. This
      was followed by the communication of the MoEFCC on 7.7.2017 which
      clarified that separate environmental clearance is not required for projects
      upto 1,50,000 sq. mtrs. built up area in respect of municipal corporations
B
      in Pune and Konkan division.
             7. The Project Proponent then filed an application for EC under
      the 2016 notification which was considered by the Environmental Cell
      of the PCMC which appraised the project, as contemplated in the
      notification dated 9.12.2016. The necessary permission for construction
C     to the builder was issued on 28.11.2017, stipulating the environmental
      conditions for buildings and constructions and this permission was
      accorded as per the amended regime under the notification dated
      9.12.2016 of the MoEFCC and consequential one dated 13.4.2017 of
      the Maharashtra Government.
D            8. While the matter stood thus, the NGT while considering the
      challenge by certain applicants to the exemption from EC, in a batch
      matter, quashed certain portions of the MoEFCC notification dated
      9.12.2016. The NGT in the analogous judgment dated 8.12.2017 in the
      OA No. 677/2016 (Society for Protection of Environment and
E     Biodiversity Vs. Union of India) and other cases, directed the MoEFCC
      to revisit its notification dated 9.12.2016 and to take appropriate steps to
      amend/rectify certain clauses in the Ministry’s notification, in terms of
      the NGT’s judgment.
             9. Nearly two years after the Project Proponent secured
F     construction permission on 8.12.2017 from the PCMC, the OA No.
      83/2019 was filed by the Pune resident (respondent No. 10) with the
      allegation that the Project Proponent had made construction without
      obtaining any EC. In this proceeding the NGT constituted a three Member
      Committee comprising the SEIAA – Maharashtra, the State PCB and
      the Municipal Commissioner, Pune. The Committee, after spot verification,
G     in its Report dated 18.8.2020 noted that construction of total built up
      area of 22930.17 sq. mtrs. is already completed for Building Nos. A, E,
      B, D and the Club House. Thereafter, the NGT considered the submission
      of the original applicant, who contended that while the authority to grant
      EC is SEIAA as per the EIA notification dated 14.9.2006, the EC for the
H     project in question was granted by the PCMC. The NGT in its order on
     M/S SAI BABA SALES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA                            291
                  [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

17.11.2020, in the first round, opined that the constructions were irregular   A
and remedial measures were directed for the project in question.
       10. The above order of the NGT was challenged before this Court
and the Project Proponent’s CA No. 3893/2020 was allowed on
11.12.2020 whereby, the NGT’s order was set aside and the matter was
remitted back to the NGT to afford hearing to the appellants and to pass       B
a fresh order.
       11. The case of the Project Proponent as can be seen from the
pleadings was that he had initially commenced construction on 14.5.2013
with a sanction plan of 15040.05 sq. mtrs., which, being lesser than the
threshold limit of 20,000 sq. mtrs, did not require a prior EC. Thereafter,    C
for the proposed expansion of the project, for total constructed area of
49,012 sq. mtrs., the Project Proponent approached the concerned
authority on 7.11.2016 for issuance of “Proposed Development
Certificate”, which is a prerequisite to apply for EC, and the said
certificate was granted on 28.11.2016 for the purpose of obtaining the
EC from the SEIAA. But at that stage, by virtue of the MoEFCC                  D
notification dated 9.12.2016, the concerned local authority was designated
as the sanctioning authority for projects between 20,000 sq. mtrs. and
50,000 sq. mtrs. and accordingly under the changed regime the Project
Proponent applied to PCMC on 10.7.2017 and was sanctioned EC by
the competent local authority, on 28.11.2017.                                  E
       12. It is the further contention of the Project Proponent that when
the NGT on 8.12.2017 had invalidated certain portions of the 2016
notification, it did not issue any order nullifying those ECs which were
granted by the local authority under the altered regime.
       13. The original applicant on the other hand, contended that when       F
the NGT struck down certain provisions of the MoEFCC’s 2016
notification, the 28.11.2017 EC granted by the Municipal Corporation,
would not legitimize the construction and therefore the Project Proponent
should be prevented from proceeding with the construction and also be
penalized for the unauthorized construction.                                   G
       14. The NGT then observed that because of the invalidation of
certain clauses in the 2016 notification, the EC obtained from the PCMC
is unacceptable and accordingly rendered a finding that the Project
Proponent had failed to obtain the valid EC. The maintainability challenge
of the OA on the ground of limitation was however rejected by observing
                                                                               H
292                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     that the cause of action arose only in 2017 when the builder allegedly
      exceeded the threshold limit of 20,000 sq. mtrs. Accordingly, the authorities
      were directed to take coercive action against the Project Proponent for
      construction done after 8.12.2017, when the NGT’s judgment was
      rendered in the OA No. 677/2016. However, even with such finding
      having regard to the regime that existed at the relevant time and adverting
B
      to the ratio in Goan Real Estate and Construction Ltd. Vs. Union of
      India,1 the NGT held that the construction already raised should be
      protected. However, further construction should be permitted only after
      securing the EC from the competent authority, under the current regime.
             15. The picture which emerges from the above discussion is that
C     when the Project Proponent initially wanted to apply for the EC it had
      obtained the requisite layout sanction for applying to the SEIAA. As
      such, it was operating well within the applicable procedure, prior to the
      amendment. After grant of such sanction, while theconstruction was
      underway, the amendment came about on 9.12.2016 whereby, the local
D     authority such as the Municipal Corporation was made the competent
      authority to grant EC. In the changed circumstances, the Project
      Proponent necessarily had to apply to the PCMC as during the
      interregnum before the NGT’s judgment on 8.12.2017, SEIAA was not
      the competent authority to consider application for EC. The Project
      Proponent was therefore, complying with the regime set out by the
E     amended notification. It is apposite to note that the Committee appointed
      by the NGT, in its report dated 11.8.2020 had clearly indicated that when
      the Project Proponent had received the EC on 28.11.2017, the competent
      authority to issue the EC was the Environmental Cell of the PCMC.
      Thus, it is the discernible understanding as part of the NGT’s own expert
F     Committee that the Project Proponent had obtained the EC from the
      competent authority of the relevant time i.e. the PCMC. Interestingly,
      the constituted Committee also included a member of the SEIAA.
             16. Moreover, only after the earlier judgment of the NGT on
      8.12.2017 in the OA No. 677/2016, the State of Maharashtra issued a
G     clarification on 29.1.2018 directing that the Municipal authorities should
      not process pending applications. But neither the decision of the NGT
      nor of the Maharashtra Government categorically gave any guidance as
      to the implication on the EC obtained by the Project Proponent, on the
      strength of which, a substantial measure of construction was already
      1
          (2010) 5 SCC 388
H
    M/S SAI BABA SALES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA                          293
                 [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

made. It is also necessary to note that in the subsequent notification      A
issued on 14.11.2018 and 15.11.2018 by the MoEFCC, the power to
grant EC continued to vest in the local authority such as the PCMC,
with the only change being that it is the municipality itself and not its
Environmental Cell which is empowered to grant the EC. For the sake
of completion, it may be recorded that the said notifications of the
                                                                            B
MoEFCC is stayed by the Delhi High Court on 26.11.2018 in the WP(C)
No. 12517/2018.
       17. It is important to bear in mind that the Committee constituted
by the NGT to report on the building project did not underscore any
major deviation but instead found that the Project Proponent had made
substantial compliance by obtaining the EC from the competent local         C
authority. Moreover the OA, neither before the NGT or this Court, ever
contended that appraisal done by the PCMC’s Environmental Cell was
defective or any different from one done by SEIAA. Both processes
are also similarly structured. This may be the reason why the NGT in
the impugned judgment itself protected the already made construction.       D
However, the Project Proponent was restrained from making any further
construction without obtaining clearance from the statutory EC and
adhering to the environmental norms.
       18. The project of the appellant comprises six buildings of which
three were constructed in full, and the super structure of the fourth       E
building is completed and only the internal works remains to be done. In
the fourth building, 40 out of the 64 apartments have already been sold.
In this context, it would be appropriate to advert to the submission of
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, the learned ASG who had clearly stated that at
the relevant time, the competent authority to grant EC is the PCMC and
not the SEIAA and therefore the internal works for the fourth constructed   F
building, can be allowed to be completed.
       19. Considering the above circumstances, the NGT rightly
protected the already erected buildings and this protection in our view,
should not be impacted by the earlier judgment of the NGT on 8.12.2017
in the OA No. 677/2016 whereby certain portions of the MoEFCC’s             G
9.12.2016 notification were invalidated and direction was issued to the
Ministry to revisit the said notification. Importantly, neither the NGT’s
invalidation order nor the subsequent clarifications by the State of
Maharashtra, have suggested any adverse action against the pre-existing
structures. As the expert body exclusively occupying the environmental      H
294                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     field, the NGT has assessed the factual circumstances to consciously
      lean towards protecting the already constructed structures. Nothing more
      need be added on this aspect. It is also not necessary in this appeal to
      venture into the question of the retrospective implication of the invalidation
      of certain parts of the 2016 Notification for other project proponents,
      which may have gained their ECs in the interregnum.
B
            20. In situations of this nature, the Doctrine of Legitimate
      Expectation is attracted. The principle of the rule of law as explained in
      De Smith’s Judicial Review, such as, Regularity, Predictability and
      Certainty in Government’s dealings with the Public, must operate in the
      present matter. The Project Proponent can legitimately expect a certain
C     degree of stability in the manner in which environmental regime is set
      and how the applications are processed. The actions of the authorities
      are expected to adhere to the prevalent norms only, without the element
      of uncertainty for the executed project.
            21. In the above context we may benefit by referring to the seminal
D     case of Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu2, where
      Lord Fraser speaking for the Privy Council, appositely observed thus,
               “… when a public authority has promised to follow a certain
               procedure, it is in the interest of good administration that it should
               act fairly and should implement its promise, so long as
E              implementation does not interfere with its statutory duty.”
            22. This Court in Sethi Auto Service Station vs Delhi
      Development Authority & Ors3, speaking through Justice D.K. Jain,
      has cited other opinions and elucidated on the concept of legitimate
      expectation, in the following manner,
F
               “24. The House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions &
               Ors. Vs. Minister for the Civil Service, a locus classicus on the
               subject, wherein for the first time an attempt was made to give a
               comprehensive definition to the principle of legitimate expectation.
               Enunciating the basic principles relating to legitimate
G              expectation, Lord Diplock observed that for a legitimate
               expectation to arise, the decision of the administrative
               authority must affect such person either

      2
          (1983) 2 AC 629 : (1983) 2 WLR 735
      3
H         (2009) 1 SCC 180
        M/S SAI BABA SALES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA                            295
                     [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

         (a) ****           ****     ****              ****              ****     A
         (b) by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which
         either: (i) he has in the past been permitted by the decision
         maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be
         permitted to continue to do until some rational ground for
         withdrawing it has been communicated to him and he has                   B
         been given an opportunity to comment thereon or (ii) he
         has received assurance from the decisionmaker that they will not
         be withdrawn without first giving him an opportunity of advancing
         reasons for contending that they should be withdrawn.” (emphasis
         supplied)
                                                                                  C
      23. The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation is further explained
in Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed
Industries4 where for a Three-Judge Bench of this Court Justice J.S.
Verma observed thus: -
         “The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in          D
         such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right,
         but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the
         decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due
         consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle
         of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law.
         Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due          E
         consideration in a fair decision-making process. Whether the
         expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context
         is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises,
         it is to be determined not according to the claimant’s perception
         but in larger public interest wherein other more important               F
         considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been
         the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of
         the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the
         requirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny.
         The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule
         of law and operates in our legal system in this manner and to this       G
         extent.”
      24. The more compelling public interest might possibly diminish
the degree of legitimate expectation for a party but a balance has to be
4
    (1993) 1 SCC 71                                                               H
296                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     found. In the present matter the appellant has acted on the EC and
      made substantial investments. They cannot be pushed to a precipice and
      be made to fall. Doing so would be inequitable particularly when, the
      appellant has scrupulously adhered to the applicable legal framework
      during the concerned period. Moreover, third-party interests have also
      cropped up in the interregnum.
B
             25. A Project Proponent is not expected to anticipate the changes
      in EC regimes, especially as a result of judicial interventions, and keep
      revisiting the sanctioned clearances by the competent authority or even
      raze down validly constructed structures. Neither can it be expected to
      knock the doors of an authority, not empowered at the relevant time, to
C     process its applications. Such a scenario would render the process akin
      to a Sisyphean task, eternally inconclusive and never ending.
              26. As seen, the NGT in the impugned judgment has protected
      the completed construction and, on this aspect, we deem it appropriate
      to endorse the same, by accepting the submission of the appellant’s
D     Counsel and the learned ASG. The four constructed buildings are
      resultantly to be treated to be under a valid EC with all legal consequences.
      It is, however, made clear that if any further construction is proposed by
      the appellant with the sanctioned layout, the same should not be done on
      the strength of the EC granted on 28.11.2017 by the PCMC. In other
E     words, if the Project Proponent wishes to construct the remaining
      buildings, they must secure fresh clearance from the competent authority,
      as per the currently applicable framework. It is ordered accordingly.
            27. With the above order, the appeals are disposed of without any
      order on cost.
F
      Nidhi Jain                                               Appeals disposed of.




G




H