Grenesiis Constro: SC Orders Current Ecological Assessment

Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Directs SEAC and SEIAA to Assess Ecological Damage as on Today

M/s Grenesiis Constro Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishal Arinjay Shah & Ors. Decided 26 October 2026

Published: 11 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

In M/s Grenesiis Constro Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishal Arinjay Shah & Ors., the Supreme Court, hearing appeals over the National Green Tribunal's setting aside of the appellant's ex post facto environmental clearance of 09.08.2019, directed the SEAC and the SEIAA to comply, within eight weeks, with paragraph 13(5) of the Notification dated 14.03.2017. It was of the opinion that an assessment ‘ought to be made depicting the current scenario as on today’ (paras 22-24). The interim order continues; the appeals return on 08.01.2027 (paras 30-31).

Key holdings

The SEAC and the SEIAA must forthwith take steps to comply with paragraph 13(5) of the Notification dated 14.03.2017, within eight weeks (paras 23-24).

They may determine the proposed environmental damage and the bank guarantee amount and prescribe a time bound schedule for the plan, whose proposal the appellant shall furnish (para 28).

The assessment report goes to the appellant, after due procedure, and to the original complainant; approvals of the Pune Municipal Corporation are to be obtained (paras 25, 27, 29).

No view is recorded on the Tribunal's orders; the interim order continues until the hearing on 08.01.2027 (paras 30-31).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

On 09.08.2023, in Appeal No. 68 of 2019 (WZ), the National Green Tribunal, Western Zone Bench, Pune, set aside the ex post facto environmental clearance granted to the appellant on 09.08.2019 under the Notification of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change dated 14.03.2017 (paras 1-2). The Tribunal found that, though a bank guarantee had been submitted to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, it was not clear how the amount was to be utilised, and no document showed how the remediation plan was to be implemented (para 2). The SEIAA was to consider the clearance again after a hearing (para 5). The review was dismissed on 12.06.2025 (para 6). This Court ordered status quo on 01.08.2025 (para 7).

Court's Findings

It was not disputed that the appellant's case is covered by the Notification dated 14.03.2017, under which it is entitled to obtain ex post facto environmental clearance (para 9). The appellant placed on affidavit a proposed use of the remediation amount across five activities, from afforestation to air and noise pollution control, approved by the Pune Municipal Corporation (paras 10-11); the SEIAA said the allocation accords with the Approach Paper and may be permitted to be implemented (para 12). The original complainant, with no objection to the project being rendered operational, sought strict compliance with paragraph 13(5) of the Notification, questioned the basis of the Rs. 1.95 crore bank guarantee figure and said the figures were of 2018 vintage (paras 13-15, 18); the appellant replied that the amounts were not ‘plucked out of the hat’ (para 21). ‘Be that as it may’, the Court was of the opinion that an assessment ought to be made depicting the current scenario (para 22). The order records no view on the correctness of the Tribunal's orders and does not restore the clearance.

Legal Principle

Where a project proponent's entitlement to ex post facto environmental clearance under the Notification dated 14.03.2017 is not disputed but the basis of the ecological damage and bank guarantee figures is questioned, the Court may require the appraisal authorities to carry out the paragraph 13(5) exercise on the current scenario while the appeals remain pending (paras 9, 22-23).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For a project proponent seeking ex post facto clearance under the 2017 Notification, this order shows that an undisputed entitlement does not settle the figures: the Court wanted the ecological damage and the bank guarantee, which the complainant said were of 2018 vintage, assessed on the current scenario (paras 9, 18, 22). The SEIAA had supported implementing the plan approved by the Pune Municipal Corporation (para 12); the Court nonetheless directed the paragraph 13(5) exercise and left the appraisal authorities free to fix a time bound schedule (paras 23, 28). The complainant's position, no objection to the project becoming operational if the Notification is strictly complied with, may shape the hearing on 08.01.2027 (paras 14, 20, 30).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.