Did the Court decide whether a cumulative impact assessment study is required?

No. The larger question of law, namely whether for a project like this a cumulative impact assessment study is required or not, was expressly kept open to be decided in an appropriate case, and the appeals were disposed of on the compliance conditions alone. The Court further made it clear that the present order shall not be cited as a precedent in any other matter.

National Green Tribunal Act 2010 — EIA Notification 2006 — Environmental Clearance — Corrigendum to Environmental Clearance — Maintainability of appeal — Cumulative impact assessment — Not to be cited as precedent — National Green Tribunal Act 2010 — Appeal against a corrigendum to an Environmental Clearance — Held: An aggrieved person may always challenge a corrigendum to an Environmental Clearance, but the appeal is restricted to the additional conditions in the corrigendum where the original clearance is unchallenged or has already been confirmed on conditions not challenged. (¶9) Environmental Clearance — Operating plant — Larger public interest — Held further: Where units have supplied power since 2015 to about forty lakh households in an energy-deficit State and there is substantial compliance with the clearance conditions, closing them would not be in the larger public interest. (¶7) Cumulative impact assessment — Question expressly left open — Held further: Whether a cumulative impact assessment study is required for such a project was kept open, to be decided in an appropriate case. Appeals disposed of; the Court directed that this order shall not be cited as a precedent in any other matter. (¶8, 10)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of M/s IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited v. T. Muruganandam & Others — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India