1991 (3) TMI 392 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Site selection for the thermal power plant.
2. Consideration of expert committee findings.
3. Compliance with environmental guidelines.
4. Adherence to Coastal Regulation Zone requirements.
5. Impact of subsequent government notifications.
6. Enforcement of conditions imposed for project clearance.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Site Selection for the Thermal Power Plant:
The petitioners argued that the BSES initially surveyed ten sites and did not consider Dahanu suitable. They claimed the selection of Dahanu was a maneuver after the Bassein site was rejected due to its proximity to the sea and river banks. The Court found this criticism unfounded, noting that Dahanu falls outside the extended Bombay Metropolitan Region, unlike Bassein. The State Government had other reasons to discard the Bassein site which did not apply to Dahanu, making the selection of Dahanu appropriate.

2. Consideration of Expert Committee Findings:
The petitioners contended that the clearance was against the findings of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) which had listed nine reasons deeming Dahanu unsuitable. The Court clarified that the EAC's findings were not conclusive or binding on the Central Government. The Central Government considered reports from multiple expert bodies, including a State Expert Committee, and conducted a comparative study of potential sites. The final decision was based on a comprehensive review of all relevant materials, including stringent conditions to mitigate environmental impact.

3. Compliance with Environmental Guidelines:
The petitioners argued that the clearance violated the "Environmental Guidelines for Thermal Power Plants" issued in 1987, which stipulate that thermal power plants should not be located within 25 km of ecologically sensitive areas or within 500 meters of the high tide line. The Court noted that these guidelines are general and must be adapted to regional specifics. The Government of India imposed stringent conditions, such as the installation of a multi-fuel boiler, a tall stack, electrostatic precipitators, and a Flue Gas Desulphurisation Plant (FGD), to mitigate pollution. The Court found that the guidelines were considered and adapted appropriately.

4. Adherence to Coastal Regulation Zone Requirements:
The petitioners highlighted that the EAC reported the site fell within the high-tide line in the Dahanu creek. The Court acknowledged that while the plant is within 5 km of the sea, a rigid application of this standard was impractical. The company agreed to move the thermal plant to ensure a clearance of 500 meters from the high tide line on all sides. The Court directed the Central and State Governments to monitor construction to ensure compliance with this requirement.

5. Impact of Subsequent Government Notifications:
The petitioners referenced notifications prohibiting ash dumping and construction within 500 meters of the high tide line and declaring Dahanu Taluka an ecologically fragile area. The Court clarified that these notifications were in line with the conditions imposed during the project clearance to prevent further industrialization. The notifications did not affect the validity of the clearance granted to the thermal power station.

6. Enforcement of Conditions Imposed for Project Clearance:
The petitioners expressed concerns that the conditions imposed might not be enforced or could be relaxed. The Court noted that the conditions included provisions for immediate shutdown in case of violations and statutory mechanisms for enforcement. The Court emphasized that any proposal to relax conditions, such as the installation of the FGD plant, should be considered carefully, with notice and an opportunity for the petitioners to be heard.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the clearance for the thermal power station was granted after thorough consideration of all relevant aspects, including environmental concerns. The conditions imposed provided sufficient safeguards against pollution. The Court directed that any relaxation of conditions should involve notice and an opportunity for the petitioners to be heard. The special leave petitions were dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.