9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1392 - SC - Indian LawsRejection of Environmental Clearance (EC) granted to the Appellant for the development of an eight lane Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) connecting Tumkur Road to Hosur Road and totaling a length of 65 kilometers - Whether the PRR project commenced prior to the coming into force of the 2006 Notification? - Whether the PRR project falls within the scope of para 7(f) of the Schedule to the 2006 Notification obliging the project proponent to seek a prior EC? - Whether the Appellant has complied with the conditions stipulated in the 2006 Notification and the OMs issued by the MoEF-CC from time to time? - HELD THAT - Following directions are issued under Article 142 of the Constitution (i) The Appellant is directed to conduct a fresh rapid EIA for the proposed PRR project; (ii) The Appellant shall, for the purpose of conducting the rapid EIA, hire a sector-specific accredited EIA consultant; (iii) The Appellant shall have due regard to the various deficiencies noted in the present judgment as well as ensure that additional precautions are taken to account for the prevailing state of the environment; (iv) The Appellant shall ensure that the requisite clearances under various enactments have been obtained and submitted to the SEAC prior to the consideration by it of the information submitted by the Appellant in accordance with the OMs issued by the MoEF-CC from time to time; (v) The SEAC shall thereafter assess the rapid EIA report and other information submitted to it by the Appellant in accordance with the role assigned to it under the 2006 Notification. If it is of the opinion that the Appellant has complied with the 2006 Notification as well as the directions issued by this Court, only then shall it recommend to the SEIAA the grant of EC for the proposed project. The SEAC and the SEIAA would lay down appropriate conditions concerning air, water, noise, land, biological and socioeconomic environment and other conditions it deems fit; and (vi) The Appellant shall consult the requisite authority to ensure that no potential damage is caused by the project to the petroleum pipelines over which the proposed road may be constructed. In moulding the above directions, this Court has factored into its decision-making calculus the fact that the appeal from the judgment of the NGT was filed by the project proponent and no appeal was filed by the Respondents. The order of the NGT directing the Appellant to conduct a rapid EIA is upheld - appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Date of commencement of the PRR project. 2. Applicability of the EIA Notification 2006. 3. Compliance with the procedure under the EIA Notification 2006. 4. Deficiencies in the EIA report. 5. Accreditation of the EIA consultant. 6. Forest land. 7. Trees. 8. Pipelines. 9. Appraisal by the SEAC. 10. Courts and the environment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Date of Commencement of the PRR Project: The court had to determine whether the issuance of a preliminary notification under Section 17 of the BDA Act or a final notification under Section 19 marked the commencement of the project for the purposes of the 2006 Notification. The court concluded that the project commenced only upon the issuance of the final notification under Section 19 on 29 June 2007, which was after the 2006 Notification came into force. Thus, the contention that the project commenced prior to the 2006 Notification was rejected. 2. Applicability of the EIA Notification 2006: The court addressed whether the PRR project fell within the scope of para 7(f) of the Schedule to the 2006 Notification, obliging the project proponent to seek a prior EC. It was determined that the PRR project, being an expressway, did fall within the ambit of para 7(f) of the Schedule. The court clarified that the term "highways" in the 2006 Notification includes "expressways" as per the amendment dated 1 December 2009. 3. Compliance with the Procedure under the EIA Notification 2006: The court analyzed whether the EIA process followed by the appellant complied with the 2006 Notification. It was found that the ToR issued on 21 November 2009 had expired, and the primary data collected between December 2009 and February 2010 was outdated. The EIA report prepared in October 2014 was based on this expired data, violating the OMs issued by the MoEF-CC. The SEAC's decision to proceed with the EIA report despite the expired ToR was found to be unsustainable. 4. Deficiencies in the EIA Report: The court noted significant deficiencies in the EIA report, including contradictions regarding the existence of forest land, the number of trees to be felled, and the failure to disclose the impact on the Thippagondanahalli Reservoir catchment area. The SEAC's recommendation to grant the EC despite these deficiencies was found to be flawed. 5. Accreditation of the EIA Consultant: The court found that the EIA consultant, M/s. Ramky Enviro Engineers Pvt. Ltd., lacked accreditation for highway projects at the time of preparing the final EIA report. This was in contravention of the OM dated 2 December 2009, which mandated the use of accredited consultants for EIA processes. 6. Forest Land: The court highlighted the appellant's failure to disclose the diversion of 1.5 hectares of forest land and obtain the requisite forest clearance. The appellant's attempt to remedy this failure post facto was deemed inadequate. The SEAC's recommendation to grant the EC without ensuring compliance with the forest clearance requirements was found to be a non-application of mind. 7. Trees: The court noted the discrepancy in the number of trees proposed to be felled, with the appellant stating 200-500 trees while the Deputy Conservator of Forests indicated around 16,785 trees. This failure to disclose the true impact on tree cover was a significant lapse in the EIA process. 8. Pipelines: The court addressed concerns regarding the potential crossover of the PRR project over petroleum pipelines. The appellant was directed to consult the requisite authority to ensure no potential damage to the pipelines. 9. Appraisal by the SEAC: The court found that the SEAC's appraisal process was perfunctory and lacked detailed scrutiny. The SEAC failed to provide adequate reasons for recommending the grant of the EC, which is a mandatory requirement under the 2006 Notification. 10. Courts and the Environment: The court emphasized the importance of a robust institutional framework for environmental governance. It highlighted the need for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions to ensure sustainable development. The court noted the failure of due process in the EIA process for the PRR project and the need for a balance between development and environmental protection. Directions: The court issued several directions under Article 142 of the Constitution, including conducting a fresh rapid EIA, hiring an accredited EIA consultant, ensuring compliance with various enactments, and consulting the requisite authority regarding the petroleum pipelines. The SEAC was directed to assess the rapid EIA report and recommend the grant of EC only if the appellant complied with the 2006 Notification and the court's directions. The court upheld the NGT's order directing a fresh rapid EIA and clarified that no other court or tribunal shall entertain any challenge to the SEAC or SEIAA's decision.
|
