Back
1999 Supreme(Kar) 459
Karnataka High Court
DAKSHINA KANNADA PARISARASAKTHA OKKOOTA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 09-24-99
The court highlighted the importance of timely filing of public interest litigations, the presence of sufficient safeguards in environmental clearances, and the availability of alternative remedies for environmental disputes.
Headnote:
Environment Protection - Public Interest Litigation - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications - The court discussed the violation of CRZ notifications, the environmental clearance, and the alternative remedy of appeal under the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petitions challenged the grant of permission for the establishment of a Barge Mounted Power Plant at Tanir Bavi in Mangalore, Karnataka. The petitioners contended that the permission violated the CRZ notifications and the EP Act. Respondent-4 argued that the petitions were belated and motivated by personal interests.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Writ Petitions were belated and motivated by personal interests, causing heavy damage to the project and the society. It held that the environmental clearance provided sufficient safeguards and that an alternative remedy of appeal under the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 was available.
Issues: 1. Delay and laches in filing the Writ Petitions. 2. Violation of CRZ notifications and the EP Act. 3. Availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the delay in filing the Writ Petitions, the presence of sufficient safeguards in the environmental clearance, and the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions were dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000, and the court found no merit in the petitions.
( 1 ) THESE Writ Petitions are filed in the nature of public interest litigation assailing the grant of permission vide Annexure-A dated 10. 9. 1998 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi and Annexure-B dated 20. 12. 1997 issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Bangalore, granting permission for establishment of Barge Mounted Power Plant at a place called Tanir Bavi in Mangalore in the State of Karnataka. The brief facts of the case as stated by petitioners as well as respondent No. 4 are as follows: the Government of Karnataka issued a notification dated 8. 12. 1995 inviting bids for setting up Barge Mounted Power Plant (hereinafter referred to as 'bmp Plant' ). After receiving the said bids, the bid of Respondent No. 4 was accepted and awarded fight to set up the BMP Plant vide order dated 5. 3. 1996. Thereafter, Respondent- 4 obtained No objection certificate from the Forest Department on 13. 6. 1997. Vide proceedings dated 21st July, 1997 the Bharat petroleum has allotted 212,000 M. T. Naphtha to Respbndent-4. the karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) allotted the land at Tanir Bavi near Mangalore on 25. 7. 1997. The 4th respondent obtained approval from the Foreign Investment and Promotion development Board for 100% foreign investment. Approval was also, obtained for construction of transmission line (Dedicated 220 KV transmission Line) for evacuation of power from the power project on 1. 12. 1997. An agreement was entered into between the 4th respondent and the KEB on 15. 12. 1997 to purchase the power. Thereafter, approval was issued by the Pollution Controt Board on 2. 12. 1997. Respondent No. 4 entered with an agreement with M/sgueleleo inc, USA for technical advisory service on 22. 7. 1998. Writ petition No. 12790/1998 was filed by the 1st petitioner herein and another challenging only the construction of transmission towers by keb on 9. 4. 1998. In that Writ Petition, no challenge was made to environmental clearance issued to Respondent-4. Thereafter, Bharat petroleum enhanced the allocation of fuel Naphtha to 250,000 M. T. vide proceedings dated 4. 8. 1998. The 4th respondent also entered into an agreement with Bharat Petroleum Corporation for supply of fuel on 5. 8. 1998. Respondent-4 entered into an agreement with m/s SSKI Corporate Finance Ltd. , for carrying out obligations of project debt structuring on 12. 8. 1998. On 10. 9. 1998, the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest has issued clearance certificate as at Annexure-A. Respondent-4 entered into an agreement with M/s Amantis International Ltd. , Singapore, for advice and placement of equity. Agreement with M/s Sargent Lundy for technical consultancy was entered into on 19. 12. 1998, Appointment of Saraswathi Consultants Pvt. Ltd. , for financial and legal matters was made on 1. 1. 1999. Later, the Industrial Development Bank of india (IDBI) has issued a letter of intent for Debt Financing of the project. Similar letters of intent were issued by the Bank of India; canara Bank and Industrial Financing Corporation of India for Debt financing of the project. The Government of Karnataka issued a letter of Guarantee on 3. 4. 1999 asssring on behalf of the 4th respondent to KEB that in case the project is stopped, rupees ten crores will be paid to the KEB. Further, Respondent No. 4 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Hyundai Engineering and construction Company, Korea, for technical assistance. Similarly, it entered into an agreement with M/s White Case, New York, as Legal consultants. It entered into an agreement with Spark Resources Pvt. Ltd. , for obtaining financial and legal services on 30. 4. 1999. Agreement with Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. , for erection of 220 KV switch yard was entered into on 24. 7. 1999. Respondent-4 further entered into an agreement with Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. , for setting up grading, piling and construction of off
