JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This Petition, instituted in purported public interest, challenges the ongoing construction and setting up of a 15 MLD Sewage Treatment Plant at village Queula, Ponda, Goa, by the Sewerage & Infrastructural Development Corporation of Goa Ltd. (Corporation), which is a State controlled Corporation, set up precisely to address the issue of sewage treatment in the State of Goa.

3. Mr. Nigel Costa Frias, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that there is no clarity as to whether the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) is projected to treat only domestic sewage as is repeatedly urged by the Respondents. He submits that the material on record, as well as the material discerned from the files made available to him by the various authorities, suggests that the STP is projected to treat not only the domestic sewage, but also the industrial sewage from the industrial areas and commercial establishments in the vicinity. On this basis, he submits that such a STP cannot be set up without obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). The setting up of such a STP, which is nothing but a Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP), without obtaining the EC from SEIAA, amounts to clear breach of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. He submits that setting up of STP, in breach of the Notification, amounts to breach of the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, as well as right to clean environment, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. Costa Frias submits that in any case, there is total non-application of mind on the part of the authorities in permitting setting up of such a STP. He submits that the site is in the vicinity of residential structures. He submits that proper scientific studies are not undertaken while selecting the site and even the precautionary principle is thrown to winds. He submits that the alternate sites proposed by the Petitioners have not even been considered, even though such alternate sites would involve minimum harm to ecology and environment, as compared to the site in question. In short, he submits that several relevant considerations have been ignored and irrelevant considerations taken into account by the Authorities while permitting setting up of the STP at the present site.

5. Mr. Costa Frias submits that the site chosen is in fact a low lying paddy field. He submits that there is prohibition under the Land Revenue Code, as well as the relevant Town and Country Planning legislations for putting up of any construction in low lying fields. He submits that till date no conversion under the Land Revenue Code is obtained and, therefore, the activity, at the site, is patently illegal and in breach of the provisions of the Land Revenue Code. He submits that even for the purpose of consideration of grant of conversion sanad, the authorities have to advert to several parameters, including health. He submits that all this has been bypassed by proceeding with the construction, without obtaining any conversion. He submits that this is yet another ground to halt any further activity at the site.

6. Finally, Mr. Costa Frias submits that the State is duty bound to provide for siting guidelines before the State or its agencies proceed with setting up of STPs. He refers to such siting guidelines framed by some other States, including Tamilnadu and points out that in absence of such siting guidelines, the project of setting up of STP ought not to be allowed to proceed.

7. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Mr. Nigel Costa Frias submits that the work on the STP may be ordered to be halted and the Respondents be directed to restore the site to its original condition.

8. Mr. D. Pangam, learned Advocate General, along with Mr. Deep Shirodkar, Addit