Industrialisation ensures welfare of the country.

The Chief Justice:

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Writ Petition No.33528 of 2004 has been filed for a direction to declare the public hearings conducted in connection with the Sethu Samudram Shipping Canal Project (hereinafter referred to as SSSCP) in Tuticorin, Thanjavur, Thiruvarur, Nagapattinam, Pudukkottai and Ramanathapuram districts on several dates to be ineffective and not in compliance with the requirements of law. The petitioner has stated that such public hearings would become meaningful only after a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment Report on the SSSCP is made ready. The petitioner further prayed for a direction against respondents 1 and 2 to constitute panels in accordance with the notification issued by the Central Government on 27.1.1994 as amended on 10.4.1997, and for a further direction to regulate all public hearings to ensure presentation of rational and scientific data.

3. The petitioner claims that he is the co-convener of a group of organisations coming together under the banner of Coastal Action Network. He further claims that the objective of the said network is to ensure protection of environment and bio-diversity in the coastal areas. The SSSCP visualizes making a canal for passage of ships through the Palk Strait, and as per the proposal the total length of the canal would be about 260 Kms. The Government of India is proposing to dredge a width of 300 Metres through 44 Nautical Miles stretch. It is estimated that 32.5 Million Cubic Meter of sand would be dredged in Adams Bridge and 52 Million Cubic Meters in Palk Strait. The Government’s proposal is aimed at reducing the distance for ships, which now go around Sri Lanka after berthing in Colombo to reach the Bay of Bengal. It is proposed to dredge a shipping canal in the Palk Strait to avoid going around Sri Lanka.

4. The Government of India issued notification on 27.01.1994 under Rule 5(3)(a) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, which was framed under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. By the said notification objections were invited from the public within 60 days from the date of notification. This notification was amended on 10.4.1997, by which, environmental clearance by the Central Government was made compulsory.

5. It is stated by the petitioner that the initial Environmental Impact Assessment was done by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as NEERI). It is alleged that the report submitted by the NEERI is not a comprehensive environmental impact assessment report, but it is a Rapid Environment Impact Assessment Report. NEERI made that Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in May 2004 to the Nodal Agency namely Tuticorin Port Trust. The detailed project report has to be submitted by the Larsen and Tubro of India and Rampaul of Denmark, who are the contractors for the SSSCP. Techno Economic Feasibility Report was expected by July 2004.

6. It is recited in paragraph –12 of the petitioner’s affidavit that the original pubic hearing for the SSSCP was held on 08.09.2004 at the respondent District Collectorates. The panel which gave the public hearing in each district on various dates is mentioned in paragraph-12 of the affidavit. In paragraph – 13 of the affidavit it is alleged that the public hearing held on 14.09.2004 at Tuticorin was unruly and so also the one which was held at Pudukottai. It is alleged that the panel constituted was not in accordance with the notification. Various political parties created pandemonium when views opposed to their professed political interests were being voiced.

7. In paragraph – 14 of his affidavit, the petitioner has given details about the alleged damage to the environment which would be caused by the said project. In paragraph – 16, it is alleged that the present public hearing is not meaningful and does not give effective participation to the citizens and various environment protection groups. The public hearings have