P. JYOTHIMANI,J.

The issue involved in all these cases relates to the commissioning of Units 1 and 2 of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (for brevity, "KNPP"). Even though the prayers in these writ petitions are different, they are taken up together, since the issue is one and the same.

W.P.No.24770 of 2011

2.1. This writ petition is a public interest litigation. The petitioner, who is an Engineering Graduate in Electronics and Instrumentation, claims to be a trustee of a public trust called "Poovulagin Nanbargal", which is connected with environmental and other issues. After coming to know from the newspapers that the Government of India, represented by the Department of Atomic Energy will commission the KKNPP by November, 2011, he has filed the said writ petition for a direction against respondents 1 and 3 to undertake a fresh and transparent review of KKNPP at Kudankulam, Tirunelveli District, Tamil Nadu by an independent body of experts, including those of the Department of Atomic Energy of the Union of India, by holding public hearings in accordance with law and till such time not to commission the project and also not to commission the same without fresh Environment Impact Assessment and Coastal Regulation Zone clearance.

2.2. Subsequently, the petitioner has impleaded Fisherman Care, a registered association as fourth respondent in the writ petition and this Court suo motu impleaded the District Collector, Tirunelveli District and the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District as respondents 5 and 6 respectively.

2.3. As it is seen in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, there was an Inter-Governmental Agreement between the Union of India and the U.S.S.R. signed in November, 1988 and a Supplemental Agreement was signed in May, 1998. As per the terms of the said agreement, a project report was prepared for the establishment of a Nuclear Power Plant at Kudankulam, Tirunelveli District. According to the petitioner, the conduct of Union of India in not obtaining a fresh environmental clearance when supplemental agreement was entered into in 1998 on the ground that clearance obtained in the year 1989, namely the date of original agreement, itself is sufficient, is not proper.

2.4. It is his further case that the contents of the Inter-Governmental Agreement were never made transparent for the public and there was no public discussion about the necessity of a supplemental agreement after a lapse of ten years from the date of original agreement. That apart, no public hearing was afforded informing the public about the changes made by the supplemental agreement to the original Inter-Governmental agreement, and the environmental clearance obtained in the year 1989 is not sufficient when a supplemental agreement was made in the year 1998.

2.5. It is also his case that even in the environmental clearance obtained on 9.5.1989 it was emphasized that the area in which the project is to be commenced has been declared as a bio-sphere reserved and, therefore, special precautions should be taken to avoid damages to the coral reefs or changes in the water quality near the shore and that all the vacant lands within the project zone should be afforested with a tree density of 1000 per Acre and that type of tree species must be selected.

2.6. It is stated that a Comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment of Nuclear Power Plant (Units I and II) in Kudankulam under the sponsorship of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, Mumbai (for brevity, "NPCIL") was submitted by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (for brevity "NEERI") in January, 2003. The petitioner relies upon paragraph 4.3 of the said report which states about thermal pollution due to discharge of heated waters and emphasizes that the resultant rise in the temperature of marine water should not go beyond 7oC and that is also one of the requirements of the State Pollution Control Board and the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

2.7.