2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1199

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, Judicial Member, SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, Expert Member
MAHESH MAMINDLA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF TELANGANA – Respondent
Appeal No.82 of 2021 (SZ)|I.A. Nos.213 of 2021 & 81 of 2022 (SZ)

Forest clearances upheld despite initial form discrepancies where supervisory authorities verified via DSS, examined alternatives, imposed wildlife mitigations; deviation from approved tower type penalized but project not quashed given completion and public interest.

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 16(e) and 20 - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Challenge to Stage-I and Stage-II Forest Clearances and Working Permission for 400 KV overhead DC transmission line through 6.7075 ha forest land (1.458 Km length, 46m width) in reserve forest adjacent to national park - Appellants alleged concealment of eco-sensitive zone location (55-300m from national park), misleading information in Form A Part II denying ESZ and proximity to protected area within 1 Km, non-examination of alternatives including underground cabling, forest fragmentation, wildlife hazards, avian impacts, and violation of buffer zone guidelines prohibiting structures within 15m of outer ring road - Authorities countered with verification via DSS analysis identifying ESZ, obtaining ESZ committee permission, REC recommendations post-clarifications on alternatives, imposition of conditions like wildlife mitigation plan (Rs.545.063 Lakhs), dwarf medicinal plantation, bird deflectors, minimal tree felling, translocation, and confirmation project outside park boundary per DGPS survey despite notified area discrepancy (360 ha vs 287 ha) - No cost-benefit analysis required for <20 ha diversion - Underground cabling infeasible due to technical constraints (1000 sqm switchyards needed) - Project along existing road, no additional fragmentation, underpasses pre-existing - Deviation from approved monopoles to quad poles without amendment for financial reasons - Tribunal held supervisory scrutiny by IRO/REC rectified Form A omissions, alternatives examined selecting minimal forest route post permissions denied elsewhere, boundary demarcated per notification, Supreme Court orders on underground cabling for endangered species inapplicable, but penalized deviation. Penalty of Rs.50 Lakhs imposed on project proponent payable to IRO for national park and forest improvement, project upheld given completion and public interest. (Paras 1-39)

(B) Environmental Clearances - Application of mind and supervisory role - Discrepancies/misinformation in initial forms (e.g., Form A denying ESZ/proximity) not fatal if higher authorities verify via DSS, seek clarifications, impose mitigation, and follow guidelines; mechanical approvals quashable but detailed REC deliberation suffices. (Paras 29, 34, 38)

Facts of the case:
Appeal challenging forest clearances for overhead transmission line through reserve forest near national park (ESZ), alleging procedural lapses, concealment, alternatives ignored, ecological harm; respondents defended compliance, verifications, mitigations; project completed/operational.

Findings of Court:
Clearances valid post supervisory corrections; deviation penalized Rs.50 Lakhs for park/forest enhancement; no quashing/revocation.

Issues: Validity of clearances amid Form A discrepancies, ESZ/proximity concealment, alternatives examination (underground/ non-forest routes), fragmentation/wildlife impacts, tower type deviation, boundary survey adequacy.

Ratio Decidendi: Forest clearances sustainable if supervisory bodies apply mind, verify discrepancies, impose tailored mitigations despite initial errors; avoidable diversions rejected where alternatives proven infeasible post permissions/examinations; post-completion public utility weighs against dismantling absent grave illegality.

Result: Appeal disposed; penalty imposed, I.As. closed.