Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 15
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J, Dr. Satyawan Singh Garbyal, Expert Member
G. Sundarrajan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
APPEAL NO. 60 OF 2018 | M.A. No. 635 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ritwick Dutta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rahul Choudhary, Ms Meera Gopal, Mr. Utkarsh Jain, Ms. Geetanjali Sreedhar
For the Respondents: Mr. Divya Prakash Pande, Mr. Satyalipsu Ray, Mr. Niraj Kumar, Mr. V.K. Singh, Mr. Pankaj Vermaa, Ms. Ayushi Singh, Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma, Mr. V. Mowli, Mr. R. Naveen Raj, Ms. Sakshi Popli, Mr. R.B. Mahapal
EAC and MoEF have the authority to grant environmental clearances despite state agencies' functionality, particularly for projects in ecologically sensitive areas with inter-state implications.
Headnote:(A) The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 16 - Environmental clearance under EIA Notification, 2006 - Appeal filed regarding clearance for construction of India based Neutrino Observatory project - Appellant contended ecological impact assessments were inadequate and project necessitated inter-state scrutiny due to ecological sensitivity of site near Western Ghats - Tribunal upheld MoEF's decision for appraisal at Central Level citing project’s national importance and ecological concerns. (Paras 17, 10, 5)
(B) Environmental Law - EIA Notification, 2006 - Statutory power and competence of EAC - Tribunal emphasized that EAC and MoEF can review projects under specific circumstances despite functionality of state SEIAA/SEAC when inter-state issues are involved, reiterating the necessity for comprehensive ecological assessment (Paras 11, 16)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case regarding environmental clearance (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details and background of the neutrino observatory project (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. discussion on eac's authority and statutory obligations (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. arguments regarding the lack of proper ecological impact assessment (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. conclusion and disposal of the appeal with judicial findings (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGEMENT
PRESENT: Hon’bleMr. Justice Raghuvendra S. Rathore (Judicial Member) Hon’ble Dr.Satyawan Singh Garbyal (Expert Member) Reserved on: 09 th October, 2018 Pronounced on: 02 nd November, 2018
1. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published on the net?
2. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published in the NGT Reporter?
Dr. S.S. GARBYAL, (EXPERT MEMBER)
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 16 of the NGT Act against the grant of environmental clearance dated 26.03.2018 by the EAC (Expert Appraisal Committee) under the aegis of MoEF&CC as per the EIA Notification, 2006 to Respondent No. 5 (Tata Institute of Fundamental Research) for the construction of India based Neutrino Observatory (INO) Project at Bodi West Hills, Pottipuram Village, Theni District, Tamil Nadu.
2. That as per the impugned Environmental Clearance, it has been stated that the India-based Neutrino Observatory (hereinafter referred to as “INO”) project is a proposal to construct an underground laboratory for experiments in the field of neutrino physics. It is also stated therein that the immediate goal of the project is the creation of the underground laboratory as well as building of a large magnetized iron calorimeter detector housed in it to study naturally-produced neutrinos in the Earth’s atmosphere.
3. Pottipuram Village, in Theni District, Tamil Nadu was identified for the construction of the INO Project. An application for the EC was made before the MoEF in the year 2010. EIA study was conducted for the said project by Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History in November, 2011 and the MoEF granted EC on 01.06.2011.
4. The appellant had preferred an appeal before the Southern Zonal Bench of NGT in 2015 against the EC dated 01.06.2011. The said appeal was preferred mainly on the grounds that the very categorisation of the project was illegal and wrong and that detailed ecological impact assessment study was not made to study the effect of blasting to excavate the tunnels and cavern and that the said EIA was not complete.
5. The NGT Southern Zonal Bench vide its order dated 20.03.2017 kept the EC dated 01.06.2011 in abeyance on the ground that project site was 4.9 km of the Mathikettan Shola National Park in Idukki District, Kerala and that the project should be treated as category –A project and also that clearance should be obtained from the National Board for Wild Life. The NGT expressed the view with the contention of both the counsels appearing for the appellant as well as Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the Respondent matter needed to be resolved so as to enable the project proponent to make fresh proposal under EIA Notification 2006, in accordance with Law. While keeping EC in abeyance the Tribunal made it clear that the Transfer of land already made in the name of the project proponent should not be affected and the same will be subject to the final order which may be passed by the Regulatory Authority.
6. Therefore, the project proponent applied for fresh EC on 25.07.2017 before SEIAA Tamil Nadu under Activity 8(a) and category B2- Building and Construction Projects. The SEIAA while appraising and considering the project in question refused to appraise the same under 8(a) of the Schedule of EIA Notification siting the various construction activities undertaken under the projects could not be termed as a “Building and Construction Project”. The SEIAA/SEAC asked the project proponent on 31.07.2017 to approach the MoEF for EC. Subsequently MoEF informed SEAC on 13.11.2017 that the said INO projec
