Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2947
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapati, Expert Member
G. Praveena – Appellant
Versus
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) – Respondent
Appeal No. 46 of 2024 (SZ)
For Applicant(s): Mr. A. Yogeshwaran
For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1, Mr. J. Ravindran, AAG along with M/s. Abishek Murthy & Naveen Kumar for R2
Segmentation of industrial projects to evade cumulative impact assessment and comprehensive EIA is impermissible, violating precautionary principle; clearance suspended pending integrated study by higher authority.
Headnote:(A) EIA Notification, 2006 - Items 8(b) and 7(c) - Segmentation of industrial estate projects into smaller areas to evade comprehensive environmental scrutiny held impermissible - Project proponent cannot obtain clearance for segmented portions without cumulative impact assessment, violating Precautionary Principle and Sustainable Development - Earlier clearance under abeyance requires integrated approach by higher authority. (Paras 16-25, 32-34)
(B) Cumulative Impact Assessment - Essential for projects in vicinity with ongoing/proposed developments - Must evaluate geographical, temporal, interactive, ecosystem and socio-economic effects beyond individual project EIA - Failure to conduct comprehensive CIA distorts environmental viability justifying suspension of clearance. (Paras 25-29, 32)
(C) Environmental Clearance Process - No alternate sites considered prior to site selection fatal to EIA adequacy - Suppression of material facts like pending earlier clearance and phased development vitiates process - Public hearing exemption under 8(b) does not absolve cumulative study obligation. (Paras 30-31, 34)
Facts of the case:
Residents challenged Environmental Clearance granted for proposed industrial park over 215.834 ha. on poramboke land, alleging illegal segmentation of larger 1751+ ha. industrial estate scheme across villages, absence of cumulative impact assessment, inadequate EIA, suppression of facts including earlier suspended clearance nearby, and flawed categorisation under 8(b) instead of 7(c).
Findings of Court:
Impugned clearance kept under abeyance; project proponent directed to conduct cumulative study incorporating this and earlier project, apply to higher authority for prior clearance; phased implementation permissible post-assessment.
Issues: Whether segmentation constitutes evasion of EIA requirements; adequacy of cumulative impact assessment; validity of EIA without alternate site analysis and disclosure of pending clearances; propriety of categorisation and appraisal process.
Ratio Decidendi: Segmentation to bypass stringent environmental norms impermissible as it undermines Precautionary Principle; comprehensive CIA mandatory for multi-phase contiguous projects to capture broader impacts; process lapses like non-disclosure of abeyance and pre-decided site warrant reconsideration by competent authority.
Result: Appeal disposed; Environmental Clearance dated 22.04.2024 kept under abeyance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellants challenge ec due to pollution risks. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. seiaa granted ec under 8(b) b1 category. (Para 5 , 6 , 14) |
| 3. sipcot defends eia, non-ec industries, cia. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. illegal segmentation to evade comprehensive eia. (Para 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. land acquisition notices suffice for ec application. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. courts prohibit segmentation bypassing eia. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 7. inadequate cumulative impact assessment required. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 32) |
| 8. holistic evaluation protects ecosystems. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 9. no alternative site analysis fatal. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 10. ec suspended; mandates cumulative study. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. The appellants, who are residents of Manallur and Sanaputhur villages of Gummidipoondi Taluk, are challenging the Environmental Clearance granted on 22.04.2024 in favour of the 2nd respondent.
2. The Environmental Clearance is granted for the proposed industrial estate in the midst of several villages and plant by agricultural fields. The concern of the appellant is stated to be for the protection of the environment and save their villages from any kind of pollution issue.
3. It is alleged by them that the 2nd respondent, which is SIPCOT, had obtained Environmental Clearance by playing a fraud on the process by illegal segmentation of the projects in the area based on an EIA Report which has not assessed the impact of the proposed industries to be located in the industrial estate, without any cumulative impact assessment and without consideration of fundamental aspects like waste generation, emissions and effluent discharge etc.
4. The appellants are seeking to get the impugned Environmental Clearance quashed broadly on the following grounds:
(i) Suppression of facts.
(ii) Segmentation.
(iii) No cumulative impact assessment.
(iv) EIA report is not adequate.
(v) Form-I did not contain the required information as categorisation of the project is shifted to 8(b) instead of 7(c) of the EIA Notification, 2006.
(vi) The appraisal done by the SEIAA is not scientific.
5. The 1st respondent, SEIAA, in its counter affidavit has stated that the SIPCOT had applied for TOR for the proposed development of industrial park over an extent of 203.69 ha., by the online proposal dated 21.06.2022. The TOR was issued on 14.07.2022. Later an amendment to the TOR was issued on 06.11.2023 as the project area was increased to 215.834 ha. The SIPCOT had sought for Environmental Clearance for industrial park at Soorapoondi Village in an extent of 215.834 ha., in various survey numbers and in Vaniamallee Village in various survey numbers.
6. The EIA report was submitted by the project proponent on 21.02.2024. It is stated that the project/activity is covered under category “B1” of Item 8(b) of Townships and Area Development Projects of the schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006 on the ground that the area of the industrial park is less than 500 ha., and not housing any industry of category ‘A’ or ‘B’. The entire land of 215.834 ha., is proposed for the industrial park to accommodate electronic/ electrical, engineering/ fabrication industries and other non-EC category industries which do not fall under the purview of the EIA Notification, 2006. The proposal was placed in the 450th meeting of the SEAC which recommended the grant of Environmental Clearance for the project proposal subject to the conditions both specific and general. The said recommendation was placed in the 708th meeting held on 02.04.2024 in which SEIAA accepted the recommendation of the SEAC and decided to grant Environmental Clearance subject to the conditions recommended by SEAC. Accordingly, the Environmental Clearance was issued on 22.04.2024.In the counter affidavit the ground raised by the appellants are not specifically met.
7. The project proponent, namely, the 2nd respondent, SIPCOT has stated that it is an agency dedicated to foste
