Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 3061
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, Judicial Member, VIJAY KULKARNI, Expert Member
M. Venkata Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana Represented by its Chief Secretary – Respondent
Original Application No.136 of 2023(SZ) | I.A. Nos.149 & 150 of 2024(SZ)
For Applicant(s): Mr. Shivang Singh a/w. Mrs. Mamatha Ralla
For Respondent(s):Ms. E. Niveditha represented Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali for R1, R4 to R6. Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R2. Ms. G. Lavanya represented Mr. T. Sai Krishnan for R3. Mr. K.S. Viswanathan, Senior Advocate a/w. Mrs. T. Hemalatha/Counsel for I.A.
Area development projects below 50 ha/1,50,000 sq.m thresholds and flood control works are exempt from prior EC under EIA Notification; frivolous environmental applications merit exemplary costs to curb judicial abuse.
Headnote:(A) EIA Notification, 2006 - Item 8(b) & S.O. 3977(E) dated 14.08.2018 - Environmental Clearance - Riverfront development project classified as area development under 50 ha and built-up area under 1,50,000 sq. m does not require prior EC - Flood control works like protection walls, check dams, and feeder canals exempted from EIA requirements - No EC mandated where project components below thresholds and exempt under notifications. (Paras 11, 15, 19, 22-25)
(B) NGT Procedure - Frivolous litigation - Application filed without merit, politically motivated, followed by withdrawal request citing change in government - Devoid of bona fides, burdens judicial system - Imposition of exemplary costs justified to deter abuse of process, supported by Supreme Court precedents on vexatious petitions clogging justice. (Paras 29-35)
Facts of the case:
Applicant challenged riverfront project for lacking EIA and EC, alleging blasting, pollution, and dam risks near irrigation dam. Respondents submitted reports confirming project areas below EC thresholds, irrigation works as exempt flood mitigation, tourism components limited and halted. Applicant later sought withdrawal, attributing initial filing to prior government illegalities and trusting new government's safeguards.
Findings of Court:
No EC required as irrigation flood works exempt and tourism elements below Item 8(b) limits; no evidence of ongoing harmful blasting; application frivolous, politically motivated; costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on applicant for misuse of process, with utilization for tree plantation, bar amenities, litigant facilities.
Issues: Whether riverfront project requires prior EC under EIA Notification; validity of exemptions for flood control; genuineness of application given withdrawal request.
Ratio Decidendi: Projects under specified thresholds and exempt notifications need no prior EC; frivolous, meritless applications warrant exemplary costs to protect judicial resources and deter abuse, especially where applicant reverses stance post-government change.
Result: Original Application dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/-; interlocutory applications closed; liberty to proceed with project per law, with vigilance directive.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. riverfront project lacks eia and ec (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. applicant seeks eia and restoration (Para 5) |
| 3. project below ec thresholds per authorities (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. tourism components limited, halted pending approvals (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. irrigation flood works exempted from eia (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. no ec required; works are flood control (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. project exempt; future expansions scrutinized (Para 25 , 26) |
| 8. applicant withdraws, questioning bona fides (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 9. frivolous litigation warrants exemplary costs (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 10. application dismissed with costs imposed (Para 35 , 36) |
JUDGEMENT
1. The present Original Application is filed by the applicant, a resident of Karimnagar, raising concerns regarding irregularities in the development and construction of the ‘Manair Riverfront Project’ at Karimnagar, Telangana, without conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Study and not obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) from the appropriate authorities.
2. The project was initiated by Respondent No.4 - Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation Limited and Respondent No.6 - Irrigation Department, on the Manair River, adjacent to the Lower Manair Dam (LMD).
3. It is alleged by the applicant that authorities are engaging in large-scale activities, including blasting within the river, without proper environmental safeguards, thereby causing potential damage to the river ecosystem. Blasting near an irrigation dam poses a severe risk due to high vibrations that may lead to structural damage, cracks, or even a dam failure, resulting in disastrous consequences. The blasting activities are contributing to air and noise pollution, adversely affecting the residents of Karimnagar. The ecosystem of the Manair River is being negatively impacted by these activities, which are occurring alarmingly close to the Lower Manair Dam.
4. It is further alleged that the riverfront project includes the construction of a check dam, flood banks, recreational spaces, open-air theatres, tourist attractions, and a boating area. Large- scale construction activities are being carried out using heavy equipment and vehicles, exacerbating environmental degradation. The Manair Riverfront Project falls under the category of ‘Area Development Projects’ as per the EIA Notification, 2006 (Category B) and requires prior Environmental Clearance.
5. Hence, the applicant filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs:-
“a. Direct the project proponent to execute the Maneru River Front Project only after conducting Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) studies and after obtaining appropriate Environment and other clearances from TSEIAA/ Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and Telangana State Pollution Control Board.
b. Direct the Project Proponent and Respondents of Telangana not to construct permanent structures on floodplains, within river contrary to the guidelines of MoEF and Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.
c. Direct the regulatory agencies to assess the damage caused to the Maneru river and its surroundings by the project proponent.
d. Direct the Official Respondents to restore the damaged area.”
6. Considering the gravity of the issue raised, this Tribunal admitted the matter and issued notice to respondents through the Tribunal as well as privately. Upon notice, the respondents entered appearance through their counsel and filed their respective pleadings.
7. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) / Respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit dated 16.10.2024, stating that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification issued by the MoEF&CC regulates the construction of new projects or expansion/modernization of existing ones, requiring prior Environmental Clearance (EC) under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act.
8. The counter affidavit states that with reference to the appli
