Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 3794
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
SMT. PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J, DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, ACJ
G. Praveena – Appellant
Versus
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) – Respondent
Appeal No. 46 of 2024 (SZ)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. A. Yogeshwaran
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1, Mr. J. Ravindran, AAG along with M/s. Abishek Murthy & Naveen Kumar for R2
Environmental law mandates comprehensive cumulative impact assessments to prevent segmentation tactics that bypass regulatory scrutiny.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 - Challenge to Environmental Clearance granted for an industrial estate without cumulative impact assessment - Allegations of segmentation and inadequate EIA report presented - The appellants argue suppression of facts and failure to comply with mandatory assessment protocols. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 15)
(B) Cumulative Impact Assessment - The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a thorough evaluation of all potential impacts arising from multiple projects, establishing that the segmentation of projects must avoid circumventing stringent environmental regulations. (Paras 26-28)
(C) Environmental Law Principles - The Judgment underscores that segmentation to evade comprehensive environmental assessments contravenes the Precautionary Principle and Sustainable Development doctrine. (Paras 21, 23)
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenge the Environmental Clearance granted to SIPCOT for an industrial estate citing environmental concerns, fraudulent practices in the assessment process, and segmentation strategies that avoid compliance with EIA norms.
Findings of Court:
The Environmental Clearance granted on 22.04.2024 is suspended pending a comprehensive cumulative impact assessment and evaluation of previous clearances.
Issues: The main issue was whether the project was granted clearance appropriately without adhering to necessary cumulative impact assessments and environmental considerations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that segmentation undermines environmental regulations and cumulative impact assessments must be conducted, particularly in ecologically sensitive areas.
Result: The appeal is disposed of with instructions for SIPCOT to conduct an adequate cumulative impact assessment for the project.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to environmental clearance based on claimed environmental concerns. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. concerns raised regarding segmentation and inadequate eia process. (Para 3 , 4 , 15) |
| 3. requirement of cumulative impact assessment to ensure comprehensive environmental evaluations. (Para 21 , 22 , 29) |
| 4. result of the appeal leading to suspension of environmental clearance. (Para 34) |
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 fostering industrial and economic growth in the State of Tamil Nadu. According to the 2nd respondent a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment Study was conducted by the National Accreditation Board for Education and Training (NABET). Environmental Impact Assessment report meticulously analysed all potentia
