SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 4106

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)



Advocates:
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 comprehensive EIA and CIA is impermissible, violating precautionary principle; mandates holistic cumulative impact assessment for sustainable development.

Headnote:(A) Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 - Items 7(c), 8(a), 8(b) - Segmentation of industrial park project into smaller areas to evade comprehensive environmental scrutiny - Impermissible as it violates Precautionary Principle and Sustainable Development; projects must undergo cumulative impact assessment (CIA) for holistic evaluation of environmental effects including air, water, soil, biodiversity, and socio-economic aspects (Paras 16-25, 32-33).

(B) Cumulative Impact Assessment - Essential for projects in vicinity of existing/proposed developments; must cover geographical/temporal scope, interactions with other projects, ecosystem-wide impacts using robust multi-seasonal data and modeling; mere project-specific EIA inadequate (Paras 25-29).

(C) Environmental Clearance - Prior clearance under abeyance requiring further studies mandates integrated reassessment; suppression of material facts like pending clearances and non-consideration of alternative sites vitiates process; public hearing exemption under 8(b) does not absolve CIA need (Paras 24, 30-31).

Facts of the case:
Residents challenged Environmental Clearance granted for proposed industrial park (215.834 ha.) housing non-EC category industries, alleging illegal segmentation of larger planned estate (~4326 acres across villages), absence of CIA despite nearby suspended prior clearance (279.99 ha.), inadequate EIA, and procedural lapses like TOR amendments removing public hearing.

Findings of Court:
Impugned Environmental Clearance dated 22.04.2024 kept under abeyance; project proponent directed to conduct comprehensive CIA, combine with pending prior clearance, and seek fresh clearance from central authority before proceeding in phases.

Issues: Whether segmentation of industrial estate into smaller parks constitutes evasion of EIA requirements; adequacy of CIA; impact of suspended prior clearance and non-disclosure of facts/alternative sites.

Ratio Decidendi: Segmentation to bypass stringent environmental norms impermissible; CIA mandatory for cumulative effects of phased/large-scale projects near existing developments to uphold sustainable development; clearance process flawed without addressing prior abeyance and holistic impacts.

Result: Appeal allowed; Environmental Clearance kept under abeyance.

Table of Content
1. challenge to ec due to segmentation and inadequate eia (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. seiaa granted ec for 215.834 ha industrial park (Para 5 , 6 , 14)
3. sipcot defends eia compliance and non-ec industries (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. illegal segmentation to evade comprehensive eia (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. courts prohibit segmentation bypassing eia requirements (Para 21 , 22)
6. procedural lapses due to prior ec abeyance (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
7. mandatory comprehensive cumulative impact assessment (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
8. failure to consider alternative sites (Para 30 , 31)
9. quash ec pending cumulative study by moef&cc (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
10. appeal disposed with ec under abeyance (Para 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 i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top