Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 4175

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapat, 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 violates precautionary principle and sustainable development.

Headnote:EIA Notification, 2006 governs environmental clearance for industrial parks under category 8(b) for areas less than 500 ha without category A/B industries. Residents challenged clearance for 215.834 ha industrial estate alleging illegal segmentation of larger 1751 ha project, lack of cumulative impact assessment (CIA), inadequate EIA report, and suppression of facts including prior suspended clearance. Court found segmentation to evade comprehensive EIA violated precautionary principle and sustainable development, inadequate CIA failed to assess broader ecosystem impacts, and alternative sites not properly evaluated. Issues framed: Whether segmentation of contiguous lands for industrial estate constitutes evasion of EIA requirements; adequacy of CIA considering prior clearance under abeyance; compliance with Form-I and appraisal norms. Ratio: Segmentation impermissible per precedents; CIA must evaluate incremental effects from past, present, future actions on air, water, biodiversity; prior clearance suspension necessitated integrated assessment before MoEF&CC. Impugned Environmental Clearance dated 22.04.2024 kept under abeyance; project proponent directed to conduct cumulative study and seek prior clearance from MoEF&CC.

Table of Content
1. challenge to ec for industrial estate alleging segmentation and inadequate eia. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. respondents defend ec compliance under eia notification 8(b) category. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. segmentation of larger project impermissible to evade comprehensive eia. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. inadequate cia fails to assess cumulative environmental impacts. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. ec suspended; mandates cumulative study before moef&cc. (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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 1^st 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 450^th 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 708^th 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 2^nd 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 2^nd respondent a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment