Non-disclosure of forest land in EIA process invalidates EC; Public Trust Doctrine mandates scrutiny of forest diversions for non-essential infrastructure.

JUDGEMENT

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member.

1. This Original Application is filed by the residents of Karwar in Uttara Kannada, Karnataka, seeking revocation of the Environmental Clearance dated 23.01.2019 granted in favour of the 4^th Respondent/ Project Proponent on the ground that the same has been obtained without disclosure of all relevant information and that there is a change in scope of the project.

2. The challenge relates to the proposed second stage development of the commercial Karwar Port at Baithkol Village, Karwar Taluk, Uttara Kannada. The existing port has a capacity of 3 MTPA with a total land area of 3 Hectares. This is proposed to be expanded by an additional 1.5 MTPA, amounting to a total of 4.5 MTPA, as stated in the Environmental Clearance dated 23.01.2019. The project was considered by the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) – Karnataka in 2017, the Terms of Reference (ToR) was issued on 01.04.2017, and a recommendation for grant of Environmental Clearance was given on 04.12.2018. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) – Karnataka, in its meeting dated 26.12.2018, decided to accord the Environmental Clearance. The Project Proponent had also applied for the Forest Clearance for diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes. In this regard, the Project Proponent had not disclosed the requirement of either forest land or additional land over and above the 17 Hectares, based on which, the Environmental Clearance was granted earlier. It is alleged by the applicants that the need for forest land was never mentioned during the EIA process.

3. The impugned Environmental Clearance dated 23.01.2019 is now sought to be revoked by the applicants on the following grounds:-

a. The Project Proponent had sought for the Forest Clearance, as the need for the forest was land never part of the EIA process.

b. The Project Proponent did not disclose the requirement of either forest land or additional land over and above the 17 Hectares, based on which, the Environmental Clearance was granted.

c. Additional forest land request of 11.75 Hectares is an expansion project in terms of the total area and also with respect to the number of project related activities that are not listed in the EIA report or during the scoping process as well as appraisal process.

d. While the impugned Environmental Clearance was granted based on the total area involved which was limited only to 17 Hectares, the additional 11.75 Hectares over and above the 17 Hectares is a substantial increase in the land requirement.

e. The construction of additional components was not shown in the EIA Report and the infrastructure facilities were already said to be in place. While so, the Forest Clearance application was submitted on the grounds that the infrastructure facilities such as the Karnataka Maritime Board Office, guest house, two internal roads, Karnataka Maritime Institute, cold storage yard, cement silos, bulk cargo stacking yard, container terminal, parking area, tank terminal, garden, etc. needed to be constructed in the project area.

f. As it was submitted by the Project Proponent that no new road and rail route is proposed under the proposed development, in the Forest Clearance application, two new roads are shown which amounts to a change in scope of the project which requires re-appraisal from the SEIAA –Karnataka.

g. If it is an expansion project, the project will r