Appeal No - Download as DOC

Report as inappropriate Your report has been received

Shared by: N612k8O

Tags

Stats

views:: 30
posted:: 12/7/2011
language:
pages:: 27

Public Domain

Document Sample

Appeal No. 6 and 7/2005- NEAA March 12, 2007

To
1. Shri Neelabh Dubey, 4. Ms. Yogmaya Agnihotri
Advocate for Appellants Advocate for CSECB
(Appeal No. 6/2005) No. 238, New Lawyer’s Chamber
27, Kholi – Vikas Nagar, Supreme Court of India
Bliaspur, Chhatishgarh New Delhi – 110 001

2. Shri Rahul Choudhary 5. The District Collector,
Advocate for Appellant Raigarh District
(Appeal No. 7/2005) Chhatishgarh
#C-106, Golf Links
Sector 40, Noida – 201301.

3. The Secretary, 6. Shri Manish K. Bishnoi,
Ministry of Environment & Forests Advocate for JSPL
Paryavaran Bhawan, #C-67, Sector 14,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, NOIDA.
New Delhi – 110 003
(Attn. Dr. P.B. Rastogi, Addl. Director)

Sub: 1. Appeal No. 6/2005 (Ekta Parishad & Others Vs. Union of India & Ors.)
2. Appeal No. 7/2005 (Lok Shakti Samiti Vs. The Secretary, MoEF and Ors.)

Sir,

As directed the order dated 8th March 2007 of National Environment Appellant
Authority in the above appeals are enclosed.

(D.K. Chopra)
Section Officer
BEFORE THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL APPELLATE AUTHORITY
NEW DELHI

DATED THE 8TH MARCH 2007

CORAM:

Hon'ble Member Kaushlendra Prasad
Hon'ble Member Dr. I.V. Manivannan
Hon'ble Member J.C. Kala

APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2005
IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Ekta Parishad
Represented by Ramkumar Agarwal
Aged about 85 years, S/o. Late Shri Laxman Das Agarwal
R/o. Dani Para Distt. Raigarh
Chhatishgarh

2. Raigarh Jila Bachao Sangharsh Morcha
Represented by Jayan Bohidar, aged about 45 years,
S/o. Shri Sharada Prasad Bohidar,
R/o. Bohidar Para, Distt. Raigarh
Chhatishgarh

3. Shshikant Sharma,
Aged about 50 years, S/o. Shri Ashwini Sharma,
R/o. Kelo Vihar Colony Distt. Raigarh
Chhatishgarh
…APPELLANTS

VERSUS

1. Union of India
Through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests
Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003

2. State of Chhatishgarh
Through Member Secretary
Chhatishgarh State Environment Conservation Board,
D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G)

3. District Collector, Raigarh District, Chhatishgarh
4. M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Limited
Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi – 110 066.
…RESPONDENTS

1. Counsel for Appellants : Mr. Neelabh Dubey, Advocate

Counsel for Respondents:

2. Respondent No. 1 (MoEF) : Dr. P.B. Rastogi, Addl. Director,
Mr. P.R. Saklace, RO, MoEF.

3. Respondent No. 2 (CECB) : Mrs. Yogmaya Agnihotri, Advocate

4. Respondent No. 3 : Not Present
(District Collector, Raigarh)

5. Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Manmohan, Senior Advocate
(Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.) with Mr. Manish Bishnoi, Advocate
Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Advocate
Mr. Ashish Bhardwaj,
Assistant Manager, JSPL

APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2005

IN THE MATTER OF:

Lok Shakti Samiti
Through Ramesh Kumar Agrawal,
Secretary Lok Shakti Samiti,
Orissa Regalplai Road, (Mahendra Moda Godown Complex),
Raigarh (C.G.) 496001

…APPELLANTS

VERSUS

1. Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests
Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003

2. Member Secretary,
Chhatishgarh State Pollution Control Board,
Raipur, Chhatishgarh
3. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.
Patrpali, Kharsia Road,
Raigarh (Chhatishgarh)
…RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Ritwick Dutta, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Choudhary, Advocate

Counsel for Respondents:

1. Respondent No. 1 (MoEF) : Dr. P.B. Rastogi, Addl. Director,
Mr. P.R. Saklace, RO, MoEF.

2. Respondent No. 2 (CECB) : Mrs. Yogmaya Agnihotri, Advocate

3. Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Manmohan, Senior Advocate
(Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.) with Mr. Manish Bishnoi, Advocate
Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Advocate
Mr. Ashish Bhardwaj,
Assistant Manager, JSPL

ORDER

1. The Appellants have filed these appeals under section 11(1) of the National

Environmental Appellate Authority Act, 1997 challenging the Environment

Clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) vide its

impugned Letter No. J-11011/197/2005-IA II (I) dated 10.08.2005 in favour of

M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Limited (JSPL), Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi – 110 066 for expansion of its steel plant at village Patrapalli, Tehsil

and District Raigarh, Chattishgarh. On receipt of the Appeals, the Authority

issued notices to the concerned parties enabling them to file their statements of

objections if any, to the appeals. Most of the Respondents have filed their

statements of objections, after due service of copies of such statements /

objections on the counsel for the Appellants. Since the grounds of appeal and the
relief sought in both the appeals are identical, both the Appeal No. 6/2005 and

Appeal No. 7/2005 filed with this Authority were taken up for hearing

simultaneously by clubbing them together under Rule 8 of the National

Environment Appellate Authority (Appeal) Rules, 1997. The Counsels for the

Appellants and Respondents were heard on 11.07.2006, 03.08.2006, 07.09.2006,

28.09.2006, 02.11.2006 and 22.11.2006. Both of these Appeals are therefore

disposed of in this common order.

2. On conclusion of the arguments on 21.11.2006, the parties were directed to file

their final written submissions on or before 6.12.2006. It is noted that only the

Respondent M/s. JSPL has filed its final written submissions. Therefore the

Authority proceeded to decide the case on the basis of material available on

record.

3. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is necessary to deal with the

preliminary objection raised by the Respondent M/s. JSPL as to the

maintainability of these appeals. Mr. Manmohan Singh, Senior Advocate

appearing for M/s. JSPL contended that

(a) under section 11(1) of the National Environmental Appellate Authority

Act 1997, any person aggrieved by an order granting environment

clearance in certain areas may prefer an appeal to the authority within a

period of thirty days;

(b) section 11(2)(c), which is relevant for the purpose, defines “person” to

mean an association of persons (whether incorporated or not) likely to be
affected by such an order and functioning the field of environment, and

makes it clear tat an association of persons which is likely to be affected

by an order of environment clearance and which is functioning in the field

of environment is conferred with a right to institute an appeal before this

Authority and not that any organization which is working in the field of

environment can file an appeal under this Act;

Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in 1997 (4) SCC 452 to the

effect that when right of an appeal is created under a statute, it has to be

strictly construed and no broader parameters of locus standi applicable in

Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of 226 of the Constitution can

be imported for deciding right of locus standi under the statute;

(d) the Authority is constituted to provide remedy to persons likely to be

affected by an Environmental Clearance order and at the same time not to

allow a meddlesome interloper to thwart a development project for his

own vested interests; and

(e) the Appellant in Appeal No. 6 of 2005 have not made any averment at all

as to how he is likely to be affected by an order of Environment Clearance

despite an opportunity given by the Authority to the Appellant for filing

relevant pleadings;

The Appellant in Appeal No. 7 of 2005 has however, filed an additional affidavit

on 23.09.2006 merely stating that the Appellant organization is working in the

field of environment without explaining how he is affected by the order.
4. The Counsels appearing for Appellants, Mr. Neelabh Dubey and Mr. Rahul

Choudhary objected to the above submissions as being highly technical in nature.

They have argued that

(a) their client organizations are working for the affected people in the

Raigarh area where the proposed project is planned;

(b) the Appellant in Appeal No. 6/2005 are the residents of the affected areas

and therefore it cannot be said that they are not affected by the grant of

Environment Clearance in favour of M/s. JSPL, which will have far

reaching effects on the ecology of the area. He had also undertaken to file

relevant documents in support of his contentions along with his written

submissions; the same has, not however, been received till now;

section 11(2) (c) of the Act, the Appellant in the Appeal No. 7/2005 filed

an additional affidavit stating that the Appellant organization is working in

the field of environment for the benefit of the affected people of the

project area and in the larger interest of the public the present appeal is

filed;

And

(d) this Appellate Authority has vast powers to take cognizance of issues

causing threat to the environment and in view of the seriousness and

sensitivity of the issues involved, the objection needs of to be over-ruled.

They requested this Authority to over rule the objections of the Respondents and

to admit the Appeals for disposal on merits.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsels. It is well

settled that the approach of a court of law should be justice oriented and efforts

must always be made to decide the matter on merits, in tune with the provisions of

the relevant statute. This Authority considered the arguments of both the sides as

well as the role of the Appellant organization working in the field of environment

of the area affected by the proposed expansion of the project and decided to admit

the appeal in both the cases in the larger interest of environment and prevention of

hazardous to human beings, other living creatures, plants and property.

6. Now, we proceed to deal with the merits of appeals filed before this Authority.

6.1 Mr. Neelabh Dubey, the Counsel appearing for the Appellant in Appeal No.

6/2005 submitted that the clearance has been granted without making due and

proper evaluation of the impact of the project on the ecology of the area. In

particular, he alleged that -

(i) The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Report prepared by the

Respondent, M/s. JSPL, is based on incorrect and misleading data as

evidenced by the following points:-

(a) Contradiction in number of villages affected by the project (25

villages mentioned in the EIA report as against 54 villages

indicated in the letter of SDO, Raigarh issued for the purpose of

Public Hearing);

(b) The present phase of industrial unit is not a separate / secluded

industrial unit for which an environment impact assessment needs

to be done:- it is part of larger industrial structure which would be
damaging the environment as a whole and not in parts – the data

should therefore have been shown together;

scales e.g. air pollution in cu. meters per second, water drawal in

cubic meters per hour and solid waste generation in tons per

annum;

(d) Deliberate or callous silence is maintained on various facets of the

report, like drawal of water from Mahanadi – the Water

consumption has been projected on the basis of calculation of 330

days of a year for a industry that works round the year;

(e) There is discrepancy in the data regarding pollutants e.g. the

difference between Total Solid Input (5003080 TPA) and Total

Solid Output (4538820 TPA) amounting to 464260 TPA has not

been dealt with;

(f) The Air Pollution levels indicated in the report are not based on

any calculations which take into account the background pollution.

No overall calculation of main air pollutant, carbon dioxide (CO2)

let out to the atmosphere has been made in the Rapid EIA;

(g) EIA Report does not deal with ecologically sensitive areas like

national parks, wildlife sanctuaries biospheres, where as a reserve

forest is situated at the distance of about 2 km from the proposed

site of the project; and
(h) The report ignores the existence of sites of historical importance

situated at Singhanpur and Basnajhar of the area.

(ii) The construction work on the site had begun prior to the grant of

Environment Clearance vide letter of Collector Raigarh dated 06.05.2005;

(iii) The Public Hearing was not conducted properly as per the requirements of

the relevant notification.

(a) It was first scheduled for 4th January 2005, postponed to 18th

January 2005 and finally conducted on 29th January 2005. Both the

postponements were made without 30 days gap;

(b) The Executive Summary of the Project Report and EIA were not

made available in Hindi Language; and

was complied with.

No information was hared between the administration and the people present in

the Public Hearing.

6.2 Mr. Rahul Choudhary, Learned Counsel for the Appellant in Appeal No.

7/2005 has submitted the following, in addition to the above submissions

made by Mr. Neelabh Dubey, counsel in Appeal No. 6/2005.

(i) The EIA Report suffers from the following defects and inadequacy -

(a) The EIA Report suffers from improper evaluation of the impact of

the project on surrounding monuments, forest reserves, flora and

fauna, noise pollution and air pollution, impact on Kelo and

Mahanadi river due to over drawal of water;
(b) The EIA Report was not made available in Hindi to all the

concerned persons and the Executive Summary was also not made

available to the affected persons, including environmental groups;

and

population adversely by the proposed Project.

(ii) The public hearing was not conducted as per the EIA notification and 30

days advance notice inviting objection was not given prior to the actual

date of Public Hearing i.e. 29.1.2005;

(iii) Even the adjourned dates of Public Hearing were published as a news item

and not as advertisement in the newspapers – this action of CECB does

not fulfill the requirement of the notification;

7. Considering the various points raised by the Counsels in both the Appeals, the

following issues are framed for consideration and decision of this Authority:-

(i) Whether the Environment Impact Report prepared by the

Respondent M/s. JSPL is based on wrong and misleading data?

(ii) Whether the said EIA has made a scientific and complete study of

impact of the proposed project on the ecology of the area?

(iii) Whether the public hearing was conducted by the Authorities as per

the Rules prescribed in the relevant notification?

(iv) Whether the commencement of work by the Project Proponent prior

to issue of Environment Clearance would vitiate the grant of

Environment Clearance?
(v) Whether the Project Proponent has made adequate safeguards for

protection of the environment of the project area?

8. The above issues are taken up for detailed scrutiny in that order. As the first

two issues on data and study are related to EIA Report and EMP, these two

issues are taken up together for consideration.

(i) Whether the Environment Impact Report prepared by the

Respondent M/s. JSPL is based on wrong and misleading data?

and

(ii) Whether the said EIA has made a scientific and complete study of

impact of the proposed project on the ecology of the area?

8.1 Mr. Manmohan, Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent, M/s. JSPL,

has in his arguments referred to relevant provisions of the statute as well as the

EIA notification dealing with the powers of Central Government to lay down

guidelines in connection with setting up of new industrial projects, expansion and

modernization of existing plants defining pollution load as well as the procedure

prescribed therefore. He added that his client has engaged M/s. EMRTC, New

Delhi, a reputed agency in India, prepared a rapid EIA report which has

elaborately dealt with the possible impact on the environment in every aspect. The

procedure prescribed in the notification for obtaining Environment Clearance was

strictly complied with. Since they are not admittedly technical experts, the

Appellants have made only bald averments in the petition unsupported by any

credible scientific study to controvert the EIA Report prepared by the experts, he

added. He referred to the composition of Expert Committee as provided in the
EIA notification, which includes experts of repute from diverse disciplines and its

critical analysis of the report. The sub committee of the said Expert Committee

has inspected the plant site and only thereafter the clearance was granted with

stringent conditions. He added that the powers of this Appellate Authority are

akin to an Appellate Body and it should not interfere with the decision of MoEF

unless the impugned decision is out-rightly wrong and palpably arbitrary and

without application of mind or fraudulent.

8.2 All the Respondents in both the Appeals have filed their arguments in

details. Their replies to the grounds of the appeals are summarized below:

(a) Number of surrounding villages noted in EIA Report were of 1991 census

as the figures of 2001 census were not available and as soon as the

provisional figures of 2001 census were available, the data were revised

by the Project Proponent and submitted to CECB. As the provisional

figures of 2001 census were considered by the Authorities before granting

Environmental Clearance, there is no discrepancy in this regard.

(b) As regards the contention of the Appellant(s) that the Impact Assessment

should have been done for the whole Environment and not in parts, the

Respondent –1 has clarified that the Batelle Environment Valuation

System used in the EIA report is an internationally acclaimed system

which takes into account the adverse as well as beneficial impacts of any

project on the environment. The cumulative impact of the existing plant,
units under construction as well as proposed expansion have been taken

into consideration in the EIA report.

Respondent –1 has clarified that the international units for representing air

emissions, liquid effluent, noise emission etc. have been adopted in EIA

report and there is nothing wrong about such a practice.

(d) M/s. JSPL had obtained permission form State Government to draw 1222

KL / hr of water from Kelo River and 2000 KL/ hr from Mahanadi River,

totaling to 3222 KL/ hr and that the State Government granted the

permission after considering the seasonal availability of water in these

reveres and requirement of villages situated in the downstream of the

river. The efforts of the company have resulted in zero effluent discharge.

It is clarified that the water consumption was worked out on the basis of

330 days of operation in a year leaving out 35 days for scheduled outage

and maintenance.

(e) As regards the discrepancy in the data on input and output of pollutants,

the Respondent, M/s. JSPL, has clarified that the Appellants have not

given any basis or mechanism as to how figures of input and output have

been arrived at and that EIA report has given a material balance for each

of the process wherein total input quantity is matched with the total output

quantity. The material balance for each individual process presented in

Chapter 4 of the EIA report accounts for every ton of input material
against the output from the process. The material balances presented give

a complete picture of what goes in the process and what emerges out

either as a product or a by-product. The figures given by Appellants do not

match with figures mentioned in executive summary. M/s. JSPL has

denied any discrepancy in the data of EIA report in this regard.

(f) As regards the air pollution levels, the counsel for M/s. JSPL argued that

air pollution levels have been specifically mentioned in the report as per

the prevailing rules and guidelines of the MoEF. The National Ambient

Air Quality Standards dated 11.04.94 notified by CPCB have not

stipulated CO2 as an air pollutant and hence no calculation was provided

in the EIA report. It has been further clarified by him that CO2 is granted

due to combustion of fossil fuels and that in the JSPL Complex; no fresh

coal is burnt for power generation which becomes the major source of CO2

generation. The waste from the washery and middling are used to generate

power in FBC boilers and the remainder of the power is generated by

utilizing the waste heat from the exhaust gases of different processes.

As regards the fears of increased vehicular population and vehicular

congestion on the roads, the counsels for Respondent No.1 and

Respondent M/s. JSPL have contended that even today, fuel (coal) and

finished products are being transported to and from the plant without

affecting the population of Raigarh as the transport vehicles use byepass

roads avoiding the city roads and that there will not be any significant

additional transportation load due to this expansion project as almost all
raw material (except coal for 24 MW thermal power plant) will move by

its own dedicated rail line between coal mines at Tammer and Plant Site.

(g) Regarding objection relating to ecologically sensitive habitats, both the

MoEF and M/s. JSPL clarified that the EIA report clearly mentions that

there are no ecologically sensitive habitats like national parks, biosphere

reserves, wildlife sanctuaries and archeological monuments, health resorts

and defence installations within 25 km radius of the site.

(h) As regards the impact of the project on architectural and historic

monuments of the area, the Respondents have stated that the Basnajhar

monuments (paintings) and Singhanpur caves do not fall within 7 kms of

the project and neither of them is notified as protected monuments by ASI.

They have further categorically stated that the Project will not have any

impact on the above sites, as per the air quality modeling studies carried

out.

(i) Regarding the question of rehabilitation of the owners of the land acquired

for the purpose of the project, the Respondent M/s. JSPL has clarified that

out of 143 acres of land to be acquired for the proposed expansion, most

of the land is barren and there is no agricultural activity on it. The

displaced persons will be adequately compensated as per the rules.

Suitable job will be provided according to their qualification and skills.
8.3 The Authority have perused the various documents filed by both the sides,

examined their arguments / counter arguments and found that none of these

objections raised by the Appellants has been left unanswered by the Respondents.

As regards the discrepancy about number of villages noted in Rapid EIA and the

final EIA, it has been clarified that the final Environment Clearance was based on

the provisional figures of 2001 census and not based on figures of 1991 census.

Further, the notice for Public Hearing published in local vernacular newspaper has

provided opportunities of representations to all the project affected villages,

whether it is 25 or 54 villages. As regards the contention raised by the Appellants

that the EIA report does not take into adverse affects likely to be caused to

historical caves we find no merit in the said submission as the EIA study has been

conducted considering 7 km radial study area as per the guidelines of the Ministry

of Environment & Forests. Clearly there are no notified archeological or historic

monuments within Seven km of distance of the project site as has been

specifically stated in its reply by the MoEF. The Appellants have not controverted

this fact. Therefore the challenge of the Appellant to the EIA report being

deficient on this ground cannot be sustained. As regards drawal of water from the

two rivers, we find that the State Government has given the permission for water

drawal after considering the seasonal availability of the water in these rivers and

requirement of villages situated in the downstream of the river for drinking and

other purposes. No supporting material has been placed by the Appellants on

record to prove their contentions. The allegations are based on mere conjectures

and surmises and they are therefore liable to be dismissed. Same is the fate of
their contention on the alleged discrepancy in data on input and output of

pollutants.

8.4 A perusal of EIA report revels the impact of the project on various aspects

of pollution e.g. emission of CO2 and its impacts on air pollution, vehicular

pollutions caused by traffic congestion on the local roads, the waste from the

washery and middling and utilization of waste heat from the exhaust gases of

different process. This Authority notes that EIA Report clearly mentions that there

are no ecologically sensitive habitats like National Parks, Biosphere Reserves,

Wildlife Sanctuaries etc. We further note that Sanghanpur and Basnajhar sites are

more than 11 km and 14 km respectively and fall outside the 7 km limit provided

in the notification.

8.5 Most of the objections raised by the Appellants remain mere

unsubstantiated allegations. We find that there are no scientific or technical

justifications to support the contentions of the Appellants in both the Appeals. On

the other hand, we find the EIA report has been prepared following the Batelle

Environment Valuation System which is an Internationally acclaimed system and

which takes both the adverse and the beneficial impact of the project on the

environment into consideration. It has also been scrutinized by the technical

experts of MoEF. Further, the Appellants have not produced any material to

convince us to accept their contention.

8.6 We therefore hold that the EIA report prepared by the Respondent, M/s.

JSPL is not based on wrong and misleading data. Again, for the reasons explained
in preceding paras, we further hold that the EIA report has made a scientific and

complete study of impact of the proposed project on the ecology of the area. Thus

both the first two issues are accordingly answered.

9. The Third issue is whether the Public Hearing was conducted by the concerned

Authorities as per the Rules prescribed in the relevant notification. The issue of

conduct of Public Hearing by CECB has been hotly contested by the both parties.

9.1 The Counsel for the Appellants have agitated before this Authority in a

detailed manner as noted in paras 6.1 (iii) and 6.2 (ii) and (iii) above. Respondent

- 2 has filed detailed statement on this point and MoEF has endorsed his stand.

9.2 We have perused the reply filed on behalf of the Respondent – 2, which is

the authority entrusted with the work of organizing Public Hearing under the EIA

notification. We find that on 01.12.2004, the District Collector, Raigarh fixed the

date of Public Hearing as 04.01.2005. the notice of this hearing was duly

published on 03.12.2004 an don 04.12.2004 in local deilies Kalo Pravah and

Raigarh Sandesh. The Executive Summary as well as the EIA Report were made

accessible to the general public. However, on the specified date, the public

hearing was disrupted by certain groups of persons which necessitated its

adjournment to 18.1.2005. As the Local Bodies poll clashed with the Public

Hearing on that date, the Public Hearing was again postponed to a later date. The

next date was duly publicized in the newspapers on 13.1.2005 in Kelo Pravah,

Dainik Jankarma, Raigarh Sandesh etc. Thereafter, the Public Hearing was duly

held on 29.01.2005. It was attended by a large gathering of people and the
comments / suggestions received by the Public Hearing panel were forwarded to

the Central Government.

9.3 The Counsels for the Appellants have argued that 30 days gap should have

been allowed between both these 19.01.2005 and date of Public Hearing

(29.01.2005). This claim has to be scrutinized with reference to the relevant

provisions of the Notifications. As per Schedule IV (2) of EIA Notification 1994,

30 days gap should be provided between date of Publication of the notice

(03.12.2004) and the proposed date of Public Hearing (04.01.2005). This

requirement has been fully met with by District Collector, Raigarh. But, the

Appellants have insisted on 30 days gap is mandatory dates also. A perusal of

above Notification makes it clear that 30 days gap is mandatory only for the first

date of Public Hearing and not for the adjourned dates. We do not fail to note that

the first adjournment was necessarily by unruly behaviour of certain sections of

the gathering and the second adjournment was made inevitable by the election for

Local Bodies on 18.01.2004.

9.4 The contention that the notice should be advertised and not published as

news item is highly technical in nature. The spirit of the Notification is the

dissemination of information about the Public Hearing so as to make the affected

people aware of the Public Hearing on the Project. As long as that purpose is

served by the action of the Executive Authority, nobody should have any genuine

grievance on the issue.
9.5 As regards the contention of the Appellants that the request for recording

the minutes of the Public Hearing was not complied with, as noted in paragraph

6.1 (iii)(c) above, a perusal of the minutes of the Public Hearing were recorded in

the form of Minutes of the meeting. It is noted that the fact of the receipt of 4392

representation / suggestions / comments / complaints etc., along with 3 banners is

also part and parcel of the said Minutes. These representation / suggestions /

comments / complaints etc., were considered by the Expert Committee (Industry)

and its Sub Committee. Based on their recommendations, specific conditions have

been incorporated as conditions attached to the Environment Clearance granted by

the Central Government.

9.6 As regards the failure of the Respondent, CECB to make copies of the

Executive Summary of the Project and EIA Report available in English and Hindi

to the affected people, we find that Executive Summary of the Project was made

accessible in both English and Hindi to them and EIA were made by accessible to

the People concerned in English only. As CECB has fully met the requirements of

the prescribed procedure, we do not find any violations in this regard.

9.7 Regarding the allegation that notice for Public Hearing was not served on

the Gram Panchayat with reference to the decision of Gujarat High Court, we hold

that the CECB has not violated in this regard any provision prescribed in the said

Notification.
9.8 We therefore, find no substance in the contentions of the Appellants

and we hold that the Public Hearing was conducted by CECB following the

procedure prescribed in relevant Notification.

10. The Fourth issues revolves around the alleged commencement of work by the

Project Proponent prior to issue of Environment Clearance which would,

according to the Appellants, vitiate the process of grant of Environment

Clearance.

10.1 As stated in para 6.1 (ii), the Counsel for the Appellants has argued that

the construction work on the sites had begun in May 2005, vide letter of District

Collector, Raigarh dated 06.05.2005 while the Environment Clearance was issued

by Respondent – 1 in their letter dated 10.08.2005 and the Environment Clearance

should therefore by quashed. The Learned Senior Counsel for M/s. JSPL has

argued that only leveling work and fabrication work were done on the land owed

by themselves and this fact was also reported to District Authorities in response to

their notice in this regard. He added that as the State Authorities were satisfied

with their explanations, the matter was not pursued further by them. M/s. JSPL

claimed that this fact cannot be a valid ground for cancellation of Environment

Clearance.

10.2 This Authority is aware of the inherent powers of CECB to regulate the

establishment of new industrial units and modifications of the existing units.

These powers of State PCBs (including CECB) include (a) grant of consent to

establish the unit and (b) consent to operate the unit. All that M/s. JSPL has done
is that it has taken certain preliminary steps to get their own land ready in form of

leveling the grounds. As this was done without any specific permission of the

CECB, CECB had to intervene and even this preliminary work was stopped. We

therefore, do not find any serious ground to declare that such actions on the part

of M/s. JSPL would vitiate the process of grant of Environment Clearance. The

argument of Appellants in this aspect also fails.

11. The fifth and last issue to be decide now is whether the Project Proponent

has made adequate safeguards for protection of the environment of the

project area. The submissions made by various Respondents as well as

Environment Management Plan submitted by the M/s. JSPL deal with various

steps taken by the Project Proponent for this purpose.

(i) The Environment Management Plan presented in the EIA Report takes

into account preventive action to be taken by industry with reference to

existing emission norms. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards

dated 11.04.1994 notified by CPCB have not stipulated CO2 as an air

pollutant and hence no calculation was provided in the EIA Report. It has

been further clarified that CO2 is generated due to the combustion of fossil

fuels and that in the JSPL Complex, no fresh coal is burnt for power

generation which becomes the major source of CO2 generation. The

statutory authorities have also imposed limits of the ambient air quality to

be maintained within and outside the factory premises.
(ii) The waste from the washery and middling are used to generate power in

FBC boilers and the remainder of the power is generated by utilizing the

waste heat from the exhaust gases of different processes. As regards the

waste disposal management, it has been explained that the Blast Furnace

slag will be granulated and sold to cement plants, and ash will be used for

cement making, brick making industry as well as land filling purposes.

(iii) As regards the question of possible impact on water, we note that M/s.

JSPL has already achieved zero effluents status in respect of the existing

unit and they have promised to continue to maintain this status even after

commissioning of the expansion unit. The drawal of 3222 KL/ per hour of

water from the two rivers is not likely to have any adverse impact, as the

State Government seems to have taken a conscious decision in granting

permission of drawal of the water after taking into consideration the

existing use of river water for irrigation, drinking, fishing and other

community uses on a long term basis.

(iv) We are inclined to agree with the contentions of the counsel for M/s. JSPL

that the flora (generally Tendu Trees) and fauna of the area are not likely

to be affected due to elaborate pollution control measures taken up by the

Project Proponent.

(v) As regards the fears of increased vehicular population and vehicular

congestion on the roads, the Respondent No. 1 and the counsel for the

Respondent M/s. JSPL have contended that even today, fuel (coal) and
finished products are being transported to and from the plant on bypass

roads avoiding the city roads and without affecting the population of

Raigarh. We are inclined to agree that additional air pollution due to

Proposed Project will be minimal as almost all raw material (except coal

for 24 MW thermal power plant) will move by its own dedicated rail line

between coal mines at Tammer and Plant Site.

(vi) During the course of the hearing of the cases, we have considered the

reply filed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and also Dr. P.B.

Rastogi, Addl. Director, MoEF. He mentioned that during the course of

Public Hearing held on 29.01.2005, 4292 representation / suggestions /

comments / complaints etc., along with 3 banners were received and they

were considered by the Expert Committee. On the directions of the said

committee, the Sub- Committee inspected the area on 17.07.2005, studied

the relevant aspects and made a series of recommendations in this regard.

These recommendations were considered by the said Expert Committee on

19.07.2005 and only thereafter that the Environmental Clearance was

accorded on 06.08.2005 by the Central Government with several specific

and general conditions. It is clear that the various representation /

suggestions / comments / complaints etc., of the people of the affected

area have been taken into consideration by the MoEF while granting the

Environment Clearance.
We are therefore convinced that the project proponent has taken

adequate safeguards for protection of the environment in the project area.

As may be seen from the above, all the five issues relevant for final

decision on the appeals have been examined and decision of the Authority have

been given.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goa Foundation Vs. Diksha Holding

Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 97, that while maintaining and preserving

environment and ecology, economic development of the State has also to be kept

in mind and a balance has to be struck between the two. Similarly in the case of

Live Oak Fores Vs. Panchagani Hill Station (2001) 8 SCC the Hon'ble Apex

Court has ruled that

“while ecology cannot be given a go by in the same vein development

process can not be ignored; as a matter of fact the law courts thus

evoked the factum of striking a balance between development and

ecology since in a developing economy, there cannot be either

development or ecology but both must exist and thus a balance shall

have to be struck between the two as otherwise the society will perish

in absence of either of the two elements, noticed above”.

The proposed project is also going to create economic growth and

employment opportunities in the backward area of Chhatishgarh State besides

infrastructural growth in the area and elsewhere as steel is a critical input of
industrial development of the country. Therefore the Development aspect of the

project can not be ignored especially in the back ground that the Project

Proponent has already taken adequate measures to safeguard / protect the

environment.

13. In tune with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and having perused

the material placed before this Authority by both the parties, we conclude that

Environmental Clearance granted by Respondent No.1 vide their letter no. J-

11011/197/2005-IA II(I) dated 10th August, 2005 in favour of M/s. JSPL for

expansion of steel plant at Village Patrapali, Tehsil Raigarh, District Raigarh,

Chhatishgarh cannot be interfered with. Both the Appeals are therefore

dismissed as devoid of merits.

14. No orders on cost are passed.

(J.C. Kala) (Dr. I.V. Manivannan) (K. Prasad)
Member Member Member