National Green Tribunal
Sarang Yadwadkar vs Union Of India on 21 January, 2025
Item No.5 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[Through Physical Hearing (with Hybrid Option)]
APPEAL NO.05 OF 2025 (WZ)
WITH
I.A. NO.04/2025 IN APPEAL NO.05/2025 (WZ)
Sarang Yadwadkar & Anr. ... Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
Date of Hearing : 21.01.2025
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellants : Mr. Ritwick Dutta, Advocate
ORDER
1. This appeal has been filed seeking quashing of the Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 12.11.2024 granted to respondent No. 4 - Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) in respect of Pune River Rejuvenation Project, alleging that respondent No.4 - PMC applied to SEIAA for grant of EC in accordance with the directions given by this Tribunal vide order dated 29.11.2022 passed in Appeal No.12 of 2020. The Project Proponent, through its EIA Consultant - Fine Envirotech Engineers, submitted EIA report in March, 2023, which was considered by SEIAA in its 270th meeting held on 07.11.2023, wherein the matter was deferred. A copy of the said EIA report is annexed to the memo of appeal as Annexure-A11. Thereafter, it took up the matter in its 279th meeting held on 13.08.2024 when the project was recommended for grant of EC in complete disregard of the issues raised in the previous meeting of SEIAA dated 07.11.2023, wherein 18 points were Page 1 of 4 raised to be considered, which are contained at pages 171 to 172 of the paper-book.
2. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the minutes of the next meeting of SEIAA dated 13.08.2024, wherein again those 18 points have been reproduced and under the head `Deliberation in SEIAA', it is recorded (page 183 of the paper-book) as "now PP submitted the compliances". The learned counsel submits that from this cryptic mention of the Project Proponent having submitted, compliances cannot be deduced that 18 points raised in the earlier meeting were all considered because the documents, which were placed before the Authority, are not found on record. The learned counsel also drew our attention to the minutes of the meeting dated 07.11.2023, in which at page 173, the relevant observations by the SEIAA are as follows:
"1. As most of the above points (SEAC Compliances) are highly technical in nature, they will require detailed evaluation. PP to submit compliance of the above 18 listed requirements.
2. Hydraulic and Hydrology study/report is thoroughly vetted/analyzed by CWPRS and CWPRS should specifically comment on -
a) whether after channelization would there be rise in river flooding events in Pune city as well as Pluvial floods beyond both the banks of the rivers
b) whether after channelization at the confluence of Mula Mutha river would there be rise in river flooding events.
c) whether 100 years floods data has been considered while computing the flood levels.
d) as one of the foremost objectives of the project is to, "Reduce the risk of flooding", specific clarification on this should be given including phase wise targets and likely milestones.
e) conformation to Indian Standards Codes for all works including embankments.
f) whether Gol climate change scenarios and particularly conclusions of TERI that there would be 37.5% rise in Page 2 of 4 annual rainfall with reduced number of rainy days i.e. more frequent cloud bursts is considered."
3. Having drawn our attention to the above, it is submitted by the learned counsel that with respect of Hydraulic and Hydrology study, comments, whether after channelization, would there be rise in river flooding events in Pune city as well as other points which have been recorded therein, there appears to be no documentary evidence on record that such a study was conducted and yet, the impugned EC has been granted.
4. From the memo of appeal, it is also reflected that the allegation is made that a false and misleading information has been furnished by the Project Proponent to the effect that CWPRS has examined Hydraulic and Hydrology report and have cleared the same as per their letter dated 26.12.2017. However, the reply of CWPRS reply states that no study has been conducted by them. Further it is mentioned that appraisal of the project has been done on the basis of incorrect information on flood levels in the rivers. The TERI report titled `Maharashtra State Adaptation Action Plan on Climate Change' has not been taken into consideration and the project consultant and CWPRS have not considered the increase in projected rainfall in Pune and ignored the findings of the said report.
5. It is further submitted that the Environmental Clearance requires submission of information by the Project Proponent, which is required to be appraised by the expert committee set up for this purpose i.e. SEAC, which ensures that the information submitted by the Project Proponent is vetted and the veracity of the same is checked. The SEAC has to apply its mind to the information furnished and take decision on the suitability of the project from the point of environmental law. But in this case, all this has not been done. It is Page 3 of 4 further mentioned that Mr. Avinash Surve, being an expert, has given his consent to the recommendations for the project by holding that the project will have no impact on the water resources of the area, despite his contradictory statement made earlier wherein he had stated that the project will have irreversible impact on the rivers and its ecology and should not be allowed to continue.
6. Considering the grounds raised in the memo of appeal, referred to above, we admit the same and direct the Registry to issue notice to the respondents both in appeal as well as I.A. No. 04/2025, returnable within four weeks.
7. The appellants are directed to provide copies of the memo of appeal and that of I.A. No.04/2025 along with the annexures thereto to the respondents, within a week.
8. The appellants are also directed to take necessary steps for service of notice upon the respondents by both ways and also through available e-mail.
9. Put up this matter for next consideration on 24.02.2025.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM January 21, 2025 APPEAL NO.05 OF 2025 (WZ) npj Page 4 of 4