National Green Tribunal
Mr. Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs Union Of India Through Secretary Moef & ... on 7 July, 2021
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Item No. 01 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(By Video Conferencing)
Appeal No. 45/2020(WZ)
(I.A. No. 102/2020)
Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman & Anr. Appellant(s)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 07.07.2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant(s): Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Advocate
ORDER
1. This appeal has been preferred against Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 19.08.2020 granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) for expansion cum modernization of Soda Ash manufacturing unit (from 35,720 TPM to 45020 TPM) and Co-
generation power plant (20 MW to 40 MW) by M/s. Saurashtra Chemicals (Division of Nirma Ltd.) at Birlasagar, Porbandar, Gujarat.
2. The impugned EC shows details of existing and proposed products as follows:-
" Production Capacity (TPM)
S. Total
Product Proposed
No Existing after
Additional
expansion
1 Soda Ash (Light) 35720 9300 45020
2 Caustic Lye 620 0 620
(100%)
3 Soda Ash (Dense) 5100 0 5100
1
4 Sodium Bi- 1800 660 2400
Carbonate
5 Power 20 MW 20 MW 40 MW
(Co-generation
Power Plant) "
3. Expansion does not require any additional land. The estimated project cost is ₹151.78 crores, excluding existing investment of ₹764.16 crores. Total capital cost earmarked towards environmental pollution control measures is ₹1.25 crores and the recurring cost (operation and maintenance) will be about ₹53.12 lakh per annum. Total existing employment is 1169 persons as direct and 400 persons will be indirect after expansion.
4. The impugned EC records further facts and steps taken which are as follows:-
"5. Porbandar Bird Sanctuary is at a distance of 885 meters in North-west direction. Arabian Sea is flowing at a distance of 0.520 km in SW direction.
6. Total water requirement is 176100 m3/day which will be met from Arabian Sea. The Effluent of 169960 m3/day quantity will be treated through Effluent Treatment Plant. Treated water will be discharged in to Arabian sea beyond lowest tile water level through closed pipeline and diffuser system. Domestic sewage (1000 KLD) shall be disposed off though septic tank/soak pit system. Power requirement after expansion will be 33.8 MW including existing 24.9MW and will be met from Captive Co-generation power plant & Paschim Gujarat Vij Corporation limited (PGVCL). Existing unit has one DG set of 1500 KVA capacity, is used as standby during power failure. Stack (height 20 m) will be provided as per CPCB norms to the proposed DG sets. Existing unit has 240 TPH (Two boilers with 120 TPH each-regular) and one boiler 120 TPH (Standby) Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustion (CFBC) boilers. Additionally, 120 TPH CFBC boiler (presently stand by) will be in regular use. Electrostatic Precipitators with existing common stack of height of 100m will be installed for controlling the particulate emissions within the statutory limit of 50 mg/Nm3 for the proposed regularization of boiler.
7. The project/activities are covered under category A of item 4(e) 'Soda ash industry' and category B of item 1(d) 'Thermal Power Plants' of the schedule to the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, and requires appraisal/approval at central level by the sectoral EAC in the Ministry.
28. The standard terms of reference (ToR) was granted by the Ministry on 24th May, 2019. The public hearing was conducted by the State Pollution Control Board on 10th January, 2020. The public hearing was presided over by the District Magistrate. The main issues raised during the Public Hearing are related to death of fishes due to discharge of effluent by the unit and fish harvesting by fishermen.
9. The proposal for environmental clearance was considered by the EAC (Industry-2) in its meeting held on 11-13 May, 2020. The project proponent and their accredited consultant M/s T.R. Associates, made a detailed presentation through Video Conferencing (VC) and have presented the EIA/EMP report. The Committee found the EIA/EMP report to be satisfactory, complying with the ToR, and recommended the project for grant of environmental clearance.
10. The EAC, constituted under the provision of the EIA Notification, 2006 and comprising of Experts Members/domain experts in various fields, have examined the proposal submitted by the Project Proponent in desired form along with EIA/EMP report prepared and submitted by the Consultant accredited by the QCl/ NABET on behalf of the Project Proponent. The EAC noted that the Project Proponent has given undertaking that the data and information given in the application and enclosures are true to the best of his knowledge and belief and no information has been suppressed in the EIA/EMP report. If any part of data/information submitted is found to be false/ misleading at any stage, the project will be rejected and Environmental Clearance given, if any, will be revoked at the risk and cost of the project proponent.
11. The Committee noted that the EIA/EMP report is in compliance of the ToR issued for the project, reflecting the present environmental concerns and the projected scenario for all the environmental components. The Committee has found the baseline data and incremental GLC due to the proposed project within NAAQ standards. The Committee has also deliberated on the public hearing issues, action plan and CER plan and found to be addressing the issues in the study area and the issues raised during the public hearing. The EAC has deliberated the proposal and has made due diligence in the process as notified under the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006, as amended from time to time and accordingly made the recommendations to the proposal. The Experts Members of the EAC have found the proposal in order and have recommended for grant of Environmental Clearance (EC) subject to further examination vis-a-vis CRZ clearance. In this context, the proposal was processed and forwarded to CRZ for comments on 8th June 2020. CRZ sector has sought certain information which PP has submitted on 30th June 2020 and again forwarded to CRZ on 6th July & 20th July 2020 for comments. CRZ sector has provided the comments on 30.07.2020.
12. The proposal has been further examined in the Ministry and it is observed that EAC has recommended Rs. 3 crore towards the Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) on expansion cost of Rs. 151.78 crore which should be maximum of Rs. 1.14 crore @ 0.75% of the cost for expansion project as per the Ministry's Office Memorandum No. 22- 65/2017-IA.III on CER dated 01.05.2018. Accordingly, the competent 3 authority in the Ministry has approved the CER cost of Rs. 1.14 crore. The CER funds shall be utilized as per the specific condition no. 14 (xv).
13. The environmental clearance granted to the project/activity is strictly under the provisions of the EIA Notification 2006 and its amendments. It does not tantamount/construe to approvals/consent/ permissions etc. required to be obtained or standards/conditions to be followed under any other Acts/ Rules/ Subordinate legislations, etc., as may be applicable to the project. The project proponent shall obtain necessary permission as mandated under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, as applicable from time to time, from the State Pollution Control Board, prior to construction & operation of the project."
The impugned EC is subject to Specific and General Conditions which include study of impact of pollution on fish harvesting, report on improvements done through modernization. Other conditions are to ensure necessary safeguards for protection of the environment. Manner of discharge of treated water is specified as follows:
"(ii) Treated water of 169960 m3/day shall be discharged to Arabian sea beyond lowest tile level through closed pipeline and diffuser system."
Other Specific Conditions are as follows:
"(xi) Fly ash should be stored separately as per CPCB guidelines so that it should not adversely affect the air quality, becoming air borne by wind or water regime during rainy season by flowing along with the storm water. Direct exposure of workers to fly ash & dust should be avoided.
(xii) The company shall undertake waste minimization measures as below:-
a. Metering and control of quantities of active ingredients to minimize waste.
b. Reuse of by-products from the process as raw materials or as raw material substitutes in other processes. c. Use of automated filling to minimize spillage. d. Use of Close Feed system into batch reactors. e. Venting equipment through vapour recovery system. f. Use of high pressure hoses for equipment clearing to reduce wastewater generation."
5. Main contention on behalf of the appellant is that there should be further safeguards to avoid adverse impact on the adjacent Bird 4 Sanctuary. Necessary pollution control devises must be installed.
Precaution must also be taken to prevent contamination of ground water and damage to the marine life.
6. Violations alleged and safeguards expected have been setup by the appellant as follows:-
"a. Because Environment Clearance dated 19.08.2020 is procured in ex-post facto manner and by making substantial change in scope of project.
b. Because Application for ToR dated 12.04.2019 and Application dated 13.03.2020 for EC is nothing but defective and suppressing vital information required for appraisal and assessment.
c. Because admittedly Project under challenge is established in 1959, whereas first EIA notification is enforced on 04.05.1991. There is substantial increase in the capacity of the Project even after 04.05.1991, but PP failed to obtain the Environment Clearance under EIA Notification-1991 even after 04.05.1991.
d. Because there is substantial increase in the capacity of the Project even after 14.09.2006, But PP failed to obtain prior Environment Clearance under EIA Notification-2006 even after 14.09.2006.
e. Because there is substantial increase in the capacity of the Project, But PP failed to obtain prior CRZ clearance under CRZ Notification-1991 dated 19.02.1991 and Amended CRZ Notification-2011 dated 06.01.2011.
f. Because PP failed to obtain prior Wildlife Clearance under guidelines issued by MoEF & CC vide F. No. 1-9/2007 WL-I(pt) dated 09.02.2011.
g. Because Project is sharing boundaries with Porbandar Bird Sanctuary and it is affecting adversely to the Bird Sanctuary due to its water pollution, air pollution, noise, emission of gases etc. h. Because this project is discharging polluted water without scientific treatment and government authorities are intentionally neglecting this pollution at the cost of Mother Nature.
i. Because this project has created eminent threat to the marine life and causing serious irreparable damage to the environment, ecology, marine life, costal area from Porbandar to Due and wildlife.5
j. Because it is admitted in Consent to Operate dated 02.12.2014 that, the Project has manufacturing facility of Soda Ash (Light:
28,000 MT/month & Dense: 6,000 MT/ month), Sodium Bicarbonate (1100 MT/month), Caustic Lye (620 MT/month) and Liquid Bromine (20 MT/month).
k. Because it is admitted in 1st meeting of EAC held on 28.12.2016 that, the Project is in operation since 1959 is catering to the manufacturing facility of Soda Ash (Light:
28,000 MT/month & Dense: 6,000 MT/ month), Sodium Bicarbonate (1100 MT/month), Caustic Lye (620 MT/month) and Liquid Bromine (20 MT/month).
l. Because the PP has filed application for ex-post facto EC in 2016 for expansion of Power Plant, which was considered in 1st EAC Meeting held on 28.12.2016 and same application is not placed on MoEF Website intentionally, but Minutes of 1st meeting clearly shows that PP has misleaded to EAC on account of distance of Porbandar City at 3.5 Km, Distance of Arabian Sea at 1.5 Km, Distance of project boundary beyond 500 M from CRZ boundary, EIA Notification-2006, distance of Porbandar Bird Sanctuary at 1.1 Km protected under Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, additional fuel non-requirement for increase of capacity to 40 MW, no additional water requirement, use of prohibited fuel of lignite etc. m. Because the PP has filed amended application for ex-post facto EC in 23.02.2017 for expansion of Power Plant, which was considered in 21st EAC Meeting held on 27.02.2017 with exemption in public hearing & EAC concluded that environment scenario will not change by this expansion in Power Plant and recommended the proposal for grant of EC and then considered in 25th EAC Meeting held on 07.07.2017, however MoEF did not accepted the proposal for grant of EC and EAC decided to issue ToR and accordingly ToR dated 25.08.2017 were issued with conditions of Zero liquid discharge plan, Green Belt of 10 M, 33% of green Cover, Public Hearing, EIA Report, NBWL recommendation wrt to Porbandar Bird Sanctuary, GCZMA recommendation wrt to CRZ Notififcation-2011, study on migration of bird & biodiversity, MoU for Flyash use, Certified Compliance Report of Regional Officers from MoEFCC & GPCB which are not complied in letter & spirit by PP and there is misleading, false & baseless information is submitted to EAC.
n. Because the Director of Environment Department Government of Gujarat has recommended the CRZ proposal to MoEFCC vide its letter dated 20.01.2018 for grant of CRZ Clearance for Replacement of Existing Seawater Intake Pipeline & Enhancement in Seawater Intake by Developing Two Earthen Ponds and Auxiliary Facilities without there being prior EC under EIA Notification-1991 & 2006 and only on the basis of non-complied Consent to Operates from GPCB and based on false & misleading HTL & LTL maps.
o. Because PP filed false, misleading, baseless, misconceived application on 12.02.2018 for Replacement of Existing 6 Seawater Intake Pipeline & Enhancement in Seawater Intake by Developing Two Earthen Ponds and Auxiliary Facilities before MoEFCC and EAC (CRZ) considered this proposal in its 186th meeting held on 27.03.2018 and recommended the CRZ clearance for replacement of pipeline.
p. Because PP further approached the EAC with substantial change in the scope of project for replacement of pipeline for intake sea water and decided to left the water from deep sea to avoid the scarcity of water during low tide and therefore the EAC in its 194th meeting held on 27.07.2018 decided to visit the project site and to prepare the visit report to take further decision and case was deferred. But no such report is submitted on record and not placed online on MOEF website of 'Parivesh'.
q. Because it is admitted in Application for ToR for expansion through modernization dated 12.04.2019 that, the Project has manufacturing facility of Soda Ash (Light: 35,720 MT/month & Dense: 5100 MT/ month), Sodium Bicarbonate (1800 MT/month), Caustic Lye (620 MT/month) and Liquid Bromine (20 MT/month). It means there is substantial increase in the capacity of production of Soda Ash from 28000 MT/ Month to 35720 MT/ Month and Sodium Bicarbonate from 1100 MT/month to 1800 MT/Month from year 02.12.2014 to 12.04.2019 without obtaining prior mandatory EC.
r. Because EAC has not place the minutes of 213th meeting dated 26.04.2019 wherein the proposal for replacement of pipeline for seawater was finally considered before grant of CRZ clearance.
s. Because the DCF Porbandar in connivance with PP has misleaded the EAC on account of M/s. Saurashtra Chemicals distance form Eco-sensitive Zone Limits of Porbandar Bird Sanctuary vide its letter dated 04.05.2019.
t. Because without EIA, without public hearing, without proposer study, MoEFCC granted CRZ Clearance for replacement of existing seawater intake pipeline vide letter dated 22.05.2019 by manipulating the vital facts wrt to environment, ecology, wildlife, marine life, CRZ, etc. and this CRZ Clearance is considered as base for grant of EC under challenge, therefore many wrongs cumulatively cannot make right thing.
u. Because there is no appraisal of the proposal dated 12.04.2019 for expansion through modernization of project by EAC before grant of Terms of reference, also there is no scrutiny of the proposal.
v. Because it is admitted in Application for ToR for expansion through modernization dated 12.04.2019 that, the following production capacities those are without prior EC and therefore this application for Prior EC dated 01.04.2020 is illegal as there is completion of project increasing the capacity of production as sought under EC dated 19.08.2020.
7 Sr. Name of Product Existing as Proposed Total No. per Expansion production Consent MT/Month Capacity MT/Month after expansion MT/Month 1 Soda Ash(Light) 35,720 9,300 45,020 2 Soda Ash(Dense) 5100 0 5100 3 Caustic Lye (100 %) 620 0 620 4 Sodium Bi-Carbonate 1800 600 2400 5 Liquid Bromine 20 0 20 Power 20 MW 20 MW 40 W 6 (Co-generation Plant) w. Because MoEF has granted ToR on 25.06.2019 without
appraisal of proposal by Expert Committee.
x. Because the public hearing is not conducted in by following due procedure of law and also no objection is incorporated in final EIA Report and none of the objections is considered by the MoEFCC & EAC while grant of EC.
y. Because cumulative environmental impact of three project viz.
Seawater intake pipeline upgradation, Expansion of the Power Plant from 20 MW to 40 MW and expansion for capacity increase in production of Soda Ash (Light), Soda Ash(Dense), Caustic Lye (100%), Sodium Bi‐Carbonate, Liquid Bromine has not considered together to take appropriate measures of environmental, ecological, marine, wildlife, CRZ & Other social infrastructure issues.
z. Because EIA Report is not incorporated for CRZ clearance issues for ocean water consumption and its related study.
aa. Because conditions imposed in ToR are not incorporated in final EIA and also no submission of final Form-1 & Form-1A.
bb. Because the EIA is not incorporated for new technology and plant is operated on very old machineries having no synchronization with pollution control systems.
cc. Because EIA is not prepared for all three seasons.
dd. Because incomplete process flow diagrams and false energy inputs and outputs and no material and energy balance is incorporated in EIA.
ee. Because incomplete details on requirement of raw materials (sea water, lime-stone, coke, ammonia, additives, etc.), its 8 source and unscientific storage at the plant are incorporated in EIA.
ff. Because incomplete details on handling ammonia and misleading risk assessment and actual there is no measures are taken are incorporated in EIA.
gg. Because false and misleading details on water balance including water use, quantity of effluent generated, recycled and reused and its impact of discharge to receiving water body are incorporated in EIA.
hh. Because false and misleading details on effluent treatment plant, inlet and treated water quality with specific efficiency of each treatment unit in reduction in respect of all concerned/ regulated environmental parameters are incorporated in EIA.
ii. Because false and misleading details of CO2 emissions including its quantum per tone of soda ash are incorporated in EIA.
jj. Because false and misleading management plan for solid waste generation (fines of lime stone, grits, brine sludge etc.), storage, utilization and disposal modes are incorporated in EIA.
kk. Because false and misleading compliance of ToR is given in EIA Report.
ll. Because despite of multiple show cause notices, proposed direction and closures from GPCB on multiple occasion, there is no further action.
mm. Because the GPCB has granted the consent on 24.06.2019 in unscientific manner without actual consideration of proposal, site visit, scientific study which clearly shows that the threshold limits imposed by GPCB for various parameters have adverse impact on the human habitants, sea, trees, water bodies, traffic congestion causing air pollution, noise in the area etc. nn. Because no use & installation of advance Distributed Control System (DCS) and Emergency Shutdown System (ESD) for pollution control & environment protection.
oo. Because process flow used by PP in this project is very old and no advance technology is used for pollution control.
9pp. Because no up-gradation of technology for protection of environment and pollution control by way of installation air & water quality monitoring instrumentation system.
qq. Because Concept of granting of ex-post facto Environment Clearance is not allowed in environmental jurisprudence in India.
rr. Because Environment Clearance under challenge is not prior EC and it is nothing but ex-post facto Environment clearance.
ss. Because if the procedure of the post facto Environment Clearance is allowed to be followed, any project proponent would complete his project by causing irreversible damages to the environment and then seek post-facto environmental clearance making the provisions of EIA notification infructuous. The grant of post facto clearance defeats the very purpose of environmental protection law and the mandate of obtaining environmental clearance as per the provisions of EIA Notifications 2006.
tt. Because the environment clearance granted by the State Level Impact Assessment Authority is illegal and has no legal sanctity.
uu. Because the EIA Notification-2006, no were provides the grant of post facto clearance after the completion of the project.
Vv Because the MoEFCC & EAC failed to take any action for the violation of the provision of EIA notification, 2006 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
ww. Because the MoEFCC and its Expert Appraisal Committee is equally liable for allowing the illegal structures of expansion & its Operations and also they are equally liable for granting of ex-post facto Environment Clearance to the project in gross violation of EIA Notification-2006 and other applicable laws.
xx. Because PP has submitted false, baseless & misleading information to MoEFCC & EAC for obtaining ToR & Environment Clearance and therefore PP is guilty of "Suppressio Veri Suggestio Falsi".
yy. Because PP has submitted false misleading compliances to the minutes of MoEFCC & EAC.
zz. Because In Case of Common cause Vs Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 499 to 578, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, 10 "124. We are not in agreement with learned counsel for the mining lease holders. There is no doubt that the grant of an EC cannot be taken as a mechanical exercise. It can only be granted after due diligence and reasonable care since damage to the environment can have a long term impact. EIA 1994 is therefore very clear that if expansion or modernization of any mining activity exceeds the existing pollution load, a prior EC is necessary and as already held by this Court in M. C. Mehta even for the renewal of a mining lease where there is no expansion or modernization of any activity, a prior EC is necessary. Such importance having been given to an EC, the grant of an ex post facto environmental clearance would be detrimental to the environment and could lead to irreparable degradation of the environment. The concept of an ex post facto or a retrospective EC is completely alien to environmental jurisprudence including EIA 1994 and EIA 2006. We make it clear that an EC will come into force not earlier than the date of its grant."
aaa. Serious violations and illegal acts of respondents are damaging the environment and giving counter blast to the sustainable development.
bbb. As per Item No. 1.1 in form-1, there is no disclosure for "Change of land use if any and the statutory approval from the competent authority be submitted". PP did not disclosed the Non-agricultural permission as well as industrial use of project land. There is no Appraisal & Assessment to this effect. Therefore the Application is defective and grant of such EC is illegal.
ccc. As per Item No. 1.8 in form-1, there is no disclosure for quantity of excavated material as the construction is undertaken by the PP and Ground water level in the excavation site is going to damage. There is no Appraisal & Assessment to this impact of excavation. Therefore the Application is defective and grant of such EC is illegal.
ddd. Because as per Item No. 2.4 in form-1, there is no disclosure for quantity of construction material and PP has suppressed these quantity in the application and these are the natural resources used for the preparation of fine building material having larger adverse impact on the environment and ecology. There is no Appraisal & Assessment to this adverse impact and PP has suppressed the quantity of building material 11 required for construction in item#2.3 of Form-1, therefore the technical appraisal and Impact Assessment is wrong and therefore the Application is defective and grant of such EC is illegal.
eee. Because PP has not provided the details under item-5 of form-
1 of vehicles used for remaining excavation, transportation of building material and their conditions. There is no Appraisal & Assessment to this impact of vehicular pollution. Therefore the Application is defective and grant of such EC is illegal.
fff. PP has suppressed the defense installation in Item#III.7 in "ENVIRONMENT SENSITIVITY", Airport, Naval Operations base within the 15 Kms of the project site, adjoining bird sanctuary, lakes etc. and this is affecting the operations of these establishment.
ggg. PP has not complied the terms & condition of Consents obtained from GPCB.
hhh. PP has not obtained permission for Ground Water Extraction and PP is extracting huge quantity of ground water from bore well.
iii. PP is operating STP, WTP, ETP etc. in unscientific manner.
jjj. PP has not provided any solid waste disposal system for scientific disposal of hazardous wastes generated from the Plant.
kkk. PP has deep unholy nexus with corrupt bureaucrats, providing funding to the political parties for avoiding legal actions and regularize his illegal activity.
lll. PP is careless, reckless and unapologetic towards the environment protection and to perform his fundamental duties.
mmm. Serious intentional violations and illegal acts of authorities are damaging the environment and giving counter blast to the precautionary principle sustainable development and PP is causing huge irreparable damage to the Environment.
nnn. Thus it is mandatory to stop the project operations & Construction activity for expansion permanently.
ooo. Therefore EC dated 19.08.2020 may kindly be quashed with application of principle of sustainable development for environmental issue."
127. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants. While it is undisputed that prior EC for expansion in question is mandatory in terms of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006, in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alembic Chemicals v Rohit Prajapati1, the doctrine of proportionality has to be applied. In absence of irreversible damage by the project, quashing of EC is not the only option. The project proponent can be required to take suitable mitigation measures to be overseen by an independent oversight Committee.
8. The measures to be so taken are by and large covered by the EC and Consent Conditions. To ensure that the said measures are duly adopted, we constitute a six member oversight Committee comprising of CPCB, Gujarat Pollution Control Board, District Magistrate, Porbandar, SEIAA, Gujarat, National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) and Chief Wildlife Warden (Forest), Gujarat. Gujarat Pollution Control Board will be the Nodal Agency for coordination and compliance. The Committee will be free to interact with the stake holders and consider any grievance arising out of violation of environmental norms. Considering the impact of expansion of the project, the Committee may inter alia look into the adequacy of capacity of Effluent Treatment Plant, Air Pollution Control Devices, storage and utilisation of sludge and solid waste, performance of currently operated sub-marine outfall/other method for utilisation and disposal of effluents, additional measures in view of high load of suspended solids in effluents and other related aspects.
The Committee may also examine other measures for protection of ecology in the area and role to be played by the industry. First meeting of the oversight Committee may be held within one month and visit to the site may be undertaken. Except for visit to the site, other 1 (2020) SCC Online SC 347 13 proceedings can be conducted online. Action plan be prepared to ensure compliance of environmental norms by regular monitoring. Wildlife Conservation Plan dated January, 2020 submitted by the project proponent dealing with conservation of wildlife within the circumference of 10 km, including the Bird Sanctuary at Porbandar, be duly executed with such further modifications as may be found necessary.
9. If any, grievance survives it is open to the aggrieved parties to take the remedies, in accordance with law.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
In view of order in the main matter, I.A. No. 102/2020 also stands disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to CPCB, Gujarat Pollution Control Board, District Magistrate, Porbandar, SEIAA, Gujarat, National Institute of Oceanography and Chief Wildlife Warden (Forest), Gujarat by e-mail for compliance.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM M. Sathyanarayanan, JM Brijesh Sethi, JM Dr.Nagin Nanda, EM July 7, 2021 Appeal No. 45/2020(WZ) AVT 14