National Green Tribunal
Yashovardhan Shandilya Sharma S/O Shri ... vs Union Of India Thourgh Secretary ... on 30 May, 2022
Item No.4
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(Through Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 54/2019 (CZ)
(I.A.No.19/2020)
Yashovardhan Shandilya Sharma Applicant (s)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order: 23.05.2022
Date of uploading of order on the website: 30.05.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): None.
mm
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv
Mr. Ishaan George, Adv
Mr. Arvind Soni, Adv
Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava, Adv
Mr. Yadvendra Yadav, Adv
Md. Iqraam, Adv
ORDER
1. Challenge in this Original Application is environmental clearance granted in favour of Respondent dated 11.04.2019 whereby and where-under on 29.01.2019, in 2nd meeting at Agenda No. 2.5.3 Expert Appraisal Committee considered the application and proposal for environmental clearance for expansion of Onshore Oil and Gas Production from Existing 300,000 barrels of oil per day (BOPD) to 400,000 BOPD and 165 Million Standard Feet per Day (MMSCFD) from RJ-ON-90/1 Block, Barmer (Gujarat) by M/s Cairn India Limited and was recommended as follows:
"2.5.3.1 During deliberations, the EAC noted the following:-
The proposal is for environmental clearance to the project for expansion of onshore oil and gas production from the existing 300,000 BOPD (barrels oil per day) to 400,000 BOPD and 165 MMSCFD (Million 1 Standard Cubic Feet per day) to 750 MMSCFD by M/s Vedanta Limited (Cairn Oil & Gas Division) from RJ-ON-90/1 Block at Barmer (Rajasthan). The project involves oil augmentation to produce up to 500 MMSCFD of natural gas (400 MMSCFD) in gas processing terminal & 100 MMSCFD from gas satellite field).
The project/activity is covered under category A of item 1(b) 'Offshore and onshore oil and gas exploration, development & Production' of schedule to the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification under category 'A' and requires appraisal at central level by sectoral Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC).
Total area of the Oil & Gas Block is 3111 sq km. Out of it, the project would involve and area of 1501.7 ha covering Districts of Barmer & Jalore in the State of Rajasthan. Addition 150 ha of land in District Barmer will be used for the proposed expansion. Industry will develop greenbelt in an area of 33% i.e.211 ha out of total operational area of the project. The estimated project cost is Rs. 12,000 crores including existing investment of Rs. 28,000 crores. Total capital cost earmarked towards environmental pollution control measures is Rs. 1200 crores and the recurring cost (O&M) will be about Rs. 120 crores per annum.
There are no National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, Biosphere Reserves, Tiger/Elephant Reserves and wild life Corridors etc within 10 distance from the project site. River Luni (seasonal river) flows at a distance of - 3km in South.
ToR for the project was granted on 11th February 2018. Public hearing was conducted by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board on 28 th September 2018 in District Barmer. The main issues raised during the public hearing are related to health issues, ground water quality, CSR budget and spent, green belt development, employment to the locals, pollution control & management, air and noise pollution, contractor payments, local contract award, solid waste disposal, site restoration, community RO plant and its operational, wastewater collection & treatment etc. Total water requirement is estimated to be 93,500 m3/day proposed to be met from deep saline ground water. No fresh water will be required. The unit has already obtained permission from CGWA for withdrawal of 53500 cum/day of water. For 1500 cum/day, application has been submitted to CGWA which is reported to be under process. To meet the increased production of oil & gas, additional saline water of 25000 cum/day shall be required, for which application is yet to be submitted.
2Effluent of 192,000 m3/day maximum quantity will be treated through ETP, Nano and RO Plant. The treated water will be injected to the reservoir.
Existing unit has 7 no's x 115 TPH blend of Associated gas (AG) and Natural gas (NG) fired boiler. All the combustion equipment's will have adequate stack height, acoustic enclosures and fuel filters. All the stack emissions will be monitored periodically and fugitive emission study will also be carried out at periodic interval.
The expenditure towards CER for the project would be 0.125% of the project cost as committed by the project proponent.
The EIA/EMP report is in compliance of the ToR issued for the project, reflecting the present environment concerns and the projected scenario for all the environmental components. Issues raised during the public hearing have been dully addressed by the project proponent.
Earlier, EC was granted by the Ministry vide letter dated 11 th August 2014 (Corrigendum issued on 26th April, 2016) for augmentation of hydrocarbon Production (2 lakh BOPD) to 3 lakh BOPD) in RJ-ON-90/01 Block in favour of M/s Vedanta Limited (Cairn Oil & Gas Division). The monitoring report on compliance status of above EC conditions issued by the Regional office at Lucknow to the project proponent vide letter dated 30th August, 2018 and was found to be satisfactory.
Consent to Operate for the existing capacity has been obtained from the State PCB vide letter dated 9th February, 2017 which is valid up to 30th November, 2021.
2.5.3.2 The Committee, after deliberations, recommended the project for grant of environmental clearance, subject to compliance of terms and conditions as under:-
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, shall be obtained from the State Pollution Control Board as required. As proposed by the project proponent, Zero Liquid Discharge shall be ensured and no waste/treated water shall be discharged to any surface waste water body, sea and/or on land.
To control source and the fugitive emissions, suitable pollution control devices shall be installed to meet the 3 prescribed norms and/or the NAAQS. The gaseous emissions shall be dispersed through stack of adequate height as per CPCB/SPCB guidelines.
Necessary authorization required under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Trans-Boudary Movement) Rules, 2016, Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 shall be obtained and the provisions contained in the Rules shall be strictly adhered to.
Ambient Air, Quality Emission Standards issued by the Ministry vide G.S.R. No. 826(E) dated 16th November. 20019 for PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOX, CO, CH4, HC, Non- methane HC etc. During exploration, production, storage and handling, the fugitive emission of methane, if any, shall be monitored using infra-red camera/appropriate technology. The project proponent also to ensure trapping/storing of the CO2 generated, if any, during the process handling. Approach road shall be made pucca to minimize generation of suspended dust.
The company shall make all arrangements for control of noise from the drilling activity. Acoustice enclosure shall be provided for the DG sets along with the adequate stack height as per CPCB guidelines.
Total water requirement shall not exceed 93,500 m3/day proposed to be met from ground water, and prior permission shall be obtained from the concerned regulatory authority/CGWA.
The company shall construct the garland drain all around the drilling site to prevent runoff of nay oil containing waste into the nearby water bodies. Separate drainage system shall be created for oil contaminated and non-oil contaminated. Effluent shall be properly treated and treated waste water shall conform to CPCB Standards. Drill cuttings separated from drilling fluid shall be adequately washed and disposed in HDPE lined pit. Waste mud shall be tested for hazardous contaminants and disposed according to HWMH Rules, 2016. No effluent/drilling mud/drill cutting shall be discharged/disposed off into nearby surface water bodies. The company shall comply with guidelines for disposal of solid waste, drill cutting and drilling fluids for onshore 4 drilling operation notified vide GSR.546(E) dated 30 th August, 2005.
Oil spillage prevention and mitigation scheme shall be prepared. In case of oil spilliage/contamination, action plan shall be prepared to clean the site by adopting proven technology. The recyclable waste (oily sludge) and spent oil shall be disposed of to the authorized recyclers. The Company shall take necessary measures to prevent fire hazards, containing oil spill and soil remediation as needed. Possibility of using ground flare shall be explored. At the place of ground flaring, the overhead flaring stack with knockout drums shall be installed to minimize gaseous emissions during operations.
The company shall develop a contingency plan for H2S release including all necessary aspects from evacuation to resumption of normal operations. The workers shall be provided with personal H2S detectors in locations of high risk of exposure along with self containing breathing apparatus.
The Company shall carry out long term subsidence study by collecting base line data before initiating drilling operation till the project lasts. The data so collected shall be submitted six monthly to the Ministry and Regional Office.
Blow Out Preventer system shall be installed to prevent well blowouts during drilling operations. BOP measures during drilling shall focus on maintaining well bore hydrostatic pressure by proper pre-well planning and drilling fluid logging etc. Emergency Response Plan shall be based on the guidelines prepared by OISD, DGMS and Govt. of India. The Company shall take measures after completion of drilling process by well plugging and secured enclosures, decommissioning of rig upon abandonment of the well and drilling site shall be restored the area in original condition. In the event that no economic quantity of hydrocarbon is found a full abandonment plan shall be implemented for the drilling site in accordance with applicable Indian Petroleum Regulations.
All the commitments made to the public during public hearing/consultation shall be satisfactorily implemented.5
At least 1.5% of the total project cost shall be allocated for Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) and item-wise details along with time bout action plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Ministry's Regional Office. Occupational health surveillance of the workers shall be carried out as per the prevailing Acts and Rules. Restoration of the project site shall be carried out satisfactorily and report shall be sent to the Ministry's Regional Office.
Oil content in the drill cuttings shall be monitored by some Authorized agency and report shall be sent to the Ministry's Regional Office.
An audit shall be done to ensure that the Environment Management Plan is implemented in totality and report shall be submitted to the Ministry's Regional Office. Company shall have own Environment Management Cell having qualified persons with proper background. Company shall prepare operating manual in respect of all activities, which would cover all safety & environment related issues and measure to be taken for protection. One set of environment manual shall be made available at the drilling site/project site. Awarness shall be created at each level of the management. All the schedules and results of environmental monitoring shall be available at the project site office. Remote monitoring of site should be done.
Process safety and risk assessment studies shall be further carried out using advanced models, and the mitigating measures shall be undertaken accordingly."
2. Considering the above report vide order impugned dated 11.04.2019, MoEF & CC accorded EC to the project for enhancement of Onshore Oil and gas Production as mentioned above under the provisions of The EIA notification, 2006. Aggrieved by the order, the present O.A has been filed challenging the EC.
3. The matter was taken up by this Tribunal on 03.03.2020 and notices were issued to all respondents with directions to submit their replies.6
4. In response to the above, respondents have filed the replies and the applicant has also filed response against the reply. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. The submission of the applicant are as follows:
(i) The Rajasthan Joint Venture comprising of Vedanta Limited and oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) limited, is involved in hydrocarbon exploration and production activities in block RJ-ON-90/1. Production Sharing contract has been signed between Cairn India Limited, Cairn Energy Hydrocarbons Limited (CEHL), ONGC and Govt. of India for the Block. The Lease of the land belongs to ONGC. Cairn oil and Gas Division (part of Vedanta Group) is the operator for the block. The block is located in the Barmer and Jalore districts of South-Western Rajasthan and spread in the following way:
Barmer: Baytu, Barmer, Sindhari & Sheo in North Tehsil Gudamalani & Dhorimana in the South Jalore : Tehsil Bageda, Chitalwana, Sanchore.
In the North, Mangala Processing Terminal is located near Kavas in Baytu & Barmer Tehsil Raageshwari Gas Terminal is located near Nagar in Gudamalani.
(ii) That the block comprises of three development areas DAI-
comprising the Mangala, Aishwarya, Raageshwari and Saraswati fields, DA2- consisting of Bhagyam and Shakti fields, DA3- comprising the Kaameshwari west fields covering an area of 31l Sq. km which encompasses a total of 320 villages and one urban settlement i.e. Uttarlai, out of which major part falls in Barmer District while smaller part falls in Jalore District. The l0 km. area surrounding Mangala Processing Terminal comprises of 35 villages while 10km 7 surrounding Raageshwari Gas Terminal comprises of 27 villages and remaining 258 villages and an urban settlement in other part of the Block.
(iii) That as on 31-05-2018, Vedanta Limited has drilled around 500 wells including 200 exploratory and appraisal wells and has made 38 hydrocarbon discoveries in the block with Mangala discovery termed as largest in India. The Block is located 94% in Barmer and minor portion 6% falls under Jalore district. It has two terminals:
l) The Mangala Processing Terminal at Nagana Village.
Bhagyam field and Aishwarya field are both located in the vicinity of Mangala field.
2) Rageshwari Gas Terminal at Dhandalawas village in Gudamalani Tehsil, Barmer.
The Map of the entire region demarcating Barmer and Jalore as produced by Cairn India Limited and other maps depicting the markings of oil fields.
(iv) That Respondent company has laid the Mangala Development Pipeline (MDP) to evacuate crude oil produced from the Block to Govt. of India nominated buyers in Gujarat and the coastal refineries in India. The MDP consists of 680 km long, buried, electrically heated and insulated, 24 "crude oil pipeline and 590 km, 8" natural gas pipeline passing through Rajasthan and Gujarat and that in the year 1979-80 the district of Barmer was hit by heavy floods due to which the population in Gudamalani village, Dhandalawaas, Kandhi ki Dhani suffered a huge loss of life and property. To avoid similar situation in future, the Forest Department planted thousands of trees in private lands of villagers in the year 1985-86.
That the Respondents have cut trees in large numbers to establish well-pad no. 5, 8 and 11 on the banks of Luni River.
8This has resulted in diminishing the green cover which is necessary around an industrial establishment to minimize the effect of pollution more so in a water deficient state like Rajasthan. The variety of trees cut by the respondents include Khejari end Rohira which are of immense significance across the State. Moreover, they have not done any compensatory plantation to make good the loss caused neither have they developed a green zone as per the conditions of the Environment clearance.
(v) That according to Terms and Conditions para 9(b), 'Zero Liquid Discharge shall be ensured and no waste/treated water shall be discharged to any surface water body, sea and/ or on land'.
Violation: The chemical from the well-pad seeps through the nearby fields of the farmers. As a result, the wells and surface water both polluted. Also the well-pad no. 5, 8 and 11 are constructed on the bed of Luni River which is the source of drinking water for the nearby villages. In such a condition, the poor farmers and their families are constrained to buy water from outside even when there are tube-wells dug in their own fields. photographs of overflowing waste pits, chemical strewn in fields, smoke from chimneys are enclosed.
(vi) That same is also a violation of Terms and Conditions para 9(d) wherein it was directed that provisions of Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Trans-Boundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 shall be strictly adhered to.
(vii) That according to Terms and Conditions para 9(c). 'To control source and fugitive emissions, suitable pollution control devices shall be installed to meet the prescribed norms and/or 9 the NAAQS. The gaseous emissions shall be dispersed through stack of adequate height as per CPCB/SPCB guidelines.' Violation: The chimneys on the site of the well-pads emit fire and resultant smoke in huge quantity which has resulted in burning of fields of the farmers and caused air pollution which has resulted in skin diseases and eye irritation among the villagers. The representations of farmers appraising the situation to the Collector are enclosed. Representation to Vedanta is enclosed. Representation to Member Secretary, Pollution Control Board, Rajasthan are enclosed.
Representation to Chief Minister, Rajasthan is attached.
Representation to Director General Hydrocarbon, New Delhi is enclosed. The smoke bellowing from the gas chimney on Well Pad no. 1, Raageshwari Gas Terminal, located in Dhandhalawas village, resulted in destruction of the Zeera fields of the farmers residing in the adjoining areas.
(viii) That according to Terms and Conditions Para 9(i), 'The company shall make all arrangements for control of noise from the drilling activity. Acoustic enclosure shall be provided for the DG sets along with the adequate stack eight as per CPCB guidelines.
Violation: Heavy machinery is being deployed by the respondent company which is a constant source of noise pollution in the area as the heavy machinery is being used day and night which causes nausea and head ache among the residents of the area. The blasting done by the respondent to extract oil is often felt at the surface area as well, which has led to vibrations in the village and resultant cracks in the walls of the villagers.
(ix) That according to Terms and Conditions Para 9(s), 'After completion of drilling operations, the company shall take 10 adequate measures for plugging of wells, decommissioning of rig upon abandonment of the well and drilling site shall be restored to the original condition and report shall be submitted to the Ministry's Regional office.' Violation: There are at present 68 sites which have been abandoned but not restored according to the terms and conditions. The list of the sites is enclosed.
(x) That according to Terms and Conditions para 9(t), 'All the commitments made to the public during public hearing/consultation shall be satisfactorily implemented.
Violations:
(xi) The issues which were raised in the public hearing for environment clearance dated 11-08-2014 (earlier EC) are still not catered to. Despite repeated representations by villagers to the Respondent Company as also the Respondent Authorities, no measures to solve problems of the villagers have been taken. An application dated 28-08-2017 by a villager to Tehsildar Baytu is enclosed, along with the spot-inspection report of the Tehsildar dated 01-09-2017 confirming the loss of the fruit yield of the villager caused by the run-off water from the premises of Well Pad no.1. The situation still remains the same.
(xii) As per MOEF Notification dated 14-09-2006, it is compulsory for the Pollution control Board to organize a public Hearing before issuance of the EC. However, the respondent company adopted mala fide ways to organize the public hearing on 20-
08-2018 in Kavas, secretly among few people who were not even residents of the area. Even the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsildar, Patwari and Sarpanch of nearby Aishwarya and Mangla oil field were not informed. Buses and cars were hired 11 to bring people from far off areas and pose as if they were villagers. After much protest, the public hearing was cancelled.
Copy of RTI Reply regarding proceedings of meeting on 20-08- 2018 is enclosed.
(xiii) Again on 28-09-2018 a public hearing was called for after protest and agitation by villagers. The problems were given in writing and receipt was obtained, however no solution has yet been arrived at by the respondents. Despite the problems still persisting and in the knowledge of the Respondent Authorities, the Respondent Company was granted Environmental Clearance on 11-04-2019. Copy of complaints is enclosed.
Minutes of public Hearing are enclosed.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas has submitted that all Off-shore and onshore oil and gas exploration, development and production activities are classified as 'A' category project in schedule 1(b) of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, requiring grant of Terms of Reference (TOR), Preparation of EIA report, conduct of Public Hearing, and appraisal and Environmental Clearance(EC) by the Respondent no -21 Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in short "MoEF & CC"). The EC, so issued after following the procedure laid down in EIA Notification, 2006 and its amendments from time to time, is subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in environmental clearance letter.
7. The Government desires that all types of Petroleum resources which may exist in India, whether within territorial waters (Ultra Deep, Deep or Shallow Water), exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf of India, or On land, be discovered and exploited in accordance with Good International petroleum Industry Practices India". The responsibility, both for adhering to GIPIP and for complying with the relevant Laws, Orders, Regulations etc. of the Government relating to Environmental protection 12 etc. is clearly responsibility of the Contractor as per the expressed provisions of the PSC and RSC. In addition to the EC, the Respondent project proponent / Operator has obtained the Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to operate ( CTO) under the provisions of the Water (Control and Prevention of Pollution ) Act, 1974 and, the Air (Control and Prevention of Pollution ) Act, 1981 from the Respondent No 5/ RSPCB.
8. Off-shore and onshore oil and gas exploration, development and production activities are classified as 'A' category project in schedule l(b) of EIA Notification 2006 (in short hereinafter may termed as "EIA") requires, grant of Terms of Reference (TOR), Preparation of EIA & EMP report, conduct of public Hearing, and appraisal and Environmental Clearance (EC) by the Respondent no-2 I Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change MoEF & CC. The EC, so issued after 2006. The petitioner has failed to raise the substantial question related to the environment in the instant case.
9. The Production sharing contract (PSC) for the Pre-NELP Block RJ-ON-90/I was signed on 15.05.1995 (effective date) for a period of 25 years. PSC for RJ-ON-9O/I block has expired on 14.05.2020. On request of Contractor, GOI permitted Contractor as an interim measure to continue with the ongoing petroleum operations in the Block till the execution of the Addendum or for three months w.e.f. l5th May 2020, whichever is earlier.
Additionally, to the above-mentioned letter of GOI vided letter dated27.10.2020has granted permission as interim measure upto 21.01 .2021 with the same conditions as stipulated in letter dated 14.05.2020.
The present consortium consists of Vedanta/CIL (35%), CHEL (35%) & ONGC (30%). The Contract Area comprises of three Development Areas (DAs) for where Petroleum Mining Leases (PMLs) has been granted, encompassing multiple discoveries, and measuring 3,1I I sq km. (DAI-I859 km, DA2- 430 kms, DA3 -822 km). The field is situated in Barmer and Jalore District of Rajasthan. A total 38 nos. of discoveries are made in the 13 block. MDP referred to here is the Barmer-Salava- Bhogat pipeline which is laid down by the Operator which is Heated and insulated 670 km 24,,dia pipeline connecting Barmer to coastal location at Bhogat, Gujarat and 593 km of 8'' natural gas pipeline taking gas from Raageshwari gas fields and supplying fuel gas.
10. As per condition stipulated under Sr. No 9 (xiii) of the Environmental Clearance letter dated 11th August 2014, the respondent Operator is required to create a green belt over at least 33 % of plant area. The compliance monitoring of the stipulated conditions pertains to Respondent No-2 / MoEF& CC and others concerned State agencies. The Conditions incorporated in Sr. No 9 (b ) and 9 (d) of the EC dated 11th April, 2019 issued by R-2, entails regarding Zero Discharge and Hazardous (Management and Trans-Boundary Movement) Rules, 2016, Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 respectively. However, Monitoring of compliance to stipulated conditions is undertaken by R-5/ RSPCB and R-2/MoEF&CC.
11. It is further submitted that the grievances which have been referred by the Applicant were properly addressed. The condition stipulated in Sr. no 9 (i) of the EC regarding control of noise pollution from DG sets, provision of acoustic enclosures and stacks of adequate height with DG sets. The averments made by the Petitioner with respect to the use of heavy machinery, blasting etc are a constant source of noise pollution for the residents in the area and has caused health impacts is without strict proof of it. The monitoring authorities shall ascertain through continuous monitoring of the site in question.
12. As advised by MC in MCM-41 dated 09.06.2015 Operator created the SRF Account in Jan'2016 and Contractor is contributing annually in accordance with SRF scheme 1999 to the Site restoration fund each year starting FY 2015-16. As informed 18 sites have been restored. Further, as per SRF 1999 and SRF guidelines 2018, the Petroleum sites shall be compulsorily restored at field level in due course of time. Para 9(s) of the 14 EC conditions stipulates about restoration of drilling sites to the original condition and its compliance would need to be monitored by designated monitoring agencies.
13. The instant petition is barred by the limitation as the cause of action first arouse in the year 2000 when the project came which was well within the knowledge of the petitioner and further on 11.08.2014 on grant of augmentation of Hydrocarbon Production to the respondent / M/s Cairn India Ltd. has exceeded the limitation as prescribed under National Green Tribunal Act 2010.
14. Learned counsel for the applicant has raised the question of public hearing and reply to the objections raised by the Applicant, learned counsel for the MoEF & CC has submitted that the public hearing for the proposed expansion project was supposed to be held on 20.08.2018 at Rajkiya Ucch Prathamik Vidhyalaya, Sar Ka Paar, Gram Panchayat Dhunda, Kawas District Barmer, Rajasthan. However, District Collector stating the law and order issue cancelled the Public hearing. The rescheduled Public Hearing was held on September 28th, 2018 at 11.00 am at the same above venue. The Public hearing was conducted in presence of District Collector, Barmer, Shri Shiv Prasad M Nakate and Regional Officer RSPCB Balotra, Barmer, Shri Vinay Katta.
15. The proposal for grant of EC of the respondent company was deliberated upon by the EAC (expert appraisal committee) in its 2nd meeting held on 29th - 3Oth January, 2019. Thereafter, the project was recommended for grant of EC only after the complete satisfaction that all the issues raised during the public hearing have been duly addressed by the Respondent company. Based on the recommendations of EAC, the EC was accorded by the answering respondent for the enhancement of onshore oil and gas production from the existing 300,000 BOPD (barrels oil per day) to 400,000 BOPD and 165 MMSCFD (Million Standard cubic feet per day) to 750 MMSCFD by M/s Vedanta Limited (Cairn Oil and Gas Division) from RJ-ON-90/1 block at Barmer (Rajasthan) on 11.04.2019. The EC was 15 granted subject to certain specific conditions which have been enumerated inter-alia as:
(a) Necessary permission as mandated under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, I9B l, as applicable from time to time, shall be obtained from the State Pollution Control Board as required.
(b) As proposed by the project proponent, Zero Liquid Discharge shall be ensured and no waste/treated water shall be discharged to any surface water body, sea and/or on land.
(c) To control source and the fugitive emissions, suitable pollution control devices shall be installed to meet the prescribed norms and/or the NAAQS. The gaseous emissions shall be dispersed through stack of adequate height as per CPCB/SPCB guidelines.
(d) Necessary authorization required under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Trans-Boundary Movement) Rules, 2016, Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 shall be obtained and the provisions contained in the Rules shall be strictly adhered to.
(e) Ambient air quality shall be monitored at the nearest human settlements as per the national Ambient Air Quality Emission Standards issued by the Ministry vide G.S.R No. 826 (E) dated 16.11.2009 for PM10, PM 2.5, SO2, NOX, CO, CH4, HC, non-
methane HC etc.
(f) During exploration production, storage and handling, the fugitive emission of methane, if any, shall be monitored using Infra-red camera/appropriate technology.
(g) The project proponent also to ensure trapping/storing of the CO2 generated, if any, during the process and handling.
16(h) Approach road shall be made pucca to minimize generation of suspended dust.
(i) The company shall make all arrangements for control of noise from the drilling activity. Acoustic enclosure shall be provided for, the DG sets along with the adequate stack height as per CPCB guidelines.
(j) Total water requirement shall not exceed 93,500 m3/day proposed to be met from ground water, and prior permission shall be obtained from the concerned regulatory authority/ CGWA.
(k) The company shall construct the garland drain all around the drilling site to prevent runoff of any oil containing waste into the nearby water bodies. Separate drainage system shall be created for oil contaminated and non-oil contaminated.
Effluent shall be properly treated and treated wastewater shall conform to CPCB standards.
(l) Drill cuttings separated from drilling fluid shall be adequately washed and disposed in HDPE lined pit. Waste mud shall be tested for hazardous contaminants and disposed according to HWMH Rules, 2016. No effluent/drilling mud/drill cutting shall be discharged/disposed off into nearby surface water bodies. The company shall comply with the guidelines for disposal of solid waste, drill cutting and drilling/fluids for onshore drilling operation notified vide G,SR. 546(E) dated 30th August, 2005.
(m) Oil spillage prevention and mitigation scheme shall be prepared. In case of oil spillage/contamination, action plan shall be prepared to clean the site by adopting proven technology. The recyclable waste (oily sludge) and spent oil shall be disposed of to the authorized recyclers.
17(n) The Company shall take necessary measures to prevent fire hazards, containing oil spill and soil remediation as needed.
Possibility of using ground flare shall be explored. At the place of ground flaring, the overhead flaring stack with knockout drums shall be installed to minimize gaseous emissions during operation.
(o) The company shall develop a contingency plan for H2 S release including all necessary aspects from evacuation to resumption of normal operations. The workers shall be provided with personal H2S detectors in locations of high risk of exposure along with self-containing breathing apparatus.
(p) The company shall carry out long term subsidence study by collecting base line data before initiating drilling operation till the project lasts. The data so collected shall be submitted six monthly to the Ministry and Regional Office.
(q) Blow Out Preventer system shall be installed to prevent well blowouts during drilling operations. BOP measures during drilling shall focus on maintaining well bore hydrostatic pressure by proper pre-well planning and drilling Jluid logging etc.
(r) Emergency Response Plan shall be based on the guidelines prepared by OISD, DGMS and Govt. of India.
(s) The company shall take measures after completion of drilling process by well plugging and secured enclosures, decommissioning of rig upon abandonment of the well and drilling site shall be restored the area in original condition. In the event that no economic quantity of hydrocarbon is found a full abandonment plan shall be implemented for the drilling site in accordance with the applicable Indian Petroleum Regulations.
18(t) All the commitments made to the public during public hearing/consultation shall be satisfactorily implemented.
(u) At least 1.5% of the total project cost shall be allocated fo, Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) and item-wise details along with time bound action plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Ministry's Regional Office.
(v) Occupational health surveillance of the workers shall be carried out as per the prevailing Acts and Rules.
(w) Oil content in the drill cuttings shall be monitored by some Authorized agency and report shall be sent to the Ministry's Regional Office.
(x) Company shall prepare operating manual in respect of all activities, which would cover all safety & environment related issues and measures to be taken for protection. One set of environmental manual shall be made available at the drilling site/ project site. Awareness shall be created at each level of the management. All the schedules and results of environmental monitoring shall be available at the project site office. Remote monitoring of site should be done.
(y) Process safety and risk assessment studies shall be further carried out using advanced models, and the mitigating measures shall be under taken accordingly.
16. It is further submitted that the regional office of the answering respondent conducted a site inspection of the unit on 26.10.2021, wherein the main contentions raised by the Applicant herein were examined. The answering respondent received the copy of the monitoring report on 02.11.2021 and as per the procedure in the Ministry, the monitoring cell of the Impact Assessment division shall examine the report for the compliance of the stipulated conditions of the EC and propose/recommend appropriate necessary action.
1917. During the pendency of the application, MoEF & CC conducted an enquiry to submit the factual report to this Tribunal and compliance are enumerated as follows:
Sr. Specific conditions Compliance status No. A Necessary permission as mandated Complied.
under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and The PP has all the well pads under the Air (Prevention and Control of consent mechanism and obtains consents Pollution) Act, 1981, as applicable under the Water (Prevention and Control from time to time, shall be obtained of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air from the State Pollution Control (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, Board as required. 1981 from the State Pollution Control Board for individual well pads. The PP also obtains authorization under the Hazardous Waste Rules 2016. During the visit he unit representative reported that there are total 123 Consent to Operate for the project and out of which 121 are having valid CTO and two applications are pending at the level of State Board.
B As proposed by the project Being Complied.
proponent, Zero Liquid Discharge shall be ensured and no As per the standard process, to extract waste/treated water shall be petroleum oil from the wells, water is discharged to any surface water injected from the injection water wells body, sea and/or on land. and oil is extracted from the producer wells. The produced wastewater is treated for the removal of physical impurities such as total suspended solids and Oil and treated water is injected back into the reservoir for maintaining reservoir pressure and void replacement.
In addition to this, reject from desalination plant, treated filter backwash water & ETP reject are also disposed in deep disposal wells which are reported to be of the depth of more than 1000 meters below ground level.
There are three sewage treatment plants for treatment of sewage' The treated water from STPs is used for greenbelt development within the premises. Septic tank soak pits are provided at well pads for handling of sewage' During the visit of some of the main well pads of Mangla and Raageshwari well pads, no wastewater discharge outside the premises was observed.
C To control source and the fugitive Being Complied.
emissions, suitable pollution control devices shall be installed to meet the At the processing terminals, it was prescribed norms and/or the 20 NAAQS. The gaseous emissions shall observed that at, vessels and tanks, be dispersed through stack of vapour recovery units have been provided adequate height as per CPCB/SPCB and recovered vapor is being fed to fuel guidelines. gas system. Provisions of flaring of gases has been provided and was observed in operation during the visit. Stacks have been provided on boilers. During the visit analysis report from accredited laboratory were available on site regarding Ambient Air and stack emissions.
D Necessary authorization required Complied. under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Trans-
Boundary Movement) Rules, 2016, The Proiect proponent obtains Solid Waste Management Rules. Authorizations under the Hazardous and 2016 shall be obtained and the Other Wastes (Manasement and Trans- provisions contained in the Rules Boundary Movement) Rules, 2016 for shall be strictly adhered to. individual well pads. There are total 110 well pads and authorization is being obtained for individual well pad. During the time of visit. details of how many well pads are having valid authorization was not readily available.
E Ambient air quality shall be Complied.
monitored at the nearest human As appraised by the unit settlements as per the National representative Environmental Monitoring Ambient Air Quality Emission is being carried out based on the Standards issued by the Ministry Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board vide G.S.R. No. 826(E) dated (RO) approved plan & reports l6thNovember, 2009 for PM10, from accredited laboratory have PM2.5, S02, NOx, CO, CH4, HC, been submitted by the unit.
Non.methane HC etc. F During exploration, production, Complied.
storage and handling, the PP has installed Gas detectors at multiple fugitive emission of methane, if locations in terminal and at well pads to any. shall be monitored using Infra-
detect the leakage of gases.
red camera (appropriate technology G The project proponent also to ensure Partially Complied.
Trapping/storing of the CO2 At present. the gas containing high CO2 generated, if any, during the process (>85%) is being burned in Thermal Oxidizer and handling. (TO) and ROE after mixing with fuel gas to avoid cold venting of associated gas. The study for trapping/storing of the CO2 generated during the process and handling is yet to be done.
H Approach road shall be made pucca Complied. to minimize generation of suspended It was observed during visit that Well pad dust corridor roads arc made pucca to minimize dust generation. Adequate road sweeping and housekeeping was observed at processing terminals and well pads.
I The company shall make all Complied.
arrangements for control of noise
The unit has submitted analysis
21
from the drilling activity. Acoustic reports from accredited laboratory.
enclosure shall be provided for the Necessary steps for abatement of
DO sets along with the adequate noise pollution at source have been taken.
stack height as per CPCB DO sets having acoustic enclosures have
guidelines. been provided.
J Total water requirement shall not Partially Complied.
exceed 93300 m3/day proposed to
The unit is having CGWA approval for
be met from ground water. Prior
abstraction of 51,500 m3/day of ground
permission in this regard shall be
water and it was reported that about
obtained from the concerned
25,000 m3/day water is being used in
regulatory authority/ CGWA.
the process at end stage. However, no
logbooks or records regarding water uses
were available on site during the visit.
Further, the renewal application of CGWA
NOC is pending at the level of CGWA.
K The company shall construct the Complied.
garland drain all around the drilling
It was observed during visit that drains
site to prevent runoff of any oil
are provided at well pads for collection of
containing waste into the nearby
storm water. The drilling wastewater is
water bodies. Separate drainage
stored in concrete and HDPE lined pits
system shall be created for oil
inside drilling sites and
contaminated and non-oil
treated for muse/disposal
contaminated. Effluent shall be
through deep dump well.
properly treated, and treated
wastewater shall conform to CPCB
standards,
L Drill cuttings separated from drilling Complied.
fluid shall be adequately washed The Water Based Mud (WBM) is used as
and disposed in HDPE lined pit. the drilling fluid for drilling the upper
Waste mud shall be tested for section of well (-250 - 500 meters) or up to
hazardous contaminants and complete target depth of the well subject
disposed according to HWMH Rules, to geological formation.
2016. No effluent drilling mud/drill Synthetic Oil Based Mud (SBM) is being
cutting shall be used in case of hard strata only. The
discharged/disposed-off into nearby WBM cuttings are used as fillers and in
surface water bodies. The company other secondary uses being non
shall comply with the guidelines for hazardous in nature. The SBM drill
disposal of solid waste, drill cutting cuttings are being sold to the Cement
and drilling fluids for onshore drilling Industry for final disposal through co- operation notified vide GSR.546(E) processing. One HDPE Lined and dated 301 August, 2005. temporary capped hazardous landfill site for oil containing sand and drill cutting was observed at Mangla Terminal.
M Oil spillage prevention and mitigation Being Complied. scheme shall be prepared. In case of An Oil Spill Management Plan has been oil spillage/ contamination, action prepared and a dedicated oil spill plan shall be prepared to clean the response team has been deployed at site by adopting proven technology. Mangla Terminal. Oil bearing sand and The recyclable waste (oily sludge) sludge is being disposed partly at Cement and spent oil shall be disposed of to Industry through co-processing and partly the authorized recyclers. at the captive TSDF at Mangla Terminal. N The Company shall take necessary Being Complied. measures to prevent fire hazards, During the visit it was observed that containing oil spill and soil necessary efforts have been made to remediation as needed. Possibility of prevent the fire hazard and oil spillage using ground flare shall be explored. hazard..the process systems have been 22 At the place of ground flaring, the provided with Emergency Shut Down overhead flaring stack with knockout Devices (ESDs)/ valves to isolate the drums shall be installed to minimize supply during any leaks and prevent gaseous emissions during operation. spills. Oil spill contingency plan has been prepared and a full-fledged dedicated oil spill response team has been stationed at Mangla Terminal. Fire fighting measures such as fire hydrant system, foam system, portable fire extinguishers, water spray systems, fireproof electrical fittings, and fire and gas detection systems etc have been provided. The flare systems having height of flare stack as approx 25 to 30 meters have been provided at Mangla Processing Terminal and Raageshwari Gas Terminal.
O The company shall develop a Complied.
contingency plan for H2S release A H2S management plan has been
including all necessary aspects from prepared and it was appraised by the
evacuation to resumption of normal unit representative that a One day H2S
operations. The workers shall be certification program is being conducted
provided with personal H2S detectors for all the Cairn technical employees and
in locations of high risk of exposure field supervisory staff. Personnel working
along with self-containing breathing at well pads and operational areas inside
apparatus. terminals are provided with personal H2S
escape mask. H2S detection system at
MPT. Mangala Terminal was observed.
P The Company shall carry out long Complied.
term subsidence study by collecting The baseline data at about 10 locations in
base line data before initiating various fields within RJON block has
drilling operation till the project lasts. been collected by the The data so collected shall be unit using Geodetic grade DGPS submitted six-monthly to the Ministry equipment and same has been submitted and Regional Office. along with six monthly compliance report.
The land subsidence monitoring is also being done and submitted with six monthly compliance report.
Q Blow Out Preventer system shall be Complied. installed to prevent well blowouts Blow out preventer stack is installed on during drilling operations. BOP wells during drilling and a detailed SOP measures during drilling shall focus for BOPs has been made. on maintaining well bore hydrostatic pressure by proper pre-well planning and drilling fluid logging etc. R Emergency Response Plan shall be Complied. based on the guidelines prepared by The Incident/Emergency Response Plan OISD, DGMS and Govt. of India.
is in place based on national and international guidelines. Each field in the Block has a separate Response Plan. This plan has been submitted to the regulatory and district administration.
S After completion of drilling Not Complied. operations, the company shall take During the visit it was appraised by the adequate measures for plugging of unit representative that there are 64 wells, decommissioning of rig upon abandoned areas and 39 of abandoned abandonment of the well, and sites are due to be restored due to drilling site shall be restored to the 23 original condition and the report in various reasons.
this regard shall be submitted to the Ministry's Regional Office. In case of no economical prospecting of Hydrocarbon, complete abandonment plan shall be implemented in accordance with the applicable Indian Petroleum Regulations.
T All the commitments made to the No separate report with reference to public during public commitments made during the public hearing/consultation shall be hearing was available on site during the satisfactorily implemented. visit.
U At least l.5% of the total project cost Not Complied. shall be allocated for Corporate No details with reference to expenditure Environment Responsibility (CER) and activities done thus far by the PP and item-wise details along with have been submitted. Itemized details of time bound action plan shall be expenditure were also not available on prepared and submitted to the site during the visit.
Ministry's Regional Office.
V Occupational health surveillance of Complied. the workers shall be carried out as Records regarding health checkups of per the prevailing Acts and Rules.
workers were available on site during the visit.
W Oil content in the drill cuttings shall Complied.
be monitored by some Authorized Analysis reports with reference to this agency and report shall be condition were available on site during sent to the Ministry's the visit.
Regional Office.
X Company shall prepare operating Being Complied.
manual in respect of all activities.
Which would cover all safety & Standard Operating Procedures environment related issues and have been developed for rig move and measures to be taken for drilling related activities such as Permit to protection. One set of Work, Confined Space entry, Lock Out environmental Tag Out, Work at Height, route survey manual shall be made available at map, waste management etc. A 14SE the drilling site/ project site.
Awareness shall be created at manual specific to the drilling operations each level of the management. All covering all the Occupational health, the schedules and results of safety and environmental requirements environmental monitoring shall be has also been prepared. available at the project site office.
Remote monitoring of site should be done.
Y Process safety and risk assessment Complied. studies shall be further carried out using advanced models, and the Process safety and risk assessment mitigating measures shall be studies like; HAZOP (Hazard and undertaken accordingly. Operability), HAZID (Hazard Identification), QRA (Qualitative Risk Assessment), FERA (Fire &. Explosion Risk Assessment) and COMAH (Control of Major Accident Hazards) have been carried out and being adhered to mostly.
24Sr. General Condition Compliance Status No. i. The project authorities must Agreed for compliance by the PP.
strictly adhere to the stipulations made by the state Pollution Control Board (SPCB), State Government and/or any other statutory authority.
ii. No further expansion or Agreed for compliance by the PP.
modifications in the plant shall be carried out without prior approval of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. In case of deviations or alterations in the project proposal from those submitted to this Ministry for clearance, a fresh reference shall be made to the Ministry to assess the adequacy of conditions imposed and to add additional environmental protection measures required. if any.
iii. The locations of ambient air Complied.
quality monitoring stations shall Analysis reports from accredited laboratory be decided in consultation with has been submitted by the unit.
the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) and it shall be ensured that at least one stations each is installed in the upwind and downwind direction as well as where maximum ground level concentrations are anticipated.
iv. The National Ambient Air Quality Complied.
Emission Standards issued by the Analysis reports from accredited laboratory Ministry vide G.S.R. No. 826(E) has been submitted by the unit.
dated l6th November, 2009 shall be complied with.
v. The overall noise levels in and Complied.
around the plant area shall be The unit has submitted analysis reports kept well within the standards by from accredited laboratory. Necessary providing noise control measures steps for abatement of noise pollution at including acoustic hoods, source have been taken.
silencers, enclosures etc. on all sources of noise generation. The ambient noise levels shall conform to the standards prescribed under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 Rules, 1989 viz.75 dBA (day time) and70 dBA (night time).
vi. The Company shall harvest Complied.
rainwater from the roof tops of the Rainwater recharge pits have been buildings to recharge ground developed in Mangla Processing Terminal water, and to utilize the same for and in RGT. Rainwater from roof top and different industrial operations surface run-off are collected and used for within the plant.
secondary gainful purposes. Steps have also been taken for rain water harvesting in accordance to CGWA conditions. During the visit it was appraised by the unit 25 representative that Rainwater recharge pit (of capacity -58,000 m3) at NR-
1 (Madpura Barwala, Baitu) has been made with provision to conserve the water in deep saline aquifer. Rainwater recharge structures have been developed in 28 operating well pads at various locations within the RJ Block vii. Training shall be imparted to all Complied.
employees on safety and health As appraised by unit representative, aspects of chemicals handling.
Training on various HSE aspects, including Pre-employment and routine chemicals handling and management, is periodical medical examinations imparted to all the employees and for all employees shall be contractors periodically. Records with undertaken on regular basis. reference to periodical medical examinations were also available on site during the visit.
viii. The company shall comply with Agreed for Compliance by the unit.
all the environmental protection measures and safeguards proposed in the documents submitted to the Ministry. All the recommendations made in the EIA/EMP in respect of environmental management, risk mitigation measures and public hearing shall be implemented.
ix. The company shall undertake all Not Complied.
measures for improving socio-
Itemized details regarding expenditure economic conditions of the under CSR surrounding area. CSR activities shall be undertaken by involving local villagers, administration and other stake holders. Also, eco-
developmental measures shall be undertaken for overall improvement of the environment.
x. A separate Environmental Complied.
Management Cell equipped with PP has separate environmental full-fledged laboratory facilities management cell under the control of shall be set up to carry out the senior executives.
Environmental Management and Monitoring functions xi. The company shall earmark Complied.
sufficient funds towards capital Sufficient funds have been earmarked cost and recurring cost per annum towards capital cost and recurring cost per to implement the conditions annum to implement environmental stipulated by the Ministry of initiatives and related facility operations.
Environment, Forest and Climate
Change as well as the State
Government along with the
implementation schedule for all
the conditions stipulated herein.
The funds so earmarked for
26
environment
management/pollution control
measures shall not be diverted for
any other purpose.
xii. A copy of the clearance letter shall Reported to be Complied.
be sent by the project proponent to
concerned Panchayat, Zila
Parishad/ Municipal Corporation,
Urban local Body and the local
NGO, if any, from whom
suggestions/ representations, if
any, were received while
processing the proposal.
xiii. The project proponent shall also Complied.
submit six monthly reports on the Last six monthly compliance reports have status of compliance of the been submitted by the unit.
stipulated Environmental Clearance conditions including results of monitored data (both in hard copies as well as by e-mail) to the respective Regional Office of MoEF&CC, the respective Zonal office of CPCB and SPCB. A copy of Environmental Clearance and six monthly compliance status report shall be posted on the website of the company.
xiv. The environmental statement for Complied.
each financial year ending 31st March in Form-V as is mandated shall be submitted to the concerned State Pollution Control Board as prescribed under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, as amended subsequently, shall also be put on the website of the company along with the status of compliance of environmental clearance conditions and shall also be sent to the respective Regional offices of MoEF&CC by email.
xv. The project proponent shall inform Complied.
the public that the project has PP submitted the copies of the newspaper been accorded environmental clippings.
clearance by the Ministry and copies of the clearance letter are available with the SPCB/Committee and may also be seen at Website of the Ministry at http:l/moef.nic.in. This shall be advertised within seven days from the date of issue of the clearance letter, at least in two local newspapers, that are widely circulated in the region of which one shall be in the vernacular language of the locality concerned 27 and a copy of the same shall be forwarded to the concerned Regional office of the Ministry.
xvi. The Ministry reserves the right to Agreed for compliance by the PP.
stipulate additional conditions, if found necessary at subsequent stages and the project proponent shall implement all the said conditions in a time bound manner. The Ministry may revoke or suspend the environmental clearance, if implementation of any of the above conditions is not found satisfactory.
xvii. The above conditions will be Agreed for compliance by the PP.
enforced, inter-alia under the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention &.
Control of Water Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Trans-boundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, read with subsequent amendments therein
18. The specific observations are as follows:
"Following are the specific observation with reference to Hon'ble NGT OA 5412019:-
1. The Well-Pad no. 5, 8 and 11 at RGT are situated near the banks of the Luni River/Effluent/oil discharge from these well pads was not observed and plantation around the boundary of the premises of these well pads was observed.
2. As per the standard process, to extract petroleum oil from the wells, water is injected from the injection water wells and oil is extracted from the producer wells. In order to enhance the production, Enhanced oil recovery mechanism by the way of polymer injection is also practiced. In addition to this, reject from desalination plant, treated filter backwash water & ETP reject are also disposed in deep disposal wells which are 28 reported to be of the depth of more than 1000 meters below ground level. Although no oil seepage or spillage on surface from these well pads was observed but in absence of the ground water analysis reports from nearby village no comments can be made on the possibility of seepage of chemical/oils in nearby fields. A view can be taken to direct State Pollution Control Board to carry out ground water sampling of the areas which are in closed proximity of the well pads.
3. With reference to hazardous water management of the project it was observed that well pads are well under Consent Mechanism (Under Air and Water Act) and Authorization under the under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management.
and Trans-Boundary Movement) Rules, 2016 for individual well pads is also being obtained. No unscientific storage / handling of hazardous waste on the well pads visited during the site visit was observed. Hazardous wastes like oil bearing sand, Synthetic Oil Based Mud drill cuttings are being sold to the Cement Industry for final disposal through co-processing and one HDPE Lined and temporary capped hazardous landfill site was also observed at Mangla Terminal.
4. With reference of contentions raised as "The chimneys on the site of the well-pads emit fire" it was observed that the chimney at the Mangla processing terminal i.e. MPT is having flaring mechanism to burn the high moisture inert gases.
Similarly, at some of the fields like Aishwariya field, the associated gases generated from the process are CO2 rich (More than 85 %) they are also separated and flared at the mother well pad itself to avoid cold venting of associated gases. The unit is getting monitoring conducted from third 29 party monitoring agencies and latest analysis reports submitted during the visit are attached as Annexure A-1.
5. With reference to restoration of the abandoned sites, it has been reported that about 39 sites are remaining to be restored.
6. For transportation of crude oil and gas, Mangala Development Pipeline (MDP) has been developed which is a 680 km long, buried, electrically heated and insulated, 24" crude pipeline and an 8" natural gas pipeline passing through Rajasthan and Gujarat has also been established. The pipeline was reported to be operated on PLC based SCADA System with provisions of leakage detection. The system generated report of leakage incident was not available on site during the visit."
19. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.3, CGWA has submitted that protection of the felling of trees are within the domain of forest department and the violations of rules or the conditions of the EC are duly checked and verified by the Pollution Control Board and statutory authority.
20. Respondent No. 5 in its reply has stated that:
(i) That the officials of the answering respondent conducted site investigation on the directions issued by the District Collector vide letter dated 05.06.2018 on the basis of complaint given by Kisan Sangarsh Samiti. During the course of site visit of well pad 11, large numbers of trees of Jouliflora near the vicinity of well were observed.
(ii) That as per process details shared by company, the oil producing reservoirs are situated at depth of more than 80Om below the ground surface, the oil reservoir is overlaid by thick impermeable formation and it is not directly connected to any groundwater aquifer. Whereas, the freshwater aquifer is found at shallow depth (within 200m below, ground level). Oil and gas wells drilling are carried out as per International drilling 30 guideline and practices. The upper section i.e. freshwater aquifer section is being drilled using only water-based mud (WBM, primarily 90% is water and -10% bentonite earth material & others) to protect the ground water aquifer from any contaminations during the drilling activity. All the wells are then fitted with double casing with high grade carbon steel followed by cement slurry pack around the secondary casing to avoid leakage out of the well and protect the freshwater aquifer during production stage, produced fluid during the production stage is directly transported to processing terminals through closed loop pipelines.
(iii) That a complaint regarding waste water injection into underground water from Mangla Processing Terminal received on Sampark portal has already been disposed. In this regard it is submitted that the disposal of reject water into deep dump well has been permitted vide Environment Clearance issued by MoEF & CC vide letter dated 31.03.2006 & 14.06.2013. In reference to the EC, RSPCB has issued the Consent to Operate to industry on dated 24.11.2016 by imposing the condition regarding disposal of reject water into deep dump well whose depth is more than 1000 meter.
(iv) That the Cairn has its own captive Hazardous & Solid Waste Management Facility within Mangla Processing terminal Kawas District Barmer to serve as an integrated waste treatment and disposal facility for hydrocarbon exploration and production from RJ-ON-90/1 Block area. It is further submitted that the Industry is having valid Authorization for operating a facility for collection, Co-processing, Disposal, Generation, Incineration, Reception, Reuse, Storage, Transport, Treatment, Utilization of Hazardous Wastes under Hazardous Waste (Management Handling & Transboundary) 31 Rules 2016 issued by RSPCB and same is valid up to 28.02.2022. The industry submits periodic compliance reports in this regard to the answering respondent.
(v) That the answering respondent has received a complaint regarding noise pollution and poisonous gases affecting nearby area of Aishwarya Well pad no, 08, The official of t}re answering respondent conducted inspection so as to verify the complaint, during the course of inspection it was observed that the company has provided ail the pollution control measures and accordingly the complaint was dropped.
(vi) That as verified during periodic inspections of various sites, conducted by RO, RSPCB at Cairn's facilities (well pads, terminal, camps), all point sources (DGs/GEGs/Elevated Flares /Thermal Oxidizer) are provided with adequate stack height. In case of ground flare, the refractory brick wall is provided of adequate height to minimize impact due to fire and heat from flare to surrounding area.
(vii) That Ambient air & noise monitoring was carried out by team of Central Laboratory, RSPCB, Jaipur on 22.01.2018 and 23.01.2018 analysis results of same are well within the prescribed standards.
21. The Respondent no.10 and 11 has raised some preliminary objection as follows:
(i) That the Application, in any case does not raise "substantial question relating to environment", and further, the Applicant Lacks locus standi to prefer the Application. The Applicant has not disclosed any significant particulars about himself such as his antecedents or any contribution he has made to the lives of the community in Barmer, Rajasthan. No details are furnished as to precisely when the Applicant came to be seized of the issues raised in the present Application and whose cause he seeks to espouse. lt 32 is respectfully submitted that the Application as filed is not bona fide, particularly as the credentials of the Applicant are less than genuine as will be indicated in the latter part of the present reply.
(ii) Challenges the Environmental clearance granted on 11.04.2019 which was granted to the Respondent for expanding the onshore oil and gas production from existing 300,000 bpd to 4,00,000 bpd and 165 MMSFD to 750 MMSFD from RJ-ON-90/1 Block, Barmer.
However, in the Application, the Applicant has admitted that he was well-aware of the public consultation process as well as the process initiated for the grant of EC well before the same. That being so, the present application is grossly barred by efflux of time and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is also pertinent to note that in the declaration regarding limitation, the Applicant has stated that the present application has been filed under Section 18 r/w S. 14 of the NGT Act, 2010.
(iii) That the Applicant seeking to set aside the Environmental Clearance dated 11.04.2019 was required by law to file Application under Section 16 of the NGT Act which states as under:
"16. Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction.- Any person aggrieved by,- (h) an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes or c/ass of industries, operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986).
may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed 33 under this section within a further period not exceeding sixty days."
(iv) In this vein it is important to point out that the claim of the Applicant that the Environmental Clearance dated 11.04.2019 came into the Public Domain only on 31.05.2019 as claimed by him ls also false and deserves to be rejected. It may be pointed out that a public notice informing the grant of this EC by MOEF&CC and availability of its copies with RSPCB and on MoEF&CC website was published by the answering Respondent as follows:
First India Express (English), Jaipur on 17-04-2019 Janta Shakar (Hindi) Barmer District edition on 17-04- 2019 Additionally, copies of the EC letter were submitted to various government offices including the District collector and local NGos. As the complainant claims to have been closely watching the present grant of EC, it is no longer open for the Applicant to claim that despite the document getting uploaded on the website of the MOEF prior to 17.04.2019, its reference being made in the newspapers and copies of the same being provided to all local bodies and widely publicized by 17.04.20.19, he remained unaware of the EC being granted till 30.05.2019. lt may be pertinent to refer to the judgment of this Hon'ble Tribunal in save Mon Region Federation and Lobsang Choedar v.
Union of India, Manu/GT/0029/2013, where it was clearly laid down that publishing on the website of MoEF or project proponent or communication to local authorities is considered as 'date of communication'.
(v) That the EC itself was granted on 11.04.20219 and was uploaded online immediately as well as widely circulated in the period between 11.04.2019 and 17.04.2019. The present Application only raises a cause of action qua the Environmental clearance being granted without following due process and has sought cancellation 34 of the EC. Section 16 as described above clearly provides that once the EC is granted i.e. 11.04.2019 an appeal may be preferred against such a grant within 30 days i.e. the appeal ought to have been filed by 11.05.2019. Section 16 also stipulates that in the event of a delay, upon the Appellant satisfying the Hon'ble Tribunal, the same may be condoned by a period not exceeding 60 days.
Therefore, at best, any appeal along with an application to condone delay ought to have been preferred within 90 days i.e. it could have been filed before 10.07.2019. Notably, the Applicant has neither filed an Appeal under Section 16, with a very oblique motive, but instead chooses to file an Application on 09.10.2019.
(vi) The Applicant has conveniently claimed that his knowledge of the EC commenced only on 31.05.2019 i.e. when an RTI reply was received by him, which argument deserves to be rejected as the EC was in public domain immediately and had been widely publicized by the answering Respondent before 17.04.20'19. Without prejudice to the contention of the answering Respondent that only an Appeal under Section 16 may have been preferred in a petition seeking to set aside an Environmental Clearance, it is argued that by his own admission the Applicant's knowledge of the EC dated 11.04.2019 commences on 31.05.2019. Considering only for the sake of argument that such date is to be considered the starting point for an Appeal under Section 1 6 of the NGT Act, such an Appeal ought to have been filed by the Applicant within 30 days i.e. 30.06.2019 but not later than 90 days i.e.29.08.2019. Though such an appeal would still be time barred, the Applicant has failed even to abide by the same and any cause of action against the grant of the EC was hopelessly barred by limitation as any delay beyond 90days cannot be condoned by the Tribunal itself. The Applicant has also not provided any explanation as to why the Appeal was not preferred within the 90 days period from 11.04.2019 i.e. before 10.07.2019 35 with an application for condonation of delay, which may have been within the scope of consideration by this Hon'ble Tribunal even if the RTI reply had been received on 31.05.2019. Instead, the Applicant has conveniently chosen to state that a delayed RTI reply prevented him from preferring an appeal under Section 16 of the Act.
(vii) That the sole prayer sought in the present Application is to "pass an order to cancel the Environmental clearance granted in favour of the Respondent Company as on 11.04.2019". As cancellation of the EC is the only prayer sought, the present Application cannot be considered as a case of recurring cause of action as has been claimed by the Applicant in the Application. Applicant's attempt at seeking a relief that may be claimed exclusively under Section 16 of the Act (i.e. seeking cancellation of the EC) by disguising the cause of action within Section 14 with the mala fide intent to avoid limitation is nothing but an abuse of process of this Tribunal.
(viii) The present Application deals with two aspects, while on the one hand the Applicant has throughout the Application the Applicant has made sporadic references to allegations/complaints of pollution made by third parties in the years 2017 to 2018, none of which pertain to the grant of EC dated 11.04.2019, while the second part deals with the supposed non-compliance of the Public Consultation requirement occurred on 20.08.2018 for which thereafter a second public hearing was called on 28.09.2018, which renders this particular allegation meritless at the very outset. The EC under challenge was granted on 11 .04.2019 and as such for the Applicant to challenge the said EC under Section 14 of the NGT Act, which is not maintainable in the first place, the specific point in time qua the question of limitation that this Tribunal would be concerned with ought to be when the 'cause of action first arose', and to that end the Respondents herein submit that the present Application is 36 hopelessly barred by limitation as the date of grant of EC cannot be the 'cause of action first arose' for an application under Section 14.
(ix) Applications under Section 14 of the NGT Act are to be filed within the prescribed period given in the respective provisions and the period of limitation is to be computed from the date of accrual of 'first cause of action'. It is further submitted that the legislative intent and the scheme governing period of limitation are expressed unambiguously in the said provisions by use of the phrase 'cause of action first arose' and, therefore, the premise of continuing cause of action is clearly ruled out. Merely because the Applicant claims to have learnt of the Environmental Clearance on a later date, the same will not shift to become the starting point for the computation of limitation u/ s 16 as the Environment Clearance granted to any industry is a public document which is made available on the MOEF's website immediately upon the same being granted.
Arguendo, even if the limitation was to be computed from the date when Environment Clearance was granted i.e. 1 11.04.2019, the limitation is seen to have expired.
(x) That a cause of action is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue and such a right to sue "first arose" i.e. when the Applicant had an ostensible justification to sue. The claim of the Applicant of a continuing cause of action also fails to have any weight as such an interpretation would have the effect of rendering otiose the words 'first arose' employed by Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010. The interpretation offered by the Applicant places an erroneous interpretation on section 14 of the NGT Act. The said section employs the words "six months from the date when the cause of action for such dispute first arose." lt is pertinent to note that it was in the judgment of Khatri Hotels Private Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Another, (2011) 9 SCC 126 that the Hon'ble 37 Supreme Court had brought out the distinction in the usage of the words 'first' by Parliament in the context of the concept of limitation.
(xi) Thus neither does Section '16 nor Section 14 have any place for the concept of continuing cause of action. The claim of the Applicant seeking to establish the concept of continuing cause of action even though Parliament has consciously excluded the same is contrary to the ratio laid down by this Tribunal in Aradhana Bhargava vs MoEF (2013) SCC Online NGT 84 as under:
"23. From the very reading, it would be quite clear that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over all civil cases only where a substantial question relating to the environment including enforcement of any legal right related to environment is involved and also the said substantial question should also arise out of the implementation and is included in one of the seven enactments specified under the Schedule-1. Even, if the applicant is able to satisfy the above requisites, the Tribunal can adjudicate the disputes only if it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action in such dispute first arose and the Tribunal for sufficient cause can condone the delay for a period not exceeding 60 days in making the application.
24. Under Section 15 of the Act, an application for relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage under the enactments specified in Schedule-I or for restitution of the property damage or for restitution of environment for such area or areas, the applicant could be filed within a period of five years from the date of which the cause of action for such compensation or reliefs First arose. Also, if sufficient cause was shown, the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay for a period not exceeding 60 days. Significant it is to note that the expression ,cause of action for such dispute first arose" is 38 employed. By employing the above expression, the legislative intent indiacting that the period of limitation would commence only from the date on which the first event constituting the dispute arose, is explicit. This is not only an indication but also the caution that the later dates on which subsequent events arose should not be taken into account for computing the period of limitation.
28. Trait law it is that the special taw of limitation, in any given enactment, will always exclude the general law of limitation. The NGT Act, 2010, a special enactment specifically provides period of limitation under section 14(3) and 15(3), as stated supra. The principal Bench, NGT has already held in Jesurethinam & Ors Vs. Ministry of Environment, Union of India & Ors, reported in 2012 (2) FLT 811 NGT that, when a specific provision for limitation is provided under the special statute, the general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are inapplicable Hence the Tribunal is afraid whether theory of continuing cause of action can be made applicable to the resent factual position of the case for which the specific period of limitation is available under the NGT Act, 2010.
(xii) The interpretation furthered by the Applicant that for the purposes of the computation of limitation u/s 14 of the NGT Act, time will commence only after a prospective litigant has verified all facts, even if such a litigant is admittedly aware of the supposed or alleged violation in alien to the object of Section 14. lt is submitted that it is untenable in law to suggest that when a person concludes his own verification of facts that the cause of action will commence for him for that would be leaving in the hands of a litigant the time when the law of limitation ought to commence for him. This view is supported in a decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the judgment of Windsor Realty Pvt. Ltd Vs Secretary, MoEF & (8) Ors (Writ petition No.594 of 2015 : Judgment dated 1.3.2016), where the Hon'ble High 39 Court while considering the question of limitation under NGT Act had made it clear that 'prima facie, cannot be interpreted by any stretch of imagination that the cause of action would arise from the date of knowledge of the applicant of the alleged violation taking place or from the date on which the Environmental Authorities were informed about violation and inaction on their part. Attention may be drawn to the judgment of this Hon'ble Tribunal in Jai Javan Jai Kisan & ors vs. vidarbha cricket Association (Application No.33/2016 disposed on 13th January, 2017.
(xiii) The prior EC had been granted on 11.08.2014 and the Respondents herein have been conducting their operations within the boundaries of the said Environmental Clearance without any complaints being raised in that regard till date. The EC dated 11.04.2019 being only for expansion of the existing capacity it was necessary for the Applicant to prove or bring some information on record as to how the increase in capacity would adversely affect the environment or at the very least make averments to that effect, neither of which has been done by the Applicant, and the Applicant has failed to do so as there is no such material existing whatsoever. As such, the alleged cause of action to institute the instant Application (which is denied) would have arisen at that instance. On this ground as well, the instant application is clearly barred by limitation and/or ultra vires Section 14(3) of the NGT Act. Throughout the application, the Applicant has relied upon documents and alleged complaints of third parties from periods years prior to the EC dated 'l 1 .04.2019 and more so, as the specific issues raised have already been answered satisfactorily with the concerned statutory authorities who are responsible for the same, all of which shall be answered in the reply on merits. All the allegations raised by the Applicant are entirely baseless and non-existent and specific instances raised, each of which shall be duly addressed in the detailed reply are 40 admittedly claims of incidents that transpired several years ago. The lackadaisical manner in which the Applicant has made allegations against the Respondents who have been operating in India for more than past two decades as explained earlier indicates an attempt by malafide vested interests of the Applicant. The same necessarily requires due consideration by this Tribunal as to the intent behind the present Application.
(xiv) "The court has to be satisfied about
(a) The credentials of the applicant;
(b) The prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him;
(c) The information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. The court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests:
(i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and
(ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal, It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerude as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono public, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect."
(xv) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ayubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs State (2013) 4 SCC 465, where the Court had observed:
41"10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India)"
(xvi) The Respondents presently contributes -25% to India's domestic crude production and has vision to produce and contribute 50% of India's oil and gas in the future. Moreover, the Cairn Oil & Gas vertical is the largest private sector producer of crude oil in India and is in a JV Partnership with Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC Ltd).
The presence of the Respondent company in Barmer district of Rajasthan has resulted in the following outcomes for the district:
(a) over the last five years, (b) Barmer has the highest per capita income in Rajasthan and is greater than the per capita income of lndia per se. Barmer contributed 7.11 to Rajasthan,s GDP, second only to Jaipur, (c) the efforts of the answering Respondents in terms of CSR in the Barmer District are explained in detail in the succeeding paragraphs.
22. The respondent has argued that the applicant is not person aggrieved and in reply thereof the applicant relied on Vimal Bhai Vs MoEF and Ors, [Appeal No. 5 of 2011] on 14th December, 2011 dealt with the interpretation of section 16 and section 18 to explain the meaning of 'person aggrieved' under the NGT Act and observed:
"The person injured per-se as occurred in Section 18 (2) of the NGT 42 Act is only for the purpose of claiming relief, compensation or settlement of disputes, is altogether different from the person aggrieved as available in Section 16. Person aggrieved and person injured are two different words which connote different meaning. Under Section 16, any person aggrieved can approach this Tribunal by way of filing an appeal, whereas, under Section 18 (2), the person injured per-se, whether it is an individual or a body of individual or a social organization or a Hindu joint family, etc. Further, under Section 14 and 16 any person can approach this Tribunal for appropriate relief including the relief under Section
18.
The only exception to be made for treating an appeal/application as not maintainable could be a matter which falls beyond the seven (7) Acts as notified in Schedule I of the NGT Act 2010 and in a case of mala-fide and vexatious litigation brought before this Tribunal and not otherwise."
23. In M.C. Mehta Vs University Grants Commission & Ors on 17th July, 2014 (Original Application No.12 of 2014), the Tribunal examined and explained intent of legislature and scope of Section 14,15 and 16 of the NGT Act, 2010 held:
"12. This Tribunal is vested with three different jurisdictions. Firstly, it has the original jurisdiction in terms of Section 14 of the 10 NGT Act to deal with all civil cases raising a substantial question relating to environment and where such questions arise out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I of the NGT Act. Secondly, it is vested with appellate jurisdiction against the various orders / directions / decisions as stated in Section 16 (a) to (j) of the NGT Act. Thirdly it has a special jurisdiction in terms of Section 15 to grant relief of compensation and restitution as per the scheme contemplated under that provision. Admittedly, the present application has been filed under Section 14 of the NGT Act. Thus, it must plead and raise the following:
It should be a civil case.
Where a substantial question relating to environment or 43 enforcement of any legal right relating to environment is involved.
Such question arises out of implementation of enactment specified in Schedule I of the NGT Act.
13. Once these three ingredients are satisfied, then Section 14 does not appear to place any restriction on the locus or character of the Applicant who wishes to move an application under Section 14 of the Act. Similarly, Section 15 also does not describe the description of an Applicant who can move the Tribunal for seeking reliefs like compensation, restitution of the property and the environment. In contradistinction thereto, Section 16 restricts the Applicant entitled to file an Appeal to be 'any person aggrieved'. In other words, it is only a person aggrieved who can invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 16 and not any Applicant. Section 18 deals with the procedure which has to be followed by an applicant or appellant, who prefers to file an application or appeal before the Tribunal. It deals with all the three jurisdictions specified under Section 14, 15 and 16 of the NGT Act. However, Section 18 (2) of the NGT Act provides the details in regard to locus and character of an Applicant who is entitled to move the Tribunal by filing an Application for grant of relief or compensation or settlement of dispute. Section 18(2) has been worded by the legislature with wide amplitude besides covering any person aggrieved and the legal representatives of the various categories. In terms of Section 16, it includes various other persons as described under clauses (a) to
(d) and
(f) of sub-Section 2 of Section 18. The locus and character of an applicant specified under these provisions has to receive liberal construction and would cover variety of applicants. As far as Section 14 (1) of the NGT Act is concerned, the only restriction that appears to be imposed is that it must satisfy the prerequisites stated in that Section."
24. Respondent had submitted that the applicant is not aggrieved within the definition of the law and stated that :
44"5. Section 18 of the NGT Act grants following persons the right to file an Application;
"a) The person, who has sustained the injury; or
(b) The owner of the property to which the damage has been caused; or
(c) Where death has resulted from the environmental damage, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) Any agent duly authorized by such person or owner of such property or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be; or
(e) Any person aggrieved, including any representatives body
10. The Applicant admittedly does not reside in the vicinity of the project site and is in fact residing at a distance of over 20 Kms from the project site. None of the local residents residing in the vicinity of project have raised complaints of any environmental degradation being caused by the construction.
As such the concern expressed by the Applicant in respect of purported environmental degradation due to construction carried out by this Respondent is a mere ruse to hold himself out as an aggrieved person before this authority. Thus the actions of Applicant are obviously male fide and for oblique personal motives."
25. Respondent no. 9 had submitted that:
"8. The applicant has claimed to have filed the above Application under Section 14 and 15 of the NGT Act read with Section 18 of the said act on the basis that he is a socially concerned person and is concerned about the alleged rapid degradation of the environment in the city of Mumbai. However, the said Sections 14 and 15 (which contain the powers of the NGT to hear applications as specified therein) and sub-section (2) of the said Section (18) (which provides an exhaustive list of the persons entitled to file such applications) provide a remedy under the NGT Act only for persons who are personally and directly impacted. The said provisions do not entitle socially concerned persons who are not 'Aggrieved Persons' within the context of the NGT Act to file an application. As the Project of Respondent no. 9 is situated at 45 village Ambivali, Andheri (West), Mumbai, whereas the address of the applicant is shown in the application as being at Matunga Road in Mumbai, the applicant is clearly not affected by the said Project and is not an "Aggrieved Person".
The Applicant is, therefore, not entitled to file the above Application and the said Application is not maintainable. "
26. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A petition is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the Appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty b a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In-fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the Appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same.
(Vide: State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta MANU/SC/0012/1951MANU/SC/0012/1951: AIR 1952 SC 12; Saghir Ahmad and Anr. v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0110/ 1954 MANU/SC/0110/1954:AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta Gas Co.
(Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. MANU/SC/0063/1962 MANU/SC/0063/1962: AIR 1962 SC1044;RajendraSinghv.State of Madhya Pradesh MANU /SC/0690/1996 MANU /SC/0690/1996:AIR 1996 SC 2736;
and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v.
S.C.Sekar and Ors. MANU/SC/8375/2008 MANU/SC/8375/2008 : (2009) 2 46 SCC 784).
27. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home Insurance Co.
of New York MANU/SC/0017/1974 MANU/SC/0017/1974 : AIR 1974 SC 1719; and State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
MANU/SC/0370/1977MANU/SC/0370/1977: AIR 1977 SC 1361).
28. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai MANU/SC/7106/2008MANU/SC/7106/2008 : AIR 2008 SC 1289, a similar view was taken by Court, observing that, if a person claiming relief is not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or the selection of other persons.
29. In A. Subhash Babu v. State of A.P. MANU/S C /0845/2011 MANU/SC/0845/2011 : AIR 2011 SC 3031, Court held:
"The expression 'aggrieved person' denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of complainant's interest and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the complainant."
30. In Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal and Ors. MANU /SC /0608 / 2001MANU /SC /0608 /2001 : (2002) 1 SCC 33, Court considered a similar issue and observed as under:-
"There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where 47 the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest. The existence of the legal right of the Petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under the aforesaid article. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the Court has undergone a sea change with the development of constitutional law in our country and the constitutional Courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on hyper- technical grounds. ----In other words, if the person is found to be not merely a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, he cannot be non-suited on the ground of his not having the locus standi."
31. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad and Ors. MANU/SC/0186/2012MANU /SC / 0186/2012 : (2012) 4 SCC 407, held as under:
"Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, ex-President was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversarial litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eye of the law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria.
The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justifiable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and 48 not a stat pro ratione voluntas reasons i.e. a claim devoid of reasons.
Under the garb of being a necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person who wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party."
32. In Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/ 0252 / 2001 MANU/SC/0252/2001 : AIR 2001 SC 1739, Court held:
"Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of person is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief."
33. It is further submitted that there is no sufficient cause to file this application and since appeal has not been filed challenging the EC, this Original Application is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the relief for challenging the EC is maintainable only by filing the appeal, and thus there is no sufficient cause.
34. Sufficient cause or reasonable cause was dealt in the matter of M.A. No. 247/2012 in Appeal No. 76/2012, Nikunj Developers vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. decided on 14.03.2013 which was reported in MANU (GT) 0030/283, it was held as follows:
"5. The stand taken by the non-applicant is that there is no cause much less a 'sufficient cause' shown by the applicant, for condonation of delay. There is complete 49 inaction and negligence on part of the applicant, right from 2nd of June, 2012, till 20th September, 2012, the date on which the appeal was filed. Even if it is taken to be correct that the brother of applicant no. 3 was ill and he died as a result of his illness on 13th June, 2013, even then there is no reason stated post 13th June, 2012 as to why the appeal was not filed till 20th September, 2012. In the alternative, the submission is that even if it is assumed that there is sufficient cause shown by the applicant for condonation of delay, still this Tribunal shall have no jurisdiction to condone the delay because the appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed period of 90 days, which includes even the extended period of 60 days. Thus, in their submission, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed, being barred by limitation.
6. Now, firstly, we have to examine the interpretation of the expression 'sufficient cause', as it emerges from the various judgments of the courts, particularly the Supreme Court of India. The use of expression 'sufficient cause' in Section 16 of the NGT Act is not a legislative innovation but is a derivative reference from other enactments. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, also uses the same expression 'sufficient cause'. An applicant praying for condonation of delay in instituting the appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act is required to show a sufficient cause, if the appeal is filed beyond a period beyond 30 days from the date of communication of the Environmental Clearance order as prescribed.
7. The expression 'sufficient cause' is not to be construed in isolation. The attendant circumstances and various other factors have to be taken into consideration by the Courts/Tribunals while dealing with the question of condonation of delay. Thus, it is important at this stage to deal with the meaning and connotation, that this expression has received in various judicial pronouncements, in some elucidation.
8. The term 'sufficient cause' has to be considered keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression 'sufficient cause' implied by the legislature 50 is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner, which subserves the ends of justice - that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. This view was expressed by Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Katiji and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 1335.
9. The term 'sufficient cause' must receive a liberal meaning and has to be incorporated so as to introduce the concept of reasonableness, as it is understood in its general connotation. Certainly, the Limitation Act is a substantive law and its provisions have to be adhered to in a manner that once, a valuable right accrues in favour of one party, as a result of unexplained sufficient or reasonable cause and directly as a result of negligence, default or inaction of the other party, such a right cannot be taken away lightly and in a routine manner.
10. The Courts have also taken the view that the expression 'sufficient cause' be considered with pragmatism in a justice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for every day's delay.
11. 'Sufficient cause' must necessarily be tested on the touchstone of doctrine of reasonableness. It may not be a very appropriate approach to apply principles of limitation with absolute rigidity resulting in irreparable injustice to the parties; a balanced approach may better serve the ends of justice.
12. In P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala and Anr., J.T. 1997 (8) 189, the Supreme Court took the view that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.
13. However, the Courts have also taken the view that the approach of the Courts must be to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles the decision on merits, thus, showing greater inclination to accept a liberal approach.51
14. The equitable principles have also been applied to the law of limitation but with great circumspection. The clear language of law will always prevail over the equitable principles as equity cannot defeat the law. At this stage we may notice some of the principles which have been reiterated with approval by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajghunath Rai Bareja and another vs Punjab National Bank and Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 230 where the Court held as under:
"30. Thus, in Madamanchi Ramappa and Anr. v. Muthaluru Bojjappa [1964]2SCR673 this Court observed:
"What is administered in Courts is justice according to law, and considerations of fair play and equity however important they may be, must yield to clear and express provisions of the law".
31. In Council for Indian School Certificate Examination v. Isha Mittal and Anr. : (2000)7SCC521 this Court observed:
"Considerations of equity cannot prevail and do not permit a High Court to pass an order contrary to the law."
32. Similarly in P.M. Latha and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. [2003]2SCR653 this Court observed:
"Equity and law are twin brothers and law should be applied and interpreted equitably, but equity cannot override written or settled law"
33. In Laxminarayan R. Bhattad and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [2003]3SCR409 this Court observed:
It is now well settled that when there is a conflict between law and equity the former shall prevail....
34. Similarly in Nasiruddin and Ors. v. Sita Ram Agarwal [2003]1SCR634 this Court observed:
In a case where the statutory provision is plain and unambiguous, the court shall not interpret the same in a different manner, only because of harsh consequences arising therefrom....
35. Similarly in E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy (Dead) by 52 Lrs. and Ors. AIR2003SC153 this Court observed:
...Equitable considerations have no place where the statute contained express provisions....
36. In India House v. Kishan N. Lalwani [2002]SUPP5SCR522 this Court held that:
...The period of limitation statutorily prescribed has to be strictly adhered to and cannot be relaxed or departed from by equitableconsiderations....
39. In Hiralal Ratanlal v. STO [1973] 2 SCR 502, this Court observed:
In construing a statutory provision the first and foremost rule of construction is the literary construction. All that the Court has to see at the very outset is what does the provision say. If the provision is unambiguous and if from the provision the legislative intent is clear, the Court need not call into aid the other rules of construction of statutes. The other rules of construction are called into aid only when the legislative intent is not clear.
15. In a more recent judgment, the Supreme Court, in Balwant Singh (Dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 685, while dealing with the expression 'sufficient cause', elaborately stated the principles of condonation of delay. It also elucidated the approach to be adopted by a Court in such cases and held as under:
"It must be kept in mind that whenever a law is enacted by the legislature, it is intended to be enforced in its proper perspective. It is an equally settled principle of law that the provisions of a statute, including every word, have to be given full effect, keeping the legislative intent in mind, in order to ensure that the projected object is achieved. In other words, no provisions can be treated to have been enacted purposelessly. Furthermore, it is also a well settled canon of interpretative jurisprudence that the Court should not give such an interpretation to provisions which would render the provision ineffective or odious. Once the legislature has enacted the provisions of Order 22, with 53 particular reference to Rule 9, and the provisions of the Limitation Act are applied to the entertainment of such an application, all these provisions have to be given their true and correct meaning and must be applied wherever called for. If we accept the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant that the Court should take a very liberal approach and interpret these provisions (Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act) in such a manner and so liberally, irrespective of the period of delay, it would amount to practically rendering all these provisions redundant and inoperative. Such approach or interpretation would hardly be permissible in law. Liberal construction of the expression 'sufficient cause' is intended to advance substantial justice which itself presupposes no negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant, to whom want of bona fide is imputable. There can be instances where the Court should condone the delay; equally there would be cases where the Court must exercise its discretion against the applicant for want of any of these ingredients or where it does not reflect 'sufficient cause' as understood in law. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 2nd Edition, 1997] The expression 'sufficient cause' implies the presence of legal and adequate reasons. The word 'sufficient' means adequate enough, as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. It embraces no more than that which provides a plentitude which, when done, suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the light of existing circumstances and when viewed from the reasonable standard of practical and cautious men. The sufficient cause should be such as it would persuade the Court, in exercise of its judicial discretion, to treat the delay as an excusable one. These provisions give the Courts enough power and discretion to apply a law in a meaningful manner, while assuring that the purpose of enacting such a law does not stand frustrated. We find it unnecessary to discuss the instances which would fall under either of these classes of cases. The party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see if it could have been 54 avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention."
18. ........According to the non-applicant, the Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to condone the delay in view of the language of Section 16 of the NGT Act, which reads as under:
"16. Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction - Any person aggrieved by,-
********* h. an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;
********* may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination iscommunicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed under this section within a further period not exceeding sixty days."
19. From language of the above provision it is clear that the Tribunal loses jurisdiction to condone the delay if the delay is of more than 90 days. Every appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. That is, what an applicant is required to ensure before the appeal is heard on merits. However, the Tribunal has been vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal which is filed after 30 days from the date of communication of an order. This power to condone the delay has a clear inbuilt limitation as it ceases to exist if the appeal is filed in excess of 60 days, beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days from the date of communication of such order. To put it simply, once the period of 90 days lapses from the date of communication of the order, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay. The language of the provision is clear and explicit. It admits of no ambiguity and the legislative 55 intent that Tribunal should not and cannot condone the delay in excess of 90 days in all, is clear from the plain language of the provision.
20. As stated in the cases Hiralal Ratan Lal and India Houses (supra) the period of limitation statutorily prescribed, has to be strictly adhered to and cannot be relaxed and or departed from, on equitable consideration. Further, in construing a statutory provision, the first and the foremost rule of construction is that of literary construction. We do not see any reason to expand the scope of the provision and interpret the proviso to Section 16 in the manner that Tribunal can be vested with the power of condoning the delay beyond 90 days. Such interpretation would be contrary to the specific language of the Section and would defeat the very legislative intent and object behind this provision.
21. This controversy need not detain us any further as it is no more res integra and stands answered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and others (2010) 5 SCC 23 where the court held as under:
"29. Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is substantially similar to Section 125 of the Electricity Act came to be interpreted in Union of India v. Popular Construction Company : (2001) 8 SCC 470. The precise question considered in that case was whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to an application challenging an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The two- Judge Bench referred to earlier decisions in Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi: (1976) 1 SCC 392, Vidyacharan Shukla v. Khubchand Baghel AIR 1964 SC 1099, Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. L.N. Mishra (supra), Patel Naranbhai Marghabhai v. Dhulabhai Galbabhai :
(1992) 4 SCC 264 and held:
12. As far as the language of Section 34 of the 1996 Act is concerned, the crucial words are "but not thereafter" used in the proviso to Sub- section (3). In our opinion, this phrase 56 would amount to an express exclusion within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, and would therefore bar the application of Section 5 of that Act. Parliament did not need to go further. To hold that the court could entertain an application to set aside the award beyond the extended period under the proviso, would render the phrase "but not thereafter" wholly otiose. No principle of interpretation would justify such a result.
16. Furthermore, Section 34(1) itself provides that recourse to a court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award "in accordance with" Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3). Sub-section (2) relates to grounds for setting aside an award and is not relevant for our purposes. But an application filed beyond the period mentioned in Section 34, Sub-section (3) would not be an application "in accordance with" that Sub-
section. Consequently by virtue of Section 34(1), recourse to the court against an arbitral award cannot be made beyond the period prescribed. The importance of the period fixed under Section 34 is emphasised by the provisions of Section 36 which provide that "where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 has expired ... the award shall be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court".
This is a significant departure from the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Under the 1940 Act, after the time to set aside the award expired, the court was required to "proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award, and upon the judgment so pronounced a decree shall follow" (Section 17). Now the consequence of the time expiring under Section 34 of the 1996 Act is that the award becomes immediately enforceable without any further act of the court. If there were any residual doubt on the interpretation of the language used in Section 34, the scheme of the 1996 Act would resolve the issue in favour of curtailment of the court's powers by the exclusion of the operation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
5730. In Singh Enterprises v. C.C.E., Jamshedpur and Ors. (supra), the Court interpreted Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944, which is pari materia to Section 125 of the Electricity Act and observed:
8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the statute. The period up to which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short "the Limitation Act") can be availed for condonation of delay. The first proviso to Section 35 makes the position clear that the appeal has to be preferred within three months from the date of communication to him of the decision or order. However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days, he can allow it to be presented within a further period of 30 days. In other words, this clearly shows that the appeal has to be filed within 60 days but in terms of the proviso further 30 days' time can be granted by the appellate authority to entertain the appeal. The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only up to 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days' period.
22. The same view was reiterated in Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise v. Punjab Fibres Ltd. : (2008) 3 SCC 73.
"31. In Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited and Anr. (2009) 5 SCC 791, a 58 three-Judge Bench considered the scheme of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and held that High Court has no power to condone delay beyond the period specified in Section 35H thereof. The argument that Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked for condonation of delay was rejected by the Court and observed:
"30. In the earlier part of our order, we have adverted to Chapter VI-A of the Act which provides for appeals and revisions to various authorities. Though Parliament has specifically provided an additional period of 30 days in the case of appeal to the Commissioner, it is silent about the number of days if there is sufficient cause in the case of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Also an additional period of 90 days in the case of revision by the Central Government has been provided. However, in the case of an appeal to the High Court under Section 35G and reference application to the High Court under Section 35H, Parliament has provided only 180 days and no further period for filing an appeal and making reference to the High Court is mentioned in the Act.
32. As pointed out earlier, the language used in Sections 35, 35B, 35EE, 35G and 35H makes the position clear that an appeal and reference to the High Court should be made within 180 days only from the date of communication of the decision or order. In other words, the language used in other provisions makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning the delay only up to 30 days after expiry of 60 days which is the preliminary limitation period for preferring an appeal. In the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The High Court was, therefore, justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after expiry of the prescribed period of 180 days.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
35. It was contended before us that the words "expressly excluded" would mean that there must be an express 59 reference made in the special or local law to the specific provisions of the Limitation Act of which the operation is to be excluded. In this regard, we have to see the scheme of the special law which here in this case is the Central Excise Act. The nature of the remedy provided therein is such that the legislature intended it to be a complete code by itself which alone should govern the several matters provided by it. If, on an examination of the relevant provisions, it is clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act are necessarily excluded, then the benefits conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the Act. In our considered view, that even in a case where the special law does not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act by an express reference, it would nonetheless be open to the court to examine whether and to what extent, the nature of those provisions or the nature of the subject-matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation. In other words, the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, therefore, is to be judged not from the terms of the Limitation Act but by the provisions of the Central Excise Act relating to filing of reference application to the High Court.
32. In view of the above discussion, we hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked by this Court for entertaining an appeal filed against the decision or order of the Tribunal beyond the period of 120 days specified in Section 125 of the Electricity Act and its proviso. Any interpretation of Section 125 of the Electricity Act which may attract applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 29(2) thereof will defeat the object of the legislation, namely, to provide special limitation for filing an appeal against the decision or order of the Tribunal and proviso to Section 125 will become nugatory."
23. Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 uses the expression 'not thereafter' while the provision under our consideration uses the terms 'not exceeding'. Both these expressions use negative language. The intention is to divest the Courts/Tribunals from power to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period of 60 limitation. Once such negative language is used, the application of provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or such analogous provisions would not be applicable.
24. The use of negative words has an inbuilt element of 'mandatory'. The intent of legislation would be to necessarily implement those provisions as stated.
25. Introduction or alteration of words which would convert the mandatory into directory may not be permissible. Affirmative words stand at a weaker footing than negative words for reading the provisions as 'mandatory'. It is possible that in some provision, the use of affirmative words may also be so limiting as to imply a negative. Once negative expression is evident upon specific or necessary implication, such provisions must be construed as mandatory. The legislative command must take precedence over equitable principle. The language of Section 16 of the NGT Act does not admit of any ambiguity, rather it is explicitly clear that the framers of law did not desire to vest the Tribunal with powers, specific or discretionary, of condoning the delay in excess of total period of 90 days. At this stage, we may also refer to Principle of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 13th Edition, where it is stated as under:
"(c) Use of negative words another mode of showing a clear intention that the provision enacted is mandatory, is by clothing the command in a negative form. As stated by CRAWFORD: "Prohibitive or negative words can rarely, if ever, be directory. And this is so even though the statute provides no penalty for disobedience." As observed by SUBBARAO, J.: "Negative words are clearly prohibitory and are ordinarily used as a legislative device to make a statute imperative". Section 80 and Section 87-B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; section 77 of the Railways Act, 1890; Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947;
section 213 of the Succession Act, 1925; section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; section 7 of the Stamp Act, 1899; section 108 of the Companies Act, 1965; section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (as 61 amended in 1956); section 10A of Medical Council Act, 1965 (as amended in 1993) and similar other provisions have therefore, been construed as mandatory. A provision requiring 'not less than three months' notice' is also for the same reason mandatory.
But the principle is not without exception. Section 256 of the Government of India, 1953, was construed by the Federal Court as directory though worded in the negative form. Directions related to solemnization of marriages though using negative words have been construed as directory in cases where the enactments in question did not provide for the consequence that the marriage in breach of those directions shall be invalid. Considerations of general inconvenience, which would have resulted in holding these enactments mandatory, appear to have outweighed the effect of the negative words in reaching the conclusion that they were in their true meaning merely director. An interesting example, where negative words have been held to be directory, is furnished in the construction of section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, where compliance of clause (c) has been held to be directory; although compliance of clauses (a) and (b) which are connected by the same negative words is understood as mandatory. These cases illustrate that the rule, that negative words are usually mandatory, is like any other rule subordinate to the context, and the object intended to be achieved by the particular requirement."
26. The provision of Section 16 of the NGT Act are somewhat similar to Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thus, adopting an analogous reasoning, as was adopted in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (supra), we would have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that we have no jurisdiction to condone the delay when the same is in excess of 90 days from the date of communication of the order to any person aggrieved.
27. Thus, the application must fail on this ground alone. We are of the considered view that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay of 19 days in filing the present appeal, the same being in excess of 90 days computed from the admitted date of communication of 62 order, that is 2nd June, 2012."
28. The NGT Act is a special enactment and hence, there is statutory prescription of the special period of limitation under Section 14(3) and 15(3) of the Act which will certainly exclude the general law of limitation. The assumption that the project proponent has illegally commenced the construction on 04.11.2012 was factually incorrect and misleading. The plain and simple language of Section 14(3) i.e. unless it is made within the period of six months from the date on which the cause of action/dispute first arose negates the principles of continuing cause of action. If the plea of continuing cause of action is accepted within the limitation, the statute would be eschewed of the important and vital words namely "first arose". On the facts of the present case, Section 22 of the Limitation Act will have no effect. Though, the same being a part of the general law of limitation since it would stand excluded by the special provision of limitation. In the special law, under Section 14(3) and 15(3) of the Act. The NGT Act is a special law enacted for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases related of Environment (Protection) Act and conservation of forest and other natural resource. Hence, the law provides the period of limitation which would be have overriding effect over the Limitation Act which is general law. If the plea of the applicants of principles of continuing cause of action for the purpose of brining a dispute under Section 14(1) within the limitation or reliefs under Section 15 (1) within the limitations of 15(3) is to be accepted, then it would lead to the serious, anomalous and undesirable consequences. Apart from that it would be contrary to the"
23. Speaking on the jurisdiction powers and proceedings of the Tribunal, Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010 reads as follows:
"14. Tribunal to settle disputes. -- (1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified on Schedule- I. 63 (2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions referred to in sub-section (1) and settle such disputes and pass order thereon.
(3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the application was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days."
27. It would be apt and appropriate to reproduce the following observation made by the Principal Bench, NGT presided over by the Hon'ble Justice Shri Swatanter Kumar, Chairperson, NGT, New Delhi in Appeal No. 01 of 2013 Ms. Medha Patkar v. Ministry of Environment & Forest, Union of India on the point of limitation:
"The Tribunal must adopt a pragmatic and practical approach that would also be in consonance with the provisions of the Act providing limitation. Firstly, the limitation would never begin to run and no act would determine when such limitation would stop running as any one of the stakeholders may not satisfy or comply with all its obligations prescribed under the Act. To conclude that it is only when all the stakeholders had completed in entirety their respective obligations under the respective provisions, read with the notification of 2006, then alone the period of limitation shall begin to run, would be an interpretation which will frustrate the very object of the Act and would also cause serious prejudice to all concerned. Firstly, the completely frustrates the purpose of prescription of limitation. Secondly, a project proponent who has obtained environmental clearance and thereafter spent crores of rupees on establishment and operation of the project, would be exposed to uncertainty, dander of unnecessary litigation and even the possibility of jeopardizing the interest of his project after years have lapsed. This cannot be the intent of law. The framers of law have enacted the provisions of limitation with a clear intention of specifying the period 64 within which an aggrieved person can invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It is a settled rule of law that once the law provides for limitation, then it must operate meaningfully and with its rigour. Equally true is that once the period of limitation starts running, then it does not stop. An applicant may be entitled to condonation or exclusion of period of limitation. Discharge of one set of obligations in its entirety by any stakeholder would trigger the period of limitation which then would not stop running and equally cannot be frustrated by mere non-compliance of its obligation to communicate or place the order in public domain by another stakeholder. The purpose of providing a limitation is not only to fix the time within which a party must approach the Tribunal but is also intended to bring finality to the orders passed on one hand and preventing endless litigation on the other. Thus both these purposes can be achieved by a proper interpretation of these provisions. A communication will be complete once the order granting environmental clearance is place in public domain by all the modes referred to by all or any of the stakeholders. The legislature in its wisdom has, under the provisions of the Act or in the notification of 2006, not provided any other indicator or language that could be the precept for the Tribunal to take any other view.""
35. He has further relied on 2016 SCC Online Bom 5613, Windsor Realty Pvt.
Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment and Forest, where it was held as follows:
"26. There are two conflicting interests viz right of citizens to ensure that there is due compliance of the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and, at the same time Developers and Builders who have already completed the Project are not harassed by the applications being filed after considerable lapse of time. These two conflicting interests will have to be reconciled by laying down proper law in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
a. Section 14(3) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 reads as under:
"14(3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the dae on which the 65 cause of action for such dispute first arose."
b. A bare perusal of the said section clearly discloses that period of limitation is six months from the date on which the cause of action first arose. Prima faice, therefore it cannot be interpreted by any stretch of imagination that it would arose from the date of knowledge of the original applicant of the alleged violation taking place or from the date on which the Environmental Authorities were informed about violation and inaction on their part. There appears to be a lot of confusion in the mind of NGT Bench, Pune on various aspects of continuous cause of action. Perusal of the said Section indicates that the concept of continuous cause of action cannot apply to the complaints which are filed before the NGT because had it been so, the legislature would not have stated that the limitation would be six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose. If the interpretation which is sought to be given to the provision by the NGT Bench, Pune in the impugned order is accepted, the complaint could be filed by the aggrieved person at any point of time, claiming that he came to know about the violation after 10 or 20 years. At the same time, if there is any violation of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the same have to be addressed and looked into. The only question is by which Authority."
36. He has further relied on 2013 SCC Online NGT 72, Raza Ahmad V.State of Chhattisgarh:
"26. It would be apt and appropriate to reproduce the following observation made by the Principal Bench, NGT, New Delhi in Appeal No. 01 of 2013 Ms. Medha Patkar v. Ministry of Environment & Forest, Union of India on the point of limitation:
"The Tribunal must adopt a pragmatic and practical approach that would also be in consonance with the provisions of the Act providing limitation. Firstly, the limitation would never begin to run and no act would determine when such limitation would stop running as any one of the stakeholders may not satisfy or comply with all its obligations prescribed under the 66 Act. To conclude that it is only when all the stakeholders had completed in entirety their respective obligations under the respective provisions, read with the notification of 2006, then alone the period of limitation shall begin to run, would be an interpretation which will frustrate the very object of the Act and would also cause serious prejudice to all concerned. Firstly, the completely frustrates the purpose of prescription of limitation. Secondly, a project proponent who has obtained environmental clearance and thereafter spent crores of rupees on establishment and operation of the project, would be exposed to uncertainty, dander of unnecessary litigation and even the possibility of jeopardizing the interest of his project after years have lapsed. This cannot be the intent of law. The framers of law have enacted the provisions of limitation with a clear intention of specifying the period within which an aggrieved person can invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It is a settled rule of law that once the law provides for limitation, then it must operate meaningfully and with its rigour. Equally true is that once the period of limitation starts running, then it does not stop. An applicant may be entitled to condonation or exclusion of period of limitation. Discharge of one set of obligations in its entirety by any stakeholder would trigger the period of limitation which then would not stop running and equally cannot be frustrated by mere non- compliance of its obligation to communicate or place the order in public domain by another stakeholder. The purpose of providing a limitation is not only to fix the time within which a party must approach the Tribunal but is also intended to bring finality to the orders passed on one hand and preventing endless litigation on the other. Thus both these purposes can be achieved by a proper interpretation of these provisions. A communication will be complete once the order granting environmental clearance is place in public domain by all the modes referred to by all or any of the stakeholders. The legislature in its wisdom has, 67 under the provisions of the Act or in the notification of 2006, not provided any other indicator or language that could be the precept for the Tribunal to take any other view."
a. It is not that the Tribunal is unmindful of the fact that the subject matter in question related to environment which is of serious concern and the Tribunal is specially constituted to deal with all environment disputes and dismissing the appeal as not maintainable would appear to be unreasonable. But the Tribunal is helpless, being a statutory body, the Tribunal is bound by the language of the statute. Hence, in view of the discussions made above, the Tribunal has no option than to dismiss the appeal not maintainable as barred by time and one outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed accordingly. No order as to cost."
37. In 2015 SSC Online NGT 145 V. Sundar Proprietor Chemicals IndiaVs.
Union of India:
"31.....The question 'what is communication' came up for consideration before the Principal Bench of NGT in Save Mon Region Federation and Lobsang Choedar v. Union of India, Manu/GT/0029/2013 and it was held as follows:
"18. The limitation as prescribed under Section 16 of the NGT Act shall commence from the date of order is communicated. As already noticed, communication of the order has to be by putting it in the public domain for the benefit of the public at large. The day the MOEF shall put the complete order of Environmental Clearance on its websidte and when the same can be downloaded without any hindrance or impediments and also put the order on its public notice board, the limitation be reckoned from that date. The limitation may also trigger from the date when the Project Proponent uploads the Environmental Clearance order with its environmental conditions and safeguards upon its website as well as publishes the same in the newspapers as prescribed under Regulation 10 of the Environmental Clearance Regulations, 2006. It is 68 made clear that such obligation of uploading the order on the website by the Project Proponent shall be complete only when it can simultaneously be downloaded without delay and impediments. The limitation could also commence when the Environmental Clearance order is displayed by the local bodies, Panchayats and Municipal Bodies along with the concerned departments of the State Government displaying the same in the manner afore- indicated. Out of the three points from which the limitation could commence and be computed, the earliest in point of time shall be the relevant date and it will have to be determined with reference to the facts of each case. The applicant must be able to download or know from the public notice the factum of the order as well as its content in regard to environmental conditions and safeguards imposed in the order of the Environmental Clearance. Mere knowledge or deemed knowledge of order cannot form the basis for reckoning the period of limitation.
* * *
39. Once we examine the provision of Section 16 of the NGT Act in the light of the above principle, it is clear that the provision is neither ambiguous nor indefinite. The expressions used by the legislature are clear and convey the legislative intent. The communication of an order granting the Environmental Clearance has to be made by the MoEF as well as the Project Proponent in adherence to law. The communication would be complete when it is undisputedly put in the public domain by the recognised modes, in accordance with the said provision. The limitation of 30 days would commence from that date. If the appeal is presented beyond the period of 30 days, in that event, it becomes obligatory upon the applicant to show sufficient cause explaining the delay. The delay must be bona fide and not a result of negligence or intentional inaction or mala fide and must not result in the abuse of process of law. Once these ingredients are satisfied the Tribunal shall adopt a balanced approach in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case".
36. Trite law it is that the special law of limitation in any given enactment will always exclude the general law of 69 limitation. The NGT Act, 2010, a special enactment specifically provides a period of limitation under section 14(2) and 15(3). The Principal Bench, NGT has already held in Jesurathinam v. MoEF, Union of India reported in 2012 (2) FLT 811 NGT that when a specific provision for limitation is provided under the special statute, the general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are inapplicable. Hence, the Tribunal is afraid whether the theory of continuing cause of action can be made applicable to the present factual position of the case for which the specific period of limitation is available under the NGT Act, 2010.
38. The rule 14 of the NGT, Rules 2011 reads as follows:
"14. Plural remedies.-An application or appeal, as the case may be, shall be based upon a single cause of action and may seek one or more relief provided that they are consequential to one another"..
38. On the above version, the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent is that this Original Application is not maintainable for the relief of cancellation of Environmental Clearance.
39. The submission of the Respondent No.9 Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India Ltd are as follows:
(i) That ONGC is the largest crude oil and natural gas Company in India, contributing around 71 per cent to Indian domestic production. As a responsible PSE, ONGC always ensures compliance of applicable laws, rules and regulations in respect of all its activities as well as encourages compliance of applicable laws, rules and regulations by its operators as well.
(ii) ONGC and Cairn Oil and Gas of Vedanta Ltd. are the Joint Venture Partners of the onshore block RJ-ON-90/1 (the "Block") located in Barmer and Jalore district, in the state of Rajasthan, India. Cairn Oil and Gas is the Operator of the Block. As per the Production Sharing Contract (PSC) between Government of India, ONGC, Cairn Oil and Gas (Operator), the Operator is responsible for carrying out the Petroleum Operations of the Block in compliance with the applicable laws, rules and regulations.
(iii) A brief description of the operations at the Block is explained as under:70
(a) The block RJ-ON-90/1 consists, among others, of Mangala, Bhagyam and Aishwariya (MBA) fields which are the three largest finds in Rajasthan. The Mangala field, considered to be the largest onshore hydrocarbon find in India in last two decades, was discovered in January 2004. Production from MBA fields contributes to approximately 25% of India's total domestic Crude Oil production and plays a pivotal role in fulfilling Country‟s requirement of crude oil and natural gas. The Mangala Processing Terminal (MPT) is spread over 1.6 km2 and is a core asset processing crude oil produced from Rajasthan. After processing, the crude oil is transported to refineries through a continuously heated and insulated pipeline. As the Block is important to the country's energy security and the present Application does not place on record an iota of information regarding alleged pollution or any other infraction of prevailing environmental and pollution laws.
(iv) That ONGC has not received any complaint against the Operator alleging such large scale tree cutting. If at all such illegal tree cutting had taken place the same would have been investigated by the Forest Officials and MoEF and action would have been taken.
Moreover, the allegation in Para 11 is factually wrong as Well-Pad Nos. 5,8 and 11 are not constructed on the banks of the Luni River.
(v) Claims of seepage from well-pads are clearly false as the reservoirs are situated at great depths and the extraction activity is regularly monitored by Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB), CPCB and the DGH. In fact, as per the EC regular updates need to be provided to the concerned authorities regarding extraction which are verified by authorities. There are no particulars provided to show that farmers are being forced to buy water from outside due to the activities at the Block and the same are denied at the outset. Further, any such pollution would have been duly complained at such time to the RSPCB or District Collector who would be able to verify the authenticity of the same. Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 require a permission to be taken and regular reports to be submitted to authorities who will be able to verify if there was any violation of the provisions or conditions in the permission granted. The Block is 71 being operated with all necessary permissions in place and with regular reports being provided in the absence of which the authorisations and consents would have been revoked. However, ONGC, being the JV Partner has not received any such complaints or grievances against the Operator for violation of the provisions of the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. If at all any such violation had taken place, ONGC would have been made aware as the Blocks operations would have been affected.
(vi) The emitting of fire is a process of flaring which is vital to the process to eliminate toxic gases. Moreover, as per the CPCB/SPCB requirements, the chimneys are to be maintained at a height of 30m which is monitored and verified by the RSPCB as well as the CPCB. In addition, there are regular studies conducted apart from inspections by RSPCB as per the Consent to Operate conditions to verify if the pollution control measures are as per stipulations. ONGC has not received any complaints from private individuals or authorities regarding such allegations. Moreover, it is specifically denied that residents and villagers are facing any health hazards attributable to the operations at the Block or due to alleged pollution. It is specifically denied that there is skin disease or eye irritation among the villagers or that the operations at the Block have led to such diseases and that necessary inspections, verifications and investigations would have been carried out by the RSPCB, CPCB, DGH and other authorities to verify such allegations.
40. The Applicant has filed the objection against the reply to the effect that preliminary objections are baseless and the Applicant has raised substantial question for environment. The environment clearance should have been published in newspapers where industry operates and the newspapers has mentioned in the reply does not contain the environmental conditions and the safeguards which is mandatory to be made in public. The Applicant has relied on In Save Mon Region Federation & Anr Vs Union of India & Ors on 14 March, 2013, National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Appeal No. 39 of 2012), in M/s Goel Ganga Developers v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 10854 of 2016), in Doaba Paryavaran Samiti vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0922/2015, Forward Foundation's case (O.A. No. 72 222/2014: The Forward Foundation A Charitable Trust & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. dated 07th May, 2015)
41. Respondent No. 10 and 11 submitted as follows:
(i) That the Regional officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB)had even inspected the site based on a complaint dated 30.05.2018, received by it from Kisan Sangarsh Samiti and after an enquiry, RSPCB submitted a final report dated 10.07.2018 that there was no large scale or illegal cutting of trees by the Respondent herein as has been incorrectly claimed by the Applicant. However, the said officer had reported cutting of delisted trees by locals of the area for fuel and other purposes around the project areas. The department found no evidence of large scale tree cutting as had been claimed by the complainants and even noted that substantial afforestation activities had been conducted by the Company. However, the Applicant seeks to discredit the steps taken by the authorities by referring to certain unverified claims of purported violation by the Respondent Company. It may also be necessary to point out that the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board categorically noted in its letter that the complainants had merely submitted a signed letter without names or addresses or contact details of the purported signatories and the letter contained unsubstantiated allegations. It is further submitted that a greenbelt is developed within the block area and the Respondents have as part of their community initiatives developed greenbelts in & around its operation areas and have planted around 70,000 saplings within the terminals and well pads and further 45,000 saplings have been planted at different receptor locations. Apart from the above, the respondents have also planted 36,000 trees towards Compensatory Afforestation in the Barmer District alone. In addition to this, Respondent company also facilitate farmer part of agriculture livelihood to develop the "Wadis" with desert or local climate specific fruit bearing plants in the project area.
Importantly, under CSR Barmer Unnati program, which is aimed to increasing the income of farming community through productivity enhancement of agriculture and livestock, ~1214 horticulture units "wadi" has been developed with total ~100,000 saplings of fruit bearing trees planted across Barmer and Jalore district. It is also pertinent to note that the development of Green Belt, afforestation and other planting activities are regulated by the concerned statutory body.
73(ii) Respondent who has deployed vast resources to provide safe, potable drinking water to thousands of residents of this area, as evidenced in the Respondent's preliminary reply:
(a) 124 RO plants have been established across Barmer district, Rajasthan in partnership with the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED), Government of Rajasthan, Waterlife and Fontus.
(b) A number of innovative 'water kiosks', running on solar power, have also been established to ensure that the community can access safe drinking water at their convenience. The project aims to serve ~1.1 million villagers and address issues related to high Total Dissolved Solute (TDS), fluoride and nitrate content in water that may result in health conditions such as fluorosis and blue baby syndrome.
(c) In addition, Cairn has also initiated a project for Operation & Maintenance of 32 old RO plants on community ownership model.
(d) 22 RO plants which were either not maintained properly or defunct due to lack of community ownership were functionalized and maintained regularly thus benefitting thousands of rural families. In addition, 2 old RO plants out of 8 plants, identified as non-functional and lacking community ownership, are shifted to new locations having high demands from the community and commissioned successfully.
(e) Besides installing RO plants, ten bore wells were constructed in water constraint areas under the project "Access to Water for All" in collaboration with PHED. These bore wells cover ten gram-panchayats serving to over 2000 families every day.
(f) Company has Provided 12 nos. stand-alone domestic water filtration system with 500 litres overhead water storage tank to the farmer families in Mangala oil field.
(iii) The Respondent is regularly monitored by the Central Ground Water Authority under the Ministry of Water Resources. The Respondent is operating under valid and subsisting permissions/NOC's issued by the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) and in lieu of which the CGWB is given compliance reports by the Respondent Company. As part of the Ground Water Monitoring done by the Respondent, data is collected from hundreds of wells as well as Aquifer Monitors which are taken care of by the Respondent herein. These periodic reports which are 74 issued to the CGWB and these reports are consistently verified by the concerned Govt. Departments as well. Notably, as both the CGWB and CGWA are regularly apprised of the Ground Water condition at the site and the reports duly monitored, and none of these agencies have even after conducting due inspections found any infraction of the conditions on which permissions have been granted. The Applicant's claims of pollution are far-fetched and lack any basis whatsoever.
(iv) The issue of ground water pollution was thoroughly investigated through a subject matter expert as well as by the Regional office of the RSPCB. It was found that there was no contamination from the Respondent's operations. It was found that the problem of colour and smell in some ground water wells reported by some persons residing in the villages is due to inherent property of aquifer and there was no contamination found from the Respondent's operations. Notably, both the report of the RSPCB as well as the answering Respondent have found that there is no effect of the company's activities on the water quality in the area. Due to robust operational procedures and vigilant monitoring, till date there is no contamination of groundwater on account of oil field operations in the area. The company disposes the oil waste periodically to the cement industries in Rajasthan towards co-processing and there is no oil waste discharged outside the plant.
(v) The Captive Solid Waste Management Facility has been developed by the Respondents with all required approvals/permissions within the Mangala Processing Terminal to serve as an integrated waste disposal facility for the entire RJ-ON-90/1 Block. That Approval for the above TSDF (Treatment, Storage & Disposal Facility) facility has been received from Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF) and specific approval for landfill design has been obtained from the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB). The Respondents also regularly carry out periodic inspections through reputed third- party agencies to ensure that there is no harm has been caused to the environment. The Respondents submit periodic reports to the RSPCB and the MoEF qua inspections carried out and Respondent company's management of the waste. It is further submitted that the Respondent's operations are being carried out onlyafter due permissions/approvals have been obtained, subject to certain conditions and the compliance of these conditions by the Respondent company is regularly monitored by the RSPCB. There has not been any incident of oil leakage from the respondents' 75 pipelines or in the Well-Pads and other operations. There are automated systems in place to address any spillage issues as per the conditions of the Environmental Clearance and the same is regularly monitored by the MoEF.
42. The issues raised in the application with regard to the cutting of trees, disposal of oil waste, air quality and other issues has been explained by the Respondent as follows:
(a) Cutting of trees:
This allegation raised by the Kisan Sangharsh Samiti has been addressed in the earlier paragraphs wherein it has been categorically stated that the answering Respondent has not cut any listed trees and the landowners had provided the land for the development of Well-Pad 11 free from all encumbrances.
(b) Disposal of Oil Waste:
Waste water generated from well maintenance activities is always discharged into secured solar evaporation pits within the company's areas of operations.
Each of these evaporation pits is lined by High Density Poly Ethylene (HDPE) sheet, concrete, and provided with earthen/brick bund walls to prevent surface run-off into the pit or overflow from pits. A 10% freeboard is maintained at all times.
Periodic inspection is carried out by the company's environmental team. The water collected in the pits generally has a layer of floating synthetic oil (used in drilling) which makes it unsuitable for mosquito breeding. Due to robust and compliant operational procedures and vigilant monitoring, till date there is no evidence of any contamination of groundwater on account of oil field operations in the area. The company disposes the oil waste periodically to the cement industries in Rajasthan towards co-processing and there is no oil waste discharged outside the plant.
(c) Air Quality 76 Ambient air quality in and around the company's area of operations are monitored periodically through NABL accredited third-party agency. The concentration of parameters such as PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOx, CO & O3 are found to be well below the permissible limits.
The ambient air quality monitoring reports are submitted to the RPSCB and the MoEF&CC periodically.
(d) Use of ground water The Respondent makes it clear that it is not using surface water for any industrial purposes. Also, the Respondent company does not buy or obtain surface water from the farmers for industrial purposes.
It is pertinent to mention in this context that the permissible salinity limit of drinking water (fresh groundwater) is 2,000 mg/L as per the norms of Bureau of Indian Standards (IS 10500:2012).
Whereas, Company extracts highly saline groundwater having salinity 6000mg/Lto 15,000 mg/L for its southern oil field operations including Raageshwari Gas Terminal at approx. 225m below, at which depth, drinking water does not exist. The saline groundwater is being desalinated through dedicated captive reverse osmosis (RO) plant to make it fit for the operational use. Therefore, all company operations are carried out only using water which is unfit for human use or consumption.
Owing to reasons stated above, no other stakeholders are utilizing this deep saline aquifer.
(e) Odour Smell in Water:
The answering Respondent's investigations have indicated that the black color of the ground water is only in the initial few minutes of flow and is due to the presence of suspended pyrite which is inherent to the geological formation in the regional aquifer.
There is also presence of H2S gas inherently in the aquifer which leads to the foul smell and also contributes to the blackish color initially observed in the water. However, this 77 problem goes away once the water is aerated / exposed to the environment.
The company has carried out extensive water quality tests of water samples from private bore wells, located nearby the company's operation well pads, by an independent 3rd party NABL accredited Lab " Vimta Lab" during July, August and Sept 2018.
Analysis reports have been correlated with historical data of Ground Water Dept. (GWD) PHED, Government of Rajasthan. RSPCB, Govt. of Rajasthan has taken up this issue and collected samples from two different bore wells (including complainants) in July 2018. (This report has been prepared and admitted by the Applicant herein and has been annexed to the present Reply as Annexure R-7) All these tests depict clearly that there is no contamination from hydrocarbon operations. The physical condition of the water in few private water wells are because of the inherent nature of the aquifer and not because of any contamination from the Respondent Company's operations. Furthermore, It has also been found that this problem emanating from the aforesaid inherent nature of the aquifer, is limited to few private water wells in the area and examination of hundreds of other private water wells (including PHED water supply wells) in the area which have not shown any water quality issues like smell and color black.
(f) Green Belt Development:
The Greenbelt development activities of the answering respondent have been discussed in the present reply and the details have been annexed in the reply as Annexure R-3. To address the concerns of the community, Company has carried ambient dust sampling in areas surrounding CPF, and analyzed the same for chemical composition, i.e. polymer traces or contamination. None of these were found in the collected ambient air dust samples.
Further RSPCB officials from Balotra City, Distt. Barmer visited CPF and nearby fields on 03.07.2018 in view of the 78 letters/complaints that were received and have not recorded any abnormality. In addition, soil testing was also carried out and no abnormality whatsoever was found by the officials during this visit, the details of which have been cited above.
(g) Waste Disposal:
The company is committed towards environment protection and ensures that no waste, whether hazardous or non- hazardous, is leave the operation premises or dumped in nearby field.
For waste management, the company has a dedicated waste management team which manages and disposes the waste as per Environment norms. Hazardous waste is stored in secured landfill which is designed as per CPCB guidelines and approved from RSPCB.
Further, the company is sending the company's hazardous waste to Cement Industries where it is utilized as an alternate to raw fuel. So far approx. 5700 MT of waste has been sent to Cement Industries. Nonhazardous recyclable waste is also segregated, stored separately, and disposed as per the norms that have been provided in the CPCB guidelines.
Approx. 80000 MT of Hazardous waste disposals routed through end-of-life disposal approach called "co-processing"
and also recover of alternative raw material for the cement industry.
(h) Ground Vibrations:
The company has been constantly monitoring the land subsidence and conducting periodic surveys over the entire area including the water well monitoring since 2010. No land subsidence has been observed over the company's fields under production including areas of water abstraction. These monitoring and survey reports are submitted and monitored by CGWB and other concerned Govt. agencies. As part of this, the company analyzes the metrics of equipment vibration on the company's well pads and these have been found to be within permissible limits. There has 79 been no damage to the civil structures in the company's well pads till date and therefore any vibration or ground movement due to well pad equipment operation is not possible.
(i) Wildlife Protection and Development:
Company has taken the following notable measures to protect flora and fauna of the area:
Planting of only native species of trees in the greenbelt. Carrying out social forestry projects in association with local forest authorities and communities to increase green cover of the area.
Drinking water facility for wild animals has been developed within protected forest area at Gaangli village in Sindhri Tehsil, Barmerand handed over to District Forest Department, Barmer from June, 2017.
The facility includes a bore well (200 m depth) fitted with solar power submersible pump and flow meter and a Galjar (pond) of size 30X30X2 feet.
Insulation of 33KV overhead feeder power line from MPT to various remote well pads to provide safe perching for birds, including peacocks, and to prevent electrocution. Wildlife rescue vehicle has been procured and handed over to Forest Department Barmer. This vehicle can be used to Transport wild animal injured by accident to animal care facility in Barmer for treatment.
Wildlife protection display boards/signage's are provided by the Company to display along the road side.
Conducted biodiversity impact assessment studies to assess potential impacts and develop plan to improve biodiversity in the company's operational area.
Under passes/culverts have been provided wherever possible. In addition to that Company follows Journey Management Plan and speed limits, vehicle movements monitored through Vehicle Tracking System and has system to control night travel as well as speed Breaker with signage provided to control travel and speed of vehicle to avoid 80 wildlife accident on road and to ensure safety of travellers as well.
Defensive driving training being provided to all drivers to avoid road accident involving animals in the area. A detailed green belt development plan has been developed with assistance from School of Desert Science, Jodhpur. Green belt development has been taken up at site and community land in the RJON field in line with this plan. Approx. 121 ha land (including compensatory plantation by native tree species only) near to Bodhi Naadi, in Chokhla Panchayat, Goliya Jatmal and Sanchore Pashumela Maidan, Batadoo, Khariya Tala,Kudla, Nagar etc. have been developed as shelter belt.
(j) Cleaning of Waste Pits:
In line with the company's commitment for Environment Protection, all the company's waste pits are constructed only for temporary storage of wastewater for natural evaporation from where it is further periodically transferred to centralized treatment facility for treatment and re-use in injection. All these wastewater pits are secured and constructed with impervious geo-membrane sheet (HDPE liner) followed by layer of brick work and cement mortar with bund walls to prevent any surface / rainwater inflow & out-flow from the waste water pits and as per approvals from the relevant Govt. Authorities.
All these pits are being regularly monitored for levels and other conditions.
Further, Wastewater being transferred to centralized treatment facility where it is treated as per norms and reused for Injection Purpose.
(k) Recharge wells:
Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) / Recharge structures are constructed as part of regulatory compliances of Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) to fulfil the mandatory requirement to undertake the RHW /recharge measures in order to replenish the groundwater resources and enhance the availability of fresh groundwater to the community.81
These RWH structures are designed with standard filter media (sand and gravels) which filters out the physical impurities (silts) which runoff carries along with it. These structures collect only rainfall runoff from the open area. The rainfall runoff is being filtered through sand filters (sand and gravel).
(l) Health issues and diseases:
To understand this issue, the company has analyzed historic data for the company's own employees working in Barmer and data collected from the various Mobile Health Vans operated by the Respondent company that go around the villages across the company's operational area addressing medical concerns of the local population.
The company's analysis has found no abnormal trends in any diseases including skin diseases.
(m)CSR initiatives details sought:
(n) The company covers several CSR initiatives across a range of requirements.
(o) Crop Compensation:
It is submitted that the answering Respondent makes payments titled as crop compensation on taking the farmer's land on lease rent. Notably, this amount as crop compensation is paid in addition to the lease rent over the land and is paid taking into account the future income that could have been earned from the land by the farmer and is part of a contractual agreement whereby the farmers hand over possession of their properties willingly to the answering Respondent. Where on account of flash rain and excessive rainfall, a farmer claims assistance in terms of compensation for their lands, the answering Respondent provides such financial assistance for losses that may have been suffered and these claims are assessed by the answering respondent on a case-to-case basis. It may be pertinent to note in this context that as on the date of the public hearing for the 82 present EC, there were no agreed claims that were pending for payment of crop compensation.
(p) Surrender sites not handed over:
A detailed response to this has been provided in the succeeding paragraph and as a response to Para 17 of the present Application.
It may be noted in this context that all almost all the stated letters had similar issues which were comprehensively dealt during the public hearing.
In this regard it is pertinent to refer to a letter issued to the RSPCB wherein certain complaints had been raised by the parties who have been referenced in the said Petition. Notably, another complaint referred to in Para 14 was duly considered by the DGH and pursuant to an inspection, a report was provided to the DGH addressing the said issue. Similarly, the Collector of Barmer, Rajasthan as well as the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board duly conduct inspections whenever such complaints are received. The Respondent has placed on record in the succeeding paragraphs such responses to the queries raised by the Collector based on the letters that have been placed on record. The Respondent herein duly co-operates with the relevant government department which conducts the inspection and submits its reports and takes measures based on any recommendations which are received. In this context, it may be pertinent to refer to the letters to the RSPCB and the DGH dated 25.01.2019 and 04.01.2019 respectively."
43. On the basis of the discussions made above, conclusions are as follows:
1. The Original Application as filed is not maintainable.
2. The Applicant has challenged the Environment clearance which can be challenged by way of filing the appeal, which has not been filed and now it is time barred.83
3. The State Pollution Control Board and the Central Ground Water Authority has periodically inspected the unit and no violation has been found.
4. There are proper provisions for tree plantation, disposal of oil waste, use of ground water, green belt development which has been narrated above.
5. The grievances as mentioned by the public or local have been addressed and remedial measures have been taken by the project proponent.
6. The ONGC and Cairn Oil and Gas are the joint venture partners and nothing has been stated to be in violation of environment condition.
7. The oil block is important to the countries energy security and the oil production places pivotal role and contributes approximately 25 % of the total domestic crude oil requirement.
8. The contents of the complaint as referred relates back to the grant of EC which have been properly addressed and do not survives after the grant of EC. No violation has been alleged with regard to the conditions after grant of EC.
9. The statutory authority, CPCB and SPCB has filed the reply with the facts that during the course of present proceedings the site was inspected and nothing was found to be in violation of environment rules.
44. On the basis of above, the Original Application No. 54/2019 is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM 30th May, 2022 O.A. No. 54/2019(CZ) PU 84