National Green Tribunal
G. Praveena vs State Environment Impact Assessment ... on 28 January, 2025
Author: Satyagopal Korlapati
Bench: Satyagopal Korlapati
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Tuesday the 28th day of January, 2025.
Appeal No. 46 of 2024 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
1. G. Praveena,
D/o D. Gurunathan,
568, Santhapet, Manallur Village,
Gumudipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur- 601 201.
2. Jagan Kumar,
S/o Srinivasalu,
88, Malliah Street, Manallur Manallur Village,
Gumudipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur- 601 201.
3. D. Ranjith Kumar,
S/oT. Dheenadhayalan,
No. 19, Vellar Street,
Manallur Village Post,
Gumudipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur- 601 202.
4. E. Subramani,
S/o Ulaganathan,
No. 23, Sanaputhur, Ettur Post,
Surapoondi, edoor,
Thiruvallur- 601 201.
5. Balasubramaniam M.K
S/o Krishnamaraju,
No. 247, Ramachandrapuram, Eguvarpalaym
Gumudipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur- 601 201.
6. Balaji Dilli,
S/o Dilli,
No. 14, Vinayagar Kovil Street,
Poonvalambedu,
Thiruvallur- 601 206.
7. Elumalai C,
S/o T. N. Chellappan,
434, Perumal Koil Street,
Gumudipoondi, Thiruvallur- 601 202.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA),
Rep by its Member Secretary,
1
3rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,
Chennai- 600 015.
2. The State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu
(SIPCOT),
Rep by its Managing Director,
19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy road,
Egmore,
Chennai- 600 008.
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Mr. A. Yogeshwaran
For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1.
Mr. J. Ravindran, AAG along with M/s. Abishek
Murthy & Naveen Kumar for R2.
Judgment Reserved on: 11th September, 2024.
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. The appellants, who are residents of Manallur and Sanaputhur villages of Gummidipoondi Taluk, are challenging the Environmental Clearance granted on 22.04.2024 in favour of the 2nd respondent.
2. The Environmental Clearance is granted for the proposed industrial estate in the midst of several villages and plant by agricultural fields. The concern of the appellant is stated to be for the protection of the environment and save their villages from any kind of pollution issue.
2
3. It is alleged by them that the 2nd respondent, which is SIPCOT, had obtained Environmental Clearance by playing a fraud on the process by illegal segmentation of the projects in the area based on an EIA Report which has not assessed the impact of the proposed industries to be located in the industrial estate, without any cumulative impact assessment and without consideration of fundamental aspects like waste generation, emissions and effluent discharge etc.
4. The appellants are seeking to get the impugned Environmental Clearance quashed broadly on the following grounds:
(i) Suppression of facts. (ii) Segmentation. (iii) No cumulative impact assessment. (iv) EIA report is not adequate. (v) Form-I did not contain the required information as
categorisation of the project is shifted to 8(b) instead of 7(c) of the EIA Notification, 2006.
(vi) The appraisal done by the SEIAA is not scientific.
5. The 1st respondent, SEIAA, in its counter affidavit has stated that the SIPCOT had applied for TOR for the proposed development of industrial park over an extent of 203.69 ha., by the online proposal dated 21.06.2022. The TOR was issued on 14.07.2022. Later an amendment to the TOR was issued on 06.11.2023 as the project area was increased to 215.834 ha. The SIPCOT had sought for Environmental Clearance for industrial park at Soorapoondi 3 Village in an extent of 215.834 ha., in various survey numbers and in Vaniamallee Village in various survey numbers.
6. The EIA report was submitted by the project proponent on 21.02.2024. It is stated that the project/activity is covered under category "B1" of Item 8(b) of Townships and Area Development Projects of the schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006 on the ground that the area of the industrial park is less than 500 ha., and not housing any industry of category 'A' or 'B'. The entire land of 215.834 ha., is proposed for the industrial park to accommodate electronic/ electrical, engineering/ fabrication industries and other non-EC category industries which do not fall under the purview of the EIA Notification, 2006. The proposal was placed in the 450th meeting of the SEAC which recommended the grant of Environmental Clearance for the project proposal subject to the conditions both specific and general. The said recommendation was placed in the 708th meeting held on 02.04.2024 in which SEIAA accepted the recommendation of the SEAC and decided to grant Environmental Clearance subject to the conditions recommended by SEAC. Accordingly, the Environmental Clearance was issued on 22.04.2024.In the counter affidavit the ground raised by the appellants are not specifically met.
7. The project proponent, namely, the 2nd respondent, SIPCOT, has stated that it is an agency dedicated to fostering industrial and economic growth in the State of Tamil Nadu. According to the 2 nd respondent a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment Study was conducted by the National Accreditation Board for Education and Training (NABET). Environmental Impact Assessment report 4 meticulously analysed all potential environmental impacts including air, water, soil, biodiversity and socio-economic aspects. The study also involved baseline data collection, impact prediction, formulation of mitigation measures and ensuring a thorough evaluation of the project's implications.
8. It is also stated that the EMP provided in the EIA report outlines specific measures to mitigate adverse environmental impacts, monitor compliance and ensure sustainable development practices. According to the 2nd respondent the project proponent falls under category 8(b) as the total area proposed for the development of industrial park at Vaniamallee and Soorapoondi villages, Gummidipoondi Taluk is 215.834 ha., and the proposed industrial park will accommodate non-EC industries such as electronic/electrical, engineering/fabrication industries and other non-EC category industries. An industrial area with size of less than 500 ha., and not housing any category 'A' or 'B' industry does not require prior Environmental Clearance. If the area is less than 500 ha., but containing building and construction projects exceeding 20,000 sqm and development area more than 50 ha., it will be treated as an activity listed at category 8(a) or 8(b) of the EIA Notification, 2006. The proposed project has an extent of 215.834 ha., and contains only non-EC category industries, it falls under Schedule 8(b) of 'B1' category. Since it falls under 8(b) category public hearing is exempted.
9. The 2nd respondent has a land acquisition scheme encompassing approximately 4000 acres including poramboke and patta lands in and around villages of Manallur, Soorapoondi, Vaniamallee, Madharpakkam and Sanaputhur. Besides the acquisition of patta 5 land is at a very early stage and it involves several steps that have been finalised which will also take considerable time. Therefore, to meet the immediate requirement, the 2nd respondent had initially proposed the industrial park to be established on the available contiguous poramboke land without involving land acquisition process.
10. The SIPCOT had obtained Environmental Clearance earlier on 10.11.2020 from MoEF&CC for the proposed development of industrial park in Manallur and Sanaputhur villages in an area of 279.99 ha., for housing a few EIA notified industries. The said Environmental Clearance was challenged before this Tribunal and by judgment dated 13.09.2022 the same was kept in suspension and directed further studies to be conducted. The present Environmental Clearance was obtained on 22.04.2024 for the proposed industrial park in Soorapoondi and Vaniamallee villages. It is stated that though the land acquisition scheme is in place, it is not possible to predict the outcome of the challenges.
11. Regarding the cumulative impact assessment, the same was carried out within 10km radius of the proposed project site as per the proposed TOR. The air monitoring locations were strategically chosen to include various land uses, particularly, focusing on industrial zones to ensure the inclusion of emissions from industries and also to capture a representative baseline air quality. The air quality data was collected through NABL accredited agency. The impacts of the proposed project on the noise level of the surrounding area were assessed and the details are given in the EIA report. Further a comprehensive noise modelling was 6 conducted and the said details are also provided in the EIA report. Therefore, the allegations that the noise level assessment is not done as alleged in the application is false.
12. The 2nd respondent has further stated that the EIA report was rightly approved by the SEAC and recommended for the issuance of the Environmental Clearance. The 2nd respondent has specifically stated that there is no ground water extraction as mentioned in the EIA report. The total water requirement for the project during the operation phase is 4789 KLD out of which the fresh water requirement is 874 KLD which will be supplied by the CMWSSB. The TTRO water requirement of 2133 KLD will also be resourced from CMWSSB. The SIPCOT has stated further that the industrial park will house only non-EC category such as electronic/electrical, engineering/fabrication industries and other non-EC category industries. The individual industries are mandated to adopt Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) system and the treated water will be reused for their process and utilities. Hence, there will not be discharge of treated/untreated waste water.
13. The project also is said to have obtained the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) clearances. Additionally the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) issued NOC. The above said NOC ensures that the comprehensive biodiversity study has already been conducted. The SIPCOT has also stated that a detailed socio- economic study has been conducted, the impact on surrounding environment, settlements etc., are discussed in the EIA report. As the project site is predominately barren land they cannot be 7 classified as "Meikkal Porombake". The EIA report also has given the risk assessment and disaster management plan in the report.
14. The TOR was originally issued with public hearing on 14.07.2023. Later the SIPCOT had gone for amendment in the TOR for removing the public hearing and also including an additional extent of 12.144 ha., along with industrial housing facility. The same was appraised by SEAC and the project was issued with the amended TOR on 06.11.2023. As the project proponent has complied with all the required norms, the SEIAA had issued the Environmental Clearance based on the recommendation of the SEAC.
15. From the pleadings, it has to be seen whether the project proponent, the 2nd respondent, has suppressed the material facts, segmentation being done and not done the cumulative impact assessment.
Segmentation
16. The grant of Environmental Clearance is challenged mainly on the ground that the industrial estate project is developed by illegal segmentation. It is alleged by the appellant that the SIPCOT has a total of 1751.67.30 ha., (4326.62 acres) of lands in Sanaputhur, Manallur, Soorapoondi, Vaniamallee and Madharpakkam Villages for the proposed development of the industrial estate. Segmentation is a tactic used by the agencies or developers to divide the large projects into smaller segments to evade the complete requirements of the environmental laws. It is used to make each smaller project appear insignificant enough to avoid a detailed scrutiny or more stringent environmental requirements. It is not in dispute that the 8 above referred lands are earmarked for the establishment of the industrial estate. The earlier Environmental Clearance dated 10.11.2020 obtained from the MoEF&CC for the development of the industrial park in Manallur and Sanaputhur Villages in an area of 279.99 ha., is only 05 km away from the appeal mentioned industrial estate. There are land acquisition proceedings regarding the patta lands which are also under challenge and cannot be included in the proposed project.
17. The appellant vehemently opposed the above contentions on the ground that the lands covered under the land acquisition are being acquired under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. According to him, the owners of the lands were issued with notices under Section 3(1) of the said Act vesting the lands with the Government. The notices of which are also produced by the appellants. In support of the contention, the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the OM dated 07.10.2014 which states that for the purpose of considering the project site by EAC/SEAC for appraisal:
(i) In case the land w.r.t the project site is proposed to be acquired through Government intervention, a copy of preliminary notification issued by the concerned State Government regarding acquisition of land as per the provisions of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
(ii) In case the land is being acquired through private negotiations with the land owners, credible document showing the intent of the land owners to sell the land for the proposed project.
18. Therefore, it is argued that for the acquisition of the lands by the Government, the preliminary notification of the acquisition itself is sufficient for applying for Environmental Clearance. 9
19. Already the Environmental Clearance dated 10.1.2020 obtained by the SIPCOT for an extent of 279.99 ha., for the industrial estate is suspended by this Tribunal vide Judgment dated 13.09.2022. The said Environmental Clearance is under reconsideration by the MoEF&CC. As the said Environmental Clearance is only kept under abeyance, the argument that it did not exist on the date of applying for the Environmental Clearance for the present project is only to be rejected. Only if the Environmental Clearance was set aside the argument can hold good. It is the contention of the appellant that the SIPCOT has idea of developing the entire extent of lands as an industrial estate. A comprehensive and thorough assessment of the environmental impact could have been conducted and it could be appropriate for the MoEF&CC or SEAC to decide on the permissibility of the project at the given site. If the environmental impact assessment is done cumulatively, it is always open to the project proponent to develop them in phases as per their convenience.
20. It is also admitted by the SIPCOT that three phases are proposed. Whether these three phases while developing can be treated as individual projects and can be called as an expansion of the other? This aspect arises because the SIPCOT has not yet completed its acquisition proceedings. It may not be possible because the 2 nd respondent had already identified, proposed and also commenced the acquisition proceedings. Hence, it would be only appropriate for the SIPCOT to go for a comprehensive assessment of the impact on the project instead of segmenting them. It is also pointed out that courts have already addressed the segmentation strategies with 10 clear disapproval when used to avoid compliance with environmental regulations. Dividing projects into smaller parts to avoid environmental assessment would lead only to devastating, cumulative consequences.
21. To be noted is that in Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana1 the Hon'ble Apex Court has emphasised that segmentation to bypass EIA requirements violated the Precautionary Principle and concept of Sustainable Development. In Citizens for Green Doon Vs Union of India2, the National Green Tribunal critically evaluated whether the segmentation and acquisition of the project without mandatory EIA compliance constituted a violation of environmental laws. This Tribunal had concluded that while statutory provisions did not expressly require an EIA for each segment of the project, compliance with EIA norms was necessary under broader environmental jurisprudence. Despite the segmentation, this Tribunal had mandated the EIA compliance for the entire project setting a precedent that even though not statutorily required, an EIA may be necessary to safeguard environmental principles. The relevant portion of the Judgment is usefully extracted below: -
"42. As regards the question whether EIA is mandatorily required, it may be noted that EIA has been recognised as the most valuable, inter-disciplinary and objective decision-making tool with respect to alternate routes for development, process technologies and project sites. It is considered an ideal anticipatory mechanism allowing measures that ensure environmental compatibility in our quest for socio-economic development. In fact, the whole concept is based on jurisprudential principle of 'Sustainable Development' and 'Precautionary Principle' though statutory basis has been provided to the same for effective enforcement."1
2012 4 SCC 629.
22018 SCC Online NGT 1777.
11
22. In another landmark case, National Highways Authority of India Vs. Pandarinathan Govindarajulu 3 , the view of the against segmentation was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the court categorically held that the segmentation of the projects when used as a strategy to evade EIA requirement was impermissible. The relevant portion is as follows:-
"16. In view of the bifurcation of NH 45-A into four packages and each package being less than 100 km, the appellant contended before the High Court that the Notifications dated 14-9-2006 and 22-8-2013 are not applicable. Seeking support from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in Old Town Neighborhood Assn. v. Kauffman and a judgment of the European Court of Justice, in Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain, the High Court held that segmentation of a project as a strategy to avoid envi- ronmental clearance is impermissible. The High Court also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana and a judgment of the National Green Tribunal in Citizens for Green Doon v. Union of India to reject the contention of the appellants that the division of the project into four packages is for administrative expediencies. According to the High Court, if segmentation of National Highway projects is permitted, the Notifications dated 14-9-2006 and 22-8-2013 would become a dead letter as every National Highway beyond 100 km can be divided into packages to avoid environmental clearance.
... ... ...
19. Apart from providing smooth flow of public goods and services which contribute to the economic growth, highways also benefit regional development in the country. In the normal course, impediments should not be created in the matter of National Highways which provide the much needed transportation infrastructure. At the same time, protection of environment is important. The Notification dated 22-8-2013 exempts a National Highway, the distance of which is less than 100 km from obtaining environmental clearance. If the project proponent is permitted to divide projects having a distance beyond 100 km into packages which are less than 100 km, the Notifications dated 14-9-2006 and 22-8-2013 will be rendered redundant. In that event, administrative exigencies and speedy completion will be a ground taken for justifying the segmentation of every project. Therefore, we are in agreement with the High Court that segmentation as a strategy is not permissible for evading environmental clearance as per Notifications dated 14-9-2006 and 22-8-2013."
23. Moreover, the lack of clarity in addressing the implications of the earlier Environmental Clearance being kept in abeyance further complicates the situation. The pendency of reconsideration by the 3 2021 6 SCC 693.
12 MoEF&CC necessitates a cautious and integrated approach to environmental assessments.
24. When already the Environmental Clearance granted on 10.1.2020 is kept under abeyance and is before the MoEF&CC for consideration, the SIPCOT ought to have gone before the MoEF&CC for obtaining the Environmental Clearance. The SIPCOT admittedly had not challenged the order passed by this Tribunal keeping the Environmental Clearance dated 10.11.2020 in abeyance and directing the SIPCOT to do further studies. The said Judgement was issued on 13.09.2022 whereas the amended TOR for the impugned Environmental Clearance was issued only on 06.11.2023.
25. The procedural lapses by SIPCOT raise concerns about the adequacy of the environmental assessment process. Despite the earlier Environmental Clearance being kept in abeyance and requiring further studies, SIPCOT not only failed to address these directives but also proceeded with the amended TOR without accounting for the pendency of the previous clearance. This omission in the Form-IA underscores the lack of a comprehensive and transparent approach, as such information is crucial for ensuring that the cumulative and broader environmental impacts are assessed. This brings into focus the need for a detailed Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA), which is essential to evaluate the full scope of environmental effects of the proposed project.
13 Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA)
26. Regarding the CIA, it involves several critical aspects that must be addressed in a comprehensive study. However, SIPCOT had only referred to the EIA report, which focuses solely on stack emissions from diesel generator sets and transportation emissions from the project site. A CIA study should include:
(i) A geographical scope which is an assessment over the impacts on a larger area than individual project.
(ii) Temporal scope which would evaluates the impact not just for the current situation but consider past actions and potential future developments.
(iii) Interaction with other projects, the CIA must assess how a project interacts with other projects which are operational and those that can be reasonably forseen.
(iv) The CIA must evaluate not only local direct effects but also broader impact on the ecosystem like air quality, water resources and also the socio-economic conditions.
(v) Finally, the CIA to use robust data covering multiple seasons and conduct proper modelling and provide a realistic picture of cumulative environmental impact.
27. It would be worthwhile to refer to the international definition of the cumulative impact:
As per the European Commission, Cumulative Impact is defined as "impacts that result from incremental changes caused by other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions together with the project." This definition emphasizes the interconnectedness of activities and highlights the need to consider not just the 14 immediate project but its interaction with all relevant projects in the vicinity.
Similarly, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) defines cumulative effects as "changes to the environment caused by an action in combination with other past, present, and future human actions." This definition underlines the importance of considering multiple human activities and their combined effects over time, giving a broader perspective of environmental impacts.
According to the U.S. EPA, cumulative impact is "the combined incremental effect on human activity." This definition stresses the importance of assessing the layered and overlapping impacts from human activities on the environment, which may collectively produce significant effects over time.
28. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors.4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court highlighted the importance of considering the broader environmental impacts of large-scale projects near ecologically sensitive areas, particularly the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. While the Court did not directly address segmentation or cumulative impact assessments, it underscored the need for holistic evaluations that account for the overall effects on ecosystems and biodiversity and the relevant portion is cited below: -
"74. The report of the CEC succinctly sums up the situation. Though everyone, excepting the project proponents, view the construction of the project practically adjoining the bird sanctuary as a potential hazard to the sensitive and fragile ecological balance of the sanctuary there is no law to stop it. This unhappy and anomalous situation has arisen simply because despite directions by this Court the authorities in the Central and the State Governments have so far not been able to evolve a principle to notify the buffer zones around sanctuaries and national parks to protect the sensitive and delicate ecological balance required for 4 (2011) 1 SCC 744.15
the sanctuaries. But the absence of a statute will not preclude this Court from examining the project's effects on the environment with particular reference to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. For, in the jurisprudence developed by this Court environment is not merely a statutory issue. Environment is one of the facets of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Environment is, therefore, a matter directly under the Constitution and if the Court perceives any project or activity as harmful or injurious to the environment it would feel obliged to step in. The question of the likelihood of the project causing any adverse effects on the Okhla Bird Sanctuary must, therefore, be examined from this angle."
29. Similarly, in the present case, the SIPCOT industrial estate project appears to have been segmented into multiple phases, with Environmental Clearance obtained without addressing the broader cumulative impacts on the ecosystem and socio-economic conditions of the surrounding area. This approach undermines the principles of sustainable development and environmental protection, warranting a comprehensive reassessment of the project.
30. The other contention raised by the appellant includes failure to consider the alternative site and also the illegal commencement of the project. In this regard our attention was invited to the EIA report Chapter-V- Analysis of alternatives (Technology and site). In Para 5.2 it is stated "No alternate sites were considered for the project, since enter upon permission issued by District Collector, Tiruvallur vide letter dated 07.09.2020 for alienation of 108.06 ha., of Poramboke land at Soorapoondi village including 66.187 ha., of proposed land for development of industrial parks".
31. Even the cursory look at the above chapter regarding the alternate site makes it clear that the decision to locate the industrial estate on the land was taken even before any assessment of the suitability 16 of the sites from an environmental and sociological prospective. Hence, it is alleged that the non-consideration of the alternate site is fatal to the EIA report on which ground alone the project ought to have been rejected.
32. Therefore, from the above discussions, it is evident that the project proponent has not done much required environmental impact assessment cumulatively which is a critical oversight that undermines the comprehensive environmental protection. The failure to evaluate the cumulative impact leads to the incomplete understanding of the broader environmental consequences of a project. The complex ecosystem especially in areas with multiple on-going proposed projects such as industrial estates etc., the cumulative impact on biodiversity, water resources, air quality and socio-economic conditions can be significant and long lasting. The suppression of such critical assessment can distort the environmental viability of the project justifying the quashing or suspension of the Environmental Clearance until the same is conducted.
33. Therefore, in our view the Environmental Clearance grant without an appropriate cumulative impact assessment would require a reconsideration when already the earlier Environmental Clearance granted on 10.11.2020 is before the MoEF&CC for reconsideration. It would be open to the project proponent to combine the impugned project also with that and take a cumulative study. If the project proponent has proposal to have a phase-III of the project, it would be appropriate for the SIPCOT to apply for the said project also and conduct a cumulative impact assessment which would 17 avoid segmentation. After the study is conducted, the commencement of the project may be implemented in a phased manner.
34. In fine, the impugned Environmental Clearance dated 22.02.2024 is kept under abeyance and it is open to the project proponent to conduct a cumulative study and apply before the MoEF&CC and obtain a prior Environmental Clearance.
35. Accordingly, the appeal [Appeal No. 46 of 2022(SZ)] is disposed of.
............................................................J.M. (Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana) .......................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No Appeal No.46/2024(SZ) 28th January, 2025.AM & MN.
18
Before the National Green Tribunal Southern Zone (Chennai) Appeal No. 46 of 2024(SZ) Praveena & Ors.
Vs. SEIAA & Ors.
Appeal No. 46/2024(SZ) 28th January,2025. AM & MN.
19