National Green Tribunal
Brackish Water Research Centre vs Deendayal Port Authority on 30 January, 2023
Item No. 6 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
(By Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 59/2022(WZ)
Brakrish water Research Centre
.....Applicant
Versus
Deen Dayal Port Authority & Ors.
....Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 30.01.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant : Ms. Shilpa Chohan, Advocate
Respondent(s) : Mr. Pranav Desai along-with Mr. Sumit Goel,
Advocates for R-1/DPA
Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Advocate for R-2/GPCB & R-4/GCZMA
Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for R-5/CPCB & R-6/MoEF&CC
ORDER
1. This application has been filed with the prayer that the Respondent No.1/Deendayal Port Authority and its contractors be prohibited from any further construction of RO-RO Jetty in CRZ- IB area; pass an order directing Respondent No. 2/Gujarat State Pollution Control Board and Respondent No. 5/Central Pollution Control Board to compute the 'Environment damage compensation' for the violations of the environment laws by the Respondent No.1/Deendayal Port Authority; direct the Respondent No. 2/Gujarat Pollution Control Board, Respondent No. 3/Collector & District Magistrate and Respondent No. 4/Gujarat Coastal Zone Management Authority to conduct inspection and quantify environmental and ecological damage; direct Respondent authorities to initiate legal action against the Respondent No. 1 for the violation of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention Page 1 of 6 and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; direct Respondent authorities to undertake a plan for restitution of the environment; impose a cost and take action for dereliction of duties on the part of Respondent No. 2/GPCB and Respondent No. 3/Collector and the Chairman, District Level CRZ Committee and the Respondent No. 4/Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) for neglecting the protection of coastal environment.
2. From the side of Applicant, learned Counsel Ms. Shilpa Chohan has appeared and prayed that she is not pressing the reliefs at Clause (a),
(f) & (g) and is confining herself to reliefs contained clauses at (b), (c), (d) & (e) only.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the illegal construction of a jetty/harbor in the south of the Essar Bulk Terminal Port (EBTL) at Taluka Choryasi, District Surat is the cause of grievance to the applicant, where the construction activities are being carried out by the Respondent No.1/Deendayal Port Authority and its contractors without any statutory permissions, regulatory clearances under the CRZ Notification, 2011, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The piles of the RO-RO Jetty have been constructed by carrying out dredging and excavations in the coastal area, which have caused severe deterioration of coastal ecology, marine biodiversity and excessive sedimentation of the coastline.
4. The Applicant had informed the Respondents through e-mail regarding the destruction of coastal ecology due to the unlawful act of Respondent No. 1 and its reminder was also sent on 04.01.2022 but no action was taken. On 21.02.2022, the Director, Environment and Additional Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Gujarat (Respondent No. 7) had written a letter to the Collector and Chairman, Page 2 of 6 District Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Committee, Surat about the violations. On 03.03.2022, the Regional Office of Respondent No. 5/CPCB communicated to the Respondent No. 2/GPCB in respect of having received the complaint of the Applicant and requested to examine the matter, take appropriate action and submit Action Taken Report (ATR) to the CPCB. Despite the said application, no action was taken nor was the construction stopped. The Applicant has annexed the Google Image of CZMP Maps of the area where the construction of Jetty is taking place. As per Clause 4 (iv) of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019, the land reclamation, bunding or disturbing the natural course of seawater is a regulated activity that cannot be executed without prior permission from the competent authority. In view of the above violations, the above prayers have been made.
5. From the side of Respondent No. 1/Deendayal Port Authority, learned Counsel Mr. Pranav Desai along-with Mr. Sumit Goel have appeared, who have filed an affidavit dated 24.08.2022, where-in it is submitted that the Environment Clearance and CRZ Clearance have already been obtained for the development of 600m waterfront and 24 hectares back up area at Hazira, Surat, where the Deendayal Port Authority (DPA) has constructed the RO-Pax Jetty with ferry infrastructure in the back-up land to which the Gujarat Pollution Control Board had given Consent to Establish on 24.06.2022.
6. Further, it is submitted in the affidavit of Respondent No. 1 that the Essar Bulk Terminal Limited (EBTL) is operating Port facilities at Hazira in the water of the Gujarat Maritime Board. The said EBTL applied for EC/CRZ clearance for expansion of existing port facility at Hazira for development of 4800m berth length with back-up storage yard i.e. land reclamation (334 ha.), dredging and broadening/deepening of Page 3 of 6 navigation channel. The Respondent No. 6/MoEF&CC had granted the EC/CRZ clearance on 06.05.2014, which covered the development of waterfront and back-up area, now being carried out by DPA for permanent jetty for Ro-Ro/Ro-Pax at Hazira. Out of the entire water front of 4800m for which EC/ CRZ clearance was granted to EBTL on 06.05.2014, an area of 600m waterfront adjoining to existing development of waterfront was proposed to be developed by DPA under directions of Ministry of Shipping for the proposal of Ro-Pax ferry services. In view of the above, the DPA had applied to MoEF&CC vide letter dated 13.07.2020 for bifurcation of the existing EC/CRZ clearance accorded to EBTL in the name of the DPA for future development at allotted 600m waterfront and 24 hectares back-up area including dredging at Hazira. DPA submitted an online application on Parivesh Portal for obtaining bifurcation of EC and CRZ Clearance in the name of DPA for the development of 600m water front & back up area of 24 hectares on 13.08.2020. DPA and EBTL had submitted their respective consents for the bifurcation of EC and CRZ clearance dated 06.05.2014 for development of 600m waterfront and 24 hectares back up area by DPA and accordingly MoEF&CC granted clearance. Subsequently, Gujarat Pollution Control Board also granted the Consent to Establish under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to Respondent No. 1/DPA on 24.06.2022. The Respondent No. 1/DPA had applied for Consent to Operate on 27.07.2022, which is still awaited. The construction of jetty has been completed but its operation is yet to be started.
Page 4 of 6
7. The Respondent No.1/DPA has denied any kind of violations to have been done by them and submits that the application deserves to be rejected.
8. From the side of Respondent No. 5/CPCB, reply affidavit dated 25.08.2022 has been filed, where-in position of Rules and Regulations has been mentioned and nothing else of substance.
9. None other Respondent has filed their reply affidavit though as per service affidavit, notices have been served upon them.
10. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. Maulik Nanavati appearing for the Respondent No. 2/GPCB and Respondent No. 4/GCZMA as well as learned Counsel Mr. Pranav Desai along-with Mr. Sumit Goel appearing for Respondent No. 1/Project Proponent (PP).
11. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2/GPCB has argued that in view of the Applicant having not pressed reliefs with respect to prayer clauses at (a), (f) & (g) and only pressing for the other reliefs i.e. prayer clauses (b), (c), (d) & (e), it is clear that request is made for direction to be issued to Respondent No. 2/GPCB to compute the environmental damage for the violations, if any, committed by the Respondent No. 1. Therefore, he has proposed that Respondent No. 1 as well as the Applicant may be directed to approach the GPCB/GCZMA, in order to get it determined as to whether any violations have been made by the Respondent No. 1 and in case, any violations are found to have been made at the end of the Respondent No. 1, the GPCB/GCZMA may calculate the environmental compensation to be levied from the Respondent No. 1.
12. To the above proposal, the learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as the Respondent No. 1/PP have no objection, therefore, we dispose Page 5 of 6 of this application with the direction to the Applicant as well as Respondent No. 1/PP to approach the GPCB/GCZMA within a period of 15 days the and if they approach accordingly, the GPCB/GCZMA shall determine the issue after giving hearing to them as to whether any violations have been committed at the end of the Respondent No. 1 and if any violations are found to have been committed, the said authorities would calculate environmental compensation to be levied, if any, within a period of 02(two) months there-after.
13. If thereafter any grievance survives to the Applicant, the Applicant would be at liberty to approach us.
14. This order is passed without any prejudice to the parties as we have not given any finding on the merits of this case.
15. Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM January 30, 2023 Original Application No. 59/2022(WZ) P.Kr Page 6 of 6