National Green Tribunal
Prafulla Samantara vs Union Of India on 1 August, 2022
Item No. 03 Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA
(Through Video Conferencing)
Appeal No.22/2022/EZ
(I.A. No.168/2022/EZ)
(I.A. No.169/2022/EZ)
Prafulla Samantray & Ors. Appellant(s)
Versus
Union of India &Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 01.08.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ritwick Dutta, Advocate a/w
Mr. Kaustav Dhar, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kallol Basu, Advocate a/w Mr. Rajiv Kumar Mahanta,
Advocate & Mr. Prithwish Ray Chowdhury, Advocate for R-7,
Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Advocate for R-3,
Mr. Prasenjeet Moahapatra, ASC for R-4, (in Virtual Mode)
ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Ritwick Dutta, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Kaustav Dhar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants.
2. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellants challenging the grant of Environmental Clearance dated 12.04.2022 (copy of which has been filed as Annexure A-1, page no. 46 of the paper book), to the Project Proponent, Respondent No.2. It is alleged that the Project of Respondent No.2 is for purposes of setting-up of a Greenfield Integrated Steel Plant (ISP) of capacity 13.2 MTPA, Crude Steel with 10 MTPA, Cement Grinding Unit & 900 MW Captive Power Plant near Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur District. It is also stated that this Project is interlinked with an All-Weather Multi-Cargo Greenfield Captive Jetty at Jadadhari Muhan River, District-Jagatsinghpur.
3. The contention of the Appellants is that the site where this plant is to be set-up has many industries and, therefore, a Cumulative 1 Environmental Impact Study/Assessment ought to have been carried out which has not been done.
4. It is alleged that the Public Hearing was done on 20.12.2022 but thereafter several other studies have been carried out which have not been placed in the public domain.
5. It is further alleged that in the 256th meeting of Expert Appraisal Committee for project relating to infrastructure development held on 03rd-04th March, 2021, the EAC decided to defer the proposal after asking for crucial additional information and made the following observations:-
"It has been observed by the EAC that the EIA/EMP report prepared by the consultant, M/s WAPCOS have substantive shortcomings. The EMP has not established the correlation between the baseline study and the mitigation plan. Further the consultant is not much aware about the biodiversity assessment.
In view of the foregoing observations, the EAC decided to defer the proposal. The proposal shall be reconsidered after the above details are made available for appraisal by the EAC."
6. It is further alleged that thereafter a 265th meeting of Expert Appraisal Committee (Infra-I) was held on 23rd-24th June, 2021 which was again deferred for want of information on the following points:-
i. The Committee observed that the environmental parameters submitted in the EIA report are still mismatching with erroneous units in tables. Further, the concentration of heavy metals appears to be on the higher side. The sampling locations are also haphazardly selected with no scientific design in sample collection. In view of this, the Committee was of the view that, one season baseline data needs to be collected again and the analysis need to be resubmitted. The new sampling locations shall be based on grid-based sampling covering each grid. The 2 bathometric aspects need to be covered during revised sampling and analysis. Special care must be taken while studying the parameters for the creek for proper collection and analysis of data. Pollution data has to be cross verified by the SPCB. ii. A detailed assessment and explanation be submitted on why jetties/other port facilities of Paradip Port, which his located at a distance of 12 km cannot be used for the JSW project. iii. Several complaints were received in the Ministry and to the Members of EAC regarding the project. A detailed response to the objections raised in the representations along with the verification/authentication by the SPCB be submitted. iv. The base line marine ecological study performed by CSIR-NIO Mumbai should be re-assessed for its completeness, and resubmit detailed based line data impact mitigation plan. The current document does'nt state any mitigation measures or strategies that are specific to the proposed impact. v. Detailed plan for mitigating impacts of cyclone, since the region is affected frequently by cyclones and that to with increasing intensity.
vi. Clarification be submitted on how deep dredging for the proposed port will not impact the Pradeep Port as well as the interior part of Jatadhari Muhan River? With deepening of the channel what will be the change in the salinity gradient of the river over time and its impact on the local and substance fisheries by local community.
vii. Detailed impact mitigation plan for Jatadhari Man River Creek against the backflow and transport activities be resubmitted. viii. Provide allocation of adequate amount for Fishery Management Plan.
ix. The training activity should not be under CER, it should be the part of EMP. The specific changes may be done in the EIA report and submitted."
7. It is further alleged that again in a 273rd meeting of the EAC held on 16th-17th September, 2021, the EAC deferred the project with the following observation:-
"That proposal was again considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee in its 273rd meeting held on 16th - 17th September, 2021. The project proponent made submissions with regard to the issues raised in the 265th meeting of the EAC held on 23rd -3
24th June, 2021. The EAC, taking into account the submission made by the project proponent, made certain observations. In its deliberations in this meeting the EAC brought up the issues of monitoring the impact 'if any' on offshore congregation and movement of sea turtles for five years by a nationally reputed institute having experience, almost as an afterthought. This was despite the fact that the potential of impacts on the sea turtles and their movement, as a result of the project, needed to be ascertained before the grant of EC, and not as a mere post-facto formality.
However, regarding issues raised by EAC (Indus-I) are concerned, the Committee mentioned that the issues raised by EAC (Indus-I) need to be addressed by the PP before final recommendations of the Infra-I Committee on the proposal of Greenfield Captive Jetty(ies) since the proposed project of Greenfield Captive Jetty(ies) is a part of interlinked project with the integrated steel plant (ISP) along with captive power plant (CPP) which is under active consideration of the EAC (Industries- I).
In view of the OM dated 24th December, 2010, and since the industry-I sector has raised queries related to Captive Jetty Project, it has been decided that two members of EAC (Infra-I) Committee may be co-operated by Industry-I sector during the appraisal of the recommendations of Infra-I sector on Greenfield Captive Jetty(ies) shall be provided after receiving the recommendations for the Industrial proposals from EAC (Indus- I). Further, the PP need to submit the combined EIA/EMP which has been submitted to Industry-I Sector to Infra-1 Sector for appraisal. The proposal stands deferred until recommendations received from Industry-1 sector."
8. In our opinion, matter requires consideration.
9. Issue notice to the Respondents.
10. Mr. Kallol Basu, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajiv Kumar Mahanta and Mr. Prithwish Ray Chowdhury, learned Counsel, files Vakalatnama on behalf of the Respondent No.2, M/s JSW Steel Utkal Steel Limited; the same is taken on record. When the case is next listed the name of Mr. Kallol Basu along with Mr. Rajiv Kumar 4 Mahanta and Mr. Prithwish Ray Chowdhury shall be printed as Counsel for Respondent No.2.
11. Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, learned Counsel who is present in Court in another matter, is directed to accept notice on behalf of the Respondent No.3, Odisha State Pollution Control Board.
12. Mr. Prasenjeet Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing (in Virtual Mode), is directed to accept notice on behalf of the Respondent No.4, Odisha Coastal Zone Management Authority (OCZMA).
13. All the Respondents shall file their counter-affidavits within four weeks.
14. Mr. Kaustav Dhar, learned Counsel shall serve e-copy/soft copy of the Appeal along with all its annexures upon Mr. Kallol Basu, Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh and Mr. Prasenjeet Mohapatra, learned Counsel within 24 hours.
15. List on 14.09.2022.
I.A. No. 168/2022/EZ:-
1. The I.A. No. 168/2022/EZ, seeking condonation of delay of 56 days in filing the Appeal, is being taken up.
2. Mr. Kallol Basu, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 pointed out that the Appeal was barred by time but the cause shown in the I.A. could be decided by the Court as to whether it is sufficient cause and fairly left it to the opinion of the Court.
3. We are of the view that the cause shown in the I.A. is sufficient and the delay of 56 days in filing the Appeal is liable to be condoned.
4. The I.A. No. 168/2022/EZ is allowed and the delay of 56 days in filing the Appeal is condoned.5
..................................... B. Amit Sthalekar, JM ...................................
Saibal Dasgupta, EM August 01, 2022, Appeal No.22/2022/EZ (I.A. No.168/2022/EZ) (I.A. No.169/2022/EZ) AK 6