National Green Tribunal
Pooja Kumar vs Union Ofindia Through Its Secretary ... on 26 May, 2022
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.1 & 2:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
(Through Video Conference)
Original Application No. 23 of 2017 (SZ) &
M.A. No.52 of 2017 (SZ)
With
Original Application No. 214 of 2017 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Pooja Kumar
Aged about 24 years
D/o. V. Kumar
R/o 1A, Annapoorna Apartments,
68, Rukmani Road,
Kalakshetra Colony,
Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090.
... Applicant(s)
Versus
Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh Road,
New Delhi - 110 003 and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Meenava Thanthai K.R. Selvaraj Kumar
Meenavar Nala Sangam
Represented by its President
M.R. Thiyagarajan
S/o. Late C. Rajalingam,
Office at No.15/8, A.J. Colony, Royapuram,
Chennai - 600 013.
... Applicant(s)
Versus
The Director
Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change,
(IA-III Section), Vayu Wing, 3rd Floor
Indira Paryavaran Bhavan,
Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj,
New Delhi - 110 003 and Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 33
O.A. No.23/2017 (SZ):
For Applicant(s): Mr. Ritwick Dutta along with
Mr. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh.
For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1.
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R2 & R5.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R3.
Mr. Abdul Saleem and
Mr. S. Saravanan for R4.
Mr. John Zachariah for R6.
Mr. D. Ravichander for R7.
O.A. No.214/2017 (SZ):
For Applicant(s): Mr. Ritwick Dutta along with
Mr. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh.
For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1 & R2.
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R4 to R7 & R9.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R8.
Mr. Abdul Saleem along with
Mr. S. Saravanan, Mr. Vijayameganath and
Mr. P. Shanmuganathan for R10.
Judgment Pronounced on: 26th May 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
ORDER
Judgment pronounced through Video Conference. Both the original applications are disposed of with directions vide separate Judgment.
Pending interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM O.A. No.23/2017 (SZ) & O.A. No.214/2017 (SZ), 26th May 2022. Mn.
Page 2 of 33Item No.1 & 2:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI (Through Video Conference) Original Application No. 23 of 2017 (SZ) & M.A. No.52 of 2017 (SZ) With Original Application No. 214 of 2017 (SZ) IN THE MATTER OF:
Pooja Kumar Aged about 24 years D/o. V. Kumar R/o 1A, Annapoorna Apartments, 68, Rukmani Road, Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090.
... Applicant(s) Versus
1) Union of India Through its Secretary Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
2) State of Tamil Nadu Through its Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 009.
3) Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Through its Member Secretary 77-A, South Avenue Road Ambattur Industrial Estate Chennai - 600 058.
4) Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO) Through its Chairman cum Managing Director 3rd Floor, Easter Wing, NPKRR Maaligai, 114 Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
5) Tamil Nadu State Forest Department Through its Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Panagal Maaligai #1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet Chennai - 600 015.Page 3 of 33
6) Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Rep. by its General Manager, Power Sector - Southern Region (PSSR) 690, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.
(R6 impleaded as per order in M.A. No.87/2017 dt. 18.07.2017)
7) BGR Energy Systems Limited Represented by its Authorized Signatory No.443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.
(R7 impleaded as per order in M.A. No.128/2017 dt. 24.08.2017) ...Respondent(s) WITH Meenava Thanthai K.R. Selvaraj Kumar Meenavar Nala Sangam Represented by its President M.R. Thiyagarajan S/o. Late C. Rajalingam, Office at No.15/8, A.J. Colony, Royapuram, Chennai - 600 013.
... Applicant(s) Versus
1) The Director Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, (IA-III Section), Vayu Wing, 3rd Floor Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi - 110 003.
2) The Chairman National Coastal Zone Management Authority, Govt. of India Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Agni wings, Fifth Floor, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Dor Bag Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
3) The Chairman Central Pollution Control Board Parivesh Bhavan, CBD cum Office Complex, East Arjun Nagar, New Delhi - 110 032.
4) The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu Environmental Department St. George Fort, Chennai - 600 009.
Page 4 of 335) The Principal Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Water Resources Department, St. George Fort, Chennai - 600 009.
6) The Director Department of Environment Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
7) The Member Secretary Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
8) The Member Secretary Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board No.76, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
9) The District Collector Collectorate of Thiruvallur District Thiruvallur District.
10) M/s. North Chennai Thermal Power Station (Stage - III) Represented by its Chief Engineer Thiruvallur District Athipattu, Chennai.
... Respondent(s) O.A. No.23/2017 (SZ):
For Applicant(s): Mr. Ritwick Dutta along with
Mr. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh.
For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1.
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R2 & R5.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R3.
Mr. Abdul Saleem and
Mr. S. Saravanan for R4.
Mr. John Zachariah for R6.
Mr. D. Ravichander for R7.
O.A. No.214/2017 (SZ):
For Applicant(s): Mr. Ritwick Dutta along with
Mr. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh.
For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1 & R2.
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R4 to R7 & R9.
Page 5 of 33
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R8.
Mr. Abdul Saleem along with
Mr. S. Saravanan, Mr. Vijayameganath and
Mr. P. Shanmuganathan for R10.
Judgment Reserved on: 22nd April 2022.
Judgment Pronounced on: 26th May 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published on the Internet - Yes/No Whether the Judgment is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No JUDGMENT Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member Original Application No.23 of 2017 (SZ):
1. This is an application [O.A. No.23 of 2017 (SZ)] filed by one Pooja Kumar alleging that there was violation committed by the 4th Respondent/Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "TANGEDCO") in carrying out the conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted.
2. It was alleged in the application that the applicant is a resident of Chennai and has been actively involved in activities concerning the environment over the last eight years. Even during her college days, while studying Journalism, she was actively engaged in some environmental activities and unearthed CRZ violations. She was also associated with other Non Governmental Organizations dealing with coastal environment, conducting awareness and sensitisation programmes to the stakeholders, etc. Page 6 of 33
3. The North Chennai Thermal Power Station (NCTPS) is situated about 25 Kms from Chennai on Northern side and is owned and operated by the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO)/4th Respondent in this case. Presently, the unit is having an installed capacity of 1830 MW comprising three units of 210 MW each in Stage - I and 2 x 600 MW in Stage - II and all these units are coal-based units.
Vide Proceedings No.J-13012/14/2012-IA.II(T) dated 20.01.2016, the 1st Respondent had issued Environmental Clearance (EC) to the 4th Respondent for their Stage - III Expansion by addition of 1 x 800 MW and CRZ Clearance for foreshore facilities at villages Ennore and Puzhadivakkam, evidenced by Annexure - A1. After various reports of tiger sighting within the plant complex, the 5th Respondent (Forest Department) inspected the area during November 2016 and it was also mentioned in the application that as per news article titled "Eco-activists find wildlife in North Chennai Power Plant, want further construction stopped" dated 19.11.2016 published in The News Minute, an inspection was conducted by the officials of the Forest Department accompanied by the activists found varieties of wildlife and plant life within the area of expansion of project.
4. Further, about the news article titled "NCTPS expansion threatens to degrade Ennore green belt" published in The New Indian Express dated 20.11.2016, a forest official namely Mr. C. Murugesan made a statement that "Though we haven't found a tiger, these camera traps confirmed the presence of significant number of endangered species. We found monitor lizard, jackals, jungle cats, wild boar, vultures, even a rare common trinket snake just crossing the street. Now, the degradation of habitat meant losing all these species." The existence of wildlife found within the greenbelt come within the purview of the protection of law and it is for the 5th Respondent to ensure the same under the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Since the existing greenbelt is an important wildlife habitat, the same needs to be conserved and protected, on the basis of the newspaper articles dated 19.11.2016 and 20.11.2016 mentioned above which were produced as Annexure - A2 (Series).
Page 7 of 335. It was also alleged that as per the Environmental Clearance (EC) letter dated 20.01.2016, land requirement for the said expansion 76.9 Ha. (190 Acres) which is located inside the NCTPS complex. The construction activities of Stage - III would inevitably affect the area maintained as green belt for Stage - I and Stage - II, as there is no other alternate land available within the complex. As per the High Tide Line demarcation map of the Stage - III of NCTPS available along with the EIA Report submitted by the 4th Respondent indicate that Stage - III expansion is being planned in the existing area of vegetation and within the greenbelt maintained for pollution abatement from Stage - I and II and the demarcation map was produced as Annexure - A3. They also produced the newspaper report viz., The New Indian Express containing an article titled "NCTPS expansion threatens to degrade Ennore green belt" dated 20.01.2016, evidenced by Annexure - A4.
6. Further, it was mentioned in the application that while applying for expansion of Stage - III, the 4th Respondent had concealed the fact of existence of wildlife and its impact on the same in Form - I Application, evidenced by Annexure - A5. They have violated the Environmental Clearance conditions of Stage - I and II viz., Condition No.13 regarding providing green belt in respect of Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 30.04.1987 and Condition No.5 of Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 10.05.1996 in respect of Stage - II expansion. They have not uniformly developed the greenbelt all around and several hundred trees, they have felled certain trees for the purpose of the present project which will amount to violation of conditions imposed. They have also violated the Consent conditions dated 07.12.1993, 08.08.2011 and 19.03.2013 regarding the development of greenbelt and the consent letters were produced as Annexure - A6 (Series). There was no Consent to Establish granted for Stage - III and without obtaining the same, the 4th Respondent is proceeding with the project.
Page 8 of 337. Since no action was taken by the authorities, the applicant filed this application seeking the following reliefs:-
i. Restrain the Respondent No.4 from carrying out any felling of trees for the purpose of construction of any other activity of the Stage - III of the NCTPS.
ii. Direct the Respondent No.1 to quash the Environmental and CRZ Clearance dated 20.01.2016 as per provision of Clause 8 (vi) of the EIA Notification, 2006.
iii. Direct the Respondent No.4 to restore the green belt to its original position iv. Direct the Respondent No.1 and 3 to take appropriate action against Respondent No.4 for violation of the specific conditions under the clearances and consents granted by them respectively. v. Direct the Respondent No.3 to take appropriate action against Respondent No.4 for violating the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and beginning work without obtaining statutory Consent to Establish. vi. Pass any other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the instant case."
8. The 6th Respondent was impleaded as per order in M.A. No. 87 of 2017 dated 18.07.2017 and the 7th Respondent was impleaded as per order in M.A. No. 128 of 2017 dated 24.08.2017.
9. The 1st Respondent filed reply in the form of an affidavit contending that the applicant made a prayer to set aside the impugned Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 20.01.2016 which is not maintainable, as it has to be challenged by way of an appeal. They have mentioned that the proposal was considered by several meetings of EAC and only after thorough appraisal, they recommended the project and it was thereafter, considered by the MoEF&CC and issued the Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 20.01.2016. If the applicant was aggrieved by the grant of Environmental Clearance (EC), they ought to have challenged the same within 30 days by filing an appeal before this Tribunal which they have not done. So, they prayed for dismissal of the application.
Page 9 of 3310. The 2nd Respondent filed reply affidavit on their behalf and on behalf of the 5th Respondent more or less raising the same contention raised by the MoEF&CC and the project proponent regarding the issuance of Environmental Clearance (EC) and CRZ Clearance. They have reiterated the provisions of the CRZ Notification, 2011 regarding the permissible activities and since the proposal require clearance from the MoEF&CC vide Para (2)(d) and (f) of CRZ Notification, 2011, the matter was placed before the 83rd Meeting of the State Coastal Zone Management Authority
- Tamil Nadu (SCZMA- TN) held on 19.05.2015 and the authorities resolved to recommend the proposal to the MoEF&CC, Government of India and the proposal was accordingly sent to the MoEF&CC subject to the following specific conditions as resolved by the SCZMA- TN:-
"a) The fly ash generated should be disposed / reused by implementing a suitable concrete plan.
b) Closed conveyor system, with latest technology, should be provided for coal handling. A proper Ambient Air Quality Monitoring plan shall be evolved in consultation with the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in such a way to monitor air quality frequently as well as cumulative impact of air quality in that area taken into consideration all stages of the project. If necessary, more number of monitoring stations. shall be formed for monitoring the air quality.
c) Shoreline evolution due to the littoral drift on the either side of the project site, along the coast, should be monitoring continuously based on the LITPAC OF MIKE 21 modeling studies with reference to the intake and outfall points of water and proper remedial action should be taken on the event of any adverse impacts.
d) Turbulence caused at intake point due to drawl of water and at the outfall point due to discharge of coolant water should be under close and continuous monitoring especially on the turbidity levels so as to take mitigation measures on the event of adverse implications.
e) Impact of chemicals (used for cleaning of membrane of RO Plant) in the R.O reject (brine) on the marine organisms shall be closely monitored so as to take remedial action on the event of any adverse impact.
f) A feasibility study on the flora shall be prepared. Further a detailed action plan should be evolved to minimize the impact of project on mangroves available near the project site. Necessary conservation program shall be implemented for preserving the existing mangroves and also to create fresh mangrove belt in consultation with Forest Department.
g) The Temperature of water at the outfall point should be maintained within the prescribed levels. This may be monitored regularly through an institute and fact may be reported to the Department of Environment.
h) The project should not in any way affect the fishing activities and also should not hinder the livelihood of the Fishermen."
11. The 2nd Respondent further contended that the MoEF&CC has granted the Environmental Clearance (EC) cum CRZ Clearance for the project vide their Proceedings dated 20.01.2016. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board also granted Consent to Establish to the unit with certain Page 10 of 33 conditions regarding the development of greenbelt. So, they prayed for accepting their contentions and passing appropriate orders.
12. The 3rd Respondent filed counter contending that the unit of M/s. North Chennai Thermal Power Station is located at Ennore & Puzhuthivakkam Villages, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District having a capacity of power generation to the tune of 1830 MW (3 x 210 MW & 2 x 600 MW) and proposed to augment additional capacity of power generation to the tune of 800 MW, using coal as fuel. The said plant is managed in three stages. (Stage - I, Stage - II and proposed activity in Stage - III). The Stage - I consists of 3 units of 210 MW capacity each and they obtained Consent from the Board for its activity under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The unit is located in an extent of 363.045 Ha, with a total built up area of 101.17 Ha and greenbelt area of 90.65 Ha with the investment of Rs.258264.44 lakhs. The unit generates 1200 KLD of sewage and generates 55800 KLD of trade effluent viz., DM regeneration waste, Boiler blow down and decanted water of ash pond. DM regeneration waste is treated in the Effluent Treatment Plant of Stage - II. Boiler blow down and decanted water from the ash pond are recycled for ash slurry making. The unit is utilizing sea water for cooling purposes which is drawn from M/s. Kamarajar Port Limited Basin. After cooling the sea water (2376000 KLD) is then discharged into the pre cooling channel facility which finally joins with Ennore creek. The coal required for the unit is received at M/s. Kamarajar Port Limited and conveyed to the plant through closed conveyors. The plant has been allotted with dedicated berths for receiving coal at M/s. Kamarajar Port Limited. Power is generated using coal as fuel and the pollution control mechanism which were provided for controlling the dust and other pollution. They also mentioned about the facilities provided for collection of fly ash and its disposal. They also provided online monitoring system for emission and made connectivity with the CARE AIR center of the Board. Stage - II is having a capacity of power generation to the tune of 1200 MW using coal as fuel which consists of two units of 600 MW capacity each and functioning since 01.04.2013 and Page 11 of 33 obtained consent from the Board both under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 which is renewed up to 31.03.2017. The said unit is located in an extent of 69.97 Ha with total built up area 9.32 Ha and green belt area 10.31 Ha, with an investment of Rs. 7,16,492. They also given the details of the waste generated and the manner in which it has been disposed of. They also mentioned that this unit also installed Online Monitoring System for Emissions and connected to CARE AIR center of the Board. They proposed Stage - III thermal power plant with a capacity of 1x800 MW located in an extent of 76.88 Ha with total built up area 54.62 Ha and greenbelt area 22.26 Ha, with an investment of Rs.5,33,373. They have also given the details regarding the waste to be generated and how it is going to be disposed of. They obtained Environmental Clearance for this expansion and the CRZ Clearance vide MoEF&CC letter dated 20.01.2016. They inspected the unit on 25.3.2017 and during the inspection, it was revelaed that the North Chennai Thermal Power Station Stage I & II were under operation and they are carrying out the foundation work, soil testing and site clearance activity without obtaining Consent to Establish. Vide Letter dated 28.03.2017, directed them to carry out the establishment activity only after obtaining Consent for Establishment. Thereafter, Consent for Establishment was granted vide their Proceedings dated: 13.04.2017 which was valid up to 12.4.2024 both under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. A special condition was imposed inter alia that the Greenbelt consisting of three tiers of plantations of native species all around plant and at least 50 m width shall be raised. Wherever 50 m width is not feasible, 20 m width shall be raised and adequate justification shall be submitted to the Ministry. Tree density shall not be less than 2500 per ha with survival rate not less than 80%. During inspection, it was found that they have cleared certain trees which are falling in their project area but a condition was imposed to develop greenbelt in the Consent for Establishment granted. So, they prayed for accepting their contentions and passing appropriate orders.
Page 12 of 3313. The 4th Respondent filed counter contending that the application is barred by limitation and they have detailed their constitution and obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) for Stage - I, II and III and obtaining Consent from the Board under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. There was no violation of environmental laws or conditions imposed committed. There was no forest land utilized for development of the plant. The area is not a habitat of endangered species and as such, the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 does not apply. They have not disturbed the existing greenbelt for the purpose of establishment of the Stage - III of their unit. They obtained necessary Environmental Clearance and CRZ Clearance for this purpose. Out of the total 1067 Acres available inside NCTPS Complex, the area allotted for Stage - I is 707 Acres. Out of 707 Acres, 177 Acres have been utilized for greenbelt. No greenbelt area of Stage - I has been destroyed. Out of 190 Acres of vacant land, 57 Acres has been proposed as greenbelt for the newly proposed NCTPS Stage - III Thermal Power Plant and they have denied the allegation regarding the existence of biodiversity etc. The MoEF&CC accredited consultant viz., M/s. Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd., Hyderabad had conducted EIA / EMP for the proposed power plant and they collected the details of flora and fauna of the area for 10 km radius in and around the power plant complex and the same has been placed before public and the same has been appraised by the EAC of the MoEF&CC and only thereafter, the Environmental Clearance was granted. There was no suppression of material fact as alleged. They also explained in the public hearing as to how they are going to develop the greenbelt in that area. So, according to them, there are spaces available and they have not disturbed the existing greenbelt. So, they prayed for dismissal of the application.
14. The 6th Respondent filed counter affidavit explaining their qualification and expertise in their field and their labs were accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Calibration and Testing Laboratories (NABL) scheme of Laboratory Accreditation. They also mentioned that they have carried out the work of several Thermal Power Plants and the Page 13 of 33 Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant and Bhavini, Kalpakkam. They are the successful bidder for this project and they have carried out the establishment activity and they have done the following works for the said project:-
"a) The 6th Respondent formally inaugurated the project activities on 04/03/2016 and in terms of the contract.
b) The 6th Respondent submitted first Bank Guarantee worth Rs. 270.9 Crores on 05/03/2016.
c) The 6th Respondent submitted second Bank Guarantee of Rs. 14.2 crores on 15.04.2017
d) As on 30/06/2017, BHEL has since billed Rs. 247.601 crores towards supply, Excise Duty, TNVAT, Freight, Service Tax and Civil Works against a committed expenditure of Rs.1900.24 crores majority of which are at an advanced stage of work in progress.
e) The 6th Respondent was awarded initial erection contracts as per sequence for various construction activities to the tune of Rs. 311.53 crores.
f) The 6th Respondent site office has been established by renovating the earlier project office and large storage shed which was initially used by BHEL while establishing Phase I of the North Chennai 3 x 210 MW in the early part of 90s. Annexures A1, A2 and A3.
g) Within the said premises, the 6 Respondent has also constructed, Project Office for TANGEDCO at a cost of Rs. 1.7 crores - Annexure B.
h) Piling work which is at advance stage of completion is also being carried out - Annexure C1, C2 and C3.
i) The 6th Respondent has developed and prepared storage yard for receiving and storing various components which has since we manufactured and transported to sites for construction of the power plant - Annexure D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 and D6.
j) The 6th Respondent has developed Civil Infrastructure facilities - Annexure E.
k) The 6 Respondent has developed and established Fabrication Yard Annexure F1 to F4.
l) The 6th Respondent has commenced erection of Electrostatic Precipitator after completion of foundation work - Annexure G1, G2 and G3.
m) To ensure timely completion of the project, the 6th Respondent carries out the following activity even at night.
i) Piling - Annexure H
ii) Foundation - Annexure I
iii) Batching Plant - Annexure J
iv) Fabrication Work - Annexure K"
15. It is further contended that the project was completed and commissioned in January 2016, but the application was filed only in February 2017. The 4th Respondent had obtained all necessary clearances and permissions. So, they prayed for dismissal of the application.
16. The 7th Respondent filed counter affidavit more or less reiterating the contentions raised by the 6th Respondent and also the nature of work undertaken by them and completed by them. They have carried out their work strictly in terms of the contract. So, they prayed for accepting their contentions and passing appropriate orders.
Page 14 of 3317. The applicant filed joint rejoinder to the reply affidavit filed by the Respondents No.3 & 4 reiterating their contentions raised by them in the original application and also relying on Annexure - R3 showing destruction of existing greenbelt.
18. The applicant also filed joint rejoinder to the counter filed by Respondents No.1 & 2 more or less reiterating the contentions raised by them in the original application and also contended that the Consent to Establish granted was a post facto one, which is not valid in law and the applicant prayed for allowing the application.
Original Application No.214 of 2017 (SZ):
19. Another application [O.A. No.214 of 2017 (SZ)] was filed by Meenava Thanthai K.R. Selvarajkumar Meenavar Nala Sangam alleging that the North Chennai Thermal Power Station Stage - III arrayed as 10th Respondent in this case had violated the conditions of the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted in respect of maintaining the greenbelt for the purpose of establishment of unit. They have started destroying the greenbelt and they have also destroyed the mangroves and trees along Kosasthalaiyar River.
20. It was also alleged in the application that they require more area to accommodate Stage - III but in fact that much extent is not available and they have not provided necessary greenbelt as required and committed violation of the conditions imposed. There was no proper and periodical monitoring of CSR activities which they are expected to carry out.
21. Further, it was also alleged in the application that every day the project proponent is cutting down aged trees more than 50 to 100 years, apart from destroying other native species.
Page 15 of 3322. So, they filed this application seeking the interim as well as main reliefs:-
"INTERIM RELIEF
(i) It is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court pleased to appoint Advocate Commissioner to assess the extent of destruction of Green Belt as on date of filing of this application before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(ii) Restraining the project proponent from cutting down the trees, native spices within the campus of NCTPC complex.
(iii) To direct the project proponent to frame CSR schemes as stated at para 7A (xli) of the CZR Clearance order dated 20.01.2016.
(iv) To direct the project proponent to give preference to the local people in the project work as per the condition stipulated at para 7A (xli) of the CZR Clearance order dated 20.01.2016.
(v) To direct the project proponent to identify the tradition fisherman communities based on 2011 to form sustainable welfare scheme and to submit a status of implementation report to the 1st respondent as per the condition stated at para 7A (xxxi) of CZR Clearance order dated 20.01.2016.
MAIN RELIEF
(i) To direct the 1st respondent to revoke the CZR Clearance order no.J-13012/14/2012 - 1A.II (T) dyed 20.01.2016 issued in favour of the 10th respondent as per the condition at part VIII of the CZR Clearance order dated 20.01.2016.
(ii) To direct the 1st respondent to appoint expert committee to explore scientific method to preserve and to promote the environment in and around the Industry project proponent the 10th respondent.
(iii) To direct the 10th respondent to restore the environment into original position.
(iv) To direct the 3rd and 7th Respondent to take appropriate action against Respondent No.4 for violation the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
(v) To direct the respondents to take appropriate action on representation dated 30.03.2017 of the applicant."
23. The 1st Respondent/MoEF&CC filed counter more or less raising the contentions raised by them in O.A. No.23 of 2017 (SZ) regarding issuance of Environmental Clearance etc. and they prayed for accepting their contentions and passing appropriate orders.
24. The 3rd Respondent filed counter affidavit contending that as regards the violation of conditions of CRZ/EC granted, it is for the concerned authorities to take action. They are expected to file their status of compliance report once in six months and the same will have to be Page 16 of 33 uploaded in their portal. The Regional Office of the MoEF&CC is conducting the compliance verification stipulated in the clearance conditions and the State Pollution Control Board is also expected to monitor the compliance of the conditions issued in the Consent for Establishment and Operation and the Central Pollution Control Board had no role in the same.
25. The 8th Respondent/Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board filed counter affidavit more or less reiterating the contentions raised by them in Original Application No.23 of 2017 (SZ).
26. The 10th Respondent - M/s.NCTPS also filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations and also reiterating the same contentions raised by them in O.A. No.23 of 2017 (SZ) and as such, we are not repeating the same. They denied the allegation of destruction of greenbelt provided for Stage - I and II and they have got vacant space available within Stage - III area and they will be developing the greenbelt as required. The project works have been executed through M/s. BHEL, New Delhi and M/s. BGR Energy System Limited, Chennai. The Regional Office of MoEF&CC inspected their unit on 16.10.2018 and furnished their monitoring report. They denied the allegation of destruction of mangroves and existence of any wildlife. The project site was with bushes and juliflora and some species of low value fire wood shrubs of small girth which have been grown naturally as vegetative cover as remarked by the Wildlife Warden, Guindy. They denied the allegation of felling of old trees aged between 50 and 100 years. Certain trees were uprooted during Vardha Cyclone 2016 and the green cover has been destroyed due to that and not due to any act of theirs. They are fully complying with the conditions and they prayed for dismissal of the application.
27. As per order dated 27.01.2020 in O.A. No.214 of 2017 (SZ), this Tribunal after considering the pleadings, appointed a Joint Committee comprising of (i) an Officer from the Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Chennai, (ii) an Officer from the State Coastal Zone Management Authority - Tamil Nadu and (iii) the District Collector - Chennai to inspect the area in question Page 17 of 33 and submit a factual and action taken report, if there is any violation in respect of cutting down of trees in the proposed Green Belt of Stage - I and Stage - II and how many trees have been cut against the conditions imposed in the clearances without getting proper permission from authorities, whether the Environment Clearance (EC) provides for cutting of trees and also suggesting the remedial measures to remedy the situation. The Joint Committee was also directed to consider the question as to what was the extent of the plantation planted by the 10th respondent/Project Proponent in compliance with the conditions imposed in Environmental Clearance for establishment of Stage - I and Stage - II and what was the survival percentage and whether any tree has been cut and removed from that area for this expansion which was not permitted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate and Change, as it was mentioned in the Environmental Impact Report that it is a barren land, whether there is availability of 190 acres of barren land for establishment of Stage - III as mentioned by the project proponent in their proposal for obtaining the Environmental Clearance/CRZ Clearance and if there is any violation what is the action to be recommended and what is the environment compensation that has to be recovered from the project proponent for such violations to restore the loss caused to the ecology.
28. The Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Chennai was designated as the nodal agency for coordination and also for providing necessary logistics for this purpose.
29. The Joint Committee has filed the report dated Nil, e-filed on 25.10.2021 which reads as follows:-
"Back ground of the Projects:
M/s. TANGEDCO acquired 1067 acres of land during 1987 - 1990 to established Thermal Power plants and the entire area was enclosed with a pucca compound wall constructed during 1990. Stage I and Stage II power plant areas were declared as industrial land. The CMDA has also declared as industrial land. Stage I and Stage II were constructed, commissioned and are in operation.
Stage III is under construction stage and about 90% of the work is completed and remaining works are under progress. The total land area of Stage III is 190 acre of barren land. The photos showing the progress of construction work at site Annexure III.
Directions given by the Hon'ble NGT (SZ) to the Joint Committee Vide Order dated 27.01.2020 in the matter of O.A No.214 of2017 (SZ) three directions were given to the Joint Committee and the observations of the joint committee against each direction is as follows:Page 18 of 33
1. "If there is any violation in respect of cutting down of trees in the proposed Green Belt of stage I and stage II and how many trees have been cut against the conditions imposed in the clearances without getting proper permission from authorities, whether, Environment Clearance provides for cutting of trees and also suggesting the remedial measures to remedy the situation".
Observation:
M/s. TANGEDCO has developed green belt in Stage I and Stage II areas. The Committee has not observed any tree cutting in Stage I and Stage II green belt development areas. However, some uprooted and fallen trees were observed in these areas. The green belt development work in Stage I and Stage II is inadequate. There are lots of vacant areas available in Stage I and Stage II. The Green belt development work is unsatisfactory and needs improvement. The committee requested the authorities to improve the green belt development.
2. "What is the extent of the plantation planted by the 1Oth respondent in compliance with the conditions imposed in Environmental Clearance for establishment of stage 1 and stage II and what is the survival percentage and whether any tree has been cut and removed from that area for this expansion which was not permitted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate and Change as it was mentioned in the Environmental Impact Report that it is a barren land".
Observation:
As per the details submitted by the project authority, 177 acres of land (30%) was allocated for green belt development in Stage I and against this 116 acres of land is brought under green belt by planting 20,750 numbers of trees. Survival rate is about 85% i.e. 17,640 numbers of plants survived.
For Stage II, 67.66 acres of land is allocated for developing green belt. Against this 50.99 acre is brought under green belt by planting 15,000 numbers of plants. The survival rate is 82%. Tree cutting was not observed during the visit. However, some uprooted and fallen plants/trees were observed in Stage I and Stage II green belt areas.
As mentioned in the EIA report, Stage III land is a barren land. Further, as remarked by the Wild life Warden, Guindy the project site was with bushes and juliflora and some species of low value fire wood, shrubs of small girth which have been grown naturally as a vegetative cover. Here some trees were cut and removed during the initial stage of construction. The exact number of trees removed/cut from the site of Stage III was not made available to the committee. Photographs showing the routes of removed trees take during the visit is at Annexure - IV.
3. "Whether there is availability of 190 acres of barren land for establishment of stage III as mentioned by the project proponent in their proposal for obtaining the Environmental Clearance/Coastal Zone Clearance and if there is any violation what is the action to be recommended and what is the environment compensation that has to be recovered from the project proponent for such violations to restore the loss caused to ecology".
Observations:
As per the provided details, the land availability for Stage III is 190 acre of barren land. Stage III Power Plant is under construction in this land. As per EC condition of Stage III, green belt consisting of 3 tiers of plantations of native species all around the plants and at least 50 m width shall be raised. Wherever 50 m width is not feasible a 20m width shall be raised and adequate justification shall be submitted to the Ministry. The density shall not be 2500/ha. with survival rate not less than 80%. In this regard the Project Authorities has already started to develop green belt and so far 677 trees were planted in 5 acres earmarked for green belt developments. No violation has been noticed during the visits.
Conclusion:
1. No trees have been cut/removed from the proposed green belt of Stage I and Stage II. However, some trees were fallen and uprooted in these areas. The green belt development work is inadequate and lot of vacant areas available for green belt development. It needs further improvements.
2. The Joint Committee observed that sufficient area is available for the establishment of Stage III.
3. No violations were noticed at the construction site of Stage III and therefore the question of Environment Compensation is not arising at this stage.
4. There are no National Parks, Wild life sanctuaries and other protected areas within 10Km radius and no mangroves were noticed at the site.Page 19 of 33
5. The site is 500m away from High Tide Line (HTL) of sea and 100m away from the HFL of canal and no CRZ violations were noticed during the visit.
Recommendations:
It is recommended to improve the green belt of Stage I, II with adequate density as specified in the Environmental Clearance granted for Stage I & II and also recommended to comply the condition regarding green belt developments as specified in the Environmental Clearance granted for Stage III project."
30. The applicant filed objection to the Joint Committee report which reads as follows:-
"OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT TO THE REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the above titled Application has been filed under Section 14 read with Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 raising substantial question relating to environment arising out of the noncompliance of the conditions of the Clearances and consents granted by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 respectively due to the construction activities of Stage III of the North Chennai Thermal Power Station (NCTPS) in the existing green belt within the complex of the said Thermal Power Station.
2. That the abovementioned Original Application got tagged with Original Application No. 214 of 2017 (SZ) as both matters were pertaining to the same issue with respect to clearing of green belt of NCTPS.
3. That vide it's Order dated 27.01.2020 in the matter of O.A No.214 of 2017 (SZ), this Hon'ble Tribunal had constituted a Joint Committee comprising of Regional Office of MoEF&CC, Chennai, State Coastal Zone Management Authority and District Collector, Chennai to go into the allegations and to inspect the area in question and submit a factual and action taken report. The Joint Committee was given the following Terms of References (ToR):-
"12. .....To inspect the area in question and submit a factual and action taken report if there is any violation in respect of cutting down of trees in the proposed Green Belt of stage I and stage II and how many trees have been cut against the conditions imposed in the clearances without getting proper permission from authorities, whether, Environment Clearance provides for cutting of trees and also suggesting the remedial measures to remedy the situation.
13. They may also consider the question as to what is the extent of the plantation planted by the 10th respondent in compliance with the conditions imposed in Environmental Clearance for establishment of stage I and stage II and what is the survival percentage and whether any tree has been cut and removed from that area for this expansion which was not permitted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate and Change as it was mentioned in the Environmental Impact Report that it is a barren land. They shall also verify whether there is availability of 190 acres of barren land for establishment of stage III as mentioned by the project proponent in their proposal for obtaining the Environmental Clearance/Coastal Zone Clearance and if there is any violation what is the action to be recommended and what is the environment compensation that has to be recovered from the project proponent for such violations to restore the loss caused to ecology."
4. The Joint Committee has submitted it's Report in the tagged matter and the Applicant is submitting her Objections to the following observations of the committee as stated in the Report of the Joint Committee which is as follows:-
" 1) No trees have been cut/removed from the proposed green belt of Stage I and Stage II. However, some trees were fallen and uprooted in these areas. The green belt development work is inadequate and lot of vacant areas available for green belt development. It needs further improvements.
2) The Joint Committee observed that sufficient area is available for the establishment of Stage III.
3) No violations were noticed at the construction site of Stage III and therefore the question of Environment Compensation is not arising at this stage.Page 20 of 33
4) There are no National Parks, Wild life sanctuaries and other protected areas within 10Km radius and no mangroves were noticed at the site.
5) The site is 500m away from High Tide Line (HTL) of sea and 100m away from the HFL of canal and no CRZ violations were noticed during the visit."
5. That the Applicant wants to submit in response to the Joint Committee's Report as follows that:-
i. As per the EC dated 30.04.1987 accorded for the construction of NCTPS Stage I, it was stipulated that: 'Green belt should be raised all around the power plant'.
Further, condition No. 5 of EC dated 10.5.1996 accorded for the construction of NCTPS Stage II stipulated that:- "A green belt should be created all around the power plant between the cooling water channel and boundaries of existing plant, around the ash pond area. A norm of 1500-2000 trees/ha should be adopted and the requisite infrastructure such as nursery and manpower etc should be ensured. For filling up of vacant spaces in the existing plant area, a phased joint programme involving the TNEB should be worked out and submitted to the ministry within three months, i.e by June 1996."
It is submitted that the greenbelt has not been uniformly developed all around the existing operational units of the NCTPS plant, and the said expansion activity for Stage III has lead to felling of several hundred trees which is apparent from the observation of the Committee where it notes that "The green belt development work is inadequate and lot of vacant areas available for green belt development". It is submitted that the committee does not take into account that inadequate green belt is a violation of the environmental clearance conditions accorded to Stage I and II with respect to development of green belt. The illegal felling of trees are in complete violation of not only the conditions of the EC but also the consent to establish and operate granted for the Stage I and Stage I of the project which required for development of Green Belt.
ii. It is stated that both units (Stage I and Stage II) are operating without adequate green belt as required in EC's and Consents.
iii. It is stated that the Committee has failed to clarify as to how many trees have been cut in violation of the conditions imposed in the clearances without getting proper permission from authorities for setting up Stage III of NCTPS. Instead, the committee makes a blanket statement that there is no violation noted in this case.
iv. Committee's inspection report adopts a narrow view and gives a clean chit to the project proponent. It is portraying as if no present felling is being undertaken. It fails to takes into account that several hundred trees have already been felled down for construction of Stage -III of NCTPS.
v. There is no assessment of felling of trees against the conditions stipulated in the environment clearances. This ought to have been done to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal. Therefore, the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal have not been complied with.
vi. Committee does not consider the heavily wooded area that was felled down/cleared to prepare the site for the existing stage III of the power plant and wrongly notes that the site is barren. The Applicant has annexed google earth imagery pertaining to years 2011, 2015 and 2021 showing the extent of greenery cleared for setting up of Stage -III of NCTPS which are annexed as ANNEXURE- 1 (Colly).
vii. Committee has not inspected the lack of green belt around the ash pond and no details of that are available, despite the clearances that stipulate the same. Google earth imagery pertaining to years 2015 and 2021 showing the lack of greenbelt around the ash pond is annexed as ANNEXURE-2.
viii. It is submitted that the committee has not applied it's mind while carrying out the inspection and preparing the report. Hence, the report of this committee should be rejected and a fresh audit of compliance to environmental conditions and consents pertaining to greenbelts for Stage I and II of NCTPS need to be conducted.
ix. It is stated that the Committee has failed to consider that the said expansion activity has lead to felling of several hundred trees from the only areas with substantial green cover within the plant premises. This also amounts to the violation of the conditions relating to development and maintenance of Green Belts as specified in the Environment Clearance dated 30.04.1987 and 10.05.1996 and consent conditions of consents granted under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 Page 21 of 33 dated 07.12.1993 08.08.2011, 19.03.2013 granted to the Stage I and Stage II of the Project respectively.
x. The Committee failed to consider that in November 2016, the Respondent No. 5, upon reports of tiger sighting within the NCTPS Complex, discovered a vibrant ecosystem with a variety of species of flora and fauna existing in the green belt of the plant. It is submitted that the Stage III construction activities has completely wiped out this vibrant biodiversity from the area as is apparent from viewing the Google Images.
xi. The Committee failed to take into account that Respondent No. 4 had concealed the existence of rich flora and fauna while applying for its Environmental and CRZ Clearance and the Respondent No. 1 did not even verify the necessary facts while granting the Clearance for Stage III vide letter dated 20.1.2016."
31. Heard the learned counsels Mr. Ritwick Dutta along with Mr. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh for the applicant, Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for MoEF&CC, Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for State Departments, Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Mr. Abdul Saleem along with Mr. S. Saravanan, Mr. Vijayameganath and Mr. P. Shanmuganathan for the TANGEDCO in both the cases and Mr. John Zachariah for 6th Respondent and Mr. D. Ravichander for 7th Respondent in O.A. No.23 of 2017 (SZ).
32. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant in both these cases argued that even going by the Joint Committee report, it is seen that the greenbelt provided was inadequate and it was not provided in the manner in which it was required as per the Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions. They will have to provide three tier greenbelt along the boundary and also places where there is a likelihood of pollution being caused. There was no adequate greenbelt provided near the ash pond. They have not given the details of number of trees that have fallen and what is the nature of re-plantation made by them. On the other hand, the Joint Committee has given a clean chit to the TANGEDCO. The fact that there was a recommendation to improve the greenbelt of Stage - I and II with adequate density itself will go to show that there was non- compliance of conditions and that was not properly considered by the Joint Committee. The Tribunal may consider this aspect and issue necessary directions.
Page 22 of 3333. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the MoEF&CC argued that there is enough space available for the project proponent to provide greenbelt and they must be directed to carry out the recommendations regarding the development of greenbelt.
34. The learned counsel appearing for the State Pollution Control Board submitted that they are strictly monitoring the compliance of the consent conditions and issuing necessary directions to the TANGEDCO to comply with the same whenever found any deficiency. If there is any violation, they used to take appropriate action as well.
35. The learned counsel appearing for the State Departments argued that they are monitoring the implementation of the conditions by the TANGEDCO and necessary instructions and directions are being given for strict implementation of the environmental norms.
36. The learned counsel appearing for the TANGEDCO argued that the Joint Committee's report will go to show that there was no damage caused to the trees and the mangroves as alleged by the applicant. Further, the report will go to show that there was no obstruction caused to the free flow of water in Kosasthalaiyar River on account of their activities. Further, they are committed to provide necessary greenbelt and there are enough space available in the area to provide necessary greenbelt and once the construction of Stage - III Expansion is completed, they will be able to provide further greenbelt and they are strictly complying with the conditions imposed and taking all necessary steps to protect environment and also providing necessary pollution control mechanism to avoid pollution being caused on account of their activities.
37. We have considered the pleadings, submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties including written submissions filed and also perused the Joint Committee report and other documents available on record.
Page 23 of 3338. The points that arise for consideration are:-
i. Whether the application is barred by limitation? ii. Whether the TANGEDCO had committed any violation of conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance (EC) as well as Consent granted for their Stage - III Expansion project?
iii. Whether there was any damage caused to the environment on account of the act of TANGEDCO by the alleged cutting of trees from the area earmarked for Stage - I and II of the project and if so, what is the nature of action to be taken against the same?
iv. What are all the further directions (if any) to be issued to protect environment applying the "Precautionary Principle"?
v. Relief and costs.
POINTS:-
39. The grievance in this application was that there were suppression of facts of existence of wildlife and other protected species in the complex and there is no mechanism provided for protecting the same as well. Further, they have not provided necessary greenbelt and they are making massive felling of trees from the project area earmarked for Stage - I and II for providing space for the construction activities of Stage - III Expansion. So, they wanted to revoke the Environmental Clearance (EC) and take appropriate action against the TANGEDCO.
40. The allegations were denied by the TANGEDCO as well as other respondents.
41. As regards the limitation aspect is concerned, whenever violations were noted which are continuing in nature, then it will amount to continuing or recurring cause of action and each violation will give raise to a fresh cause of action for the applicant to approach this Tribunal. This principle was well settled by several decisions of this Tribunal itself. In this case, Page 24 of 33 when they came to know about felling of trees, immediately they filed this application to prevent such alleged indiscriminate felling of trees. So, the submission made by the learned counsel for the TANGEDCO that the application is barred by limitation is unsustainable and the same is rejected.
42. The fact that the TANGEDCO is having a large extent of area nearly about 1,067 Acres within their NCTPS complex was not in dispute. They have established the Stage - I project in the year 1990 within an area of 707 Acres, out of which, 177 Acres have been earmarked for greenbelt. The Stage - II was commissioned in the year 2014 and 170 Acres have been provided for Stage - II, of which, they have developed the greenbelt in 57 Acres. In the remaining 190 Acres of land, Stage - III project was proposed to be established, of which, they proposed to develop greenbelt in 57 Acres.
43. Though the applicant had a case that there is no enough space available for establishing Stage - III and they have utilized the greenbelt area provided for Stage -I and II for the purpose of establishing Stage - III project, it was found to be not correct by the Joint Committee. Further, considering the extent of land available and proposed to be utilized by the TANGEDCO for each project as evidenced from the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted for each stage at different periods will go to show that there exists enough space available for the TANGEDCO to establish their Stage - III project in the complex.
44. There is no document produced by the applicant to show that there are any protected forest areas like National Park or Reserved Forest exists within a radius of 10 Kms which was suppressed by the project proponent. Merely because, some species are available in the area on account of development of greenbelt, that will not make it as a protected area so as to bring within the definition of protected area under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Further, the Joint Committee report as well as the discussions in the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted for each stage will go to show that there was no protected Wildlife Sanctuary / Reserved Forest available within the radius of 10 Km. Since it is falling Page 25 of 33 in Coastal Regulation Zone, they have obtained necessary clearance from the State Coastal Zone Management Authority while applying for Environmental Clearance (EC) as well.
45. It is seen from the Joint Committee report that they did not find any cutting or felling of tress from the greenbelt developed area of Stage - I and II, but they have seen some uprooted and fallen trees in those areas. They also observed that the greenbelt development work in Stage - I and II is inadequate and there are lot of vacant space available in that area and the greenbelt development work was not satisfactory and needs improvement. They also observed that for development of greenbelt for Stage - I, 177 Acres have been provided and they have developed 116 Acres for development of greenbelt by planting 20,750 trees, survival rate of which is about 85%.
46. As regards the Stage - II is concerned, though an extent of 67.66 Acres land has been allotted for developing greenbelt, 50.99 Acres were brought under the greenbelt by planting 15,000 plants, survival rate of which is 82%. Though there was no cutting of trees found during the visit, some trees were seen uprooted and fallen from this area.
47. As regards the area allotted for Stage - III is concerned, it is a barren land and it is noted by the Wildlife Warden, Guindy that this area is with bushes and juliflora and some species of low value fire wood shrubs of small girth which were grown naturally as vegetative cover found there. Here some trees were cut and removed during initial stage of construction and details of exact number of trees cut and removed was not available and they have produced Annexure - 4, Photographs for this purpose. As regards the Stage - III is concerned, they have mentioned that the project authorities have started to develop greenbelt and so far 671 trees were planted in 5 Acres earmarked for greenbelt development and they have noticed no violation. They have made the following recommendations:-
"Recommendations:
It is recommended to improve the green belt of Stage I, II with adequate density as specified in the Environmental Clearance granted for Stage I & II and also recommended to comply the condition regarding green belt developments as specified in the Environmental Clearance granted for Stage III project."Page 26 of 33
48. They have only cut and removed certain trees in the area earmarked for Stage - III establishment of the project. Some trees were found and uprooted and fallen cannot said to be an act of the TANGEDCO of cutting and removing the trees, as according to them, during Vardha Cyclone, certain damage has been caused to the existing trees in the greenbelt area for Stage - I and II.
49. The purpose of providing greenbelt is to absorb the Carbon dioxide and other toxic emission that is being emitted from the project area during their operation and make the surrounding area free from air pollution. The existence of trees will not only absorb the Carbon dioxide and release Oxygen to the atmosphere, but also it will absorb the dust and noise that is being generated from the project area and that will prevent this is being spread over to the outside project area so as to protect the environment free from air pollution in the surrounding area so as to make the life of the people more healthy. Merely because certain vacant lands are available at certain places and developing greenbelt in those areas will not serve the purpose. The project proponent has to develop greenbelt for certain distance between the boundaries and the constructed area and that area must be covered with greenbelt of three tier of different species as suggested in the Environmental Clearance and Consent granted and unless this is strictly complied with, the purpose of providing greenbelt to protect environment and avoid emission of toxic air pollutants to the atmosphere cannot be achieved as expected.
50. Whenever they are preferring trees, they will have to prefer trees of such nature of native variety and must avoid trees or plants which are not conducive for ground water conservation and result in over exploitation of ground water by such trees to accelerate the depletion of ground water. Eucalyptus is one of such species which is likely to cause depletion of ground water, if they are planted in plenty in areas where availability of water is less. So, whenever selecting the nature of trees to be planted, the project proponent has to avoid planting of Eucalyptus and other exotic trees which are likely to have some impact on environment especially in depletion of ground water level in that area. They must go Page 27 of 33 for development of greenbelt utilizing mostly the native species which are conducive for environment and attract the birds and other biological diversity in that area. They must also provide greenbelt along the boundary to the width required as per the Environmental Clearance (EC) and also develop three tier of different species wherever possible, apart from the boundaries which will help protection of environment against pollution, especially air pollution. This must be taken note of by the project proponent while developing the greenbelt in their project area. They must also plant adequate number of trees to overcome the green cover which has been lost due to uprooting and falling of trees during monsoon or other climatic conditions mentioned by the project proponent.
51. It is seen from the written submissions submitted by the Project Proponent that the nature of species that has been used for Stage - II and III has been detailed as follows:-
NCTPS-II NCTPP Stage-III
Pungai, Neem, Badam, As per recommendation of the
Gulmohar, Ashoka, Department of Horticulture and
Casurina, Plantation Crops, Madhavaram,
Indian Tulip and Turf (Grass), Chennai-51, Species viz. Crotons, Hibiscus, etc., Pungam, Neem, Pelto Phorum, Punnai, Teak, Asoka tree and Casuarina being planted and will be planted for greenbelt development.
52. They have also given the details of greenbelt development made by them for Stage - I which reads as follows:-
Total Power Plant area of 549 acres
NCTPS - I
33% of Plant area for greenbelt area 181 acres
Already developed Green beltarea 116 acres
Balance to be proposed Greenbelt 65 acres
Balance green developmentfor 35 acres
the year 2022 - 2023
Balance Green Developmentfor the year 30 acres
2023 - 2024.
Page 28 of 33
53. Instead of waiting for the project to be completed by 2022-23 for completion of greenbelt for Stage - I, they are directed to expedite the planting of trees to cover the deficient area for Stage - I and also for Stage
- II and III, as delay in development of greenbelt will increase the possibility of pollution being caused on account of emission of dust and other fugitive emissions that are likely to be emitted from the project area during its operation.
54. So under such circumstances, we feel that the following directions can be given to the TANGEDCO for development of greenbelt in compliance with the conditions of the Environmental Clearance / Consent and we do not feel that there is necessity to direct the regulators to take any action for revocation of Environmental Clearance (EC) or Consent granted on account of alleged violations projected by the applicant in the application, but granting liberty to the authorities to take appropriate action against the project proponent, if there is any violation of conditions noticed in accordance with law.
a. We hold that the application is not barred by limitation as contended by the learned counsel for respondents. b. There is no necessity to suspend or revoke the Environmental Clearance (EC) and Consent granted to the project proponent for their project of Stage - I, II and III as claimed in the application. c. The regulators are at liberty to take appropriate action against the project proponent viz., TANGEDCO, if they find any violation of conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance and Consent granted, including imposition of environmental compensation and other suitable directions (if any) required to be issued under the environmental laws viz., Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 in accordance with law.
d. The Project Proponent/TANGEDCO is directed to maintain the greenbelt and plant trees of such nature that will not result in depletion of ground water in that area and avoid planting of species like Eucalyptus which are not suitable and conducive for protection Page 29 of 33 of environment and likely to affect the ground water level in that area and prefer native species as much as possible in consultation with the Forest Department.
e. The Project Proponent/TANGEDCO is directed to plant or develop greenbelt along the boundary with the width and in three tiers as stipulated in the Environmental Clearance (EC) and Consent and also at the places where there is a possibility of any dust or other emission being caused so as to arrest the pollution being caused on account of their operation.
f. The Project Proponent/TANGEDCO is directed to develop the greenbelt as directed by the Joint Committee in the vacant spaces available for the Stage - I and II and also in Stage - III and that too, in three tiers as stipulated in the Environmental Clearance (EC) and Consent and maintain the survival rate as far as possible at 100% but it should not be less than 85% and whenever they found any damage being caused to the existing plants on account of any reason beyond the control of the project proponent, then they are directed to replace those plants and substitute with new plants so as to maintain the greenbelt without any reduction at any cost. They must also consider the proposal of planting Bamboos and other species which are conducive to environment wherever it is possible in consultation with the Forest Department.
g. The State Pollution Control Board is directed to monitor the implementation of the conditions in the Environmental Clearance (EC) and also Consent granted and maintaining the pollution control mechanism provided by the project proponent to protect environment, especially air pollution that is likely to be caused on account of their operation and if there is any violation found, they are directed to take appropriate action against the TANGEDCO in accordance with law which must include imposition of environmental compensation, apart from other directions which can be issued by the regulators as provided under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Page 30 of 3355. The points are answered accordingly.
56. In the result, both these Original Applications are allowed in part and disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) We hold that the application is not barred by limitation as contended by the learned counsel for respondents.
(ii) There is no necessity to suspend or revoke the Environmental Clearance (EC) and Consent granted to the project proponent for their project of Stage - I, II and III as claimed in the application.
(iii) The regulators are at liberty to take appropriate action against the project proponent viz., TANGEDCO, if they find any violation of conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance and Consent granted, including imposition of environmental compensation and other suitable directions (if any) required to be issued under the environmental laws viz., Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 in accordance with law.
(iv) The Project Proponent/TANGEDCO is directed to maintain the greenbelt and plant trees of such nature that will not result in depletion of ground water in that area and avoid planting of species like Eucalyptus which are not suitable and conducive for protection of environment and likely to affect the ground water level in that area and prefer native species as much as possible in consultation with the Forest Department.
(v) The Project Proponent/TANGEDCO is directed to plant or develop greenbelt along the boundary with the width and in three tiers as stipulated in the Environmental Clearance (EC) and Consent and also at the places where there is a Page 31 of 33 possibility of any dust or other emission being caused so as to arrest the pollution being caused on account of their operation.
(vi) The Project Proponent/TANGEDCO is directed to develop the greenbelt as directed by the Joint Committee in the vacant spaces available for the Stage - I and II and also in Stage - III and that too, in three tiers as stipulated in the Environmental Clearance (EC) and Consent and maintain the survival rate as far as possible at 100% but it should not be less than 85% and whenever they found any damage being caused to the existing plants on account of any reason beyond the control of the project proponent, then they are directed to replace those plants and substitute with new plants so as to maintain the greenbelt without any reduction at any cost. They must also consider the proposal of planting Bamboos and other species which are conducive to environment wherever it is possible in consultation with the Forest Department.
(vii) The State Pollution Control Board is directed to monitor the implementation of the conditions in the Environmental Clearance (EC) and also Consent granted and maintaining the pollution control mechanism provided by the project proponent to protect environment, especially air pollution that is likely to be caused on account of their operation and if there is any violation found, they are directed to take appropriate action against the TANGEDCO in accordance with law which must include imposition of environmental compensation, apart from other directions which can be issued by the regulators as provided under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.Page 32 of 33
(viii) Considering the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their respective cost in the respective application.
(ix) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Chairman/Managing Director - TANGEDCO, Chairman -
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, MoEF&CC, New Delhi and Integrated Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Chennai, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, and the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Energy for their information and compliance of directions.
57. With the above observations and directions, both these Original Applications are disposed of.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM O.A. No.23/2017 (SZ) & O.A. No.214/2017 (SZ), 26th May 2022. Mn.
Page 33 of 33