National Green Tribunal
Gujarat Khedut Samaj Through ... vs The Secretary Ministry Of Environment ... on 7 December, 2017
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
(WESTERN ZONE) BENCH, PUNE
APPEAL No.17/2016 (WZ)
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice U.D. Salvi
(Judicial Member)
Hon'ble Mr. Bikram Singh Sajwan
(Expert Member)
In the matter of:
1. Gujarat Khedut Samaj
A Regd. Public Charitable Trust under
The Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950
Through its authorized person
Mr Ramesh Ishwarbhai Patel
Having address at:
At-Po Orma, Taluka Olpad,
Surat-394540.
2. Krishnakant Chauhan
214, R.D. Complex, Navagam-
Dindoli Road,
Udhna, Surat-394 210. Gujarat.
3. MSH Sheikh
Brackish Water Research Centre
Kasba Mohalla, Mougal Street,
At & Po Olpad-394540,
Dist. Surat, Gujarat.
... Appellants
Versus
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forests and
Climate Change,
Government of India
Indian Paryavaran Bhavan,
Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi-110 003.
2. The Member Secretary
Gujarat Pollution Control Board,
Paryavaran Bhavan, Sector 10A,
Gandhinagar-382 010, Gujarat.
Judgment(Appeal No.17/2016) 1
3. The State of Gujarat,
Through The Concerned Department/
Chief Secretary,
Having address at:
New Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar
Gujarat.
4. Hindustan Chemicals Company
Having its factory at:
GIDC Industrial Estate, Olpad
Surat-394540.
... Respondents
Counsel for Appellant (s):
Mr. Asim Sarode a/w Mr. Mihir Desai, Ms. Lara Jesani,
Counsel for Respondent(s):
Ms. Supriya Dangare, Mr. Anrudha Tapkire, Mr. Amit
Karkhanis for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Viral K. Shah for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Parth H. Bhatt for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Gaurav Joshi Sr. Adv.a/w Mr. Kaushik A. Kulkarni, Mr
Raheel S. Patel, for Respondent No. 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 7th December, 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judgment/Order
1. Gujarat Khedut Samaj, a registered body of farmers of State of Gujarat through this Appeal have challenged impugned Environment Clearance - File No.J- 11011/466/2011-IA II(I), dated 22nd January, 2016 granted by Respondent No.1 - The Ministry of Environment and Forest for proposed expansion of manufacturing unit of Respondent No.4- Hindustan Chemicals Company (HCC) at GIDC, Olpad, District Surat.
Judgment(Appeal No.17/2016) 2
2. Respondent No.4-HCC is engaged in manufacturing of Sodium Cyanide and other Cyanide based products at Plot Nos. 26 to 37, 444 to 57, 122,143 at GIDC, village Hasnanbad, Taluka Olpad, District Surat since 1982. EC dated 23rd July, 2017 was granted for its first expansion of manufacturing activity permitting 25 MTM of Sodium Cyanide and 45 MTM and Mandalo Nitride more than its initial capacity, whether EC was ever procured under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 1994 is not known to the Appellants and EC dated 23rd July, 2007 makes no mention of any prior EC being obtained by Respondent No.4-HCC.
3. According to the Appellants, manufacturing unit of Respondent No.4-HCC is not located in the notified industrial area - GIDC, Olpad and the product activity of the Respondent No.4 being classified as 'A' category project requires to go through the stages of EIA and public hearing and consultation before EC could be granted as per the EIA Notification,2006. Respondent No.4-HCC applied for grant of EC for further expansion of its manufacturing activity with proposed increase in manufacturing of Sodium Cyanide, belong to Cyanide Groups of chemical compounds namely
1. Cyclo Pentanone Cyanohydrin, Judgment(Appeal No.17/2016) 3
2. 2-Chloro Benzaldehyde Cyanohydrin (2-Chloro Mandelonitrile) belonging to Cyanohydrines Group of chemical compounds,
3. Methylene Amino Aceto Nitrile (MAAN) belonging to Nitriles Group and;
4. Zinc Cyanide and Isophoron Diamine based on Cyanide products, vide proposal dated 29th January, 2013 and MoEF granted Terms of Reference (ToR) dated 17th February, 2012 for expansion of project sought further clarification vide letter dated 22nd August, 2012 and granted EC dated 22nd January, 2016 on the basis of Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) recommendations, which had apprised the project only on the EIA Report without any public hearing and consultation.
4. Parties to the Appeal were duly served. Respondent No.1-MoEF, Respondent No.2-Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) and Respondent No.4 - Hindustan Chemicals Company joined the issues with their replies dated 6th December, 2016, 8th January, 2017 and 7th February, 2017 respectively.
5. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellants invited our attention to the impugned EC dated 22nd January, 2016, particularly, Paragraph Nos. 1 and 6 therein and pointed out that EAC (Industry) had taken decision to recommend the proposal of EC upon considering EIA/EMP report, and as such other additional Judgment(Appeal No.17/2016) 4 information in its Meetings held between 16th - 17th February, 2012, 16th-17th May, 2013 and 19th-20th December, 2013, obviously, before the public hearing Report dated 24th December, 2013 and subsequent submission of additional information dated 17th December, 2014 in gross violation of the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006. He argued that, Respondent No.4- HCC knew very well from the correspondence made with GIDC, Surat (their letter dated 20th August, 2012 addressed to the Regional Office, GIDC, Surat, requesting for a copy of Notification declaring GIDC, Olpad as notified industrial area, Annexure-11 and reply to the said letter from GIDC on 30th August, 2012, Annexure- 12, informing them that Olpad industrial area is not declared as notified industrial area) that their manufacturing unit was falling in non-notified industrial area and was not eligible for exemption from public hearing; and yet glossed over the said and managed to get recommendations of EIA without EAC applying its mind to the public concerns recorded during public hearing.
6. Letter dated 28th August, 2012 from Respondent No.4 to GIDC clearly reveal that the Olpad Industrial Estate where the Respondent No.4 Industry is situate is not declared as notified industrial area. Paragraph 6.0 of the impugned EC dated 22nd January, 2016 quoted Judgment(Appeal No.17/2016) 5 herein below clearly reveals that all the public concerns as expressed in the public hearing conducted on 14 th November, 2014 were not considered while recommending the grant of EC.
"6.0 The proposal was considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee (Industry) in its meetings held during 16th - 17th February, 2012, 16th - 17th May, 2013 and 19th - 20th December, 2013 respectively. Project Proponent and the EIA Consultant namely M/s Eco-Chem Sales & Services, have presented EIA / EMP report as per the TOR. EAC has found the EIA / EMP Report and additional information to be satisfactory and in full consonance with the presented TORs. The Committee recommended the proposal for environmental clearance."
7. As regards this public hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants has no grievance. He submits that the EAC recommendations fall on account of non-consideration of the public concerns expressed in public hearing by the EAC. He submits that justice would be done if the impugned EC is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Expert Appraisal Committee for reconsideration in order to consider the public concerns as expressed in public hearing dated 14th November, 2014 along with the representations/objections/documents raised/ submitted by the parties to the present appeal.
8. As per MoEF O.M. No.J-11013/36/2014-IA-I dated 16th May, 2014 read with Entry 5(b) the public hearing is necessary for proposed expansion project of Judgment(Appeal No.17/2016) 6 manufacturing Sodium Cyanide and other Cyanide based products for grant of EC. Hence Order:
(I) The Environmental Clearance dated 22nd January, 2016 granted to the expansion project of Respondent No.4 - Hindustan Chemical Company is set aside.
(II) The Expert Appraisal Committee of MoEF shall consider the outcome of the public consultation including public hearing dated 14th November, 2014 along with suggestions/ objections/documents made/raised/submitted by the stakeholders including the parties to the Appeal, and the Expert Appraisal Committee shall take appropriate decision in the matter within sixty days and make recommendations accordingly to the Respondent No.1 - MoEF in accordance with law.
(III) Liberty granted to the parties to make representations to the Expert Appraisal Committee along with all the relevant material in their possession or control within two weeks.
(IV) Respondent No.1 - MoEF is directed to take decision in light of the recommendations made by EAC in accordance with law.
Appeal No.17/2016 stands disposed of with no order as to cost.
....................................................., JM (Justice U.D. Salvi) ...................................................., EM (Bikram Singh Sajwan) Date: 7th December, 2017 Judgment(Appeal No.17/2016) 7 mk Judgment(Appeal No.17/2016) 8