National Green Tribunal
Sk Vijayakumar vs Union Of India on 7 April, 2022
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.2 & 3: Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
(Through Video Conference)
Original Application No. 180 of 2017 (SZ)
With
Appeal No. 20 of 2019 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
S.K. Vijayakumar,
S/o. Late S.N. Krishna Kumar,
R/o. 852, Cinema Road,
Doddaballapur - 561 203.
Bangalore Rural District and Ors.
... Applicant/Appellant(s)
Versus
Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh Road,
New Delhi and Ors.
...Respondent/Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 07.04.2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
O.A. No.180/2017 (SZ):
For Applicant(s): Mr. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh represented
Mr. Ritwick Dutta.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Me. Saraswathi for R1.
Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw represented
Page 1 of 31
Mr. Darpan K.M. for R2.
Mr. Madhuvaneshwaran represented
Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan for R3.
Mr. Vasanth H.K. for R4.
Mr. B. Dhanraj for R5.
Appeal No. 20/2019 (SZ):
For Appellant(s): Mr. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh represented
Mr. Ritwick Dutta.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. M. Sumathi for R1.
Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw represented
Mr. Darpan K.M. for R2.
Mr. Madhuvaneshwaran represented
Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan for R3.
Mr. Vasanth H.K. for R4.
Mr. B. Dhanraj for R5.
ORDER
1. As per order dated 06.01.2022, it was noted that though it was mentioned by the learned counsel appearing for the SEIAA -
Karnataka that further report has been filed, office informed that the same has not been received. So, it was adjourned to 27.01.2022 for consideration of further report and also for hearing. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned from time to time by successive notifications and lastly, it was adjourned to today by notification dated 29.03.2022.
2. We have received the report submitted by the Joint Committee, on the basis of the objections filed by the applicant to the earlier report dated Nil, e-filed on 23.02.2022 which reads as follows:-
Page 2 of 31REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE MATTER OF O.A. 180 OF 2017 (SZ) BEFORE THE HON'BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, SOUTHERN ZONE CHENNAI 1.0 PREAMBLE In the Original Application No. 180 of 2017 (SZ), filed by Sri S.K Vijay Kumar and Ors.
vs uol & ors, the Hon ble National Green Tribunal (sZ) constituted a ]oint Committee vide order dated 05.03.2020 to inspect the area in question and submit a factual and action taken report regarding the allegations made in the application and granted further time up to 01,.12.2020 vide order dated 02.1't .2020 for submission of the report. state Environment Impact Assessment Authority Bangalore was made as the Nodal aSency.
Based of irupection of the site, verification of the documents, the Joint Committee filed the detailed report before the Hon'ble NGT on 24.11,.2020. The applicant filed the statement of objections on the joint Committee report.
In view of this, the Honlble NGT vide order dt 29.06.202r has directed the foint Committee to file a report on the objectioru made by the applicant.
2.0 POINTWISE REPLY OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE STATEMENT OF OBIECTIONS FILED BY THE APPLICANT In view of the above, the meeting of the Joint Committee was held at sEIAA, Karnataka, Bengaluru on 26.10.2021,, the ]oint comrnittee members reviewed the statement of objectioru filed by the applicant and the supporting documents furnished by KIADB. Another inspection of the Doddaballapura Industrial Area was carried out on03.12.2021..
The following are the point wise reply of the ]oint Committee to the statement of objectioru filed by the Applicant 1 Page 3 of 31 Sl No Obiections raised by the applicant Remarks of the Joint Committee 1 That the above titled Application has been Based on the direction of filed raising substantial questions relating Hon ble NGT, the foint to the environment arising out of the blatant Committee had examined violation of the conditions of the the issues raised by the Environmental Clearance dated 28.03.2016 applicant and filed a granted to the Kamataka Industrial Area detailed report. Development Board ("KIADB") for the establishment of "Industrial Atea" at Doddaballapura Industrial Area, 3'dPhase. The Application also raises the issue of violation of the Notilication dated 18,11,2003 known as the Tippagondanahalli Reservoir Notification ("TGR Notification") issued by the State of Kamataka as well as the sitting criteria guidelines Issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board as well as the EIA Notilication of 2006. 2 No comments That this Hon'ble Tribunal had considered the issue at length vide order dated 5.03.2020 and had passed the following order:
" 28 . There is no material before this Tibunal as to uhether thc allegations in the application haae been substantiated or not. ln order to ascertain as ta I hnae nether the allegations In the applications are cofiect anil u,hether there uas any oiolation of anditions imposed either in the enoironment clearance or in the consent 2 Page 4 of 31 to establish issued in faoour fur the fifth respondent unit, ue feel it appropiate to awoint a Joint Committue campising of a Senior Oficer from Regional Offce, Ministry of Enaironment Forest and Climate and change, Bangalore, Senior Offar Iro* State Enoironment Impact Assessment Authoity (SEIAA) of State of lGmataka and the Karnataka State Polluhon Control Board to inspect the area in question and submit a factual and action tal<en report regnrding the allegations made in the npplication including the siting citeia and also existence of any eco-
sensitizte areas uithin the prohibited distance of the unit as alleged by the petitioner as per Notifcation dated, 18.1L.2003 of Gooernment of Karnataka nnd if there is any oiolntion, ztthat is the action taken by them and submit a factual and action taken repofi to this Tibunal uithin a peiod of tttto months.
29. State Enoironment lmpact Asxssment Authoity shnll be the noilal agency for coordination anil also for prooiding necessary logistics for the purpose."
J That the ]oint Committee inspected the site Based on the direction of in question on 22.10.2020 and Submitted its Hon'ble NGT, the foint report to this Hon'ble Tribunal on Committee had examined At the outset, it is pertinent to the issues raised by the 24.11,.2020.
point out that the Joint Committee has applicant and filed a found that the project proponen! i.e. detailed report. KIADB has not complied with several 3 Page 5 of 31 conditions of the Environmental Clearance dated 28.03.2016. ln fact, the Committee has assessed the environmental compensation for the same as Rs. '1.,53,98,438 / -
4(0 That the entire issue related to TGR Covered in the para 5.1, Notification, 2003 has been Completely pageT & 8 of the Joint neglected by the foint Committee. The TGR Comrnittee Report dated Catchment area has been notified under the 24.11..2020 Environment (Protection) Ac! 1986 by the Stateof Karnataka after recognizing the ecological sensitivity and the need to conserve and protect the catchment area for the source of drinking water for the city of Bangalore, However, the Committee has completely glossed over the violations of the said Notification.
4 (ii) Covered in the para 5.1, That the Joint Committee failed to consider pageT&8oftheJoint the fact that the KIADB has concealed the Committee Report dated fact deliberately that the Industrial Area 24.11.2020 falls within Zone-1. of TG& Notification in FormJ & PFR as well as the EIA Report submitted for appraisal of ToR/EC. This amounts to concealment of facts and therefore the Environmental Clearance dated 28.0342016 as well as the amendment dared 24.01..2019 is liable to be withfuawn as per the provisions of Para 8 (vi) of the ETA Notification,20016.
4 (iii) Covered in para 5.1.13, It is pertinent to note that the Joint Page 19 of the foint Committee completely failed to consider 4 Page 6 of 31 the condition for Zone- 1 of the TGR Committee Report dated Catchment Area as per the TGR 24.11,.2020. Notification 2003, i.e., Regulation and The Ground Water checking oaer erploitation of ground uater. ln Authority issues this regard, it may be noted that a project perrnission f or extracting like "industrial area is water Intensive ground water based on the project on its own and when the individual availability of ground industries come up, the exploitation of water and by posing ground water would increase much further. conditions for rain water hawesting and ground water recharge.
a (iv) That the Committee failed to grve any KIADB has informed that findings with respect to the Illegal ground th"y have obtained water extraction, It may be noted that as on permission from Ground date, there is no supply of water by the Water Authority for Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage extracting Ground Water Board to the Project Proponent for the from 10 bore wells. Copy of project Inquestion. The water for the permission is enclosed construction phase Is b"i.g sourced as Annexure-l through illegally sunken bore wells and water tankers. The water for construction Out of 10 borewells, only phase and operation phase is being sourced two are yielding water and through tfuee illegally sunken borewells water supply from these and water tankers along with nearby water two borewells have been bodies. Also, in one of the tfuee bore wells, provided to M/S Keihin the pipe connection is provided directly to Fie Pvt Ltd ( presently M/s the adjoining Industry for its Industrial Hitachi Astemo Fie Pvt purpose. It is purulent to note that this issue Ltd) and Takii Seeds India was brought to the notice of the Joint Pvt Ltd.
5 Page 7 of 31Committee by the Applicant No.l during the inspection a (") That the Joint-Cdmmittee erred In noting The TGR notification has that "the TGR catchment area has been been notified by the neither notified as an "aa-Sensitive Area" Government oI Karnataka nor a "Biosphere, Reserve "and "The TGR based on the Catchment area has not been declared as recommendation of the ESZ by the Competent Authority, the KSrcB. The NotiJication MOEF&CC'. It is submitted that it would be classilies the area into four completely eroneous to state that the TGR zones and stipulates Catchment Areas not an ecologically regulations. The details sensitive area. It is to be noted that the TGR have been covered at para NotiJication flows from the powers vested 5.1, page 7 & 8 ot the Joint in the State Govemment under the Committee Report dated statutory provisions of section 3 and section 24.1L.2020 23 r/w section 5of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. This has also been held the Hon ble High Court of Kamataka dated 06-11-20L1 in the matter of Escon Gensets Private Limited v- The Director, Industries and Commerce Deparlment & Ors. (W.P.38162/2009), wherein the Hon ble High Court has upheld the TGR Catchment Area Notification which Is notified by State Govemment under section 5 flows from section 3 and section 23 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.The portion of the judgment dated 0G01-20L1 is reproduced hereunder:
6 Page 8 of 31"13. We have taken into consideration the various provisions relied upon by the leamed counsel for the petitioner, while advancing his last contention. In our considered view, none of the provisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The relevant provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1,986, which must be deemed to have been invoked for issuing the notification dated 18.11.2003 (Annexure - A/1) are Sections 3 of the Environment and 23 (Protection) Act 1986. The aforesaid provisions are being reproduced hereunder: 3 Power of Central GOVT to take measures to protect and improve Environment (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, In particular, and without prejudice I (3) The Cenhal Government may, if it considers xxxxxx
23. Power to delegate Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-
section (3) of section 3, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, delegate, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in the notification, such of its 7 Page 9 of 31 powers and functions under this Ac! except the power to constitute an authority under sub-section (3) of section 3 and to make rules under section 25, as it may deem necessary or expedien! to any officer, State Govemment or other authority.
From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, we are satisfied that the notification issued letter the State Govemment cited 18.11.2003 (Annexure-A1) flows from the powers State Govemment under the aforesaid provisions. It is therefore apparent, that the measures of the kind, which were taken by the State Government in its notilication dated 18.11.2003 (Annexure-A/1), were permissible under Section 3, and as such, relevant directions in respect thereof could certainly have been Issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In view of the above, we are satisfied, that them was absolutely no ffirmity in the notification Issued by the State Govemment on 18.11.2003."
4,v. TGR -\AIP 38162 of 2019 KSPCB- recommended that the area identified by ISRO to be declared as Eco sensitive zone- separate authority to be constituted.
8 Page 10 of 31a (vi) The preamble of the TGR NotiJicatioru 2003 In the matter of G clearly reflects that the area was found to be Eshwaraiah & Ors V. State ecologically sensitive by the State of of Karnataka & Ors. (\AIP.
Karnataka. 20080-20082/2010), the The following issues become critical for the Hon'ble High Court of consideration of this Hon'ble Tribunal: Karnataka has upheld the TGR Notification dated a. That the Tippagondanahalli Reservoir 18.11.2003 and felt that (TGR), built at the conJluence of "lNhen it is eoident thnt the Arkavathi and Kumudvathi Rivers, is entire area of the proposed an important source of drinking water Industial ktyout is zttithin to the city of Bangalore and the the cntchment arel of a surrounding areas.
dinking zttater source to the
b. That the State Govemment recognized City "f Bangalore,
that over the years, the inJlow to TGR cansideration as to u)hat is so had been decreasing and quality of ineaitnble about the snid lands water supplied by this reservoir had for formation of industrinl also deteriorated. This was further layout nnd ulry not a lnyout in fortified by the observations and an area tuhich does not fall conclusions of the study conducted by uithin the catchment area.
the lndian Space Research There is no consideration of
Organization (ISRO) In association thexs aspect before issue of the
with Indian Resources Information and notifcation under Section 3
Management Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (1.) of the KIADB Act nor has
(IN-RIMIT), commissioned by the
been any mateial been
produced in thnt regard."
Bangalore Metropolitan Region
But the Hon'ble Court has
Development Authority ('MMRDA") to ascertain the reasons for reduced not issued any direction inllow of water to TGR. preventing formation of Industrial layout in Zone-I, of TGR Notification 9 Page 11 of 31 c. That the study carried out by ISRO in association with IN-RIMT revealed that unplanned development in the catchment area and increasing urbanization and industrialization were the main reasons for the deteriorating quality and reduced flow into the reservoir. Further, the increasing urbanization and industrialization had led to alteration in the drainage pattern of the TGR catchment area resulting in reduced inllow into the TGR. Moreover, there were number of industries in the catchment area, whose effluents along with underground leachate and sewage flow into the TGR thus alfecting the quality of water.
d. That in pursuance to this, the Karnataka State Pollution. Control Board had taken the decision not to accord any consent for any industry, as this is bound to change the surface contours and aJfect the catchments drainage pattern, vide meeting dated 24.7.2002. The KSrcB turther recommended that the area identified by ISRO be declared as an Eco Sensitive Zone under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and also 10 Page 12 of 31 suggested to con lute a seParate Authority for the conservation of the TGR area.
e. That further, vide meeting dated 08.7.200,3, chaired by the Principal secretary, Urban Development, it was resolved to protect this ecologically sensitive area keeping In mind that the quantity and quality of the TGR reservoir will have direct impact on the large population of the Bangalore.
Therefore, the Government considered it necessary to protect the catchment area of the TGR to prevent any activity that would lead to contamination of the reservoir.
f. That therefore, in view of these findings, the Govemment of Kamataka issued the notification dated 18.11.2003, exercisingthe power conferred under Section 5 of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 7986, considered It in public interest to categorise the TGR the catchment areas into four zones with a view to declare its an ECOSensitive Zone with regulated and restricted activities permitted as given in the Schedule to the Notification.
11 Page 13 of 31Thus it is clear ...............the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the matter of G & Ors V. State of Eshwaraiah Karnataka & Ors. (!VP. 20080- 20082/2010), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the TGR Catchment Area notification and ha held that an industrial area cannot be developed in Zone-I as per the Notification, since it would invariable entail over exploitation of ground water. ................"
a (vii) With respect to the violation of the sitting According to KIADB, it has
criteria: acquired land for
That in this regard, It Is submitted that the development of
Committee has completely, erred in Doddaballapura concluding that "during the grant of EC, Obadenahalli Industrial only E1A Notification was in force and not Area 3rd Phase, under the sitting altered This is blatantly KIADB Act. KIADB has misleading and wrong. It is submitted that approved the formation of Committee failed to notice that KSPCB layout plan in its 321st Siting guidelines for Orange and Green Board Meeting held on 27- industries vide notifications dated t2-2012. 21,.06.2003 as well as 05.07.2005 were in As per TGR Notification place. Further, even before the sitting 2003 and 2019, the guidelines ot 2003, the KSPCB had sitting Obadenahalli Industrial guidelines dating back to 1980s. Thus, the Area falls under zone-L. In Committee failed to consider the following Zone-'L all types of violations that the Applicant had clearly Industrial Activity can be stated at Para 13 of the Original Application carried out with scientific L2 Page 14 of 31 and the same are not being repeated for the treatment of solid as well sake of brevity, as liquid waste except for Mining, quarrying and stone crushers activities.
Also covered in Para 5.1.2, Page 9 & 10 of the foint Committee Report dated 24.11.2020.
4 (viii) It is pertinent to note that Applicant shared Covered in Para 5.1.2, the KSPCB citing guidelines with KSPCB page 9-10 the |oint representative on the day of the inspection Committee Report dated itsell in the presence of MOEF 24;t1.2020. representative which they themselves were not aware as well as SEIAA representative. It was also brought to the notice of the MOEF representative present that the said information which was available earlier in KSPCB website is now removed from their website except for Orange and Green category siting guidelines. However, the report is clearly bereft of any findings on the issue of violation of siting criteria, particularly w.r.t minimum 25kms distance to be maintained from different types of ESA.
4 (ix) That an important issue was completely Covered in Para 5.2 , glossed over by the SPCB that the Consent page2L-22 of the Joint to Establish was granted by the SPCB much Committee report dated aJter the construction work had begun for 24.11,.2020.
the project, thus violating both Air 13 Page 15 of 31 (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Ac! There is a direction from 1981 and Water the Government that "
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act The KSPCB shall not issue 1974. However, No action was taken CFE without the project against the Project Proponent under the obtaining EC from SEIAA/ said enactments by KSPCB. MoEF.' Hence, the KSPCB has issued CFE only after the KIADB obtained EC from SEIAA. Since the conditions of CFE are in concurrent with the EC, the violation / issue of construction prior to grant of EC is proposed to be taken by SEIAA in its next meeting.
a (") That it is submitted that the committee has KIADB has stated that they simply accepted the statements made by have earmarked 709.11.
KIADB with respect to the status of acres for development of compliance of the conditions. For instance green belt and out of which with respect to the conditions of developing green belt is developed in 33% of the project area as green belt, the an area of 24.06 acres Committee has simply stated in the report within the Industrial area that the KIADB has assured the Committee and carried out avenue that it would be achieved in a phased plantation in the adjoining manner. No fixed timelines have been roads. As on date, the imposed by the committee. This becomes green belt developed by even more important in light of the fact that KIADB is 24.06 acres and L4 Page 16 of 31 there are Orange as well as Red category KIADB has assured that induskies within the industrial area (which 33% is being achieved in in itself has been classified as a Red phased manner as EC did category industry). In this regard, it may be not stipulate any timeline noted that it would be impossible for the for the development of KIADB to achieve 33% green belt 33% green belt. development in any case, as the entire area KIADB informed that the has been allotted to various industries State Forest Department which includes certain areas marked for has been requested to Civic Amenities, STP, Truck parking area & carryout plantation in all KPTCL Sub-station without EC amendment the KIADB industrial area in the scope of project and proper Layout to have 5 rows of Plan approval by competent Planning plantation along the Authority, and there is no land where boundary of the industrial proper plantation can be actually area. Annexure-2 undertaken.
a (xi) That while the committee has noted the It was clarilied to the joint space allotted for Solid Waste Management Comrnittee that, even Facility/STP which is yet to be established though the industrial area but failed to notice that the space is reduced is developed by KIADB, with the creation of industrial Plot and also the industries will establish no space is allotted for CETP/Hazardous & operate in a phased Waste and also that the STP/CETP needs to manner and will take 3-5 be established on MODULAR BASIS to years to completely occupy cater to phase-wish development has by the industries. Hence simply accepted the submission made by during initial stages, the KIADB. quantity of trade effluent generation will not be sufficient to achieve the 15 Page 17 of 31 designed capacity of CETP.
It is also true that the industries which are established in this area have to obtain CFE/CFO from KSPCB, where KSPCB insists for establishment of STP for treatment oI domestic sewage and ETP for treating trade effluent.
Hence by providing STP & ETP al individual industries, the domestic sewage and the industrial effluent are treated by the individual industries.
KIADB has earmarked an area of 5.9 acre for establishment of Solid Waste Management facility which will be taken up in fufure based on requirement. Also earmarked 1.2 acres for STP between plot numbers 72 and 73 (survey number M/3p&47pof Obadenahalli).
Annexure-3 16 Page 18 of 31 4 (xii) That the committee failed to notice that the The EIA Report and Public objections raised during the first Public Hearing proceedings were Hearing conducted on L1.11.2014 for grant submitted before the SEAC of EC wherein it was informed that the EIA committee for EC Report is a copied Report from appraisal, based on the EC neighbouring Project with irrelevant details appraisal SEIAA has as well as the second Public Hearing granted EC to KIADB. conducted on 19.09.2018 for grant of EC amendment is not at all complied with but simply accepted that submissions made by KIADB in obtaining the same.
4 (xiii) That the committee has simply accepted The details have been statements made by KIADB that Road No.2 covered at Para 5.1.2, page and Road No.718m and 25m widened Road 9 & 10 of the Joint which is not available and minimum of 15rn Committee report dated buffer is not provided. 24.71,.2020.
As per the Revenue survey map, the road number 2 was originally a cart track and not a village road and hence the stated citing guidelines may not be applicable.
The ]oint Committee has re verified the width of the said roads and noted that the width of both the roads is 18 m only. The width of 77 Page 19 of 31 the road number 7 was mentioned as 25 m by oversight in the report dated 24.11.2020.
However, it is noted that, KIADB while allotting the plot have stipulated a setback of minimum 4.5 m to maximum L0 m from the road to building line depends upon the size of the plot. A copy of allotment letter is enclosed as Annexure4 4(xiv) That while the comrnittee has noted that Ministsy inspected the KIADB has provided only two compliance project in Nov, 2017 and reports to Monitoring agencies, the report is reported Unsatisfactory. silent on whether such reports were The details on the satisfactory. compliance status of EC conditions were provided at Para 5.1.4 page 11& 12 of the Joint Committee Report dared 24.1L.2020. After the Joint Committee visit, KIADB is submitting FfYR regularly.
4 (xv) xv. That it is pertinent to note that the KIADB had obtained EC Committee failed to notice that EC is from SEIAA on 28.03.2016 granted for Orange and Green Category of for Establishment of 18 Page 20 of 31 industry alone which itself is against Orange and Green IGPCB Siting Guidelines. It was in 2019 that category industries. the Environmental Clearance was amended Further, KIADB had to permit Red category industry on survey obtained Amendment to Numbers 1.4/2, 74/3, 1.4/4, L5/2, 75/3, first EC dated 28-03-2016 15/4,1,5/5,16, t7 /1,,17 /2,17 /3,17 /4 and for Sy.No. 1,4/2, l4/3, 17/5 ot plot 2D-1 (i.e., Stelis Biopharma) 14/4, 1s/2, 15/3, 15/4, measuring L0 Acres only out o{ 696.45 acres, 75 / s, 1,6, 17 / 1,, 17 / 2, 17 / 3, that too in 17/4 and 17/5 measuring Obadenahalli village and not in 10 Acres allotted to M/s. Raghunathapura. However, the Stelis Biopharma for RED Committee report is totally misleading by category, on 24.01,.2019 stating that the amendment also allowed fromSEIAA. Red category industry M/s.Keihin Fie (P) Ltd., in Raghunathapura. The Committee M/s.Keihin Fie (P) Ltd.,is failed to notice that this industry is not located at Sy.No.33/3, situated in Raghunathapura Village but in 35/2,36/1, 36/2, Obadenahalli village and was not permitted 37 /3,37 /4,37 /5,38/1,,38/2, under the First EC and no amendment of and 39 of Obedenahalli EC is obtained for establishing the same. village, Kasaba Hobli, No material record is supported in the Doddaballapura 3.d phase committee Report to that effect. industrial area, KIADB, Doddaballapura taluk, Bangalore rural has obtained separate EC from FEE,GOK on 26-03-2013 ro manufacture Carborators of 4,78,000 nos/month and spares of carborators of 1,60,000 nos/month. The 19 Page 21 of 31 location of industry was entered as Raghunathapura instead of Obedenalnlli which is a typographical error.
Since M/s. Keihin Fie (P) Ltd had obtained separate EC on 2643-2013 prior to first EC dated 28-03-2016 obtained by KIADB, hence amendment to EC issued to KIADB is not required.
4. (xvi) Change in venue of PH Covered at para 5.1.11 at page 18 of the Joint Committee Report dated 24.1't.2020.
4. (xvii) That the committee failed to notice the The Single Plot-2 has been earlier EC which shows the layout Map divided by KIADB as 2A, wherein PLOT-2 is shown as a SINGLE 2B,2C,2D. And the Plot PLOT of 82 acres for which EC was 2A has been allotted to obtained earlier but for EC amendment is M/s Kapsi coating, 28 mentioning only 10 acres allotted to M/s allotted to M/s. Klauz Stelis Biopharma at PLOT 2D-1 meaning Speciality, 2C allotted to there are several other industries which are M/s. YG cutting tools, already allotted atPlot2 A,28,2C,2D and and 2D had been divided so on where in many industries into two plots i.e. 2D1 are established and are in operation without allotted to M/s Stelis following the proper procedures in Biopharma and 2D2 has been sub- divided into 2D 20 Page 22 of 31 accord.rnce with law are illegal and 2 Pl and 2D 2P2.The plot unauthorized including the Plot 2D-1.. 2D2P7 is allotted to M/s C S Aerotherm llvt Ltd ar:d.2D2 P2 is allotted to M/s Advance Cable Technologies I\t ltd.
Both the plots are vacant
as on date. The above said
industries falls under
orange category except
M/s Stelis Biopharma
which was earlier under
orange category and only
after amendment to first
EC, M/s Stelis Biopharma
has been categorized
under red category.
4. (xviii) That the committee failed to notice the The EC amendment is
development in the said Plot 2 is without obtained to plot 2D1 which
Obtaining EC amendment in the scope of belongs to M/ Stelis
"
the project and layout approval from the Biopharma and remaining competent Planning Authority. plots 2A,28,2C are allotted to orange category by KIADB and 2D2Pl and 2D2P2 are vacant. Hence EC amendment is not required for the plots i.e. 2A,2B,and2C.
4. (xix) That the committee failed to notice that the Obadenahalli Tank fall Obadenahalli Tank is mentioned in the under minor tanks 21-
Page 23 of 31 earlier ToR for which earlier EC is granted (comrnand Area from 40 but now denies the same under the pretext Ha to 2000 Ha) as per of Major/ Minor Tanks. irrigation departrnent letter No. 289/20/09/2021,, Bashettyhalli Pattana Panchayth letter No. 152 dated 27ft May 202L. As per Bashettyhalli Pattana Panchayth letter, the tanks at Sy No. 62 and 06 of Obadenahalli village with area 2.90 Hectares and at Sy No. 55 with area 2.08 Ha are designated as small tanks, which doesn t attracts siting guidelines for Orange category industries. Annexure-S 4. (xx) That the Committee has assessed the The KIADB had
environmental compensation as commenced activities prior Rs.1,53,98,438 / - which itself is not in to EC and hence commensu rate with the violations. Environmental compensation has been
4. (xxi) That the comrnittee failed to notice, in the worked out and reported first place, that the land acquisition is not in the |oint Committee permissible without the grant of proper EC Report dated 24.1L.2020 at from competent authority and CFE for the para5.2, page21,-22. establishment of Industrial Area by KIADB which is against the Order of the Hon ble Apex.22 Page 24 of 31
4. (xxii) That the Committee failed to notice that the development works started without grant of EC and CFE is for the establishment of Industrial Area which is a RED Category industry as per CPCB categorization.
4. (xxiii) That the Committee failed to notice that the other development works like S\,lID, Street lights, power lines, plot demarcation are all started without the grant of EC and CFE but considered only the Roads.
4. (xxiv) That the Committee failed to notice that the KIADB had allotted land to development and establishment of certain M/s Keihinfie (P) Ltd, on industries have started under the guise of 31,.07.2012. M/s Keihinfie CFE, if any, without the grant of proper EC (P) Ltd had obtained EC on from competent authority as well as the 26.03.2013 from SEIAA CFE for the Industrial Area. and I(SPCB has issued CFE on 09.01.2013 with conditions to obtain required Statutory clearances before taking up construction and CFO on 20.11.20L4. M/s Stellis Biopharma Pvt Ltd,. had obtained CFE from I(SPCB under Orange category on 28.09.201,6 and CFO on 07.07.2017. KIADB have obtained amendment to EC in respect of M/s Stellis Biopharma Pvt Ltd on 23 Page 25 of 31 24.01.2019 issued by SEIAA for Red category.
KSPCB has issued CFE -
Expansion on 06.02.2020
under Red category
followed by CFO on
17.09.2020. KIADB has
obtained first EC on
28.03.201.6 from SEIAA,
Amendment to EC on
24.01..2019 and CFE from
KSPCB on L6.08.201,6.
Other industries have
started after obtaining EC
by KIADBfromSEIAAand
CFE from KSPCB.
5 That it is submitted that the Joint The foint Committee has
Committee had filed and interim report examined all relevant
before this Hon'ble Tribunal on 29.10.2020 details / documents and
wherein the Committee had noted as submitted its report.
follows:-
"The Joint committee after site inspection had detailed discussion with KIADB officials and Sri. S.K. Vijaya Kumar (Applicant). After discussion the Joint committee sought the following additional information from the KIADB to deliberate on the given TORs and submit the report.24 Page 26 of 31
1. Copy of Topsheet showing the water bodies in the site along with buffer details.
2. A sample copy of allotment letter to the individual industry.
3. Details of rainwater harvesting.
4. Permission letter from Central/State Ground Water Authority.
5. Details of water drawl from the borewells along with meter reading register.
6. Details of energy conservation measures along with percentage of energy saving.
7. Copy of advertisement of the issue of Environmental clearance
8. Copy oI the layout superimposed on the toposheet.
6 That the report dated 24.11.2020 is however The issues raised by the silent on these issues especially with respect applicant relating to to the huge discrepancies with the discrepancies in EIA inlormation in the Form-1, PFR and the EIA Report has been addressed Reports and the toposheets and layout plan in para 5.1.14 Page19-21, of which were submitted by the KIADB to the the Joint Committee report Karnataka SEAC and SEIAA. Thus, the dated24.11..2020.
foint committee failed to consider the fact KIADB had obtained EC that Sy.Nos.33l3, 35/2, etc., of from SEIAA on 28.03.201.6 Raghunathapura village is not at all shown for Establishment of in the layout Map submitted in the EIA Orange and Green category Report for Sant of Environmental industries. Further, KIADB 25 Page 27 of 31 Clearance amendment.ln fact the said had obtained Amendment survey numbers have not even been to tust EC dated2S-03-201,6 acquired for the present project which is for Sy.No. 14l2, 14 / 3, 1'4/ 4, situated outside the layout Map which is "15/2, 7s/3, 1.5/ 4, 15/5,16, submitted in the EIA Report. On the other 17 /1., 17 /2, 17 /3, 17 / 4 and hand the said Sy.Nos.33/3,35/s, etc., of 17/5 measuring 10 Acres Obadenahalli village which is adjacent to allotted to M/s. Stelis M/s.Kiehin Fie (p) Ltd is ear-marked for Biopharma for RED KPTCL Sub.station but in reality M/s Ajax category, on 24.01,.2019 Industries is established and in operation fromSEIAA. without EC amendment in the scope of project arrd proper Layout Plan approval by The land reserved for competent Planning Authority. KPTCL falls in Sy Nos s3p,64p, 67p, 68/1.p, of Obadenahalli as per layout map submitted to SEIAA for obtaining EC.
The land reserved lor
KPTCL is not shilted and is
vacant as of now.
As per the CFE issued by
KSPCB, the locationof M/s
Ajax Engineering Pvt Ltd,-
Unit-3 is plot number 149,
150 and 151 of KIADB 3'd
Phase, Obadenahalli (Sy.
No. 28 / a, 28 / 5, 28 / 6, 33 / 1,
33/2, 33/3, u/1, U/2,
35/'t and 35/2 of
Obadenahalli). The
26
Page 28 of 31
Industry has obtained CFE
from KSPCB on ?3.03.2017,
CFE expansion on
21.05.2018 and CFO on
29.09.2018 under Orange
Category for which EC is
not required.
7 That the joint committee has clearly found According to SEIAA, the
of the Environmental subject will be taken up in certain violations Clearance dated 28.03.201.6 and has forthcoming SEIAA assessedthe amount of environmental meeting. Accordingly, compensation to be paid. However, no action taken report will be action has been taken for the violation of the submitted for kind perusal provisions of the Environment (Protection) of the Hon'ble National Act, 1986 under Section 19 by the SEIAA Green Tribunal (SZ) r/w important that the Committee Chennai. conducts a proper assessment of compliance of each condition under the Env ironmental Clearance dated 28.03.2016 and24.01,.2019.
8 Thus, it is submitted that this Hon ble Joint Committee has Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Joint examined all the relevant Comrnittee to conduct a proper audit of the data in detail and compliance status of the conditions of the submitted the report. environmental Clearance dated 28.03.2016. Further, in light of the clear violations of the TGR Notification, 2003 direct the Joint Committee to undertake a groundwater assessment of the area and submit a report regarding the same to this Hon'ble 27 Page 29 of 31
3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as the appellant in both these cases wanted some time to file their objections to the further report submitted by the Joint Committee.
4. The matter is of the year 2017 and 2019 respectively. Further, the report was filed on 23.02.2022. They ought to have filed their objections and got ready with the matter by this time. However, taking a lenient view, we feel that a week's time can be granted to them to file their objections to the report.
5. They are directed to file their objections on or before 13.04.2022 by e-
filing in the form of Searchable PDF/OCR Supportable PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hardcopies to be produced as per Rules, failing which, this Tribunal will be compelled to dispose of the matter on the next hearing date with the materials available on record.Page 30 of 31
6. For filing objections (if any) to the Joint Committee report and also for hearing, post on 13.04.2022.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM O.A. No.180/2017 & Appeal No.20/2019, 07th April 2022. Mn.Page 31 of 31