National Green Tribunal
Pravir Prabhakar Fadte vs Ministry Of Environment Forest And ... on 4 May, 2023
(Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
(By Video Conferencing)
APPEAL NO.18 OF 2022 (WZ)
1. Pravir Prabhakar Fadte,
Age 46 years, son of Prabhakar Fadte,
H. No. 180/2, Betalwada, Amona,
P. O. Marcela, Goa- 403107,
Contact No. 8830926934
Email Id: [email protected]
2. Sameer Babla Bhagat,
Aged 41 years, resident of 416,
Bhagat Wada, Amona,
Marcela, Goa-403107,
Contact No. 9130981345
3. Devanand Sagun Sinari,
Aged 42 years, Resident of H.No.156,
Pimpalwada, Amona, P.O. Marcella,
Bicholim, Goa - 403107
Contact No. 9767332578
Email id - [email protected]
4. Narayan Raghunath Sawant,
Age : 45 years, Businessman,
Resident of H.No.343, Khar Wada,
Amona, Marcela, Goa-403107,
Contact No. 9764269761.
5. The Goa Foundation,
Through its Secretary, Dr. Claude Alvares,
Age 74 years, having Regde. Office at
Room No.7, Above Mapusa Clinic,
Mapusa, Goa-403507
Contact No.-9674390308 .Appellants
Email id : [email protected]
Versus
1. The Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change,
Through its Secretary, Indira Paryavarna Bhavan,
Jor Bagh Rd, New Delhi-110003,
Email Id: [email protected],
Contact No. 011-24645586
2. The Goa State Pollution Control Board,
Through its Member Secretary,
Near Pilerne Industrial Estate
Opposite Saligao Seminary,
Saligao, Bardez, Goa-403511,
Email Id: [email protected]
[NPJ] Page 1 of 34
Contact No. 0832-2407700.
3. Vedanta Limited - Value Addition Business,
Pig Iron Division, Amona, Bicholim Taluka,
PO M arcela, Goa-403107,
Email Id: [email protected]
Contact No. 0832-2385404/0832-6412160
4. The State of Goa,
Through its Chief Secretary,
Having office at Secretariat,
Porvorim, Goa - 403 521,
Email id : [email protected]
Contact No. - 0832-2419402 ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellants : Ms. Norma Alvares, Advocate
Respondents : Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for R-1
Mr. A.V. Pavithran, Advocate for R-2
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate along with
Mr. Ninad Laud, Mr. Abhijit Gosavi and
Mr. S.S. Swaminathan, Advocates for R-3
=================================================================
Reserved on : 11.04.2023
Pronounced on : 04.05.2023
=================================================================
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed seeking quashing of Environment Clearance (EC) dated 24.01.2022 issued in favour of respondent No. 3 - Vedanta Limited - Value Addition Business for upgradation of Blast Furnaces (BF) to enhance the production capacity of BF-1 and BF-2 (Amona) from 2,92,000 TPA to 3,50,000 TPA, BF3 (Navelim) from 5,40,000 TPA to 6,50,000 TPA, for setting up of additional Oxygen Plant. Apart from it, it is also prayed that respondent No.3 be injuncted from releasing graphite particles into the atmosphere or in the alternative, it be directed to replace coke with decarbonising technology or be ordered to [NPJ] Page 2 of 34 shut down the unit until installation of pollution control machinery as laid down in EIA report.
2. The facts of this appeal, in brief, are that by the impugned EC, respondent No.3 has been granted permission to expand the capacity of BF-1 and 2 plants at Amona, Goa and BF-3 plant at Navelim village, Goa. These plants have been operating under first EC granted in 2009, though the plants originally commenced production from 1992. The 2009 EC was further modified by an order of year 2017 pursuant to an order of National Green Tribunal. Almost from the day one, when the industry began its operation, enormous petitions/public interest litigations (PILs) were filed due to health hazards to the residents of the locality as a result of which in a PIL, NEERI was appointed to look into the issue of pollution and to make recommendations in 2008, but those recommendations could not be implemented effectively. Respondent No.3 nonchalantly applied for an EC to expand its plant, which has been granted despite the situation on the ground. The earlier EC granted in 2009 was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court. The two earlier Blast Furnaces were erected in Amona village without having any prior EC as they were erected while 1994 EIA notification was in force. The PIL was finally disposed of in 2013. The petitioner thereafter moved an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which, in 2016, directed the NGT to take up the matter. After hearing, the NGT passed an order on 04.12.2017 recording that the EC spoke of an expansion but the same was not for expansion rather they were two separate industrial units in separate locations and requested MoEF to hear the petitioner and to take appropriate decisions thereafter. The MoEF refused to recall the EC or hold a public meeting.
3. In the meanwhile, the MoEF&CC deputed a Committee from its regional office at Bengaluru to visit the plant and file a report, which visited the plant site on 31.08.2018 without notice to the petitioners. The [NPJ] Page 3 of 34 report of the MoEF Committee, however, sought to undo the NGT's finding that a newly added plant (blast furnace in Navelim village) could not be considered as "expansion" of the existing plant on a specious and incorrect grounds. It made fresh recommendations. However, these were not added in the 2009 EC, which was reissued as modified EC in the year 2020. Simply adding more and more conditions has only ended up making the EC bulkier without any promise of dealing with the basic environmental issues arisen due to the industrial operations of these plants. The Goa State Pollution Control Board - respondent No. 2 merely kept issuing show-cause notices relating to emissions in excess of existing norms, which is nothing more than paperwork. In the year 2019, respondent No.3 filed yet another proposal for another EC for further expansion in the capacity and for diversified production including manufacture of ductile pipes and oxygen plant (EC impugned herein). The TOR for the new proposal was issued vide letter dated 06.03.2019. On this occasion, the EAC, while considering the application for EC, also perused the report of Goa SPCB dated 02.07.2021 relating to implementation of the conditions laid down in the 2009 EC. It, therefore, took a decision to reject and return the expansion proposal. Pursuant to the decision of EAC, the MoEF&CC issued show-cause notice dated 31.08.2021 to respondent No.3 to show reason as to why the 2009 EC should not be cancelled. The SCN listed the major issues which have been enumerated in application in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of paragraph no.16. When these developments were underway, the State Administration attempted to organize the mandatory public hearing related to the impugned EC in the year 2019. An intervention was also made by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay through a PIL, directing the mode in which the public hearing was to be conducted. During public hearing, the expansion project was resisted on the ground of social health [NPJ] Page 4 of 34 and environment concerns. The main demand which was made during the public hearing was with respect to the fact as to how the MoEF could consider an application for EC expansion when the existing plants were non-compliant concerning the environmental standards and norms. The appellant also provided its set of objections which related to violation of existing air pollution related standards by the plant but they did not find consideration in the EAC proposal. It is further mentioned that baseline air quality data from the EIA report shows that respondent No.3 is causing air pollution of impermissible limits. The decisions of the ambient air quality locations and their readings have been given in tabular form in detail in the memo of appeal in paragraph no.20, on the basis of which the authorities ought to have concluded that the ambient air quality surrounding the plant was impermissibly unhealthy and in view of that, the proposal for expansion ought to have been denied until measures for abating the emissions were taken. The facts provided in EIA report would show that the air quality impact assessment failed to provide information as to how emissions would impact annual and 24- hour levels of PM2.5 and annual average level of PM10. The level of PM10 and PM2.5 surrounding the plant are far from European standards. Therefore, respondent No. 3 should explain as to why by using better technology, the said pollution could not have been brought down.
4. With respect to graphite pollution, it is submitted that the pollution, which is happening in the area surrounding plant, is containing graphite particles and respondent No.3 has failed to resolve this issue and in light of that, the expansion proposal ought to have been outrightly rejected. The EIA has failed to provide the quantitative health impact assessment associated with expected increased emissions of pollutants. The EIA has failed to assess non-carbon based alternatives [NPJ] Page 5 of 34 for iron production. In order to avoid a societal collapse associated with excessive global warming, climate experts are now advising that responding to the climate emergency requires net zero emissions of greenhouse gasses by 2030 and not by 2050. Respondent No.3 has placed reliance on coal-derived coke for its iron production which contributes high risk of societal collapse associated with excessive global warming. In a peer-review of scientific literature, it is demonstrated that hydrogen generated by electrolysis from renewable-electrical energy generation, green hydrogen can be used to replace coal for reduction of pollution. Hence, in this background, the above prayers have been made.
5. The matter was considered by us on 30.05.2022 and admitting the appeal, a direction was issued to send notices to the respondents.
6. The appellants have filed service affidavit as per which the service is sufficient on all the respondents.
7. Stand of respondent No.3 - Project Proponent is that the appellants have failed to disclose that the same subject matter is under litigation at its initiation before the Hon'ble High Court and the fact that the ambient air quality (AAQ) is within the prescribed parameters, has been confirmed by the Export Appraisal Committee (EAC) but the appellants have presented lopsided view adopting crafty drafting skill. The appellants have tried to guage the violations on the European standards while impliedly conceding that the statutory standards in India have been met by the answering respondent. Even the objection related to the technology adopted by the answering respondent is not tenable. The EAC while recommending the grant of EC has observed as below:
""50.1.26 The committee noted the following:
i. The Committee noted that the EIA/EMP report is in compliance of the ToR issued for the project, reflecting the present environmental concerns and the projected scenario for all the environmental components. The Committee has also found that the baseline [NPJ] Page 6 of 34 data and incremental GLC due to the proposed project within NAAO standards.
ii.The EAC also deliberated on the certified compliance report of RO, written submissions, public hearing issues as well as action plan to address the issues raised during public hearing and found it satisfactory.
iii. It has been reported by the PP that the existing capacity of the Jetty (4 grabs) is 7 MPA of material handling (loading as well as unloading) while the requirement of material to be handled for the entire complex after the proposed expansion will be maximum of 2.5 MTPA only. The jetty is in operation prior to CRZ Notification 1991. There is no expansion of the jetty capacities since the time of establishment. The existing jetty is capable of handling the additional load of the proposed expansion. In view of this, PP claimed that CRZ clearance for the jetty is not applicable.
iv. Consolidated EC ma be issued for the instant proposal as the PP has amalgamated the units operating under the consent from GSPCB with the instant expansion proposal under consideration.... (Emphasis supplied)"
8. The EAC after having considered respondent No.3's submissions on the deficiencies, issued specific directions to the answering respondent to make compliance of the specific deadlines with respect to specific directions, which are quoted below:
"50.1.27.....
A. Specific Conditions .....
ii. Green Belt shall be developed in 54 hectares of land (33.5% of total land) with tree density of 2500 trees per ha by 31/12/2022 all along the periphery of the project site. This shall include, gap filling which shall be done in existing tree belt developed area wherever tree density is less than 2500 trees per ha. This shall include green belt development within the site with a width of 25 meters towards the Amona village and Navelim village located a distance of 0.32 km and 0.05 km from the project site respectively.
iii. The recommendations of the approved Site-Specific Conservation Plan/Wildlife Management Plan shall be implemented in consultation with the State Forest Department. The implementation report shall be furnished along with the six-monthly compliance report to the concerned Regional Office of the MoEF&CC.
iv. The project proponent shall comply with the following points by on (or) before 31/05/2022 as committed below by the proponent, failing which GSPCB shall initiate legal action against the proponent under the relevant provision of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Further, compliance status in this regard shall be submitted [NPJ] Page 7 of 34 to the concerned Regional Office of the MoEF&CC along with the six- monthly compliance report.
a. 6.38 km internal plant road shall be black topped or concreted by April, 2022.
b. All the stored slag shall be disposed of by May, 2022 and the covered storage shed for slag shall be put in place by 31st May, 2022.
c. There are 18 sites of archaeological importance in the study area. Requisite NOC from the concerned competent authority shall be obtained by the proponent and submitted to the Ministry on (or) before 31/05/2022.
d. Wind Shield for control of graphite particle emissions shall be provided by March 2022." (Emphasis supplied)"
9. In paragraph 50.1.26, the EAC has specifically recorded that the expansion of the unit would not result in a breach of the NAAQS and specifically directed the installation of wind shields to be installed, which had already been installed by the answering respondent.
10. The figures which have been used by the appellant to conjure the average annual AAQ, alone are not sufficient to compute the same because the very standards sought to be relied by the appellants prescribe a minimum of 104 measurements to be taken over a course of a year i.e. 52 weeks. The relevant portion of the NAAQS is as follows:
"Annual Arithmetic mean of minimum 104 measurements in a year at a particular site taken twice a week 24 hourly at uniform intervals." (Emphasis supplied)
11. It is further submitted that the appellants' submission with regard to air pollution is based on 26 samples instead of 104 samples. If the appellant had computed AAQ based on the requisite number of samples i.e. 104 samples, they would have found that the answering respondent's unit was operating well within AAQ for PM10. The EAC has also observed in its recommendation that the baseline data and incremental Ground Level Concentration (GLC) due to the proposed project were within NAAQ standards.
12. The appellants have already raised the matter with respect to graphite pollution before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in [NPJ] Page 8 of 34 Writ Petition No.243/2008, wherein, by order dated 23.06.2008, the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) was directed to submit its report on all the aspects of the matter, including the hazards, if any, the graphite particles, which are released in the air, pose to the health of the human beings and the life in general in the area. The said report was prepared in December, 2008 and submitted also. It was concluded that there was no correlation between the graphite emissions and respiratory or other ailments in the local populace. Not only this, it also emphasised that there was no need for a rigorous study in the answering respondent's case and the following is the conclusion which has been drawn by the NEERI:
"5.0 Conclusions ......
5.3 Ambient Air Quality The results of AAQ monitoring conducted at eight villages within 10 km radial distance from the plant reveal that the levels of gaseous pollutants SO2 & NO2 were well within the GSPCB/CPCB standards of 80 pg/m3 for residential zone (Annexure-11) All observations on RPM and SPM in four out of eight villages namely, Amona (1 km in NW), Navelim (1 km in ESE), Betqui- khandola (4 km in S) and Sawai-verem (8 km in SSE) direction of pig iron plant were well within respective GSPCB/CPCB standards of 100 ug/m3 & 200 ug/m3 for residential zone.
In respect of the villages Cuudnem (5 km in NE) and Sanguclim10 km in NE) where the impact of plant emissions is not likely to be observed, being located in the upwind direction of the plant. 40% and 20% of respective RPM observations exceeded the GSPCB/CPCB standards of 100 ug/m3 for residential zone and 98th percentile respective RPM value was 116 ug/m3 and 121 ug/m3 while in Cudnem 20% of the SPM observations exceed the GSPCB/CPCB standards.
The villages Barna (6 km in SSW) and Ella (10 km WSW) are both located in downwind direction of the plant and 98 th percentile RPM value for both villages was 130 ug/m3. 60% and 40% of total RPM observations in the villages Barna and Ellaa respectively exceed GSPCB/CPCB standards of 100 ug/m3. 40% of the SPM observations exceeded the GSPCB/CPCB standards of 200 ug/m3 while 98th percentile SPM values at the respective villages were 231 ug/m3 and 238 ug/m3. High values of RPM and SPM in villages Barna and Ella, situated around 6 km and 10 km respectively in down wind direction of the plant, may be attributed to close proximity of sampling locations with national highway (NH) 4A as well as local anthropogenic activities.[NPJ] Page 9 of 34
5.4 Impact of Particulate Emissions from Pig Iron Plant on Human Health :
Total 89 persons were examined. 51 persons working in actual production plants, whereas 38 persons from nearby villages Amona and Navelim, were examined. There was no specific increased prevalence of respiratory illness skin/ocular allergies evidence of heart disease in people involved in production plant or in nearby villages. The acute/chronic illness present in study population was similar to such illnesses in general population and cannot be correlated with occupational conditions prevailing at the time of conducting the study. The examination findings did not also reveal any specific disease pattern. The chest X-ray and spirometry of the study population also did not revel any significant disease pattern. However, the blood tests showed lymphocytosis in 43/89 adult persons, which was abnormal (>45%). Overall health status of the study population was fairly good.
However, this is a onetime health impact study and to carry out a rigorous assessment, such study should be carried out with statistically designed experiments which in the instant case may not be required.
Thus, this study does not point out any obvious disease related to graphite exposure." [Emphasis supplied]
13. The answering respondent has installed additional equipments, based on the recommendations of NEERI to further reduce fugitive graphite emissions, which fact has also been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court.
14. The appellants have not placed on record the steps which have also been taken by the answering respondent pursuant to the directions issued by the EAC, MoEF&CC in EC as well as those by the GSPCB in its audit report and the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.881/2017 based on NEERI Report, which are given below in tabular form:
Compliance Conditions Status of compliance requiring compliance EAC in its Compliance with conditions Company has adequate Minutes for treatment of storm water storm water management dated 12- discharge, fugitive emission system. Storm water is 13.08.2021 control, green belt channelized through drains development, black topping into series of settling of 6.38 Km Road, stag ponds. These drains and utilization, installation of settling ponds are desilted CAAQMS, secondary every year. Check-dams emission control during and settling ponds are [NPJ] Page 10 of 34 charging/material provided to arrest the silt.
tapping/slag tapping The storm water overflow from the settling ponds is monitored to ensure TSS within limits and records maintained.
Dust extraction system like bag house are installed to all the blast furnaces, coke ovens and ESP is also installed to sinter plant tail end and head end to arrest the particulates and ensure emissions within the limit.
Rain guns and fog cannons are also installed in blast furnace as well as in raw material/finished product yards to control fugitive dust. Water sprinkling through tankers are carried out on internal transportation routes.
Concrete/Asphalted Roads
are provided within the
premises and road
sweeping machine are
deployed for cleaning the
internal roads.
Windshields are installed at
the boundary of the plant
along the periphery of
Navelim and Amona village.
Greenbelt has been
developed and maintained
in 54 ha i.e. 33.5% of area
within the plant premises.
Plantation is being carried
out every year in open
available areas within the
plant premises to further
increase the density of
plantation. Apart from this
plantation is also carried
out in the community
around the plant premises.
Out of 13 Km of internal
roads 6.62 km of road was
already black topped.
Remaining 6.38 km of
internal road black topping
has been completed in the
month of April 2022 as per
EAC recommendations.
[NPJ] Page 11 of 34
All the old stocks of slag
has been disposed to
cement industry as per
EAC recommendation and
regular disposal is ensured
as and when generated.
New CAAQMS is installed
in the plant premises.
Same has been recorded in
EAC MOM dated
06/01/2022.
Bag house is installed to all
the blast furnaces to
control secondary
emissions from blast
furnace. Also as
committed Company is in
the process of replacing old
Bag house of Blast Furnace
1 with new one by Dec
2022 and work is in
progress accordingly.
Discharge of storm water Company has adequate
directly from premises storm water management
without adequate settling. system. Storm water is
channelized through drains
into series of settling
ponds. These drains and
settling ponds are desilted
every year. Settling ponds
and check-dams are
provided to the drains.
Discharge water is
regularly monitored and
records maintained.
Presence of shiny particles All the blast Furnaces are
on monitoring equipment. fitted with Bag house
system and new bag house
has been proposed for
Blast Furnace 1 by Dec
2022. Windshield is
installed at the boundary of
the plant. Fog cannons
and rain guns are provided.
Tall and thick growing trees
are planted along the
periphery of the plant
premises wherever feasible.
Compliance with Complied. Water used for
requirement of zero liquid cooling purposes in Waste
discharge. Heat Recovery Power Plant
(WHRPP) is the saline water
drawn from Mandovi river
[NPJ] Page 12 of 34
(brackish water). The blow
down of cooling towers
therefore, is same saline
water drawn from Mandovi
river which is discharged
back to Mandovi river after
temperature and pH
correction as per CTO
condition. The same has
been represented to EAC as
part of EC presentation
and EAC has accordingly
acknowledged and
incorporated as part of
their recommendation and
EC condition. Other than
WHRPP cooling tower blow
down and storm water
discharge during monsoon
(after ensuring TSS within
limit), Zero liquid discharge
is being maintained and
ensured from the plant
premises.
Approval/Clearance from Approval from Archaeology
Archaeological Survey of Department of Archaeology
India received on 15th July 2022
vide letter number
No.8/387/2022/DAA-891
dated 14/07/2022 and the
same has been
communicated to MoEF
vide our communication
dated 16.07.2022
Preparation of Wildlife Wild Life Conservation plan
Conservation Plan was prepared and got
approved by the Chief Wild
LIFE Warden vide their
letter number 1-
576(PART)WL&ET(N)/2021-
2022/554 dated
28/05/2021.
Compliance with requisite Greenbelt has been
Green Belt Density developed and maintained
in 54 ha i.e. 33.5% of area
within the plant premises.
Every year plantation is
carried out in open
available areas to further
increase the density of
plantation.
MoEF&CC 6.38 km internal plant road Complied. As stipulated in
in the EC shall be black topped or the EC, black topping of
concreted by April 2022 6.38 km of internal roads is
completed in the month of
April 2022 and submitted
[NPJ] Page 13 of 34
update to GSPCB
accordingly.
All the stored slag shall be All the old stock of slag has
disposed of by May, 2022 been disposed to cement
and the covered storage industries. Presently there
shed for slag shall be put in is no stacking of slag at the
place by 31 May, 2022. unit except for day to day generation. We have acquired a company manufacturing slag cement for better and continuous utilization of slag wherein a covered shed to store the slag is provided.
There are 18 sites of Complied. Approval of
archaeological importance in Department of Archaeology,
the study area. Requisite Govt. of Goa received on
NOC from the concerned 15/07/2022 vide letter
competent authority shall be number
obtained by the proponent 8/387/2022/DDA-891
and submitted to the dated 14/07/2022 and the
Ministry on (or) before same has been
31/05/2022. communicated to MoEF
vide our communication
dated 16.07.2022
Windshield for control of Installation of Additional
graphite particle emissions new windshield of 260 m
shall be provided by March length at the plant
2022 boundary towards Amona
village is completed in the
month of March 2022.
GSPCB in Improve the quality of Treatability study
its Audit treated effluent for recycle as completed at the thickener
Report well as obtain additional of Blast Furnace 1 & 2 in
solids for recycle with consultation with Experts.
scientific operation of the The new flocculent
Thickener process, at Pig introduced as per
Iron division & waste water recommendation of experts
treatment system. will help to recover
additional solids at the
thickener itself and further
improve the performance of
the system.
Upgrade Air Pollution As proposed, a new bag
Control Devices of Pig Iron house will be installed for
manufacturing & Metcoke Blast Furnace 1 by Dec
divisions which are 2022. The process for the inefficient. same is already initiated and ongoing.
Upgrade Material of All the bag filters are
Construction of Filter Bags upgraded to PTFE filter
to PTFE Teflon Dust bags.
Collection Bags in Bag Filters
Regularly clear and trim The vegetation near the vegetation growth for proper CAAQMS is regularly collection of ambient air trimmed and maintained to [NPJ] Page 14 of 34 quality data. facilitate proper collection of ambient air quality data.
Systematic and scientific It is ensured that measurements to establish systematic and scientific factual performance of Air measurements of Air Pollution Control Devices, pollution control devices Ensure correct isokinetic are carried out to keep a sampling of particulate check on the efficiency of matter at Inlet and Outlet of the devices. These studies APCI by collecting samples at are carried out through defined distances and at MOEF&CC approved defined angle in the duct laboratory.
based on Duct diameter or Duet dimension.
Ensure all time operation of All the electronic display the Electronic Display Board boards at the gates are in at the gate integrating operation and maintained correct values w.r.t. Consent regularly.
to Operate Ensure that all storm water All the storm water drains drains and Settling Ponds and settling ponds are are properly constructed or properly constructed. The provided with internal settling ponds and drains waterproof plaster. are desilted every year before the onset of monsoon.
Evaluate the situation Blast Furnace 2 is already correctly at work places at installed and upgraded BF1 and BF2 and provide with new bag house system additional hoods similar to in the year 2020. Similarly BF3 to avoid escape of upgradation replacement of fugitive emissions especially bag house at BF1 is graphite particles from work planned to be completed by place. December 2022. Efficiency testing of all such bag houses are being carried out through MoEF recognized laboratory.
Check all ambient air All the ambient air monitoring reports received monitoring reports are from 3rd party and ensure thoroughly checked and that the Wind Direction Wind studied by inhouse Speed and Relative Humidity environment team. All the on the sampling dates of the necessary data like wind month are correctly reported. speed, wind direction etc is provided along with the ambient air quality readings. The air monitoring reports are regularly submitted to authorities.
Ensure 33% of dedicated Ensured. 33.5% (54 Ha) of green belt area within the total land is already premises with new additional occupied by green belt.
plantation every year to Every year during monsoon
increase the density of green plantation is carried out
[NPJ] Page 15 of 34
belt. further increase the density
of the plantation.
High Court Installation of wind shields Complied. Confirmed by based on the upto 9m. affidavit dated 12.02.2019 NEERI Installation of spray nozzles. of the GSPCB in WP Report No overloading of trucks, No.881/2017 spraying of water and adequate covering of trucks with HDPE/tarpaulin sheets.
Suppression of re-suspended dust particles.
Installation of closed conveyor belt in the absence of closed storage sheds.
Construction of additional storage sheds for iron ore.
Handling of dusty material to be carried out in enclosed areas under negative pressure.
Extraction of fumes/particles generated through movable collection hoods connected to particulate control devices.
Installation of improvised efficient mobile fugitive dust collection hood connected to particulate control devices
15. In another affidavit of respondent dated 04.08.2022, the same averments have been reiterated which have already been stated by us above in earlier affidavit.
16. We find on record an affidavit filed by respondent No.1 - MoEF&CC, which contains nothing but procedure for grant of EC and minutes of the meeting of EAC.
17. The stand of GSPCB is also there in their affidavit 15.09.2022. The relevant paragraphs in which we find some substance related to this matter are being quoted hereinbelow:
"10. After due deliberation with NEETI and considering the urgency in the matter this respondent decided to carry out some of the measures directed by the Hon'ble High Court by itself and implemented certain measures. This Respondent has conducted monitoring of the stack attached to the bag house on 24/02/2020 and also initiated the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring on 24/02/2020 at two of the locations in the vicinity of the plan and [NPJ] Page 16 of 34 also proposed to conduct Ambient Air Monitoring at 4 more locations thrice a week. This Respondent also carried dust fall measurement at different locations to measure the graphite particles.
13. As far as the issue of allegation of graphite pollution, the said issue was otherwise subject matter of writ petition No.243/2008 filed by Amona Bachao Andolan before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa. The High Court vide order dated 23/06/2008 directed the NEERI to conduct a study and submit its reports on all the aspects of the matters including the hazards, if any, the graphite particles which are released in the air pose to the health of the human being and life in general in area. The NEERI after conducting the study submitted the report before the Hon'ble High Court. The NEERI also conducted health study and the observations of the NEERI in the report with respect to graphite particle deposition is as follows:
(i) Correlation of exposure limits and disease no significant impact of graphite dust could be established. Thus, there was no correlation between any specific disease process and the exposure limits.
(ii) 5.4 Impact of Particular Emission from Pig Iron Plant on Human Health. Thus, this study does not point out any obvious disease related to graphite exposure.
14. The unit of the respondent No.3 is categorised as Red Category unit, as part of the policy and general practice followed by this Respondent, this Respondent decided to conduct Environmental audit of the Pig Iron Plant located at Amona and Navelim by M/s Vedanta Limited. For the purpose of verification of environmental compliance by the Respondent No.3, Audit Team consisting of this respondent's officials as well as External Environmental Experts conducted an environmental Audit of the Pig Iron Plant located at Amona and Navelim by M/s Vedanta Limited on 30/8/2021 and 31/8/2021 and prepared a complete audit report. The audit report is part of the records produced by the Respondent No.3 before this Honourable Tribunal and this Respondent craves leave to rely upon the said audit report at the time of hearing.
The Environmental Audit recommends as follows:
i. Obtain from GSPCB one single Consent to Operate amalgamating all the different Consents to Operate held presently.
ii. Ensure uninterrupted operation and functioning of CAAQMS and CEMS.
iii. Improve the quality of treated effluent for recycle as well as obtain additional solids for recycle with scientific operation of the Thickener process.[NPJ] Page 17 of 34
iv. Upgrade Air Pollution Control Devices which are inefficient.
v. Upgrade Material of Construction of Filter Bags to PTFE Teflon Dust Collection Bags in Bag Filters.
vi. Regularly clear and trim vegetation growth for proper collection of ambient air quality data.
vii. Carry out systematic and scientific measurements to establish factual performance of Air Pollution Control devices. Ensure correct sampling of particulate matter at Inlet and Outlet of APCD by collecting samples at defined distances and at defined angle in the duct based on Duct diameter or Duct dimension.
viii. Ensure all time operation of the Electronic Display Board at the gate integrating correct values w.r.t. Consent to Operate.
ix. Ensure that all storm water drains and Settling Ponds are properly constructed or provided with internal waterproof plaster.
x. Evaluate the situation correctly at work places at BF1 and BF2 and provide additional hoods similar to BF3 to avoid escape of fugitive emissions especially graphite particles from work place.
xi. Check all ambient air monitoring reports received from 3rd party and ensure that the Wind Direction, Wind Speed and Relative Humidity on the sampling dates of the month are correctly reported.
xii. Ensure 33% of dedicated green belt area within the premises with new additional plantation every year to increase the density of green belt.
xiii. At this stage Source Apportionment study recommended by NEERI should be differed but it is very much essential to first study Dust fall and particulate size Distribution in surrounding area of Vedanta Plant to establish PM2.5. PM10 and Graphite Particle concentration by simple method enclosed.
The Dust fall and Particle Size Distribution will have to be monitored again one M/s Vedanta Limited implement upgraded APC Systems at BF and BF2.[NPJ] Page 18 of 34
Based on the results, if there is no reduction in Dust fall of P.M.2.05 and PM10 or Graphite Particle concentrations, GSPCB may consider Source Apportionment Study recommended by NEERI.
15. The Board on considering the Environmental Audit Report has issued statutory directions dated 14/1/2022 under section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to M/s Vedanta Limited, the Respondent unit.
Vide the said direction the Respondent unit was directed to comply with the following:
a) Improve the quality of treated effluent for recycle as well as obtain additional solids for recycle with scientific operation of the Thickener process at Pig Iron division waste water treatment system.
b) Upgrade Air Pollution Control Devices of Pig Iron manufacturing & Metcoke divisions which are inefficient.
c) Upgrade Material of Construction of Filter Bags to PTFE Teflon Dust Collection Bags in Bag Filters.
d) Regularly clear & amp; trim vegetation growth for proper collection of ambient air quality data.
e) Carry out systematic and scientific measurements to establish factual performance of Air Pollution Control Devices. Ensure correct isokinetic sampling of particulate matter at Inlet and Outlet of APCD by collecting samples at defined distances and at defined angle in the duty based on Duct diameter or duet dimension.
f) Ensure all time operation of the Electronic Display Board at the gate integrating correct values w.r.t. Consent to Operate.
g) Ensure that all storm water drains and Settling Ponds are properly constructed or provided with internal waterproof plaster.
h) Evaluate the situation correctly at work places at BF1 and BF2 and provide additional hoods similar to BF3 to avoid escape at fugitive emissions especially graphite particles from work place.
i) Check all ambient air monitoring reports received from 3rd party and ensure that the Wind Direction, Wind [NPJ] Page 19 of 34 Speed and Relative Humidity on the sampling dates of the month are correctly reported.
j) Ensure 33% of dedicated green belt area within the premises with new additional plantation every year to increase the density of green belt."
18. Pursuant to above, personal hearing was conducted by the GSPCB and subsequent to that, following report is submitted before us on the date of arguments, which shows that all the obligations have been complied with by respondent No.3 - Project Proponent:
Sr. Audit personal hearing Verification on Verification on No. recommendations (19/01/2023) (05/04/2023) 1 Treatability study to select Complied Complied proper polyelectrolyte and standardize the dosing to increase the efficiency of thickener to be completed by May 2022.
Impact Assessment on the ecosystem of Mandovi river due to cooling tower bleed water discharge shall be conducted.
Monitoring shall be
conducted 100 m upstream
and 100 m downstream from
the point of discharge during
high tide and nip tide once
every month.
2 The APCD installed with the Design is BF-1 Bag house
existing units shall be completed (new installed and
upgraded to meet the bag house BF-1) commissioned
Particulate Matter Emission installation is
Norms of 30 mg/Nm3. under progress.
The Particulate Matter Letter issued to
Emission Norms from Sinter maintain PM from Plant shall not exceed 50 Sinter as per mg/Nm3 consent (100 mg/Nm3) 3 Technical assessment of Technical Installation CEMS installed shall be Assessment has completed and conducted with regard to been completed. data is their suitability to monitor Installation is communicated wit [NPJ] Page 20 of 34 low level PM emissions. The under progress. the GSPCB. study shall be completed before May 31st 2022 and based on the outcome of the study replacement of CEMS found not suitable, will be undertaken and completed by December 31st 2022.
4 Isokinetic sampling for APCD Performance Performance should be completed in 2 evaluation report evaluation report months i.e. before April 30 of APCDs of APCDs 2022. Assessment of APCDs submitted. submitted once a year.
5 Suitable manpower shall be Complied Complied
in place to validate the data
and ensure that
uninterrupted data is
displayed on the electronic
display board at 3 gates.
6 Area of all stock piles shall Complied Complied
be demarcated and plan
submitted to the Board.
Garland drains with catch
pits shall be provided around
stock piles to ensure no
carryover of the material.
Storm water Final Settling
Pond provided before
discharge of storm water
shall be lined.
7 The upgradation/ Installation is BF-1 Bag house
modifications of secondary under progress. To installed and
hood for control of fugitive be completed commissioned
emission from BF-1 shall be (31/12/2022)
completed by December 31st
2022 ongoing.
8 Correctness of 3rd party Complied Complied
analysis report shall be
ensured and analysis of
trend maintained
9 The Green Belt along the Plantation has Plantation has
plant boundary near BF-1 & been carried out. been carried out.
BF-2 towards Amona and As submitted Hard As submitted Hard
Navelim villages shall be rock area - 1110 rock area - 1110
strengthened by September nos. nos.
2022.
Other green belt - Other green belt -
450 nos 450 nos.
In community - In community -
1850 nos. 1850 nos.
[NPJ] Page 21 of 34
Additional 260 m of Wind Complied Complied
shield at BF1 and BF2 shall
be completed by March 2022
A Graphite issue and Complied Complied
complaints: One Manual Air
quality monitoring station
shall be established towards
Amona and Navelim villages
in consultation with Goa
SPCB and ambient air
quality monitored as per
CPCB norms.
B 6.38 Km internal plant road Complied Complied
shall be asphalted/ black
topped by April 2022
C AAQMS: 1 Additional Manual Manual AAQMS is Complied
and 1 CAAQMS shall be already installed
installed in consultation with and is in operation Goa SPCB and for continuous AAQMS site has been identified and installation is under process.
D Monitoring at Mosque and Complied Complied
Siddhartha Caves at Tar
Surla:- Ambient Air Quality
shall be monitored once a
month preferably during
November to April
E All the legacy stored slag Complied Complied
shall be disposed by May,
2022. Covered storage for
slag storage shall be
completed by May 31 2022.
st
The maximum onsite storage
of slag shall not exceed more
than the 3 months of slag
generation.
F For Ambient Air Monitoring Complied Complied
Station : Monitoring of
Benzo(a) pyrene shall be
initiated at all the monitoring
locations
19. The appellants have filed rejoinder dated 21.09.2022 in which the same facts have been reiterated which have already been dealt with by us [NPJ] Page 22 of 34 above. The sur-rejoinder dated 08.10.2022 has been filed, which is also containing the same facts which we have already dealt with.
20. From the side of respondent No. 3 - Project Proponent, sur- rejoinder has been filed on 16.11.2022, which also contains the repetition of facts with which we have already dealt with. In addition to that, we find that with respect to the allegations of the appellant that the Agriculture Department had decided and directed respondent No.3 - Project Proponent to pay compensation to the affected individuals by an order, it is submitted that the said document dated 15.06.2022 is merely a report prepared by the said Department which has thereafter been forwarded to the Dy. Collector for necessary action. The said report was prepared at the instance of the Dy. Collector in view of an undertaking given by the State to the Hon'ble High Court, which is recorded in the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 881/2017 that it would consider certain applications made by the farmers in the village of Amona and a subsequent order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Contempt Petition No.2619/2021 filed by the appellants, directing the Dy. Collector to consider and dispose of 77 applications pending before it. Therefore, in view of this, it cannot be considered as a conclusive finding in respect of environmental damage by the answering respondent No.3 as the proceeding in respect of the said report are still pending before the Dy. Collector, who has, on 17.06.2022, issued notice to the answering respondent for their response to the said report. Respondent No.3 filed its reply to the notice dated 17.06.2022 questioning the validity of the said report as the same was carried out unilaterally without affording any opportunity to respondent No.3.
21. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondent No.3 as no other respondent made any [NPJ] Page 23 of 34 argument and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent No.3 have also later on submitted written submissions. We have gone through them and find that they are nothing but the same which they have already argued before us at length.
22. Our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants to page 259 of the paper-book, which are minutes of 149th meeting of the GSPCB held on 21.12.2021 wherein under specific conditions, which are given under head "A" sub clause (iv) (d), which says "Wind Shield for control of graphite particle emissions shall be provided by March, 2022", it has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that though the Wind Shields have been installed by respondent No.3, even then the graphite particles could not be contained in the premises and they emanate out of the unit of respondent No.3, which results in huge pollution leading to the serious health hazard of the residents of the locality.
23. Thereafter, the learned counsel drew our attention to page 2753 of the paper-book, which is a communication made by the Zonal Agriculture Officer, Sakhali - Goa, addressed to the Dy. Collector & S.D.O./SDM, Sub-Division, Bicholim, Goa dated 15.06.2022 wherein subject is mentioned as "Regarding the compensation due to loss caused by the mining companies" and Reference is "Case No. DCB/BICH/Amona- Comp/2022/254 Dtd:25/01/2022" and it is mentioned in the text of the said communication that with reference to the above, it is informed that the inspection was carried out on 08.03.2022, 09.03.2022, 14.03.2022, 15.03.2022 and 16.03.2022 by the members, whose names are contained therein, who are six in number and it was observed that the site inspection was carried out within 2 kms radius of Vedanta Ltd., Amona Naveli Goa and shining particles were observed on the leaf of the tree/plants which can also affect the photosynthetic activity of the plants [NPJ] Page 24 of 34 which may be one of the factors which result in reduction in the yield. Having drawn attention to it, it is vehemently urged that these shining particles are having graphite particles, which are highly injurious to human health as well as to the agricultural crops in the area.
24. Our attention is drawn to pages 2301 and 2302 of the paper-book, which is an Interim Report on AAQM at the site in question, submitted by the GSPCB, wherein in Remarks, it is recorded that "Shiny black particles were also seen settled on the instrument as well as the platforms on the said site". It is in the light of this, it is urged that it shows that clearly graphite particles are emitting out of the unit.
25. Our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants to page 2421 of the paper-book wherein it appears that summary of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.881/2017 has been relied upon wherein it is recorded that Dust fall measurement was carried out by the Board in the months of April to May, 2020 during which shiny particles were observed on the monitoring equipment at monitoring station located in Amona and Navelim. The issue of dust fall of graphite particles in neighbouring areas has to be effectively addressed by the Project Proponent.
26. Our attention is further drawn to page nos. 450 to 471 of the paper-book, which is Compliance Report of GSPCB with respect to compliance report of M/s Vedanta Ltd - respondent No.3 on EC issued by MoEF&CC, wherein it is recorded that Windscreens are also installed along with the raw material boundary wall. Windshields are installed at the Pig Iron dispatch yard. All the stacks are of adequate height as per the design. Dust suppression system is installed at raw material hoppers. The ambient air quality carried out by the Board in the adjoining villages of Amona and Navelim indicates the presence of shiny particles settled on the monitoring equipment which appear to be [NPJ] Page 25 of 34 generated from the Blast Furnace operations. The said matter is the subject of the writ petition against the company in the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.
27. Based on this, learned counsel for the appellants urged that though the report says that windshields have been installed which are of adequate height, even then graphite particles are found confirming that windshields are not sufficient and additional measures are needed to be taken on their part to contain the dust and graphite particles.
28. Our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants to pages 2717 to 2719 of the paper-book, which contains directions issued by the Member Secretary, Goa State PCB to respondent No.3 - Project Proponent under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 31 (A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, wherein on page 2718, direction (b) says to upgrade Air Pollution Control Devices of Pig Iron manufacturing & Metcoke divisions which are inefficient, direction (c) states to upgrade material of construction of Filter Bags to PTFE Teflon Dust Collection Bags in Bag Filters and direction (h) is to evaluate the situation correctly at work places at BF1 and BF2 and provide additional hoods similar to BF3 to avoid escape of fugitive emissions especially graphite particles from work place. Having drawn our attention to the above, it is urged that there is discharge of graphite particles from the unit of respondent No.3 and that filter bags need to be improved so as to minimize the pollution of graphite.
29. Our attention is also drawn to pages 2781 to 2785 of the paper- book, which is related to information obtained under the Right to Information Act by the appellants and it is stated that the information at page 2784 and 2785 shows that PM10 and PM2.5 are higher than prescribed standard.
[NPJ] Page 26 of 34
30. Our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants to the final EIA assessment of the project in question and at pages 2259 to 2269 of the paper-book, wherein AAQ levels are shown in tabular form of 11 locations and out of those 11 locations, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to page 2259 wherein 26 readings are taken from the location of proposed DI pipe plant site and average reading of PM10 is recorded as 70.2 and that of PM2.5 as 30.8, which is stated by the learned counsel to be on higher side than the prescribed standards, to which from the side of respondent No.3, it was rebutted saying that as per Rule, which has already been cited by us in the pleadings of respondent No.3 above, 104 measurements, which readings are required to be taken twice a week for 52 weeks in order to come to a conclusion of annual value of any of PM10, which has not been done in this case. When we checked up the value of above PM10 and PM2.5 with the standards prescribed at page 1951, we find that an annual PM10 value should be 60 against which 70.2 is found in the present case at the above site and an annual PM2.5 is 40 against 30.8 found in the present case. This value 30.8 is below the prescribed standard.
31. Further it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that better technology should be adopted by the Project Proponent for containing the said pollution and by adopting green hydrogen technology by electrolysis (green hydrogen) to replace coal for the reduction of pollution.
32. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the following citations:
(i) Hanuman Laxman Aroskar V. Union of India (2019)15 SCC 401
(ii) Gujarat Khedut Samaj & Ors. Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change & Ors.[NPJ] Page 27 of 34
(Appeal No.17/2016(WZ) decided by this Tribunal on 07.12.2017)
(iii) Save Mon Region Federation & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
(Appeal No.39 of 2012, decided by the Principal Bench of NGT, New Delhi on 07.04.2016)
(iv) Conservation Action Trust & Anr. Vs. the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change & Ors.) (Appeal No.29 to 31 of 2022 (EZ), decided by the Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata of this Tribunal on 03.04.2023)
33. From the side of respondent No.3 - Project Proponent, in rebuttal, it is argued that all the terms and conditions given in TOR have been complied with by it. The appellant has taken reading of PM10 and PM2.5 of only two locations and that too for three months and the same has been extrapolated for the whole year because of which the same is appearing to be on higher side.
34. Our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 to pages 2025 and 2026, which are conclusions drawn by NEERI wherein it is specifically recorded that the study does not point out any obvious disease related to graphite exposure. He has also drawn our attention to the same document i.e. Environmental Clearance dated 24.01.2022, which was earlier pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant and has drawn attention to the same condition which says that Wind Shield for control of graphite particle emissions shall be provided by March, 2022 and it is submitted by him that the same has been done by them and therefore, there is no violation on the part of respondent No.3. Our attention is drawn to pages 2771 to 2780, which is inspection report by the GSPCB dated 23.06.2022 and at page 2780 at specific condition No. (iv (d), it is stated that compliance has been shown to have been done by the Project Proponent, stating that the unit has provided windshield at the plant boundary towards Amona village. It is also pointed out by the [NPJ] Page 28 of 34 learned counsel for respondent No.3 that the appellant's learned counsel did not draw our attention to subsequent report deliberately and that the reports which are being relied by the appellant are of earlier point in time. When the adequate measures had been taken by respondent No.3, thereafter when the inspection was conducted by the GSPCB, no emission of graphite particles was found to be there. It is further submitted by him that though windshield has already been installed of adequate height, additional measures are being taken on their part to contain the dust and graphite particles. Respondent No.3 has already engaged the services of the IIT in this regard in order to remove the graphite particles and whatever steps are suggested by it, they are being taken.
35. Thereafter, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 emphasized that this appeal is with respect to the containment of air pollution and should not be entertained by this Tribunal because the matter is already under consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. Our attention in this regard is drawn to pages 2043 to 2051 of the paper-book and at paragraph No.10 and 11 of the Writ Petition, following submissions have been made before the Hon'ble High Court:
"10. The petitioner states that the last report made by the Goa State Pollution Control Board of the Pig Iron plants of the respondent No.4 and 5 for the ambient Air Quality Monitoring report was done for the period of October 2013 to May 2015 and till date for the past two years they have not made any such report to check the Ambient Air Quality.
11. The petitioner states that in spite of complaints filed by Mr. Mangaldas Ghadi and other villagers of Amona no action is taken by the respondents till date and therefore the people of Amona and surrounding villages are suffering from serious health problems due to the Air Pollution caused by the pig iron plants of respondent No.4 and 5. The pollution generated by all sorts by release of graphite particles, toxic gases, toxic substances by the respondent no.4, 5 and 10 is still continuing and infringing the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Article 21 of the Constitution of India of all the people living in the surrounding villages of the plant operated by respondent no.4, 5 and 10."[NPJ] Page 29 of 34
36. It is also highlighted that this writ petition has been filed by the same applicant who has come in appeal before this Tribunal but he conceded that as regards the challenge to EC, he has nothing to say as it is maintainable, but no relief can be claimed regarding air pollution which is under consideration before the Hon'ble High Court. He has relied on the judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh V. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru; (2022)8 SCC 156, which is at pages 512 to 517 of the compilation, wherein our attention is drawn to paragraph Nos.12 to 14, which read as follows:
"12. In any case, no law is necessary to state that insofar as the tribunals are concerned, they would be subordinate to the High Court insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned. A reference in this respect was also made to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.
13. We are, therefore, of the considered view that it was not appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim order permitting the construction. The conflicting orders passed by the learned NGT and the High Court would lead to an anomalous situation, where the authorities would be faced with a difficulty as to which order they are required to follow. There can be no manner of doubt that in such a situation, it is the orders passed by the constitutional courts, which would be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals.
14. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the constitution of the proceedings before the learned NGT for the same cause of action, which is seized with the High Court, would not be in the interest of justice."
37. Having drawn our attention to the above citation, it is apprised by him that since the matter in respect of air pollution is already under consideration before the Hon'ble High Court, having above position of law, this Tribunal should avoid hearing the matter of air pollution in the present case.
[NPJ] Page 30 of 34
38. It is further emphasized by him that the EC which is granted to respondent No.3 is also subject to the outcome of the writ petition pending before the Hon'ble High Court.
39. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 has also drawn our attention to page 2139 of the paper-book, which contains the generic Terms of Reference (ToR) in respect of the industrial sector and vide Clause 6 (iii) thereof, it has been held as follows:
"Raw data of all AAQ measurement for 12 weeks of all stations as per frequency given in the NAQQM Notification of Nov.2009 along with - min., max., average and 98% values for each of the AAQ parameters from data of all AAQ stations should be provided as an annexure to the EIA Report."
40. Having drawn our attention to above provision, it is urged that this mandate has already been complied with by respondent No.3 in the present case.
41. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to page 2177 of the paper-book, which is relates to compliance of ToR conditions and at serial No.3, it is recorded "Baseline shall be collected afresh, shall be utilized for the EIA/EMP" and it is recorded in this respect by way of compliance that "the baseline data monitored for three months from 1st March 2019 to 31st May 2019, representing pre-monsoon season of 2019. Further, as per ADS, additional one month baseline studies were conducted from 1st October to 31st October 2021 representing part of post monsoon season and details are provided in Chapter-3". Having drawn our attention to above, the learned counsel submits that respondent No.3 has made compliance of the terms and conditions of ToR as well.
42. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 has also drawn our attention to page 2677 of the paper-book and urged that incremental GLC [NPJ] Page 31 of 34 level based on environmental studies should contain the details, which are contained therein.
43. Our attention is also drawn to page 2708 of the paper-book, wherein it is recorded under the head "Observations of the Committee"
that the EIA/EMP report is in compliance of the ToR issued for the project, reflecting the present environmental concerns and the projected scenario for all the environmental components. The Committee has also found that the baseline data and incremental GLC due to the proposed project are within NAAQ standards.
44. The reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Rajeev Suri V. Delhi Development Authority and others; (2022)11 SCC 1, and attention is drawn to paragraph No.529 thereof, wherein it is held as under:
"We, therefore, upon a thorough examination, decline to interfere in the grant of EC. The expertise developed by the EAC cannot be undermined in a light manner and as noted above, due deference must be accorded to expert agencies when their decisions do not attract the taint of legal unjustness. We, however, feel the need to record that the mitigating measures must be observed by the project proponent n letter and spirit during the construction and operational phase. Waste management methods, inclusive of hazardous wastes, must be subject to regular monitoring. The construction debris must be subjected to immediate removal as per the Construction & Development Plan. The project proponent may also install permanent high-capacity smog tower as part of the Project and use adequate number of smog guns to minimise pollution levels during the construction activity is in progress on the site."
45. In the light of above, it is urged that in the case in hand, Expert Committee has applied its mind and has looked into all the material on record and thereafter has taken a decision to grant EC. Therefore, this Tribunal should not interfere in ordinary course.
46. We are in agreement with the law laid down in the case of Rajeev Suri (supra) in totality.
[NPJ] Page 32 of 34
47. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides, we are convinced that the EC granted in the present case does not require to be set aside by us because we find that all the measures which were required to be taken by respondent No.3 - Project Proponent, as per the ToR, have been complied with as adequate evidence in that regard has been placed on record and no infirmity in that regard could be shown by the learned counsel for the appellant.
48. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is evidence of emission of graphite particles on the basis of which it is established that such kind of pollution is happening in the said area, but same has been rebutted by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 by saying that the said report is still under consideration and they have taken adequate measures also after the lacunae were pointed out with respect to graphite particles emanating from their unit and they have also undertaken to introduce fresh measures if at all required in the light of the report to be submitted from the side of IIT, Bombay. Moreover, we are also in agreement with the learned counsel for respondent No.3's argument that this Tribunal should not pass any order with respect to air pollution since the same is under consideration before the Hon'ble High Court. It would not be appropriate for us to pass any order with respect to air pollution, it being pending before the Hon'ble High Court.
49. As far as the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, quoted in paragraph No.32 of this judgment, we have gone through the same, but we do not find it appropriate to refer them in the set of facts of the present case.
50. As regards cancellation of EC, we may emphasize that there is no error shown by the learned counsel for the appellant on the part of respondent No.3 - Project Proponent as all measures such as EIA study [NPJ] Page 33 of 34 and its appraisal has already been done in accordance with law. Therefore, we do not find any justification to quash the EC.
51. In the result, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM MAY 4, 2023 APPEAL NO.18 OF 2022 (WZ) npj [NPJ] Page 34 of 34