National Green Tribunal
Ibrahim Karim vs State Of Kerala on 2 February, 2022
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan, Satyagopal Korlapati
Item No.7:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No.128 of 2021 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ibrahim Karim,
Munnar.
...Applicant (s)
Versus
The State of Kerala,
Rep. by the Chief Secretary,
Thiruvananthapuram and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 02.02.2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): M/s. Indulekha Joseph.
For Respondent(s): Mr. G. Prabhu represented
Mr. E.K. Kumaresan for R1, R3, R4, R6 & R7.
Ms. Mokshavathy represented
Mrs. Vidhyalakshmi Vipin for R2.
Mr. Meyyappan represented
Mrs. Me. Saraswathy for R5.
ORDER
1. The above case has been posted to today for completion of pleadings and consideration of further reports.
Page 1 of 9
2. The applicant filed a reply to the report submitted by the 3rd Respondent.
3. The 2nd Respondent also filed their reply.
4. The Joint Committee has filed the report dated 23.11.2021, e-filed on the same date which reads as follows:
Page 2 of 9 Page 3 of 9 Page 4 of 9 Page 5 of 9
08.09.2009 of Government of Kerala. Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide Judgment in WP (C) 13713/2009 dated 24.06.2019 issued an interim stay order against the construction of the multi utility complex in the said land before assessing the Environment Impact Assessment study. PWD Executive Engineer filed a counter affidavit in this case. The case is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
The only damage seen caused to the nature due to the initial work of the construction is the conversion of wetland to normal plain land. As per the polluters pay principles environment compensation has been calculated which is amounting rupees 85, 46,875/- (Rupees Eighty Five Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Five Only). The Hon'ble NGT may decide, whether the environmental compensation can be charged from the concerned department.
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The proposed building project was not materialized.
2. Only partial filling of the area and some piling works only have been carried out in the proposed project area.
3. The plinth area of the building was reduced to 18720 M2, instead of initial 22351.90 M2. The question of environmental clearance does not arise in cases were area is less than 20000 M2.
4. No violations of any act or rules or any damages caused or any compensation for damages etc. on account of the proposed project has been demanded by Revenue, Forest and Irrigation departments.
5. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide is judgment dated 24.06.2019 in WP (C) 13713/2019 have already stayed the construction of the project and the case is pending before the Hon'ble High court in the issue of Environmental Impact Assessment studies. The verdict of Hon'ble High court is yet to come.
6. The only damage seen caused to the nature due to the initial work of the construction is the conversion of wetland to normal plain land. As per the polluters pay principles environment compensation has been calculated which is amounting rupees 85, 46,875/- (Rupees Eighty Five Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Five Only). The Hon'ble NGT may decide, whether the environmental compensation can be charged from the concerned department."Page 6 of 9
5. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department also filed a further statement.
6. Though the Assistant Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Pathanamthitta has filed a report, but it is not in the proper form. They have only enclosed certain correspondence between the Assistant Executive Engineer with the Advocate General, Ernakulam. When this was pointed out, the learned counsel appearing for the State Departments submitted that he will file a proper report explaining the same. In addition, the report has to be submitted by a senior functionary of the Minor Irrigation Department.
7. Further, it is seen from the Joint Committee report that the proposed construction site is damaged by converting the wetland into normal land by reclamation which is also not permissible under law.
8. When this was pointed out, the learned counsel appearing for the State Departments especially Public Works Department submitted that he will get a detailed report and explanation regarding this aspect as well. If it is being constructed in the part of wetland after reclamation, such an illegality cannot be allowed to continue. This must be explicitly explained by the project proponent when they are submitting their further statement to this Tribunal.
Page 7 of 9
9. The Irrigation Department must also report as to why permission is not required especially when the construction falls within the Flood Plain area and as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Tribunal in several matters of this nature, no construction is permissible in the Flood Plain area, as this area is intended for allowing the excess water to spread over to avoid flood being caused to the neighbouring areas during monsoon.
10. Further, the photographs produced by the applicant along with the memo shows that during the recent monsoon, the entire area has been flooded with water. It is not known as to why the Government which is expected to protect the environment and water bodies are venturing to construct buildings in the flood plain area so as to affect the riverine ecology and further, increase the possibility of inundation in the neighbouring areas on account of such intrusion.
11. So, they are directed to file the report as directed by this Tribunal on or before 22.02.2022 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 and get ready with the matter on 24.02.2022 for hearing.
Page 8 of 9
12. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the official respondents especially to the Principal Secretary for Environment, Principal Secretary for Public Works Department and Irrigation by e-mail for their information and compliance of directions of filing proper report answering the queries raised by this Tribunal regarding the construction in the proposed site.
13. For consideration of further reports and hearing, post on 24.02.2022.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM O.A. No.128/2021 (SZ), 02nd February, 2022. Mn.
Page 9 of 9