Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

National Green Tribunal

The Conservation Action Trust vs The Union Of India Represented By ... on 14 March, 2017

  BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, WESTERN ZONE
                    BENCH, PUNE

                                 Appeal No. 24/2015(THC)
                                    [M.A. No.40/2017]

In the matter of:-

               The Conservation Action Trust V/s Union Of India & Ors.

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE U. D. SALVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
             HON'BLE DR. AJAY A. DESHPANDE, EXPERT MEMBER

Present:     Applicant/Appellant           : Ms. Shreya Parikh, Adv. i/b
                                             Mr. Anirudha Joshi, Adv.
             Respondent No.1               : Mr. Rahul Garg, Adv.

Respondent No.5 : Mr. Bikram Chaudhari, Adv. a/w Mr. Partha Pati, Adv. i/b Abhay Nevagi & Associates.


Date and
                                           Orders of the Tribunal
Remarks
Item No.3       M.A. No.40/2017
14th  March,

Affidavit of Service dated 10th March, 2017 along with online tracking 2017 Order No.17 report annexed thereto reveals that service of the Notice has been effected on Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

We have before us learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 5.

Heard. Perused Application, replies and record. This Application seeks permission to produce certain documents annexed to the Application as Annexure A-1 to A-5 namely Minutes of 163rd Meeting of EAC dated 9th September, 2016, Minutes of 11th Meeting of EAC dated 24th - 25th November, 2016, Responses to the RTI queries received. The Application has been resisted with the reply by Respondent No.5.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant submits that the Minutes of the Meetings of EAC voice the apprehension of the EAC in respect of the impugned EC granted to the project in question namely Supercritical Thermal Power Plant of 3960 (6x660) MW at Village Layja Mota, Mandvi Taluka, Kutch District, Gujarat and the responses to the RTI queries received show that PCCF-WL and GCZMA had inadequate data with respect to turtle nesting on the Nana Layja coast while recommending the CRZ clearance. She submits that reference to the responses received have been made by Respondent No.5 in its affidavit in Sur-Rejoinder and therefore, the documents sought to be placed on record are necessary to make the complete sense.

Item No.3 We have gone through the Minutes of the EAC meeting sought to be 14th March, placed on record. The EACs, the Minutes of which are sought to be 2017 Order No.17 produced on record were considering the grant of EC/CRZ clearance to the projects of development of Multiproduct SEZ and Free Trade Warehousing Zone and development of shipyard including LNG Terminal at Nana Layja subsequent to the grant of impugned EC to the Thermal Power Project in question. The EAC which considered the EC in question was different then the EACs the Minutes of which are sought to be produced on record. The concerns expressed by the EACs in the Minutes, which are sought to be produced on record, are in respect of the O.M. dated 24th December, 2010 issued by Respondent No.1 - MoEF and need to have a relook at conditions stipulated in the EC by sectoral EACs.

In the present Appeal, we are bound to consider the impact of the O.M. dated 24th December, 2010 and not only have a relook at the conditions stipulated in the EC in question but also examine its validity in the given facts and circumstances considered by the EAC granting the EC. The Minutes in question are obviously the expressions of the different EACs. We, therefore, do not see any need of having the same on the record for considering the merits of the EC in question. As regards the letters dated 28th April, 2016 and 22nd April, 2016 issued by PCCF-WL and Dy. Conservator of Forests respectively, being the responses received to the RTI queries, we find the same to be relevant, more so because they are referred to by the Respondent No.5 in its Sur-Rejoinder. We, therefore, pass the following directions:

(i) M.A. No.40/2017 is partly allowed.

(ii) Permission is granted to produce the letters dated 28th April, 2016 of PCCF-WL and 22nd April, 2016 from Dy. Conservator of Forests to Chief Conservator of Forests, Kutch on record. M.A. No.40/2017 stands disposed of, accordingly. List this case for final hearing on 25th April, 2017.

........................................., JM (Justice U. D. Salvi) ........................................., EM (Dr. Ajay A. Deshpande) mk