Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11.12.2019. So, according to them, they have complied with all the procedure and issued the Environmental Clearance after due deliberated discussion and application of mind and they prayed for dismissal of the appeal, as there is no merit in the appeal.

9. The appellant filed rejoinder to the counter filed by Respondents No.1 and 2 contending that the subject area was originally covered within the CZMP of 1996 and the present controversy also has its roots in the fact that in another unapproved illegal map of 1997, the authority excluded these areas from the CZMP. In fact, the appellant along with others filed OA No. 241 of 2017 aggrieved by this illegal sheet 2 map of Ennore region and this Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 22.02.2021 had held that the 1997 Map was unapproved and directed that the original approved 1996 CZMP be used as a base map while delineating and drawing the revised CZMP. The Appellant herein had been actively involved in environmental causes in the Ennore region and destruction of eco sensitive areas such as the present. They filed W.P No. 30237 of 2018 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court, Madras regarding a similar attempt to construct an ash pond for NTECL Thermal Power Plant inside the Ennore creek. An order of injunction was passed by the Hon'ble High Court, further action has been taken by the MoEF and further destruction was stopped. The subject area is also part of the Ennore creek and the destruction has to be stopped. The Appellant has also been working with the local fisher panchayats in Ennore such as Mugathuvarakuppam, Kaatukuppam etc. as part of the Coastal Resource Centre, providing assistance to the local fishers to protect their areas from pollution and protection of the creek. Protection of the Ennore wetland complex is directly connected to ensuring that Chennai does not flood during monsoon. Person aggrieved has to be interpreted widely in environmental issues, so that the merit and judicial review of clearances issued can be examined by this Hon'ble Tribunal. There is always an attempt on the project proponent to cast aspersions on persons speaking truth to authority. They denied the allegations regarding the malafides raised against the appellant in filing the appeal. The locus standi issue has been widely interpreted so as to include all persons who are interested in protecting environment in respect of environmental jurisdiction. The project proponent had wrongly classified the project as Category - 8 (b) thereby escaping the -rigour of public consultation required for projects classified as industrial estate. A perusal of the Condition No.29 of the impugned Environmental Clearance (EC) indicates that there is a possibility of industries classified under Category A or Category B could be housed inside the said estate which would mean that the project ought to have been assessed under Category 7 (c) and not Category 8 (b) of the EIA Notification. The 2nd respondent (wrongly shown as 4th respondent in the rejoinder) has admitted while producing the documents that the classification of the area is poromboke and salt pans in the revenue records. The entire area was covered under the CRZ area demarcated in the 1996 approved CZMP. These naturally tidally influenced lands were used for salt production in dry seasons earlier, with brackish water brought by the tides evaporated for manufacture of salt. During the monsoon and few months after monsoon, the entire area was inundated with the water. These wetlands are not excluded from the definition of wetlands under the 2017 Rules and it has been wrongly interpreted by the 1st respondent. Even assuming that it is not a wetland, it will be a water body, and it cannot be converted for any industrial purpose. The respondent's own studies and documents show that the project site is a tidally influenced water body apart from the photographs and Google earth imagery of the site produced by them. In the EIA report at page 40 while discussing the current status of the project site clearly mentioned that "the project site is low lying in nature and is devoid of any noticeable vegetation. The site gets inundated during high tide period and is prone to flooding during monsoon...." The field photographs at Annexure V of the IRS, Anna University report at Page 240 of the documents filed by the 1st respondent showed that the site is filled with water. The SIPCOT land allotment guidelines available on the website of the 1st Respondent has a map marking the location of the project site and it is clearly marked in an area marked on satellite imagery as a water body, evidenced by Annexure A14. The appellant had reiterated the definition of the wetland. They also relied on the guidelines for implementation of 2017 Rules. The area is a wetland as defined under 2017 Rules, even on the basis of the definition of Wetland Rules and also the guidelines issued by the MoEF&CC to identify the wetlands produced as Annexure - A15. Their attempt is to convert the wetland for industrial purpose and they cannot rely on 1997 Map in view of the order of this Tribunal in O.A. No.241 of 2017 (SZ) dated 22.02.2021 and the appellant had relied on the project site marked on the approved 1996 CZMP Map produced by the appellant as Annexure-A16. The EIA Report was never communicated to the public and it was not adverted to in the counter of the 1st Respondent regarding the non-availability of EIA Report in the public domain. The EIA Report was not prepared by an accredited agency. The project proponent has engaged CEHS, Annamalai University, Hubert Enviro Care Systems and ITCOT Chennai for undertaking the EIA study. The accreditation status of CEHS dated 18.04.2019 clearly demonstrates that they have not been accredited to undertake EIA studies for category 8(b) projects and as such, they are not qualified to undertake the present EIA study. The accreditation status of ITCOT consultancy services is made available as part of the EIA report and it is not an accredited EIA consultant. They could not have collected any data for this project, as the present project proponent as SIPCOT is a shareholder of the said agency and the present project is nothing but a special purpose vehicle of TIDCO and SIPCOT. So, there is a clear conflict of interest in ITCOT Consultancy who has been engaged for EIA study and the same has to be rejected and they have produced the list of shareholders of ITCOT as available in the website as Annexure A17. The mandate of the law is that an EIA Report has to be prepared only by a consultant with necessary sector specific accreditation from NABET. The law does not permit a situation where unaccredited consultants prepare an EIA Report/ work on preparation of an EIA Report along with another consultant with requisite accreditation and all of them produce an EIA report. Permitting such modus operandi will defeat the very purpose of accreditation as non-accredited consultants will prepare report, conduct studies, and perform tests, finally labelling the report with the name of an accredited consultant. M/s Hubert Enviro care systems Pvt. Ltd. appears to have accreditation for category 8 (b) however, the EIA report has been prepared by two other consultants who do not possess requisite accreditation and the EIA report thus could not have been accepted by the SEIAA - Tamil Nadu. The data was collected during monsoon period and the EIA studies clearly states that primary baseline data collection should be during non-monsoon period evidenced by the MoEF&CC's sector specific manual for EIA studies produced as Annexure - A18. The CPCB in its report on mixing heights also clearly states that during monsoon pollution levels will be lower due to washout effect and they produced extract from the CPCB report as Annexure - A19. The baseline data was collected prior to issuance of ToR viz., 31.10.2019 and the EIA report was submitted on 20.11.2019. It was also mentioned in the EIA report that the baseline data used for the evaluation was collected between July-September 2019, well before the issuance of the ToR. The same is sought to be justified by the 1st Respondent relying on the Office Memorandum dated 09.08.2017. According to the appellant, the baseline data can be collected even prior to TOR is void as it is contrary to the judgment of this Hon'ble Tribunal in Sreeranganathan K.P. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Appeal No. 172 of 2013) wherein it was stated that the baseline data collected prior to the issuance of ToR is against EIA Notification and as such, it cannot be relied on. The minutes of the 132nd of the SEAC - Tamil Nadu will go to show that there was no discussion about the project and nothing was mentioned about these aspects which is evidenced from Annexure - A21. They have falsely mentioned in the Form -I that is was a dry terrain but the EIA Report shows otherwise.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the EIA Report was prepared by a consultant who was not an accredited agency to conduct the EIA Study and to prepare the EIA Report for categories under Item 8 (b) of the EIA Notification, 2006. Further, one the agencies to whom the work was granted to conduct the study viz., ITCOT, Chennai cannot be said to be a proper independent agency without any conflict of interest, as the SIPCOT is a shareholder of this institution. Further, the present project itself is a special purpose vehicle of the SIPCOT, TIDCO and the 1st Respondent as a joint venture that is being established. So, it cannot be said to be a report submitted by an independent consultant with no conflict of interest and an accredited consultant approved by the MoEF&CC and such a report should not have been accepted by the SEIAA - Tamil Nadu. Merely, because the final report was submitted by an agency which was accredited will not be sufficient, if the independent consultants who have been authorized for the purpose of conducting the study and preparation of report, based on the material collected by an unaccredited agency, cannot be said to be a report prepared by an accredited agency. So, this report should not have been accepted by the SEIAA - Tamil Nadu and nothing was mentioned about the same as to why they are accepting the same as well.

17. On the other hand, Mr. N.R. Elango, Senior Advocate appearing for the 1st Respondent argued that the proposal falls under the Item 8 (b) of the EIA Notification and it cannot be treated as a industrial estate and the appraisal is not expected to be as strict as in the case of industrial estate falls under Item 7 (b) of the EIA Notification, 2006. Further, there was no material suppression of fact and it was not a salt pan as defined under the Wetland Rules, 2017. In the decision reported in M/s. Ramgopal Estates Private Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. dated 02.03.2007 where the land acquisition for a larger extent which includes the project area for the purpose of creating an industrial estate was challenged on the ground that there are salt pans available which are ecologically sensitive and no industrial estate can be established in that area, as it will have great environmental degradation of that area. But after considering all the documents produced, the Hon'ble High Court came to the conclusion that these salt pans are man-made salt pans and it cannot be treated as wetland as envisaged under the Wetland Rules, 2010 as it stood then and these lands were transferred in favour of the industrial estate by the Salt Commissioner holding that they are not suitable for using as salt pans due to establishment of other industries in that area and the Hon'ble High Court came to the conclusion that there was no environmental impact on account of the establishment of the proposed industrial estate in that area and rejected the contentions of the persons who were opposing the land acquisition for that purpose and upheld the notification for acquisition of this area. So, at this stage, it cannot be argued that it is still a water body or an ecologically sensitive CRZ area. Further, theses aspects were considered by the SEIAA - Tamil Nadu and the Environmental Clearance (EC) was granted only after excluding the CRZ area and as such, there was no CRZ area included in the project area. The document produced by the appellant by way of photographs and video clippings said to be taken from this area cannot be relied on, as there is a possibility of manipulating those digital documents and the same cannot be relied on without proper evidence to show that it was not manipulated and it related to this area. Merely because water was found during monsoon season, cannot make it as a water body. Further, it was also considered in the EIA Report as to how this can be met with and the procedures have been provided. Since there is no biological diversity sources available, non-conduct of biological study, will not affect the project. Further, the EIA Report was prepared by an expert consultant having accreditation with National Accreditation Board for Education and Training (NABET) approved by the MoEF&CC. It cannot be said that SIPCOT is a shareholder of the ITCOT and there is conflict of interest for one of the consultant who prepared certain reports, as they have got only a negligible share and they are independent entities. Merely because inadvertently, a condition in the Environmental Clearance (EC) stating that if any Category A or Category B units are proposed to be established in this project site, then those units will have to obtain prior Environmental Clearance (EC) before establishing the same was incorporated will not vitiate the clearance as it is only a mistake, as it was specifically mentioned in the Form - I Application itself that they have no intention to set up any Category A or B units or any polluting units in this area and that was the reason why it was taken as a B2 - Category under Item 8 (b) of the EIA Notification, 2006. A perusal of the EIA Report and the minutes of the SEAC - Tamil Nadu and SEIAA - Tamil Nadu will go to show that it was properly appraised and wherever clarifications were required, SEAC - Tamil Nadu and SEIAA - Tamil Nadu had asked for the same and the same were produced by the project proponent which were also considered before recommending and issuing the Environmental Clearance (EC). The baseline study was conducted on the basis of the guidelines and notification issued by the MoEF&CC in 2017 on the basis of the standard ToR already issued in this regard and it is permissible under law while preparing the EIA Report and this was intended for the purpose to avoid delay in preparing the EIA Report and submitting the same before the authorities.

60. As regards the ITCOT is concerned, the Special Purpose Vehicle project of SIPCOT and TIDCO and both of them have shareholding in ITCOT. They are having some interest in the project which is being done as a joint venture project of TIDCO, SIPCOT and Tamil Nadu Polymer Industries Park Limited. So, it cannot be said to be an independent consultancy which is dealing with the project. The purpose of entrusting an independent agency the task to do the EIA Report work is to ensure transparency and also get an unbiased report based on the study and they will not be having any interest in the project. If any person who is interested in the project is doing the project work, then it cannot be said to be done in a transparent and unbiased manner by an independent agency considering it in an independent angle.