Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: STUP in The Conservation Action Trust And 2 Ors vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 16 July, 2019Matching Fragments
19. It not being clear, as to on what date in January 2016 CSIR-NIO report was submitted, the next event which needs to be noted is that on 11 January 2016 MCGM made an application to MCZMA seeking approval to construct a coastal road.
20. On 16 January 2016, at its 111 th meeting, MCZMA noted that the proposal was to construct a road having 36 km length along the Western Coastal stretch of Mumbai. Recording that MCGM had submitted the EIA/EMP report prepared by M/s. STUP and Consultants Pvt. Ltd., recorded under noted sixteen observations:
21. On 13 April 2016 MCGM obtained a drainage report and traffic jdk/pdp 38 wpl.560.19.gr.j.doc report from STUP and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and Ernst& Young Pvt. Ltd. On 29 April 2016, it obtained a peer review report from Frischmann Prabhu.
22. Treating as if MCZMA had cleared the coastal road project, the matter reached MoEF. On 22nd July 2016, MoEF returned the same. The deficiencies in the proposal received by MoEF were listed as under:
23. As noted above, considering the report dated 29 December 2011 submitted by the JTC which, as noted above, recorded that further issues on possible adverse impact of environment needed to be analyzed and as further noted above, the MCGM had entrusted the task to STUP and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and Ernst& Young Pvt. Ltd. (Consultants) on 23 February 2014, the Consultants submitted the environmental impact assessment report in the month of August 2016.
24. The report of the Consultants reinforces the opinion formed by the CSIR-NIO team which submitted its report in January 2016 that a coastal road on reclaimed land, if constructed hugging the existing shoreline, would have many curves and such road would have more adverse impact on a tidal currents vis-a-vis a road away from the shoreline but sans the curves. On the issues of impact on marine ecology, it opined that during the construction phase and especially jdk/pdp 41 wpl.560.19.gr.j.doc when a cut and covered tunnel, proposed at two places, the impact would be:
49. This took the learned Senior Counsel to the next limb of his submissions concerning CRZ Clearance dated 11 th May 2017 granted by MoEF.
50. Tracing the background of the coastal road project when JTC was set up by the State Government Resolution dated 30th June 2011, learned Counsel highlighted that the report submitted by JTC relied upon an earlier Comprehensive Transport Strategic Study -2008 and opined that the coastal road was the only solution to decongest the city and additionally reclamation would create open green spaces. Pursuant to the JTC report, MCGM appointed STUP Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and Ernest& Young Pvt. Ltd. to prepare a feasibility report and a detailed project report (DPR). Accordingly, draft DPR was prepared to propose the coastal road. When the DPR was prepared reclamation in CRZ-1 area to construct a road was prohibited, and thus at its meeting held on 10th June 2013, MCZMA decided to recommend to MoEF to amend CRZ-2011 for a specific purpose of permitting construction of a road jdk/pdp 81 wpl.560.19.gr.j.doc on reclaimed land. On 22nd January 2015 MCGM requested MCZMA to propose the necessary changes to MoEF, and the very next day MCZMA again decided to recommend the amendment, and on 4 th February 2015, MCZMA wrote a letter to MoEF. Thereafter MCGM entrusted the task to submit, amongst others environment Impact Assessment Report and Social Impact Assessment Report which are the requirements under paragraph 4.2 of the CRZ - 2011. In June 2015 MCGM invited objections to the draft project report probably for the reason paragraph 5 of CRZ-2011 requires public consultations while preparing the Coastal Zone Management Plan Maps, and one principal objection was that the existing CRZ - 2011 prohibited reclamation of land to construct a road. MCGM appointed Frischmann Prabhu to analyse the representations received and submit appropriate remedial measures. Said peer review report pointed out various issues and deficiencies regarding the coastal road project and the DPR studies conducted for the project. Learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of the Court to the under noted crucial finding of Frischmann Prabhu report (with the grievance that the neither MCZMA nor MoEF addressed themselves to the same). The crucial jdk/pdp 82 wpl.560.19.gr.j.doc findings referred to in the report read: