Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. In exercise of the above powers, the Central Government framed Environment Clearance Regulations, 2006 vide Notification No. S.O. 1533(E) dated 14th September, 2006. This is also known as EIA Notification, 2006 (for short 'the Notification of 2006'). The Notification of 2006, in Paragraph 7 stipulates four stages in the process of obtaining Environmental Clearance. Stage (1) is screening. At this stage the EAC or the State Expert Appraisal Committee (for short 'SEAC') takes the decision whether Environmental Impact Assessment (for short 'EIA') Report has to be prepared for the proposed projects. Stage (2) is Scoping. At this stage, the EAC for category 'A' projects and the SEAC for category 'B' projects determines detailed and comprehensive Terms of Reference (for short 'TOR') addressing all relevant environmental concerns for the preparation of an EIA Report in respect of the proposed project or activity for which the prior environmental clearance is sought. Then the detailed environment impact study is carried out at proposed site by a team of experts from all the relevant fields, addressing all the Terms of Reference and thereafter a report, predicting all positive and negative impacts and their magnitude is prepared. This is followed by preparation of Environment Management Plan (for short 'EMP') which details out various measures to be taken to minimise the impact to an acceptable level. Such report along with EMP is submitted to the MoEF. Stage (3) relates to Public Consultation and has two components - 1) a public hearing, which is conducted by the concerned State Pollution Control Board at the project site or in its close proximity, explaining all the possible environment impacts and measures proposed in EMP. This is done for ascertaining the concerns of the locally affected persons. The procedure prescribed for public hearing is described in Appendix IV to the Notification and 2) obtaining written responses from other concerned persons who have a plausible stake in the environmental aspects of the project or activity. Lastly, Stage (4) relates to Appraisal of the Project. Under para 7(i) of the Notification of 2006, 'appraisal' has been defined as the detailed scrutiny by the EAC or the SEAC of the application and other documents like the Final EIA Report and the outcome of the public consultations including public hearing proceedings, submitted by the Project Proponent to the regulatory authority concerned for grant of environmental clearance. In terms of the Notification of 2006 read in conjunction with its Appendices, the Project Proponent is expected to file documents and additional information, including possible alternative sites for the project, studies on the cumulative impact of the project due to proximity of other projects and the impact of the project on the local communities, disturbance to sacred sites etc. The EAC or the SEAC concerned has to make categorical recommendations to the regulatory authority concerned either for grant of prior environmental clearance on stipulated terms and conditions, or rejection of the application for prior Environmental Clearance, together with reasons for the same. The Regulatory Authority will be the MoEF or State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short 'SEIAA') depending upon the category in which such project falls. Appraisal of the project is one of the most important steps to be taken in the entire process of grant or refusal of the Environmental Clearance to a proposed project or activity. Appendix V to the Notification 2006 provides the procedure for Appraisal.

4. Appendix VI to the Notification of 2006 details the composition of the sector/ project specific EAC for Category 'A' projects and the SEACs for Category B Projects. These committees are to be constituted by the Central Government in consonance with the qualification and experience stated under this very Appendix. It is clear from the cumulative reading of the Notification of 2006 along-with its Schedule and Appendices that the recommendation made by the EAC or SEAC as the case may be are critical in the whole Environmental Clearance process thereby making it imperative that those who are Members of the EAC are well qualified and experienced persons so as to further the cause of environment and ensure appropriate consideration of the applications for grant or refusal of Environmental Clearance of projects. It is the case of the applicant that the MoEF had issued various Notifications and in all of them, the Government had stated that it would evaluate and assess an application for Environmental Clearance in consultation with a Committee of experts. The composition of the Committee of experts, as per the Notification of 2006, includes persons from various disciplines including eco-system management, air/water pollution control, water resource management, ecologists, social sciences particularly rehabilitation of project oustees and representatives from other relevant fields.

5. While Paragraph 3 of Notification of 2006 deals with Constitution of the SEIAA, Paragraph 5 of the same deals with the Constitution of EAC and SEAC. Appendix VI to the Notification of 2006 provides the eligibility criteria for the Chairperson and Members of EAC or SEAC. It is further averred by the applicant that in the EIA Notification of 1992, a different criteria, relevant for the purpose of considering Environmental Clearance application was stated by MoEF. This criteria came to be varied in the EIA Notification of 1994 to some extent, but in the EIA Notification of 2006, dated 14th September, 2006, the criteria was considerably varied. According to the applicant, this defeats the very purpose, object and attainment of environmental protection under the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. We may refer to all the three relevant provisions of the three Notifications to enable us to deal with the contentions raised by the applicant.

33. The expression, 'implementation' appearing in different statutes has been discussed by us in some detail above. At this stage, we must notice that under the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 1986, the primary concern was over the existing state of environment, that is the decline in environmental quality, increasing pollution, loss of vegetal cover and biological diversity, excessive concentrations of harmful chemicals in the ambient atmosphere and in food chains, growing risks of environmental accidents and threats to life support systems. Thus, to prevent and control these pollution related problems and to preserve wholesome environment for the community at large, the provisions of the Act of 1986 Act were enacted. The Act of 1986, provided both for procedure as well as regulatory regime for protection of environment thereto. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 6 and 25 of the Act of 1986, the Central Government had framed the Rules of 1986. Under Rule 5 of the said Rules, the Central Government is empowered to pass certain prohibitory or restricted directions in relation to the fields stated under that Rule. In terms of Rule 5(3)(d), it is empowered to issue prohibition or restriction on location of such industry and the manner in which the process is to be carried on. The grant or refusal of Environmental Clearance/Authorization is, thus, the most important aspect of environmental jurisprudence in as much as it is only after grant and refusal of Environmental Clearance/Authorization that any project or activity can be carried on in that area. As already noticed, this process is to be completed by an expert body i.e. the EAC/SEAC. Therefore, to implement effectively the provisions of environmental law, EAC/SEAC performs the most important and significant functions. If the members of this expert body are non- environmentalists and do not fall within the eligibility criteria of Appendix VI, then besides violation or infringement of such provisions, its direct impact would be on the environment. If people who are not strictly qualified and eligible and who do not professionally belong to this field, are selected as members of EAC/SEAC, the obvious result would be improper application of mind to the project reports and the application moved by the Project Proponent for grant of Environmental Clearance/Authorization. The EAC/SEAC has to perform functions of a very scientific and technical nature and has to analyse comprehensive terms of reference and environmental impact assessment report in respect of the project activity and then submit its report and recommendations to the Government for grant/consideration of the appropriate authority. Persons who are not eligible or are not having requisite expertise and experience in relation to the various fields of environment and the process involved therein, would cause serious prejudice to all the stake-holders and more particularly to the environment and ecology of the country. It is an accepted social norm that prevention is better than cure. If the projects are cleared by class of the persons afore-stated then such projects when made operational, may have serious adverse impacts on the environment and cause environmental hazards. It would be better to prevent participation of such persons in the process of appreciation and grant of consent/clearance/authorization rather than to find remedies to the problems of pollution resulting from improper exercise of powers by such persons. Appendix VI to the Notification of 2006 issued in furtherance to the powers vested by the Act and is subordinate/delegated legislation and thus, would be an integral part of the Act. Therefore, compliance and proper implementation of the provisions falling under and arising from the specified Acts in Schedule I would be matters raising substantial questions of environment, hence covered under Section 14 of the NGT Act.