Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iv) Declare that the public hearing alleged to have been held for the purpose of considering the EC for establishment of the Aranmula Airport is invalid and insufficient.

50. The appellant herein is a social worker and a resident of Kozhencherry Taluk of Pathanamthitta District in the State of Kerala, where the proposed Aranmula Airport Project is to be located. He earlier served as the President of the Pathanamthitta District Panchayat and is a Member of Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee at present. The appellant is an activist for protection of environment and promoting paddy cultivation in the Aranmula locality. He is deeply aggrieved by the EC issued to the proposed airport and its allied activities as it will seriously affect the life and livelihood of the people living in Kozhencherry Taluk in particular and Pathanamthitta district in general as it will result in environmental degradation, stoppage of paddy cultivation in puncha padashekharam (paddy fields) in Aranmula and depletion of ground water. He files this appeal challenging the EC granted to the Aranmula Air Port Project as a person affected by the project and the negative impact on paddy land, depletion of ground water and environmental degradation will directly affect him as also a committed social and political worker, several other persons affected by the project are also complaining to him about the ill consequences of the project. The appellant has arrayed the MoEF as the 1 st respondent, State of Kerala as the 2nd respondent, M/s. K.G.S. Aranmula Airport Ltd., as the 3rd respondent, Kozhencherry Charitable Education Society as the 4 th respondent, who was subsequently given up during the proceedings of the appeal before this Tribunal, M/s. Enviro Care India Pvt. Ltd., as the 5 th respondent, Kerala State Pollution Control Board as the 6th respondent and the District Collector, Pathanamthitta District in Kerala State as the 7th respondent. The short facts of the case leading to the filing of this appeal as could be gathered from the grounds of the appeal filed herein can be stated thus:

111. This airport will considerably reduce the road traffic to Kochi and Thiruvananthapuram. The consequential benefits of the airport will extend to poorer devotees and pilgrims to Sabarimala as well in as much as the demand for and traffic in other forms of public transport such as rail and road transport will reduce. The airports play a vital role in the development of industry and commercial trade as they offer crucial services for transportation of goods and passengers from one place to another. They are also essential for domestic and international tourism, where limitation of time is the key factor. While airports play catalyst to economic development, the economic developments in turn generate demand for the former. As a result, the aircraft fleets of airlines are growing at a rapid speed with improved technology, better speed, time, capacity, etc., to cater to ever-increasing demand. Thus, continuous improvement of airports needs airport management for planning, developing and operating efficiently and profitability to meet the present and future need of air travel; both, domestic and international. It is submitted that the people of Kerala would like to have modern infrastructure facilities in the State with least disturbance to environment and as such the State Government, representing the public interest, is in favour of this project. The objections against the vital infrastructure and employment generating development projects, which would be a boon to the educated unemployed in the State, are baseless. Such employment generating projects in a State like Kerala, with its teeming educated unemployed, cannot but be welcomed in the larger public interest, and in the economic interest of the Country as a whole and the respondent is following the guidelines and procedure for setting up of this Greenfield Airport. There is phenomenal growth in air traffic that has been enabled by liberalized policies of the Government of India. The growth rate of passenger traffic has steadily increased. This rapid growth in passenger traffic has put enormous pressure on airport infrastructure causing severe congestion at major airports. The anticipated investment in airport development during the Eleventh Plan is over Rs 40,000/- crore, both from public and private sources, including for Greenfield airports according to Greenfield Airports Policy adopted by the Central Government. The project is supported by an overwhelming majority of persons living in and around Aranmula and that only a few persons with vested interests are opposed to the same. The present appeals under reply are not maintainable either on law or on facts. The appellants have no locus standi to file the present appeals. Smt. Sugathakumari, Shri. Sreerenganathan and Shri. Induchoodan have already approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP (C) No. 6004/2012 challenging the same matter, wherein this Appellant (in Appeal No. 172/2013) is the 2 nd Petitioner in the said case. In the Relief Portion, the Relief No. 2 Prayer "to declare 9th Respondent (this Respondent herein) or others have no authority to establish a Green Field Airport at Aranmula in the land covered by the notification declaring the project area as industrial area and environmental clearance if any, obtained by the 9th Respondent (this Respondent herein) is neither legal nor valid or sufficient raising almost the same environmental issues raised in this Appeal. The said matter is an issue pending consideration by the Hon'ble High Court which had arisen directly and substantially between the parties or their privies. This is a clear abuse of the process of law. The filing of this case itself is oppressive. These appeals lack bona fides and are frivolous, vexatious & oppressive and will result in miscarriage of justice. This Appellant (in Appeal No. 172/2013) is sub silentio regarding the 2nd Relief sought in WP (C) No. 6004/2012 pending before the Honourable High Court of Kerala. The Proposed Airport as stated by the Appellants is not on the banks of River Pampa. The said Airport is situated almost 2 Kms from the Pampa River as can be clearly seen in the EIA Report and will be located at Aranmula, Kidanganoor and Mallapuzhassery Villages, Kozhencherry Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. Aranmula was declared by the UNDP as a "Heritage Village" due to Uthirattathi Boat Race and Aranmula Mirror which are unique of this Village and not based on environmental or physical features. This Airport project once commenced will showcase these unique cultural aspects globally and will ensure international visibility, ensuring tourist flow. This respondent will definitely preserve the rich heritage of the area and the sanctity of Sree Aranmula Parthasarathy Temple. Further, it is submitted that the fears of damage to the structure of the temple are completely unfounded and speculative. These allegations have been made even though they fall outside the scope of the enquiry of this Hon'ble Tribunal in a mischievous attempt to prejudice this Hon'ble Tribunal. This Respondent has purchased the fully developed land where no agricultural operation was being conducted. The statement to the effect that Mallapuzhassery, Aranmula and Kidangannur Villages where the airport is to be set up are agricultural villages with paddy being the crop is incorrect and misleading. The property was purchased by this respondent as completely reclaimed with no agricultural operation, for the last 3 decades, as is certified by the Agricultural Officer, besides the dry land and Rubber Plantations. A portion of the water logged land might have been filled about ten years back by the prior owner. Therefore, any legal action ought to be taken only against the prior owner and the present respondent cannot be punished for the same. The appellants were aware of the said situation at that time but were silent regarding the said conversion at that time and did not raise any objection regarding the said conversion before any authority. The State of Kerala vide GO (MS) No. 30/12/Agri dated 16/02/2012 granted permission for filling up an area of 429.28 ares (10.62 acres) in the adjoining "Aranmula Punja", declaring the so called wetland as not cultivatable. This was because the character of the land had been permanently altered and no agricultural activities were done for several years and permission was therefore granted for the purpose of starting Cape Engineering College and it is also learnt that District level Committee has also recommended for filling an area of 10 acres for Aranmula Vasthu Vidya Gurukulam in the same Aranmula Punja. The Agricultural Officer, Pathanamthitta by its letter dated 29/02/2012 certified that the said 429.28 ares of land is not cultivatable and without any agricultural activities whatsoever for the last so many years. The present proposal involves development of the airport at Mallapuzhassery, Aranmula and Kidanganoor Villages, Kozhencherry Taluk, Pathanamthitta District, Kerala on a plot area of 500 Acres which includes certain water logged fallow land, dry land and Rubber Plantations. After purchasing the land, this respondent had not converted or reclaimed any part of land in its possession or made any attempt to fill up the land. M/s Enviro Care India Pvt Ltd is an ISO Certified company approved by the MoEF. At the time of presentation, there was no QCI implemented accredited Scheme (NABET) and all the consultants enlisted and approved by the first respondent were eligible for conducting EIA. The Office Memorandum issued by Government of India, MoEF clearly provides accreditation of the EIA Consultants and after the review of the accreditation progress by the QCI/NABET, the competent authority has approved a list of 265 consultants, wherein said Enviro Care India Pvt. Ltd., is arrayed as Sl.No. 73 and they are permitted to appear before State Level Expert Appraisal Committee/State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEAC/SEIAA) for Category "B" Projects and the EAC for Category "A" Projects till 30th June 2011. These 265 Consultants will also be permitted to certify various documents, as consultants, such as EIA/EMP. The MoEF after evaluating the EIA Report submitted by Enviro Care India Pvt. Ltd is completely aware that the said agency is competent to prepare an EIA report since the said agency already submitted EIA reports for Chennai, Raipur and Vadodara Airports. Hence the statement to the effect that EIA has not been prepared by an accredited agency and the EIA submitted by the present Respondent is inadequate, misleading and is a fraud perpetrated by this Respondent, is totally false, misleading and is denied in toto.

112. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board conducted public consultation as provided in Clause 111 stage 3. As provided thereunder a public hearing was conducted by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board with the District Collector, Pathanamthitta in Chair. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board issued public notices in vernacular dailies Malayala Manorama dated 06.02.2011, Mathrubhumi daily dated 06.02.2011 and Kerala Kaumudi dated 06.02.2011 about the hearing to be held on 10.03.2011 at Collectorate Conference Hall, Pathanamthitta. The notice was published in English daily as well. The notice was also published in the website of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. On 10.03.2011, the public hearing has been adjourned and the same has been published in the daily dated 09.03.2011. Since the General Election to Kerala Legislative Assembly 2011 was declared, public hearing was adjourned to 29.04.2011 (because a harthal has been declared on that day by the Left Parties) and again to 10.05.2011 on the basis of the direction of Election Commission, since the Model Code of Conduct is enforced from the date of announcement of election schedule by the Election Commission and only on the basis of the directions given by the Election Commission, Public hearing was conducted on 10.05.2011. For the adjourned hearing also public notices were published in news papers dated 28.04.2011. The notice of hearing was affixed in all public places like Village Office, Panchayat Office, Collectorate and so on. The notices were published at public places by hoardings and banners. The public hearing was conducted on 10.05.2011 at Conference Hall, Collectorate, Pathanamthitta with the District Collector in chair. In the meeting, representatives of the people and public were present. Hence the statement to the effect that the Public Hearing conducted for the purposes of the Airport in a clandestine undemocratic manner in violation of the EIA Notification, 2006 is absolutely false and denied in toto. The appellants were aware of the entire proceedings and did not raise any objection regarding the non participation in public hearing before any authority or in the Writ Petition pending before High Court of Kerala in WP (c) No. 6004/2012. The date of public hearings and its adjourned hearings are clearly notified in news papers. The Order of the Taluk Land Board declaring 232 acres of land purchased from the previous owner as excess land has been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court in CRP (LR) No. 187/2013 on 27.11.2013 and the Hon'ble Court has directed the Taluk Land Board to hear the matter afresh. Since the appeal is pending before Government of Kerala to exempt the land required for the airport project under Section 81 (3) of KLR Act, the Hon'ble High Court has directed this respondent not to construct in 232 acres, which form part of a larger extent, till the decision of TLB is taken within six months or otherwise terminated. The statement to the effect that we have not disclosed about the cases pending before the High Court is absolutely false and denied. The Aranmula Heritage Village Action Council in page No. 10 of their Appeal have admitted that whatever litigations stated to have been filed against this Respondent were not pending at the time of submitting the application on 28.06.2010. As per the impugned order, only the minimum area is required for filling. Moreover, all the cases mentioned in the Writ Petitions are not admitted so far and also no interim order also passed against this Respondent. Moreover in paragraph 5 of the Appeal filed by the Aranmula Heritage Village Action Council, they have also admitted that only the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has got jurisdiction to entertain any issue relating to the State Acts. For the proposed project, the EIA Report was prepared and ToR finalized on 13th October 2012. The public hearing was held at District Collectorate, Pathanamthitta on 10th May 2011 and the EAC recommended the project for clearance on 15.12.2011. This Respondent has also furnished periodical information called for by the Ministry of Environment & Forests from time to time and answered all queries raised by the Ministry in this regard. The issues dealt with are briefly summarized herein under.

A. Aranmula, Pathanamthitta District is connected by a good network of State Highway Roads. These roads have two-line riding surface of minimum 35ft with adequate space on the sides for future expansion. Following are the four vital arteries that pass through Aranmula:-

(a) Pathanamthitta-Aranmula.
(b) Thiruvalla-Aranmula.
(c) Chengannur-Aranmula.
(d) Pandalam-Aranmula.

B. Good connectivity from Alappuzha, Kottayam and Idukki Districts exists towards Pathanamthitta District. They further gain importance due to non-resident Malayalies of above four districts, Sabarimala pilgrims during season, Sabarimala pilgrims proceeding to shrine every month, pilgrims converging at Maramon Convention every season, tourists (domestic and foreign) and regular traffic. The Airport will have a proper network of road communication around it. The allegation that the EIA must also include within its scope roads that may or may not be built in future by the State or Central Governments, which are completely different entities and which are governed by different norms and regulations, is clearly unsustainable. It is submitted that providing roads is a public function which is governed by different standards and policies and there is no requirement of an EC for such state activities.