Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. In particular, the case set out by the Applicants in the present Original Application is that the Project Proponent, Respondent No.9, proposes to set-up Iron ore Beneficiation Plant with production capacity of 1.5 Million Tons Per Annum (MTPA), Iron Ore Pelletisation Plant of 1.2 MTPA, Sponge Iron of 0.346 MTPA, Billet of 0.43 MTPA, Rolling Mil 0.417 MTPA, Captive Power Plant (CPP) of 75 MW, Producer Gas Plant 30,000 Nm3/hr. and SMS Slag Crushing Unit 60,150 TPA in Kapand Mouza of Lahunipada Tahasil in Sundergarh District. Its proposal for EC was considered by (Expert Appraisal Committee) EAC on 25-26 February, 2021. In view of high pollution potential, the proposal was returned. Still, the Project Proponent has felled large number of trees illegally which will adversely affect animal habitat and animal movement in the area. The area is contiguous to Kukia Reserve Forest which is also a habitat of wild animals with rare and endangered species. Other adjoining reserved forests are Kukia RF (NW) 0.4 km, Dhenkiam RF (W) 2.8 km, Dhenkiam Block RF (NW 4.3 km, Nalghati Rajabasa RE (SWw) 52, km Dhanaghar Extension RF (NNE) 7.4km, Gurundia RE (Sww) 8.7 km, Bhagoth RE (SSW) 7.1 km. Complaint was filed with the DFO, Rourkela, on 01.10.2021 against illegal felling of trees but no action was taken. The Project Proponent is going ahead with the construction of the project without requisite EC.

(vi) Kukia RF is only 400 m from plant.

(vii) 10 Nos. of Induction Furnaces (IF) are proposed (4x10 and 6 x 15T capacities) to produce 0.43 MTPA steel which are having high pollution potential PP should explore feasibility of installation of higher configuration of Induction Furnace.

Recommendations of the Committee:

In view of the aforesaid observations, the Committee after deliberations, recommended to return the proposal in its present form for addressing the shortcomings as listed above. The copies of the Re-Constituted Expert Appraisal Committee Meeting held on 25th- 26th February, 2021, has been filed as Annexure -6 at page 44 of the paper book."

iv. There are lots of trees in the proposed site that would be cut as observed from KML file and site photographs submitted during the presentation.

v. Management of phenolic water and tar recovered from PGP has not been described.

vi. Kukia RF is only 400 m from plant.

vii. 10 Nos of IFs are proposed (4x10 and 6x 15T capacity) to produce 0.43 MTPA steel which are having high pollution potential. PP should explore feasibility of installation of higher configuration of Induction Furnace."

18. As against the above, the minutes of the reconstituted EAC dated 11-12 November, 2021, show that ToRs have been recommended without considering validity of permission granted by the Divisional Forest Officer for cutting of trees and also the pollution potential as earlier considered. There is no change of circumstance for revisiting decision of EAC dated 26.02.2021. Thus, grant of TOR is prima facie vulnerable.

19. Further, permission for felling of trees by the Divisional Forest Officer is prima facie against the mandate of law laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N Godavarman (Supra) and Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd (Supra). The said view has been reiterated inter-alia in T. N. Godavarman (2014) 4 SCC 61, BDA v. Sudhakar Hegde (2020) 15 SCC 63 and T. N. Godavarman (2022) 4 SCC 289. When there are large number of trees in the land, it has to be treated as forest notwithstanding its description as 'barren' in the revenue record. Thus, matter is governed by the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, attracting prohibition against its use for non-forest purpose without requisite Forest Clearance (FC) from Central Government on consideration of Forest Policy, 1988, and other relevant factors including that such activity will have adverse impact on animal habitat and elephants movement which view finds mention in minutes of EAC dated 26.2.2021 which is not shown to have been duly considered.