Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It has been asserted that the Chief Conservator of Forests, Junagadh, at the relevant point of time, has given a negative response / opinion on various aspects, which is placed on record of the petition at page 178. It has further been asserted that even in the 16th meeting of the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife (hereinafter referred to as the "NBWL") dated 16.09.2009, one Dr. Asad Rahmani informed in the meeting that the EIA report submitted before the Board has several factual errors particularly with regard to faunal diversity of the area. It was also observed that there were representations against the negative impact of the project on vulture nesting sites since 9th C/WPPIL/258/2017 ORDER and 10th Tower stage where several vultures are occupying the place. Therefore, preserving such vultures being part of the Wildlife, due consideration ought to have been given. Even the Chairman of the Board voluntarily ought to have taken a site visit along with other expertise i.e. Dr. Nita Shah, Dr. Divyabhanusinh Chavda with Dr. Asad Rahmani and by pointing out such details from page 87, a contention is raised that this project is not at all in the interest of all. A further assertion has also been made to seek the relief contained in the petition by referring to particulars reflecting from 21st and 22nd meetings of the Standing Committee of NBWL. Additionally, even the opinion of the Parliamentary Committee dated 31.03.2017 was also not in favour of the project. Resultantly, the reliefs prayed for in the petition, deserve to be granted. An attention is drawn to the further facts, how the environmental clearance dated 09.09.2016 is contrary to law and as such, by narrating all these circumstances, the present public spirited citizen has brought the petition before this Court.

6.2 To substantiate his contention, Shri Thackar, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain documents, which are attached to the petition, precisely, the particulars from the meetings of the Standing Committee, which took place of NBWL and by narrating this, the counsel has insisted to grant the relief as prayed for. It has been contended that even Parliamentary Committee also found no favour with the project, as the same is likely to affect the vulture nesting and breeding and such recommendations to review the matter were submitted in the month of March 2017. Despite all these negative circumstances, the authorities have shown an audacity to set up Aerial way which is quite contrary to the object for which Act is in enacted.

6.3 To strengthen his submission, learned counsel has referred to a decision delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Essar Oil Ltd. versus Halar Utkarsh Samiti and others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 392, and thereby, has reiterated that in a C/WPPIL/258/2017 ORDER situation like this, the relief contained in the petition, deserves to be granted. No other submissions have been made.

7. To deal with and counter the stand taken by Shri Thackar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General assisted by Shri J. K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State, has vehemently submitted that this petition is not a genuine Public Interest Litigation. Had it been so, this very petitioner would not have dragged on the petition right from 2017 and waited for a substantial portion of the construction to be over. The petition is pressed at a stage where the last phase of the project is going on and practically, it is about to be inaugurated within a couple of months. So, such a callous approach shown by the petitioner itself is raising a serious issue about genuineness of petition. Apart from that, it has been submitted by Shri Trivedi, learned Advocate General that as contended by the petitioner that in the series of meetings, there was negative opinion of NBWL, but the petitioner ought to have pointed out candidly to the Court that it is this board upon whose recommendation and permission, this construction is substantially over. On the contrary, according to Shri Trivedi, learned Advocate General, it is only after C/WPPIL/258/2017 ORDER conducting an in­depth study of the environmental issues that this project has been finalized.

We request the NBWL to furnish a cop of the orders passed by it within 30 days' time to the C.E.C. The C.E.C. is at liberty, if, for any reason, they are aggrieved by the decision of the Standing Committee of C/WPPIL/258/2017 ORDER NBWL to approach this Court by filing an appropriate petition / application. In all those matters where there is already decision of the Standing Committee for the NBWL shall abide the parties with all the conditions imposed therein.