Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

foo "Heard Sri CV. Mohan Reddy, leatned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Yenkat Challa, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri ¥. Surendra Reddy, igarned standing counsel appearing for the 2" respondent.

isarned Senior Counsel submits that the 2" respondent has given Consant for Establishment of the 1° petitioner vide proceedings dated 24.02.2014 and Consent for Qperation PCFO] of the products viz. AKG Wax Emulsion, Akeny! Succinic Anhydride (ASA), Starch Based products and Ragin Sased Products vide proceedings dated 26.02.2016, valid for a period anding with 31.07.2021. Before expiry of the said period, the 1 pethtioner submitted application to the 2" respondent for renewal of CFO. instead af granting renewal, the 2°" respondant by letter dated 22.72.2020, insofar as the manuiscture of ASA is concerned, asked the 1° petitioner to either obtain Enviranmenial Clearance [EC] or soak a clarification an nor-anglicablity af EC for the sald product fram the State. Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA} The 2°° petitioner, on behalf of the 1° petitioner, sought siarification fram SEWAA and Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC] of the 3° respondent - Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of india. Thereafier, sevens! deliberations took place between the petitioners, SEIAA and EAC. As per the Minutes of the EAC, dated 25.07.2032, the EAC prima facie was of the view that the manufacture of ASA by the (* petitioner may not require EC. The 3° respondent, by letter dated 16.08.2022. addressed to the 1" petifioner issued Tsrme of Reference wherein though it was infer alia observed that the EAC recommends that APPCE may issue CTO for the production of ASA for the sarlier granted capacity of 200 TPMO400 TRA Since the PP is in the process af obtaining ES and aise in view of the above observations of EAC with regard to the pollution load, environmental impacts and applicability of EC for the manufacture of ASA, cantrary to the said observation, al para T8iv) of the terms of reference, directed that the State BS Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. ; and further no consent to operate to be issued till the project is granted EC for the product which require EC. However, the 2"? respondent by notice dated 27.08.2022, directed the 1° petitioner not to manufacture ASA without valid CFO of the Board. Even in the Minutes of the EAC, dated 13.10.2022, also, the EAC recommended that even though the ASA is a synthetic organic Chemical, but not listed specifically like LABSA, considering its potential environmental impact, it should not attract the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 (as amended) and hence, may be exempted from the requirement of EC.