Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

PART C

41 Based on the spatial extent of the potential impact and the potential impacts on human health and natural and man-made resources, the 2006 notification categorizes all projects into Category ‘A’ and Category ‘B’ projects. The MoEFCC in the Central Government and the SEIAA at the state level constitute the regulatory authorities for the purposes of the notification. Category ‘A’ projects require prior environmental clearance from the MoEFCC, based on the recommendation of the EAC constituted by the Central Government for this purpose. Category ‘B’ projects will require prior environmental clearance from the SEIAA, based on the recommendations of the SEAC. Where no SEIAA or SEAC has been constituted, Category ‘B’ projects are treated as Category ‘A’ projects. 42 Once a prospective site has been identified by the applicant for the proposed project, all applications seeking an EC shall be made in the prescribed Form 1 and Supplementary Form 1A41, if applicable. The application must be submitted prior to the commencement of any construction activity, or preparation of the land at the site. A pre-feasibility report must also be submitted with the application except in the cases of construction projects in item 8 of the Schedule, for which a conceptual plan must be submitted. The significance of the information furnished by the applicant in Form 1 shall be explored shortly. 

(i)     Final EIA Report

(ii)    A copy of the video tape or CD of the public hearing proceedings

(iii)   A copy of the final layout plan

(iv)    A copy of the project feasibility report.


                                                                                PART C
51    The regulatory authority must examine the documents “strictly with reference

to the ToR” and communicate any inadequacy to the EAC or the SEAC, as the case may be, within 30 days of receipt of the documents. Within sixty days of the receipt of all the documents, the EAC or the SEAC, as the case may be, shall complete the appraisal process as prescribed in Appendix V. Within the next fifteen days, the EAC or the SEAC shall make categorical recommendations to the concerned regulatory authority to either grant the EC on the stipulated terms and conditions or reject the application, together with reasons. The appraisal of projects which are not required to undergo the public consultation process or the submission of an EIA is to be carried out on the basis of the prescribed application Form 1 or Form 1A, as applicable. 52 The MoEFCC or the SEIAA shall thereafter consider the recommendations of the EAC or the SEAC and convey its decision to the applicant within 45 days of receipt of the recommendations. The regulatory authorities shall normally accept the recommendations of the EAC or the SEAC, as the case may be. Where there is a disagreement, the regulatory authority shall ask for a reconsideration of the recommendation within 45 days of the receipt of the recommendations. This decision shall be conveyed to the applicant. The EAC or the SEAC shall then reconsider its recommendation within a further period of 60 days and make its recommendations to the regulatory authority. The regulatory authorities shall then take a decision after considering the views communicated to it and convey the decision to the applicant within the next 30 days.

56 The EAC and the SEAC are charged with evaluating the information submitted by the applicant in Form 1/Form 1A and preparing comprehensive ToR which guide the preparation of the EIA reports. Given that these bodies comprise experts in the field of environmental law, the recommendation of the EAC or the SEAC to grant EC to an applicant or reject the application is normally accepted by the regulatory authority.

57 The regulatory authority at the state level (SEIAA) which is charged with the approval or rejection of an application for EC comprises three members who possess the qualifications in the field as prescribed in Appendix VI. Significantly, sub clause (7) of paragraph 3 of the 2006 notification stipulates that all decisions of the SEIAA shall be unanimous and taken in a meeting. Given the environmental consequences of a proposed project, no difference of opinion is provided for in the grant of an EC at the state level. It is further mandated that the project management submit half-yearly compliance reports to the regulatory authority in respect of the EC and conditions. 58 Under the 2006 notification, the process of obtaining an EC commences from the production of the information stipulated in Form 1/Form 1A. Crucial information regarding the particulars of the proposed project is sought to enable the EAC or the SEAC to prepare comprehensive ToR which the applicant is required to address during the course of the preparation of the EIA. Some of the information sought is produced thus:

76 The submission that the EIA report deals with the prevalence of forested areas and warrants the grant of an EC cannot be accepted for yet another reason. EACs and SEACs are conferred with the authority to reject applications for the grant of an EC at the stage of scoping itself, prior to the preparation of the ToR. The application may be rejected on the basis of the information furnished by the project proponent in Form 1. Claiming an EC as a matter of right merely because the EIA report has assessed parameters that were omitted in Form 1, bypasses the authority of the EAC and SEAC to reject an application at the preliminary stage and cannot be countenanced. The regulatory authority is required to assess the final documents submitted to it “strictly with reference to the ToR” and communicate to the EAC and SEAC any discrepancies between the EIA report and the ToR. A deficient ToR on the basis of the non-disclosure of material information in Form 1 impedes this process. 77 The failure on part of a project proponent to disclose material information in Form 1 as stipulated under the 2006 notification has a cascading effect on the salient PART E objective which underlies the 2006 notification. The 2006 notification represents an independent code with the avowed objective of balancing the development agenda with the protection of the environment. An applicant cannot claim an EC, under the 2006 notification, based on substantial or proportionate compliance with the terms stipulated in the notification. The terms of the notification lay down strict standards that must be complied with by an applicant seeking an EC for a proposed project. The burden of establishing environmental compliance rests on a project proponent who intends to bring about a change in the existing state of the environment. Whereas, in the present case, there has thus been a patent failure on part of the project proponent to make mandatory disclosures stipulated in Form 1 under the 2006 notification, that must have consequences in law. There can be no gambles with the environment: a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ approach is simply unacceptable; unacceptable if we are to preserve environmental governance under the rule of law.