Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: LABSA in Suragana Radhika, vs Veeramallu Suryanarayana on 9 November, 2022Matching Fragments
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. _ Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the 1° petitioner has been manufacturing ASA since 2016. In view of the recommendations of the EAC, referred above, he requested to direct the authorities to permit the 1* petitioner to manufacture ASA pending final decision of the authorities with regard to the requirement of EC. Learned standing counsel appearing for the 2"? respondent submits that the 2" respondent is the implementing authority only and that the SEIAA is the competent authority. .