AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Advocates of the parties.
The Appellants have filed this Appeal challenging the letter / communication No. F-16-1/2009-IA-III dated 4th November 2015 issued by Scientist 'E' of MoEF declaring the amendments in the CRZ clearance letter dated 11th April 2013 as follows :
(a) In the subject the word " CRZ clearance" shall be substituted with "clearance under CRZ Notification 1991/2011 and EC under EIA Notification 2006".
(b) In para 9 in specific Conditions,(i) Construction Phase, (ii) which reads "Necessary prior environmental clearance under Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, as applicable shall be obtained from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Goa" stands deleted.
The Appellants mainly contended that there can be no substitution of Environment Clearance granted under EIA Notification, 2006 and the authorities must appraise the project development of Hotel Beach/ Resort at S.No.129/1, 130/1, 130/2, 130/3, 130/4, 130/5, 130/7, 131/1, 132/2, 136/1, 137/3 of Arrossim village of Mormugao Taluka, District South Goa as per EIA Notification 2006 and take decision either for grant or rejection of the EC to the project in accordance with the law.
Now, before us are the parties in the M.A. No. 362/2016 moved by the Respondent No.1 M/s. Competent Automobiles Company Ltd.-project proponent for directions to the Respondent No.4 Moef&CC to place the papers on record before the Appraisal Committee for appraisal as per EIA Notification 2006 and to take steps for deciding the proposal for grant or rejection of the EC to the said project in accordance with law. Parties do not dispute that all necessary form-I and form 1-A under EIA Notification 2006 required for appraising the project are on record of the MoEF and as such, there is no need to move a proposal denovo for grant of EC.
In order to promote sustainable development in the manner laid down by law, the parties have fairly come to the consensus to allow the proposal for grant of EC as disclosed in Form-1 and Form-1A under EC Notification which is already on record to be considered and disposed off by the competent authority to do it on the basis of information therein as well as other information or data with the SEAC in accordance with Law within a given time frame. They are also at consensus that the record of the MoEF shall be sent to the SEAC for appraisal within a week and the SEAC may seek clarification from the project proponent-Respondent No.1 M/s. Competent Automobiles Company Ltd. and allow the Respondent No.1-Company to give presentation in the matter.
Parties submit that the SEAC be directed to appraise the project in accordance with law and give its recommendation for or against the grant of EC within a given time frame to SEIAA, Goa and SEIAA Goa to give its decision thereon within a stipulated period thereafter with a copy of the decision to the Applicant thereafter.
At this stage, it is revealed that the term of office of SEAC Goa and SEIAA Goa has expired and EAC and MoEF are vested with the powers to appraise and take decision in the matter of grant or rejection of the EC in absence of SEAC and SEIAA respectively vide Notification as per amended Clause 4(3) of the EIA Notification 2006.
In view of the Application moved and consensus arrived for directions to appraise the project for EC in accordance with the law, it is just and necessary as a corollary thereto that the impugned letter dated 4th November 2015 is set aside.
In the given situation, this Appeal can be disposed of with the following directions :
Letter or communication No. F-16-1/2009-IA-III dated 4th November 2015 issued by Scientist-E of MoEF declaring the amendments as referred to hereinabove is set aside.
The MoEF shall pass on the complete record of the case including form-1 and form-1A to EAC within a week and EAC shall be at liberty to consider any other information or data along with the record sent by the MoEF for the purpose of appraisal of the project referred to hereinabove.
The project proponent-Respondent No.1 Company will be at liberty to give presentation in the matter and EAC may seek such other clarification from the project proponent necessary for appraising the said project as per EIA Notification, 2006 in accordance with law.
The EAC upon appraisal of the project shall make its recommendations either for grant or rejection of the said project to the MoEF and MoEF shall take decision thereon in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within 90 (ninety days).
Copy of the decision taken by the MoEF in the matter either for grant or rejection of the EC to the project in question shall be furnished to the Appellants.
M.A.No.362 of 2016 is disposed of accordingly.
Consequently, the Appeal No. 5/2016 as well as Misc. Applications therein stand disposed of with no order as to costs.