AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Miscellaneous Application has been filed for enforcement of the judgment of this Tribunal dated 10.11.2014 in Appeal No. 50/2012. By the said judgement, the Tribunal considered and decided the correctness of the corrigendum to the EC in favour of the Project Proponent (PP) for setting up of a Thermal Power Plant in Tamil Nadu.
The operative part of the order is reproduced below:-
“64. In view of the aforesaid discussion the corrigendum dated 14-08-2012 issued by the MoEF to the project in questions deserves to set aside and a fresh review of the environmental Clearance on the basis of fresh cumulative impact assessment study as indicated above needs to be ordered. However, it is clarified that additional baseline data of each and every industry- existing as well proposed falling within 25 km radius of the project as indicated above needs to be gathered for the purposes of cumulative impact assessment study as the real changes are noticed in subsequent steps of impact prediction and modelling. We may further point out that as per the guidance manual of MoEF “The difference between Comprehensive EIA and Rapid EIA is in the time-scale of the data supplied. Rapid EIA is for speedier appraisal process. While both types of EIA require inclusion/ coverage of all significant environmental impacts and their mitigation, Rapid EIA achieves this through the collection of one season (other than monsoon) data only to reduce the time required. This is acceptable if it does not compromise on the quality of decisionmaking. The review of Rapid EIA submissions will show whether a comprehensive EIA is warranted or not” (Source: Section 1.3 of envfor.Nic.in/divisions/iass/eia/Chapter1.htm).
Hence the order:
Corrigendum dated 14-08-2012 to the EC as issued by the MoEF is quashed.
Keeping in mind the observations made herein, the Respondent No. 3- the project proponent shall carry out fresh Cumulative Impact Assessment Study of the project in question within a reasonable period and for that purpose shall:
a. Collect baseline/primary data of each and every existing industry as required under prevalent regulations and compare with National Standards as notified by the Government from time to time.
b. Collect data regarding treated effluents discharge/likely to be discharged by such industries.
c. Collect primary baseline data on socio-economic environment.
d. Collect data regarding industry in offing and which are likely to come in next five years as per PCPIR declaration as aforesaid in liaison with State PCB
and/or the project proponents.
e. Carry out impact prediction/assessment using appropriate mathematical models.
f. Suggest appropriate management plan/s for significant impacts including financial implications.
The Respondent No. 3 shall place report of such study before the EAC and the EAC shall consider such report and assess whether comprehensive CEIA study is necessary or not and advice the Respondent No. 3 accordingly and thereafter shall carry out the appraisal of the said study or the comprehensive CEIA Study as the case may be as per EC Regulations 2006 and may either recommend the grant of EC on certain specific conditions or decline to recommend the grant of EC by passing a speaking/reasoned order i.e. either recommend or refuse to recommend on reasons adduced therefor.
MoEF shall duly consider the recommendations made by the EAC and shall pass an order in accordance with law.
Parties shall cooperate with each other in carrying out such Study.
Parties to bear their respective costs.”
The above M.A. No. 47/2015 was filed by the appellant on 17.01.2015 for enforcement of the judgement on which notice was issued. The matter was then taken up on 11.02.2015 when it was noted that on appeal against judgement of this Tribunal by the PP, being Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 4405/2015, M/s IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Ltd. vs. T. Muruganandam & Ors., order of this Tribunal dated 10.11.2014 has been stayed. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned sine die.
We have taken up the matter after seven years and find that stay granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is still continuing. Thus, prayer in the application cannot be considered. No purpose will be served by keeping the application pending for indefinite period. Needless to say that the parties will be governed by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The MA will accordingly stand disposed of.