AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The principle question in these petitions is whether the permission granted to the petitioner under the Coastal Zone Regulation 2011 (CRZ 2011) dated 11/4/2013 includes the Environmental Clearance (EC) under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2006. It appears that the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) had issued a communication dated 4/11/2015 "declaring amendments" in the CRZ clearance letter dated 11/4/2013 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 petitioners in Writ Petition no.508/2016 challenged the communication dated 4/11/2015 before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Bench at Pune in Appeal No.5/2016. It appears that in the said appeal, Misc. Application No.362/2016(WZ) was filed by the respondent, M/s. Competent Automobiles Ltd. for directions to the MOEF 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 E.C to the said project in accordance with law. The NGT has disposed of the appeal on 9/1/2017 in the following terms :
(i) 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 herein above is set aside.
(ii) 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 learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions submit that the stand of the Village Panchayat that the CRZ clearance did not include the environmental clearance stands vindicated as the respondent had sought the consideration by the appraisal committee for deciding upon the environmental clearance. It is therefore, submitted that the petitions will have to be allowed.
On the contrary it is submitted by Shri Dhruv Mehta, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that the application filed before the NGT was without prejudice to the contentions on behalf of the respondent that the CRZ clearance included an environmental clearance under the EI notification 2006. It is submitted that with a view to avoid any technical difficulty the application was filed, as the project could not take off for the last 10 years for want of permission/licence from the Village Panchayat. It is pointed out that the District Judge has clearly held that there are all other permissions and approvals granted to the project including the technical clearance. He, therefore, submits that the petition be kept pending awaiting the decision of the MOEF, as the MOEF has been directed to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 90 days. It is pointed out that as of today there is an interim relief operating in favour of the petitioner which can be continued. It is submitted that thus no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners if the petitions are kept pending.
I have considered the submissions made. At this stage it is not necessary to go into the merits of the challenge. Suffice it to mention that the principle question is as to whether the respondents are having an environmental clearance for the project which matter is now pending consideration before the MOEF. In my considered view it would be appropriate if the petition is kept pending, awaiting the decision of the MOEF. In such circumstances, stand over to 30/3/2017. Interim relief already operating to continue till the next date.