Chennai
The environmental clearance granted by the Tamil Nadu government to the Chennai Corporation’s to set up an integrated solid waste management plant at Perungudi has been set aside by the National Green Tribunal. Times Property has more on the case that will see a new beginning under the jurisdiction of the Union Ministry.
The unending debate surrounding the issue of waste management and garbage clearance in the city, in the past few years, has involved environmentalists, activists, city planners and government officials. While suggestions have been made in the past to shut down the dumping yards at Perungudi and Kodungaiyur and replace them with integrated solid waste management plants, no concrete solution has been arrived at. The Corporation’s suggestion to set up an integrated solid waste management plant at Perungudi was strongly opposed and the case been facing legal hurdles, finally came to a close.
India’s first dedicated environmental court, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in its first ever hearing in the city on February 24, set aside the environmental clearance granted by the Tamil Nadu government to set up the plant at Perungudi. Hearing the appeal by V Srinivasan against the Tamil Nadu State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority and others, the tribunal headed by Justice C V Ramulu, passed the judgement stating that the site of the proposed plant was less than 10km from the Guindy National Park and that the project fell within Category A and the Union government (Ministry of Environment and Forests) alone could issue environment clearance (EC).
The appellant, V Srinivasan of the Save Pallikarnai Forum, said, “Following a public hearing in 2010, a case was filed against the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) and a stay order was issued on the commissioning of the plant by the National environment Appellate Authority, which was in-charge prior to the constitution of the NGT.” He explained further, “The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification of 2006 classifies industrial projects in two categories – A and B.
Any project site within a 10-km radius from a national park or a protected area, falls under category A, such as the case at Perungudi, and permission for a clearance could be obtained only from the Union Environment Ministry.
However, following an incorrect EIA report, the project was considered in category B all along.” The demand of our forum, is to close down the dumping yard as it affects the Pallikarnai marshland and has led to its deterioration over the years. “As per the wetland rules of 2011, ay landfill has to shut down within a period of six months, but no action has been taken against the facility,” he added. Unless the Corporation does not devise a concrete source segregation policy and set up Zonal level plans, the issue will persist.
Ritwick Dutta, counsel for the appellant, strongly argued against the clearance granted by the State Government and proved the EIA report, commissioned by a private consultant, concealed critical facts relating to the commissioning of the plant. “The issue needs to be viewed in terms of environmental governance and the consultants have concealed critical information in the EIA report, which is biased. The report should be nullified under charges of concealment of information,” he argued and appealed to the bench to frame criminal charges against the consultants.
On hearing both sides of the issue, Justice Ramulu, said, “When we entertained a doubt about the distance of this project from the Guindy National Park [GNP], we directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests/Chief Wildlife Warden to get the aerial distance [between the project site and the GNP] on October 18, 2011. Following which, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) and the Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW) submitted a report on November 25, 2011, stating that the distance between the two nearest points of project site and GNP to be as 5.6 km and 6.2 km.”
“Though the TNPCB tried to justify the distance to be beyond 10 kms and (distance measured along the road connecting the two areas), the case will be heard by the Union Ministry (Moef). The bench is in full agreement with the appellant that the report prepared and accepted by an authority with no jurisdiction cannot be accepted blindly to grant an environmental clearance (EC),” he added.
What is the National Green Tribunal?
The NGT, a multimember judicial body comprising of Judicial and technical members was set up in 2010 and became operational from July 4, 2011. The Chennai Bench has jurisdiction over the States of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. At present the NGT has two judicial members, Justice A.S Naidu, acting Chairperson and Justice C.V Ramulu, Judicial Member. In addition it has four technical members, Vijay Sharma, Devendra Agrawal, Professor N Nagendran and Dr G K Pandey.
The NGT has jurisdiction over Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Air Act and Water Act besides the Biological Diversity Act. Among the most significant powers of the NGT is with respect to the power to award compensation and damages to victims of environmental disasters and cost for restoration of the ecology.
Since its inception, the NGT has delivered significant orders/ judgments in a number of cases such as the order requiring mandatory radiation impact assessment for thermal power plants, the need for cumulative impact assessments for dams and proper cost benefit analysis. The NGT is presently hearing appeals against some of India’s most controversial and talked about projects such as Posco’s Steel plant in Orissa, the Lavasa project in Maharashtra, the Jaitapur Nuclear power plant at Maharashtra, the Lower Demwe Project in Arunachal Pradesh.
Nidhi Adlakha, Times Property, Chennai
Source: http://content.magicbricks.com/tamil-nadu-awaits-clearance-to-set-up-waste-management-plant
