Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2020 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1392 - SUPREME COURTRejection of Environmental Clearance (EC) granted to the Appellant for the development of an eight lane Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) connecting Tumkur Road to Hosur Road and totaling a length of 65 kilometers - Whether the PRR project commenced prior to the coming into force of the 2006 Notification? - Whether the PRR project falls within the scope of para 7(f) of the Schedule to the 2006 Notification obliging the project proponent to seek a prior EC? - Whether the Appellant has complied with the conditions stipulated in the 2006 Notification and the OMs issued by the MoEF-CC from time to time? - HELD THAT:- Following directions are issued under Article 142 of the Constitution: (i) The Appellant is directed to conduct a fresh rapid EIA for the proposed PRR project; (ii) The Appellant shall, for the purpose of conducting the rapid EIA, hire a sector-specific accredited EIA consultant; (iii) The Appellant shall have due regard to the various deficiencies noted in the present judgment as well as ensure that additional precautions are taken to account for the prevailing state of the environment; (iv) The Appellant shall ensure that the requisite clearances under various enactments have been obtained and submitted to the SEAC prior to the consideration by it of the information submitted by the Appellant in accordance with the OMs issued by the MoEF-CC from time to time; (v) The SEAC shall thereafter assess the rapid EIA report and other information submitted to it by the Appellant in accordance with the role assigned to it under the 2006 Notification. If it is of the opinion that the Appellant has complied with the 2006 Notification as well as the directions issued by this Court, only then shall it recommend to the SEIAA the grant of EC for the proposed project. The SEAC and the SEIAA would lay down appropriate conditions concerning air, water, noise, land, biological and socioeconomic environment and other conditions it deems fit; and (vi) The Appellant shall consult the requisite authority to ensure that no potential damage is caused by the project to the petroleum pipelines over which the proposed road may be constructed. In moulding the above directions, this Court has factored into its decision-making calculus the fact that the appeal from the judgment of the NGT was filed by the project proponent and no appeal was filed by the Respondents. The order of the NGT directing the Appellant to conduct a rapid EIA is upheld - appeal disposed off.
|