9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m, the project, undertaken at the instance of Uttar Pradesh Government is a "huge unauthorized construction". The applicants state that a very large number of trees were cut down for clearing the ground for the project. The trees that were felled down for the project formed a "forest" as the term was construed by this Court in its order dated December 12, 1996 in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 267 and the action of the Uttar Pradesh Government in cutting down a veritable forest without the prior permission of the Central Government and this Court, was in gross violation of Section 2(ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereafter "the FC Act"). The project involved massive constructions that were made without any prior environmental clearance from the Central Government based on Environment Impact Assessment. The constructions were, therefore, in complete breach of the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter "the EP Act") and the notification issued under the Act. More importantly, the project was causing great harm, and was bound to further devastate the delicate and sensitive ecol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s haven for birds was declared a bird sanctuary ("the Okhla Bird Sanctuary") vide notification dated May 8, 1990 issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh under Section 18 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The project, subject of the present controversy, is sited in very close proximity to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary on its eastern side. The applicants refer to it as adjoining the left afflux bund of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary but to be accurate it lies about 35-50 metres away from the outer limit of the Sanctuary. According to the applicants, the boundary of the project site is as under: North- Delhi-UP DND Toll Road South- Not clearly stated East- Dadri Road West- Okhla Bird Sanctuary, left afflux bund i. The project is spread over an area of 33.43 hectares, equal to 334334.00 square metres of land surrounded by a boundary wall made of stone, 2 metres in height and 0.3 metres in thickness. The estimated cost of the project is Rupees 685 crores. ii. At the site of the project there used to be a tree cover, thin to high- moderate in density and for clearing the ground for the project six thousand one hundred and eighty six (6186) trees were cut down and one hundred and seve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 129140.80 (38.6%) 98544.99 (29.48%) aBoundaryWall 2700.79 (0.81%) 2700.79 (0.81%) bPlatforms, Plinths, Sculpture & Surrounding Paved Areas 126440.00 (37.79%) 95844.99 (29.48%) 3. Area for vehicular movement 34850.00 (10.42%) 0.00 (NIL) 4. Area under ornamental water feature (may be considered part of the Eco Friendly Area) 0.00 (NIL) 6302.00 (1.88%) 5. Area under parking with grass pavers (may be considered part of the Eco Friendly Area) 0.00 (NIL) 4241.00 (1.27%) 6. Utilities and Facilities 3500.00 (1.05%) 3500.00 (1.05%) 7. Memorial Building and Toilets 3499.50 (1.05%) 3499.50 (1.05%) 8. Total Area 334334.00 (100%) 334334.00 (100%) Under the amended plan, around 7300 trees, more than 4 years of age and measuring 8-12 feet in height, belonging to the native species such as Neem, Peepal, Pilkhan, Maulsari, Imli, Shisham, Mango, Litchi and Belpatra will be planted in the project area. 4. According to the State Government, the revised plan that includes planting of trees in such large numbers would not only restore the tree cover that was in existence at the site earlier but would make the whole area far better, more beautiful and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ject comprised a forest, the applicants rely heavily on the order passed by this Court on December 12, 1996 in the case of T.N Godavarman Thirumulkpad [Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995), (1997) 2 SCC 267], being the first in a series of landmark orders passed by this Court in an effort to save the fast diminishing forest cover of the country against the greedy and wanton plundering of its natural resources. In that order the Court gave a number of directions. One such direction, at serial No. 5 to each of the State Governments, is as under: Each State Government should constitute within one month an Expert Committee to: (i) Identify areas which are "forests", irrespective of whether they are so notified, recognized or classified under any law, and irrespective of the ownership of the land of such forest; (ii) identify areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared; and (iii) identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the Government and those belonging to private persons. 7. In pursuance of the direction of the Court, the Uttar Pradesh Government constituted the State Level Expert Committee for identifying forests and forest-like ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k started there. In light of the report by the CCF, the MoEF noted that the number of cut trees, in ratio to the project area, was apparently more than three times in excess of the criterion fixed by the State Level Expert Committee for identification of forest like areas (i.e., minimum of 50 trees per hectare). As suggested by the CCF, therefore, the MoEF called for a report from the FSI based on satellite imagery and properly analysed by GSI application from the year 2001 onwards (vide letter dated July 17, 2009 from the Dy. Conservator of Forest (C) to the Director, Forest Survey of India). The FSI gave its report on August 7, 2009 which we shall examine presently. In light of the report of the CCF and the report from the FSI, the MoEF in its first response to applicants' complaint before the CEC (under covering letter that is undated, received at the CEC on August 12, 2009) stated that at the project site "there was good patch of forests and which could be treated as deemed forest". It further said that the report of the FSI showed that the forest cover existed there up to 2006 and the felling of trees might have taken place after that only. 9. In the meeting convened by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that the project site was not a forest or a deemed forest or a forest-like area in terms of the order of this Court dated December 12, 1996. In its report to this Court dated September 4, 2009 it observed in this regard as follows: 28. ...In the present case, even though as per the Report of the Forest Survey of India, the area was having good forest/tree cover and the project area had more than 6000 trees, it does not fall in the category of "forest" for the purpose of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and therefore does not require any approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act. The project area does not have naturally grown trees but planted trees. The area has neither been notified as "forest" nor recorded as "forest" in the Government record. In the exercise carried out by the State of Uttar Pradesh, after detailed guidelines for identification of deemed forest were laid down, the project area was not identified to be deemed forest. The CEC does not agree with the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, MoEF, Lucknow that the plantation done in the area has naturalised because of natural regeneration and therefore now falls in the category of deemed forest. Mos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of U.P. strongly supported the view taken by the CEC. Learned Counsel submitted that the omission to identify the trees at the project site as forest or deemed forest was not due to any mistake or by chance. He pointed out that in the parameters set out by the State Level Expert Committee for identification of forests or forest-like areas it was clarified that "trees mean naturally grown perennial trees" and it was further stipulated that "the plantation done on public land or private land will not be identified as forest like area". Mr. Venugopal submitted that the guidelines made by the Expert Committee were reported to this Court and accepted by it on December 12, 2007. The project site clearly did not come within the parameters fixed by the Expert Committee and it was rightly not identified as a forest like area. The parameters fixed by the expert committee for identification of forests or forest like area were never challenged by anyone and now it was too late in the day to question those parameters, more so after those were accepted by this Court. Mr. Venugopal contended that the non inclusion of the projec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h in approximately 1/3 rd of the area interpreted by him as a dense cover of trees. 18. In support of the submissions learned Counsel relied greatly on the order passed by this Court on December 12, 1996 in the case of T.N Godavarman Thirumulkpad. He also relied upon the decisions of this Court in Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (1997) 8 SCC 191 (paragraphs 119, 120, 121, 123) and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 118 (paragraphs 55, 56, 57). 19. The point raised by Mr. Bhushan may be valid in certain cases but in the facts of the case his submissions are quite out of context. In support of the applicants' case that there used to be a forest at the project site he relies upon the report of the CCF based on site inspection and the Google image and most heavily on the FSI report based on satellite imagery and analysed by GSI application. A satellite image may not always reveal the complete story. Let us for a moment come down from the satellite to the earth and see what picture emerges from the government records and how things appear on the ground. 20. In the revenue records, none of the khasras (plots) falling in the project area was ever shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin to moderately dense tree cover over about half of the project site. But this fact is all but admitted; the State Government admits felling of over 6000 trees in 2008. How and when the trees came up there we have just seen with reference to the revenue and land acquisition proceedings records. Now, we find it inconceivable that trees planted with the intent to set up an urban park would turn into forest within a span of 10 to 12 years and the land that was forever agricultural, would be converted into forest land. One may feel strongly about cutting trees in such large numbers and question the wisdom behind replacing a patch of trees by large stone columns and statues but that would not change the trees into a forest or the land over which those trees were standing into forest land. 24. The decisions relied upon by Mr. Bhushan are also of no help in this case and on the basis of those decisions the trees planted in the project area can not be branded as "forest". 25. In order dated December 12, 1996 in Godavarman Thirumulkpad this Court held and observed as under: 3. It has emerged at the hearing, that there is a misconception in certain quarters about the true scope of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay. 26. In the above order the Court mainly said three things: one, the provisions of the FC Act must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification of the forest; two, the word "forest" must be understood according to its dictionary meaning and three, the term "forest land", occurring in Section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. The order dated December 12, 1996 indeed gives a very wide definition of "forest". But any definition howsoever wide relates to a context. There can hardly be a legal definition, in terms absolute, and totally independent of the context. The context may or may not find any articulation in the judgment or the order but it is always there and it is discernible by a careful analysis of the facts and circumstances in which the definition was rendered. In the order the Court said "The term 'forest lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia and Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 118, in the paragraphs relied upon by Mr. Bhushan, this Court was considering the question of permitting mining in Aravalli Hills where large scale afforestation was done by spending crores of rupees of foreign funding in an effort to repair the deep ravages caused to the Aravalli Hills range over the years by mostly illegal mining. The context is once again evident. 30. Almost all the orders and judgments of this Court defining "forest" and "forest land" for the purpose of the FC Act were rendered in the context of mining or illegal felling of trees for timber or illegal removal of other forest produce or the protection of National Parks and wild life sanctuaries. In the case in hand the context is completely different. Hence, the decisions relied upon by Mr. Bhushan can be applied only to an extent and not in absolute terms. To an extent Mr. Bhushan is right in contending that a man made forest may equally be a forest as a naturally grown one. He is also right in contending that non forest land may also, with the passage of time, change its character and become forest land. But this also cannot be a rule of universal application and must be examined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not covered by the schedule of the notification No. S.O.1533 (E) dated September 14, 2006 issued by the Government of India. 34. Before the CEC, the MoEF in its first response dated August 22/24, 2009 took the stand that the project would not require any prior environmental clearance under the EIA notification 2006. It further stated that in the EIA notification 2006, all building/ construction projects/ area development projects and townships, were categorized as category 'B' projects and the 'general condition' prescribed in the notification was not applicable to construction projects. It went on to say that the project did not require any prior environmental clearance under the EIA notification 2006 even though "being within the prescribed distance from a wildlife sanctuary/national park or inter-state boundary". It needs to be stated here that the first response of the MoEF before he CEC was evidently based on the inputs received from the UP Government about the nature of the project and the extent of constructions involved in it. 35. In the second response before the CEC dated September 2, 2009 the MoEF did not appear so sure of its earlier stand. It stated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of facilities open to the sky, the activity area is to be included in the built up area. In the present case, after including the activity area the total built up area, for the purpose of environmental clearance, far exceeds the threshold limit of 20,000 sq. meter of built up area provided in the Notification. The MoEF, on its own admission, has merely relied on the details of the built up area as provided by the State Government without independently verifying it and has not included the area falling in the category of activity area. In any case, even if there was any doubt in the MoEF regarding the applicability of the environmental clearance in the present case, in view of precautionary principle it should have erred on the side of the caution and should have insisted for the environmental clearance. 37. When the matter finally came up before the Court the MoEF was once again asked to take a clear stand on the issue whether the project was covered by the EIA notification 2006. The MoEF filed a brief affidavit on October 21, 2009 in which it acknowledged that the CEC in its report dated September 4, 2006 had stated that the State of UP should be directed to seek enviro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the project. 40. The MoEF filed yet another affidavit before the Court on August 19, 2010 in which it tried to explain the distinction between clauses 8(a) and 8(b) in the schedule to the EIA notification, 2006 without changing its stand that the project in question did not come within the ambit of the notification. 41. In course of the oral hearing as well, Mr. Raval, learned ASG, firmly maintained that the project did not come under the notification and no prior environmental clearance was required for it under the notification. 42. Mr. Harish Salve, learned amicus curiae and Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Counsel appearing for the applicants, both staunchly contended that the stand of the MoEF was patently wrong and incorrect. The project clearly fell within the ambit of the EIA notification 2006. The CEC had taken the correct view on the issue. And to start the construction of the project and take it into an advanced stage of construction without obtaining prior environmental clearance from the Central Government was in blatant violation of the provisions of the notification. Mr. Salve also criticized the Central Government for taking a shifting and inconsistent stand on the issue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or activity: i All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification; (ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification with addition of capacity beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector, that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold limits given in the Schedule, after expansion or modernization; (iii) Any change in product - mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in Schedule beyond the specified range. 3. xxxxxx 4. Categorization of projects and activities: (i) All projects and activities are broadly categorized in to two categories - Category A and Category B, based on the spatial extent of potential impacts and potential impacts on human health and natural and man made resources. (ii) All projects or activities included as Category 'A' in the Schedule, including expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities and change in product mix, shall require prior environmental clearance from the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) on the recommendations of an Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) to be const ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... built up area for covered construction; in the case of facilities open to the sky, it will be the activity area ) 8(b) Townships and Area Development projects. Covering an area ? 50 ha and or built up area ? 1,50,000 sq .mtrs ++ ++All projects under Item 8(b) shall be appraised as Category B1 Note: General Condition (GC): Any project or activity specified in Category 'B' will be treated as Category A, if located in whole or in part within 10 km from the boundary of: (i) Protected Areas notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, (ii) Critically Polluted areas as notified by the Central Pollution Control Board from time to time, (iii) Notified Eco-sensitive areas, (iv) inter-State boundaries and international boundaries." Specific Condition (SC): xxxxxx (I) Basic Information xxxxxx (II) Activity 1. Construction, operation or decommissioning of the Project involving actions, which will cause physical changes in the locality (topography, land use, changes in water bodies, etc.) S. No. Information/Checklist confirmation Yes/No Details thereof (with approximate quantities /rates, wherever possible) with source of information data 1.1 Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he schedule to the notification has a table that is divided into five columns. The first column contains the serial numbers, and the second the description of the project or activities; the third column lists those projects or activities that fall in category 'A' and the fourth, those falling in category 'B'; the fifth column against each item indicates whether any general or specific condition applies to the project or activity described in that item. In some cases where the project or the activity is shown in column 4 as category 'B', the application of the general condition is expressly indicated in column 5 of the table. 46. For the project under consideration, the relevant entries in the schedule are 8(a) and 8(b). Both items 8 (a) and 8 (b) are listed in column 4, i.e., in category 'B'. In column 5, against any of the two items, there is no mention of application of the general condition but it is expressly said that all projects in item 8(b) would be appraised as category 'B1', that is to say, for a project under item 8(b) the prior environmental clearance must be preceded by an environmental impact assessment. 47. Item 8(a) deals wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a). The application of the general condition would take the project out of category 'B' and put it in category 'A' for which the competent authority to grant prior environmental clearance is the MoEF. He then referred to the office memo dated December 2, 2009 issued by the MoEF which in course of hearing was, in all fairness, produced by Mr. Raval, learned ASG, appearing for the MoEF. The office memorandum inter alia provides that ".....while granting environmental clearance to projects involving forestland, wildlife habitat (core one of elephant/tiger reserve, etc.) and or located within 10km of the National Park/ Wildlife Sanctuary (at present the distance of 10km has been taken in conformity with the order dated 4.12.2006 in Writ Petition No. 460 of 2004 in the matter of Goa Foundation v. Union of India), a specific condition shall be stipulated that the environmental clearance is subject to their obtaining prior clearance from forestry and wildlife angle including clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife as applicable.... Mr. Bhushan submitted that the project under consideration thus does not only require a prior environmental cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olumn 5 of the table. Later on, in a meeting held on July 6, 2006, chaired by none else than the Prime Minister, it was decided to leave all construction and township projects, housing and area development projects in the hands of the State Government. It was further decided that for all projects involving more than 1,50,000 square metres of built up area and/or covering more than 50 hectares, the EIS requirements should correspond to category 'A, even though the clearance would be granted by the State Government. Mr. Raval submitted that in light of the decision taken in that meeting, in the final notification issued on September 14, 2006, the application of general condition was removed in respect of items 8(a) and 8(b) in the schedule. In view of the changes made in the two items in the final notification, Mr. Raval also contended that the general condition has no application to items 8(a) and 8(b), regardless of the project's proximity to any sanctuary or reserved area. 52. But before considering the latter three limbs of Mr. Bhushan's arguments it is necessary to examine whether the project in question can be legitimately categorized as a Building and Construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p area would fall within the ambit of the notification, whereas a project with a larger built-up area would escape the rigours of the notification. 54. The amicus, also arguing in the same vein, submitted that as far as building and construction projects are concerned there was no qualitative difference in items 8(a) and 8(b) of the schedule to the notification. A combined reading of the two clauses of item 8 of the schedule would show the continuity in the two provisions; 1,50,000 square metres of built up area that was the upper limit in item 8(a) was the threshold marker in item 8(b). This clearly meant that building and construction projects with built-up area/activity area between 20000 square metres to 1,50,000 square metres would fall in category 8 (a) and projects with built up area of 1,50,000 square metres or more would fall in category 8 (b). The amicus further submitted that though it was not expressly stated, the expression "Built Up area" in item 8(b) must get the same meaning as in item 8(a), that is to say, if the construction had facilities open to sky the whole of the "activity area" must be deemed to constitute the "built-up area". 55. It is extremely difficult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not come up to the threshold marker inasmuch as the total area of the project (33.43 hectares) is less than 50 hectares and its built-up area even if the hard landscaped area and the covered areas are put together comes to 1,05,544.49 square metres, i.e., much below the threshold marker of 1,50,000 square metres. 58. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that the project does not fall within the ambit of the EIA notification S.O. 1533(E) dated September 14, 2006. This is not to say that this is the ideal or a very happy outcome but that is how the notification is framed and taking any other view would be doing gross violence to the scheme of the notification. 59. Since it is held that the project does not come within the ambit of the notification, the other three arguments based on the activity area, the application of general condition and the application of the office memorandum dated December 2, 2009 become irrelevant and need not be gone into in this case. THE PROJECT AND THE OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY: 60. Mr. Bhushan next raised the issue of the project being located virtually adjoining the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. The very close proximity of the project site to the bird ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the necessary guidelines for the purpose. On behalf of the State of UP, reference was made to a meeting called by the Director General of Forests and Special Secretary, MoEF on May 13, 2010. In that meeting it was decided that the Director General of Forests, MoEF would constitute a committee of officers to finalize the guidelines for declaration of eco-sensitive zones. A reference was also made to a subsequent meeting held on July 4, 2010 at Lucknow in which the attention of the Government of India was drawn to the decision taken in the earlier meeting. Yet, no guidelines were issued by the Government of India so far. 64. The CEC in its report to the Court dated September 4, 2009 put the blame on the State Government of UP for its omission to identify the Eco-sensitive zones but like the MoEF seemed to accept that in the absence of a decision/notification there was no legal bar against the construction of the project on the ground that it was sited adjacent to the bird sanctuary. In its report to the Court, the CEC observed as follows: 32. The issue regarding identification/notification of Eco-Sensitive Zone around the National Park and Sanctuaries is presently pending for con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticular reference to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. For, in the jurisprudence developed by this Court Environment is not merely a statutory issue. Environment is one of the facets of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 463, M.C. Mehta and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1988 SC 1115, Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangarsh Samiti v. State of U.P. AIR 1990 SC 2060, Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420, Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 577, B.L. Wadehra v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 594, Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2715, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718, Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 664, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India : (2002) 10 SCC 606, Ramji Patel v. Nagrik Upbhokta Marg Darshak Manch (2000) 3 SCC 29, State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 389. Environment is, therefore, a matter directly under the Constitution and if the Court perceives any project or activity as harmful or injurious to the environment it would feel obliged to step in. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the water bodies and peripheral marshy vegetation and were not nesting or roosting on the trees of the adjacent parks. The extent of terrestrial habitat is the sanctuary is very small or insignificant. * The entire development works including removal of trees and construction had taken place outside the boundary of the sanctuary and the construction and felling of trees in the project site has not altered or interfered with the wetland ecosystem of the OBS and the area was undisturbed. * The birds in the wetland of Okhla Bird Sanctuary are estimated during the month of January by the Wildlife Wing of U.P. Forest Department during winter, which is the period for the migratory birds. The estimation of birds are as under: 2007-08: 17,111 2008-09: 21,272 2009-10: 22,004 * The clearing of the project site for construction and landscaping was started in the month of the January, 2008 and continued till 9th October, 2009. The bird estimates during migratory season clearly shows that there has been no reduction in the number of birds in the sanctuary despite developmental activities in the park. This clearly shows that the construction and felling of trees in the project site h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain mitigation measures (see Paper book Volume IV, page 134) that would form part of this judgment. 73. The IIT, New Delhi in its review of the report prepared by the group of three people does not record any serious negative finding in regard to the effects that the project may have on the Sanctuary. 74. Finally, the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) constituted by the Government of India, MoEF in its 88th meeting held on June 28-29, 2010, reviewed the project in question in light of the aforementioned reports and made a number of recommendations (Paper book Volume III, page 32) that would form part of this judgment. 75. It is significant to note that none of the expert bodies has taken the view that the project is so calamitous or ruinous for the bird sanctuary that it needs to be altogether scrapped in order to save the Sanctuary. The expert bodies have given recommendations which allow the completion of the project subject to certain conditions. On behalf of the State of U.P. it is unequivocally stated that all the conditions laid in the reports of the Expert Bodies are acceptable to the State Government/NOIDA in their entirety. In light of the two study reports and the repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... form precedent when the court is hearing the matter of the "buffer zones". 79. Before putting down the records of the case a few observations may not be out of place. The EIA notification dated September 14, 2006 urgently calls for a close second look by the concerned authorities. The projects/activities under items 8(a) and 8(b) of the schedule to the notification need to be described with greater precision and clarity and the definition of built-up area with facilities open to the sky needs to be freed from its present ambiguity and vagueness. The question of application of the general condition to the projects/activities listed in the schedule also needs to be put beyond any debate or dispute. We would also like to point out that the environmental impact studies in this case were not conducted either by the MoEF or any organization under it or even by any agencies appointed by it. All the three studies that were finally placed before the Expert Appraisal Committee and which this Court has also taken into consideration, were made at the behest of the project proponents and by agencies of their choice. This Court would have been more comfortable if the environment impact studies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
