TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court determines project start date, faults EIA process, mandates fresh EIA with accredited consultant.</h1> <h3>Bengaluru Development Authority Versus Sudhakar Hegde and Ors.</h3> Bengaluru Development Authority Versus Sudhakar Hegde and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Date of commencement of the PRR project.2. Applicability of the EIA Notification 2006.3. Compliance with the procedure under the EIA Notification 2006.4. Deficiencies in the EIA report.5. Accreditation of the EIA consultant.6. Forest land.7. Trees.8. Pipelines.9. Appraisal by the SEAC.10. Courts and the environment.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Date of Commencement of the PRR Project:The court had to determine whether the issuance of a preliminary notification under Section 17 of the BDA Act or a final notification under Section 19 marked the commencement of the project for the purposes of the 2006 Notification. The court concluded that the project commenced only upon the issuance of the final notification under Section 19 on 29 June 2007, which was after the 2006 Notification came into force. Thus, the contention that the project commenced prior to the 2006 Notification was rejected.2. Applicability of the EIA Notification 2006:The court addressed whether the PRR project fell within the scope of para 7(f) of the Schedule to the 2006 Notification, obliging the project proponent to seek a prior EC. It was determined that the PRR project, being an expressway, did fall within the ambit of para 7(f) of the Schedule. The court clarified that the term 'highways' in the 2006 Notification includes 'expressways' as per the amendment dated 1 December 2009.3. Compliance with the Procedure under the EIA Notification 2006:The court analyzed whether the EIA process followed by the appellant complied with the 2006 Notification. It was found that the ToR issued on 21 November 2009 had expired, and the primary data collected between December 2009 and February 2010 was outdated. The EIA report prepared in October 2014 was based on this expired data, violating the OMs issued by the MoEF-CC. The SEAC's decision to proceed with the EIA report despite the expired ToR was found to be unsustainable.4. Deficiencies in the EIA Report:The court noted significant deficiencies in the EIA report, including contradictions regarding the existence of forest land, the number of trees to be felled, and the failure to disclose the impact on the Thippagondanahalli Reservoir catchment area. The SEAC's recommendation to grant the EC despite these deficiencies was found to be flawed.5. Accreditation of the EIA Consultant:The court found that the EIA consultant, M/s. Ramky Enviro Engineers Pvt. Ltd., lacked accreditation for highway projects at the time of preparing the final EIA report. This was in contravention of the OM dated 2 December 2009, which mandated the use of accredited consultants for EIA processes.6. Forest Land:The court highlighted the appellant's failure to disclose the diversion of 1.5 hectares of forest land and obtain the requisite forest clearance. The appellant's attempt to remedy this failure post facto was deemed inadequate. The SEAC's recommendation to grant the EC without ensuring compliance with the forest clearance requirements was found to be a non-application of mind.7. Trees:The court noted the discrepancy in the number of trees proposed to be felled, with the appellant stating 200-500 trees while the Deputy Conservator of Forests indicated around 16,785 trees. This failure to disclose the true impact on tree cover was a significant lapse in the EIA process.8. Pipelines:The court addressed concerns regarding the potential crossover of the PRR project over petroleum pipelines. The appellant was directed to consult the requisite authority to ensure no potential damage to the pipelines.9. Appraisal by the SEAC:The court found that the SEAC's appraisal process was perfunctory and lacked detailed scrutiny. The SEAC failed to provide adequate reasons for recommending the grant of the EC, which is a mandatory requirement under the 2006 Notification.10. Courts and the Environment:The court emphasized the importance of a robust institutional framework for environmental governance. It highlighted the need for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions to ensure sustainable development. The court noted the failure of due process in the EIA process for the PRR project and the need for a balance between development and environmental protection.Directions:The court issued several directions under Article 142 of the Constitution, including conducting a fresh rapid EIA, hiring an accredited EIA consultant, ensuring compliance with various enactments, and consulting the requisite authority regarding the petroleum pipelines. The SEAC was directed to assess the rapid EIA report and recommend the grant of EC only if the appellant complied with the 2006 Notification and the court's directions. The court upheld the NGT's order directing a fresh rapid EIA and clarified that no other court or tribunal shall entertain any challenge to the SEAC or SEIAA's decision.
TaxTMI 