BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 22/09/2005
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN
Writ Petition No. 4655 of 2005
Writ Petition No.7020 of 2005
and
WPMP No. 4984 and 7625 of 2005
Kamatchi. .. Petitioner in both W.Ps.
Vs.
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Chennai.
2. The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
3. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board,
6/26, Gangai Street,
Madurai Road, Virudhunagar.
4. M/s. Regency Power Corporation Ltrd.,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033,
Andhra Pradesh.
.. Respondents in W.P.No.4655/2005.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary,
The Environment and Forest Department,
St. George Fort, Chennai.
2. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Chennai.
3. The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
4. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board,
6/26, Gangai Street,
Madurai Road, Virudhunagar.
5. M/s. Regency Power Corporation Ltrd.,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500 033,
Andhra Pradesh.
.. Respondents in W.P.No.7020/2005.
Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India (i) to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from
permitting the 4th respondent to commission the power plant at Kalugooranii
village, Ramanathapuram District, without conducting public hearing afresh in
accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 487 Environment and Forest (EC III) dated 22-12-1997
so as to enable the residents of the village to put forth their objections; and
(ii) to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order
passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings L.R.No.T11/TNPCB/f.792/RMD/2005
dated 28-06-2005 granting no objection certificate for setting up of Thermal
Power Plant and quash the same as illegal.
!For petitioner in both WPs : Mr. M. Ajmal Khan.
^For respondents : Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Senior counsel
for Mrs. Rita Chandrasekar for Pollution Control
Board.
Mr. S. Karthikeyan for R-5
in Writ Petition.7020/2005, and for R-4 in
Writ Petition.4655 of 2005.
Mr. C. Selvaraj, Govt.,Advocate
for R1 and R3 in W.P.7020/2005; and for R-2 in
W.P.No.4655/2005.
:COMMON ORDER
(Order of Court was made by P. Sathasivam, J.,)
By consent of all the parties, these writ petitions are taken up
for disposal. In W.P.No.4655/2005 one Kamatchi, an agriculturist and resident
of Kalugoorani village, Ramanathapuram District seeks to issue a writ of
Mandamus forbearing Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, District Collector and
District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Virudhunagar from permitting Messrs. Regency Power Corporation Ltd., to
commission power plant at Kalugoorani village, Ramanathapuram District without
conducting public hearing afresh in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 487 Environment
and Forest (EC III) dated 22-12-1997 so as to enable the residents of the
village to put forth their objections.
2. The very same petitioner in W.P.No.7020/2005 challenges the order
passed by Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai in his
proceedings L.R.No.T11/TNPCB/f.792/RMD/2005 dated 28-6-2005, granting no
objection certificate for setting up of Thermal Power Plant and quash the same
as illegal.
3. The case of the petitioner in both the writ petitions are
briefly stated hereunder:
According to him, Kalugoorani is a small village situate on the
Ramanathapuram-Rameshwaram Road in Ramanathapuram District. The entire village
depends on agriculture. The village has a plenty of good ground water. The
villagers have come to know of setting up of Thermal power plant by M/s. Regency
Power Corporation Limited, a private limited company at Kalugoorani village.
The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Virudhunagar published a public notice in the Newspaper for a public hearing
scheduled to be held on 15-4-2005 in the Office of the District Collector. The
said public notice invited objections, if any from the general public against
setting up of power plant at Kalugoorani village. M/s. Regency Power
Corporation Limited appears to have purchased land to an extent of 7.99 hectares
in various survey numbers at Kalugoorani village, Ramanathapuram Taluk with an
intent to set up natural gas based Thermal Power Plant in the said village. The
proposed site for Thermal Power plant situates within the vicinity of
residential locality, thus exposing danger to the residents of Kalugoorani
village. In the event of allowing to set up power plant, the agriculture, the
only occupation of the villagers will be affected. Hence, the petitioner and
other residents of that village attended the public hearing on 15-3-2005.
However, on account of protest from the villagers leading to a mess, the
District Collector closed the public hearing abruptly and announced the
participants that no decision will be taken against the interest of the
villagers.
4. The public hearing is mandatory in so far as the industries
or projects covered in Schedule (I) of Environmental Impact Assessment
Notification, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as EIA Notification). The State
Government in furtherance of the said notification issued in G.O.Ms.No. 487
Environmental and Forest (EC.III) dated 22-12-1997 constituting a public hearing
panel for Ramanathapuram District. The panel consists of Joint Chief
Environmental Engineer/District Environmental Engineer, District Collector,
Deputy Secretary/Under Secretary to Government (Environmental and Forest
Department) and Director of Environment and 5 persons including M.L.A. and the
President of Panchayat. In the public hearing conducted by the District
Collector on 15-3-2005, the District Collector, Director of Environmental
Engineer and 3 persons from the locality alone were participated and the
Director of Environment and the Deputy Secretary to the Government being members
of the public hearing panel were conspicuous by their absence. Further, the
public hearing was terminated immediately on the protest from the villagers.
However, the Government and the Pollution Control Board were influenced by the
Regency Power Corporation for issuance of clearance certificate. At this state,
the petitioner filed W.P.No. 4655/2005. Pending disposal of the said writ
petition, the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai in
his proceedings dated 28-6-2005 granted no objection certificate for setting up
of Thermal Power Plant with capacity 58 M.W. To produce Electrical Energy at
Kalugoorani village. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed the
subsequent writ petition, namely, W.P.No. 7020/2005. Though the District
Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board/4th respondent in
W.P.No.7020/2005 submitted a report dated 28-03-2005 that if the Thermal Power
Plant is put up at the same location without any modification, it shall give
hindrance to the public life. The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution
Control Board has chosen to issue no objection certificate to Regency Power
Corporation. The Pollution Control Board has not complied with the Government
Order in respect of public hearing and granted permission to locate the power
plant which is situated in residential locality of Bharathidhasan Nagar; hence
grant of no objection certificate without considering the village of the public
is illegal and liable to be quashed.
5. Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has
filed a counter affidavit for himself and for Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution
Control Board in W.P.No. 4655/2005 wherein it is stated that the Unit of M/s.
Regency Power Corporation Limited, Kalugoorani, Ramanathapuram Taluk is a
proposed Natural Gas based Power plant. The unit has applied for the consent of
the Board on 03-01-2005 and furnished the additional particulars on 10-02-2005.
Since the Unit is a Thermal power plant with investment of Rs.185.40 crores, it
attracts the provisions of the EIA Notification, 1994. As per the said
notification amended on 10-4-1997 public hearing has been made as mandatory for
the projects attracting the EIA Notification. As per the procedure, the Tamil
Nadu Pollution Control Board caused notice for environmental public hearing
which was published in two news papers viz., Indian Express and Dinathanthi on
12-2-2005. The public hearing meeting was held on 15-3-2005 at 3.30 P.M. at
District Collector’s chamber, Ramanathapuram. The Government of Tamil Nadu in
its G.O.Ms.No. 487 Environment and Forests (EC-III) Department dated 22-12-1997
and Government letter No. 75 E and F (EC-3) Department dated 21-3-1998 had
constituted public hearing panels for each districts in Tamil Nadu. The
Government of Tamil Nadu in its G.O.Ms.No. 37 Environment and Forests Department
(EC-3) dated 18-2-2002 constituted the revised Committee for Public Hearing
Panel for Ramanathapuram District among other districts in supersession of the
orders issued in G.O., dated 22-12-1997 and Government letter dated 21-3-1998.
The public hearing on 15-3-2005 for the unit of M/s. Regency Power Corporation
Limited was conducted by the Public hearing panel reconstituted vide G.O., dated
18-2-2002. The public hearing panel has completed the said public hearing and
furnished the minutes of the said hearing to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control
Board. The public hearing was conducted and completed as per the procedure
stipulated in the EIA Notification. The subject to grant of ‘NOC’ to the said
unit was placed before the Board along with the minutes of the public hearing in
its meeting on 22-6-2005. The Board resolved to approve the grant of NOC to the
unit subject to the conditions and one of the conditions is that the unit shall
leave a buffer zone of 150 metres from the Bharadasan Nagar and Kalugoorani
habitation. As per the EIA Notification as amended on 10-4-1997, the unit has to
obtain environmental clearance from the State Government. Consent for
establishment will be issued to the unit only after the unit obtains the
environmental clearance and furnishes the same to the Board and hence consent
for establishment has not been issued to the unit.
6. Member Secretary, Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai-
32 has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the Pollution Control Board and
District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Virudhunagar in W.P.No. 7020/2005. Apart from the information furnished in the
counter filed in W.P.No. 4655/2005, the Member Secretary has stated that the
public hearing was conducted for the unit of M/s. Regency Power Corporation
Limited on 15-3-2005 by the public hearing panel panel reconstituted vide G.O.
Dated 18-2-2002. In the said meeting, Thiru K. Sellamuthu, I.A.S., District
Collector, Ramanathapuram, Thiru C. Muthukani, District Environmental Engineer
in-charge Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Virudhunagar, Dr. T. Aravindaraj,
Thiru M. Jeyakumar, Municipal Councillor, Ramanathapuram, Thiru S.P. Kalimuthu,
Chairman, Kamudhi Panchayat Union and Thiru M.K.K. Thangamarakkayar alias Se-Ku,
Abdul Kadar, Chairman, Mandapam Town Panchayat participated. The unit requires
245 KLD of water for its activities. It had identified a water drawal source at
S.No. 60 Achundavayal village which is about 14 KM away from the project site.
The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Ground Water Division,
Karaikudi has recommended that the said source is suitable for bore location.
The unit has been stipulated to provide mechanical evaporator to dispose the
R.O. Reject. The unit proposes to treat the other sources of effluent and
utilise on land for irrigation. The unit uses natural gas as fuel. Hence the
level of air pollutants suspended particulate matter and sulphur dioxide will be
less. However, there will be oxides of nitrogen in its emission. The unit
proposes to control the said emission by water spraying and through the process
control.
7. The southern side of the unit Kalugoorani village is located
at a distance of about 110m. At the north eastern side Bharahidasan Nagar hamlet
is located at the boundary. At the west direction coconut trees and irrigation
fields are located. At the northern direction paddy fields, irrigation lands are
located. At the eastern direction, agricultural lands are located. The
respondent unit proposes a buffer zone around the unit’s boundary to develop
green belt. The Board resolved to approve the grant of NOC to the unit subject
to the conditions and one of the conditions is that the unit shall leave a
buffer zone of 150 metres from the Bharathidasan Nagar and Kalugoorani
habitation. The Board issued ‘NOC’ to the unit vide letter dated 28-6-2005. As
per the EIA Notification, the unit has to obtain environmental clearance from
the State Government. The public hearing had been conducted as stipulated in the
EIA Notification. Based on the views expressed in the public hearing, the
respondent unit has been requested to furnish additional particular. After, the
unit assured to provide buffer zone around the unit, the subject was placed
before the Board and the Board resolved to approve the grant of NOC.
8. The authorised signatory of M/s. Regency Power Corporation filed
a counter affidavit reiterating the steps taken by them.
9. Heard Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner in
both the writ petitions; Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel for Pollution
Control Board and Environmental Engineer; Mr. C. Selvaraj, learned Government
Advocate for Government and District Collector, Ramanathapuram; and Mr. S.
Karthikeyan, learned counsel for M/s. Regency Power Corporation, Hyderabad.
10. Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, after taking us through the relevant particulars, raised the
following contentions:
Considering the nature of the unit being established by the Regency Power
Corporation, the Government/District Collector and the Pollution Control Board
have to conduct public hearing in the manner as provided under Environmental
Impact Assessment Notification (EIA Notification), 1994, issued under G.O.Ms.No.
487 – Environment and Forests (EC-III)Department dated 22-12-1997. Since no
effective public hearing was held and in accordance with the said Government
Order, the grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’ (‘NOC’ in short) in favour of
Regency Power Corporation cannot be sustained. He also contended that the
Government and the Pollution Control Board have to take note of the complaints
of the residents of the locality of their right to life guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution of India. The Pollution Control Board failed to take
note of their report dated 28-3-2005 of their own officer, namely, District
Environmental Engineer before granting ‘NOC’. On the other hand, Mr. A.L.
Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board,
would submit that public hearing panel was constituted as per the Government
Order and hearing was held on 15-3-2005 in the chamber of the District
Collector. He also contended that the objection raised by the District
Environmental Engineer have been forwarded to the Regency Power Corporation and
on their assurance that buffer zone of 150 metres from Bharathidasan Nagar and
Kalugoorani habitation will be provided, the Board issued NOC. He also
submitted that in addition to the same, the unit has to obtain environmental
clearance from the State Government and consent for establishment will be issued
to the unit only after the unit obtained the environmental clearance and
furnished the same to the Board. According to him, there is no merit in both
the writ petitions. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State
Government and the District Collector reiterated the same. Learned counsel
appearing for the Regency Power Corporation also highlighted that the public
hearing panel was validly constituted, that the objections in the public hearing
were considered and in the light of the fulfillment of various conditions by the
unit, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board granted ‘NOC’ subject to further
condition of obtaining environmental clearance from the State Government; hence
there is no basis with regard to the apprehension raised by the petitioner.
11. We have carefully considered the relevant materials and the
rival contentions.
12. The main points to be considered are:
(i) Whether public hearing was conducted in the manner as provided under
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 1994 issued under G.O.Ms.No. 487
Environment and Forests Department dated 22-12-1997?
(ii) Whether the public hearing held on 15-03-2005 satisfies/fulfills the
conditions prescribed in the Notification; and
(iii) Whether Pollution Control Board is justified in granting ‘NOC’ in
the light of the report dated 28-06-2005?
13. The Government of India considering the importance of the
environment, amended the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 1994 (“EIA
Notification” in short) in and by which public hearing has been made as
mandatory for all the projects covered in Schedule I of the said Notification.
Powers have been delegated to State Department of Environment for issue of
environmental clearance to those categories of Thermal Power Plants which has
been listed in Schedule I of the Notification. The amended Notification will
apply to all projects which are received after 10th April, 1997. In order
to have proper assessment of the project, after obtaining the views of the
general public, the Government of India inter alia, amended the EIA Notification
dated 10th April, 1997 for giving effect to public hearing as mandatory for all
the projects covered in Schedule I of the EIA Notification, with effect from 10-
4-1997. In the amended Notification, the Government of India have detailed the
composition of the Public Hearing Panel in the districts, process for Public
Hearing, Notice of Public Hearing and access to the executive summary. The
composition of public Hearing Panel consists of the following:
i) Representative of State Pollution Control
Board;
ii) District Collector or his nominee;
iii) Representative of State Government
dealing with the subject;
iv) Representative of Department of the State
Government dealing with Environment;
v) Not more than three representative of the
local bodies such as Municipalities or
Panchayat;
vi) Not more than three senior citizens of the
area nominated by the District Collector.
14. The State Government in furtherance of the EIA Notification
issued in G.O.Ms.No. 487, Environment and Forests, dated 22-12-1997, constituted
a Public Hearing Panel for Ramanathapuram District. The panel consists of,
i) Joint Chief Environmental Engineer-
District Environmental Engineer;
ii) District Collector;
iii) Deputy Secretary/Under Secretary to the
Government, Environment and Forest Department;
iv) Director of Environment;
v) 5 persons including M.L.A. and President of
the Panchayat.
As observed earlier, since the Unit, namely, Regency Power Corporation is a
Thermal Power Plant with investment of Rs.185.40 Crores, it attracts the
provisions of the EIA Notification, 1994. It is not in dispute that as per the
said Notification, amended on 10-4-1997, public hearing has been made as
mandatory for the projects attracting EIA Notification. As per the procedure for
public hearing as laid down in the Schedule IV of the said notification, the
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board caused notice for public hearing which was
published in two newspapers on 12-2-2005. The public hearing meeting was held
on 15-3-2005 at 3.30 P.M. at District Collector’s Chamber, Ramanathapuram. The
following members of the public hearing panel had participated in the said
public hearing:
i) Thiru K. Sellamuthu, I.A.S.,
District Collector,
Ramanathapuram.
ii) Thiru C. Muthukani, M.E.,
District Environmental Engineer i/c,
Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board,
Virudhunagar.
iii) Dr. T. Aravindaraj, M.D.,
M/s. Kanagamani Clinic,
Ramanathapuram.
iv) Thiru M. Jeyakumar,
Municipal Councilor,
Ramanathapuram.
v) Thiru S.P. Kalimuthu,
Chairman,
Kamudhi Panchayat Union.
vi) Thiru M.K.K. Thangamarakkayar alias
Se-Ku, Abdul Kadar,
Chairman, Mandapam Town Panchayat.
Admittedly, the Director of Environment and the Deputy Secretary to the
Government being the Members of the public hearing panel were absent. Though
the State of Tamil Nadu, Environmental and Forest Department is made as a first
respondent and the District Collector as a third respondent in W.P.No.
7020/2005, there is no explanation at all for the absence of these two persons,
namely, Director of Environment and Deputy Secretary to the Government. No
doubt, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for Pollution Control
Board, submitted that merely because two persons of the committee were absent,
the decision taken on 15-3-2005 cannot be faulted with. We are unable to accept
the said contention. We have already referred to the fact that as per the EIA
Notification as amended by the Government of India, constitution of public
hearing panel is a mandatory for project clearance and it is but proper the
grievance of public should be heard in the presence of the officers of the
concerned departments. The absence of Director of Environment and the Deputy
Secretary to the Government of the concerned department cannot be viewed lightly
in the light of the nature of the project and importance of safety and
environment of the persons residing in and around the project. As said earlier,
there is no explanation at all by the State Government and the District
Collector, Ramanathapuram for the absence of the two members of public hearing
panel in the public hearing conducted by the District Collector on 15-3-2005.
15. Another relevant aspect highlighted by the petitioner is that
the public hearing that was held on 15-03-2005 at the Collectorate was
terminated immediately on the protest by the villagers. It is also the claim of
the petitioner that the official respondents were influenced by the Regency
Power Corporation with issue of clearance certificate to them. It is also
brought to our notice that in Writ Petition No. 4655 of 2005 the very same
petitioner sought for a Mandamus forbearing the respondents from permitting the
4th respondent to commission the power plant without conducting public hearing
afresh in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 487 dated 22-12-1997 to enable the
residents of the village to put-forth their objections, for which the official
respondents though entered appearance informed this Court that no decision was
taken on the public hearing and therefore no clearance certificate was issued to
the unit. While so, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the Member
Secretary, Pollution Control Board had issued NOC in favour of the Unit on 28-6-
2005 for setting up of Thermal Power Plant. A perusal of the File produced by
the Pollution Control Board also shows that on the date of public hearing i.e.,
on 15-3-2005, large number of public turned out and protested against the
proposed setting up of thermal power plant in their village Kalugoorani. The
File also discloses that the meeting, conducted on 15-3-2005, was terminated
abruptly. In such a circumstance, it is not clear what was the decision taken
by the Public Hearing Panel after deliberation on 15-3-2005; and whether the
objections raised by the public were duly considered or not? The Pollution
Control Board has filed a counter affidavit stating that the Public Hearing
Panel had submitted its report and based on the Minutes found therein, the Board
granted ‘NOC’ in favour of the Unit for setting up of thermal power plant. We
have already referred to the fact that though the Public Hearing Panel was
constituted in accordance with the EIA Notification, there is no explanation on
the side of the Government for the absence of the two Members/Officers of the
concerned departments. In the light of the above details, particularly the
absence of two Members in the Public Hearing Panel, the serious allegation that
public hearing was terminated abruptly on the protest from the villagers on 15-
3-2005 as well as absence of details regarding the decision taken in the public
hearing, we sustain the objection raised by the petitioner and hold that the
public hearing, which is mandatory as per the EIA Notification, was not fully
complied with and implemented by the District Collector, who is the monitoring
authority.
16. It is relevant to note that after the Public Hearing Panel
meeting, Thiru C. Muthukani, District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu
Pollution Control Board, Virudhunagar, who also participated in the public
hearing, has sent a detailed letter No. DEE/TNPCBd/VNR/F RL-9/2005 dated 28-3-
2005 to the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai-32,
pointing out certain apprehension and doubts regarding the proposed project.
After narrating the details furnished by the Unit namely Regency Power
Corporation regarding the proposed project, views of the other departments,
including Forest and Agriculture, and the objection of the public who
participated, he has concluded thus:
“On hearing the public’s views the Public Hearing members are on
the conclusion that the public of Kalugoorani Village are objecting to the
location of the unit.
Also, I submit the following technical informations for kind
perusal.
i) The unit may generate 1.50 KLD of sewage
and 37.0 KLD of trade effluent
ii) The cost of the project is Rs.184.5 Crores.
iii) The raw water required for the project is
245 KLD. The unit has informed that the
water will be obtained by digging bore
wells at available locations even away
from the project site.
iv) The unit has proposed to install 3 Nos. of
machineries for power production (please
see unit’s letter dt.26-2-2005)
v) The unit has proposed to provide treatment
systems for sewage and trade effluent
vi) Even though the River Vaigai is passing
at a distance of about 740 m, the river
source has been exempted vide Lr.MS.No.
181 E & F, dt. 19-11-03 of the Secretary
to Government, E & F (EC-III) Dept.,
Secretariat, Chennai as this thermal power
unit has proposed to utilize only Natural
gas as fuel.
vii) The unit has furnished Patta Transfer
Order obtained from Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
Ramnad instead of land ownership documents.
viii) The unit has proposed to provide Rain
Water Harvesting system
ix) The unit has earmarked the boundary of the
unit by fixing coloured stones especially
at the village sides and hence area
earmarked for the unit’s activity is
well defined.
x) From the boundary no distance is available
from the said Bharathidasan Nagar
consisting of about 20 houses located at
North East. About 110m is left between the
Kalugurani Village and the unit’s boundary
at Southern side.
xi) The unit has furnished a letter dt.19-3-
2005 ie. After the Public Hearing Meeting
(received in this office on 23-3-2005)
wherein the unit has furnished a drawing
in which the distance between the
Bharathidasan Nagar and the machineries
installation points is 136.94 m and 208 m
respectively.
Further, I submit the following:
It is learnt that during Boomi Pooja at the project site Public have
agitated and gave hindrance to the unit authorities. Hence, it is felt that the
public may give hindrance to the unit even during initial period.
It is learnt that the District Collectorate has organized a Peace
Committee Meeting on 14-3-2005 among the Public and entrepreneurs; from the
above the public’s motivation may kindly be understood.
A complaint has been received in this office on 14-3-2005 wherein
the public have objected the project at the said location.
Under these circumstances, I submit the following
recommendations-
1) The unit authorities may be addressed from the Board office to
furnish the following details since the unit authorities have not furnished the
same to this office so far.
i) To furnish exact distances from the boundary of the unit and
to the Bharathidasan Nagar, Sadayan valasai and Kalugurani Village. The
distance between the above residences and unit’s activities including generator
sets, gas storage/input area, motors, pumps, stacks installation area etc., by
taking a concrete solution.
ii) Proposal of expansion activities of the project if any and if so
the details of the same.
iii) Building plans furnished is inadequate and detailed drawings
shall be furnished.
iv) Topo sketch said to be furnished by the unit in many letters
have not been received by this office and the same may be insisted because it
will give some Environmental features and the distances between the
machineries/boundaries of the unit since the particulars furnished by the unit
is inadequate, vague and incomplete shape.
2) The Public’s views on the project proposal is to be given due
respect.
3) If the unit is put up at the same location without any
modification it shall give hindrance to the public life.
4) Based on the unit’s authorities technical informations pointed out
in the recommendation as above a decision shall be arrived at.
5) If the authorities do not come with the clear distance criteria
among the unit’s establishment/machineries/gas supply point/motors and
pumps/stacks/administrative buildings/TNEB provisions for wheeling the
current/Expansion activities/other facilities etc., No Objection Certificate to
the unit may not be considered.
This is submitted for favour of kind information and necessary action
please.
Encl: 1) FIR
2) Copy of minutes of the meeting.
3) Copies of unit’s letter.
(Sd) xx xx
District Environmental Engineer (i/c)
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
Virudhunagar.”
17. The above letter makes it clear that there was a strong opposition
by the public of the village concerned to the location of the unit. Further,
the Field Officer, namely, District Environmental Engineer has raised certain
technical objections. No doubt, based on the report and pursuant to the
direction of the Pollution Control Board, the Power Corporation has submitted
certain information regarding distance between habitants and various machineries
to be installed etc. There is no information how the queries raised by the
District Environmental Engineer have been answered and considered and ultimately
NOC was granted in favour of the Power Corporation. Though a condition has been
issued for formation of 150 metres buffer zone around the unit’s boundary to
develop a green belt has been imposed, admittedly from the boundary of the
proposed unit, no distance is available from Bharathidasan Nagar which consists
of 20 houses located at north-east; in such a situation, it is not clear how it
would be possible for the unit to form buffer zone of 150 metres around its
boundary to develop green belt. In the absence of all the relevant details,
particularly the questions/ doubts raised by the District Environmental Engineer
in his letter dated 28-3-2005, we are of the view that the Pollution Control
Board failed to take note of the relevant aspects before grant of ‘NOC’ to set
up a buffer zone within the residential locality of the village which will
expose the life and liberty of the residential village.
18. Though it was brought to our notice by the learned counsel
appearing for the Power Corporation that after discussion and deliberation, the
villagers have agreed and consented for the formation of the project and also
executed a deed of settlement giving consent and the Power Corporation also
agreed to renovate a temple situated there, lay road, etc., for the village, the
fact remains that except the signatures of some of the villagers and
representative of the Power Corporation, there is no evidence to show that the
said agreement was reached on the basis of consensus of the villagers or in the
presence of officers of either the Revenue or the Environment Departments. In
such circumstances, there is no need to give credence to the agreement said to
have been executed between some of the villagers and the Power Corporation.
19. In the light of our discussion, the proceedings of the Member
Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai dated 28-6-2005, granting
No Objection Certificate for setting up of Thermal Power Plant in favour of M/s.
Regency Power Corporation, Hyderabad is quashed. Direction is issued to the
Pollution Control Board and the District Collector to conduct public hearing
afresh in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 487 Environment and Forests Department
dated 22-12-1997 and permit the residents of Kalugoorani village, Ramanathapuram
Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, to put-forth their objections, if any, consider
and thereafter proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. Both the
Writ Petitions are allowed on the above terms. No costs. Connected W.P.M.Ps.,
are closed.
R.B.
To:-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary,
The Environment and Forest Department,
St. George Fort, Chennai.
2. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Chennai.
3. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Chennai.
4. The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
5. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board,
6/26, Gangai Street,
Madurai Road, Virudhunagar.