Supreme Court of India
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROOSKARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2020 INSC 49
- Decided
- 16 January 2020
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- D Y CHANDRACHUD
Holding
The Court held that the minutes of the EAC meeting are to be taken on record and the suspension on the environmental clearance is lifted, subject to cumulative compliance with all stipulated conditions.
Summary
The Union of India sought a direction that the minutes of the 40th meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) dated 23 April 2019 be placed on record so that the Supreme Court's embargo on the environmental clearance (EC) for the Mopa greenfield airport could be lifted. The Court examined whether the EAC had adequately addressed the concerns highlighted in its earlier 2019 judgment, including issues of forests, ecologically sensitive areas, the Western Ghats and flora and fauna, and whether the EAC’s composition and process were valid. Finding that the EAC had revisited its recommendations, imposed additional conditions, and complied with the earlier directives, the Court held that the minutes should be taken on record and the suspension on the EC lifted, subject to cumulative compliance with all conditions. The Court also appointed the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) to oversee compliance and ordered the project proponent to bear the costs. The miscellaneous application was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the minutes of the Expert Appraisal Committee meeting dated 23 April 2019 should be taken on record.
- Whether the suspension on the environmental clearance for the Mopa airport should be lifted.
- Whether the EAC’s composition and its appraisal process satisfy the requirements of expertise and absence of conflict of interest.
- Whether the additional environmental conditions imposed are sufficient to address the concerns raised by the Court.
Legislation cited
- Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
- Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
- Indian Forest Act, 1927s. Section-20, s. Section-4
- Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
- Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
Subjects
environmental clearanceexpert appraisal committeegreenfield airportWestern Ghatsecologically sensitive areaforestmitigation conditionsjudicial reviewzero carbon airportNEERI oversightsuspension lifted
Judgment
1030 [2020]
SUPREME COURT 1 S.C.R. 1030
REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A HANUMAN LAXMAN AROOSKAR
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
M.A. No.965 of 2019 IN
B (Civil Appeal No. 12251 of 2018)
JANUARY 16, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
C Environment – Environmental clearance for a greenfield
airport – The Union of India sought a direction that the minutes of
the fortieth meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) dated
23.4.2019 be taken on the record so that the embargo imposed by
the Supreme Court on the Environmental clearance (EC) for a
greenfield airport at Mopa Goa can be lifted – Earlier, the Supreme
D
Court in its judgment reported as Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union
of India (2019 SCC Online 441) held that the process leading up to
the grant of an Environmental clearance on 28.10.2015 was flawed
– Held: On reading of the process leading upto the instant proceedings,
it cannot be said that EAC has, it its appraisal process, ignored the
E concerns which were highlighted by the Supreme Court – The EAC
has adequately addressed four areas i.e. (i) Forests; (ii) Ecologically
sensitive areas; (iii) Western Ghats and (iv) Flora & Fauna and has
laid down additional conditions to ensure the adequate protection
of the environment – A comprehensive process has been followed by
the EAC bearing in mind the requirements of the Airport Guidance
F
Manual – The process which has been adopted by the EAC and its
ultimate conclusions must be scrutinized, in the course of judicial
review, in the context of the limitations which were attached to the
Court conducting a merits based review – Earlier, the Court did not
quash the EC but suspended it until the EAC revisited its
G recommendations in the light of the concerns which were expressed
by the Supreme Court – Having assessed the process which took
place following the judgment of the Supreme Court and outcome, it
would be difficult to hold that it fails to meet the standards which
the Court applies in the course of judicial review in the environmental
matters – The minutes of the meeting of the EAC dated 23.4.2019
H
1030
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1031
are taken on record – The additional conditions which have been A
imposed by the EAC shall, together with the original conditions of
the EC dated 28.10.2015 and the directions issued by the NGT be
cumulatively observed – Also in the earlier judgment, the Supreme
Court noted abject failure of the project proponent to provide
complete information on the existence of reserved forests – In the
B
proceedings that followed the judgment, the project proponent sought
to remedy its failure by taking into account additional information
on the significant aspects of the environment – In the process leading
to the grant of the EC as well as the Registry of its suspension by
the Supreme Court, numerous mitigatory conditions have been
imposed on the project proponent – To ensure the oversight of the C
project by a specialized body to ensure compliance with the
directions cumulatively issued by the Court, the National
Environmental Engineering Research Institute to be appointed to
oversee compliance with directions cumulatively issued by the
Supreme Court – The suspension on the EC accordingly, stand lifted.
D
Disposing of the Miscellaneous Application, the Court
HELD: 1. During the course of the judgment which was
rendered by this Court on 29 March 2019, certain flaws were
noticed in the process leading up to the grant of an EC on 28
October 2015. The project proponent had not complied with its E
obligation to make a full disclosure of information on material
aspects of the environment in Form 1 as an intrinsic part of the
EIA process. This Court specifically recorded its concerns on
vital aspects which had not been adequately addressed by the
EAC. Having noticed the flaws in the process and the deficiencies
in the decision making process of the EAC, the Court directed F
the EAC to revisit the recommendations made by it for the grant
of an EC including the conditions which it had formulated, having
regard to the specific concerns which were highlighted in the
judgment. Thereafter if the EAC were to allow the construction
to proceed, it was directed to impose additional conditions to G
protect the terrestrial eco-systems. The EAC was under a specific
mandate to lay down conditions pertaining to air, water, noise,
land and the biological and socio-economic environment. During
the course of this judgment, this Court has traced the process as
it evolved before the EAC following the earlier directions of this
H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A Court. The net result of the process is that the concessionaire
has been subjected to a slew of mitigatory conditions: 53 in the
original EC, 16 at the behest of NGT and 40 imposed by the EAC
in the second round. On a reading of the process leading upto
the present proceeding, it cannot be said that the EAC has, in its
appraisal process, ignored the concerns which were highlighted
B
by this Court. The appellant focused submissions on four areas
namely (i) Forests; (ii) ESAs; (iii) Western Ghats; and (iv) Flora
and Fauna. The EAC has adequately addressed these concerns
and laid down additional conditions to ensure the adequate
protection of the environment. [Para 42][1069-G-H; 1070-A-D]
C 2. A comprehensive process has been followed by the EAC
bearing in mind the requirements of the Airport Guidance
Manual. The EAC took note of the presence of reserved forests
and of ESAs in the Western Ghats and deliberated on the impact
of the construction and operation of the proposed airport on flora
D or fauna, hydrological systems and climatic variations. The
process which has been adopted by the EAC and its ultimate
conclusions must be scrutinized, in the course of judicial review,
in the context of the limitations which are attached to the court
conducting a merits based review. The EAC has accounted for
the relevant factors outlined by this Court in its previous judgment
E in the assessment leading to the grant of the EC. [Para 44]
[1072-C-F]
3. The evaluation of merits is a matter which primarily rests
with an expert authority. The court can certainly supervise
procedural compliance and ensure that all necessary inputs which
F are required to be factored into the decision-making process have
been duly borne in mind. Once this has been done, the court
must be circumspect in micro-managing the decision-making
process by the EAC by substituting its own opinion for that of
the EAC. Undoubtedly, no process can be perfect or free from
G studied criticism. The Appellant has attempted to perform such
an exercise when it was submitted that the collection of primary
faunal data from a nearby village and secondary data from ZSI
sources was not an adequate means of dealing with the concerns
expressed by this Court. In assessing these criticisms, this Court
H
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1033
must equally be cognizant of the fact that by the judgment of this A
Court dated 29 March 2019, the EAC was required to carry out
the exercise within a period of one month from the receipt of the
order of this Court. The Court did not quash the EC but directed
that it should remain under suspension until the EAC revisited
its recommendations in the light of the concerns which were
B
expressed by this Court. Having assessed the process which took
place following the judgment of this Court and the outcome, it
would be difficult for this Court to hold that it fails to meet the
standards which the court applies in the course of judicial review
in environmental matters. [Para 45][1073-B-F]
4. For the above reasons, the minutes of the meeting of C
the EAC dated 23 April 2019 are taken on record as prayed for.
The additional conditions which have been imposed by the EAC
shall, together with the original conditions of the EC dated 28
October 2015 and the directions issued by the NGT be
cumulatively observed. [Para 46][1073-G] D
5. The earlier judgment of this Court highlighted numerous
deficiencies by the project proponent leading to the grant of the
EC. This Court highlighted numerous concerns including the
preservation of forests, the existence of ESAs with their attendant
features and the impact of the proposed project on natural water E
channels. The Court also noted the abject failure of the project
proponent to provide complete information on the existence of
reserved forests. In the proceedings that followed the judgment
of this Court, the project proponent sought to remedy its failure
by taking into account additional information on significant aspects
of the environment. In the process leading to the grant of the EC F
as well as the lifting of its suspension by this Court, numerous
mitigatory conditions have been imposed on the project
proponent. We deem it appropriate to ensure the oversight of
the project by a specialized body to ensure compliance with the
directions cumulatively issued by this Court. This Court directs G
the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute to
be appointed to oversee compliance with the directions
cumulatively issued by this Court. The project proponent shall
bear the costs, expenses and fees of NEERI. [Para 48]
[1090-A-D]
H
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited v. Union of India
(2011) 7 SCC 338 : [2011] 7 SCR 954 – relied on.
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019)
SCCOnline SC 441 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
B
[2011] 7 SCR 954 relied on Para 44
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application
No. 965 of 2019. In Civil Appeal No. 12251 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2018 of the National
C Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Appeal No. 6 of 2018
(earlier Appeal No. 1 of 2016/WZ)
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Ritwick
Dutta, Ms. Kanika Sood, Sanjana Thomas, Ms. Ayushana Awasthi,
Shankar Narayanan, Advs. for the Appellant.
D
K.K. Venugopal, AG, ANS Nadkarni, ASG, Parag P Tripathi,
Sr. Adv., Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, Akhil Abaraham Roy,
Vijay Valson, Ms. Suhasini Sen, S.B. Narayan, S.S. Rebello, Arzu Paul,
Neeleshwar Pavani, Shivika Agarwal, Niraj Kumar, Ms. Priya Soni,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, M.S. Ananth, Mahesh Agarwal, Yojit Mehra,
E Srinivasan Ramaswamy, Ms. Aashna Agarwal, E. C. Agrawala, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
F INDEX
A. Introduction
B. Appraisal by the EAC
B.1 Zero-Carbon programme
G C. Genesis of the proposed airport
D. The present challenge
D.1 Domain Expertise of the EAC
D.2 Conflict of interest
H
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1035
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
D.3 Western Ghats and ESAs A
D.4 Forestland and flora and fauna
E. Directions
A. Introduction
1. The Union of India in the Ministry of Environment, Forests and B
Climate Change1 moved these proceedings, seeking a direction that the
Minutes of the fortieth meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee2 dated
23 April 2019 be taken on the record so that the embargo imposed by
this Court on the Environmental Clearance3 for a greenfield airport at
Mopa Goa can be lifted. This follows upon the judgment dated 23 April C
2019 which was rendered on a challenge addressed to this Court against
a decision of the National Green Tribunal4 upholding the EC, subject to
compliance with certain conditions. By the judgment of this Court, reported
as Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v Union of India5, the process leading
up to the grant of an EC on 28 October 2015 was held to be flawed. The
directions that were imposed by the Court were formulated in the D
following terms:
“175. …
(i) The EAC shall revisit the recommendations made by it for the
grant of an EC, including the conditions which it has formulated,
E
having regard to the specific concerns which have been highlighted
in this judgment;
(ii) The EAC shall carry out the exercise under (i) above within a
period of one month of the receipt of a certified copy of this order;
(iii) Until the EAC carries out the fresh exercise as directed above, F
the EC granted by the MoEFCC on 28 October 2015 shall remain
suspended;
(iv) Upon reconsidering the matter in terms of the present
directions, the EAC, if it allows the construction to proceed will
impose such additional conditions which in its expert view will G
adequately protect the concerns about the terrestrial eco systems
1
MoEF-CC
2
EAC
3
EC
4
NGT
5
(2019) SCCOnline SC 441 H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A noticed in this judgment. The EAC would be at liberty to lay down
appropriate conditions concerning air, water, noise, land, biological
and socio-economic environment;
(v) The EAC shall have due regard to the assurance furnished by
the concessionaire to this Court that it is willing to adopt and
B implement necessary safeguards bearing in mind international best
practices governing greenfield airports;
(vi) We grant liberty to the State of Goa as the project proponent
and the MoEFCC, as the case may be, to file the report of the
EAC before this Court in the form of a Miscellaneous Application
C so as to facilitate the passing of appropriate orders in the
proceedings; and
(vii) No other Court or Tribunal shall entertain any challenge to
the report that is to be submitted before this Court by the EAC in
compliance with the present order.”
D Pending the completion of the process mandated in the above
terms, this Court suspended the EC which had been granted on 28
October 2015.
The directions issued by this Court required the EAC:
(i) To revisit its recommendations for the grant of the EC
E
including the conditions which it had imposed; and
(ii) To impose, in the event that it allowed the constructionof the
airportto proceed additional conditionsto adequatelyprotect
the concerns governing the terrestrial eco-systems noticed
in the judgment, besides formulating conditions pertaining to
F
air, water, noise, land, biological and socio-economic
environment. While doing so, the EAC was under a mandate
to take into consideration the specific concerns which were
highlighted in the judgment.
2. The basis of the directions that were issued by this Court
G wasformulated in the penultimate paragraphof the judgment which reads
thus:
“174. Bearing in view the necessity to maintain a balance between
the need for an airport and environmental concerns, we are of the
view that it would be appropriate if the EAC is directed to revisit
H
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1037
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
the conditions subject to which it granted its EC on the basis of A
the specific concerns which have been highlighted in this
judgment. Such an exercise primarily is for the EAC to carry out
in its expert decision making capacity. The EAC is entrusted with
that function as an expert body. The role of judicial review is to
ensure that the rule of law is observed. Hence, we propose by the
B
directions which we will issue under Article 142 of the Constitution,
to direct the EAC to revisit the conditions for the grant of an EC.
While doing so, it would be open to the EAC to have due regard
to the conditions which were incorporated in the order of the NGT
and to suitably modulate those conditions in pursuance of the liberty
which we have preserved to it. To facilitate an expeditious decision, C
we propose to direct the EAC to carry out this exercise in a
prescribed time schedule during which period, the EC shall remain
suspended. We propose to direct that after the EAC has formulated
its views, they shall be placed before this Court in a Miscellaneous
Application in the present proceedings, so as to enable the Court
D
to pass final orders. The Miscellaneous Application may be filed
either by the State of Goa as the project proponent or by the
MoEFCC. We clarify that no other Court or Tribunal shall entertain
any challenge to the ultimate decision of the EAC and final orders
thereon shall be passed by this Court in the present proceedings.”
3. Essentially, the concerns which were highlighted in the judgment E
of this Court related to the need to preservethe biodiversity of the Western
Ghats. These concerns have been the subject of a seminal exercise
carried out in 2013 by a High Level Working Group6 on the Western
Ghats chaired by Dr K Kasturirangan7. The report of the HLWG has
been dwelt upon in the earlier judgment and continues to be a focal point F
of the continuing debate in the present case. The HLWG was constituted
under the auspices of the MoEF-CC.Its report dated 15 April 2013 is a
valuable contribution to the preservation of biodiversity in the pristine
environment of the Western Ghats.
4. The judgment of this Court emphasized the failure of the State G
of Goa, as the project proponent, to provide complete information on the
existence of reserved forests including those which fall within a 15 km
radial distance of the proposed airport at Mopa.Underlying the serious
6
HLWG
7
Kasturirangan Committee report H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A deficiency in the disclosure of information by the project proponent, this
Court noted its concerns on certain specific aspects. These included
primarily:
(i) Preservation of forests, including reserved forests;
(ii) Existence of EcologicallySensitive Areas8 with their attendant
B features such as flora, fauna and environmental quality in
terms of water, soil, noise and climatic variations;
(iii) Impact of the proposed construction on the flow of water in
natural water channels; and
C (iv) Socio-economic and environmental concerns which were
raised in the course of public consultations.
B. Appraisal by the EAC
5. Following the judgment of this Court, the project proponent
furnished supplementary information to the EAC which revealed certain
D significant environmental features. The disclosure is extracted below:
“a) There are seven reserved forests within 15 km. of the proposed
Airport in the Goa region (under Section-20) and six proposed
reserved forests (under section-4) of Indian Forest Act, 1927.
(Survey of India Toposheet and Forest Working Plan of North
E Goa)
b) There are twenty-nine proposed reserve forests within 15 km.
of the proposed Airport in Maharashtra region under Section-4 of
Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Survey of India Toposheet & Forest
Department, Sawantwadi Division)
F c) There are four rivers in Goa viz. Terekhol river, Kalna river,
Chapora river, Moide river and one river viz. Tilari river in
Maharashtra (source: Survey of India Toposheet).
d) There are few patches of mangroves observed near Moide
river, Terekhol river, Chapora river.
G
e) Western Ghat Mountain range falls within the study area.
f) There are two wetlands, of which one i.e. Anjuna reservoir has
been identified inNational Wetland Atlas of Goa.
8
H ESA
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1039
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
g) There are no coastal areas and declared biospheres in the vicinity A
of the proposed airport site.”
6. The EAC tabulated the details of forest areas which fell within
a radial distance of 15 kmsof the proposed airport and within the territories
of the States of Goa and Maharashtra. The forested areas were found
to be situated in three talukasin the State of Goa (Bicholim, Pernem and B
Bardez)and in three talukas in the State of Maharashtra (Sawantwadi,
Dodamarg and Vengurla). In Pernem taluka, the information set out in
the minutes of the EAC dated 23 April 2019 demonstrate the existence
of reserved forests inter alia in Mopa.
7. While reviewing the Environmental Impact Assessment9, the C
EAC observed:
“As per Forest Policy, 1988 of Government of India, required
forest cover is 33%. Whereas, India average is 21.54%, Goa’s
forest cover as per India’s state of forest report 2017 is 60.21%.
There would be impact on forest due to felling of trees but D
eventually the forest cover will improve with a 1:10 compensatory
afforestation program to be undertaken over a period of 5 years
by the concessionaire, Goa State Biodiversity Board and
Directorate of Civil Aviation. The enhanced forest cover would
lead to healthy biodiversity.Further impacts on water, air, soil and
noise environment will be minimal considering the felling of trees E
over a large area and compensatory afforestation plan as approved.
It is noted that the airport site is not fragmenting the forest area
thus not restricting and affecting the movement of fauna. The
Airport plateau has villages on one side and forest cover on the
other side. The plateau is just an extension of forest cover with F
trees, which had 15 houses, some grazing activity and some
agricultural activity where the animals from the nearby forest may
have been straying. The proposed airport will be protected from
all sides with compound wall as per DGCA guidelines and thus
animals will not able to enter the airport premises. G
The proposed 10 times compensatory plantation needs to be
monitored by the Government of Goa so that the target of planting
5.5 lakhs saplings is achieved in a time bound manner, their survival
9
EIA H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A rate is monitored and mortality is replenished. As major chunk of
2.5 lakh of saplings is proposed to be done by the village level
Biodiversity Committees, it is necessary to ensure that people are
largely given native species and/or fruit bearing saplings so that
they will be able to derive economic benefits from such fruit crops
and also such trees will provide better biological environment to
B
birds.”
8. On the existence of ESAs, the EAC noted that the EIA report
had only indicated that Pernem taluka, where the project is to come up,
has not been earmarked as an ESAin the Kasturirangan Committee
report. The EAC, in its minutes dated 23 April 2019, took note of the
C fact that based on the Kasturirangan Committee report, the MoEF-CC
published a draft notification on 3 October 2018 indicating proposed ESAs
in the Western Ghats according to which, ten villages in Sawantwadi
taluka of Sindhudurg district in Maharashtra are comprised in the ESAs
of the Western Ghats. Apart from the ESAs within the State of
D Maharashtra, the EAC noted the existence of an additional eighteen
species of mammals and fourteen bird species in the study area on the
basis of data collected from the Zoological Survey of India 10. Reviewing
the EIA with reference to the existence of ten ESAs within a radial
distance of 10 Kms in the State of Maharashtra, the EAC noted in its
minutes dated 23 April 2019:
E
“EAC noted that all the 10 ESA areas within 10 kms in the State
of Maharashtra are beyond 4 kilometers from the project boundary,
the nearest one being at a distance of 4.1 kms (Village Galel). As
per Airport guidance manual maximum impact on the air and noise
environment will be there till the aircraft gains a height of 1000 ft.
F Emissions from aircraft below 1,000 ft. above the ground will be
there typically around 3 km from departure or, for arrivals, around
6 km from touchdown. The altitude of 1000 ft in landing and takeoff
is achieved within the project site. Considering that all the ESAs
are far away from the project, the impact on air and noise
G environment is expected to be minimal. With regard to soil
environment, impact will be mostly on the airport site self. As
regards water environment, as the water flow from the airport
site will feed the water bodies in the State of Goa, no impact is
envisaged on the ESA areas.”
10
H ZSI
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1041
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
9. The EAC also deliberated on the likely impact of the construction A
and operation of an airport on the flora, fauna and hydrological systems
in the ESAs as well as in regard to climatic variations. The EAC
categorized them in the following terms:
“WATER ENVIRONMENT:
- Changes in the natural flow of storm water, stunted growth, B
delayed flowering and fruiting.
- Fauna migration in search of water to other places.
- Change their habitat and breeding capacity.
-Due to eutrophication influence, certain toxic algae production C
some animals can suffer symptoms like skin irritation or health
problems if drinking
SOIL ENVIRONMENT:
- Soil impact may lead in to non-germination of seeds & stunted
D
growth, delayed flowering & fruiting, erosion and clearing of topsoil
(loss of habitat & habitat fragmentation)
- Affects the quality of the environment or habitat in which they
live
- Affects the availability and quality of the food supply E
- Soil erosion may increase the turbidity which could impact aquatic
fauna’s respiration capacity.
- Loss of local aquatic biodiversity
- Habitat loss F
- Erosion and clearing of topsoil (loss of micro-fauna).
- Influence the abundance and health of dependent species
AIR ENVIRONMENT:
Air impact may lead reduced productivity, changes in water vapor G
levels.
SURROUNDING / NOISE ENVIRONMENT.
- Migration of birds
- Breeding capacity reduction
H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A - Affect life cycle Shy mammals may move away
- Bird Aircraft strike
- Wild life hazard management
Climatic Variations:
B - habitats of many species will move pole ward
- experience increase in temperature regimes, rainfall
- decrease in the moisture regimes and increase in fire incidences.”
Dealing with these features and the impact upon them of the
C proposed project, the EAC observed:
“The EAC noted that a total of 385 species of plants, 36 medicinal
plant, 86 species of birds, 33 butterfly species, 5 species of
amphibians, 18 species of reptiles, 35 fish species, 28 number of
mammal species were identified in the study area based on primary
D and secondary source of data. The proposed project has minimal
intervention and impact on the surrounding ecosystem. There are
mitigation measures already prescribed in EC conditions so as to
minimize the impact on Biodiversity-Flora & Fauna, Hydrological
Systems. This will help enabling the process for sustainable
development that benefit both environment and local livelihoods.
E With regards to climatic variations, the EAC felt that additional
initiatives such as Green Infrastructure Development program,
adoption of low emission intensive technologies, renewable energy
program, and Airport Carbon Accreditation need to be adopted to
reduce the impact on Green House Gas (GHG) emissions and
F thereby climate change.”
10. The next set of concerns that were dealt with by the EAC
related tothe impact of the proposed project on natural channels for the
drainage of water. This Court had noted in its earlier judgment that the
Mopa plateau is at a height of 155 metres above Mean Sea Level 11 and
G water from the plateau flows down to the rivers in the State of Goa. The
laterite plateau is an important source of drainage by providing natural
channels for water. The deficiency which was seen by this Court was
that the impact of a greenfield airport on the closing of natural channels
11
H MSL
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1043
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
which feed water bodies had not been scientifically mapped or studied A
and adequately addressed.
11. In reviewing the EIA on this aspect, the EAC in its minutes
dated 23 April 2019 observed:
“If natural water channels that feed the local water bodies are
not protected then there will be water deficiency in the villages B
for agriculture, fishing etc. Further, there will be impact on the
ground water levels in the villages. EAC while granting EC for
the project had detailed deliberation on this aspect so as to ensure
that natural water channels feeding the water bodies are not
blocked. The EAC reviewed the entire gamut of natural/artificial C
drainage and the storm water drainage pattern. As per the
supplementary information provided now, the airport site, by virtue
of being located on a plateau and the laterite soil surface, would
naturally facilitate the flow of storm water and other artificial
drainage. The proponent has designed for appropriate drainage
channels in such a manner that the water flow from project site is D
channelized suitably into the natural water channels feeding the
water bodies down slope. All due precautions, however, need to
be exercised during the construction phase so as to ensure that
construction material/debris does not, in any manner, block/obstruct
the natural water channels or springs. E
The EAC deliberated on the current state of the project
construction and noted that in the ensuing monsoon season the
earth piled up at the project site due to excavation may drift to the
natural water channels which may ultimately reach the water
bodies in the villages. This is a matter of grave environmental F
concern which needs to be addressed by the project proponent
immediately by development of embankment structures around
the excavated earth so that piled up earth doesn’t drift to the
natural water channels and the run-off from the site does not
pollute or contaminate the water bodies. This shall be maintained
during construction/operation phase of the project.” G
12. As regards the concerns which were raised in the course of
public consultations, the EAC dealt with environmental concerns which
included:
H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A “rain water harvesting, STP and solid waste management plan,
impact on flora and fauna, soil quality and its impact, storm water
management, impact on ground water, socio cultural impact, dust
pollution during construction activity, employment opportunities to
the local people, compensation to the affected land owners”
B The EAC has opined that these have been adequately addressed.
13. Finally, after analyzing the responses submitted before it, the
EAC summed up its analysis thus:
“1. The EAC observed that the earlier Form-1 did not give proper
disclosure in respect of the details of forests on the land and nearby
C wet land as well as on the water bodies. The EAC took into account
the supplementary report that has been submitted which takes
into account the deficiency of disclosure and the same thing has
been complied with in the supplementary report. In addition, it is
also noticed that the mitigation measures in respect of the depletion
D of forest cover on the project land and water bodies have been
taken into account. As against 54,176 trees, which have been
felled on the project site based on earlier approvals given by
competent authority, the project proponent is proposing to plant
5,50,000 trees (50,000 trees at the project site, 2,50,000 trees in
the nearby villages supervised by the Biodiversity Board and
E 2,50,000 trees under the supervision of DGCA. This is 1:10 times
the number of trees affected as against the standard requirement
of 1:3 times number of trees to be planted. The overall supervision
of this compliance within the time frame of 5 years would be
vested with DGCA. DGCA, however, needs to constitute a local
F monitoring committee for periodic monitoring of this vital exercise.
2. The EAC noted that neither the project site nor the villages in
area under study (primary data source) falls in any Eco-Sensitive
Zone (ESZ). The 10 villages in Maharashtra side fall in ESA not
ESZ and where the impacts of the project would be minimal. The
G EAC also observed that the villages in vicinity of the project in the
Goa and Maharashtra region are not located in very close
proximity. The nearest village is about 4.1 km from the boundary
of the project. The EAC also observed that beyond the runway of
3.75 km, the flight operation generally found at an altitude of about
1000 feet and thus there would not be any adverse impact on
H flora and fauna in the surrounding area of the airport.
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1045
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
3. The EAC observed that a certificate from Chief Wildlife Warden A
(CWLW) of State through State Government be obtained
confirming that none of the area of the project falls in the notified
Eco-sensitive Zone (ESZ) in the State of Goa and no activity
prohibited in the Ecosensitive zone will be taken up be taken by
the project proponent.
B
4. The EAC further observed that as per the supplementary report
and the proposal of the water bodies with respect to observation
regarding plateau effect of the land and also laterite surface and
the springs, streams and water courses in the project land have
been taken into account and appropriate drainage channels have
been designed to take care of the water flows into the nearest C
water courses/rivers, etc.
5. Appropriate storm water drainage channeling has been taken
into account not only for the pre-monsoon season but also for
monsoon and heavy rainfall. The drainage plan should have
ratification by the concerned water resources department of Goa. D
It should be ensured that sustainable water flow in the various
channels of watershed in the plateau is maintained. For the present,
base level data on flow of water should be collected and used for
future monitoring.
6. The EAC observed that in respect of the fauna, the primary E
data has been collected from one of the nearest village and the
secondary data has been collected from ZSI. In respect of the
observation of sighting a leopard by villager, the authorities have
indicated that they do not have any definitive information on the
same and this need to be verified/authenticated. F
7. It is a well-established fact of silvicultural science and practice
that no plantation can replace the natural forest. The kind of
biodiversity in any natural forest is almost impossible to be replaced
by any kind of plantation activity which at best can be a mix of
various monocultures. We are still far away in our knowledge of G
replicating the creation of natural forest. Therefore, to this extent,
the EAC does not agree with the assessment of project proponent
that after cutting of trees and planting of 1:10 trees, richer
biodiversity the forest would be created. However, 1:10 plantation
activity under expert guidance can to some extent compensate
the loss of natural forest. H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A 8. With respect to the various points raised in the public hearing,
the EAC observed that the supplementary report has made
available point-wise clarifications on the various concerns on the
public hearing. However, Hon’ble court shortlisted 14 items of
concern in the public hearing. Solution/management plan to all
these need to be clearly spelt out in the EMP and implemented in
B
letter and spirit.”
14. Accordingly, the EAC has recommended the grant of an EC
to the project with additional environmental safeguards and conditions,
over and above those which were stipulated in (i) the EC dated 28 October
2015; and (ii) the order of the NGT dated 21 August 2018.The conditions
C which have been imposed by the EAC have been classified under the
following heads:
(i) Statutory compliance;
(ii) Air quality monitoring and preservation;
D (iii) Water quality monitoring and preservation;
(iv) Noise monitoring and prevention;
(v) Energy conservation/ climate change measures;
(vi) Waste management;
E (vii) Green Belt; and
(viii) Public hearing and human health issues.
15. The EAC has also incorporated as a part of its
recommendations additional conditions as mandated by the NGT in its
F order dated 21 August 2018 under the following heads:
(i) Air environment;
(ii) Water environment;
(iii) Land environment;
G (iv) Noise environment;
(v) Land environment;
(vi) Biological environment; and
(vii) Socio-economic environment.
H
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1047
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
B.1 Zero-Carbon programme A
16. During the course of the hearing before this Court, a statement
has been made on behalf of the concessionaire GMR Goa International
Airport Limited, that in the event of this Court sustaining the EC for the
project, it stands committed to fulfill the objective of making the proposed
greenfield airport at Mopa Goa, a zero carbon airport operation. B
Thepurpose of a zero carbon airport operation is to eliminate
anthropogenic carbon emissions reaching the atmosphere completely or
to the minimum extent possible from airport activities performed during
its operation. The statement which has been tendered by the
concessionaire before this Court is in the following terms:
C
“I. Zero carbon programme
1. The objective of making “Zero Carbon” airport operation is to
eliminate the anthropogenic carbon emissions reaching to
atmosphere completely or to the minimum extent possible from
the activates performed at Airport during its operation. D
2. Climate Change and its mitigation in Aviation Industry is
monitored by International Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO)
and the emissions from domestic aviation are monitored by the
respective countries under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) frameworks. E
3. Carbon emissions management is guided by Airports Council
International (ACI), through its globally recognized Airport
Carbon Accreditation (ACA) Program.
4. In airports, this is addressed by developing infrastructures/
systems which will generate zero or minimum carbon emissions F
during its operations as per UNFCCC approved market
mechanisms by:
a. Adopting green building concepts,
b. Generation and use of renewable energy,
G
c. Use of energy efficient systems,
d. Developing green landscapes,
e. Plantations as carbon sink to absorb carbon emission from
the atmosphere
H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A f. Adopting carbon offset measures for the residual emissions
of airport operations
5. Level 3+ is the highest level of accreditation for carbon emission
management of airports. As of July 30, 2019, there were 52
Level 3+ (Neutrality) accredited airports globally (out of 1,957
B ACI member airports), including GMR Group’s Delhi and
Hyderabad Airports (Additional Affidavit of Respondent No.
5, pp.23-24).
6. Level 3+ Neutrality is achieved by fulfilling requirements of
Level 1,2 and 3 accreditation program (R-5 Affidavit, Page
C 17) and offset of residual emissions under the airport’s control.
(Sources of emission and measures under the ACA Program
– Page 18). The Zero Carbon Emission Implementation
Framework provides for various measures such as:
a. Internal audit once in two year
D b. External audit after every 5 years
c. Adopt Energy Management System – ISO 50001 and 3rd
Party certification
d. Improve energy efficiency of buildings and equipment &
lightings,
E
e. Improve ground water availability
f. Promote energy efficient and alternate fuel vehicles.”
C. Genesis of the proposed airport
F 17. Before we deal with the principle challenges addressed before
the Court on behalf of the original appellantrepresented by Ms Anitha
Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel, it would be worthwhile to set out briefly
the genesis of the proposed airport at Mopa Goa.Mr K K Venugopal,
learned Attorney General for India emphasized the following features of
the project:
G
(i) The construction of an airport at Mopa Goa has been on the
drawing board for nearly two decades;
(ii) The site at Mopawas chosen among three options after due
examination by experts;
H
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1049
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
(iii) The existing airport at Dabolim is a defence establishment A
which is closed to area traffic between 8:30am to 1:30pm
daily;
(iv) The existing airport at Dabolim was intended to serve four
million passengers annually while the existing passenger traffic
is about 7.5 million annually; B
(v) The passenger traffic at Goa is expected to rise in the upcoming
financial years to the following extent:
FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25
12.0 14.1 15.5 16.7 17.9 C
(million passengers)
(vi) Due to capacity constraints, international charter flights are
not granted parking facilities at night at Dabolim; and
(vii) The proposed greenfield airport will have a capacity to handle D
4.4 million passengers in Phase–I, 13 million passengers in
Phase–II and 30 million passengers in Phase–III annually.
18. The project area ofthe proposed Mopa airport is spread over
2,131 acres. Terms of Reference12 were issued on 1 June 2011 and
were extended on 19 June 2013 and 29 May 2015. The process for land E
acquisition was initiated around 2008. The Request for Qualification 13
for the Mopa airport was issued on 3 October 2014. The EC was granted
on 28 October 2015. The concession agreement was executed on 8
November 2016. The airport is required by the terms of the agreement
to be operational within thirty-six months from 4 September 2017. F
According to the concessionaire, as on 18 January 2019, approximately
14.06 per cent of the project work had been completed. Pursuant to the
orders for the removal of trees, 54,176 trees were felled and 500 trees
were earmarked for transplantation. Ten trees of local species are to be
replanted for every tree which has been felled. 20,000 saplings have
been re-planted. The concessionaire has placed on record the following G
financial features of the project:
12
ToR
13
RFQ H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A “a. The indicative capital cost of the Mopa Airport, Phase I, was
estimated at INR 1,900 Cr. Total Project Cost was estimated
at INR 3,000 crores (70% debt and 30% equity).
b. Total debt commitment incurred by Respondent No.5 for the
Mopa Airport is approximately INR 1,330 Crs.
B c. The annual debt servicing incurred by Respondent No.5 based
on current disbursement is approximately INR 17 Crs.
d. Respondent No.5 has also entered into contractual
commitments for following amounts – INR 1,377 Crs. Towards
Engineering Contracts, Project Consultant INR 38 Crs.
C Independent Engineer INR 11 Crs. totaling – INR 1,426 Crs.
e. Prior to the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court directing status quo be maintained, approximately 1,500
workforce were gainfully engaged at the Project site along
with requisite plant and machinery.
D
f. The estimated traffic at Goa is (passengers in Million
Passengers per Annum – MPPA):
FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25
12.0 14.1 15.5 16.7 17.9
E
g. The Scheduled Commencement Date was contemplated as 3
years from Appointed Date (04.09.2017) – 03.09.2020.
h. The Concession Period is for 40 years from Appointed Date
F with a right of first refusal to Respondent No.5 for an extension
of 20 years.
i. GoG’s share of revenue – 36.99% on Gross Revenue from
6th year of Commencement of Appointed Date.”
According to the concessionaire, the following work was in
G progress at the project site when the implementation of the EC was
suspended:
“i. Airside Earthworks – these include excavation and filling of
runways, taxiways, aprons, parking bays, etc.
ii. PTB – foundations and column works in progress,
H
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1051
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
iii. ATC Building – excavation for foundations are in progress, A
iv. Administration Building – foundation and column works in
progress,
v. Precast Compound Wall works – casting of panels and
columns in progress,
B
vi. City Side Development Master plan works is in progress.”
D. The present challenge
19. The essence of the controversy in the present case is whether
the concerns which were highlighted in the earlier judgment of this Court
dated 29 March 2019, have been adequately addressed and remedied. C
20. Ms Anitha Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel appeared on behalf
of the appellant submitted that by the judgment of this Court dated 29
March 2019, the EAC was directed to revisit the EC granted to the
project and to decide whether or not the project should be approved.
Ms Shenoy prefaced her submissions with two preliminary points: D
(i) The composition of the EAC (Infrastructure-2) which has
thirteen members does not qualify it as an expert body. None
of the members had expertise on ornithology or on terrestrial
eco-system. The EAC is chaired by a former Director of the
Council for Social Development with retired officers of the E
State and Central Pollution Control Boards. One of the
members has an architectural background, another in chemical
engineering while one of the members is a Professor of Law.
The minutes do not disclose whether the EAC sought the
opinion of a subject specialist or specialized institution; and
F
(ii) There is a conflict of interest on the part of the EIA consultant
who had prepared the EIA report. As on the date of EAC
meeting, Engineers India Limited14 was the EIA consultant
as well as an independent engineer on the project. The EAC
minutes recorded that the project proponent and EIL made a
detailed presentation on the observations of this Court with G
comments and responses. EIL was defending its actions as
an EIA consultant while at the same time being an independent
engineer for the construction of the airport. This involves a
conflict of interest.
14
EIL H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A Apart from addressing the above preliminary points, Ms Shenoy
has urged submissions focusing upon the following specific areas:
(i) Forests;
(ii) Western Ghats;
B (iii) Ecologically Sensitive Areas; and
(iv) Absence of avi-faunal study.
21. Based on the submissions on the above four facets, Ms Shenoy
has dwelt upon mitigation measures suggested by the EAC and the need
to factor in the objections which were addressed during the process of
C public consultation. Ms Shenoy urged that the EAC minutes are virtually
a facsimileof the presentation submitted by the concessionaire and that
the EAC has failed to fulfill its remit of revisiting the EC as mandated by
the order of this Court. The submissions which were addressed under
each of the four heads noted above are catalogued below:
D (i) Forests
In the supplementary information contained in updated Form
1, the project proponent had disclosed a list of thirty-five
proposed reserved forests around the project site. However,
there has been no collection of primary data through remote
E sensing or ground truthing as required by the Airport
Guidance Manual. No impact study was carried out of the
proposed project on the newly disclosed forests. The EAC
has merely recorded the fact that the Western Ghats fall
within the study area without undertaking a study of the
likely impact of the construction of the airport. The MoEF-
F
CC, in its affidavit before this Court, however sought to
contend that the Western Ghats are far away from the
project and the impact due to the operation of the airport
would be minimal. Though there are ten villages in the taluka
of Sawantwadi in Sindhudurg district of Maharashtra located
G in the ESAs of the Western Ghats, no study has been
conducted of their vulnerability. The HLWG recorded that
Tiger and Elephant corridors mostly fall in the ESAs of the
Western Ghats. Thus, the EAC has arrived at a conclusion
that there will be no impact on the ESAs without knowing
why an ESA is proposed to be notified and without carrying
H
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1053
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
out an impact assessment. The EAC has equated the issue A
of tree felling at the project site with the issue of the impact
on the 42 forests surrounding the site. However, in its
summing up, the EAC has acknowledged that compensatory
forestation can never replace a natural forest.
(ii) Impact on Western Ghats B
The EAC has only adverted to the fact that the Western
Ghats fall within the study area. While accepting the
presence of this critical ecological biodiversity hotspot, the
EAC has not directed any study on the impact nor has it
adverted to the likely impact of the activity. The critical C
significance of the Western Ghats has been emphasized in
the HLWG report. Absent a study by the EAC, the
recommendations are flawed.
(iii) Ecologically Sensitive Areas
The EAC has noted that ten villages in the taluka of D
Sawantwadi in Sindhudurg district are located in the ESA
of the Western Ghats. The EAC ought to have determined
what makes each ESA ecologically sensitive and to study
the reasons for their vulnerabilities. The EAC has not
endeavored to find the specific vulnerability of each ESA E
and has recorded its satisfaction with a generic explanation.
(iv) Flora and Fauna
The collection of primary and secondary data of flora and
fauna in the EIA report was perfunctory. Areas which are
used by protected, important or sensitive species of flora or F
fauna for breeding, foraging, nesting, resting, over-wintering
or migration were not considered by the project proponent.
The EAC merely included a number of additional species,
citing a publication of the ZSI as the source, as supplied by
the project proponent. Species found near the Maharashtra
G
– Goa border as well as those found throughout India in
forested areas show at least 1172 species. On the other
hand, the list of species submitted by the project proponent
does not have a single Scheduled I species despite the fact
that there are 42 dense forests around the project area.
Important species such as the Indian elephant, royal Bengal H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A tiger and leopard have been excluded. The EAC did not
direct the carrying out of an avi-faunal study, in violation of
the directions of this Court, the only reference being to bird
strikes.
22. As regards the mitigation measures proposed by the EAC,
B Ms Shenoy submitted that the Airport Guidance Manual requires a
rigorous study of the impacts of a proposed airport project on the biological
environment and the measuresrequired to address these impacts.
Information relating to the state of the environment in the 15 km. radius
was submitted before the EAC without there being any primary or
secondary data collection. The EAC however came to the conclusion
C that the impact would be minimal. The additional environmental safeguards
proposed by the EAC have no bearing on the peculiar conditions of the
proposed airport at Mopa. Ms Shenoy ultimately urged that no effective
mitigating measures can be implemented unless:
(i) Authentic information about flora, fauna and natural features
D in the study area exists;
(ii) A scientific objective and independent assessment of the likely
impact of the proposed project is made; and
(iii) A specific finding is arrived at by the EAC on whether the
E damage and impact can be mitigated.
D.1 Domain Expertise of the EAC
23. The first aspect which merits scrutiny is the criticism leveled
by Ms Anitha Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel against the domain
expertise of the EAC. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the EAC
F (Infrastructure–2 Sector) was constituted under an order dated 7 January
2019 of the MoEF-CC. The composition of the Committee was as follows:
(i) Prof. T Haque, Retd. Director & CEO, Council for Social
Development;
(ii) Dr N P Shukla, Ex. Chairman, MPPCB, Bhopal;
G
(iii) Dr H C Sharatchandra, Ex. Chairman, Karnataka, SPCB;
(iv) Sh. V Suresh, Former CMD, HUDCO;
(v) Dr V S Naidu, Member;
(vi) Sh. B C Nigam, Member;
H
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1055
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
(vii) Dr Manoranian Hota, Member; A
(viii) Dr Dipankar Saha, Member;
(ix) Dr Jayesh Ruparelia, Member;
(x) Dr (Mrs.) Mayuri H Pandya, Member;
(xi) Dr M V Ramana Murthy, Member; B
(xii) Representative of School of Architecture and Planning,
New Delhi, Member (to be nominated);
(xiii) Addl. Director/Director/Advisor of MoEF& CC, Member
Secretary.
C
24. The EAC has a vital role in conducting the appraisal of proposed
projects in terms of their environmental impact and consequences. The
EAC is intended to be an expert body. The members of the EAC are
expected to bring to the deliberations of the body their knowledge and
domain expertise. The composition of the EAC as noted above indicates
D
that it comprises of experts with a scientific background as well as persons
having domain knowledge on matters pertaining to the environment.
Among the members of the EAC were personswho had a background
of service in the State and Central Pollution Control Boards, the Indian
Forest Service, MoEF-CC and the National Institute of Ocean
Technology. The constitution of the Committee cannot be faulted on the E
ground that as a body, the EAC lacked domain expertise. As a Committee
which deals with infrastructure projects, the body as constituted also
comprises of persons with relevant background and experience.
Ultimately, the legitimacy of the decision which has been arrived at by
the EAC will be assessed during the course of the judgment. At this
F
stage, we are not inclined to accept a generalized challenge on the ground
that the members of the EAC lacked domain expertise.
25. It is necessary to emphasis two facets:First, under clause
4(vii) of the order dated 7 January 2019 constituting the EAC, the
chairperson is empowered to co-opt an expert as a member for a
particular meeting of the Committee. Infrastructure projects which the G
EAC is called upon to assess and appraise do not fall into one specific
mould. Hence, the EAC should engage with the enabling provision which
has been made in clause 4(vii) to co-opt experts. The exercise of this
enabling discretion will facilitate the work of the EAC by allowing for
the benefit of the knowledge and expertise of an expert in a particular H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A subject area being made available to it. The failure to co-opt an expert
does not, as a consequence, lead to the invalidation of the exercise
conducted by the EAC. But the desirability of co-opting experts needs
to be underscored so as to bring a diversity of experience in the work of
the EAC. Second, the composition of the EAC is dominated in a large
measure by retired officials drawn from the Pollution Control Boards in
B
the Centre and State and from former officials of the MoEF-CC. In the
composition of the EAC, the Union Government should travel beyond
former officials of the Pollution Control Boards and Ministries. Without
disparaging their credentials or their experience, it is nonetheless desirable
that the members of the EAC should comprise of a cross section of
C persons drawn from different specialties having a bearing on
environmental protection. Where the EAC has to deal with infrastructure
projects, it is of course necessary to include persons who are familiar
with the need for a balanced growth of infrastructureconsistent with
environmental protection.
D 26. We strongly commend to the Union Government the need to
ensure in the composition of the EAC the inclusion of persons with
specialized knowledge of diverse disciplines in relation to environmental
protection. Having commended such an exercise to the Union government,
we would leave the matter there. As we have observed earlier, the
challenge to the minutes of the 23April 2019 must be addressed on merits,
E there being no reasonable basis for this Court to conclude that the EAC
lacked the expertise to make its recommendations.
D.2 Conflict of interest
27. The second preliminary point that was urged by Ms Shenoy
F was of a conflict of interest in the role and position of EIL as an EIA
consultant as well as an independent engineer for the project. The Attorney
General for India in his written note of submissions on behalf of the
State of Goa has submitted that EIL was appointed as a consultant for
preparing the EIA report in 2012. The assignment of EIL concluded
upon the issuance of an EC by MoEF-CC on 28 October 2015. Thereafter,
G the Government of Goa floated a tender for the appointment of an
independent engineer to supervise the work of construction in 2017. EIL
secured the bid and came on board as an independent engineer in
December 2017. After the judgment of this Court dated 29 March 2019
by which the EAC was directed to revisit the EC conditions, the
H Government of Goa sought the assistance of EIL which was the author
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1057
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
of the EIA report in presenting its case before the EAC. Hence, from A
the facts which have been set-forth before the Court by the learned
Attorney General, it becomes clear that EIL was appointed as an
independent engineer for the project only after the EC had been granted
on 28 October 2015 and in a competitive tendering process. The role of
the independent engineer is to supervise the construction of the airport
B
in accordance with the ICAO standards. Certification and licensing of
the airport is in the domain of the Director General of Civil Aviation 15 of
the Government of India. Compliance with environmental conditions
contained in the EC is monitored by the regional office of the MoEF-CC
at Bengaluru. Moreover, there is merit in the submission which was
urged by Ms ANS Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor Generalappearing C
for the MoEF-CC that the decisionin regard to the grant of an EC rests
with MoEF-CC. The fact that EIL whose services were engaged as an
EIA consultant was subsequently appointed as an independent engineer
after the initial grant of an EC will not result in the invalidation of the
EC.
D
D.3 Western Ghats and ESAs
28. Addressing the concerns of Ms Anitha Shenoy in relation to
the Western Ghats and the ESAs, Mr Nadkarni urged that the scope of
the Kasturirangan Committee reportwas to suggest an all-round and
holistic approach for sustainable and equitable development while keeping E
in focus measures toconserve, protect and rejuvenate the ecology in the
Western Ghats. The HLWG, with the aid of the National Remote Sensing
Centre16 developed a scientific and objective methodology for identifying
ESAs in the Western Ghats. In doing so, the HLWG bore in mind diverse
parameters including forest and vegetation types, natural and cultural
landscapes, forest fragmentation, biological richness, village boundaries, F
population density, protected areas, wildlife corridors and world heritage
sites among other considerations. Ten ESAs falling within the study area
have been disclosed in the report along with mitigation measures. It was
urged that upon detailed discussion, it was found that the impact on
these ESAs, as a result of the project, would be minimal. The area where G
the project site is located, it was urged, has not been identified as an
ESA. The nearest village identified in the State of Maharashtra – Galel
– is at an aerial distance of 4.1 km from the boundary of the project site.
15
DGCA
16
NRSC
H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A Mr Nadkarni rebutted the contention that the project would impinge upon
wildlife corridors. The nearest identified corridor, it was submitted, is on
the boundary of the States of Goa, Karnataka and Maharashtra which is
far away from the project site.
29. Volume-I of the report of the Kasturirangan Committee on
B the Western Ghats dated 15 April 2013 contains a summary of the
recommendations. The report notes that the Western Ghats region
straddles six states of which 60,000 square kms representing 37 per
cent of the geographical coverage of the Western Ghats has been identified
as an ESA. In that context, the report notes:
C “About 60,000 km2 of natural landscape (approximately 37% of
the total geographical area of Western Ghats Region) has been
identified as Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) by HLWG, which
represents more or less a contiguous band of vegetation extending
over a distance of 1500 km across 6 States of Western Ghats
region and includes Protected Areas and World Heritage Sites.
D The demarcation unit of ESA is the village. IRS LISS III derived
spatial layers on vegetation type and landscape level indices (with
a fine spatial resolution of 24 m) were used as the basis for
identification of ecologically sensitive areas (ESAs).
To facilitate sustainable development in the WG region, which is
E inhabited by about 50 million people, the non ESA comprising
mostly cultural landscape is also demarcated. HLWG recommends
that the Central government should immediately notify the ESA
area, demarcated by HLWG in public interest. The need for urgent
action is evident. In this notified area, development restrictions as
F recommended in this report will apply.”
In its recommendations dealing with restrictions on development
in the proposed ESAs, the report notes:
“HLWG is recommending a prohibitory and regulatory regime in
ESA for those activities with maximum interventionist and
G destructive impact on the ecosystem. All other infrastructure
development activities, necessary for the region, will be carefully
scrutinized and assessed for cumulative impact and development
needs, before clearance.”
Among the recommendations of the HLWG are the following:
H
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1059
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
“All other infrastructure and development projects/schemes should A
be subject to environment clearance under Category ‘A’ projects
under EIA Notification 2006.
All development projects, located within 10 km of the Western
Ghats ESA and requiring Environment Clearance (EC), shall be
regulated as per the provisions of the EIA Notification 2006.” B
30. Chapter IV of the Kasturirangan Committee reportexplained
the procedure adopted to define and demarcate the boundaries of the
Western Ghats for identifying ESAs, in the absence of an accepted
definition of Western Ghats. Chapter V dealt with the need for a scientific,
objective and practical strategy for delineating ESAs within the natural C
landscape with the village as a unit. In that context, the report notes:
“The results obtained based on the methodology adopted by
HLWG are analyzed for 188 talukas in terms of the area covered
under ESAs and number of villages falling under ESA. Maps of
Western Ghats showing vegetation and land cover classes, natural D
and cultural landscapes, biodiversity richness, fragmentation and
human population density and ESA, and Maps of each of Six
States showing natural and cultural landscapes and ESAs are also
provided.”
Chapter III of the report analyses the impact of climate change E
on the ecology of the Western Ghats. Explaining the criteria which it had
adopted in demarcating the Western Ghats, the report of the
Kasturirangan Committee reportnotes :
“HLWG, in the absence of geologically and gemorphologically
sound criteria in demarcating WG, decided to adopt the criteria F
followed by the Western Ghats Development Programme of
Planning Commission which defined WG in terms of geology
conceptually, but has taken altitude as the criterion for identification
of talukas/blocks under Western Ghats Development Programme
of Planning Commission as recommended by High Level
Committee, because the Ghats are usually 760-915 m high. All G
those talukas/blocks at 600 m and above elevation and those talukas
having more than 20% of the area at 600 m and above elevation
that are contiguous to higher altitudes and formed part of the
administrative boundaries of Western Ghats Development
Programme are listed under Western Ghats Development
H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A Programme. This criterion has geological connotation – that at
600 m on the east the WG springs from Deccan Plateau, on an
average the mean elevation of WG all along its length from north
to south is greater than 600 m, and most of the Ghats have height
of over 600 m.”
B 31. Adverting to the biodiversity of the Western Ghats, the report
notes:
“The Western Ghats has unique taxonomic hierarchies, remnant
ecosystems and strong endemic associations. The sholas,
mangroves, kans, dry evergreen forests, swamps, reeds and
C riverine belts represent the unique ecosystems. The forests of
WG are some of the best representatives of non-equatorial
evergreen forests in the world. The resource value of this mega
diversity centre spans from timber-non timber category through
wilderness–ecotourism to gene pools of plants of medicinal-
aromatic-food-industrial value…
D
Floristically the Western Ghats is one of the richest areas in the
country and harbours as many as 4000-4600 species of flowering
plants of which 56 generic and 2100 species are endemic.”
32. The HLWG has catalogued three talukas of Goa as ESAs.
E These are tabulated as follows:
State District Taluka Taluka ESA No. of Villages
Area with ESA
(km2 )
Goa North Goa Satari 515 406 56
South Goa Kankon 362 284 5
F
Sanguem 872 771 38
Goa 1,749 1,461 99
Total
G
In the district of Sindhudurg in Maharashtra, five talukas
namely:Devgad, Kankavli, Kudal, Sawantwadi and Vaibhavvadi have
been demarcated as ESAs.
H
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1061
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
33. Figure 18 in the report of the HLWG which demarcates A
Elephant and Tiger corridors which is reproduced below:
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A 34. Figure 21 delineates the natural and cultural landscapes in the
Western Ghats region of Goaand is reproduced below:
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1063
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
35. The ESAs in the Western Ghats region of Goa are depicted in A
Figure 22 of the Kasturirangan Committee reportwhich is as follows:
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A 36. Figure 23 provides a depiction of the natural and cultural
landscapes in the Western Ghats region of Maharashtra, which is as
follows:
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1065
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
D.4 Forestland and flora and fauna A
37. The criticism leveled against the recommendations of the EAC
in its appraisal of the impact of the project on forested areas has been
dealt with in the submissions as follows:
(i) Details of forested land as marked in working plans were
obtained by the project proponent from the Governments of B
Goa and Maharashtra, details of which have been recorded
by the EAC in its minutes of 23 April 2019, within a 15 km.
radial distance from the project site;
(ii) Concerns about non-disclosure were addressed by the project
proponent by giving details of forests with impacts and C
mitigation measures;
(iii) Remote sensing has been done by the project proponent as
mentioned in Annexure IX of the EIA report.Ground truthing
is usually done on site, performing surface observations and
measurements of various properties and features of the ground D
on the remotely sensed digital image. In this case, the airport
operation is within the boundaries of the project site and details
of forest, springs, wetlands etc. were also given and discussed
in the EAC; and
(iv) Impact of the airport operations on the air and noise E
environment will generally extend until an aircraft gains a
height of 1000 feet.According to the Airport Guidance Manual,
emissions from aircraft at a height upto a 1000 feet above
ground will extend typically around 3km from departure or, in
the case of arrivals 6 km from touchdown. Since the airport F
site is at a height of 155 metres above MSL, the aircraft will
gain a height of 1000 feet during departure within the project
site. Aircraft operations follow a dedicated path called the
funnel, which in this case has an east-west orientation for
landing and takeoff. The impact on forests which are primarily
on the northern and southern sides of the airport site in Goa G
and Maharashtra and their ecological features will be minimal.
The project proponent has relied on a Google image of the
Mopa region indicating a super imposed flight path for landing
and takeoff at the airport which is extracted below:
H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A
B
C
Similarly, an image indicating the location of all ESAs within 10km.
D radius of Mopa airport has been relied upon by the project proponent:
E
F
G
38. The criticism that the EAC has conflated the issue of the
felling of trees with the environmental impact on 42 forests has been
addressed in the submissions placed before this Court by Mr ANS
H
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1067
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for MoEF-CC. A
It has been submitted that:
(i) The forest eco-system comprises mainly of flora and fauna
in the environmental settings of air, water and land. The
impacts of all these elements have been assessed and
mitigation measures have been proposed; B
(ii) The EAC took due cognizance of the presence of forestland
and also observed that though a significant number of trees
were required to be felled, this was a requirement in the
wake of an identified project site. In that context, it made a
reference to the compensatoryafforestationprogramme C
required in the ratio of 1:10;
(iii) The EAC has noted that the airport site does not fragment
the forest areas and does not restrict the movement of fauna.
The airport site is predominantly a plateau and the forest
cover is not contiguous to it. With a boundary wall D
surrounding the airport, there is no possibility of animals
being endangered by entry into the project site;
(iv) The impact of airport operations on the soil and water
environment has also been assessed and necessary
measures put into place by the EAC for protection and E
conservation; and
(v) Nearly 3 lakh trees are to be planted: 50,000 at the site and
2,50,000 in nearby villages within15 km duly supervised by
the Biodiversity board. Besides this, another 2,50,000
treesare to be planted and monitored by the DGCA. The F
EAC has mandated the plantation of native species and
fruit bearing saplings to enable residents depending on
agriculture to derive economic benefits while at the same
time preserving the biological environment to birds.
39. MoEF-CC has also responded to the criticism against the
G
approach adopted by the EAC in regard to avi-faunal studies and data.
According to the submission, the project proponent presented data drawn
from the ZSI and other sources. It has been submitted that the appellant
while referring to the fauna species from ZSI data has referred to
“external distribution” in most cases. However, ZSI data categorically
mentions the “sighting area/localities” where specific species have been H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A actually sighted; all these locations are notably far away from the project
site. Moreover, as an example, it has been submitted that the appellant in
adverting to the sighting of leopards in Goa and Maharashtra did not
limit the submissions to the study area but to the entire territory of the
States of Maharashtra and Goa. ZSI studies on the fauna of Maharashtra
records leopard sightings in places like the Melghat Tiger Reserve,
B
Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve, Pench National Park, Sanjay Gandhi
National Park, Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary, and the Phansad Wildlife
Sanctuary among others. None of these sites fall within the study area.
Similarly, the ZSI publication on fauna of Goa records sightings of leopards
in places like Molem National Park, Cotigao Wildlife Sanctuary and
C Bondla Wildlife Sanctuary, not of which fall within the study area.
Moreover, in the Wildlife Institute of India17report (2010), the presence
of tigers has been recorded in Molem Wildlife Sanctuary and in the
forests of Ponda and Sanguen Tehsil which are not within a 10 km radius
of proposed Mopa airport. Relevant data drawn from the WII and the
Wildlife Trust ofIndia (2017) on the presence of tigers and elephants has
D
been relied upon.
40. The submission which has been urged on behalf of MoEF-CC
is that the distance of the ESA/ESZ is a prime factor in determining the
likely impact of the project activities on the environment. On examination
by the EAC, it has been found that neither the project site nor the villages
E under the study area fall in any ESZ. Moreover, of the 10 ESA villages
in Maharashtra falling within a 10 km. radius of the project site, the
nearest village (Galel) is about 4.1 kms from the boundary of the project
and is located in the northern direction. The runway of the proposed
airport has an east-west orientation. Beyond the runway of 3.75 km.,
F flight operations at an altitude of about 1000 feet would have a minimally
adverse impact on the flora and fauna surrounding the airport. Moreover,
the common faunal species would primarily be restricted to the forest
areas. The proposed airport site is not home to any of these species. It
was, in this context that the EAC has observed that the project site does
not fragment any forest area. The mitigation measures proposed in the
G EC conditions as well as the NGT directions stipulate measures for
minimizing the impact on biodiversity. The project proponent would be
bound to follow DGCA and ICAO aircraft strike hazard management
guidelines including the setting up of an Airfield Environment Management
Committee. Moreover, it has been submitted that EIL had stated the
H 17
WII
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1069
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
migration status of various species of birds in the EIA report. This A
information was updated with regard to the migratory status of additional
fauna found in the study area in supplementary Form1. However, no set
routes of flyways were observed near the airport site. DGCA has
published the National Aviation Safety Plan 2018-2020 emphasizing avi-
faunal and wildlife management in airports. MoEF-CC has annexed to
B
its submissions, DGCA circulars/directions on the following aspects which
would have to be implemented by the concessionaire:
a) Climate Change Initiatives and Local Air Quality Monitoring
in Civil Aviation, 2015;
b) Noise Management of Aircraft Operations at Airports, 2014; C
c) Carbon Off-setting and reduction scheme for International
Aviation;
d) Guidance on Wildlife Hazard Management;
e) National Aviation Safety Plan, 2018-2020, 2019. D
41. In regard to the concerns which emerged during the course of
the public consultation, it has been submitted by MoEF-CC that the
updated report submitted by the project proponent took into account
these concerns which primarily are comprised within two categories
(environment and livelihood).The project proponent made a detailed
E
presentation before the EAC on these concerns and the action plans
were discussed in the EAC meeting. The EAC has stipulated the
implementation of the environment management plan for addressing the
concerns which were raised during the course of the public hearing.
According to the Airport Guidance Manual, the concerns of the public
which were expressed during public consultation must be addressed by F
the applicant either through an updated EIA and EMP or through a
supplementary report. The project proponent has done so through updated
information.
42. During the course of the judgment which was rendered by
this Court on 29 March 2019, certain flaws were noticed in the process G
leading up to the grant of an EC on 28 October 2015. The project
proponent had not complied with its obligation to make a full disclosure
of information on material aspects of the environment in Form1 as an
intrinsic part of the EIA process. This Court specifically recorded its
concerns on vital aspects which had not been adequately addressed by
H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A the EAC. Having noticed the flaws in the process and the deficiencies
in the decision making process of the EAC, the Court directed the EAC
to revisit the recommendations made by it for the grant of an EC including
the conditions which it had formulated, having regard to the specific
concerns which were highlighted in the judgment. Thereafter if the EAC
were to allow the construction to proceed, it was directed to impose
B
additional conditions to protect the terrestrial eco-systems. The EAC
was under a specific mandate to lay down conditions pertaining to air,
water, noise, land and the biological and socio-economic environment.
During the course of this judgment, we have traced the process as it
evolved before the EAC following the earlier directions of this Court.
C The net result of the process is that the concessionaire has been subjected
to a slew of mitigatory conditions: 53 in the original EC, 16 at the behest
of NGT and 40 imposed by the EAC in the second round. On a reading
of the process leading upto the present proceeding, it cannot be said that
the EAC has, in its appraisal process, ignored the concerns which were
highlighted by this Court. Ms Anitha Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel, as
D
we have noted earlier, focursed her submissions on four areas namely
(i) Forests; (ii) ESAs; (iii) Western Ghats; and (iv) Flora and Fauna. The
EAC has adequately addressed these concerns and laid down additional
conditions to ensure the adequate protection of the environment.
43. The Airport Guidance Manual published by MoEF in February
E 2010 contains significant points for guidance having a bearing on the
controversy which has been raised in the present case. In relation to the
study area, the Manual states:
“Primary data through measurements and field surveys; and
secondary data from secondary sources are to be collected in the
F study area within 10 km radius from Aerodrome Reference Point
(ARP). Primary data should cover one season other than monsoon
and secondary data is to cover one full year. The basis for selection
of these criteria is that the aircraft gains a height of 1000ft in this
area below which noise and air pollution are generated maximum
G during its take off stage. Secondary data should be collected
within 15 km aerial distance for the parameters as specifically
mentioned at column 9 (III) of Form I of EIA Notification, 2006.
Details of secondary data, the method of collection of secondary
data, should be furnished. Similarly the proposed locations of
monitoring stations of water, air, soil and noise etc should be shown
H on the study area map.”
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1071
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
The study area in other words, comprises of a radial distance of A
10 kms. from the Aerodrome Reference Point.The Manual indicates
that the basis for selection of the criteria is that an aircraft gains a height
of 1000 feet in this area and the maximum impact of noise and air pollution
is generated during the takeoff stage.The Aircraft Guidance Manual
also states that:
B
“Aircraft engines produce emissions that are similar to other
emissions resulting from any oil based fuel combustion. These,
like any exhaust emissions, can affect local air quality at ground
level. It is emissions from aircraft below 1,000ft, above the ground
(typically around 3km from departure or, for arrivals, around 6km
from touchdown) that are chiefly involved in influencing local air C
quality.”
This is again emphasized in the following extract:
“Ambient Air Quality (AAQ) is important for the airport projects.
The significance of aviation’s impact on air quality will vary D
depending on many other factors such as, background pollution
levels, other sources of pollution, weather and proximity of
residential areas.
Aircraft engines produce emissions that are similar to other
emissions resulting from any oil based fuel combustion. These, E
like any exhaust emissions, can affect local air quality at ground
level. It is emissions from aircraft below 1,000ft, above the ground
(typically around 3km from departure or, for arrivals, around 6km
from touchdown that are chiefly involved in influencing local air
quality. These emissions disperse with the wind and blend with
emissions from other sources such as domestic heating emissions, F
factory emissions and transport pollution.
The local air quality relevant emissions attributed to aircraft
operations at airports are oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon
monoxide (CO), Unburnt hydrocarbons (NMHC and VOCs),
sulphur dioxide(SO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). G
Aircraft engines, auxiliary power units, apron vehicles, de- icing,
and apron spillages of fuel and chemicals emit these pollutants.
Local factors influence the significance of individual emissions
for each airport, but often NOx is by far the most abundant and is
H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A considered the most significant pollutant from an air quality stand
point.
Baseline data of these parameters extending over an area of 10km
radial distance from ARP of the project by observation at a number
of locations, predominantly in the windward direction duly taking
B into account changes in predominant wind direction in the monsoon
period and changes in humidity in atmosphere. Specific importance
is to be attached to areas in close proximity of project up to 3km
is essential, considering the mobile source of emission such as
aircraft.”
C 44. A comprehensive process has been followed by the EAC
bearing in mind the requirements of the Airport Guidance Manual. The
EAC took note of the presence of reserved forests and of ESAs in the
Western Ghats and deliberated on the impact of the construction and
operation of the proposed airport on flora or fauna, hydrological systems
and climatic variations. The process which has been adopted by the
D EAC and its ultimate conclusions must be scrutinized, in the course of
judicial review, in the context of the limitations which are attached to the
court conducting amerits based review. In Lafarge Umiam Mining
Private Limited v Union of India,18 an application was made under
the 1994 EIA notification for the grant of an EC to a proposed limestone
E mining project at Nongtrai Village, East Khasi Hills District Meghalaya.
EC was granted for the project in 2001. A three judge Bench of this
Court rejected the challenge and upheld the grant of the EC for the
proposed project. Chief Justice S H Kapadia, speaking for the Court,
formulated the standard of judicial review which must be applied in cases
relating to the environment in the following terms:
F
“In the circumstances, barring exceptions, decisions relating to
utilisation of natural resources have to be tested on the anvil of
the well-recognised principles of judicial review. Have all the
relevant factors been taken into account? Have any extraneous
factors influenced the decision? Is the decision strictly in
G accordance with the legislative policy underlying the law (if any)
that governs the field? Is the decision consistent with the principles
of sustainable development in the sense that has the decision-
maker taken into account the said principle and, on the basis of
relevant considerations, arrived at a balanced decision? Thus, the
18
H (2011) 7 SCC 338
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1073
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
Court should review the decision-making process to ensure that A
the decision of MoEF is fair and fully informed, based on the
correct principles, and free from any bias or restraint.”
The EAC has accounted for the relevant factors outlined by this
Court in its previous judgment in the assessment leading to the grant of
the EC. B
45. The evaluation of merits is a matter which primarily rests with
an expert authority. The court can certainly supervise procedural
compliance and ensure that all necessary inputs which are required to
be factored into the decision-making process have been duly borne in
mind. Once this has been done, the court must be circumspect in micro- C
managing the decision-making process by the EAC by substituting its
own opinion for that of the EAC. Undoubtedly, no process can be perfect
or free from studied criticism. Ms Anitha Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel
has attempted to perform such an exercise when she submitted that the
collection of primary faunal data from a nearby village and secondary
data from ZSI sources was not an adequate means of dealing with the D
concerns expressed by this Court. In assessing these criticisms, we must
equally be cognizant of the fact that by the judgment of this Court dated
29 March 2019, the EAC was required to carry out the exercise within
a period of one month from the receipt of the order of this Court. The
Court did not quash the EC but directed that it should remain under E
suspension until the EAC revisited its recommendations in the light of
the concerns which were expressed by this Court. Having assessed the
process which took place following the judgment of this Court and the
outcome, it would be difficult for this Court to hold that it fails to meet
the standards which the court applies in the course of judicial review in
environmental matters. F
E. Directions
46. For the above reasons, the minutes of the meeting of the EAC
dated 23 April 2019 are taken on record as prayed for. The additional
conditions which have been imposed by the EAC shall, together with the G
original conditions of the EC dated 28 October 2015 and the directions
issued by the NGT be cumulatively observed.The conditions cumulatively
imposed for the grant of an EC, have been set out below:
I. Conditions imposed by the EC dated 28 October 2015
H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A A. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
(i) ‘Consent to Establish’ shall be obtained from State Pollution
Control Board under the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act, 1974.
B (ii) The Project Proponent shall ensure availability of adequate
land at the junction of the Mopa Airport road and Mumbai/
Goa NH-17 for traffic circulation/management and to
provide for all the traffic interchanges and proposed clover.
(iii) The approach and exit roads to the Airport shall be approved
C from the NHA land should be according to IRC norms.
(iv) A perusal of the Topo sheet superimposed on the runway
area indicates that the extreme end of the runway is covering
the drainage area partly. The drainage area which is under
the runway shall be channelized. The area between the
D parallel taxiway and runway shall be handled carefully to
drain the water from the area in the outfall 2.
(v) The PP shall submit the site clearance certificate from
Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), before
commencement of work at the project site.
E
(vi) Sewage and other liquid effluent generated from the airport
including from the existing terminal should be treated
according to the norms laid down by the State Pollution
Control Board. The treated sewage shall be recycled for
flushing/gardening. Proper Dual plumbing shall be provided.
F
(vii) The solid waste generated shall be properly collected,
segregated and disposed according to the provisions of Solid
Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000. The
project proponent shall make provisions for drinking water
at convenient places for passengers and also at the
G cafeterias as to reduce generation of solid wastes including
PET bottles.
(viii) Installation and operation of DG sets shall comply with the
guidelines of CPCB.
(ix) Parking provision shall be provided according to the National
H Building Code of India, 2005.
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1075
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
(x) Water conservation fixtures shall be provided and water A
balance shall be maintained through verifiable metering for
fresh raw water, recycled as well as rain water harvesting.
(xi) Necessary permission shall be obtained for drawing of
ground water from competent authority prior to
construction/ operation of the project. B
(xii) The land use around the Airport complex shall be regulated
through a plan to control unauthorized development which
may create problems in the operation of the Airport.
(xiii) The wastewater from hangers shall be tested for presence
of heavy metals, if any, and shall be treated in STP. The C
treated waste water shall be used for gardening/ flushing.
(xiv) Rain water harvesting shall be provided to recharge the
ground water.
(xv) Energy conservation to the extent of at least 20% shall be D
incorporated including water conservation (reuse/ recycle,
rain water harvesting and water efficient fixtures) and other
green building practices for various buildings proposed within
the airport complex. The PP shall consider ECBC Guidelines
2009 to achieve energy efficiency. The energy conservation
measures shall be subject to periodic verification by the E
competent Energy Conservation/Efficiency authority in the
State.
(xvi) The project proponent shall prepare a detailed traffic
management plan to take care of increased vehicular traffic
which should also cover/clearly delineate widening/ F
increasing the existing roads and associated road
infrastructure approving/installation of road safety features/
pedestrian facility/FOB/under passes etc (that can be done
by carrying out road safety audits). Measures shall be taken
to prevent encroachment along/within the ROWs on
G
connecting/main arterial roads.
(xvii) All the recommendations of the EMP shall be complied with
in letter and spirit. All the mitigation measures submitted in
the EIA report shall be prepared in a matrix format and the
compliance for each mitigation plan shall be submitted to
RO, MoEF&CC along with half yearly compliance report. H
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A (xviii) The responses/commitments made during public hearing
shall be complied with in letter and spirit.
(xix) Project Proponent shall install noise level display system.
Noise level shall be monitored regularly in all seasons
(different meteorological conditions) within the compound
B as well as nearby habitations and it shall be ensured that
the noise level is within the prescribed limits. During night
time the noise levels measured at the boundary shall be
restricted to the permissible levels to comply with the
prevalent regulations.
C (xx) The location of monitoring stations and monitoring of noise
level during day and night shall be in accordance with the
CPCB guidance document “Requirement and procedure
for monitoring Ambient Noise Level due to aircraft”
published on 25th June 2008.
D (xxi) Construction spoils, including bituminous material and
other hazardous materials, must not be allowed to
contaminate watercourses and the dumpsites for such
material must be secured so that they should not leach
into the ground water.
E (xxii) Any hazardous waste generated during construction phase,
should be disposed off as per applicable rules and norms
with necessary approval of the SPCB.
(xxiii) Under the provision of Environment (Protection) Act,
1986, legal action shall be initiated against the project
F proponent if it was found that construction of the project
has been started without obtaining environmental
clearance.
(xxiv) The project proponent will set up separate environmental
management cell for effective implementation of the
stipulated environmental safeguards under the supervision
G
of a Senior Executive.
(xxv) Corporate Environment Responsibility:
a) The Company shall have a well laid down Environment
Policy approved by the Board of Directors.
H
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1077
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
b) The Environment Policy shall prescribe for standard A
operating Process/procedures to bring into focus any
infringements/deviation/violation of the environmental
or forest norms/conditions.
c) The hierarchical system or Administrative Order of
the company to deal with environmental issues and B
for ensuring compliance with the environmental
clearance conditions shall be furnished.
d) To have proper checks and balances, the company
shall have a well laid down system of reporting of
non-compliances/violations of environmental norms to C
the Board of Directors of the company and/or
shareholders or stakeholders at large.
B. GENERAL CONDITIONS:
(i) Provision shall be made for the housing of
construction labour within the site with all necessary D
infrastructure and facilities such as fuel for cooking,
mobile toilets, mobile STP, safe drinking water,
medical health care, creche etc. The housing may
be in the form of temporary structures to be
removed after the completion of the project. E
(ii) A First Aid Room will be provided in the project
both during construction and operation of the project.
(iii) All the topsoil excavated during construction
activities should be stored for use in horticulture/
landscape development within the project site. F
(iv) Disposal of muck during construction phase should
not create any adverse effect on the neighbouring
communities and be disposed taking the necessary
precautions for general safety and health aspects
of people, only in approved sites with the approval G
of competent authority.
(v) The diesel generator sets to be used during
construction phase should below Sulphur diesel type
and should conform to Environment (Protection)
Rules prescribed for air and noise emission H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A standards. The diesel required for operating DG
sets shall be stored in underground tanks and if
required clearance from Chief Controller of
Explosives shall be taken.
(vi) Vehicles hired for bringing construction material to
B the site should be in good condition and should have
a pollution check certificate and should conform to
applicable air and noise emission standards and
should be operated only during non-peak hours.
(vii) Fly ash usage shall be explored as building material
C in the construction as per the provisions of Fly Ash
Notification of September, 1999 and amended as
on 27th August, 2003.
(viii) Ready mixed concrete must be used in building
construction.
D (ix) Storm water control and its re-use as per CGWB
and BIS standards for various applications.
(x) Water demand during construction should be
reduced by use of pre-mixed concrete, curing
agents and other best practices referred.
E
(xi) Separation of grey and black water should be done
by the use of dual plumbing line for separation of
grey and black water.
(xii) Use of glass may be reduced by upto 40% to
reduce the electricity consumption and load on air-
F
conditioning. If necessary, use high quality double
glass with special reflective coating in windows.
(xiii) Roof should meet prescriptive requirement as per
Energy Conservation Building Code by using
appropriate thermal insulation material to fulfill
G requirement.
(xiv) Opaque wall should meet prescriptive requirement
as per Energy Conservation Building Code which
is proposed to be mandatory for all air-conditioned
spaces while it is aspirational for non-air-conditioned
H
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1079
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
spaces by use of appropriate thermal insulation A
material to fulfil requirement.
(xv) The green belt of the adequate width and density
preferably with local species along the periphery
of the plot shall be raised as to provide protection
against particulars and noise. B
(xvi) Traffic congestion near the entry and exit points
from the roads adjoining the proposed project site
must be avoided. Parking should be fully internalized
and no public space should be utilized.
(xvii) The construction of the structures shall be C
undertaken as per the plans approved by the
concerned local authorities/local administration,
meticulously conforming to the existing local and
central rules and regulations.
(xviii) The construction material shall be obtained only D
from approved quarries. In case new quarries are
to be opened, specific approvals from the
competent authority shall be obtained in this regard.
(xix) Adequate precautions shall be taken during
transportation of the construction material so that E
it does not affect the environment adversely.
(xx) Full support shall be extended to the officers of
this Ministry/Regional Office by the project
proponent during inspection of the project for
monitoring purposes by furnishing full details and F
action plan including action taken reports in respect
of mitigation measures and other environmental
protection activities.
(xxi) A six-monthly monitoring report shall need to be
submitted by the project proponents to the Regional G
Office of this Ministry regarding the implementation
of the stipulated conditions.
(xxii) Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change
or any other competent authority may stipulate any
additional conditions or modify the existing ones, if H
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A necessary in the interest of environment and the
same shall be complied with.
(xxiii) The Ministry reserves the right to revoke this
clearance if any of the conditions stipulated are
not complied with the satisfaction of the Ministry.
B (xxiv) In the event of a change in project profile or change
in the implementation agency, a fresh reference
shall be made to the Ministry of Environment, Forest
& Climate Change.
(xxv) The project proponents shall inform the Regional
C Office as well as the Ministry, the date of financial
closure and final approval of the project by the
concerned authorities and the date of start of land
development work.
(xxvi) A copy of the clearance letter shall be marked to
D concerned Panchayat local NGO, if any, from whom
any suggestion/representation has been made
received while processing the proposal.
(xxvii) A copy of the environmental clearance letter shall
also be displayed on the website of the concerned
E State Pollution Control Board. The EC letter shall
also be displayed at the Regional office, District
Industries centre and Collector’s office/Tehsildar’s
office for 30 days.
(xxviii) The funds earmarked for environmental protection
F measures shall be kept in separate account and
shall not be diverted for other purpose. Year-wise
expenditure shall be reported to this Ministry and
its concerned Regional Office.
5. These stipulations would be enforced among others
G under the provisions of Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, the Public Liability
(Insurance) Act, 1991 and EIA Notification 2006,
including the amendments and rules made
H thereafter.
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1081
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
6. All other statutory clearances such as the approvals A
for storage of diesel from Chief Controller of
Explosives, Fire Department, Civil Aviation
Department, Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 etc. shall be
obtained, as applicable by project proponents from
B
the respective competent authorities.
7. The project proponent shall advertise in at least
two local Newspapers widely circulated in the
region, one of which shall be in the vernacular
language informing that the project has been
accorded Environmental Clearance and copies of C
clearance letters are available with the State
Pollution Control Board and may also be seen on
the website of the Ministry of Environment, Forest
& Climate Change at http://www.envfor.nic.in.
The advertisement should be made within seven D
days from the date of receipt of the Clearance letter
and a copy of the same should be forwarded to the
Regional Office of this Ministry.
…
9. Status of compliance to the various stipulated E
environmental conditions and environmental
safeguards will be uploaded by the project
proponent in its website.”
II. Conditions imposed by the NGT in its order dated 21
August 2018 F
A. AIR ENVIRONMENT
1. Total Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM), Respirable
Particulate Matter (RPM) during construction phase and
un-burnet and Hydro Carbons (HC), Lead (Pb), CO 2, SO2,
G
CO2, SOOT and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) during operation
phase are going to be major pollutants in this kind of project,
Besides, fugitive emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC) during fuel handling can be another issue for ambient
air environment. The provision of only 6 (six) Air Quality
Monitoring Stations is inadequate as sampling duration has H
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A been given as ‘twice a week, 4 weeks in a season as per
CPCB standards for NAAQM, 1994. It would be
appropriate if the Project Proponent establishes real time
online continuous Air Quality Monitoring Station also which
is connected to CPCB server and capable of monitoring all
relevant and critical parameters and mitigation measures
B
taken.
2. Although all parameters w.r.t. ambient air parameters have
been found to be within limits for all 6 (six) locations
monitored, we feel for the purpose of giving/depicting holistic
picture with regard to ambient air in the area, at least 3
C (three) more locations falling in the State of Maharashtra
be also monitored and documented.
B. WATER ENVIRONMENT
1. Only two number of Rain Water Harvesting pits have been
D provided which we feel are not adequate and there is a
need to place other pits at such locations as to capture all
the excess drainage for water-recharge.
2. More frequent Water Quality Monitoring i.e.once every
month may be carried out by Project Proponent at bore
E wells and STP discharge plants instead of 4 (four) times in
a year as proposed.
C. NOISE ENVIRONMENT
1. It has been proposed that ambient noise levels shall be
monitored around the premises of airport, near DG sets
F and at main entrance/boundary of airport once a week at 7
(seven) locations which we feel are inadequate. Besides
these, continuous monitoring of occupational noise exposure
limits in such industrial environments would be appropriate
with audible or visual alarm output capability.
G 2. Integrated Noise Model (INM) be more frequently used
and mitigation undertaken during the operational phase of
project at regular intervals.
3. Although ambient noise levels have been found to be within
limits at 9 (nine) locations monitored, we feel for the purpose
H of giving/depicting holistic picture with regard to ambient
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1083
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
noise levels in the area, at least 3 (three) more locations A
falling in the State of Maharashtra be also monitored and
documented.
D. LAND ENVIRONMENT
1. There is a potential for impact on soil quality due to project
related spills and leaks of fuel and chemicals and B
uncontrolled disposal of wastes and waste water. Adequate
care be taken to avoid spills and leaks of hazardous
substances and all project related wastes. Littering on sites
and beyond the sites needs to be adequately prevented and
controlled. C
2. Debris and Muck Management Plan to be prepared and
implemented so as to avoid spillage of muck and debris on
the slopes.
3. Soil conservation and stabilization measures needs to be
undertaken by deploying both mechanical and bio-engineering D
methods.
4. Remediation, restoration and compensation needs to be
integral part of policy so as to provide adequate relief for
any environmental or project related disasters.
E
E. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
1. Efforts be made to transplant the trees to other locations in
the same vicinity by using appropriate mechanical devices
which are available these days.
2. Efforts be made to plant indigenous species which are tall F
in size rather than small saplings.
3. Concerns have been raised by appellants with regard to
plant species ‘Dipcadi concanense’ which has been claimed
to be a threatened plant. This claim of the appellants have
been negated by the respondent by producing a G
documentation of Botanical Survey of India, Western
Regional Centre, Pune, Maharashtra titled as ‘A Note on
Occurrence and Distribution of Dipcadi Concanense”. By
invoking Precautionary Principle, we direct the Project
Proponent to draw up a Conservancy by Plan/Scheme for
H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A ‘Dipcadi concanense’ in collaboration with Forest
Department, State of Goa and Botanical Survey of India
and ensure its implementation.
F. Socio-Economic Environment
1. Adequate drills with respect to implementation of Disaster
B Management plan needs to be carried out at regular intervals
so as to ensure preparedness and rapid response to any
disasters both man made or natural.
2. Although ‘Disaster Management Plan’ as Annexure-II is
part of EIA Report under the sub head 1.2.1-National
C Disasters needs further elaboration especially in terms of
Emergency Response Measures, Rules and Responsibility,
Mitigation, etc.”
III. Conditions imposed in the revised assessment of the
EAC dated 23 April 2019
D
I. STATUTORY COMPLIANCE:
(i) The project proponent shall obtain certificate from Chief
Wildlife Warden (CWLW) of State through State
Government that none of the area of the project falls in the
notified Eco-sensitive Zone (ESZ) and no activity prohibited
E
in the Eco-sensitive Zone will be taken up.
(ii) The project proponent shall obtain Consent to Establish/
Operate under the provisions of Air (Prevention & Control
of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention & Control
of Pollution) Act, 1974 from the concerned State Pollution
F
Control Board/Committee.
(iii) The project proponent shall obtain necessary permission
from the competent authority for drawing of water from
Tillari Irrigation Canal.
G II. AIR QUALITY MONITORING AND
PRESERVATION:
(i) The project proponent shall install system to carry out
Ambient Air Quality monitoring for common/criterion
parameters relevant to the main pollutants released (e.g.
H PM 10 and PM 2.5 in reference to PM emission and SO2,
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1085
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
and NOx in reference to SO2 and NOx emissions) within A
and outside the airport area covering upwind and downwind
directions.
(ii) Notification GSR 94€ dated 25.01.2018 of MoEF&CC
regarding Mandatory Implementation of Dust Mitigation
Measures for Construction and Demolition Activities shall B
be complied with.
(iii) Soil and other construction materials should be sprayed with
water prior to any loading, unloading or transfer operation
so as to maintain the dusty material wet.
(iv) The excavation working area should be sprayed with water C
after operation so as to maintain the entire surface wet.
(v) Excavated materials shall be handled and transported in a
manner that they do not cause any air pollution.
(vi) The soil/construction materials carried by the vehicle should D
be covered by impervous sheeting to avoid leaking of the
dusty materials.
III. WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND
PRESERVATION:
(i) Appropriate drainage channels need to be designed to take E
care of the water flow into the nearest water courses/rivers,
etc.
(ii) It should be ensured that sustainable water flow in the
various channels of watershed in the plateau is maintained.
(iii) Storm water drains are to be built for discharging storm F
water from the air-field to avoid flooding/water logging in
project area. Domestic and industrial waste water shall not
be allowed to be discharged into the storm water drains
and directed to STP for treatment.
(iv) Proper drainage systems, emergency containment in the G
event of a major spill during monsoon season etc. shall be
provided.
(v) The runoff from paved structures like Aprons can be routed
through drains to oil separation tanks and sedimentation
basins before being discharged into rainwater harvesting H
structures.
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A (vi) Run off from chemicals and other contaminants from
aircraft maintenance and other areas within the airport shall
be suitably contained and treated before disposal. A spillage
and containment plan shall be drawn up and implemented
to the satisfaction of the State Pollution Control Board.
B (vii) The project activity shall conform to the General Standards
for Discharge of Environmental Pollutants notified in the
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, and amended from
time to time.
(viii) Rain water harvesting for roof run-off and surface run-off,
C as plan submitted should be implemented. Rain water
harvesting structures shall conform to CGWA guidelines.
Before recharging the surface run off-pre-treatment must
be done to remove suspended matter, oil and grease.
IV. NOISE MONITORING AND PREVENTION:
D (i) Notification GSR 568(E) dated 18.06.2018 of MoEF & CC
regarding Ambient Air Quality Standards with respect to
Noise in Airport Noise Zone shall be complied with.
(ii) Noise level survey shall be carried as per the prescribed
guidelines and report in this regard shall be submitted to
E Regional Officer of the Ministry as a part of six-monthly
compliance report.
(iii) Noise from vehicles, power machinery and equipment on-
site should not exceed the prescribed limit. Equipment
should be regularly serviced. Attention should also be given
F to muffler maintenance and enclosure of noisy equipments.
(iv) Acoustic enclosures for DG sets, noise barriers for ground-
run bays, ear plugs for operating personnel shall be
implemented as mitigation measures for noise impact due
to ground sources.
G (v) During airport operation period, noise should be controlled
to ensure that it does not exceed the prescribed standards.
During night time the noise levels measured at the boundary
of the building shall be restricted to the permissible levels to
comply with the prevalent regulations.
H
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1087
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
(vi) Where construction activity is likely to cause noise nuisance A
to nearby residents, restrict it to only during day time i.e.
between 7 am to 6 pm.
V. ENERGY CONSERVATION/CLIMATE CHANGE
MEASURES:
(i) Energy conservation measures like installation of LED should B
be integral part of the project design and should be in place
before project commissioning.
(ii) Initiatives such as Green Infrastructure Development
program, adoption of less emission intensive technologies,
renewable energy program, electrical vehicles and Airport C
Carbon Accreditation need to be adopted to reduce its impact
on climate change and Green House Gas (GHG) emissions
as per environmental best practices governing Greenfield
airports.
VI. WASTE MANAGEMENT: D
(i) Soil stockpile shall be managed in such a manner that dust
emission and sediment runoff are minimized. Ensure that
soil stockpiles are designed with no slope greater than 2:1
(horizontal/vertical).
E
(ii) The project activity shall conform to the Fly Ash notification
issued under the EP Act of 1986.
(iii) The solid wastes shall be segregated as per the norms of
the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. Recycling of
wastes such as paper, glass (produced from terminals and
F
aircraft caterers), metal (at aircraft maintenance site),
plastics (from aircrafts, terminals and offices), wood, waste
oil and solvents (from maintenance and engineering
operations), kitchen wastes and vegetable oils (from
caterers) shall be carried out.
(iv) Solid inert waste found on construction sites consists of G
building rubble, demolition material, concrete; bricks, timber,
plastic, glass, metals, bitumen etc shall be reused/recycled
or managed so as to strictly conform to the Solid Waste
Management Rules, 2016, and Construction and Demolition
Waste Management Rules, 2016. H
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A (v) The project proponents shall implement a management plan
duly approved by the State Pollution Control Board and
obtain its permissions for the safe handling and disposal of:
a Trash collected in flight and disposed at the airport
including segregation, collection and disposed.
B b Toilet wastes and sewage collected from aircrafts and
disposed at the Airport.
c Wastes arising out of maintenance and workshops.
d Wastes arising out of eateries and shops situated inside
C the airport complex.
e Hazardous and other wastes.
VII. GREEN BELT:
(i) Green belt shall be developed in area as provided in project
details, with native tree species in accordance with Forest
D
Department. The green belt shall inter alia cover the entire
periphery of the Airport.
(ii) The plantation species in and around Airport site should be
carefully chosen to avoid bird nesting and to improve pollution
control and noise control measures. Water intensive and/or
E invasive species should not be used for landscaping.
(iii) Plantation activity should be taken up under the expert
guidance for forest department of Goa, care should be taken
that soil erosion measures should be taken up on priority so
that the right mineralized soil of forest is not washed away.
F The plantation activity should also have an approach of soil
conservation where planting is done along the contours
avoiding gully formation. As far as possible monoculture
plantation should be avoided.
(iv) The proposed 10 times compensatory plantation need to be
G monitored by the Government of Goa so that the target of
planting 5.5 lakh saplings is achieved in a a time bound
manner, their survival rate is monitored and mortality is
replenished. As major chunk of 2.5 lakh of saplings is
proposed to be done by the village level Bio Diversity
H
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1089
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
Committees, it is necessary to ensure that people are largely A
given native species and/or fruit bearing saplings so that
they will be able to derive economic benefits from such
fruit crops and also such trees will provide better biological
environment to birds.
(v) Top soil shall be separately stored and used in the B
development of green belt.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARING AND HUMAN HEALTH
ISSUES:
(i) Solution/management plan regarding redressal of all the
concerns raised in the public hearing must be clearly spelt C
out in the EMP and shall be implemented in letter and spirit.
Compliance for each mitigation plan shall be submitted to
Regional Office, MoEF&CC along with half yearly
compliance report.
(ii) Provision of Electro-mechanical doors for toilets meant for D
disabled passengers shall be ensured. Children nursing/
feeding room shall be located conveniently near arrival and
departure gates.
(iii) Emergency preparedness plan based on the Hazard
identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) and Disaster E
Management Plan shall be implemented.
(iv) Provision shall be made for the housing of construction
labour within the site with all necessary infrastructure and
facilities such as fuel for cooking, mobile toilets, mobile STP,
safe drinking water, medical health care, creche etc. The F
housing may be in the form of temporary structures to be
removed after the completion of the project.
(v) Occupational health surveillance of the workers shall be
done on a regular basis.”
47. We have also taken note of the assurance which has been G
tendered on behalf of the concessionaire that it will adopt a Zero Carbon
Programme both in the construction and operational phases of the airport.
We accept the undertaking of the concessionaire and issue a direction
for compliance.
H
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.
A 48. The earlier judgment of this Court highlighted numerous
deficiencies by the project proponent leading to the grant of the EC.
This Court highlighted numerous concerns including the preservation of
forests, the existence of ESAs with their attendant features and the
impact of the proposed project on natural water channels. The Court
also noted the abject failure of the project proponent to provide complete
B
information on the existence of reserved forests. In the proceedings that
followed the judgment of this Court, the project proponent sought to
remedy its failure by taking into account additional information on
significant aspects of the environment. In the process leading to the
grant of the EC as well as the lifting of its suspension by this Court,
C numerous mitigatory conditions have been imposed on the project
proponent. We deem it appropriate to ensure the oversight of the project
by a specialized body to ensure compliance with the directions
cumulatively issued by this Court. We direct the National Environmental
Engineering Research Institute19 to be appointed to oversee compliance
with the directions cumulatively issued by this Court. The project
D
proponent shall bear the costs, expenses and fees of NEERI.
49. The suspension on the EC shall accordingly stand lifted.The
Miscellaneous Application is accordingly disposed of.
E Ankit Gyan Application disposed of.
F
G
19
H NEERI
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "environmental clearance"Sign in to search