Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

Name of the members who were present in the meeting are as follows: ­

1. Shri Manoj Kumar Nandi Vice Chairman, SEAC 2. Prof. Subhash Chandra Santra Member, SEAC 3. Dr. Kalyan Rudra Member, SEAC 4. Shri Somnath Bhattacharyya Member, SEAC 5. Shri Arijit Banerjee Member, SEAC 6. Dr. S. P. Sinha Ray Member, SEAC 7. Shri Sandipan Mukherjee, I.F.S. Secretary, SEAC & Member Secretary, WBPCB

In the beginning of the 63rd meeting of SEAC, which was held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Bidhan Nagar, the Secretary, SEAC welcome all the members. After introductory session, nine cases were placed for reconsideration. One additional issue was discussed under 'Miscellaneous' section. Five applicants were requested to make their presentation before the committee. All the five applicants appeared before the SEAC for technical presentation on their respective project proposal.

Session I A. Reconsideration proposals: ­ Nine reconsideration proposals were placed in the meeting.

1. Proposed Cement Grinding Unit of M/s. U.K. Cement Pvt. Ltd. at Jl. No. – 58, Vill. & Mouza – Bamunara, Bamunara Industrial Area, Durgapur, GP – Gopalpur, PO – Panagarh Bazar, PS – Kanksa, Dist. ­ Burdwan, Pin – 713212, West Bengal.

Activity:

This is a proposal for installation of a Cement Grinding unit (1200 TPD) with one no. coal fired Slag drier (500 TPD) for production of Portland Slag Cement & Portland Pozzolana Cement (360000 TPA).

Chronology of the event:

The proponent obtained Environment Clearance from SEIAA, West Bengal on 17.03.2011 for the proposed site at Jl. No. – 58, Dag No. – 1943 – 1955, Vill. & Mouza – Bamunara, Bamunara Industrial Area, Durgapur, GP – Gopalpur, PO – Panagarh Bazar, PS – Kanksa, Dist. ­ Burdwan, Pin – 713212, West Bengal, having land area 5.68 acres. Subsequently, the proponent applied for Consent to Establish to the West Bengal Pollution Control Board. On detailed scrutiny it was found that land area in above dag nos. is only 50 decimal or 0.5 acres. The Member Secretary, SEIAA vide letter dated 05.08.2011 intimated that the proponent has applied for amendment of Environmental Clearance regarding dag nos. The proponent has informed vide letter dated 26.08.2011 that there are total 83 nos. of plots covering land area of 5.68 acres. The proponent also submitted supporting documents from BL&LRO, Kanksa Block, Dist. Burdwan. However, dag nos. 1947 – 1950 is not included in the list of dag nos. submitted.

Page 1 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

The matter is placed for discussion in the 59th SEAC meeting held on 20.09.2011. During discussion in the 59th SEAC meeting held on 20.09.2011, the committee reviewed the letter dated 26.08.2011 and noted that :­ 1. The project proponent have obtained Environment Clearance from SEIAA, West Bengal on 17.03.2011 for the proposed site at Jl. No. – 58, Dag No. – 1943 – 1955, Vill. & Mouza – Bamunara, Bamunara Industrial Area, Durgapur, GP – Gopalpur, PO – Panagarh Bazar, PS – Kanksa, Dist. ­ Burdwan, Pin – 713212, West Bengal, having land area 5.68 acres. 2. However, the project proponent have informed vide letter dated 26.08.2011 that there are total 83 nos. of plots covering land area of 5.68 acres. The unit has submitted supporting documents from BL&LRO, Kanksa Block, Dist. Burdwan. However, dag nos. 1947 – 1950 is not included in the list of dag nos. submitted. 3. It is not clear from the submission whether the land parcel which was shown during the presentation through satellite imagery before the SEAC and the land parcel which comprises of 83 number of plots, are same or there is any difference. The SEAC requests the project proponent to kindly confirm whether the latitude­longitude provided for the project location is still applicable in this case or not.

The reply of the proponent submitted on 17.11.2011 are as follows :­ a) The proponent has mentioned that the land parcel of 5.68 acres for the proposed cement plant covering 83 nos. of plots is same as that shown during presentation before SEAC. The latitude­longitude mentioned earlier is still applicable for the proposed project. b) The proponent has also mentioned that dag nos. 1947­1950 are not situated in the 5.68 acres land parcel. However, the index map submitted is not clearly legible. Further, the prayer for amendment of dag nos. in original Environmental Clearance has been forwarded by the Member Secretary, State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, West Bengal vide letter dated 15.11.2011. However, the enclosure was not found.

The letter dated 17.11.2011 was placed for consideration in the 61st SEAC meeting held on 29.11.2011. During discussion in the 61st SEAC meeting held on 29.11.2011, the committee requested the proponent vide letter dated 19.12.2011 to submit an undertaking that layout with RS no., list of Dag no. and Latitude Longitude has been provided for same land parcel, which was shown in the presentation made in the 49th SEAC meeting held on 03.12.2010.

The project proponent submitted their reply on 03.01.2012. They submitted the undertaking that layout with RS no., list of Dag no. and Latitude Longitude have been provided for same land parcel, which was shown in the presentation made in the 49th SEAC meeting held on 03.12.2010.

The case was placed for reconsideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.

After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the SEAC has approved the amendment of Environmental Clearance with 83 nos. plots as mentioned in the documents of BL&LRO, Kanksa Block, Dist. Burdwan, in the 63rd meeting held on 31.01.2012. The copy of the summary decision of the said SEAC meeting alongwith other relevant documents is forwarded to the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, West Bengal for necessary action and perusal.

Page 2 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

2. Proposed expansion of Cement Grinding Unit by M/s. Shri Shankar Suwan Estate Pvt. Ltd. at Jl. No. 24, Mouza – Balanpur, PS – Kanksa, PO – Ikra, Jamuria Municipality, Pin – 713362, Dist – Burdwan, West Bengal. Name of the Environmental Consultant – M/s. Environ India.

Activity:

This is a proposal for expansion of an existing Cement Grinding unit through installation of 2x50 TPD grinding mill for additional production of Portland Slag Cement (30000 TPA). The existing plant has 2x50 TPD cement grinding mill with coal fired slag drier (50 TPD). It is noted that clinker will not be manufactured at the site. The manufacturing process will involve grinding of Cement Clinker with Slag and Gypsum.

Chronology of the event :

During the presentation in the 61st SEAC meeting held on 29.11.2011, the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), West Bengal, has noted that­ a) A pond is present in the factory premises. b) The project proponent has verbally agreed to comply with the stringent standard for particu­ late emission of 50 mg/Nm3 in the existing plant. c) The proponent has not yet obtained permission for groundwater abstraction in the existing plant. Further the SEAC made the following recommendations in the 61st SEAC meeting held on 29.11.2011­ Subsequent response dated 24.01.2012 from the unit is given below : – Recommendations / Directions of the Response of the Proponent submitted on 24.01.2012 Committee, issued on 19.12.2011 1. The project proponent should obtain 1. The project proponent has mentioned that water is the permission for groundwater being used for domestic purposes only and no abstraction for the existing plant at process water is required for the operation of the first. Cement Grinding Unit. As per notification issued by Water Resources Investigation & Development Department, domestic users – with sump or overhead tank upto 10000 ltrs. are exempted from obtaining permission. However, for permission towards abstraction of groundwater which will be used for domestic purposes only, application has already been submitted to State Water Investigation Dept. 2. The proponent should retain the 2. The project proponent has submitted that the area existing pond and utilise the same for marked as pukur and mentioned in the Mutation Rainwater Harvesting. The proponent Certificate is outside the proposed project area of should submit authenticated document M/s. Sri Shankar Suwan Estate Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. regarding size of pond. The project Satwik Metals Pvt. Ltd. and is being kept as an proponent should overlay the site plan open area without any construction or on the Mouza map for showing the development. The area will be utilised for location of the existing pond. rainwater harvesting. Page 3 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

Recommendations / Directions of the Response of the Proponent submitted on 24.01.2012 Committee, issued on 19.12.2011 3. Scaled plant layout showing existing 3. The proponent has submitted the copy of layout. and proposed facilities, Greenbelt area, Rainwater Harvesting storage area, internal roads, storage sheds etc. on a suitable grid should be submitted. 4. The plantation area should be 33% of 4. The proponent has mentioned that the total land the land area. area considered for the project is 3.282 acres, out of which 1.09 acres (33% of total land) has been allocated for greenbelt development. Plantation is being developed as a continuous process along with periphery of the plant in line with the area shown in the plant layout.

The case was put up for reconsideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.

After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the committee has noted that this is a proposal for expansion of existing Red category unit located under Jamuria Municipality, Dist – Burdwan. As per the siting policy of WBPCB, Special Red & Red category industries are not permitted to set up within the municipal areas of Burdwan District except Jamuria Industrial Area.

Therefore, before consideration of the proposal, the unit is requested to obtain in principle approval from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board for the proposed expansion of the existing unit. Furthermore, the committee has not yet received permission for drawl of groundwater from the concerned authority.

It has been decided that the case shall be further considered only after submission of the necessary clarification.

3. Proposed Township Project (PHASE IA) by M/s. Kolkata West International City (P) Ltd. at Mouza – Kona, Balitikuri, Bankra, Pakuria, Tentulkuli, Khalia & Salap, PO & PS – Domjur, Dist – Howrah. Activity:

This is a proposal for development of a Township with 9000 dwelling units, commercial facilities and other infrastructural facilities. The proposed development shall comprise of 5 phases.

Chronology of the event :

The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) has granted Provisional Environmental Clearance for the proposed Township project in the 7th meeting held on 26.07.2007. The proponent mentioned that the proposed development shall comprise of 5 phases. Subsequently, the proponent obtained Environmental Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, West Bengal for PHASE – I of the proposed project on 11.11.2008.

Page 4 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

The proponent obtained amendment of the said Environmental Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, West Bengal for PHASE – I of the proposed project on 04.02.2010. The proponent has submitted vide letter dated 08.09.2011, sanctioned plan for PHASE – IA along with key plan sanctioned by KMDA, comparative statement and other documents. The proponent has mentioned that status of construction of PHASE – I is vacant land. Salient features of the proposed PHASE – I is given below: ­

Salient Features As per Phase I Phase IA Provisional EC (EC Obtained) (EC Applied for) Land Area 390.165 acres 89.174 acres 4.283 acres (17272.98 sqm.) Expected Population 45000 4550 2324 Building profile

Water requirement 10000 KLD 690 KLD 335 KLD (Operation stage) Wastewater generated 7500 KLD 518 KLD 262 KLD Firefighting Water 700 KL 200 KL 300 KL demand Solid waste disposal 24.99 TPD 2.53 TPD 1.12 TPD Total Built­up Area Not mentioned 165202.4 sqm. 52736.43 sqm. Ground Coverage 167.77 acres 18.2 acres 0.967 acres (3913.55 sqm.), 22.578% Landscaped area with 128.76 acres 22.85 acres 1.019 acres (23.792%) waterbody Waterbody 3.7 acres NIL NIL Road & Pathway 93.64 acres 21.4 acres 2.297 acres (53.63%) No. of Car Parking 33000 nos. 1811 nos. 210 nos. spaces proposed Power requirement 32 MVA 4.5 MVA 1.9 MVA Backup Power DG Sets (3x625 DG Sets (2x65 DG Sets (2x380 KVA) KVA, KVA) 10x750KVA & 6x1010 KVA)

The case was placed in the 59th SEAC meeting held on 20.09.2011 and the SEAC noted that the total project area is 390.165 acres. The project proponent earlier obtained Environmental Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, West Bengal for PHASE – I comprising of 89.174 acres. Now the unit applied for PHASE – IA which is only 4.283 acres. The SEAC requested the project proponent vide letter dated 30.09.2011 to consider the project in an integrated manner and also to explain the reasons for reverting to the proposal for sending the sewage to the KMW STP instead of augmenting the capacity of the STP at the project site in a modular form. The SEAC also Page 5 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

desired to review the compliance status of the PHASE – I for which Environmental Clearance has already been granted. The proponent has submitted their reply on 22.11.2011. The proponent has mentioned that as per development agreement with KMDA, the sewer line is to be connected to KMW & SA STP at Kona. However, Kona STP was too far from PHASE – I development and development planning for finalisation of the route of the sewer line could not be done for PHASE ­ I. Hence, construction of STP of 650 KLD was considered for PHASE – I. If it is not feasible to connect the sewer line for PHASE – IA, the capacity of the existing STP will be enhanced. The progress status of PHASE – I as mentioned by the proponent is as follows:­

Total no. of Total No. of Completed CC CC applied Consent­to­ Consent­ units as per EC units as per unit obtained Operate to­ sanctioned obtained Operate to plan. be applied shortly

910 907 370 269 101 179 191

The comparative statement for PHASE – I and PHASE – II as mentioned by the proponent is given below :­

Salient Features As per Phase I (EC Obtained) Phase IA (EC Applied Provisional EC for) Land Area 390.165 acres 89.174 acres 4.283 acres (17272.98 sqm.) Expected Population 45000 4550 (as per the EC) 2324 4535 (as mentioned by the proponent) Building profile

Water requirement 10000 KLD 690 KLD 335 KLD (Operation stage) Wastewater generated 7500 KLD 518 KLD (as per the 262 KLD amended EC) 513 KLD (as mentioned by the proponent) Firefighting Water 700 KL 200 KL 300 KL demand Solid waste disposal 24.99 TPD 2.53 TPD (as per the EC) 1.12 TPD 2.52 TPD (as mentioned by the proponent)

Page 6 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

Salient Features As per Phase I (EC Obtained) Phase IA (EC Applied Provisional EC for) Total Built­up Area Not mentioned 165202.4 sqm. 52736.43 sqm. Ground Coverage 167.77 acres 18.2 acres 0.967 acres (3913.55 sqm.), 22.578% Landscaped area with 128.76 acres 22.85 acres 1.019 acres (23.792%) waterbody Waterbody 3.7 acres NIL NIL Road & Pathway 93.64 acres 21.4 acres 1.648 acres (53.63%) No. of Car Parking 33000 nos. 1811 nos. 210 nos. spaces proposed Power requirement 32 MVA 4.5 MVA 1.9 MVA Backup Power DG Sets (3x625 DG Sets (2x65 KVA) DG Sets (2x380 KVA) KVA, 10x750KVA & 6x1010 KVA)

The letter dated 22.11.2011 was placed before the SEAC in the 61st SEAC meeting held on 29.11.2011 and the committee requested the project proponent vide letter dated 19.12.2011 that as requested earlier the renewed agreement / concurrence of KMW&SA for accepting the sewage and treating in KMW&SA STP was not made available to SEAC till 29.11.2011. The SEAC requested the proponent to confirm the STP proposal.

The reply of the proponent submitted on 03.01.2012 are as follows :­ 1. The proponent has mentioned that the SEAC already accorded clearance to connect the waste water of the entire township to KMW&SA STP at Kona having capacity 40 MLD vide SEAC's letter dated 16.08.2007. 2. The proponent has also mentioned that they have already conveyed vide letter dated 30.04.2009 about some practical difficulties in sending sewer of Phase­I to KMW&SA STP. Accordingly they constructed a separate 650 KLD capacity STP dedicated for this phase within the site and obtained the Environmental Clearance. 3. Further, the proponent mentioned that they propose to construct another 300 KLD STP (Mod­ ular type) for Phase IA. The location of the said proposed STP along with sewer line is marked in the annexed plan.

The case was put up for reconsideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.

After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the committee requested the unit to present the case through a power point presentation in the 64th Meeting scheduled to be held on 16.02.2012 at 12.30 pm at the Conference Room of Paribesh Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Bidhannagar. The following issues must be addressed in the presentation: 1. The compliance status of Phase I for which EC has been already granted including present source and quantity of water consumed

Page 7 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

2. The project proposal for Phase IA. 3. Justification for the proposal of construction of another 300 KLD STP (modular type) for Phase IA for sewage treatment. It is also informed that the unit is required to comply with the Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2011 and 05.10.2011, issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India.

4. Proposed Infrastructure cum Logistic Hub “FREIGHT PORT” by M/s. Bengal Anmol South City Infrastructure Ltd. at Jl. No. – 2 & 13, Mouza – Joypurbill & Jagdishpur, PS – Liluah, Dist. – Howrah, West Bengal.

Activity:

This is a proposal for development of an Infrastructure cum Logistic Hub consisting of Warehouse (4 blocks of B+G+3 storied buildings), Retail Area (2 blocks of G+4 storied buildings), Office (1 block of B+G+6 storied building), Captive Housing (4 blocks of G+5 storied buildings) with 108 flats and MLCP (1 block of G+3 storied building) alongwith loading, unloading bays and parking spaces with total built up area – 1,38,325 sqm.

Chronology of the event :

The information provided in the application for Environmental Clearance for the proposed project was found to be insufficient. The letter dated 05.04.2010 was issued to the proponent for submission of necessary information. The proponent submitted on 07.04.2010 the status of the writ petition made by Jalabhumi Banchao Committee & Org. at the High Court, Calcutta.

Further, the SEAC received one copy of order, which states that “it is made clear that the issue before the Court is in respect of filling up or conversion of water body and not agricultural land. In case the authorities are in doubt as to the particular piece of land comes within the definition of water body they would not permit its conversion without bringing it to the notice of this Court and seeking appropriate order/direction in the matter, otherwise, in our view, there is no restriction placed by this Court on the State Government in processing the cases of conversion of agricultural land”.

The letter dated 15.07.2010 was placed in the 45th SEAC meeting held on 03.08.2010. The SEAC noted the following : – 1. The land conversion is still under process and the project proponent is yet to submit conversion status for 3.16 acres of water body. 2. The copy of the order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice and the Hon’ble Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya of Kolkata High Court, which states that “it is made clear that the issue before the Court is in respect of filling up or conversion of water body and not agricultural land. In case the authorities are in doubt as to the particular piece of land comes within the definition of water body they would not permit its conversion without bringing it to the notice of this Court and seeking appropriate order/direction in the matter, otherwise, in our view, there is no restriction placed by this Court on the State Government in processing the cases of conversion of agricultural land”.

The SEAC requested the proponent vide letter dated 17.08.2010 to submit the authenticated document on status of conversion vis­à­vis the project proposal along with concurrence letter from the concerned

Page 8 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

authority for ensuring water supply, emergency discharge of treated wastewater and solid waste disposal at an earliest. The proponent was also requested to mention the existing vegetation, if any, at the proposed site. The proponent was also requested that as per the circular by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, only the enlisted consultants, if any, other than the proponent themselves, are permitted to appear before the SEAC.

The proponent stated vide letter dated 10.03.2011 that – 1. The proponent has mentioned that they will retain the waterbody, hence conversion will not be done. The copy of conversion certificate for some plot nos. submitted. 2. The copy of the High Court Order dated 06.07.2010 submitted earlier is again enclosed. 3. The copy of the letter dated 25.02.2011 of the Executive Engineer, Howrah Irrigation Division, for discharge of additional runoff (not effluent) to Br. No. 1 of Howrah Drainage Canal. 4. The copy of the application for sinking 2nos. tubewell each 12m3/hr x 10hr. 5. Section drawing of the canal submitted.

The proponent has not yet submitted – 1. Concurrence letter from the concerned authority for ensuring water supply, emergency discharge of treated wastewater and solid waste disposal. 2. Existing vegetation, if any, at the proposed site and the mouza map showing existing waterbodies.

The SEAC considered the reply dated 03.03.2011 of the proponent in the 53rd SEAC meeting held on 13.04.2011. The SEAC requested the project proponent vide letter dated 28.04.2011 to submit the following – 1. The concurrence letter from the concerned authority for ensuring water supply, emergency discharge of treated waste water and solid waste disposal. 2. Details about the existing vegetation, if any, at the proposed site. 3. Master Plan of the proposed project superimposed on an authenticated Mouza Map clearly showing the existing waterbodies and also approved current classification of the land parcel alongwith JL No., LR Khatian No. / Plot No. A comprehensive list of land parcels alongwith area of the parcels for the entire project shall be highly appreciated.

The minutes of the meeting held in Paribesh Bhawan on 12.07.2011 has been received. The matter is placed before the SEAC in the 58th meeting held on 19.08.2011.

The project proponent submitted their reply on 09.01.2012, which is as under :­ 1. The proponent submitted that they have received NOC from SWID for sinking of deep tubewell. Further, the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Water Works was pleased to issue necessary NOC for disposal of treated waste water in case of emergency. For solid waste disposal, they have a plan to put portable dustbin, which will be cleared on a regular basis by vehicle. 2. The proponent submitted the following vegetation found at site :­ a) Palm Tree – 5 nos.

Page 9 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

b) Banana Tree – 13 nos. c) Ashwattha Tree – 4 nos (small) d) Other type – 2 nos. (Kadam Tree) e) Besides part of the site is covered by long wild grass. 3. The proponent enclosed two nos. of Mouza Maps duly authenticated by the concerned BL & LRO Office showing the existence of the waterbodies.

The case was put up for reconsideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.

After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the SEAC has opined that clarifications sought in the 53rd SEAC meeting has not been properly addressed in the said letter. The unit is therefore requested to provide the following documents for further processing of the application: 1. Necessary concurrence letter should be obtained from the competent authority for the solid waste disposal facilities. 2. Details of the existing vegetation including types of grass cover should be specified. 3. Master Plan of the proposed project superimposed on an authenticated Mouza Map clearly showing the existing water bodies and also approved current classification of the land parcel alongwith JL No., LR Khatian No. / Plot No. should be submitted. A comprehensive list of land parcels along with area of the parcels for the entire project shall be highly appreciated. 4. Necessary concurrence letter should be obtained from competent authority for ensuring total water supply for the proposed project. 5. A copy of NOC for disposal of treated waste water in case of emergency from competent authority should be submitted.

It has been decided that the case shall be further considered only after submission of the necessary clarification.

5. Proposed IT Park by M/s. Phoenix Software Ltd. at Jl. No. ­ 35, Mouza – Gangapur, Kolkata Information Technology Park (KITP), Bantala, PS – Kolkata Leather Complex, Dist. – 24 Parganas (South), West Bengal.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of an IT Park (1 block of B+G+10 storied building, 52.625m from GL and 1 block of B+G+12 storied building, 72.075m from GL) alongwith Central block, Service block etc.

Chronology of the event :

The proponent applied for environmental clearance on 08.12.2010 to the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), West Bengal. The same was forwarded to the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), West Bengal on 31.12.2010. The proponent was requested to submit necessary information vide letter dated 17.02.2011 as the information provided in the application was inadequate. The letter dated 07.06.2011 was received from the Principal Secretary, Dept. of IT, Govt. of West Bengal.

Page 10 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

The proponent has submitted their reply on 04.08.2011. The following observations were verbally communicated to the proponent – 1. The Deed of Assignment of Lease mentions that “The Assignee shall have to apply for supply of electricity, water line (drinking and Construction water separately) to the WBSEB / the Assignor / any other Authority engaged by the State Government and on payment of prescribed charges and as and where necessary the WBSEB / the Assignor / any other Authority engaged by the State Government shall provide the same”. However, the same has not been submitted. 2. The proponent has mentioned that KMDA is the plan sanctioning authority alongwith South 24 Parganas Zilla Parishad. 3. The proponent has also mentioned that the rainwater storage capacity has been increased to approx. 10.7% of the potential.

During presentation in the 59th SEAC meeting held on 20.09.2011, the committee recommended the following:­ Recommendations / Directions of the Response of the Proponent submitted on Committee issued on 10.10.2011 24.10.2011 1. The corrected site plan should be 1. The project proponent has submitted revised submitted. Vertical profile of the site plan. However, vertical profile of the building should be clearly specified. building has not been mentioned, instead, perspective view of the building has been submitted. 2. Revised plantation plan should be 2. The project proponent has submitted revised submitted as discussed in the meeting. list of plantation.

3. The total impervious area of the site 3. The proponent has mentioned that building should be limited within permissible ground coverage does not include extended Ground Coverage and Paved Area basement, underground STO, Rainwater stipulations. Harvesting tank, UGR etc. The project proponent has referred to KMDA Notification dated 12.12.2008. However, such provisions could not be found in the said notification. The project proponent has submitted ground floor plan with area statement. The area statement is not clear and larger (with appropriate grid size) print out of the gridded Master Plan is needed for verification. 4. The proponent should clearly specify 4. The project proponent has mentioned that whether chlorination or ozonation will chlorination will be adopted for tertiary be adopted for tertiary treatment of treatment of sewage. sewage.

Page 11 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

Recommendations / Directions of the Response of the Proponent submitted on Committee issued on 10.10.2011 24.10.2011 5. The car parking calculation as per the 5. The project proponent has mentioned that as West Bengal Municipal (Building) per West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules Rules, 2007 should be submitted. 2007 required car parking is 1172 and car parking provided is 1303. However, supporting calculation has not been provided. 6. Utilisation of fly ash building materials 6. The project proponent has mentioned that fly should be submitted as per the MoEF ash building materials will be utilised. latest Notification. However, no details has been provided. 7. The financial commitment along with 7. The project proponent has mentioned that the time bound action programme for financial outlay of 1% of the project cost will Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) be allocated for CSR activities for activity like improving the health improvement of physical and social facility, educational facility at the infrastructure in the neighbourhood backward surrounding economically backward areas. However, item­wise detailed breakup area, should be submitted. has not been provided. 8. Name of Environment Consultant 8. The project proponent has mentioned that should be mentioned. M/s. Ghosh, Bose & Associates Pvt. Ltd. are the Environment Consultant for the proposed project. However, no undertaking has been provided on behalf of the consultants as per the MoEF, Government of India Office Memorandum dated 05.10.2011. In this regard it may be mentioned that as per the clarification received from Director, NABET on 19.09.2011, the SEAC decided in the 59th meeting held on 20.09.2011, to allow M/s. Ghosh, Bose & Associates Pvt. Ltd. Till 30.09.2011.

The matter was placed before the SEAC in the 61st meeting held on 29.11.2011. The committee has noted the following and the project proponent has submitted the reply as follows :­

Recommendations / Directions of the Response of the Proponent submitted on Committee issued on 19.12.2011 17.01.2012 1. Although the perspective view of the 1. The proponent has mentioned that the building has been submitted but the vertical building is B+G+10 storied and the height profile (i.e. number of floor, building is 54.50 meters. heights etc.) has not been clearly mentioned in the submission.

Page 12 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

Recommendations / Directions of the Response of the Proponent submitted on Committee issued on 19.12.2011 17.01.2012 2. The provision of rule regarding ground 2. The project proponent has submitted the coverage which was mentioned in support National Building Code of India, Para of the claim about additional ground 2.26 highlighting the relevant portion. coverage during the presentation could not be found in the copy of KMDA notification dated 12.12.2008 provided by the unit. 3. No back up calculation has been provided 3. The project proponent has submitted the in support of the claim that as per the West backup calculation for the required car Bengal (Building) Municipal Rules 2007, parking of 1172 nos. as per the West the required car parking is 1172 and car Bengal (Building) Municipal Rules 2007 parking proposed to be provided is 1303. and the car parking proposed is 1303 nos. 4. The item­wise detailed break up of 4. Item­wise CSR plan proposed but without Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) any time bound programme. Total along with the time bound action plan has budgetary allocation for the CSR has been not been provided. mentioned as Rs. 55 lacs (approx). 5. It is once again reiterated that all project 5. proponents are required to strictly comply with the Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of India on 30.09.2011 and 05.10.2011.

The case was put up for reconsideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.

After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the SEAC has opined that the directions of the Committee issued on 19.12.2011 have not been adequately addressed in the said letter. The unit is therefore requested to provide the following documents for further processing of the application: 1. Regarding the provision of rule for additional ground coverage, the KMDA notification shall prevail. 2. The CSR initiatives proposed does not have any time bound programme, item wise time frame should be proposed and the activities should be completed within a period of 5 years. Necessary undertaking should be submitted to that effect. It has been decided that the case shall be further considered only after submission of the necessary clarification.

Page 13 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

6. Proposed Residential & Commercial Complex by M/s. P.S. Villa Pvt. Ltd. & Others at Holding No. – 4S/08/Block­P & 4S/09/Block­P, Jl. No. – 5 & 6, Mouza – Kaikhali & Mondal Ganti, Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality Ward No. – 26 & 27, PS – Baguihati, Dist. – 24 Parganas (North), West Bengal.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of a Residential and Commercial Complex. The Residential Complex (6 blocks of B+G+9 storied buildings) shall consist of 216 apartments. The Commercial block (1 block of B+G+7 storied building) shall consist of Retail Area, Hotels (with 184 double bedded rooms) and Restaurants.

Chronology of the event :

The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal stipulated the conditions for Environmental Clearance in the 45th SEAC meeting held on 03.08.2010.

The proponent has now applied for Environmental Clearance vide letter dated 11.11.2011 and 16.11.2011. The proponent has also submitted the copy of the building plans provisionally sanctioned by the Chairman, Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality on 28.09.2011 upto ground floor. However, the area statement in the plan is not clearly legible. The proponent has also mentioned that piling work is being carried out at the site. The modified salient features of the proposed project as per the comparative statement submitted by the proponent, are as follows:­

Salient Features As per SCEC dated 18.08.2010 Post plan sanction by Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality Land Area 13602.69 sqm. 13602.69 sqm. No. of Flat 216 216 No. of Building Block Residential – 6 Residential – 6 Commercial – 1 Commercial – 1 Height of Building Block Residential – B+G+9 storied Residential – B+G+9 storied Commercial – B+G+7 storied Commercial – B+G+7 storied Expected Population 1080 (fixed) 1080 (fixed) 1861 (floating) 1861 (floating) Total Water requirement 451 KLD (operation stage) 451 KLD (operation stage) Fresh Water requirement 289 KLD (Municipal Supply) 289 KLD (Municipal Supply) Domestic Water 285 KLD 285 KLD requirement Wastewater generated 207 KLD 207 KLD Wastewater treated 166 KLD 166 KLD Wastewater recycled 162 KLD 162 KLD Wastewater discharged 4 KLD 4 KLD Wastewater Treatment To be treated in Sewage To be treated in Sewage Treatment Plant Treatment Plant

Page 14 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

Salient Features As per SCEC dated 18.08.2010 Post plan sanction by Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality Solid waste disposal 1.2 tonne per day 1.2 tonne per day Total Built­up Area 49606.55 sqm. 49606.55 sqm. Ground Coverage 5650.04 sqm. (41.5% of land 6102.50 sqm. (44.86% of land area) area) Green Area 4552.44 sqm. (33.5% of land 4099.98.44 sqm. (30.14% of area) land area) Paved Area 3400.21 sqm. (25.0% of land 3400.21 sqm. (25.0% of land area) area) No. of Parking Spaces 292 (Covered – 241, Open ­ 51) 302 (Covered – 252, Open ­ 50) proposed Total Power requirement 1000 KW (WBSEDCL) 1000 KW (WBSEDCL) Back up Power 4 x 250 KVA D.G. Sets 4 x 250 KVA D.G. Sets

Furthers the SEAC has considered the reply submitted on 16.11.2011 in the 61st meeting held on 29.11.2011 and the committee has recommended the following :­ Recommendations / Directions of the Response of the Proponent dated 18.01.2012 Committee dated 19.12.2011 1. The ultimate source of water from which 1. The unit has submitted a letter from the office the water will be supplied to the project. of Rajarhat­Gopalpur Municipality informed that part supply from the Municipality may be availed and rest to be obtained by installing deep tubewell after getting permission from SWID. 2. The capacity of the storm water carrying 2. To be discharged to Municipality drain. drain and its route to final disposal point.

3. As per the submission of the unit the 3. The project proponent has submitted the letter municipality is supposed to collect and issued by the Chairman of Rajarhat­Gopalpur finally dispose the solid waste, the muni­ Municipality for the collection and dispose of cipality should possess a valid Municipal the solid waste. Solid Waste Authorisation Certificate. 4. The area statement in the plan submitted 4. The proponent has submitted the area is not legible. The unit is requested to statement ratified by Rajarhat­Gopalpur submit a legible copy of the same. Municipality.

The case was put up for reconsideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.

After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the SEAC has noted that infrastructure facilities to be provided for the proposed project need further introspection. The unit is therefore requested to provide the following documents for further processing of the application:

Page 15 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

a) Permission form SWID for drawl of ground water ; b) The unit may also kindly note that as per the submission the concerned municipality will col­ lect and finally dispose the solid waste. The municipality should possess a valid Municipal Solid Waste Authorization Certificate. Copy of the same is to be submitted. c) Sanctioned building plan from the concerned municipality clearly suggests that the building plan is provisionally sanctioned up to Ground floor. The unit is required to submit the sanc­ tioned plan for the total project. d) It has also been observed as per the submission of the unit dated 11.11.2011, piling work has been started. The unit is therefore directed not to start any construction activity without ob­ taining Environmental Clearance from SEIAA and NOC from the WBPCB.

7. Proposed Residential Complex & Hospital by M/s. Oriental Sales Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. at 2, Jessore Road, Holding No. – 380 (N), 1108 (O), Cal­Jessore Road, Jl. No. – 19, Mouza – Dum Dum House, South Dum Dum Municipality Ward No. ­ 07, PO & PS – Dum Dum, Kolkata – 700028, Dist. – 24 Parganas (North).

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of a Residential Complex having 1196 flats (13 blocks of B+G+13 storied buildings, 13 blocks of G+13 storied buildings), Hospital (70 beds, 1 block of G+9 storied building), Club (2 blocks of G+1 storied buildings) and 2 nos. podium.

Chronology of the event :

The proposal was placed before the SEAC in the 56th SEAC meeting held on 15.07.2011, 58th meeting held on 19.08.2011 and 60th SEAC meeting held on 24.10.2011.

The proponent delivered two technical presentations on composting machine on 25.11.2011. The committee has considered the letter dated 02.11.2011 of the proponent in the 61st SEAC meeting held on 29.11.2011 and the committee informed that the proposals for in­house Solid Waste Management Technologies are under scrutiny and review by the field experts.

The proponent has submitted letter dated 14.12.2011 stating that South Dum Dum Municipality has undertaken a centralized 'Waste to Energy' programme. The proponent has further mentioned that they would like to join the said scheme of the Municipality. However, in case the said 'Waste to Energy' programme is not ready in time, the proponent shall take up the responsibility of operating an approved technology for onsite treatment of organic solid waste till the time the Municipal facility is ready and operational.

The SEAC considered the reply dated 14.12.2011 in the 62nd meeting held on 22.12.2011. The committee has opined through letter dated 03.01.2012 that the solid waste disposal facilities must be ensured for the upcoming building projects. In this connection the status of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) authorisation of concerned urban local bodies shall be reviewed during appraisal of any building projects. As in this present case the municipality does not posses any valid municipal solid waste authorisation, the project proponent should keep adequate space as a future provision for setting up of appropriate onsite biodegradable solid waste treatment plant. The odour control system, leachate disposal system for the said treatment plant should be adequate. The output characteristics of the compost should be of desired quality as per MSW Rules. The project proponent should also propose

Page 16 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

the mechanism which would ensure regular operation and maintenance of such treatment plant and would also propose inhouse use of compost as well as for selling out the excess quantity. The project proponent is also required to submit an undertaking that the building shall not be functional before either the concerned municipality obtains valid MSW authorisation and accepts the solid waste from the above­mentioned project or appropriate onsite solid waste treatment system are made available within the housing complex. The suitable onsite solid waste treatment system shall also be subject to review and scrutiny and approval of concerned authorities.

The project proponent has submitted letter dated 19.01.2012 stating that they have already kept adequate space for future provision for onsite treatment of biodegradable fraction of MSW and the location of the MSW management site is shown in a drawing. They also informed that they will adopt the best and approved technology by reputed manufacturer of composite onsite treatment of biodegradable fraction of MSW. In addition they would also take the responsibility that the odour control system and leachate disposal system would be adequate and the characteristics of compost manure would be of desired quality as per MSW (Management & Handling) Rule 2000. The compost manure would be used in landscaping within the project area and the excess quantity will be sold to the prospective vendors. In this regard they also submitted an undertaking on non­judicial stamp paper that the building would not be functional before either the South Dumdum Municipality obtains valid MSW authorisation and accepts the solid waste from the project or appropriate onsite solid waste management system are made available within the project area.

The case was put up for reconsideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.

After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the SEAC has opined that the solid waste management and disposal facilities must be ensured for the upcoming building projects. The SEAC has noted that the waste management facilities to be provided for the proposed project need further introspection. In this connection, the following points have been noted by the SEAC and require further clarification: 1. The proposed location of the area allocated for solid waste management was previously earmarked for car parking and appears to be near one of the residential blocks 2. Modalities of Operation and Maintenance of the Solid Waste Management System It has been decided that the case shall be further considered only after submission of the above documents.

8. Proposed Residential cum Commercial Complex “SRIJAN HARMONY” by M/s. Srijan Realty Limited & Others at JL No. 77, Holding No. 132, Mouza – Manikpur, PS – Sonarpur, Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality Ward No. 23, Dist – 24 Parganas (South), West Bengal.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of a Residential cum Commercial complex comprising of 1425 dwelling units in 11nos. G+11 storied buildings alongwith Club (G+1 storied) and Commercial Complex (2nos. G+1 storied buildings).

Page 17 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

Chronology of the event :

The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), West Bengal made the following recommendations in the 62nd SEAC meeting held on 22.12.2011. Subsequent response dated 25.01.2012 from the unit is given below :­ Recommendations / Directions of the Response of the Proponent submitted on 25.01.2012 Committee, issued on 30.12.2011 1. Fire fighting storage provisions 1. The project proponent has mentioned that the fire should be made as per norms. The fighting provision should be provided as per open car parking should be revised WBFS Norms. The proponent has also submitted accordingly. the revised open car parking plan. 2. The design influent and effluent 2. The project proponent has also mentioned that the characteristics considered for the proposed STP is based on FAB. They submitted STP should be mentioned. Test the design influent and effluent characteristics of reports of similar STPs should be STP. The STP, based on the same principle submitted. (FAB), is currently running in their another project at “PS Srijan Tech Park” at DN­52, Sector – V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700091. The project proponent has also submitted the influent and effluent characteristics of the STP. 3. Revised Rainwater recharging 3. The proponent has submitted revised rainwater proposal should be submitted as recharging proposal. discussed in the meeting. 4. Detail solar lighting proposal with 4. The proponent has mentioned that the 60 nos. of numbers and locations for solar lighting system will be installed for street installations “solar operated LED” lights. All the solar street lights will be LED lighting should be specifically operated. They submitted the details of solar light mentioned. plan. 5. Revised CSR proposal should be 5. The proponent has submitted revised Corporate submitted as discussed in the Social Responsibility (CSR) plan with financial meeting. commitment of Rs. 30 lacs.

The case was put up for reconsideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.

The SEAC considered the submission by the proponent and finalised Stipulated Conditions for Environmental Clearance. The set of environmental conditions are annexed as Annexure 1.

Page 18 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

9. Proposed Residential Complex by M/s. Fortune Park Housing Projects Pvt. Ltd. at 168 Krishnanagar Road, Vill. – Paschim Khilkapur, Mouza – Moynagadi, PS – Barasat, Dist. ­ 24 Parganas (N).

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of a Residential Complex having 819 flats (13nos. G+11 storied buildings and 1no. G+7 storied building) and Club cum Community Building (G+2 storied).

Chronology of the event :

The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), West Bengal made the following recommendations in the 60th SEAC meeting held on 24.10.2011. Subsequent response dated 20.01.2012 from the unit is given below :­ Recommendations / Directions of the Response of the Proponent submitted on Committee, issued on 15.11.2011 20.01.2012 1. The project has been proposed in an 1. The project proponent has submitted the arsenic prone zone. Please note that as concurrence letter obtained from the Paschim per the provision of MoEF, New Delhi Khilkapur Gram panchayat regarding supply of guidelines on large building projects, potable water (without mentioning the groundwater abstraction and recharging quantity), discharge of treated wastewater and cannot be allowed in this area. collection and disposal of solid waste. Further, approx. 632m3/day groundwater is proposed to be abstracted from this arsenic prone zone. However, no information is available about the depth of borewell and impact of abstraction. 2. The proponent has mentioned that 2. The project proponent has also mentioned that water requirement will be met from required freshwater during construction and Panchayat supply. Details of water operational phase is expected to be arranged by source, quality and quantity of Paschim Khilkapur Gram Panchayat. They Panchayat water supply should be submitted the concurrence letter in this regard. provided alongwith specific commitment from concerned authority. 3. No information has been provided 3. The proponent has submitted the concurrence about the carrying capacity of the letter from the Paschim Khilkapur Gram adjacent drainage system in which Panchayat alongwith the stormwater drainage runoff from the project site in addition route. They also mentioned that stormwater to 380m3/day of treated wastewater has drainage facility exists along the Ardebak Road been proposed to be discharged. The which ultimately discharges into Sunthi Khal. route of transport of stormwater as well Stormwater runoff and surplus treated as treated wastewater to the final wastewater from the proposed complex will be recipient waterbody is also not discharged into the said drain. specified.

Page 19 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

Recommendations / Directions of the Response of the Proponent submitted on Committee, issued on 15.11.2011 20.01.2012 Details of stormwater and treated wastewater discharge, conveyance to the final recipient waterbody should be provided alongwith necessary concurrence of concerned authority 4. Details of solid waste collection, 4. The proponent has mentioned that the transport and disposal scheme generated solid waste within the complex will alongwith concurrence of concerned be handed over to panchayat solid waste authority. The copy of Municipal Solid collection system. Paschim Khilkapur Gram Waste (MSW) authorization should be Panchayat has its solid waste collection, valid. transportation and disposal arrangement under P & RD scheme. 5. Existing trees and waterbodies, if any, 5. The proponent has mentioned that there is no should be specified. existing trees or waterbody within the project site. 6. Land conversion certificate should be 6. The unit has confirmed that they will submit submitted. The detailed list of landuse the land conversion certificate to the SEAC on classification of dag nos. should be receipt from the land department. The project provided. proponent has submitted a list of dagwise land details. 7. It has been noted that PVC grass cell 7. The unit has submitted a photograph of PVC structure has been proposed with 25% grass paver. hard area and 75% soft area. Typical design drawing should be provided.

The case was put up for reconsideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.

After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the SEAC has opined that the directions of the Committee issued on 15.11.2011 has not been adequately addressed in the said letter. The unit is therefore requested to provide the following documents for further processing of the application: 1. Since the project has been proposed in an arsenic prone zone, necessary concurrence from PHED should be obtained regarding supply of potable water along with quantity. Necessary backup cal­ culation about depth of bore well and impact of abstraction should be obtained from PHED. 2. Regarding solid waste management, the unit has mentioned that the concerned panchayet has it’s waste disposal system under P&RD scheme and valid authorisation from WBPCB. The relevant enclosure, Annexure 1 is not available along with the letter submitted dated 20.01.2012. 3. Typical design drawing of PVC grass cell was required to be submitted as per Direction dated 15.11.2011, however only a photograph of the same has been submitted.

It has been decided that the case shall be further considered only after submission of the necessary clarification.

Page 20 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

B. Miscellaneous :­

1. Proposed expansion project for enhancement of production of Unsaturated Polyester Resins by M/s. Strongbonds Polyseal Pvt. Ltd. at Plot No. – 26/C, 26/D/1 & 26/D/2, Kalyani Industrial Estate Phase I, Block – D, Dist. – Nadia, Pin – 741235, West Bengal.

Activity:

This is an expansion proposal for enhancement of production capacity of Unsaturated Polyester Resins (UPR) by 690 TPA. The proposed plant will be located adjacent to the existing plant at Kalyani Industrial Estate.

Chronology of the event :

The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) made the following recommendations in the 52nd meeting held on 04.03.2011. During presentation it was understood by the SEAC that the proposed expansion work has been started before obtaining Environmental Clearance. Subsequent response from the unit submitted on 16.06.2011, is given below :­ Recommendations / Directions of the Response of the Proponent dated 16.06.2011 Committee issued on 15.03.2011 1. The unit should not continue any work for 1. The proponent has stated that they will not the proposed expansion project before continue any work for the proposed obtaining prior necessary clearances. expansion project before obtaining prior necessary clearances. 2. The Hazardous Waste Authorization must be obtained from the West Bengal 2. The proponent has mentioned that they have Pollution Control Board before further applied for Hazardous Waste Authorization consideration of this case for to West Bengal Pollution Control Board. Environmental Clearance. 3. The effluent characteristics for the 3. The proponent has submitted analysis report existing plant should be submitted. of the effluent. The proponent has mentioned Incremental load of the proposed that the incremental wastewater generation enhancement should be mentioned along will be 0.2 KLD. The proponent has with the effluent treatment method to be proposed neutralization and evaporation for adopted. treatment of effluent.

4. Adequate no. of trees should be provided. 4. The proponent has mentioned that total 47 nos. of trees will be provided.

5. Adequate storage volume for rainwater 5. The proponent has mentioned that 100 KL harvesting should be provided. storage volume will be provided.

6. Modified Corporate Social Responsibility 6. The proponent has submitted revised (CSR) Plan with specific programmes and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Plan financial commitment to be submitted. with financial commitment.

Page 21 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

The reply dated 16.06.2011 was placed in the 56th SEAC meeting held on 15.07.2011. The committee made the following recommendations and the proponent submitted their reply on 14.10.2011 :­ Recommendations / Directions of the Response of the Proponent dated 14.10.2011 Committee issued on 22.07.2011 i. The Hazardous Waste Authorization must i. The proponent has submitted copy of the be obtained from the West Bengal Pollution Hazardous waste Authorisation valid upto Control Board before further consideration 30.04.2012. of this case for Environmental Clearance. ii. The unit should not continue any work for ii. The proponent has stated that they will not the proposed expansion project before continue any work for expansion project obtaining prior necessary clearances. before obtaining all statutory clearances.

The case was placed in the 60th SEAC meeting held on 24.10.2011 and recommended by SEAC.

The Member Secretary, SEIAA noted that there is a lack of clarity regarding effluent treatment unit (both existing as well as proposed unit) and returned the case to SEAC with a request to get the clarification on effluent treatment from the project proponent.

The case was placed for consideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.

After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the unit, the committee noted that there is a lack of clarity regarding effluent treatment unit (both existing as well as proposed unit ) and seeks the opinion of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board regarding the present status of effluent treatment plant of the unit.

The unit is therefore requested to send the present status of effluent treatment plant of the existing unit as well as present status of the proposed expansion unit for further processing of the application.

Session II C. Technical Presentations: ­

1. Proposed waste paper based plant and Cogeneration Captive Power Plant by M/s. Balaji Paper & Newsprints Pvt. Ltd. at JL No. 561, 562, 649, 650, Vill & PO – Manikpara, PS – Jhargram, Dist – Paschim Medinipur, Pin – 721 513, West Bengal. Name of the Environmental Consultant – not mentioned. Activity:

This is a proposed Waste Paper Based Paper Plant with additional paper manufacturing capacity of 100 TPD and 6 MW Co­Generation Captive Power Plant.

Chronology of the event :

The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) also made the following recommendations in the 46th SEAC meeting held on 06.09.2010. Subsequent response dated 24.02.2011 from the unit is given below:­

Page 22 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

Recommendations / Directions of the Response of the Proponent dated 24.02.2011 Committee dated 11.10.2010 1. The performance report of the existing unit 1. should be submitted.

2. Prior permission should be obtained from 2. The proponent has informed that they have DLA for ground water abstraction and the obtained permission from DLA for 8nos. copy should be submitted. borewell each 10m3/hr, copies enclosed. 3. Water balance statement and water 3. The proponent has submitted revised water consumption per tonne of product should be balance statement. As per the information mentioned. provided the water consumption per tonne of product is 4.8 m3. 4. Details of Rainwater Harvesting proposal and 4. The proponent has submitted Rainwater Corporate Social Responsibility plan should Harvesting proposal and Corporate Social be submitted. Responsibility plan. 5. Solid waste management and Flyash 5. management plans should be submitted.

The response dated 24.02.2011 was placed before SEAC in the 52nd meeting held on 04.03.2011.

Furthers the SEAC has considered the reply submitted on 16.06.2011 in the 58th meeting held on 19.08.2011 and the committee has recommended the following :­ Recommendations / Directions of the Response of the Proponent dated 30.09.2011 Committee dated 30.08.2011 1. The influent BOD value has been assumed 1. The proponent has mentioned that they have to be very low in comparison to waste water assumed influent of BOD 600 mg/l on the usually generated from such a waste paper basis of their raw material input and based mill. production process. 2. The influent BOD is likely to magnify due 2. The proponent has mentioned that they will to recycling of the treated / partially treated provide adequate treatment so that waste water. magnification of BOD due to recycling is less. 3. The mass vs water ratio is also not realistic. 3. The proponent has stated that they have The project proponent should try to explain prepared water balance and mass balance those ratios or should submit corrected statement based on their past experience. water and mass balance diagram. The proponent has also mentioned that the proposed water balance and mass balance is achievable.

The reply of the proponent submitted on 30.09.2011 was placed in the 60th SEAC meeting held on 24.10.2011. The committee has noted the following and the subsequent reply received on 19.12.2011 of the unit are as under :­

Page 23 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

Recommendations / Directions of the Committee Response of the Proponent dated dated 04.11.2011 19.12.2011 1. The performance report of the existing unit has 1. The proponent has submitted inhouse not been submitted. test reports.

2. The BOD influent has been assumed on lower 2. The proponent has submitted BOD side and there is no specific proposal available, calculation. which ensure adequate treatment to prevent magnification of BOD concentration in the re­ cycled water. 3. No plausible explanation has been provided to 3. The proponent has submitted mass and substantiate the claim that the water balance and water balance diagram. mass balance, which were submitted to the SEAC earlier and was duly questioned by SEAC through earlier communications, are cor­ rect and validated.

The reply dated 19.12.2011 of the proponent is placed before the SEAC in the 62nd SEAC meeting held on 22.12.2011 for consideration. The committee noted that even after several correspondences, the issues regarding water consumption, wastewater characteristics and treatment remained unresolved, and therefore the committee has requested the project proponent called for a detailed revised powerpoint presentation to justify the claim regarding water and wastewater and submit the hard copy of the presentation by 15.01.2012. The proponent submitted a clarification on 18.01.2012, which is placed for consideration.

The industry also submitted a letter on 25.01.2012 mentioning that they have dropped the project of cogeneration captive power plant of capacity 6 MW. They have further submitted that they would manufacture paper by hydro pulping of waste paper and de­inking by using enzymes which is the latest technology in waste paper recycling in which no beaching or chlorine in any form is used. They also requested to exempt them from obtaining prior Environmental Clearance.

The case was placed for consideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.

After carefully considering the proposal and presentation the committee has recommended the following – 1. The project proponent shall submit a fresh FORM – I for the revised proposal which will exclude the project of cogeneration captive power plant of capacity 6 MW. 2. The project proponent should submit appropriate water balance statement and clearly indicate the water consumption per tonne of product. The proponent should indicate the number of borewells that may be required including necessary back up calculation justifying the said water requirement. It has been decided that the case shall be further considered only after submission of the satisfactory clarification.

As per the MoEF Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2011, only the enlisted eligible consultants of the concerned sector would be permitted to certify any documents. The Environmental Consultant as well

Page 24 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

as the Project Proponent should also submit necessary undertakings as per MoEF Office Memorandum dated 05.10.2011.

2. Proposed Residential Complex by Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority at Plot No. 1/3, CIT Scheme VII (M), PS – Maniktala, PO – Kankurgachi, KMC Ward No. 32, Kolkata – 700 054, West Bengal. Name of the Environmental Consultant – M/s. Envirotech East Pvt. Ltd.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of a Residential Complex having flats (3 blocks of B+G+27 storied buildings with podium, 2 blocks of G+5 storied buildings and 5 blocks of G+6 storied buildings), max. ht. 102.80m. The project will also comprise of Rehabilitation block and Club house.

Chronology of the event :

Salient features of the proposed project are –

Land Area : 5.93 acres (23997.524 sqm.) Expected Population : 2659 (fixed), 150 (floating) No. of Units : Towers – 229, Rehabilitation block – 160, Club house ­ 1, Banquet Hall ­ 400 Total Water requirement : 442 KLD (Operation stage, KMC supply) Wastewater generated : 325 KLD (to be discharged to KMC sewer) Solid waste disposal : 1.2 tonnes per day (to be disposed off through municipal authority) Total Built­up Area : 76994.52 sqm. Ground Coverage : 7899.02 sqm. (32.92% of land area) Parking Area : 1308.49 sqm. (5.45% of land area) Semi Paved Area : 2726.84 sqm. (11.36% of land area) Open Area : 41.26 sqm. (0.17% of land area) Facilities Area : 47.62 sqm. (0.20% of land area) Roads : 4600.61 sqm. (19.17% of land area) Green Area : 7373.65 sqm. (30.73% of land area) Total No. of plantation : 600 proposed No. of Parking spaces : 580 (Covered ­ 437, Open ­143) proposed Total Power requirement : 2850 KVA, CESC Backup Power : DG Sets (4x380 KVA, 2x125 KVA)

The case was put up for consideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012. After carefully considering the proposal and presentation the committee has recommended the following – Page 25 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

1. It appears that the process of transferring the land to KMDA is underway. Necessary authenticated land document should be submitted. 2. Some discrepancy has been noted in the area statement submitted in the EC application and also during presentation. Master plan indicating Ground Coverage, Paved Area, Landscaped Area etc. should be clearly mentioned. Total Paved Area should not exceed 25% of total land area. 3. Detailed calculation for rainwater harvesting should be submitted. Design of ground water recharge structure for rainwater harvesting should be checked as discussed during the meeting. 4. Scientific names for list of plantation species for greenery development should be checked and the landscape planning should include plantation of native species. The species with heavy foliage, broad leaves and wide canopy cover are desirable. Water intensive and/or invasive species should not be used for landscaping. 5. Concurrence letter from KMC for supplying water for the proposed project should be mentioned. It has been decided that the case shall be further considered only after submission of the satisfactory clarification.

It is informed that the unit is required to comply with the Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2011 and 05.10.2011, issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, if applicable.

3. Proposed Integrated Industrial Township by M/s. Kanchan Janga Integrated Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. (A Joint Venture Company of M/s. Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & M/s. West Bengal Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.) at Fatapukur, JL No. 9, Mouza – Chhat Gujrimari, JL No. 10, Mouza – Kismat Sukani, PS – Rajganj, Dist – Jalpaiguri, West Bengal . Name of the Environmental Consultant – not mentioned.

Activity:

This is a proposal for development of an Integrated Industrial Township. The proposed Township shall include small scale industries, Retail, Hotel and Social Infrastructure like School, Educational Institutes, Nursing Home, Health Care Centre etc. Further, Residential apartments along with individual plots are also proposed.

Chronology of the event :

Salient features of the proposed project are –

Total Land Area : 124.5 acres / 50.383 ha. Industrial Area – 63.95 acres (51.4%) Residential / Institutional / Commercial – 29.41 acres (23.6%) Infrastructure (Roads / STP) – 31.14 acres (25%) Expected Population : Industrial Zone – 14940 Retail, Social, Residential – 24936 Plots – 7359 Total ­ 47000

Page 26 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

Total Water requirement : 5.5 MLD (Operation stage) Fresh Water requirement : 3.92 MLD (Ground water) Wastewater generated : 3.16 MLD (to be treated in STP) Wastewater recycled : 1.58 MLD (to be reused after treatment in STP) Wastewater discharged : 1.58 MLD (to be discharged to natural drain / sewer after treatment in STP) Solid waste disposal : 14 tonnes per day (to be disposed off through panchayat) Total Built­up Area : Commercial Complex – 46451.52 sqm. Hotel – 55741.82 sqm. Social Infrastructure – 23225.76 sqm. Residential Complex (1846 flats) – 141515.6 sqm. Individual Plots – 119110.5 sqm. Total – 386045.2 sqm. Ground Coverage : 37.64 acres (30.23% of land area) Landscaped Area : 61.57 acres (49.45% of land area) Total Paved Area : 25.29 acres (20.31% of land area) Total No. of plantation : 17451 approx. No. of Parking spaces : Commercial – 1254 proposed Industrial – 1200 Residential ­ 1415 Total Power requirement : Commercial – 6524 KW Industrial – 6890 KW Residential – 7150 KW, WBSEDCL Backup Power : DG Sets (1x320 KVA, 1x600 KVA) for every alternate street lighting.

The case was put up for consideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012. After carefully considering the proposal and presentation the committee categorized the project as B1 category unit and recommended Terms of Reference (ToR) for conducting EIA. The ToR is annexed as Annexure 2.

4. Proposed IT Park “ASTRA TOWERS” by M/s. Rajarhat IT Park Ltd. at Plot No. IIC/1, Action Area – II, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata, Dist – 24 Parganas (North), West Bengal. Name of the Environmental Consultant – M/s. Centre for Sustainable Development.

Activity:

This is a proposal for construction of an IT Park alongwith allied facilities (2 blocks of B+G+7 storied buildings, 1 block of B+G+3 storied building having common basement). The project will comprise of IT and General Offices as well as Retail Spaces, Food Court and Hypermarket.

Page 27 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

Chronology of the event :

Salient features of the proposed project are –

Total Land Area : 16189 sqm. Expected Population : Employee – 3171, Others ­ 2660 Total Water requirement : 294 KLD (Operation stage) Domestic Water requirement : 205 KLD Fresh Water requirement : 137 KLD (WBHIDCO supply) Wastewater generated : 164 KLD (to be treated in STP) Wastewater reclaimed : 148 KLD (to be reused after treatment in STP) Wastewater discharged : Zero discharge Solid waste disposal : 1.6 tonnes per day Total Built­up Area : 54417.05 sqm. Ground Coverage : 6475 sqm. (40% of land area) Plantation Area : 3237.80 sqm. (20% of land area) Semi Paved Area for Internal : 3810.69 sqm. (23.5% of land area) Roads and Surface parking Other Soft Area : 2665.51 sqm. (16.5% of land area) No. of Plantation proposed : 230 No. of Parking spaces proposed : 651 (covered – 620, open ­ 31) Total Power requirement : 3446 KW, NTESCL Backup Power : DG Sets (3x1500 KVA, 1x500 KVA) No. of solar light proposed : 18 (Total street light : 73 nos.)

The case was put up for consideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.

After carefully considering the proposal and presentation the committee has recommended the following – The project proponent should submit the modified proposal of Corporate Social Responsibility and also indicate the annual expenditure for the same for each component

It has been decided that the case shall be further considered only after submission of the above documents.

It is also informed that the unit is required to comply with the Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2011 and 05.10.2011, issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, if applicable.

Page 28 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

5. Proposed expansion of Educational cum Office Building by M/s. Techno India at EM ­ 4/1 & 4/2, Sector – V, Saltlake, Kolkata – 700091, Bidhannagar Municipality, Dist. ­ 24 Parganas (North). Name of the Environmental Consultant – M/s. Envirotech East Pvt. Ltd.

Activity:

This is a proposal for expansion of an Educational cum Office Building (Block 1 – G+4, Block – G+7, Block 3 – G, Block 4 – B+G+18, Block 5 ­ B+G+26, Block 6 – B+G+27, Block 7 – G, Block 8 ­ G). The proposed project shall comprise of Educational buildings (Block 1, 2, 4), Service area (Block 3), Office building (Block 5, 6), Water tank and others (Block 7), Canteen and Others (Block 8). Block 1 & 2 partly exists.

Chronology of the event :

Salient features of the proposed project are –

Existing Project Proposal as per FORM – 1 Revised proposal including Expansion Land Area : 6.2 acres (25090.32 sqm.) : 6.2 acres (25090.32 sqm.) Expected Population : 13409 : 13409 Total Water : 761 KLD (Operation stage, : 761 KLD (Operation stage, requirement NDITA supply) NDITA supply) Wastewater : 467 KLD (to be discharged : 467 KLD (to be discharged generated to municipal sewer leading to municipal sewer leading to NDITA STP) to NDITA STP) Solid waste disposal : 2 tonnes per day : 2 tonnes per day Total Built­up Area : 19430.19 sqm. : 154391.63 sqm. 149823.6 sqm. (including parking) (including parking) Ground Coverage : 10030.54 sqm. : 9726.48 sqm. (39.98% of land area) (38.77% of land area) Service Area : 398.93 sqm. : 616.61 sqm. (1.59% of land area) (2.46% of land area) Total Paved Area : 6156.91 sqm. : 6254.325 sqm. (24.54% of land area) (24.93% of land area) Road Area : 4858.12 sqm. : 4069.39 sqm. (19.36% of land area) (16.22% of land area) Semi Paved Area : 661.26 sqm. : 347.565 sqm. (50%) (2.64% of land area) (1.39% of land area) Open Parking Area : 637.53 sqm. : 1837.37 sqm. (50%) (2.54% of land area) (7.32% of land area) Total Green Area : 8503.05 sqm. : 8492.885 sqm. (33.89% of land area) (33.85% of land area)

Page 29 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

Existing Project Proposal as per FORM – 1 Revised proposal including Expansion Plantation Area : 7204.26 sqm. : 5314.70 sqm. (28.71% of land area) (21.18% of land area) Semi Paved Area : 661.26 sqm. : 347.565 sqm. (50%) (2.64% of land area) (1.39% of land area) Open Parking Area : 637.53 sqm. : 1837.37 sqm. (50%) (2.54% of land area) (7.32% of land area) No. of plantation : 510 : 510 proposed No. of Solar Street : 51 (Total street light – 102) : 33 (Total street light – 74) lights proposed No. of Parking : 938 : 977 spaces proposed (covered – 854, open – 84) (covered – 681, open – 296) Total Power : 24540 KVA, WBSEDCL : 24540 KVA, WBSEDCL requirement Backup Power : DG Sets (1x550 KVA, : DG Sets (1x550 KVA, 12x2000 KVA) 12x2000 KVA)

The case is put up for consideration in the 63rd SEAC meeting held on 31.01.2012.

After carefully considering the proposal and presentation the committee has recommended the following – 1. Total built­up area for existing project as well as the proposed project should be clearly men­ tioned. The date of amalgamation of two plots of land and date of completion of existing pro­ ject should be submitted along with necessary supporting documents from competent author­ ity. 2. Present status of existing project and proposed project should be clearly mentioned. 3. Revised landscape plan should be submitted as discussed in the meeting. 4. Provision for solar water heating systems and other energy conservation methods may be in­ cluded in the project proposal. 5. Revised CSR proposal should be submitted as discussed in the meeting. It has been decided that the case shall be further considered only after submission of the necessary / satisfactory clarification.

It is also informed that the unit is required to comply with the Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2011 and 05.10.2011, issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India.

Summaries of above decisions are also provided in Table­1.

Page 30 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

Table­1 : List of the projects which were placed before the SEAC in the sixty third meeting held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. and the Summary Decisions thereof:

A Cases placed for consideration of Environment Clearance Sl. Name of the unit Summary Decision No. 1. M/s. U.K. Cement Pvt. Ltd. Fresh Environmental Clearance Proposed Cement Grinding Unit at Jl. No. – 58, Vill. & to be issued with suggested Mouza – Bamunara, Bamunara Industrial Area, Durgapur, amendments GP – Gopalpur, PO – Panagarh Bazar, PS – Kanksa, Dist. ­ Burdwan, Pin – 713212, West Bengal. 2. M/s. Shri Shankar Suwan Estate Pvt. Ltd. Opinion of WBPCB to be Proposed expansion of Cement Grinding Unit at Jl. No. obtained with reference to 24, Mouza – Balanpur, PS – Kanksa, PO – Ikra, Jamuria siting policy for Municipality, Pin – 713362, Dist – Burdwan, West reconsideration of the proposal Bengal. 3. M/s. Kolkata West International City (P) Ltd. AAS Proposed Township Project (PHASE IA) at Mouza – Recommended for fresh Kona, Balitikuri, Bankra, Pakuria, Tentulkuli, Khalia & presentation for Phase I & IA Salap, PO & PS – Domjur, Dist – Howrah, West Bengal. 4. M/s. Bengal Anmol South City Infrastructure Ltd. AAS Proposed Infrastructure cum Logistic Hub “FREIGHT PORT” at Jl. No. – 2 & 13, Mouza – Joypurbill & Jagdishpur, PS – Liluah, Dist. – Howrah, West Bengal. 5. M/s. Phoenix Software Ltd. AAS Proposed IT Park at Jl. No. ­ 35, Mouza – Gangapur, Kolkata Information Technology Park (KITP), Bantala, PS – Kolkata Leather Complex, Dist. – 24 Parganas (South), West Bengal. 6. M/s. P.S. Villa Pvt. Ltd. & Others 1. Construction started prior to Proposed Residential & Commercial Complex at Holding obtaining Environmental No. – 4S/08/Block­P & 4S/09/Block­P, Jl. No. – 5 & 6, Clearance. Referred to Mouza – Kaikhali & Mondal Ganti, Rajarhat Gopalpur WBPCB for necessary Municipality Ward No. – 26 & 27, PS – Baguihati, Dist. – action. 24 Parganas (North), West Bengal. 2. Asked for additional submission 7. M/s. Oriental Sales Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. AAS Proposed Residential Complex & Hospital at 2, Jessore Road, Holding No. – 380 (N), 1108 (O), Cal­Jessore Road, Jl. No. – 19, Mouza – Dum Dum House, South Dum Dum Municipality Ward No. ­ 07, PO & PS – Dum Dum, Kolkata – 700028, Dist. – 24 Parganas (North). 8. M/s. Srijan Realty Limited & Others SCEC Finalized Proposed Residential cum Commercial Complex “SRIJAN HARMONY” at JL No. 77, Holding No. 132, Mouza – Manikpur, PS – Sonarpur, Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality Ward No. 23, Dist – 24 Parganas (South), West Bengal.

Page 31 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

A Cases placed for consideration of Environment Clearance Sl. Name of the unit Summary Decision No. 9. M/s. Fortune Park Housing Projects Pvt. Ltd. AAS Proposed Residential Complex at 168 Krishnanagar Road, Vill. – Paschim Khilkapur, Mouza – Moynagadi, PS – Barasat, Dist. ­ 24 Parganas (N), West Bengal.

B Miscellaneous cases Sl. Name of the unit & Project address Summary Decision No. 1. M/s. Strongbonds Polyseal Pvt. Ltd. Asked for observation from Proposed expansion project for enhancement of WBPCB production of Unsaturated Polyester Resins at Plot No. – 26/C, 26/D/1 & 26/D/2, Kalyani Industrial Estate Phase I, Block – D, Dist. – Nadia, Pin – 741235, West Bengal.

C Cases placed for presentation Sl. Name of the unit & Project address Summary Decision No. 1. M/s. Balaji Paper & Newsprint Private Limited Recommended for submission Proposed Waste paper based plant and Cogeneration of fresh Form 1 for the revised Captive Power Plant at Jl. No. – 561, 562, 649, 650, Vill. ­ proposal. Manikpara, PS – Jhargram, Dist. – Pashim Medinipur, Pin – 721513, West Bengal. 2. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, AAS Proposed Residential Complex at Plot No. 1/3, CIT Scheme VII (M), PS – Maniktala, PO – Kankurgachi, KMC Ward No. 32, Kolkata – 700 054, West Bengal.

3. M/s. Kanchan Janga Integrated Infrastructure Appropriate ToR to be issued Development Pvt. Ltd. Proposed Integrated Industrial Township (A Joint Venture Company of M/s. Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & M/s. West Bengal Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.) at Fatapukur, JL No. 9, Mouza – Chhat Gujrimari, JL No. 10, Mouza – Kismat Sukani, PS – Rajganj, Dist – Jalpaiguri, West Bengal.

Page 32 of 33 Minutes of the sixty third meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal held on 31.01.2012 at 12:00 hrs. at the Conference Room, Paribesh Bhawan, Salt Lake. ______

C Cases placed for presentation Sl. Name of the unit & Project address Summary Decision No. 4. M/s. Rajarhat IT Park Ltd. (A Bharti Enterprise) AAS Proposed IT Park “ASTRA TOWERS” at Plot No. IIC/1, Action Area – II, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata, Dist – 24 Parganas (North), West Bengal. 5. M/s. Techno India AAS Proposed expansion of Educational cum Office Building at EM­4/1 & 4/2, Salt Lake, Sector – V, Kolkata – 700 091, Bidhannager Municipality, Dist – 24 Parganas (North), West Bengal. REC: Recommended Environmental Clearance, SCEC: Stipulated Conditions for Environmental Clearance, AAS: Asked for Additional Submission / Clarification The meeting ended with a note of thanks to the Chair.

Page 33 of 33