In Appeal No. 121 of 2016

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

M.A.Nos.142 and 144 of 2016 (SZ)

Appeal No. 121 of 2016 (SZ)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Miscellaneous Application No.142 of 2016

Coramandel Sugars Limited,

Coromandel Towers,

93, Karpagam Avenue,

Santhome High Road,

R.A.Puram, Chennai-600 028

Tamil Nadu ... Applicant/Respondent No.3.

AND

1. M.D,.Yogesh,

S/o.M.S.Deve Gowda,

Makavalli Village,

Krishnarajapete Taluk,

Mandya District,

Karnataka - 571 426 ... 1st Respondent /1st Appellant

2. Thamme Gowda,

S/o.Chennegowda

Karoti Village,

Kriishnarajapete Talukl,

Mandya District,

Karnataka - 571 426 ... 2nd Respondent / 2nd Appellant

3. Union of India,

Through its Secretary,

Ministry of Environment and Forests

Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003

4. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board,

Through its Member Secretary,

Parisara Bhavan, Church Street,

Bangalore, Karnataka 560 001.

5. Deputy Commissioner,

Mandya City, Mandya District,

Karnataka ... Respondents

Counsel appearing for the Applicant/3rd respondent

Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel for

Mr.R.Parthasarathy,

Rahul Balaji & Rohan Cherian

Counsel appearing for the Respondents:

Mr. Clifton D’Rozario &

Maitreyi Krishnan for R1 and R2

Mr.G.M.Syed Nurullallh Sherif for R3

Mr.R.Thirunavukkarasu for R4

Miscellaneous Application No.144 of 2016

The Krishnarajapet Taluk Cane

Growers Association, rep. by its

President

Regn.No.DR. Y/Societies/42/151/2016-17

Sri Veerabhadreswara Complex,

B.M Road, Kikkeri,

Krishnarajapet Taluk,

Mandya Disstrrict,

Karnataka ... Proposed Party/Applicant

Vs.

1. Shri M.D.Yogesh,

S/o.Shri M.S.Deve Gowda,

Aged Major,

Makavalli Village,

Krishnarajpet Taluk,

Mandya District,

Karnataka - 571 426

2. Thamme Gowda,

S/o.Chennegowda

Karoti Village,

Krishnarajapet Taluk,

Mandya District,

Karnataka - 571 426

3. Union of India,

Through its Secretary,

Ministry of Environment and Forests

Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003

4. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board,

Through its Member Secretary,

Parisara Bhavana, Church Street,

Bangalore ,Karnataka 560 001.

5. Coramandel Sugars Limited,

Coromandel Towers,

93, Karpagam Avenue,

Santhome High Road,

R.A.Puram, Chennai-600 028

Tamil Nadu

6. Deputy Commissioner,

Mandya City, Mandya District,

Karnataka. .... Respondents

Counsel appearing for the Applicant:

Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel for

M/s.Taaurs Associates

Counsel appearing for the Respondents:

Mr. Clifton D’Rozario &

Maitreyi Krishnan for R1 and R2

Mr.G.M.Syed Nurullallh Sherif for R3

Mr.R.Thirunavukkarasu for R4

M/S.P.S Raman, Senior Counsel for

M/s.R.Parthasaray, Rahul Balaji,

Rohan Cherian for R5

ORDER

PRESENT:

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. P. JYOTHIMANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON’BLE SHRI P.S. RAO, EXPERT MEMBER

Delivered by Hon’ble Justice Dr.P.JyothiMani, Judicial Member

Dated: 07th September, 2016

------

Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published on the Internet – Yes/No

Whether the Judgment is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

Miscellaneous Application No.142 of 2016:

1. This application is filed by the 3rd respondent in the appeal, namely, the Project Proponent praying to permit the applicant to put the project into operation and to commence commercial operations with the expanded co-generation plant as cleared by the Environmental

Clearance (EC) dated 31.12.2012, and revalidated on 30.03.2016 and also to direct the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (Board) to issue

Consent and other authorities to issue Permissions in accordance with law,

subject to the directions as this Tribunal may think fit and proper, pending disposal of the appeal.

Miscellaneous Application No.144 of 2016:

2. This application is filed by a third party to the appeal, namely, The

Krishnarajapet Taluk Cane Growers Association, to implead themselves as a party in the appeal. The Members of the said applicant’s Association, stated to be 515 in number, who are the farmers growing sugar cane in

Krishnarajpet taluk and as per the notification of the Government dated

02.02.1999, the Members are to sell the sugar cane grown by them only to the Project Proponent, namely, the third respondent in the appeal,

Coramandel Sugars Limited. The sugar crops are seasonal and they are to be cut at the appropriate time and sent to the Sugar Mill allotted to them as per the Sugar Control Order for crushing. According to the applicant-Association, if the sugar cane is not cut at the appropriate time, the entire crop will become waste, resulting in enormous loss and expenditure to the sugar cane growing farmers and therefore, the sale of sugar cane grown by them to the Sugar Mill is the livelihood of farmers, who are the members of the applicant-Association. Their livelihood and the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 and 19 (1)(g) of the

Constitution of India is totally dependent on the functioning of the 3rd respondent industry. According to the applicant-Association, the crushing season begins every year from July-March and when the 3rd respondent in

the appeal, to whom the sugar cane crops are to be sold, is not receiving the crop, the members of the Association have demonstrated outside the sugar mill and they were informed about the pendency of this appeal and due to the interim order of this Tribunal, the Mill is unable to function. Stating that the main appellant, Mr.M.D, Yogesh, himself is employed in another sugar mill as daily wage worker and though he is noway exposed to any sort of pollution, he has filed the above appeal against the EC granted to the third respondent, Project Proponent on 31.12.2012 and as revalidated on

30.03.2016. By virtue of the interim order, the 3rd respondent in the appeal is not purchasing the sugar cane and since this is the crushing season, the Members of the applicant-Association are affected and therefore, they are the proper and necessary parties to be impleaded in the appeal as parties.

Miscellaneous Application. No. 142 of 2016:

3. The applicant/3rd respondent in the appeal, who is the Project

Proponent and who has made a prayer as elicited above, has stated that the applicant's Sugar Mill is existing at Krishnarajapet Taluk, Mandya District,

Karnataka since 1999 with 12 MW co-generation plant since the commissioning of the sugar plant. It was to expand the capacity of the sugar plant, and upgrade the technology of the power plant to make it more efficient, the applicant in this miscellaneous application has applied for EC

for expansion of co-generation plant from 12 MW to 30 MW and that EC was granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change

(MoEF & CC) on 31.12.2012. That was challenged by the appellants in

Appeal No.21 of 2013 before this Tribunal. It is stated that during the pendency of the appeal, substantial portion of establishment of expanded co-generation plant was undertaken by the applicant. In the above said appeal, there was an interim order passed by this Tribunal, after hearing the parties, permitting the applicant to conduct a trial run for a period of one week from 23.04.2015 and it was monitored by MoEF & CC through its

Regional Office at Bangaluru. The Tribunal in its final order dated

12.05.2015 has suspended the EC granted to the applicant for a period of six months and directed the MoEF & CC to conduct a fresh appraisal by giving various directions. Pursuant to the said direction in the appeal, the

MoEF has conducted a fresh appraisal and passed an order of revalidation of

EC on 30.03.2016 with various conditions.

4. It was thereafter the appellants have again filed the present appeal challenging both the original order of EC dated 31.12.2012 and the revalidated order dated 30.03.2016. There was an interim order passed by this Tribunal in the above appeal (A.No.121/16) on 27.04.2016 and

10.05.2016 permitting the applicant-Project Proponent to carry out certain preparatory works in the existing sugar factory. According to the applicant, the applicant has spent nearly a sum of Rs. 150 crores to procure the latest technologies to upgrade the plant, which caters to the livelihood of 9

the local population and over 10,000 farmers and cane growers exclusively for the supply of their produce to the factory and 5000 cutters.

In addition to that, the applicant’s factory is employing over 1000 persons, who depend upon the said employment for their livelihood. The season for sugarcane crushing at the factory is from August to March of the following year, during which period the farmers and cane growers in the surrounding area supply their produce to the factory. The applicant has entered into

9000 agreements with farmers and cane growers in that regard and as the crushing season has already started, the cane growers are pressurizing the applicant to take their produce and there was a demonstration made by the farmers.

5. It is the further case of the applicant that the applicant has established a new boiler by removing the old one with the latest technology for using the same as a part of co-generation plant, for which EC as well as

Consent have been granted. It is stated that the new boilers are subject to strict emission norms where the particulate emission from the plant should be less than 50 mg/Nm3 . It is also submitted that the old boilers, which were removed and defunct were subject to different norms regarding the emission standards namely, < 150 mg/Nm3 . By virtue of the interim order against EC granted, a large number of farmers and their livelihood are affected and therefore, the applicant has filed the present application to

commence the operation of co-generation plant. It is stated that the applicant has already established the co-generation plant and only few minor civil works are pending to be finalised and the new boilers have already been erected. At this point of time, the old boilers cannot be operated since they have already been removed, as per the direction of this

Tribunal and new boilers have been installed. Moreover, the old boilers are of

19 years old and in the revalidated EC, the Expert Appraisal Committee has considered the same. The applicant has established the cogeneration plant in accordance with the high standards based on the conditions of EC and

Consent given by the MoEF and the Board respectively and the existing sugar factory can use bagasse, Coconut husk and waste as well as limited amounts of coke in the 30 MW co-generation plant as per EC granted by

MoEF. According to the applicant, the appellant having obtained interim order, has chosen to prolong the case, which resulted in substantial loss not only to the applicant but also affects the livelihood of the villagers, resulting in unrest among the villagers and farmers in the area and that has prompted the applicant to file Miscellaneous Application No.142 of 2016 seeking for the relief as elicited above.

6. Opposing both the Miscellaneous Applications, the appellants have filed objection stating that the applications are not maintainable and are intended to protract the proceedings. The Project Proponent has earlier

filed Miscellaneous Application No.56 of 2016 for suspension of the order of

Staus quo and that was disposed of by the Tribunal on 10.05.2016 and therefore the present application again seeking permission to run the Unit is opposed to public policy and barred by the principle of res judicata. It is also stated that while disposing of M.A No. 56 of 2016, this Tribunal in its order dated 10.05.2016 has clearly stated that the Project Proponent shall not be permitted to go ahead for further construction and commercial production and there is no compelling reason for giving a different order now. It is also stated that the records abundantly show that the Project

Proponent has been causing enormous environmental damages. According to the appellants, the applicant industry has completed the last crushing season from September, 2015 to May 2016 and there is no change of circumstances from the said period to this crushing season. The Board has repeatedly found the environmental damages caused by the Project

Proponent in these years and by increasing the capacity to 4800 TCD, which according to the appellants has been permitted without complying comprehensive impact assessment, the Unit will cause further damage to the environment.

7. Likewise the appellants have also objected for the impleadment of the applicant-Association in Miscellaneous Application No. 144 of 2016 stating that the same is filed at the instance of the Project Proponent and

actually the applicant Association itself was registered only on 16.07.2016 subsequent to the order passed by the Tribunal dated 10.05.2016 and therefore it is one of the tactics adopted by the Project Proponent for the purpose of obtaining an interim order. It is stated that the appellants 1 and

2 have agricultural lands which are at a distance of 500 metres and about

1.5 km from the Project Proponent industry, respectively. It is also stated that none of the farmers in the said region are adversely impacted by the interim order, which does not deal with the Sugar Industry run by the

Project Proponent and the Project Proponent has been through out running the Unit even during the pendency of the previous Appeal No. 21 of 2013 and therefore, the parties have no locus standi to file application for impleadment.

8. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant in M.A.No.142 of 2016, who is the Project Proponent, would vehemently submit that even though there was an earlier interim order passed by this Tribunal in the above appeal, permitting the Project

Proponent to proceed with other works like construction etc. stating that the matter will be finally heard, on the previous hearing, the appellants have chosen to ask for adjournment even though the Project Proponent was ready. In the meantime, the cane growers have started agitating in the area, resulting in enormous difficulties to the Project Proponent in facing the

people on one side and not able to operate the co-generation plant in spite of the EC having been obtained on the other side. He would submit that by virtue of the interim direction dated 27.04.2016 passed by this Tribunal, the old boilers in the co-generation plant were removed and new boilers with sophisticated technology have been established and the new boilers cannot be operated for 12 MW and it can be operated only for minimum production of 15 MW. He would submit that the Project Proponent must be permitted to operate the co-generation plant for 15 MW with the existing new boilers which will be ecofriendly and the Tribunal can direct the

Governmental authorities to monitor and report the same, at least as an interim measure.

9. Mr.V.Prakash, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant-Association in M.A.No.144/2016 to implead the

Applicant-Association (cane growers) would submit that the appellants cannot take a ride on the lives of a large number of farmers, who are cane growers and by the conduct of the appellants, the produce made by the poor agriculturists cannot be made to go waste, which will not only result in the unfortunate instance of suicide by the farmers but also indebtedness and therefore, a balance must be struck between the livelihood of the farmers and the plea raised by the appellants in the appeal.

10. Per contra, Mr.Clifton D Rozaria , the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the appeal, while opposing the plea made by the Project

Proponent in M.A.142 of 2016, would vehemently submit that prima facie the MoEF has not gone through the EIA repot in its proper form, as directed by this Tribunal earlier. It was only after having satisfied about the same, the Tribunal has granted an interim order and taking advantage of the permission granted to the Project Proponent to put up the other constructions etc., the Project Proponent cannot be permitted to run the

Unit in accordance with the impugned EC. If the impugned EC is given effect to, it will result in environmental disaster. At the same time, the learned counsel would fairly submit that he is not against the cane growers. But he would only submit that the environmental damage will be caused by the conduct of the Project Proponent. He would submit that he has absolutely no objection for the existing crushing Unit of the Project Proponent for 12

MW, co-generation plant, with the old boilers, which were in existence earlier and therefore, the appellants cannot be stated to be anti-farmers.

Eventhough in the last hearing, he was unable to be present for various reasons, he has submitted that he is ready to proceed with the appeal even on the date of hearing of these Miscellaneous Applications and therefore, he would submit that there is no necessity for permitting the Project Proponent to go ahead with the operation of the Unit with the newly established boilers.

He has also taken us through the actual operative portion of the order dated

10.05.2016 passed by this Tribunal, wherein this Tribunal has modified the

earlier order dated 27.04.2016 and permitted the Project Proponent to carry on certain preliminary activities until the appeal is heard finally and according to him, there is no reason for changing that order at this point of time.

11. Before adverting to the claims made by the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and appellants, it is necessary to explain a few factual circumstances, which cannot be disputed. The

Project Proponent, who is the applicant in M.A.No.142/2016, is an existing cane crusher industry started in the year 1999 over 99 acres of land and it was originally known as ICL Sugar Ltd., and there has been various directions issued by the Board and other authorities relating to the pollution caused by the Industry located in SF No.141,Makavalli Village,

Krishnarajpet Tehsil, Mandhya District, Karnataka. Admittedly, within the vicinity of the Project agriculture, is the primary occupation.

12. It is not in dispute that the Project Proponent is an existing sugar crushing plant with co-generation plant for 12 MW, of course with old boilers.

It was on 12.03.2012, the Project Proponent has applied for expansion of the industrial activities of Molasses/Grain based Distillary (45 KLPD) with co-generation plant (30 MW) and Captive Power Plant (1.5MW) at

S.F.No.51, Makavalli Village, Krishnarajpet Tehsil , Mandya District, 16

Karnataka. The MoEF has granted EC on 31.12.2012 with various general and specific conditions.

13. That Order of MoEF dated 31.12.2012 was challenged by the present appellants by filing Appeal in A.No.21 of 2013. That apart, the appellants have also filed application No.152 of 2014 challenging the

Consent given to the Project Proponent. Likewise, the Project Proponent has also filed an appeal in A.No.56 of 2013 and the same was originally filed as Miscellaneous Application No.106/2013 in Appeal No.21 of 2013 by the

Project Proponent against the stop work order of the construction works related to the expansion of co-generation plant issued by the Karnataka

State Pollution Control Board, (KSPCB) which was subsequently converted as Appeal No.56 of 2013. All the matters were heard together by this

Tribunal and arguments were advanced for and against the said EC granted by MoEF dated 31.12.2012.

14. In the above appeals, the Tribunal has raised the following points for consideration, as it is seen in the common judgment dated 12.05.2015, namely,

1. Whether the public Hearing process undertaken

by the KSPCB is in violation of EIA Notification,

2006.

2. Whether the EC is vitiated on the ground that EIA

was conducted by an agency not having

accreditation and competence;

3. Whether there was any deviation from the siting

guidelines prescribed by the KSPCB;

4. Whether the EC is liable to be set aside on the

ground of suppression of material fact by the project

proponent and non application of mind on the part

of the EAC for recommending the grant of EC to the

third respondent as alleged by the appellants.

The Tribunal in the judgment stated above, in respect of Point No.1, has rejected the contentions of the appellants that the Public Hearing was not conducted as contemplated under EIA Notification 2006.

In respect of Point No.2, whether EC dated 31.12.2012 is vitiated on the ground that EIA was conducted by an agency not having accreditation and competence, the Tribunal held that EC is not vitiated by virtue of EIA conducted by the agency, namely, ECIPL, on the ground that subsequently, it was replaced by TLL, who is a competent consultant.

Again, in respect Point No.3, regarding the siting as per the guidelines prescribed by KSPCB, the Tribunal held that the Industry of the

Project Proponent is an existing industry and what is applied for is only for an expansion and Hemavathi river is situated at a distance of 2.2 km from

the project as stated in the reply filed by the KSPCB and therefore, rejected the contention raised by the appellants regarding the siting guidelines also.

It was only in respect of Point No.4, the Tribunal held that the Expert

Appraisal Committee (EAC) ought to have made a comprehensive study about the impact of the expansion of the project and therefore, held that instead of setting aside the EC granted by MoEF dated 31.12.2012 to the

Project Proponent for the establishment of molasses/grain based Distillery

(45 KLD) expansion of co-generation plant (from 12 MW to 30 MW) and

Captive Power plant (1.5 MW) at Makavalli Village, Mandya District,

Karnataka State, the EC is to be kept under suspension for a period of six months with a direction to the MoEF to carry out a re-exercise of the appraisal within a period of six months by calling for additional information and clarifications in respect of all concerns and objections. There was also a direction to EAC to consider each and every issue separately and independently and record the reasons either for rejecting or accepting the concerns and objections. Since in the said judgment, the Tribunal has kept the EC granted by the Board under suspension for a period of six months, consequently, it has also stated that the stop work order issued by the

KSPCB, which is the subject matter of challenge in the Appeal 56 of 2013, shall continue to be in force for a period of six months time.

15. It was against the said order, the appellants have preferred a

Civil Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said Civil Appeal

Diary No.40770 of 2015 came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court on 27.01.2016 based on a request made on behalf of the appellants seeking permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a fresh petition after MoEF takes a final decision in the matter pursuant to the order of this Tribunal. The Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is as follows:

“Learned counsel for the appellants seeks leave to withdraw this appeal reserving liberty for the appellants to file a fresh petition after the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) takes a final decision in the matter pursuant to the impugned order.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty prayed for.”

Therefore, it is clear that what is to be decided in this appeal is only in respect of Point No.4 raised by the Tribunal on the earlier occassion regarding the appraisal and insofar as it relates to other 3 points, the earlier order of the Tribunal has effectively becomes final.

16. Thereafter, the MoEF has passed the order of revalidation of

EC dated 30.03.2016 based on the report of the reconstituted Expert

Appraisal Committee, meeting of which was held during 20-21st August

2015 and 16th and 17th December, 2015, recommending the proposal for validation of the EC, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. 20

17. When the appeal was taken on file on 27.04.2016, the Tribunal has directed the third respondent in the appeal, namely, the applicant/project proponent to maintain status quo as it exists on the said date till the next date of hearing. The said order was continued on

06.05.2016. On an application in M.A.No.56/2016 filed by the Project

Proponent, praying for suspension of the said order dated 27.04.2016, after hearing both the counsel, having decided that the main appeal has to be heard at the earliest point of time, the Tribunal in its order dated

10.05.2016 permitted the Project Proponent to carry on the preparatory work like erection of turbine, laying of pipe line and steam blowing without claiming any equity on the same by the Project Proponent and subject to the result of the appeal. We have also stated that the Project Proponent shall not be permitted to go ahead with further constructions and commercial production. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:

“In these circumstances, we are of the view that the main appeal has to be heard at the earliest point of time and in the mean time, the appellant in M.A.No.56 of 2016 /project proponent should be permitted to carry on the preparatory work like erection of turbine, laying of pipe line and steam blowing without claiming any equity on the same by the project proponent subject to the result of the appeal. We are also of the view that the applicant/project proponent shall not be permitted to go ahead for further construction and commercial production.”

18. Therefore, the original order dated 27.04.2016 stood modified by directing the office to post the appeal for final hearing. Subsequently, on 18.07.2016, at the request of the appellants for filing rejoinder, the appeal stood adjourned to 10.08.2016. On 10.08.2016, even though both the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the Project

Proponent were present , the MoEF & CC, which has passed the impugned order, has not filed reply. It was on the said date, the learned Counsel appearing for the Project Proponent has represented that the order of

Status quo dated 27.04.2016 which was modified on 10.05.2016, must be further modified permitting installation of machines by the Project

Proponent. He also sought permission to file Miscellaneous Application to that effect, which was directed to be filed within a period of two days after serving advance copy to the learned Counsel on the other side, who was permitted to file reply. We have also directed in the meantime, the MoEF to file its reply. Accordingly, on 26.08.2016 the above Miscellaneous

Applications were heard, in which, objections of the respondents 1 and 2 were filed.

19. The order passed by this Tribunal on 27.04.2016, which was subsequently modified in M.A.No.56 of 2013 on 10.05.2016 are all interim orders. Since the MoEF and CC which has passed the impugned order has not filed the reply, the main appeal is unable to be taken up for hearing

on 26.08.2016, even though the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the Project Proponent were ready. But the issue here is as to whether in such circumstances, pending hearing of the appeal, the

Project Proponent is entitled for the relief as claimed by it.

20. It is the case of the Project Proponent, who is the applicant in

M.A.No.142 of 2016, that by virtue of a direction issued on 10.05.2016 permitting the Project Proponent to do preparatory works like, erection of turbine, laying of pipe line etc., the old boilers, which were of 19 years old, have been removed and replaced with new boilers with the present advance technique. In such circumstances, in our considered view it may not be proper to direct the Project Proponent to remove the new boilers once again and replace it with old boilers, so as to enable the co-generation plant to run with 12 MW. As the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Project

Proponent has submitted that by following advanced technique, new boilers have been erected, which may be run only with a minimum of 15 MW co-generation plant, in this appeal we have to hear as to whether the appraisal has been properly done, we are of the considered view that by permitting the Project Proponent to run the co-generation plant with 15 MW with the installation of new boilers as a trial run, it will help the Tribunal to find out as to whether the new boilers are able to minimise the pollution problem caused earlier by the Unit. Incidentally, while deciding about the correctness of the revalidated EC, we are of the view that if a trial run of the new boilers with 15 MW co-generation plant is permitted under the 23

supervision of the KSPCB, the input received by the Board will be of use for this Tribunal to come to an appropriate conclusion. Since this being an interim order, we do not see any impediment in passing such an order, which would enable the Tribunal to pass a final order in an effective manner.

21. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that res judicata will apply has no meaning in this case since pending appeal, interim orders are passed only in the balance of convenience and in the present case, to decide the dispute raised in an appropriate manner.

22. Therefore, Miscellaneous Application No.142 of 2016 is ordered. However, with a direction to the Project Proponent to run only the co-generation plant for 15 MW with new boilers purely as a trial run for a period of 12 weeks subject to the condition that KSPCB shall make periodical visit at least once in a week and prepare an analysis report about the functioning of the co-generation plant with 15 MW and report to this Tribunal. This permission is granted subject to the final result in the appeal and without prejudice to the contentions raised by the Appellants regarding the validity and revalidated EC and purely on temporary basis.

Accordingly the KSPCB shall grant consent on temporary basis for 12 weeks only to run 15 MW cogeneration plant by the Project Proponent.

23. Miscellaneous Application No.144 of 2016 stands allowed as we are of the view that the Members of the Applicant-Association are affected by the pendency of this appeal and they cannot be said to be outsiders. On the other hand, their presence will enable this Tribunal to arrive at a just conclusion. The applicant in this miscellaneous application is impleaded as Respondent No.5. The Registry shall make necessary amendment in this regard. The learned counsel appearing for the

Appellants shall file a fresh memo of parties. The MoEF as well as the newly added party shall file their reply in the main appeal within a period of two weeks from today after serving advance copy to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, who shall be entitled to file rejoinder, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter.

Post the Appeal No.121 of 2016 on 27.10. 2016. We make it clear that on the said date, the appeal will be heard finally without any further adjournment.

Justice Dr.P. Jyothimani

Judicial Member

P.S. Rao

Expert Member