Corrected copy Item Nos. 9 and 10

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

Original Application Nos. 59 of 2017 (SZ) and 60 of 2017 (SZ)

Original Application No. 59 of 2017:

IN THE MATTER OF:

Devi Social & Educational Foundation. Rep. by its Managing Trustee, Mr. Vishal Krishan, S/o. G.K. Reddy, No.73, Kumaran Colony 1st street, Vadapalani, Chennai-26.

.. Applicant(s) WITH

1. Director General of Hydrocarbons, OIDB Bhawan, Plot No.2, Sector 73, Noida-201 301.

2. Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110001.

3. Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi- 110 003.

4. District Collector, , District Collectorate, Pudukkotai-622005.

5. Chairman, Pollution Control Board, 76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600032.

6. Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board, Parivesh Bhawan, CBD-cum-Office Complex, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi-110032. 1

7. Managing Director, GEM Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., No.22, Pamadi Towers, 2nd Floor, 1st Main Road, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560009.

8. Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Pandit Deenadayal Upodhyaya Urja Bhavan, 5 Nelson Mandela Marg Vasant kunj, New Delhi-110070.

9. Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600009.

.. Respondents

Application No. 60 of 2017 (SZ)

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s. Pudukottai District Neduvasal Pakuthi Pasana Vivasaigal Nala Sangam., Rep. by its President, Mr. M. Selvaraj, S/o. Marimuthu, Mangadu Post and Villae, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.

.. Applicant(s)

WITH

1.The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of , Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.

2.Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change,Paryavaran Bhavan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi.-110003.

2

3.The Director General Directorate General of Hydrocarbons Sector 73, Noida, New Delhi-201301.

4. M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director, Pandit Deenadayal Upodhyaya Urja Bhavan, 5 Nelson Mandela Marg Vasant kunj, New Delhi-110070.

5. Gem Lab Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., No.22, Pamadi Towers, 2nd Floor, 1st Main Road, Gandhinagar, Bangalore Karnataka-560009.

6. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600009.

7. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by is Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest-EC Fort, St. George, Chennai-600009.

8. Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, 76, Anna Salai, Chennai-600032.

9. The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Tamil Nadu.

.. Respondents

Date of hearing: 20.12.2019

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER

For Applicant(s) in O.A.No.59 of 2017 M/s. Mr. J. Jeya Sabere Eswaran for Kaushik N Sharma

3

For Respondent(s): M/s. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1 to R3 M/s. S. Kamalesh Kannan for R4 & R9 M/s. C. Kasirajan for R5 M/s. D.S. Ekambaram for R6 M/s. M. Kumaresan for King & Patridge for R8

For Applicant(s) in O.A.No.60 of 2017 M/s. Vaiko, G. Devadoss and Senthil Selvan

For Respondent(s): M/s. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1 to R3 M/s. S. Kamalesh Kannan for R6, R7 & R9 M/s. S. Bageerthan for C. Kasirajan for R8 Mr. M. Kumaresan for M/s. King & Patridge for R4

ORDER

These two applications have been filed by independent applicants against the establishment for extraction and further exploration of Hydro

Carbon unit at Neduvasal Village, Pudukottai District by seventh respondent. These applications were filed on the basis of the press release made by Government of India regarding the approval of the

Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs to execute contracts for extraction for the above purpose by seventh respondent on 17.02.2017.

According to the applicants, establishment of such a project in that area will not only have serious impact on environment but also affect the

4

marine and aquatic life. Further before starting the project, a study will have to be conducted by an expert committee regarding the impact of the project in that area * on ground water level * as due to operation of the project in that area, * the area is already suffering acute water scarcity and ground water level is going down. So, the petitioner filed these applications with following respective prayers:

Application No.59 of 2017:

“ (a) Appoint a high-level fact finding committee, in order to determine the viability and availability of water resource for implementation of the

Hydrocarbon project and its impact along with mitigation measures.

(b) Direct the high-level fact find committee to make recommendations with respect to the impact on the water table, rehabilitation measures for the farmers a;nd mitigation measures in terms of restoration of environment.

(c) Direct the respondents to implement the recommendations of the high-level fact finding committee.”

Application No.60 of 2017:

(i) “ Grant a permanent injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 5

from carrying on the activities of hydro carbons, exploration,

5

extraction of Coal Bed Methane, Shale iol, Shale Gas, Oil or

other natural resources project at Neduvasal village and

(ii) Directing all the respondents to comply with all the mandatory

compliances, before commencing any such further activities

relating to hydro carbon, exploration, extraction of Coal Bed

Methane, Shale oil, Shale Gas, Oil or other natural resources at

Neduvasal village.

(iii) Directing the respondents 6 to 9 to consider for declaring the

Neduvasal village and surrounding areas as agriculturally

protected areas. “

Respondents 1 to 3 filed a detailed counter admitting that there was a proposal for starting a project as mentioned in the applications for which the contract has been given to seventh respondent. But before starting the project the bidding process alone was started and the contract was given to seventh respondent for this purpose by first respondent for this area. Before starting the project, seventh respondent has to obtain necessary environmental clearance and other clearances for which steps have not been taken so far. Even for mining, land will have to be allotted by the State Government and no steps have been taken so far in this regard. So without getting environmental clearance and other documents, seventh respondent

6

cannot proceed with the project and so the prayers in both the applications are premature.

Seventh respondent also filed a detailed counter statement reiterating the same contentions raised by the official respondents 1 to

3 and submitted that he had not applied for environmental clearance so far and without getting the environmental clearance, he cannot proceed with the project and not even taken preliminary steps for getting the land allotted for this purpose and he made an undertaking in the counter statement that he will be proceeding with the project only after getting necessary clearance and other documents.

Since the project requires the environmental clearance and it is a Category A, project which requires a public hearing, and the general public of the area will be getting an opportunity to raise their objections regarding their apprehensions. Further, the Expert Appraisal

Committee (EAC) has to consider the project and while considering the same, they may even evaluate the project including the

Environment Management Plan to be submitted by the project proponent for that purpose and if they want, they can even take an independent study by an independent agency and make recommendations for the project incorporating necessary safe guards.

So when the statute provides certain procedures to be followed including Express Appraisal Study, then this Tribunal cannot undertake 7

to such an exercise at this stage. If there is any illegality or deficiency

in granting environmental clearance without considering the impact

assessment on environmental issues and the applicants are not

satisfied with the same, then they will be getting a statutory remedy of

appeal against the same.

Under such circumstances, we feel that the apprehension of

the applicants at this stage is premature. The applications can be

disposed of with liberty to the applicants to challenge the

environmental clearance or other documents if any given against the

procedure provided or ignoring the impact of the project on

environment without incorporating necessary safeguards by

exercising their statutory remedy of challenging the same

independently. With the above observations and directions, the

applications are disposed of.

*Corrected as per order dated 03.01.2020

...... J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan)

...... E.M. ( Saibal Dasgupta

20th December, 2019 Kr.

8