BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Appeal Nos. 21 of 2013 (SZ), 56 of 2013 (SZ) and Application No. 152 of 2014 (SZ) In the matter of Appeal No. 21 of 2013 (SZ) 1. Shri Thamme Gowda S/o. Channegowda Karoti Village, Krishnarajpete Taluk Mandya District – 571 426 Karnataka 2. Shri M.D. Yogesh S/o Shri M.S. Deve Gowda Makavalli Village, Krishnarajpete Taluk Mandya District- 571 426 Karnataka .. Appellants AND 1. Union of India, through the Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003 2. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Through the Member Secretary Parisara Bhavana, Church Street Bangalore -5600 001, Karnataka 3. M/s. Coromandel Sugars Ltd. Through its Director Coramadel Towers, No.93, Karpagam Avenue Santhome High Road, R.A. Puram Chennai-600 028 Tamil Nadu 4. The Deputy Commissioner Mandya City Mandya District .. Respondents In the matter of Appeal No. 56 of 2013 (SZ) 1. M/s. Coromandel Sugars Ltd. Through its Authorised Signatory Makavalli Village, Krishnarajpet Mandya District – 571426 .. Appellant 1 AND 1. Shri Thamme Gowda S/o. Channegowda Karoti Village, Krishnarajpete Taluk Mandya District – 571 426 Karnataka 2. Shri M.D. Yogesh S/o Shri M.S. Deve Gowda Makavalli Village, Krishnarajpete Taluk Mandya District- 571 426 Karnataka 3. Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110 003 4. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Through its Member Secretary Parisara Bhavana, Church Street Bangalore-560 001 Karnataka 5. The Deputy Commissioner Mandya City Mandya District .. Respondents In the matter of Application No. 152 of 2014 (SZ) 1. Shri Thamme Gowda S/o. Channegowda Karoti Village, Krishnarajpete Taluk Mandya District – 571 426 Karnataka 2. Shri M.D. Yogesh S/o Shri M.S. Deve Gowda Makavalli Village, Krishnarajpete Taluk Mandya District- 571 426 Karnataka .. Applicants AND 1. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Through its Member Secretary Parisara Bhavana, Church Street Bangalore-560 001 Karnataka 2 2. M/s. Coromandel Sugars Ltd. Through its Director Coramadel Towers, No.93, Karpagam Avenue Santhome High Road, R.A. Puram Chennai-600 028 Tamil Nadu .. Respondents Counsel Appearing: Appellants in Appeal No. 21 of 2013 (SZ) .. M/s A. Yogeshwaran, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Maitreyi Krishnan and Appeal No. 56 of 2013 (SZ) and applicants Clifton D’ Rozario, In Application No. 152 of 2014 (SZ) Advocates Appellants in Appeal No. 56 of 2013 (SZ), .. M/s. Sathish Parasaran, Respondent No.3 in R. Parthasarathy, Rahul Appeal No. 21 of 2013(SZ) and Respondent Balaji and Madhan Babu No. 2 in Application No. 152 of 2014 (SZ) Advocates Respondent No. 1 in .. Smt C. Sangamithirai Appeal No.21 of 2013 (SZ) and Advocate Respondent No. 3 in Appeal No. 56 of 2013 (SZ) Respondent No. 2 in .. M/s. R. Thirunavukkarasu Appeal No. 21 of 2013 (SZ) and and Swarnalatha Respondent No. 4 in Appeal No. Advocates 56 of 2013 (SZ) and Respondent No.1 in Application No. 152 of 2014(SZ) COMMON JUDGMENT Present: 1. Hon’ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam Judicial Member 2. Hon’ble Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran Expert Member Dated, 12th May, 2015 1. Whether the judgement is allowed to be published on the internet. Yes 2. Whether the judgement is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter. Yes (Hon’ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member) Appeal No. 21 of 2013 (SZ) 3 This is an appeal to challenge the Environmental Clearance (EC) under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 and its amendment in 2009 under the Environment (Protection) Act, (E P Act) 1986, granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) vide Order No. F. No. J-11011/565/2010-IA-II (I) dated 31.12.2012 to the Molasses/Grain based Distillery (45 KLD), Co-generation Plant (30 MW) and Captive Power Plant (1.5 MW) at S.F. No. 51 to come up in Makavalli Village, Krishnarajpet Tehsil, Mandya District, Karnataka by the 3rd respondent, M/s Coromandel Sugars Ltd. The Appeal is filed u/s 16(h) of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010 as it challenges an order given under the EIA Notification,2006 and its amendment in 2009 under the E P Act, 1986 on 31.12.2012 i.e. after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. 2. According to the appellants, the proposed project consists of a distillery, a cogeneration plant and power plant. The molasses-based distillery has been classified as Category ‘A’ industry at Entry No. 5 (g) of the schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006, and as Red Category industry and in light of the same it was essential that the EIA was carried out in a scientific and comprehensive manner so as to ensure that an independent and objective assessment was done in the interest of the environment and the local population in the vicinity of the proposed project. However, this has not been done. The grant of EC is clearly in violation of the EIA 2006 and various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts and therefore needs to be set aside. The project proponents have a long history of causing environmental pollution in the operation of their sugar industry on which premises the distillery, co-generation plant and power plant are proposed and hence it is unjustified to permit another highly polluting 4 industry to be located in the same region with the grant of EC in such a mechanical manner. The Environmental Appraisal Committee (EAC) has failed to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the project and the Terms of References (ToR) framed are not comprehensive and failed to take into consideration the various social and environmental aspects and also the probable environmental pollution and social impacts of the proposed project. i) The ToR have omitted the existing pollution caused by the sugar industry and the implications of the same on the proposed new plants in the present context. ii) The ToR do not even make a mention of the Fly-ash Notification, 1999 as amended from time to time issued by the MoEF. 3. The entire approach of the EAC/MOEF has been to recommend the project for approval without considering the ecological and socio-cultural impacts of the projects and by turning a blind eye to the shoddy EIA report prepared by M/s Enviro Care India Private Limited, the illegal manner in which the public hearing was conducted and the report prepared and the failure to consider the valid objections raised by the villagers including the applicants. The non-application of mind by the Project Proponent and the lack of scrutiny by the EAC and the MoEF where they have simply accepted the submissions made by the project developer without any independent verification is contrary to the precautionary principle. As per the accreditation granted by the MoEF to M/s. Enviro Care India Private Limited, the company is competent to take up Category ‘B’ projects and not Category ‘A’ whereas the present project is categorized as Category ‘A’ and in the light of the same the entire process of the grant of EC gets vitiated. The project 5 proponents and the EIA Report suppress the fact that the proposed project is within 1.5 km of the River Hemavathi which is apparent even from the records of the KSPCB. The KSPCB has stated that the distance between the factory and the river is between 1.2 and 1.6 km. The establishment of the proposed industry is contrary to the siting guidelines for new industries brought out by the KSPCB applicable to the distilleries which state that ‘no new industry shall be permitted to be established within 1.5 km from the embankment of the streams, rivers, dams as indicated therein. If any of these water bodies are the source of drinking water, then such distance shall be stipulated which will not affect such waters by discharge of the pollutants. All the land impacted by the Coromandel Distillery project and all the components integral to the project have not been included in the environment and social impact assessment, making the decision as one based on this incomplete information and is therefore liable to be set aside. 4. The EIA Report does not meet ToR issues. The EIA report is of a poor quality and indicates both the lack of authenticity and expertise of the EIA consultants, showing a combination of poor secondary research of scientific papers and poor fieldwork, and indicating a poor study of both ecology and socio-cultural aspects in the EIA report. The concocted nature of the draft EIA is exposed on perusing Chapter 3 of the Report titled ‘Existing environmental status’. A false claim is made that the baseline data was monitored from April to June 2011 and secondary data was collected from various government and NGOs, which is not made out in the Chapter. No data in regard to the micro-meteorological conditions including temperature, rainfall, relative humidity, wind direction, wind speed has been collected at all, and instead all the data presented pre-date the TOR. The baseline data of soil quality presented in the said chapter is undated and 6 bereft of the methodology adopted in regard to the sampling and assessment of soil quality. 5. The quality parameters of ground and surface water resources are unreliable since the same are bereft of any details in regard to the methodology of sampling and details of testing. Further, there is no assessment or even reference made to the Hemavathi River which flows at a distance of less than 1.5 km from the site of the proposed project.