The high court stays compulsory consultant accreditation for EIA

High Court relief for environment engineers | Deccan Chronicle

The high court has stayed an official memorandum by the Ministry of Environment and Forests which made it mandatory for environment consultants to obtain accreditation with the National Accreditation Board of Education and Training, Quality Council of India (QCI).

This comes as a major relief for such engineers, who conduct environment impact assessments (EIA) and prepare such reports to obtain prior environment clearance of projects from regulatory authorities. An environmental impact assessment is an assessment of the possible positive or negative impact that a proposed project may have on the environment, together consisting of the environmental, social and economic aspects.

Experts in the field of environment engineering, who prepared the report argued before the court that such mandatory scheme is illegal and beyond the law. In line with the National Environment Policy, the MoEF had issued Environment Impact Notification, (EIA Notification) in 2006, imposing certain restrictions and prohibitions on new projects or activities. It also mandated that all industrial activities and projects that are listed under the notification must get prior environment clearance.

“As the preparation of EIA Report is necessary for submission of application for clearance, the project proponents generally engage the services of Environment Consultants. However, the official memorandum which is challenged before the court restricted the area of consultancy to the accredited sectors and notified that the EIA reports prepared by non-accredited consultants would not be considered by the Ministry,” states petitioner.

They further state that after the scheme was made compulsory, the consultants were not only precluded from preparing the report and making representations before the appraisal committees but also had to await their turn for consideration of their application. They often have to wait for over a year considering the long queue of applicants and the fact that QCI does not possess the required manpower or the infrastructure.

Justice S. Abdul Nazeer while staying the memorandum also issued notices to Ministry of Environment and Forests and state government’s department of ecology and environment.

Hiroshima, Fukushima, Jaitapur...

Hiroshima, Fukushima, Jaitapur...

Hiroshima, Fukushima, Jaitapur...
By: Sudeshna Chowdhury
Date: 2011-07-13

Incidents of contamination and radiation leakage in Japan have raised serious issues related to safety of nuclear power plants. At a recent seminar held in the city, well-known scientists and experts spoke about India's nuclear programme, benefits and risks involved

The recent Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan raised serious concerns about the safety aspect of nuclear power plants. Reports of contamination and radiation leakage in Japan generated fear among people all over the world.



In fact, the Fukushima crisis sparked off violent protests in Jaitapur too, where India's largest nuclear power plant is supposed to come up. While protests in Jaitapur took a political turn, the big question on everybody's mind was are nuclear power plants safe enough?

To dispel myths related to nuclear power plants and to bring awareness on various aspects of nuclear energy amongst youth, a seminar on, 'Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fallacies' was organised by R D National and WA Science College in Bandra (w) recently, where more than 300 students from 30 colleges across the city participated.

Unseen
Scientists suggested that fear of radiation is the main reason why people are opposed to having nuclear power plants in their area. Said Dr S P Dharne, Associate Director, Nuclear Power Corporation India Limited (NPCIL), "Radiation is a demon which cannot be seen or felt.

It just penetrates your body. The recent Fukushima disaster and horror stories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, have to a large extent, shaped people's perception on nuclear power plants. Hence, radiation phobia is a huge issue among people.

But this fear is more psychological. In fact, radiation is present everywhere. In places like Narora (in Uttar Pradesh) and Kalpakkam (in Tamil Nadu), where you have nuclear plants for so many years, people are living there for generations and there is no significant damage to health that has come to our notice."

Comparing nuclear energy to thermal and hydropower, which are considered a lot safer, Dharne said, "It is not only nuclear energy, coal too generates a lot of dilute radioactive materials. Hence, total penalty on the environment should be considered while objecting to any technology. Every technology has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. We will have to weigh the risk factors vs the amount of benefit we derive from any technology."

Protection
To ensure safety of nuclear reactors, Dharne emphasised that, "Safe design, quality workmanship and diligent operation will guarantee the safety of nuclear reactors." Stringent quality assurance; early detection and deviation from normal procedure in case of an accident; and immediate safe shutdown as well as containment of the radiation, are various measures which can prevent any nuclear disaster.

It is also important for an independent authority to review the safety standards of a nuclear power plant.
To avert nuclear disasters, well-known nuclear scientist, Dr Anil Kakodkar, who was also the chief guest of the programme suggested that, "Each reactor should be able to stand on its own and too many common site facilities should be avoided. Moreover, India is an intelligent buyer and a stringent regulation system is in place when we buy reactors from outsiders."

France and Germany are the pioneers in the field of nuclear energy and our nuclear power needs to grow, he emphasised.

When somebody from the audience asked about the controversial Jaitapur project and the impact that the nuclear project can have on the marine ecology, Dharne clarified that the impact on the surrounding marine ecosystem will be minimal.

Energy
Talking about various forms of energy, which included thermal, hydro and solar, scientists highlighted the importance of nuclear energy in generating electricity.

Almost 16 percent of electricity generated worldwide is through nuclear power plants, "Whereas in India only three per cent of the total amount of electricity generated is through nuclear power. We are currently looking at increasing it to 10 per cent," said Dr R R Kakde, General Manager (Corporate Communication), NPCIL.

The panel suggested that nuclear energy could be the ultimate solution to the country's growing energy demands. Calling nuclear energy as "a commercially viable domain", Kakodkar highlighted the challenges when it comes to renewable sources of energy.

"Sun doesn't shine round the clock and that is a big challenge when it comes to solar power. Solar energy is very expensive. So, the aim is to reduce the capital cost while generating solar power."

Cheaper
Electricity generated from nuclear power plants is much cheaper compared to thermal or hydropower. Said Kakde, "The first nuclear power plant in the country at Tarapur generates electricity to Maharashtra and Gujarat. The electricity generated here is being charged at the rate of 92 paise/unit, whereas the normal rate is Rs 2.75-3/unit."

The amount of land required to set up nuclear plants is less compared to other alternative sources of energy. Said Kakde, "To set up a hydro power project almost 2000-5000 hectare of land is required.

A thermal power plant would need approximately 70 hectare whereas a nuclear power plant needs just 20 hectare of land." But availability of uranium, raw material for nuclear power plants, is a concern, said Kakodkar.

Jaitapur will be implemented, declares Jairam Ramesh
The controversial 9,900 MW Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project (JNPP) in Ratnagiri district of Maharashtra will be implemented despite all hurdles, declared union Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh. He said that whatever be the opposition, the government would go ahead with the JNPP, taking into consideration all aspects of environment and security norms.

Safety
The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) has initiated a safety review of India's nuclear power stations in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster in Japan. All the facilities are safe, said AEC chairman Srikumar Banerjee.
In the Indian reactors, Banerjee said, the review carried out has shown that adequate provisions were in place to handle situations like a station blackout. The AEC is also constructing reactors, which can withstand flash floods and cyclones in the coastal zone.

The Other Side
Anti nuclear campaign groups claim that nuclear energy is inherently dangerous and the biggest challenge is the disposal of huge amount of radioactive wastes generated from nuclear power plants.

Said Karuna Raina, campaigner at Greenpeace, an international Non-Governmental Environmental Organisation (NGO), "Until a few months ago, the nuclear lobby would claim that if Japan, inspite of being prone to earthquakes, could have nuclear plants, then why can't we? But Fukushima has shown us that nuclear plants can be dangerous. Team of experts working there even found radiation in the sea water."

Dr V Pugazhendhi, who has a clinic in Kalpakkam claims that there has been an increase in the number of people suffering from cancer, in the area.

"My research states that people working in the power plant suffer from myeloma cancer(rare blood cancer) whereas people from neighbouring villages suffer from thyroid cancer and other autoimmune thyroid diseases. The results have statistical significance."

Environment Ministry gets tough on Tata Camelot at Chandigarh

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Main News
Chandigarh, February 26
The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has toughened its stand over granting clearance to the multi-tower high-rise Tata Camelot project proposed to come up next to the Sukhna Lake here.

For an environmental clearance now, the ministry has said, the project would require a go-ahead from the forestry and wildlife angle, including an okay from the standing committee of the National Board for Wildlife.

Also, the MoEF has referred the case (for environmental clearance to the project) to the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Committee, Punjab. The move follows as Punjab reconstituted its committee by including new members and thus completing the requisite quorum for granting environmental clearances.

However, the MoEF has said that the state EIA committee may consider the inspection report prepared by a team of the ministry last month, and may consult the members of this inspection team before granting any clearance. Notably, the Tata Housing officials had earlier claimed that they had obtained all clearances from various departments.

Official sources said as the Camelot project site was only 123 metres (on the northern side and 183 metres on the eastern side) away from the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary, the project proponent (Tata Housing Development Company in this case) will require a prior green signal from the National Board for Wildlife -- chaired by the prime minister.

And as the Camelot project site is adjacent to the sanctuary, it is bound to create noise and air pollution in the area, besides resulting in heavy human habitation in the high-rise buildings. All these factors were likely to impact the sanctuary.

Based on The Tribune reports on how rules were bent by the Punjab Government for a go-ahead to the project, with 102 state politicians on board, the MoEF had ordered an inquiry into the housing venture. An inspection was conducted by a six-member MoEF team last month, which verified the distance of the project site from the sanctuary and also found that the Camelot site fell under the catchment area of the Sukhna Lake.

According to rules, for any project that is proposed within a distance of 10 km of a national park or wildlife sanctuary, a special condition is stipulated that the environmental clearance is subject to their obtaining prior clearance from the forestry and wildlife angle, including clearance from the standing committee of the National Board for Wildlife. The rules also say that the grant of environment clearance does not necessarily imply that forestry and wildlife clearance shall be granted to the project. Their application for forestry and wildlife clearance would be considered as per merit.

These guidelines, which form part of the EIA Notification, 2006 (via office memorandum issued in 2009), also say that any investment made in the project, based on environmental clearance granted in anticipation of the clearance from forestry and wildlife angle, shall be entirely at the cost and risk of the project proponent and the MoEF shall not be responsible for this

Villagers protest Mithi Virdi nuclear project- Jasapara

Villagers protest Mithi Virdi nuclear project, police called

(http://deshgujarat.com/2010/06/11/villagers-protest-mithi-virdi-nuclear-project-police-called/)

Photos by Mukesh Pandit
Bhavnagar, DeshGujarat, 11 June, 2010

Villagers of Jasapara and about five nearby villages in Gujarat’s Bhavnagar district today prevented surveyors to carry out survey of the land for proposed Mithi Virdi nuclear power project here . Survey team’s truck, containing a generator set and two iron pipes was gheraoed by protesting villagers. Police was called on to control the locals. The issue was settled soon, but just temporarily. The surveyor team had to go back in view of the local protest. Jasapara’s lady Sarpanch said, “we would give our life, but not allow nuclear plant here.”

Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC) which is planning to set up a 6,000 Mw nuclear power project in the area, but facing protests from farmers who are refusing to make way for the Rs 50,000 crore (Rs 500 billion) project, the first major initiative after the civilian nuclear agreement between India and the US. About 30 odd villages have collectively signed a petition and informed the authorities about their stand.About 1,000 hectare of land has been surveyed by government officials in the recent past. Though the name given to the project is Mithi Virdi Atomic Power Project, the area identified is about two km away from Mithi Virdi and is called Jasapara.

Anti-nuclear activists led by local Arun Dave, Damayantiben Modi of Lok Bharati Sanstha have formed a group called the Atomic Energy Study Group and have been distributing pamphlets and showing films about the accidents of nuclear plants in places like Chernobyl.

Local villagers have mainly three problems with the proposed plant project:(1) how destructive the plant can be in case of any leakage, (2) they do not know what will happen to the waste generated from here, (3) they don’t want to lose their land, which is their only source of livelihood.

Projects getting faster clearance in Jairam's tenure

Mail Today Science Bureau  | New Delhi, February 3, 2011 | 08:35

If you believe that Union environment minister Jairam Ramesh has made life difficult for industry and project promoters by making environmental clearances as a stumbling block, you may be in for a surprise. Projects during his tenure are getting cleared much faster and just a handful of them are rejected.

Environmental clearance for just six projects was rejected during August 2009 and July 2010, compared to 14 projects rejected during 2006-07 to 2007-08.

The conditional approval granted to the steel project of Korean giant Posco and to several such high-profile projects including the Navi Mumbai airport show that projects continue to be approved with the same speed even after July 2010. The mining project of Vedanta is the only notable rejection. Eight river valley hydro-electric projects were submitted for environment clearance and all were approved in the one-year period. As many as 49 thermal power projects were approved with just one rejection during 2009-10.

Of 120 projects under the category of 'infrastructure and miscellaneous projects' that came up for approval, 112 were approved and none was rejected. As many as 31 coal mining projects were approved with not a single one being rejected. Only two of 'new construction and industrial estates' projects were rejected.

In all, 769 projects were received and 535 were approved and six were rejected. The rest are pending for more information and queries.

The rate of approving projects during the tenure of Ramesh remains unhealthy, says the EIA Resource and Response Centre which obtained the data under RTI. "Despite the claim of greater scrutiny, projects continue to be approved and the rate of approval appears to be getting worse. If one compares with the data of approval from 2006 to 2008 it is clear that the rate of rejection and approval remains the same," said Ritwick Dutta of EIA centre.

In a move designed to facilitate faster clearances, Ramesh appointed power sector experts to key panels tasked with approval of power projects. Rakesh Nath, former chairman of the Central Electricity Authority, was made chairperson of the expert appraisal committee on river valley projects, while V. P. Raja, chairman of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, was appointed to head the expert appraisal committee on thermal power and coal mine projects. "How can a power regulatory body chief preside over environment clearance of power projects?" questions Dutta.

While projects are being approved with alacrity, Ramesh has closed all avenues for those who want to appeal against such approvals. He has dismantled the only existing grievance redressal mechanism that existed in the form of the National Environment Appellate Authority. The authority was wound up in October 2010 even before the National Green Tribunal, which was supposed to replace it, came into being. The tribunal has not been set up despite Parliament approving the law for its establishment. As a result, persons aggrieved by the grant of clearance have no statutory forum for appeal.

Jairam Ramesh on his green agenda

In this second part of the interview with Business Standard, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh [ Images ] talks of his domestic agenda, and what he plans to do in terms of greening the power and transport sectors - from switching to new technologies in thermal power generation to outlining "go" and "no go" areas for coal mining, depending on the extent of forest cover in the coalfields; and from stipulating new emission standards for the auto industry to stressing technological change in the railways. Excerpts:

Can you elaborate on your domestic green agenda? What is it, how are
you prioritising it, and is there a timeline?

The Planning Commission has announced the establishment of the expert group on a low-carbon economy. We have started serious thinking on how to achieve 20 to 25 per cent reduction in emission intensity by 2020, on the 2005 level.

Our preliminary work has suggested it is eminently feasible. Now we have to get into the nitty gritty - power, transport, buildings and agriculture.

What are you doing in the power sector?

Between 50 and 60 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions are accounted for by the power sector. One big constraint we have is that coal will remain the mainstay of the power economy. Broadly, the objective is that we want to add 13,000 MW every year, and 6,000-7,000 MW will come
from coal alone.

That is assuming that our renewable energy programme picks up, the nuclear energy programme picks up, more gas will be used for power generation, and assuming that we are able to sort out many of the environmental problems associated with hydel. Under the best case scenario for non-coal, coal's contribution will still be 6,000-7,000 MW.

So what does that mean?

There are two problems. One is, we will be using largely domestic coal, because we have the world's third largest coal reserves and we are not going to be able to import much coal. Today 10 per cent of coal is imported. We don't want to be in a situation where 50 per cent of our coal is imported.

We are producing 500 million tonnes of coal, and will produce a billion tonne in 7 to 8 years' time. All incremental coal will come from our coal reserves in Jharkhand, Orissa and Chhattisgarh, and the reserves are in medium and good canopy forest areas. So we have a problem there on coal.

Secondly, we have a problem on CO2 emissions. The single-most important technology transition that has to take place in the power sector is to move from sub-critical to super-critical and ultra super-critical generation. This means increasing the temperatures at which steam gets generated and used.

How much does that change things?

It reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 10 per cent. India's [ Images ] first super-critical project will be commissioned by end of 2011. It is coming up at Mundra, a Tata Power [ Get Quote ] project. Technology for the boilers is from Dusan in South Korea, and core technology for the turbines is from Toshiba. That will be the first. It is five units
of 800MW each.

Does this raise the cost of electricity?

It is all competitively bid, tariff-based bidding. They have taken into account the associated costs of technology. And you use less coal. The capital cost is more, undoubtedly. But the world over, people are moving to this technology. We have started the transition.

What else are you doing to green the power sector?

A second transition will be in combined cycle coal gasification. India's first integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) unit is a 122 MW coal-based plant coming up in Vjayawada, and will take about three years to commission. Bhel and APGenco have a joint venture for that. The United States is working on a 600 MW IGCC plant, and so is
China.

The two most important options in coal-based power generation are super-critical and ultra super-critical, and IGCC. If we are going to continue this extraordinarily high level of dependence on coal, we have to rethink our technology strategy as far as coal combustion is concerned.

What about the forestry angle to coal mining?

I have to admit, I wear two hats. One is to help in the build-up of power generating capacity, because I was in the power ministry also. Now I have to look at it from a different angle. I have to look at it from the forestry angle. I am faced with a serious situation in Chhattisgarh. Some of the best forest areas will be destroyed for the next 30 years. I hope they will be regenerated 30 years from now. But we have to take a 30–year hiatus between destruction and regeneration.

One of the things we are doing is taking major coalfields and dividing them into go–areas and no go-areas. We have mapped the North Karanpura coalfield, where we have identified 59 mines, of which 38 happen to be in the go areas.

These are in forest areas where tree density is low and we can work there. The remaining 21 are in no go areas. We have suggested to the ministry of coal, rethink your production strategy and maximise production in the go areas and keep out the no go areas for the time being, till we work out some alternative.

Any other coalfields where this is being done?

We are doing this for seven big coalfields of India. North Karanpura was the first. We are doing it for Talcher, and Ib Valley. The fact is the more coal we produce, the more forests we are going to give up. That will have its own impact on global warming. But India has not been a contributor to deforestation.

We are one of the few who have been re-foresting. We have added 3 million hectares in the last 10 years, and aim to double it in the next 10. Brazil [ Images ] in this period lost 2.5 million hectares per year. If we are not careful, we can enter the Brazil and Indonesia league.

What are the issues in transportation?

Transport accounts for between 5 and 8 per cent of our greenhouse gas emissions. But the rate at which it is going, by 2030 we are looking at 20 per cent of GHG emissions coming from transport alone. This is not surprising because it took India 62 years to reach one million cars production, and your second million will be reached in the next year. The Chinese are selling one million a month. You can see why Chinese are the high emitters, because of this large vehicular population.

The single-most important step to take is to move towards a regime of mandatory fuel efficiency standards. Whether you define this fuel efficiency in terms of CO2 emissions or in terms of kmpl (kilometres per litre), that's a technical issue.

The Europeans have always had kmpl standards, now they are imposing CO2 emission standards. We already have those standards. The job of the government is not to dictate technology but to determine standards. Once you have done that, technology choices will be made by producers.

Would you go as far as California, which has set zero emission standards?

That's an extreme level. It's an intervening phase that we have to get into. The industry is on board. The whole thing has got stuck for one year because of a bureaucratic turf battle between the ministry of surface transport and the ministry of power. The issue was who will formulate and legislate. Should it be legislated under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the Energy Conservation Act. We have spent one year on this issue. Even today we don't have any clarity.

What are you going to mandate?

Fuel efficiency standards in terms of kmpl.

Have you indicated what the levels are?

Those standards have been worked out. What level of upgradation is required from existing levels, has been worked out with industry. Industry is comfortable with it. They are not saying this will impose an intolerable burden. These standards are there in other countries. It's just a question of getting the administrative mechanics right. We've lost a year on this issue.

Are you going to use more gas for public transport?

There are many other systemic issues on public transportation. The whole rail-road mix is an important issue. The railway sector has to undergo a massive technological upgradation. That's been talked of for the last couple of years. This is what the Chinese have been able to do. One big element of their stimulus in the last three years has been spending on the railways.

What about bio-fuels in transportation?

I am not entirely gung ho on bio-fuels because of the land issues involved. We are talking of electric vehicles. In general, in the transportation sector, mandatory standards are the critical starting point that will trigger a whole set of decisions on the part of producers and they will bring in new technology to meet these standards. The railways are going to be very significant, too.
--------
Last updated on: January 18, 2010 14:00 IST
Tags: North Karanpura, IGCC, CO2, Jairam Ramesh, India

Misuse of "in-principle approval" in Bauxite mining

PIB Press Release

PROJECT FOR BAUXITE MINING IN ORISSA
12:46 IST

Minister of State (Independent Charge) Shri Jairam Ramesh received a large number of representations in regard to the project for bauxite mining by the Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC). In a statement issued here today he said the projects are now being examined in the Ministry for approval or rejection so that there is no ambiguity and project proponents do not misuse the ‘in-principle’ approval.

The following is the text of Shri Jairam Ramesh on the issue of bauxite mining in Orissa:

“I have been receiving a large number of representations in regard to the project for bauxite mining by the Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC) through Vedanta, a private mining company in Kalahandi and Rayagada districts of Orissa. The total amount of forest land proposed to be diverted is 660.749 ha., of which around 353.14 ha is in the Niyamgiri reserved forest. Concerns have also been raised on the impact that this project will, interalia, have on livelihoods of tribal communities.

The project application was received in the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoE&F) on February 26, 2005. The MoE&F gave ‘in-principle’ approval for this project on December 11,2008 under the Forest Conservation Act,1980. This ‘in-principle’ approval is to be converted to a final approval after the fulfillment of stipulations contained in the ‘in-principle’ approval.

As the representations started coming in, on August 6, 2009 the MoE&F asked the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, Bhubaneshwar to investigate complaints that project activities have started even without the final approval of the Central Government in violation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The site was inspected and the site inspection report was submitted on August 16,2009. The site inspection report found that construction activity had begun in the non-forest revenue land. Technically this is not a violation of the law but it is a violation of the guidelines issued by the MoE&F which says that when a project involves non-forest and forest lands, construction in the non-forest land should not begin without clearance for activity in the forest land itself. A letter has been issued on November 25th,2009 to the Orissa Government asking for an explanation as to how the violation of this guideline has been permitted.

On August 3, 2009, the MoE&F had issued a binding guideline to all State Governments that application for diversion under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 would be considered only after all due processes contained in the Scheduled Tribe and Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Rights) Act, 2006 have been fully and satisfactorily completed. A letter was subsequently issued by the MoE&F to the Orissa Government on November 3, 2009 directing the State to comply with the provisions of the Scheduled Tribe and Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Rights) Act, 2006 and provide evidence for the compliance before the Centre could examine conversion of the ‘in-principle’ approval to final approval. The reply of the state government is awaited. In addition, another site inspection team is being sent in the next one week to verify fresh allegations of violations of the terms of the ‘in-principle’ approval under Forest Conservation Act,1980.

The new policy of the MoE&F does away with the concept of ‘in-principle’ approval. Projects are now being examined for approval or rejection so that there is no ambiguity and project proponents do not misuse the ‘in-principle’ approval.”

CEC recommends 'stop work' for UP Park

(http://www.hindustantimes.com/News/newdelhi/Stop-work-on-park-says-court-appointed-panel/Article1-450472.aspx)

On Monday, the Supreme Court will decide whether work on the Rs 685-crore (Rs 6,850 million) Bhim Rao Ambedkar Memorial Park in Noida should be allowed to go on, pending clearances from the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF).

For now, the dice seem loaded against the park — temporarily, at least — after a fact-finding expert panel appointed by the court concluded that the project lacked mandatory central environmental clearances and recommended the Supreme Court stop its construction.

The report of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC),  a copy of which is with HT, states that the “project requires environmental clearance” under the MoEF’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification of September 14, 2006.

The panel has recommended that the “Uttar Pradesh (UP) state government should be directed to seek the environmental clearance for the present project from the MoEF in terms of the (EIA) notification… If the project is found by the MoEF to be environmentally viable, it may allow the project subject to the appropriate safeguards/conditions.”

The report pointedly states, “pending the environmental clearances, no further works should be carried out.”

Lawyer Jayant Bhushan, who represented Anand Arya and Kanan Jaswal, petitioners against the project, said, “It is a big victory, for now… we expect the Supreme Court would formally stay the construction work at the project site on Monday.”

An MoEF probe, initiated after HT first reported on the suspected irregularities on July 5, had on July 10 established the project’s violation of the EIA notification on two counts.

The project lacked an EIA certificate although it lay barely 100 metres from the centrally-protected Okhla Bird Park and Wildlife Sanctuary (OBPWS).

Under rules, a new construction project within 10 km of such a preserve requires environmental clearance.

The project also lacked the mandatory certificate for construction spread over an area exceeding 20,000 square metres, even though the park’s construction activities were spread over approximately 3.25 lakh square metres.

The CEC rejected the arguments of the UP government and the Noida authority that the project did not need clearances under the EIA notification.

The CEC also found: “had the state government decided eco-sensitive areas around national parks and sanctuaries”, as required of it by a ministry directive pending for four years, “the project area in all probability would have fallen within the eco-sensitive zone.”

The CEC report, however, established that the project area does not fall in the category of forest and does not require approval under the Forest Conservation Act of 1980. The project had uprooted around 6,003 trees.