Kaiga Anuvidyut Sthawarad v. Nuclear Power Corporataion of India Ltd. (Npcil)

NGT5 Jul 2022IA No. 110/2022 in Appeal No. 14/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal Southern Zone allowed an interim application to receive a document. The court directed the MoEF&CC to produce files regarding Environmental Clearance and the Expert Appraisal Committee. The hearing was adjourned to ascertain if the project area was covered by the 2017 Draft Notification map.

What did the court decide?

MoEF&CC directed to produce Environmental Clearance and Expert Appraisal Committee files; case adjourned to ascertain map coverage and grant time for documents.

Kaiga Anuvidyut Sthawarad vs Nuclear Power Corporataion… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2022)

¶1

Item No.12:

¶2

Court No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶4

(Through Video Conference)

¶5

Appeal No. 14 of 2019 (SZ) & I.A. Nos. 19 of 2020 (SZ) & 110 of 2022 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

Kaiga Anuvidyut Sthawarad and Ors. ...Appellant(s) Versus Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL) and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Date of hearing: 05.07.2022. CORAM : HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶8

For Applicant(s): Mr. B.S. Pai. For Respondent(s): Mr. Krishna Srinivasan, Mr. Shivathanu Mohan Mr. Vadiraj Anirudh, Mr. Jagvir Singh Ruhaz, Dr. Jitendra Singh, Mr. S. Venu Gopal for M/s. Ramasubramaniam Associates for R1. Mrs. M. Sumathi represented Mrs. Me. Saraswathy for R2.

¶9

Page 1 of 4

¶10

ORDER

¶11

I.A. No. 110 of 2022 (SZ):

¶12

1. This is an interlocutory application filed by the applicant/first respondent in the appeal to receive document which the learned counsel relied on at the time of argument on the last hearing date to place the same on record.

¶13

2. So, the interlocutory application [I.A. No.110 of 2022 (SZ)] is allowed and the document is received subject to its admissibility, reliability and relevancy which can be considered at the time of considering the appeal and [I.A. No.110 of 2022 (SZ)] is disposed of accordingly.

¶14

Appeal No. 14 of 2019 (SZ):

¶15

3. I.A. No. 110 of 2022 (SZ) is allowed and the document produced along with the application is received subject to its relevancy and admissibility to be considered while considering the appeal.

¶16

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in reply to what was stated by the learned counsel appearing for the project proponent.

¶17

5. During the course of hearing, there was some dispute regarding the question as to whether the project area in this case has been covered by the map attached along with the 2017 Draft Notification issued by the MoEF&CC regarding eco-sensitive zone of Western Ghats and it is on

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

that basis, that 2013 direction issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was amended by the 2018 direction issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 by the MoEF&CC.

¶20

6. So, in order to ascertain as to whether the map covers this area also, it is necessary for the parties to produce the map attached along with the 2017 Notification in respect of State of Karnataka.

¶21

7. When this was pointed out, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the project proponent wanted some time. Considering the sensitive issue and also importance of the ecologically sensitive area, we feel it is necessary to grant time to produce the documents as well. The MoEF&CC is directed to take steps to clarify these aspects, if it is with them.

¶22

8. So under such circumstances, we adjourn the case to 18.07.2022 for further hearing. In the meantime, the MoEF&CC is also directed to produce the entire file relating to issuance of Environmental Clearance (EC) and also the file of Expert Appraisal Committee which was directed to be produced even on the earlier occasions, but not produced so far.

¶23

9. In meantime, parties are also directed to produce the above said documents and also written submissions in support of their respective points that they want to rely on.

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

10. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the MoEF&CC for their information and compliance of directions.

¶26

11. For further hearing, post on 18.07.2022.

¶27

Sd/Justice K. Ramakrishnan, J.M.

¶28

Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, E.M.
Appeal No.14/2019 (SZ)
I.A. No.19/2020 (SZ) &
I.A. No.110/2022 (SZ)
05 th July 2022. Mn.

¶29

Page 4 of 4

Kaiga Anuvidyut Sthawarad v. Nuclear Power Corporataion of India Ltd. (Npcil)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaiga Anuvidyut Sthawarad v. Nuclear Power Corporataion of India Ltd. (Npcil)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Namdev So Genda Lal Namdev vs State of Madhya Pradesh through District Collector

Prabhat Kumar Churiwala S/O Sri Srigopal Churiwala vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Govt. of India

Dheerendra vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Anand Duplex Limited vs Uttar Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (Uppcb)

Manoj Bansal vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Devanshu Bose vs Agra Development Authority

Geeta Devi vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Abhijit Sinha vs Urban Development and Housing Department

D. Vijayaragavan vs the Commissioner of Police

D Sakthivel vs the District Collector

V B R Menon vs the Commissioner of Police

Manushyavakasha vs Union of India Ministry of Environment Government of India Represented by Its Secretary .

Chandran Pillai N vs the Secretary

Sridevi Datla vs Union of India Rep. by Its Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change