Disposed

Marvel River View County Owners Welfare Association Represented by Its Secretary v. the Chairman

NGT14 Mar 2022Original Application No. 157/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

National Green Tribunal Special Bench disposed of an application challenging deviations in runway bridge dimensions and an unauthorized compound wall near Chennai Airport. The bench found no violation of Environmental Clearance conditions, rejecting concerns about flood impacts based on a Joint Committee report. It directed the proponent to implement mitigation recommendations instead of demolitio

What did the court decide?

The application was disposed of with directions to the Project Proponent to act upon the Joint Committee's and IIT Madras recommendations regarding dredging and storm water drainage, without demolishi

Marvel River View County Owners Welfare Association… — Public Procurement and Tenders | NGT (2022)

¶1

Item No.4

¶2

(Court No. 1)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SPECIAL BENCH

¶4

(By Video Conferencing)

¶5

Original Application No. 157/2016(SZ)

¶6

(With report dated 09.07.2021)

¶7

Marvel River View County
Owner’s Welfare Association Applicant
Versus
The Chairman, Airport Authority
of India, New Delhi and Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 14.03.2022
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
HON’BLE PROF. A SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Mr. A. Krishnamurthy (Party -in -Person)
Respondent(s): M/s. Gayathri Harish represented
Mr. S. Venkatesan for R1 & R6.
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R2, R3 & R7.
Mrs. Me. Saraswathy for R4 & R5.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R8.
ORDER

¶8

1. This application has been filed with following prayers:-

¶9

“

¶10

1) Direct the Authorities concerned to conduct a fresh Environmental Impact Assessment and a Public hearing done, on account of the change in the HFL from 10.50 meters in 2005 to 13.39 meters in December, 2015.

¶11

¶12

2) Direct PWD AND MOEF to ensure a strict compliance by AM with regard to the Height and Width of the Bridge, as stipulated by the sanction letter No. 10-140/200MA-III of MOEF. Dated 25^th August, 2008 and restrain them from regularising these deviations.

¶13

3) Direct FWD to demolish the Bridge, if AM is unable to abide by the norms sanctioned by MOFF and their own commitments to MOLE, before it is too late for the next monsoon. The cost of the Bridge will be much less when compared to the cost of the damages it would cause to the surrounding environment, in the long run.

¶14

4) Direct FWD to demolish a) the unauthorised compound wall of AAI that is obstructing and diverting the free flow of water and b) that portion of the Runway that is on the very edge of the northern side of the River, against the CRZ norms.”

¶15

Case of the applicant is that Airports Authority of India (AAI), a s a part of their expansion plan has extended the existing Secondary Runway from 2032 meters by another 1100 meters. Of this extended portion, 150 meters lie on the southern side of the river Adyar, 750mtrs on the northern side of the river, and 200 meters on the bridge constructed across the river. The Bridge is 200 meters long and 463 meters wide with 477 pillars beneath it to support the Runway Bridge that was completed in 2011. Experts had warned AAI long before that this massive bridge would be catastrophic and add to the problems associated with floods. The bridge of 200 meters long and 463 meters wide is designed to have grid of 20 meters x 10 meters and integrated concrete structure with pre-pressed girders and has 477 pillars of diameter 0.85 meters beneath it. This structure had obstructed the free flow of water during the recent floods in Nov & Dec, 2015. This runway bridge itself was more than 10 Feet under

¶16

¶17

water. The Bridge is constructed without properly considering the Environmental impact it will have on the surrounding villages and is also in total violation of the norms set by The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) and Central Public Works Department (CPWD).There are major deviations in the height and the width of the Bridge and also in the diameter of the pillars that support the Bridge, which cannot be ignored, keeping in mind the safety of the surrounding area. There is disregard for the people around and for the environmental norms given by MOEF. Deviation has caused tremendous hardship to the residents of the petitioner's colony and many other neighbouring villages. Many houses in the colony were under 5 Ft water. Each house hold lost 1 to 2 lakhs of rupees, not to mention the trauma that they went through during the floods.AAI informed MoFF that it would construct the Bridge 1.40 meters above the High flood level (HFL) as reckoned by MOEF in their sanction letter No.10-140/20074A-111 dated 25th August, 2008.Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPC) conducted a Public hearing on 11.06.2008, along with AAI. The Petitioners who are residents of Manapakkam village argued that this bridge will have a high impact on the surrounding areas during floods and that AAI should refrain from constructing such a massive structure on the River. AAI informed the Petitioners that they would build the Bridge 1.40 meters above the high flood, which they said was 9.75 meters, as given by PWD. However the actual flood levels in 2005, as given to them by PWD, vide their letter No.AEE1/AE1/8653 dated 31.07.2008 is 10.50mtrs. AAI concealed the actual HFL knowing fully well that they will not be in a position to increase the height of the bridge beyond the elevation of the then existing secondary runway which was at 34 Feet (10.40 meters), before its extension and misled the petitioners and the general public.

¶18

¶19

The application has been opposed by the MoEF. Its stand is that EC was granted for the project on 25.08.2008 subject to certain conditions which have been duly monitored.Compliance has been found to be satisfactory. On receiving representation of the applicant, inspection was carried out on 01.11.2016.It was found that the activities of the Project Proponent were in accordance with the conditions of EC. EC for the increased size of the project was granted on 06.01.2017.

¶20

On 20.02.2020, the Tribunal considered the matter and directed a joint Committee comprising of (1) a Senior Officer of MoEF&CC, Regional Office, Chennai (2) Executive Engineer, PWD (3) District Collector, Kancheepuram and (4) Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Boardto furnish a factual report.

¶21

Report dated 05.01.2021 was filed in pursuance of above. The applicant filed objections. The matter was further was considered vide order dated 19.01.2021.The Tribunal directed MoEF&CC to give its response to the objections. Accordingly, further report has been filed on 09.07.2021 as follows:-

¶22

“As per the submission made by the Applicant following are of the major Violation followed by the comments of the Joint Committee:

¶23

1). 48 meters (157 ft) in the width of the bridge (46.3m as against 415m), lying on the bed of the river.

¶24

The length of the bridge was increased to accommodate the perimeter road for security and operational compound wall.

¶25

As per the EC condition dated 25.8.2008(B. General Condition No.1), Construction of the proposed structure shall be undertaken meticulously conforming to the existing Central/Local rules. All the construction designs/drawings relating to the proposed construction activities must have approvals of the concerned State Government Departments/Agencies. Accordingly the change in length was deliberated by The Tamil Nadu State Government vide their GO.

¶26

¶27

No. — 125 dated 21.07.2009. (Copy enclosed for reference as Annex — II)

¶28

Even though the original river width in the subject area is 130 meters, the Public Works Department was insisted to construct 200 meters length of bridge to ensure the width of river as 2.00 metres for the free flow of water.

¶29

The increase in length will only enhance the flow of water instead of restricting. Thus the anxiety of the petitioner can be nullify with respect to change/increase in length of the bridge.

¶30

2). 0.33 meters in the diameter of the pillars (0.87 m as against 1.2 m), lying on the bed of the river.

¶31

The diameter of RCC column was reduced to 0.87 meters form 1.2 meters as per the recommendation of the consultant and the same was also vetted by IIT, Madras. The decreases in the diameter of RCC column lead to increase of gap between the RCC columns and thereby increase the total free space, which had enhanced the space for flow of water instead of restricting. Thus the anxiety of the petitioner can be nullify with respect to change/decrease in the diameter of the RCC Column beneath the bridge 3). 1.4 meters in the soffit level of the bridge (10.5 m as against 11.90 m)

¶32

The soffit level of the bridge is as per the recommendation of the consultant and the same was also vetted by lIT, Madras. The drawing of newly constructed runway/bridge across Adayar river obtained from AAI reveals that, the top level of the runway is (+) 12.20m and soffit of the bridge is (+) 11.00m. In order to verify this, the levels have been taken from the permanent Bench Mark at Manapakkam check dam crest level (+) 4.750m and GTS Bench Mark at St. Thomas Mount Church (+) 23.878m. It shows that the present soffit level (Bottom of the bridge) of bridge is (+) 11.00m as recommended by the Public Works Department in its letter dated 31.07.2008 and in Government Order No. 125 Public Works (R2) Department dated 21.07.2009 that the soffit level of the bridge deck slab shall have a minimum clearance of 0.50m above the Maximum Flood Level of 10.50m (10.50+0.50=11.00m).

¶33

4). The unauthorized construction of 4 km stretch of the compound wall without clearance from MOEF, lying along the edge of the River bed.

¶34

As per EIA Notification, 2006 and its subsequent amendments, nowhere is it mentioned about the requirement of EC for compound walls and thus prior EC is not required for compound wall construction.

¶35

Conclusion

¶36

During the time of grant of EC/construction period the Maximum Flood Level was 10.5 m. Thereafter on 2015 a historical rainfall was occurred and then the Maximum Flood Gradient Level experienced in the subject area was (+) 13.39m, which is nearly 2m above the runway level. Due to climate change, we are facing sudden downpour and cloud

¶37

¶38

burst in a short span of time in the recent years. Hence a detailed hydrological model study may be initiated from the reputed institution like IIT, Madras, etc. to mitigate any unprecedented flood in future, which will give a better and permanent solution to this subject area.”

¶39

The applicant has again filed objections on 15.07.2021which are as

¶40

follows :-

¶41

“

¶42

1) Violation of 48 meters (157 ft) in the width of the Bridge (463 m as against 415 m), lying on the bed of the River.

¶43

It is rather unfortunate that there has been a misunderstanding of the violation with respect to the width of the Runway Bridge, by the committee. The committee is justifying the violation by referring to Tamilnadu State Govt G.O.No.125 dated 21.03.2009. This G.O has nothing to do with change in the width of the Bridge. This G.O is for increasing the length of the Bridge and not the width of the Bridge. In other words this G.O accords the permission to widen the river and thereby increase the length of the bridge.

¶44

The petitioner is not concerned by the increase in the length of the Bridge by widening the river from 130 meter to 200 meters, but only concerned with the increase in the width of the Bridge from 415m to 463m.

¶45

The petitioner's concern about the violation of 48 meters in the width of the Bridge and its impact on the villages on the northern side of the river, has not been addressed by the committee. The committee has not looked in to the action taken by MOEF for this major violation.

¶46

2) Violation of 0.33 meters in the diameter of the pillars (0.87 as against 1.2 in) lying on the bed of the river.

¶47

The committee while saying that this violation of reduction in the diameter of the pillars from 1.2 m to 0.87 m will have no adverse impact, it is silent on the action taken by MOEF on this violation. Even if this change was recommended by the consultant or HT Madras, It is in violation against the condition of EC.

¶48

3) Violation of 1.4 meters in the soffit level of the Bridge (10.5 m as against 11.9 m)

¶49

The committee says that the soffit level is 11.00 mtrs, (Maximum flood level 10.5 m + minimum clearance of 0.5m) as recommended by the Public Works Department in its letter dated 31.07.2008 and the consultant and also vetted by IIT, Madras.

¶50

The condition of EC is that the soffit level should be 1.4 m above the High flood level. This will be 11.90 (10.5 m + 1.40). This EC is dated 25.08.2008, much after PWD'S recommendation. It is our humble view that the conditions in the EC will prevail over PWD's recommendation and as such this is a violation against the conditions of EC.

¶51

¶52

The committee is silent about this 0.90 meter of violation in the soffit level of this huge structure with the dimension 3m x 200 m x 463 m.

¶53

The committee is silent about the action taken by MOEF on this violation.

¶54

4) The unauthorized construction of 4 km stretch of the compound wall without clearance from MOEF, Lying along the edge of the reverbed.

¶55

The committee's view that it is only a compound wall and that it does not require an EC, is rather unfortunate. The committee has not visualized the impact this huge protective wall will have on the environment. This is not just a compound wall. This 30 feet high wall was constructed from the base of the river Adyar, to protect the Airport from flooding during excessive flow of water in the river. While this wall protects the Airport by blocking the free flow of the river, the water will naturally flow on to the northern side of the river towards the villages, including that of the petitioner.

¶56

The committee has rightly pointed out that at the time of grant of EC the maximum flood level was only 10.5 m and that in 2015 floods it was 13.39m, changing completely the environmental impact this difference would bring.

¶57

To put it in a nutshell, the committee has relied entirely on the information given by Airport Authority of India and MOEF, to justify all these major deviations, without seeking the actions taken against the deviations, ignoring the environmental implications due to these deviations, the very purpose for which the Hon'ble Tribunal had constituted this Committee.

¶58

The petitioner humbly submits that all these major violations of

¶59

1) 48 meters in the width of the bridge,

¶60

2) 0.33 meters in the diameter of the pillars

¶61

3) 1.4 meters in the soffit level of the bridge and

¶62

4) The unauthorized construction of 4 km stretch of the compound wall standing on the River bed

¶63

have all been established and would obstruct the free flow of the river water during floods and inundate the villages on the northern side of the river, including that of the petitioner's. The impact will be far greater if the high flood level of 13.39 in as in 2015 is considered.”

¶64

7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the

¶65

rival submissions. We do not find any merit in the objections. The violation alleged in increasing width of the bridge cannot be accepted as violation.Under general condition no. 1, such change was permissible

¶66

¶67

with the approval of the State Government which condition has been duly followed. Moreover, the increase will enhance the flow of water instead of restricting it. As regards reduction of diameters of the pillar, it has only increased the free space and enhanced the space for flow of water. With regard to violation of 1.4 mtr. in soffit level of the bridge, apart from the same having been approved by the IIT, Madras and PWD, it will have a clearance above the maximum flood level. With regard to unauthorized construction of 4 km stretch of the compound wall, no EC is required for such construction.

¶68

8. Thus, there is no merit in the case of the applicant. However, recommendations of the joint Committee in report dated 05.01.2022 may be acted upon by the PP, to be overseen by the statutory regulators. The recommendations of the Committee are reproduced below:-

¶69

“Salient findings of the study are the following:

¶70

(1) The flooding of the airport during the December 2015 was due to much large regional extent of the storm that brought flood waters from about 680 sq.km area upstream of the airport, including reservoir release from Chembarambakkam, and not necessarily due to the local flood waters from about 50 sq. km area in the immediate vicinity of the airport. Hence, any flood prevention measures at the airport has to comprehensively look at the regional topographical features to develop appropriate flood control measures .

¶71

(2) The magnitude of the floods of December 2015 is only slightly less than the flood magnitude caused due to 1 in 100 year design storm which is as much as 3.5 to 4.5 times (350% to 450%) more than the bank full carrying capacity of the river at the bridge site. The bank full capacity of the river at the runway bridge at the soffit level of 10.5m was found to be range between 1,104 m³ /s (38,985 ft³ /s) and 1,409 m³ /s (49,774 ft³ /s) depending on the channel roughness.

¶72

(3) The hydraulic models indicate that the bridge piers of the runway bridge across Adyar River do not have any noticeable impact on the flood carrying capacity of the river at this section.

¶73

¶74

(4) The December 2015 flood is a flood of unprecedented magnitude. Any structural, interventions to deal with floods of such magnitude will be massive. Hence, in order to keep the size of structural interventions within a reasonable level, submergence interval of 10 year may be adopted. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the United States recommends that the storm drainage structures within the airport can be designed for a design storm with return period of greater than or equal to 5 years. Hence, a 10yr design storm for designing storm drainage structures within the airport would suffice.

¶75

(5) Dredgening, widening and clearning of the river bed U/S of the runway bridge hos minimal impact on the river discharge capacity. However, dredging, widening and clearing of the river section to a length of about 3km D/S of the runway bridge site, including widening of the OTA bridge, increases the river discharge capacity by 25% (increased discharge of 300 to 400 m³ /s).

¶76

(6) Flood bypass channel near the runway bridge site does not. increase the flood discharge capacity considerably. Hence, this is not a viable option to increase the flood discharge at the bridge site.

¶77

(7) Flood carriage way from Chembarambakkam in Adyar to Vallipuram in Palar could carry only a maximum discharge of about 391 m³ /s due to its mild gradient (6.5 cm drop over a 1km length). This channel will have a top width of 100m, depth of 4m over a length of 75 km. As the flood carrying capacity is not much, considering the environmental, economic and social implications, the option does not seem viable. However, a flood carriageway such as this is required as more urbanization to the west of Tambaram would bring more flood waters into the airport and into the Chennai city. Hence, this option needs to be comprehensively investigated in greater detail.

¶78

(8) All the airport drains begin to backflow with water from Adyar River due tothe higher water level in Adyar even for floods caused by 2-yr and 5 yr return period design storms.

¶79

(9) Storm drains from external drains bring considerable amount of flood water from the neighboring into the airport premises due to urbanization over several decades since the airport construction. Further, about 9.7km of 36km of internal drains were found to surcharge for a design storm of 1 in 10 year return period. Hence, there is a need to consider resizing and rerouting both internal and external storm water drains. Based on the IIT study, the recommendations are the followings:

¶80

(1) Dredging, widening and clearing of the river section for 3km D/S of the runway bridges site till the check before Miot hospital.

¶81

(2) Checking the design of the airport compound wall for withstanding the static and dynamic pressure of the water encountered during the floods of 2015 to prevent from collapsing in future from similar floods.

¶82

¶83

(3) Resizing and rerouting of internal storm water drains to prevent or minimize surcharging from 1 in 10 year design storms.

¶84

(4) Resizing and rerouting of external storm water drains from the Pallavaram and Pammal area through Cowl Bazaar into Adyar River to minimize flooding inside the airport premises and at the same time improve storm drainage infrastructureoutside the airport region.

¶85

(5) Equip storm drains with sluice gates to prevent flooding from backflow of water from the Adyar River; along with the sluice gates, install pump houses andsumps at two critical places to quickly drain the airport region during times of extreme floods.

¶86

(6) Critical infrastructure such ILS and Radar stations needed to be lifted up to a minimum height of 15m above Mean Sea Level or be equipped with deployable temporary flood barriers to prevent any damages from the water. Based on these recommendations, DPRs may be prepared for relevant components where more detailed design is necessary for successful execution of the project.

¶87

Conclusion:

¶88

Even though the original river width in the subject area is 130 meters, the AAI has constructed 200 m length as insisted by Public Works Department to ensure the width of river as 200 metres for the free flow of water. This has helped to retain the flood carrying capacity of the River at this section.

¶89

The study of IIT Madras also indicates that the bridge piers of the runway bridge across Adyar River do not have any noticeable impact on the flood carrying capacity of the river at this section.

¶90

In view of this the Joint Committee recommends to desilt 1000m upstream and downstream of the newly constructed bridge and to remove the vegetations every year before the monsoon to ease the flow of river in the subject area. It is also prayed that, the Hon'ble Tribunal may direct the state/local body to consider the feasibility in implementation of the recommendation made by the IIT on the detailed study . ”

¶91

Apart from complying with the above, the PP may strictly follow the consent conditions.If there is violation, the State PCB may take necessary remedial action in accordance with law.

¶92

We thus, do not find any violation of the EC condition. The applicant had participated in public hearing on 11.06.2008 and EC was granted after consideration of the entire matter. The changes made by

¶93

¶94

the PP, objected to in the application, are incidental to functioning of the airport and are not shown to be causing any damage to the environment nor any material violation of the EC condition. Thus, beyond directing compliance with the consent conditions and taking steps in terms of recommendations of the Committee, no further order is called for.

¶95

The application is disposed of.

¶96

Sd/-
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, JM
Sd/-
Sudhir Agarwal, JM
Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM
Sd/-
Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM
Sd/-
Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM
Sd/-
Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶97

March 14, 2022 Original Application No. 157/2016(SZ) SN

¶98

Marvel River View County Owners Welfare Association Represented by Its Secretary v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marvel River View County Owners Welfare Association Represented by Its Secretary v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Behari Lal Chaturvedi vs Ministry of Jal Shakti

Council of Engineers vs Ministry of Local Government Punjab

Mahesh Kumar vs

Hariom Gupta vs Executive Officer Nagar Palika Loni

Venan Dias vs Dr. Jasmine Brenda Pinto

Covestro India Private Limited vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

P Gengaiyan vs the District Collector

Ashok vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Allamsetti Satyanarayana vs Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

M.Gobineelan, Son of P.P.Mani vs the Secretary to the Government, Department of Environment and Forest, Government of Tamil Nadu

B.R.Lakshmanan vs the District Collector