Dismissed

Protection of Environment and Public Service Committee through the Chairman Mr. Bhagwanbhai B. Solanki v. M/S Simar Port Pvt. Ltd. through the Managing Director

NGT7 Sept 2026Appeal No. 50/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal dismissed appeals against Environmental and CRZ clearances for port extension and LNG terminal projects. The bench held the public hearing waiver was valid as one was conducted earlier within the project area, and no common EIA was needed as projects fell under a single category.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed and the impugned Environmental Clearances and CRZ Clearances were upheld.

Protection of Environment and Public Service Committee… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶2

THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

¶3

¶4

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019 (WZ)

¶5

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶6

MR. SAYYED MOHAMMED SABIR USMAN R/o- Building "Bage Shamim", CTS 212, Jin Plot, Kodinar, Taluka-Kodinar, District-Gir Somnath-362720

¶7

…..Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY

¶10

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-11003

¶11

2. EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (EAC)

¶12

Ministry of Environment & Forest and Climate Change, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-11003

¶13

3. MINISTRY OF DEFENSE, THROUGH SECRETARY Room No. 101-A, South Block, MoD, New Delhi-110 011

¶14

4. STATE OF GUJARAT Through Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar-382 020, Gujarat

¶15

5. FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT Through Principal Secretary, Government of Gujarat, Environment Department, GOG, Sachivalaya, Block No.14/8, Gandhinagar – 382 010

¶16

6. GUJARAT COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY-(GCZMA) Office of Additional Chief Secretary, Forests and Environment Department, Government of Gujarat, Sachivalaya, Block No-14/8, Gandhinagar-382 010 7. GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD

¶17

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶18

Page 1 of 67

¶19

GMB Head Quarters, SAGAR BHAVAN' Sector 10-A, Gandhinagar-382010, Gujarat

¶20

8. NATIONAL BOARD FOR WILDLIFE (NBWL)

¶21

Through Principal Conservator of forest Government of Gujarat B/1, Aranya Bhavan, Opp, St.Xaviers School, Near Ch-3 Circle, Sector -10, Gandhinagar, Gujarat

¶22

9. NATIONAL FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT BOARD

¶23

Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India ―Fish Building‖ Pillar No.235, PVNR Expressway SVPNPA Post, Hyderabad- 500 052

¶24

10. STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHROITY, GUJARAT (SEIAA)

¶25

Paryavaran Bhavan, Sector-10A, Gandhinagar-382 010, Gujarat

¶26

11. GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶27

Paryavaran Bhavan, Sector 10A, Gandhinagar-382 010

¶28

12. GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶29

Through Regional Officer, 'Pankaj Bungalow' Opposite Saint Anne's Church, Station Road, Junaghar, District-Junaghar-362 001

¶30

13. GRAMPANCHAYAT OF CHHARA

¶31

At Post-Chhara, Taluka-Kodinar District Gir Somnath, Gujarat

¶32

14. COLLECTOR. OF GIR SOMNATH

¶33

As Collector and President of District Environment protection Committee Gir Somnath District Collector office Campus, At-Veraval, Taluka-Veraval, District- Gir Somnat-362265, Gujarat

¶34

15. M/s. SIMAR PORT PRIVATE LIMITED Having registered office at-

¶35

Venus Amadeus, 301-305, 3rd Floor, Jodhpur Cross Road, Satellite, Ahemdabad District- Ahmedabad,

¶36

Gujarat- 380015 Also Having Business office at- SP Centre, 41/44, Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400005 Through its Directors 15A. Mr. Subramanian Krishnamurthy, 15B. Mr. Mukundan Srinivasan,

.....Respondents

Page 2 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

AND

APPEAL NO.31 OF 2019 (WZ)

¶42

MR. SAYYED MOHAMMED SABIR USMAN R/o- Building "Bage Shamim", CTS 212, Jin Plot, Kodinar, Taluka-Kodinar, District-Gir Somnath-362720

¶43

…..Appellant

¶44

Versus

¶45

1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-11003 2. EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (EAC) Ministry of Environment & Forest and Climate Change, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-11003 3. MINISTRY OF DEFENSE, THROUGH SECRETARY Room No. 101-A, South Block, MoD, New Delhi-110 011 4. STATE OF GUJARAT Through Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar-382 020, Gujarat 5. FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT Through Principal Secretary, Government of Gujarat, Environment Department, GOG, Sachivalaya, Block No.14/8, Gandhinagar – 382 010 6. GUJARAT COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY-(GCZMA) Office of Additional Chief Secretary, Forests and Environment Department, Government of Gujarat, Sachivalaya, Block No-14/8, Gandhinagar-382 010 7. GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD GMB Head Quarters, SAGAR BHAVAN' Sector 10-A, Gandhinagar-382010, Gujarat 8. NATIONAL BOARD FOR WILDLIFE (NBWL) Through Principal Conservator of forest APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶46

Page 3 of 67

¶47

Government of Gujarat B/1, Aranya Bhavan, Opp, St.Xaviers School, Near Ch-3 Circle, Sector -10, Gandhinagar, Gujarat

¶48

9. NATIONAL FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT BOARD

¶49

Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India ―Fish Building‖ Pillar No.235, PVNR Expressway SVPNPA Post, Hyderabad- 500 052

¶50

10. STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHROITY, GUJARAT (SEIAA)

¶51

Paryavaran Bhavan, Sector-10A, Gandhinagar-382 010, Gujarat

¶52

11. GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶53

Paryavaran Bhavan, Sector 10A, Gandhinagar-382 010

¶54

12. GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶55

Through Regional Officer, 'Pankaj Bungalow' Opposite Saint Anne's Church, Station Road, Junaghar, District-Junaghar-362 001

¶56

13. GRAMPANCHAYAT OF CHHARA

¶57

At Post-Chhara, Taluka-Kodinar District Gir Somnath, Gujarat

¶58

14. COLLECTOR. OF GIR SOMNATH

¶59

As Collector and President of District Environment protection Committee Gir Somnath District Collector office Campus, At-Veraval, Taluka-Veraval, District- Gir Somnat-362265, Gujarat

¶60

15. M/s. HPCL SHAPOORJI ENERGY LIMITED Having registered office at-

¶61

Venus Amadeus, 301-305, 3rd Floor, Jodhpur Cross Road, Satellite, Ahemdabad District- Ahmedabad, Gujarat- 380015 Also Having Business office at- SP Centre, 41/44, Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400005 Through its Directors 15A. Mr. Jai Laxmikant Mavani 15B. Mr. Mukundan Srinivasan,

¶62

.....Respondents

¶63

AND

¶64

APPEAL NO.49 OF 2019 (WZ)

¶65

Page 4 of 67

¶66

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶67

I.A. NO.59 OF 2019 (WZ)

¶68

PRO PUB Mr. Villa Dist	TECTION OF ENVIRONMENT AND LIC SERVICE COMMITTEE Bhagwanbhai B. Solanki ge Lodhava, TalukaSitrapada, rict Gir Somnath — 362275	…..Appellant
	*Versus*
1.	UNION OF INDIA, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi-110 003
2.	HPCL SHAPOORJI ENERGY LIMITED SP Centre, 41/44. Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai- 400005
3.	GUJARAT COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY-(GCZMA) Forests and Environment Department, Sachivalaya, Block No.14/8, Gandhinagar, Gujarat -382 020
4.	GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Paryavaran Bhavan, Sector 10A, Gandhinagar, Gujarat -382 010
5.	STATE OF GUJARAT Through Chief Secretary, Sachivalya, Gandhinagar – 382 020, Gujarat, India
	...	..Respondents
	AND
	APPEAL NO.50 OF 2019 (WZ)
PRO PUB Mr. Villa Dist	TECTION OF ENVIRONMENT AND LIC SERVICE COMMITTEE Bhagwanbhai B. Solanki ge Lodhava, TalukaSitrapada, rict Gir Somnath — 362275	…..Appellant
	*Versus*
APPE	AL NO.30 OF 2019	Page5of67

¶69

1. M/S SIMAR PORT PVT. LTD. SP Centre, 41/44, Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 (Maharashtra)

¶70

2. UNION OF INDIA, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Aliganj, Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi-110 003

¶71

3. GUJARAT COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY-(GCZMA) Block No.14/8^th Floor, New Sachivalaya, Sector-10A, Gandhinagar

¶72

4. STATE OF GUJARAT

¶73

Through Chief Secretary, Gandhinagar – 382 020, Gujarat, India

¶74

.....Respondents

¶75

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶76

Appeal No.30 OF 2019 (WZ)

¶77

None present

¶78

Appeal No.31 OF 2019 (WZ)

¶79

None present

¶80

Appeal No.49 OF 2019 (WZ)

¶81

Mr. Rahul Choudhary, Advocate

¶82

Appeal No.50 OF 2019 (WZ)

¶83

Mr. Rahul Choudhary, Advocate

¶84

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶85

Appeal No.30 OF 2019 (WZ)

¶86

Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Advocate for R-1/MoEF&CC Ms. Shruti Umesh, Advocate h/f Mr. Parth H. Bhatt, Advocate for R-4, 5 & 14 Ms. Manvi Damle, Advocate h/f Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Advocate for R-6, 10, 11 & 12 Mr. R.B. Mahabal and Mr. Sachin Gore, Advocates for R-15/PP

¶87

Appeal No.31 OF 2019 (WZ)

¶88

Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Advocate for R-1/MoEF&CC Ms. Shruti Umesh, Advocate h/f Mr. Parth H. Bhatt, Advocate for R-4, 5 & 14 Ms. Manvi Damle, Advocate h/f

¶89

Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Advocate for R-6, 10, 11 & 12

¶90

Page 6 of 67

¶91

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶92

Mr. R.B. Mahabal and Mr. Sachin Gore, Advocates for R-15/PP

¶93

Appeal No.49 OF 2019 (WZ)

¶94

Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Advocate for R-1/MoEF&CC Mr. R.B. Mahabal and Mr. Sachin Gore, Advocates for R-2/HPCL

¶95

Appeal No.50 OF 2019 (WZ)

¶96

Mr. R.B. Mahabal and Mr. Sachin Gore, Advocates for R-1/PP Ms. Manvi Damle, Advocate h/f Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Advocate for R-3 & 4

¶97

PRESENT:

¶98

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) Hon’ble Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee (Expert Member)

¶99

Reserved on : 12.08.2026 Pronounced on : 07.09.2026

¶100

JUDGMENT

¶101

The above mentioned four appeals are being taken up together because facts are common.

¶102

Now we will deal with the facts of Appeal No.30/2019 first.

¶103

This Appeal has been filed seeking quashing of Environmental Clearance and CRZ Clearance dated 05.03.2019 granted by Respondent No.1- MoEF&CC to M/s Simar Port Private Limited for extension of Breakwater at Chhara Port, Village Chhara-Sarkhadi Taluka Kodinar, Dist. Gir Somnath, Gujarat which is annexed at Annexure A-1 beginning from Page No.54 of the paper book.

¶104

The submission is that the Respondent No.15/PP has undertaken the port construction activity on the basis of the EC & CRZ Clearance dated 06.01.2014 on and around mid of 2017 and thereafter procured the modification EC & CRZ Clearance for extension of breakwater dated 05.03.2019 from the MoEF&CC. This project is situated on the fertile APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019 Page 7 of 67

¶105

agricultural land of Chhara and Sarkhadi Villages. This project is going to be developed in two phases, first phase involved imported coal handling and second phase involved other operations. Main purpose of this port is coal handling.

¶106

The port received first EC dated 06.01.2014 for development of Phase-I for Breakwater of length 1700 m, width 75 m at bottom; height 10 m above CD level, One berth having length of 350m, width 25m with approach trestle length 2265m, width 12m, further Capital Dredging of 1.5 Million Cum, Maintenance Dredging of 150,000 Cum per annum, Modeling of 25-30 M MSL Contour in sea for Dredged material Disposal, 32 Ha Coal Stockyard.

¶107

The Phase-II will be for development of LNG Terminal storage, regasification and additional breakwater of 2800m is required to be constructed on the shoal bank (Total final Length 4500m) and as per condition No.vii of EC under challenge, this EC proposal is for additional length of breakwater.

¶108

As per the EC dated 05.03.2019 condition No.viii, "offshore island breakwater resting on a shoal bank will run parallel to coastline at a distance of about 2500m from shore line. The breakwater foundation will rest over the shoal bank contour averaging (-) 7m CD.

¶109

The rock required for breakwater construction of length 4500m has been estimated as core material (1 to 1000kg) 4.10 Million Tons, Secondary Armour (1 to 3.5 T) 0.98 Million Tons and Toe Armour (1 to 8 T) 0.2 Million Tons and this is totally false estimation. Actual requirement of the rock is more than double of this quantity.

¶110

Page 8 of 67

¶111

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶112

The project was considered by EAC in its 110th, 124th and 126th meeting for EC & CRZ clearance dated 06.01.2014. The proposal was deferred in 110th meeting due to absence of PP and thereafter proposal was considered in 124th meeting, wherein it is disclosed that, the project was originally proposed in Khada Village, But site investigations at the Simar Port site of Khada Village revealed adverse off-shore geo-technical data which lead to the conclusion that port cannot be developed at Khada. Therefore, PP-SPPL then identified another site, 45 km on the west of the Simar site near Chhara village (in the Junagadh district). ToR was granted for the Chhara site in January, 2010.

¶113

The site identified for the proposed port at Chhara falls approximately between Latitude - 20° 43' 19.56" N and Longitude - 70° 44' 28.73" E. Kodinar is the nearest town with connection to the railway network and is located 7 km from the project site. Nearest National Highway is NH 8E and is approx. 6.5 km on the North of the proposed site. Development of the port is proposed in two phases. In Phase — 1 it is proposed to develop facilities to handle imported coal of 8 MMTPA. Maximum vessel size expected to visit the port will be 180,000 DWT size in loaded condition. The berthing area has water depth of 20m below CD and can accommodate even a fully laden larger size coal vessel.

¶114

The proposed project involves construction of Breakwater (Length: 1700 m, Width: 75 m at bottom, Height: 10 m above CD level), Berth (One No., Length: 350m, Width: 25m), Approach Trestle (Length: 2265 m, Width: 12 m); Capital Dredging 1.5 Million Cum, Maintenance Dredging 150,000 Cum per annum; development of Coal Stackyard (32 Ha) and allied infrastructure facilities.

¶115

Page 9 of 67

¶116

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶117

The EAC sought clarification on 17 additional issues and directed PP to submit the data/ clarification. The PP has misled the EAC on these 17 issues and case was deferred.

¶118

The proposal was considered in 126^th meeting and the EAC sought clarification on 11 additional issues and directed PP to submit the clarification. It is clear the PP has misled the EAC on these 11 issues.

¶119

The EAC has further concluded that, there is no eco- sensitive area in the site and within 10 km radius. Documents of this proposal are not kept online. There is no proper EIA for this proposal. There is no demarcation of HTL/LTL. There is no ToR compliance, no EAC Minutes compliance, area was notified as port by government till, 2015. There was no permission from Ministry of Defence. Despite these multiple illegality EC dated 06.01.2014 was granted to the Project, copy of Minutes of 110th Meetings for Expert Appraisal Committee dated 05.03.2012 is attached as ANNEXURE-A-9.

¶120

Respondent No.6 - GCZMA has considered the proposal for CRZ clearance in its 14th and 17th meeting and recorded the presences of two reserve forest land in Chhara and Sharakhadi Village and two reserve forest in Nanavada Village within 10 Km radius, Soadam Bandhara at 3 Kms and Panchpipalva Bandhara at 9 Km.

¶121

Due to transportation of material by vehicles and operation of engines at port also contribute SO2 and CO in the nature, but their effects are temporary in nature. Despite there being several threats to the marine life, ecology, wildlife etc. CRZ has granted CRZ clearance to the Simar port. The GCZMA has recommended the project dated 26.04.2013.

¶122

Page 10 of 67

¶123

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶124

As soon as EC & CRZ clearance was procured on dated 06.01.2014 for port development, PP moved a fresh application dated 08.01.2014 for extension of breakwater under the shelter of development of LNG unit to overcome and cover-up the illegalities committed while procuring the previous EC. The breakwater extension sought by PP by 3256 Mtrs in addition to the 1700 Mtrs preciously allowed. Most of the items in form-1 are recorded as "Not envisaged".

¶125

The PP has not disclosed the quantity of minerals in item# 2.3 of form-1 and there is no assessment. PP has not disclosed the quantity of construction material in item# 2.4 of form-1 and there is no assessment. PP has not disclosed the quantity of forest & timber source in item# 2.5 of form-1 and there is no assessment. PP has not disclosed the quantity of natural resources required for construction in item# 2.7 and there is no assessment.

¶126

There is no disclosure and assessment of item# 3 of form-1, "Use, storage, transport, handling or production of substances or materials, which could be harmful to human health or the environment or raise concerns about actual or perceived risks to human health‖.

¶127

There is no disclosure and assessment of item# 4 of form-1, ―Production of solid wastes during construction or operation or decommissioning (MT/month)."

¶128

There is no disclosure and assessment of item# 5 of form-1, "Release of pollutants or any hazardous, toxic or noxious substances to air."

¶129

There is no disclosure and assessment of item# 6 of form-1, "Generation of noise and vibration, and emissions of light and heat."

¶130

Page 11 of 67

¶131

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶132

There is no disclosure and assessment of item# 7 of form-1, "Risks of contamination of land or water from releases of pollutants into the ground or into sewers, surface waters, groundwater, coastal waters or the sea."

¶133

There is no disclosure and assessment of item# 8 of form-1, "Risk of accidents during construction or operation of the Project, which could affect human health or the environment."

¶134

There is no disclosure and assessment of item# 9 of form-1, "Factors which should be considered (such as consequential development) which could lead to environmental effects or the potential for cumulative impacts with other existing or planned activities in the locality.‖

¶135

There is disclosure of item# III ‗Environmental Sensitivity‖ of form-1, like four reserved forest, & five patches of unclassified forest within 10 km of the proposed site, two water bodies, Gir Wildlife sanctuary is falsely mentioned at 22 Km. It is an open sanctuary for Lions but no proper assessment is made of the same nor remedial measures have been suggested with specific conclusion.

¶136

There is no disclosure and assessment in form-1 of item# III, Serial#3 "Areas used by protected, important or sensitive species of flora or fauna for breeding, nesting, foraging, resting, over wintering, migration. False reply is given by stating that, "No such area close to proposed site. Baseline data collection in EIA will identify such areas, if any, in primary survey."

¶137

Project is going to adversely affect 15 villages as disclosure in item# III "Environmental Sensitivity" of form-1.

¶138

Page 12 of 67

¶139

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶140

There is no disclosure and assessment of item# III "Environmental Sensitivity" of form-1, "Areas containing important, high quality or scarce resources, (ground water resources/ surface resources/ forestry, agriculture/ fisheries, tourism minerals)." Adverse effect on fishery, marine life aquatic life etc. is not taken into consideration with proper conclusion in EIA.

¶141

There is evasive ToR as Annexure-I- Google earth photo of application clearly shows that, the project is going to affect CRZ-I and CRZ-IV adversely.

¶142

The pre-feasibility report submitted with form-1 discloses total stone required is 6.22 Million Tons, while EC dated 05.03.2019 discloses stone required is only 5.28 Million Tons.

¶143

The pre-feasibility report submitted with form-1 discloses total cost of break water is 1110.62 Crores and EC under challenge dated 05.04.2019 show it to be 830 Crores. There is no scientific conclusion of pre-feasibility report.

¶144

Copy of application for TOR & prior environment clearance for extension of breakwater by M/s. Simar Port Pvt. Ltd. dated January 2014 is attached as ANNEXURE-A-16.

¶145

The proposal was considered in 131st and 133rd Meeting of EAC for ToR and on 18.06.2014 ToR was issued.

¶146

The EAC has sought very important data on account of HTL & LTL Demarcation map on 1:4000 scale, LNG carrier vessel size, fishing activity and impact on fishing activity, EIA report based on the data is not older than three years.

¶147

Page 13 of 67

¶148

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶149

The mandatory public hearing is avoided on account of old public hearing held on 19.11.2010 and proposed extension is within the port boundary, as well as there will be public hearing for LNG terminal development.

¶150

The ToR was valid for a period of two years for submission of EIA/ EMP reports. The EIA/EMP prepared by NEERI & NIO is backdated and placed on record in February-2017 after expiry of two years‘ validity of ToR. And there is no strict compliance of the ToR.

¶151

The port has received the old EC and various other permission by misleading the government authorities without application of Indian Port Act, 1908.

¶152

The government of Gujarat issued the notification on 19.02.2015 for extent of Chhara Port in post facto manner.

¶153

As per the CRZ Notification-1991 and Amended CRZ Notification - 2011, no construction is permitted in LTL and HTL.

¶154

The demarcation is carried out by Institute of Remote Sensing, Anna University, which has been approved by Government of India on 10.05.1999, which visited the site. The institute has not disclosed the validity of their approval/ license.

¶155

The HTL/LTL are demarcated on the basis of 19 years data of Okha Port, which is at distance more than 500 to 600 Km away from the project site.

¶156

There is no authentic data attached with the demarcation report nor is there provided clear map of Demarcation, showing HTL/LTL.

¶157

The entire episode of demarcation of HTL and LTL is suspicious.

¶158

Page 14 of 67

¶159

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶160

There is no draft EIA filed by PP while applying for extension of breakwater which is due to exemption given to the PP from public hearing.

¶161

There is no public hearing done for the extension of break water, but PP have conducted public hearing for the LNG Storage and Regasification unit in 2015 and EAC has noted that, there will be EIA for LNG unit which will cover the issue of extension of break water in EIA.

¶162

There is no incorporation of issues raised in the public hearing in EIA report prepared by NEERI.

¶163

The certificate given by the NEERI states that "the primary baseline data collected by NEERI during summer, post monsoon and winter seasons in 2014-15 in the study area is supported by the secondary data collected from the Govt. Agencies, e.g. Forest Department, Census Office and Meteorological Department which were used for the prediction of impacts for air, noise, water, land, biology/ecology and socio-economic environments. Analysis of data reveals that the project will not have any major negative impact on the environment. But there is no prediction on Geological and Hydrological Environment.

¶164

The breakwater with length of 4500 m and width of 75 m will occupy an area of 3:3.75 ha. The estimated total loss of macro benthos due to the proposed activities is 1613 kg which means approximately 48 kg loss per hectare (ha) of the area of macro benthos can be predicted. It is totally false prediction of loss as there will be more loss.

¶165

There are 4 species of conservation concern which are present in impact zone (10km) of the proposed Port site. These species are Sea turtle, Whale Shark, Asiatic Lion and Indian Peafowl. Asiatic lion is a rare

¶166

Page 15 of 67

¶167

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶168

species. The port boundary is touching the Kaj-Nanawada wet land and definitely operation of port is going to affect it.

¶169

There would be serious adverse impact on environment and marine ecology.

¶170

EIA report is submitted on January/ February-2017 to EAC after lapse of 2 years from ToR dated 18.06.2014.

¶171

EIA report filed is totally based on imaginary data, therefore, the EC and CRZ clearance would be suspicious.

¶172

The proposals for CRZ clearance was considered by GCZMA in its 29th meeting at item No.29.3 & 29.5 and was further considered in its 31st meeting at item No.31.3 and 31.4, and lastly was deliberated in its 32nd meeting at item No.32.1 and 32.2. The entire deliberation was mechanical one.

¶173

The PP had previously procured CRZ Clearance for breakwater of 1700 Mtrs on 26.04.2013 and mechanical frame work is applied to this expansion also as was done previously.

¶174

There is no preparation of Lion Conservation Plans, no traffic management plan, no construction of under passes. There is no construction of overhead bridge, no development of marine development center, no funds earmarked for lion conservation, no steps to develop 100 Mtrs green belt, no compliance to PCCF (WL) conditions.

¶175

There is no actual marking of CRZ zones at site.

¶176

Forest Lands Adjoining the Gir Protected Area provides important habitat for the lion and associated wildlife. The Area of Eco-sensitive Zone is 3328.8139 Sq. Km. It covers forest areas riverine corridors, raised land APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019 Page 16 of 67

¶177

corridors and revenue areas around the Gir Wildlife Sanctuary, Gir National Park, Paniya Wildlife Sanctuary and Mitiyala Wildlife Sanctuary Region.

¶178

The PP submitted the application dated 03.01.2017 for EC after ToR and ETA Report of March-2016. Application for prior EC for extension of breakwater and LNG Storage and Regasification terminal is nothing but a mal-practice.

¶179

There were 304 oral/written submissions in public hearing dated 18.12.2015 common for LNG terminal and extension of break water. PP alleged that out of said submissions, 280 were in favour of the project and 24 sought clarifications.

¶180

Many important local issues have been expressed by the 23 participants where the public hearing panel has merely forwarded them to the EAC without any comments. The Committee felt that in view of the issues raised it would be prudent to seek all this information from Member Secretary, GPCB, PCCF Gujarat and the District Collector, Gir-Somnath to assist the EAC in taking the decision. Therefore, in these suspicious conditions EC dated 05.03.2019 have been issued. Hence, EC and CRZ clearance dated 05.03.2019 for extension of breakwater must be set aside.

¶181

Hence, the above prayer is made.

¶182

Respondent No.15 – M/s Simar Port Private Limited has filed

¶183

reply dated 05.07.2019 , wherein it is submitted that appeal is barred by limitation as the EC as well as CRZ clearance had been granted in the case in hand by MoEF&CC for the project for development of the port at Village Chhara, Junagarh District, Gujarat in year 2014 (on 06.01.2014).

¶184

The appeal also suffers from plural remedies.

¶185

Page 17 of 67

¶186

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶187

The answering respondent, under a concession agreement with the Gujarat Maritime Board [consequent to an International Competitive Bidding process], had commenced the process of developing an allweather, deep-draft port at Villages Chhara and Sarkhadi in Taluka Kodinar in District Gir Somnath, Gujarat.

¶188

The port is proposed to be developed in phases. In Phase I, the Answering Respondent plans to develop a facility for handling coal quantities of 8 million metric tonnes per annum. Proposed facilities approved by MoEF&CC in Phase-I include following :-

¶189

a) Breakwater (Length: 1700m, Width: 75m at bottom, Height: 10m above CD level).

¶190

b) Berth (One No., Length: 350m, Width: 25m).

¶191

c) Approach Trestle (Length: 2265m, Width: 12m).

¶192

d) Capital Dredging of 1.5 million cum .

¶193

e) Maintenance Dredging of 150,000 m3/annum .

¶194

f) Development of Coal Stackyard (32 Ha), and

¶195

g) Allied infrastructure facilities .

¶196

MoEF&CC, after following the due process including a detailed and comprehensive public consultation process held on 19.11.2010, and after obtaining recommendations from both Gujarat Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) and the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), granted both the Environmental Clearance (EC) and the CRZ Clearance for Phase I of the port Project on 06.01.2014.

¶197

Breakwater is an offshore structure [like a wall] which protects the harbour from the force of waves. In the present case, the breakwater is being developed at a distance of about 2500 m (or 2.5 km) from the APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019 Page 18 of 67

¶198

shoreline, and parallel to the shoreline. The EC dated 06.01.2014 granting approval to the Port project also approved the Breakwater of length of approx. 1700 m originally envisaged in Phase I of the port project.

¶199

In Phase-II of the port development, the answering respondent will be entering into a sub-concession agreement with HPCL Shapoorji Energy Ltd (HSEPL) - a Joint Venture of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited [HPCL - a Govt. of India corporation] and the Shapoorji Pallonji Group - to develop an LNG Regasification Terminal within the port area.

¶200

Natural Gas is generally extracted at off-shore facilities. Thereafter, by a process of cooling [at approx. (-)162°C], it is converted into LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) for ease of transportation by tanker ships - since LNG occupies only 1/600th of the volume of Natural Gas in its gaseous state. LNG Regasification Terminals are used for unloading of LNG from tanker ships. In the Regasification plant, the LNG is then converted into Natural Gas for distribution through gas pipelines.

¶201

In order to provide tranquil conditions for berthing and safe LNG unloading operations at all times of the year, there had come into existence the necessity for extending the length of the breakwater at the Port from 1700m to 4500m. The breakwater is intended to dissipate the near-shore wave-energy and maintain tranquil conditions inside the harbour area to facilitate smooth and safe loading and unloading of cargo from large refrigerated vessels carrying LNG.

¶202

The extension of the Breakwater at the port is not a separate project in itself. Breakwater is only a part of the Port project and the extension of the breakwater is only a modification to the existing infrastructure of the port project, which has been approved by the Environmental Clearance dated 06.01.2014. It was not necessary for the entire process, as envisaged APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019 Page 19 of 67

¶203

under Clause 7 of the EIA Notification of 2006, to be repeated. As a responsible developer and project proponent, the answering respondent has applied for Environmental Clearance for extension of breakwater.

¶204

Under the EIA Notification of 2006, the following scheme is envisaged for new projects and Expansion/Modernization of existing projects:-

¶205

a) New Projects :- For New Projects, in terms of Clause 7(i) of the EIA Notification of 2006, it is mandatory to comply with 4 stages for grant of EC i.e. -

¶206

i. Screening (only for Category B projects)

¶207

ii. Scoping

¶208

iii. Public Consultation

¶209

iv. Appraisal

¶210

b) Expansion / Modernization of existing Projects :- EC is granted to

¶211

any new Project only after complying with the stage-wise process, including public consultation, as prescribed in Clause 7(i) of the EIA Notification of 2006. Thereafter, for any expansion / modernization of the Project, as per Clause 7(ii) of the EIA Notification of 2006, the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) is vested with the power to decide on the due diligence necessary for such projects. Clause 7(ii) of the EIA Notification of 2006 is reproduced herein below:-

¶212

" 7(ii) Prior Environmental Clearance (EC) process for Expansion or Modernization or Change of product mix in existing projects : All applications seeking prior environmental clearance for expansion with increase in the production capacity beyond the capacity for which prior environmental clearance has been granted under this notification or with increase in either

¶213

Page 20 of 67

¶214

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶215

lease area or production capacity in the case of mining projects or for the modernization of an existing unit with increase in the total production capacity beyond the threshold limit prescribed in the Schedule to this notification through change in process and or technology or involving a change in the product-mix shall be made in Form I and they shall be considered by the concerned Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal

¶216

Committee within sixty days, who will decide on the due diligence necessary including preparation of EIA and public consultations and the application shall be appraised accordingly for grant of environmental clearance."

¶217

In the present case, prior to grant of EC dated 06.01.2014 for the Port project, a detailed and comprehensive process of public consultation had been undertaken on 19.11.2010. The necessity for extension of the length of the already approved Breakwater had arisen having regard to the Phase-II development of the LNG Regasification Plant, for providing safe and tranquil conditions for berthing and unloading of the LNG vessels.

¶218

The proposed sub-concessionaire i.e. HSEPL applied for grant of EC for the LNG Regasification Plant, whereas the answering Respondent applied for grant of EC for the extension of Breakwater.

¶219

Pursuant to the answering Respondent's application for grant of EC for the extension of Breakwater, the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) were communicated by MoEF&CC vide letter dated 18.06.2014. As per this letter, the competent authority, viz. the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) - having considered the matter within the four corners of the above-mentioned statutory scheme envisaged under Clause 7(ii) of the EIA Notification of 2006, had found it appropriate for acceding to a waiver from the public consultation process APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019 Page 21 of 67

¶220

on the ground that a detailed and comprehensive public consultation for the Port project had already been conducted on 19.11.2010. The proposed extension of the breakwater is within the Port boundary. The EC sought by HSEPL would also include the process of public consultation.

¶221

Vide letter dated 18.06.2014 of MoEF&CC, it was also communicated that the ToR would be valid for a period of 2 years from submission of EIA / EMP reports.

¶222

As per the procedure established under the EIA Notification 2006 and the ToR granted on 18.06.2014, the Environmental Impact Assessment was carried out by an autonomous body, viz. CSIR - NEERI. The EIA Report prepared by CSIR-NEERI was submitted to the GCZMA for appraisal on 26.04.2016. The EIA Report was submitted within two years validity period of the ToR. GCZMA had, thereafter, recommended and forwarded the EIA for CRZ Clearance vide letter dated 02.02.2017.

¶223

The EAC recommended the project for Environmental and CRZ Clearance as reflected in the Minutes of the 18th Meeting of the EAC held on 25th-27^th May, 2017 and both the said clearances were granted on 05.03.2019. For setting up of the 5 MMTPA [Million Metric Tonnes per Annum] LNG Regasification Terminal, the sub-concessionaire, M/s HSEPL separately applied for EC and after following the prescribed process under the EIA Notification of 2006 including a detailed and comprehensive public consultation held on 18.12.2015, the same had been granted on 05.03.2019.

¶224

The Answering Respondent has also been granted consent under the Water and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board [GPCB]. Consent to Establish the port and facilities was granted by the GPCB vide Letter dated 09.09.2011. APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019 Page 22 of 67

¶225

Page 22 of 67

¶226

The construction activity for the breakwater of initial length of 1700m, as approved in the EC dated 06.01.2014, had commenced at the site from October 2017. Considerable amount of time, money and resources has already been spent in the development of the Port project, which has also generated employment for hundreds of persons in the local region.

¶227

Appellant has not raised any issue relating to the completeness of various studies carried out by autonomous bodies / institutions, disclosure of important relevant information, procedures followed by the GCZMA and EAC, consideration, appraisal and deliberation on the information required and submitted and finally, the adequate conditions stipulated in grant of EC to safeguard the environment. Instead the appellant has raised issues that are baseless and hypothetical.

¶228

The appellant has not produced any evidence, in support of the baseless allegations. The appellant has been unable to point out even a single violation of any specific provision of any Notification, Rule or Act.

¶229

A large part of the allegations made by the Appellant is related to the quarrying of materials required for the construction of the Breakwater, whereas the Answering respondent has made provision for an elaborate, environmentally-friendly process of construction by bringing materials from overseas, thereby causing minimal damage to the local environment.

¶230

Answering respondent has given para-wise reply to the allegations made by the appellant in following manner, in which all the allegations levelled against them have been denied, which is reproduced herein below in tabular form:-

¶231

Page 23 of 67

¶232

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶233

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019 Page 24 of 67

Page 25 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 26 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 27 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 28 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 29 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

In above table, the answering respondent has also responded to the grounds of appeal set-up by the appellant in tabular form which contains more or less the same facts which already have been dealt with by us above, therefore, we need not repeat them here.

¶245

Lastly it is said that the appeal deserves to be rejected.

¶246

From the side of Respondent No.1- MoEF&CC reply dated

¶247

30.07.2019 has been filed , wherein it is submitted that break waters is covered under entry 7(e) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006.

¶248

The proposed activity falls under permissible activities under the CRZ Notification, 2011. The para 3 (i)a, 3(iv)a, 4 (i) of CRZ Notification provide as under:-

¶249

“3. Prohibited activities within CRZ - The following are declared as prohibited activities within the CRZ,-

¶250

(i) Setting up of new industries and expansion of industries except,-

¶251

(a) those directly related to waterfront or directly needing foreshore facilities;

¶252

Explanation: The expression "foreshore facilities" means those activities permissible under this notification and they require waterfront for their operations such as ports and harbours, jetties, quays, wharves, erosion control measures, breakwaters, pipelines, lighthouses, navigational safety facilities, coastal police stations and the like.;

¶253

(iv) Land reclamation, bunding or disturbing the natural course of seawater except those,-

¶254

(a) required for setting up, construction or modernisation or expansion of foreshore facilities like ports, harbours, jetties, wharves, quays, slipways, bridges, sealink, road on stilts, and such as meant for defence and security purpose and for other facilities that are essential for activities permissible under the notification;

¶255

Page 30 of 67

¶256

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶257

4. Regulation of permissible activities in CRZ area - The following activities shall be regulated except those prohibited in para 3 above -

¶258

(i) (f) Construction and operation for ports and harbours, jetties, wharves, quays, slipways, ship construction yards, breakwaters, groynes, erosion control measures and salt works:”

¶259

The proposal of the PP was considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee (Infra - II) in its 131st meeting held on 28th February, 2014 and 1st March, 2014 wherein the Terms of Reference was granted. The project was again taken up for consideration by the Expert Appraisal Committee (Infra - II) in its 133rd meeting held on 21^st - 22nd April, 2014 for amendment in the Terms of Reference. During the meeting, the Project Proponent informed that the EC/CRZ clearance which was granted to the Port in January, 2014 was based on the comprehensive EIA report, hence requested to use the same data for the present project. The EAC after deliberation suggested that the EIA report shall be based on the comprehensive marine data not older than 3 years. Thereafter, the Terms of Reference were issued vide letter dated 18th June 2014. As per this letter, Project Proponent requested for waiver of Public Hearing on the ground that Public Hearing was conducted on 19.11.2010 while obtaining the Environmental and CRZ clearance for the Port and the proposed extension of berth is within Port boundary. The Joint venture which will establish and operate LNG terminal at the proposed berth will go for Public Hearing. The EAC accepted the justification and recommended for exemption from conducting the Public Hearing for the above proposal. Accordingly, the Public Hearing has been waived. A copy of the minutes of the 131^st meeting held on 28th February, 2014 and 1st March, 2014, a copy of the minutes of the 133rd meeting held on 21st - 22nd April, 2014 and a copy of the Terms of Reference dated 18th June 2014 are annexed as Annexure - R1/1, Annexure - R1/2 and Annexure - R1/3 respectively. APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019 Page 31 of 67

¶260

The Gujarat Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) recommended the Project vide letter dated 2nd February, 2017.

¶261

The proposal was considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee (Infra - II) in its 15th meeting held on 12th - 14^th April, 2017 wherein it was observed that the Terms of Reference was granted vide letter dated 18th June 2014. As per this letter the proposed breakwater extension is exempted from public hearing. The committee noted that an exemption from Public hearing was granted by the earlier EAC because the proposed extension of berth was within the project area and the joint venture which will establish and operate the LNG Terminal at the proposed berth was to go for public hearing. The committee felt that since this proposal is linked to the other project i.e., Development of LNG storage and regasification terminal at village Chhara Taluka Kodinar, District Gir Somnath, Gujarat by M/s HPCL Shapoorji Energy Ltd, therefore any further consideration will only be possible after consideration of the project i.e., Development of LNG storage and regasification terminal at village Chhara. Accordingly, matter was deferred. A copy of the minutes of the 15th meeting held on 12th - 14th April, 2017 is annexed as Annexure - R1/4.

¶262

The proposal was again considered by the EAC Committee (Infra – II) in its 18^th meetings held during 25^th – 27^th May, 2017. During deliberation, the committee felt that since the proposal is linked to the project ‗Development of LNG storage and regasification terminal at village Chhara Taluka Kodinar, District Gir Somnath, Gujarat promoted by M/s HPCL Shapoorji Energy Ltd', therefore any further consideration would be possible after satisfactory submission of the additional information sought by the Committee in case of the project for `Development of LNG storage and regasification terminal.' The project proponent had submitted the additional information vide letter dated 27.04.2017. Accordingly, proposal APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019 Page 32 of 67

¶263

was considered by EAC (Infra-II) in its meeting held during 25th - 27th May, 2017. The EAC, on being satisfied with the submissions of the project proponent in response to its earlier observations, recommended the project for grant of Environmental and CRZ Clearance and stipulated certain specific conditions along-with other environmental conditions while considering to accord environmental clearance. A copy of the minutes of the 18th meetings held during 25th - 27th May, 2017 is annexed as Annexure - R1/5.

¶264

Thus, it is said that the answering Respondent has followed due procedure of law for appraisal of the Project as prescribed by EIA Notification, 2006 and CRZ Notification, 2011 amended from time to time. The Environmental and CRZ Clearance has been accorded vide letter dated 05.03.2019 to the proposed project, i.e., Extension of Breakwater at Chhara Port, Village Chhara - Sarkhadi Taluka Kodinar, district Gir Somnath by M/s Simar Port Pvt. Ltd.

¶265

Respondent No.4 – Chief Secretary, State of Gujarat and Respondent No.5- Forest and Environment Department have filed reply affidavit dated 23.09.2019 , wherein nothing substantial has been submitted, which would have impact on the present proceeding

¶266

FACTS OF APPEAL NO.31 OF 2019

¶267

This appeal has been filed seeking quashing of Environmental Clearance dated 05.03.2019 granted by Respondent No.1- MoEF&CC to Respondent No.15 – M/s HPCL Shapoorji Energy Limited for the project of LNG Storage and Regasification unit at Chhara Port, Village ChharaSarkhadi Taluka Kodinar, Dist. Gir Somnath, Gujarat which is annexed as Annexure A-51 beginning from page No.51 of the paper book.

¶268

Page 33 of 67

¶269

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶270

In this appeal it is submitted that the LNG project is required on shore on piece of 42 Ha land which is fertile agricultural land. This project is going to be developed of 5 MMTPA capacity which is expandable to 10 MMTPA. But the main purpose of this port is coal handling.

¶271

The LNG Terminal on shore facility includes BOG Compressor, HP Pumps, Shell and Tube Vaporizers, Submerged Combustion Vaporizer and air heater, LP Flare, truck loading facility, Captive Power Plant (18MW), Fire Water Pump House, Nitrogen Generation Facility, Fire Water Reservoir, Re-condenser unit, Diesel Tank, overhead DW tank, DW Pump. 99. The LNG Terminal an off shore facility includes 1 number of jetty with 3 numbers of unloading arms, approach trestle of 1225 Mtrs with pipeline, 6 mooring and 4 berthing dolphins,. LNG transfer line from Jetty to Storage tanks, vapor return line from tankages to jetty, utilities for firewater, 2 numbers of storage tanks of 200,000 Cum each (gross capacity), re-gasification facilities comprising of BOG. Compressor, HP Pumps, Shell and Tube Vaporizers, Submerged Combustion Vaporizer and air heater, Glycol water tank and circulation System, re-condenser, Underground LNG Drain drum, LNG Send out facilities comprising truck loading, LNG Meter Station, Weigh Bridge, TLG Control room, Truck Parking, Security Watch Tower and Security Gate.

¶272

Further, it is mentioned that the port received first EC dated 06.01.2014 and rest of the facts of Para-f are the same which were in the earlier appeal.

¶273

The Phase-II will be for development of LNG Terminal storage and regasification and additional breakwater of 2800m is required to be constructed on the shoal bank. Rest of the facts we have gone through are

¶274

Page 34 of 67

¶275

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶276

found to be same facts which are already dealt with while dealing with the Appeal No.30/2019.

¶277

There are several disclosures not made in form-1 which are narrated in Para 8.19 to 8.33, so that would be amounting to concealment on part of the PP.

¶278

Hence, the above prayer is made.

¶279

From the side of Respondent No.15- M/s HPCL Shapoorji Energy Limited reply affidavit dated 05.07.2019 has been filed , wherein it is submitted that EIA and other supporting studies were carried out through reputed institutes like CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), CSIR-National Institute of Oceanography (NIO), Institute of Remote Sensing (IRS). All information has been made available in the EIA and to the concerned authorities including GCZMA, EAC and MoEF&CC. The EMP was found to be adequate and sufficient and accordingly the conditions have been incorporated in the EC to safeguard the environment.

¶280

In this reply in para 4 the contentions raised by the Appellant have been summarized as below:-

¶281

i. “Clearance for extension is in violation of terms and conditions of the original clearance dated 06.01.2014.

¶282

ii. The extension will affect the aquatic life.

¶283

iii. It has wrongly been assumed that there was no eco-sensitive area within 10 km radius.

¶284

iv. Quantity of minerals, construction material, forest and timbers has not been indicated in Form-1. There are various omissions in Form-1, as mentioned in the appeal.

¶285

Page 35 of 67

¶286

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶287

v. No requisite public hearing was conducted for extension.

¶288

vi. The period of Terms of Reference (ToR) expired before the grant of clearance.

¶289

vii. Asiatic lion number has been ignored. Lion Conservation Plan has not been prepared.

¶290

viii. There is no marking of CRZ Zone.

¶291

ix. Risk assessment and monitoring reports are stale.‖

¶292

Further, it is mentioned that Respondent No.15 separately applied for EC for setting up 5 MMTPA LNG Regasification Terminal which was granted vide letter dated 05.03.2019.

¶293

LNG is used as an environment friendly green fuel, in industries, vehicles and also as raw material in fertilizer industry. It substitutes the fuels like Furnace Oil and Coal reducing load on environment. As such, the LNG terminal has its own advantage to environment throughout its entire service life by ensuring the steady supply line of green fuel to the country.

¶294

Respondent No.15 has been granted the Consent to Establish dated 13.04.2016 under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 by the GPCB.

¶295

ToR for establishing LNG regasification facility were granted vide letter dated 13.06.2014.

¶296

EIA report was submitted to GCZMA for appraisal on 12.02.2016. Thereafter, GCZMA recommended and forwarded the proposal to EAC for CRZ Clearance vide letter dated 02.02.2017.

¶297

Page 36 of 67

¶298

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶299

EAC recommended the grant of Environmental and CRZ Clearance vide Minutes of 18th Meeting held on 25th-27th, May 2017 after due deliberations on every aspect related to environment vis-à-vis the project.

¶300

Further, it is mentioned that no construction work has started at site till date. Many allegations made by the Appellant raise multiple issues in plural causes, all clubbed together which is not tenable.

¶301

The replies have been given to the main grounds raised by the appellant in tabular form as follows:-

Page 37 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 38 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 39 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 40 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

The various grounds which were set-up by the appellant are also been responded to in tabular form as follows:-

Page 41 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 42 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 43 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 44 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 45 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 46 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 47 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 48 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 49 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 50 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 51 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 52 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 53 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 54 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 55 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 56 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 57 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Page 58 of 67

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Further, it is mentioned that project is of National importance which needs to be upheld.

¶348

From the side of Respondent No.1- MoEF&CC reply dated 30.07.2019 has been filed , wherein it is submitted that the proposal was considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee (Infra - II) in its 131st meeting held on 28^th February, 2014 and 1st March, 2014 wherein the Terms of Reference was granted. The project was again taken up for consideration by the Expert Appraisal Committee (Infra - II) in its 133^rd meeting held on 21st - 22nd April, 2014 for amendment in the Terms of Reference. During the meeting, the Project Proponent informed that the EC/CRZ clearance which was granted to the Port in January, 2014 was based on the comprehensive EIA report, hence requested to use the same data for the present project. The EAC after deliberation suggested that the EIA report shall be based on the comprehensive marine data not older than 3 years. Thereafter, the Terms of Reference were issued vide letter dated 13th June 2014. The Gujarat Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) recommended the Project vide letter dated 2nd February, 2017.

¶349

The proposal was considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee (Infra - II) in its 15th meeting held on 12th - 14th April, 2017 wherein it was observed that the Terms of Reference was granted vide letter dated 13th June 2014. Public hearing for the project was conducted on 18.12.2015 at Chhara, Kodinar. During deliberation, Project proponent informed that out of the total 304 oral/written representations, as many as 280 representations were in favour of the project and 24 representation sought clarification regarding the project. Most of the representation received from the local public were related to local employment, education facility for local student, medical facilities, cattle grazing and livelihood of fishermen etc. Committee after detailed deliberation sought more APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019 Page 59 of 67

¶350

information from the project proponent for further deliberation on the proposal.

¶351

The proposal was again considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee (Infra - II) in its 18th meetings held during 25th - 27th May, 2017. The EAC, on being satisfied with the submissions of the project proponent in response to its earlier observations, recommended the project for grant of Environmental and CRZ Clearance and stipulated certain specific conditions along with other environmental conditions while considering to accord environmental clearance.

¶352

The answering Respondent has followed due procedure of law for appraisal of the Project as per EIA Notification, 2006 and CRZ Notification, 2011 and has accorded Environmental Clearance and CRZ Clearance vide letter dated 05.03.2019 to the proposed project, subject to stipulation of various environmental safeguards.

¶353

FACTS OF APPEAL NO.49 OF 2019

¶354

This appeal has been filed seeking quashing of EC and CRZ Clearance dated 05.03.2019 granted by Respondent No.1- MoEF&CC in favour of Respondent No.2- HPCL Shapoorji Energy Limited for development of 5 MMTPA LNG storage and re-gassification terminal in Chhara port in Village Chhara, Kodinar Taluka, Gir-Somnath District, Gujarat on the following grounds:-

¶355

The proposed project and the breakwater component are inter linked projects, because the breakwater is extended so that more ships may have access to the LNG terminal. O.M dated 24.12.2010 detailing the procedure relating to integrated and interlinked projects reads as under:-

¶356

Page 60 of 67

¶357

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶358

i. Integrated and inter-linked projects having multi sectoral components shall prepare a common EIA Report, covering impact of each component in a comprehensive manner after obtaining ToRs from each of the respective sectoral Expert Appraisal Committees (EACs). For the purpose, the project proponent shall submit applications to each of the sector simultaneously providing full details of the project (comprehensively for the integrated/interlinked projects as also for the particular component, sector specific) in the prescribed format (Form-I) and the pre-feasibility report.

¶359

ii. The respective sectoral EAC will consider the project with specific emphasis on their respective sectors and prescribe ToRs which will not be limited to the sector but would also encompass the project as a whole.

¶360

iii. The respective EACs will consider the sector specific proposals based on the common EIA report and will make their recommendations relating to that particular component. However, in doing so, the overall impact of the project as a whole will also be considered.

¶361

Despite the above mentioned OM issued by MoEF&CC itself, the Expert Appraisal Committee failed to appraise the projects as inter-linked projects. The project proponent submitted separate proposals for both projects, with separate EIAs, and the cumulative impact of both these projects in addition to what has already been constructed has not been assessed.

¶362

The public hearing was conducted in an improper manner, without hearing the concerns raised by all citizens.

¶363

124. Respondent No.2 - HPCL Shapoorji Energy Ltd has filed reply

¶364

affidavit dated 12.10.2020 , wherein it is submitted that similar issues are involved as were involved in Appeal No.50/2019, Appeal No.30/2019 APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019 Page 61 of 67

¶365

and Appeal No.31/2019. The answering respondent has filed reply affidavit in Appeal No.31/2019 the contents of the same are reiterated here also. Because of the averment that the same facts are being reiterated herein, we need not reproduce them again.

¶366

Respondent No.1- MoEF&CC has also filed reply dated 30.07.2019 , which is a same reply which has been filed by MoEF&CC in Appeal No.31/2019, which we have already dealt with earlier.

¶367

FACTS OF APPEAL NO.50 OF 2019

¶368

This appeal has been filed seeking quashing of Environmental Clearance and CRZ Clearance dated 05.03.2019 granted by Respondent No.2- MoEF&CC to Respondent No.1 - M/s Simar Port Private Limited for extension of Breakwater. On the ground of mandatory public hearing not having been conducted.

¶369

The facts need not be given in detail here because the same facts are reiterated, which we have already dealt with earlier.

¶370

128. Respondent No.1- M/s Simar Port Private Limited has filed reply

¶371

affidavit dated 04.10.2019 , wherein the same facts are contained, which have already been dealt with by us in earlier appeals cited above, hence they are not being reproduced here.

¶372

Respondent No.2- MoEF&CC has filed reply affidavit dated 05.11.2019 , wherein the same facts are contained which have already been considered by us in earlier affidavit filed by MoEF&CC in other appeals, therefore, they need not be repeated here.

¶373

However, it is submitted in para 15 of this affidavit that the OM dated 24.12.2010 provided as under :-

¶374

Page 62 of 67

¶375

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶376

" The matter relating to the procedure for consideration of integrated and inter related projects for grant of Environmental Clearance under the provisions of EM Notification, 2006 has been receiving attention of this Ministly for quite some time. After detailed deliberations in the Minim)), it has been decided that the following procedure shall be adopted henceforth for the consideration of such projects:

¶377

i. Integrated and inter-linked projects having multi sectoral components shall prepare a common EIA report, covering impact of each of the component in a comprehensive manner. After obtaining ToRs from each of the respective sectoral Expert Appraisal Committees (EACs). For the purpose, the project proponent shall submit applications to each of the sector simultaneously giving full details of the project (comprehensively for the integrated/interlinked projects as also for the particular component sector specific) in the prescribed format (Form — 1) and the pre-feasibility report.

¶378

ii. The respective sectoral Expert Appraisal Committee will consider the project with specific emphasis on their respective sectors and prescribe the ToRs which will not be limited to the sectors but would also encompass the entire project as a whole.

¶379

iii. The proponent shall prepare a common EIA report covering all the sectors comprehensively and hold public hearing based on the EIA Report so prepared for each component as per provisions of EIA Notification, 2006.

¶380

iv. After the EIA report has been prepared and public hearing has been held, the proposals for environmental clearance in respect of all the sectoral components of the project shall be submitted simultaneously.

¶381

v. The respective EACs will consider the sector specific proposals based on the common EIA report and will make their recommendations relating to that particular component. However, in doing so, the overall impact of the project as a whole will also be considered.

¶382

vi. After the proposal relating to the various components have been considered by the respective EACs and their recommendations made, these proposals will be processed on individual files for obtaining simultaneous approval of the Competent Authority."

¶383

Having drawn attention to the same, it is submitted that the said OM is not applicable in the present case, since both the projects are covered under item 7(e) i.e. Port and Harbours to the schedule of the EIA Notification, 2006.

¶384

Page 63 of 67

¶385

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶386

We have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Rahul Choudhary in Appeal No.49/2019 and Appeal No.50/2019. None has appeared from the side of appellants in Appeal No.30/2019 and Appeal No.31/2019.

¶387

Two issues mainly have emerged during the arguments which are as follows:-

¶388

(i) Whether public hearing has been waived in accordance with rules because it appears that the waiver has been granted to public hearing for extension of breakwater project illegally.

¶389

(ii) Two projects i.e. M/s Simar Port Private Limited for which EC was granted for extension of breakwater and EC granted for Development of LNG storage and regasification terminal both were required to be considered as interlinked projects and hence, the common EIA report was required to be prepared, which has not been done in the case in hand, if yes, whether it will have any adverse impact on the EC.

¶390

Now we take up the issue No.(i) i.e. Whether public hearing was wrongly waived and that the same will not be taken to have been done in accordance with the EIA Notification 2006. The project in question is an extension project for which original EC was granted and public hearing was duly conducted.

¶391

The proposed extension is happening within the same project area. The MoEF&CC has clarified that the EC/CRZ clearance which was granted to the Port in question in January, 2014 was based on the comprehensive EIA report, hence request was made to use the same data for the present project. The EAC after deliberation suggested that the EIA report shall be based on the comprehensive marine data not older than 3 years. Thereafter, the ToR were issued on 18th June 2014. The Project Proponent

¶392

Page 64 of 67

¶393

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶394

requested for waiver of Public Hearing on the ground that Public Hearing was conducted on 19.11.2010 while obtaining the EC and CRZ clearance for the Port and the proposed extension of berth is within Port boundary. The Joint venture which will establish and operate LNG terminal at the proposed berth will go for Public Hearing. The EAC accepted the justification and recommended for exemption from conducting the Public Hearing for the above proposal. Hence the same was waived.

¶395

We are of the view that the MoEF&CC has rightly granted exemption from conducting public hearing for the extension of the breakwater project because already public hearing has been conducted for earlier EC granted in the year 2010. It is the extension of the same project within the port boundary therefore there was no need for conducting public hearing again. More so in condition when the connected projects for LNG regasification, the public hearing was to be conducted and actually has been conducted given in Chapter 13 relating to public hearing as is mentioned in the Final EIA Report provided to us by the PP during the argument. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the public was well aware of the project in question and their opinion has been taken into consideration prior to grant of the EC and CRZ clearance.

¶396

Now, we have to deal with the issue No.(ii ) as to whether the common EIA Report was required to be prepared for the breakwater project and the LNG project both being inter-linked projects in accordance with the OM dated 24.12.2010. In this regard, we have already cited above the OM dated 24.12.2010, while dealing with the reply of the MoEF&CC dated 05.11.2019 in Appeal No.50/2019, in that very affidavit it is made clear by the MoEF&CC that the said OM is not applicable in the present cases, both the projects are covered under item 7(e) i.e. Port and Harbours to the schedule of the EIA Notification, 2006. APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019 Page 65 of 67

¶397

Page 65 of 67

¶398

We find mentioned in the affidavit of MoEF&CC dated 30.07.2019 in Appeal No.30/2019 in para 10 that the Committee noted that an exemption from Public hearing was granted by the earlier EAC because the proposed extension of berth was within the project area and the joint venture which will establish and operate the LNG Terminal at the proposed berth was to go for public hearing. The committee felt that since this proposal is linked to the other project i.e., Development of LNG storage and regasification terminal at village Chhara Taluka Kodinar, District Gir Somnath, Gujarat by M/s HPCL Shapoorji Energy Ltd, therefore any further consideration will only be possible after consideration of the project i.e., Development of LNG storage and regasification terminal at village Chhara.

¶399

The proposal was again considered by the EAC Committee (Infra – II) in its 18^th meetings held during 25^th – 27^th May, 2017. During deliberation, the committee felt that since the proposal is linked to the project ‗Development of LNG storage and regasification terminal at village Chhara Taluka Kodinar, District Gir Somnath, Gujarat promoted by M/s HPCL Shapoorji Energy Ltd', therefore any further consideration would be possible after satisfactory submission of the additional information sought by the Committee in case of the project `Development of LNG storage and regasification terminal.' The project proponent had submitted the additional information vide letter dated 27.04.2017. Accordingly, proposal was considered by EAC (Infra-II) in its meeting held during 25th - 27th May, 2017. The EAC, on being satisfied with the submissions of the project proponent in response to its earlier observations, recommended the project for grant of EC and CRZ Clearance and stipulated the certain specific conditions along-with other environmental conditions while considering to accord environmental clearance.

¶400

Page 66 of 67

¶401

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

¶402

We may mention here that, we are in the agreement with the opinion expressed by the MoEF&CC that the OM dated 24.12.2010, will not be applicable here, which provides for common EIA to be prepared for interlinked projects having multi sectoral components because in the case in hand the project belongs to the single sector i.e. 7(e) Port and Harbours and moreover, these two projects are owned by different owners, even developers, hence there was no question of moving common application for preparing the common EIA Report. Thus issue No.(ii) stand answered on the above two points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶403

In view of the above, we are of the view that we do not find any force in all the four appeals and dismiss the same and uphold the impugned ECs.

¶404

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶405

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶406

September 07, 2026 APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019 Along-with the other appeals SAR

¶407

Page 67 of 67

¶408

APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019

Protection of Environment and Public Service Committee through the Chairman Mr. Bhagwanbhai B. Solanki v. M/S Simar Port Pvt. Ltd. through the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Protection of Environment and Public Service Committee through the Chairman Mr. Bhagwanbhai B. Solanki v. M/S Simar Port Pvt. Ltd. through the Managing Director

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

C Kandasamy vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Puducherry Rep by Its Member Secretary

Bluebird Software Private Limited vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Prakash Foods and Feeds Mills Private Ltd. vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

K a Rajagopal vs the Member Secretary

Fishing Boat Owners Association vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority

Krishna Blue Metals vs the Chairman Seiaa

Vihaan Milk and Milk Processing vs the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Arun Nathuram Gaikwad vs Secretary Environment Department Government of Maharashtra

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Protection of Environment and Public Service Committee vs Moef

Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs Union of India through the Secretary

Lloyd St Jude Joachim Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 19/2024 in Original Application No. 205/2024 of Nagri Hakka Sangarsh Samiti vs Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation