Dismissed

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

NGT3 Sept 2026Appeal No. 74/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal Southern Zone dismissed an appeal challenging a CRZ Clearance for a fishing harbour expansion. The court held that since the capacity was below the 30,000 TPA threshold, EIA clearance was not mandatory, statutory conflict of interest existed for the proponent, and single-season rapid EIA data sufficed for the riverine project.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, confirming the validity of the CRZ Clearance.

C Kandasamy vs the State Environment Impact… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.4:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Thursday, the 03^rd day of September, 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Appeal No.74 of 2025 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

C. Kandasamy

¶8

S/o Chidambaram, 160, Tsunami Nagar, Karukalacherry, Karaikal – 609 604.

¶9

…Appellant(s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

1) The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Puducherry

¶12

Rep. by its Member Secretary, III Floor, PHB Building, Anna Nagar, Puducherry – 605 005.

¶13

2) Department of Fisheries and Fisherman Welfare

¶14

Rep. by its Director, Fishing Harbour Complex, Thengaithittu, Mudaliarpet Post, Puducherry - 605 004.

¶15

...Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellant (s): M/s A. Yogeshwaran, Poongkhulali. B, Jahnavi V TT, Sanjaikumar L and Tamasaa TT.

¶17

For Respondent(s): Mr. Ramaswamy Meyyappan for R1 & R2.

¶18

Judgement Reserved on: 20^th August, 2026.

¶19

CORAM :

¶20

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶21

HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶22

Page 1 of 17

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

¶25

1. The Appellant, a resident of Karukalacherry Village and the President of the Karukalacherry Village Public Welfare Society, has filed the above appeal, challenging the CRZ Clearance dated 16.09.2025 granted by the 1^st Respondent/State Environment Impact Assessment Authority ( SEIAA ), Puducherry in favour of the 2^nd Respondent/Department of Fisheries and Fisherman Welfare for development of smart and integrated fishing harbour in Ward – L, Block – 7, T.S. No.15, R.S. No.199, Karukalacherry, Oduthurai Revenue Village, Karaikal Municipality, Karaikal District, Union Territory of Puducherry.

¶26

2. The allegations of the appellant are:

¶27

2.1 That the existing Karaikal Fishing Harbour had originally been established pursuant to an Environmental Clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests in July, 2004 and therefore, any expansion of the said harbour project necessarily attracts the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006. The impugned clearance for expansion of the existing fishing harbour beyond its originally approved area and operational capacity mandates prior Environmental Clearance under Para 7(ii)(a) of the Environment Impact Assessment ( EIA ) Notification, 2006. Despite such statutory requirement, the 2^nd Respondent deliberately avoided obtaining Environmental Clearance by falsely declaring in the Common Application Form that the proposal does not fall under Paragraph 7(ii)(a) of the EIA Notification and that the EIA Notification itself is not attracted to the project.

¶28

2.2 That the CRZ Clearance by itself does not authorise execution of the project in the absence of mandatory Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006. The 2^nd Respondent has misrepresented the actual handling capacity of the proposed harbour by projecting

¶29

Page 2 of 17

¶30

the expected annual fish catch of 29,647 tonnes per annum as the handling capacity of the harbour, solely with a view to portray the project as falling below the threshold limit of 30,000 TPA prescribed under Entry 7(e) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006. The projected fish catch and handling capacity are fundamentally distinct concepts and that the handling capacity of a harbour is determined not by fluctuating annual fish catch figures but by the extent and scale of physical infrastructure created for berthing, unloading, storage, auctioning and management of fishing vessels and their catch. In this regard, the Appellant points out that the present proposal involves extensive additional infrastructure including development over more than 9.3 hectares of land, 12,300 sq.m. of beach landing area, accommodation facilities for 457 fishing vessels, construction of diaphragm walls, extensive concrete surfaces, boat parking areas measuring 31,767 sq.m., and establishment of three new fish handling auction halls. According to the Appellant, these infrastructural components clearly indicate that the actual handling capacity of the expanded harbour is substantially higher than what has been disclosed by the project proponent. Neither the DPR nor the EIA Report discloses the handling capacity of the proposed expansion.

¶31

2.3 That Para 7(ii)(a) of the EIA Notification, 2006 expressly mandates prior Environmental Clearance for expansion projects involving increase in production capacity beyond the capacity for which prior Environmental Clearance had originally been granted. Therefore, once the existing harbour project is expanded beyond the limits and operational capacity contemplated under the original clearance granted in July, 2004, fresh Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification becomes mandatory irrespective of the manner in which the project proponent seeks to classify or describe the proposal. According to the Appellant, the deliberate omission to obtain Environmental Clearance was intended not only to bypass

¶32

Page 3 of 17

¶33

statutory environmental scrutiny but also to avoid the mandatory public consultation and public hearing process contemplated under the EIA Notification, thereby depriving project affected persons and local villagers of an effective opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

¶34

2.4 That the impugned clearance conflicts the interest in the recommendation process undertaken by the Puducherry Coastal Zone Management Authority ( PCZMA ). In the present case, the proposal was considered and recommended by the PCZMA in its meeting held on 03.09.2025. However, the Director, Department of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare, who himself is the Project Proponent, participated as a member of the PCZMA in the very same meeting, wherein the project was considered and recommended for clearance. According to the Appellant, the participation of the Project Proponent in the appraisal and recommendation of its own proposal strikes at the root of fairness, transparency and institutional impartiality, thereby rendering the recommendation process fundamentally biased and vitiating the impugned CRZ Clearance founded upon such recommendation.

¶35

2.5 That the EIA Report relied upon by the Project Proponent is wholly inadequate, incomplete, contrary to the mandatory sector-specific requirements prescribed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change ( MoEF&CC ) for port and harbour projects. The EIA Report states that environmental and social impact studies were undertaken during the period from March 2025 to May 2025, Table 3-2 of the EIA Report reveals that baseline monitoring and sampling for critical environmental parameters, including marine water quality, biological characteristics, biodiversity, flora and fauna, were conducted only once during the study period. According to the Appellant, the EIA Guidance Manual for Ports and Harbours issued by the MoEF&CC specifically mandates that oceanographic data such as currents, tides and waves

¶36

Page 4 of 17

¶37

must be collected for at least two seasons and that physical, chemical and biological data must be collected over two to three seasons in order to assess environmental impacts during varying seasonal conditions including pre-and post-monsoon periods.

¶38

3. Further, it is admitted that the EIA Report relies only upon one season data and that even ecological studies were conducted only during April 2025. Consequently, the study does not satisfy even the minimum requirements of EIA.

¶39

4. Upon notice, the respondents have entered appearance and filed their pleadings.

¶40

5. The 1^st Respondent/State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Puducherry, in its report dated 04.02.2026 states that the proposed Smart and Integrated Fishing Harbour at Karaikal, undertaken by the Department of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare, Government of Puducherry, is an upgradation of the existing fishing harbour at Karukalacherry, Karaikal under the Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana with advanced infrastructure for sustainable fisheries management, community welfare and conservation of coastal resources. The proposed project as demarcated in the CRZ map prepared by Institute of Remote Sensing (IRS), Anna University falls under CRZ-IB, CRZ-II and CRZ-IVB. The project includes enhanced berthing facilities for 457 vessels with fish handling capacity of 29,647 TPA, expansion of quay wall and shore-based facilities including fish handling and auction halls, tuna grading and packing hall, net mending and drying yards, establishment of a 75 T/day ice plant, proposed fish processing and ancillary units, installation of Effluent Treatment Plant ( ETP ) and Sewage Treatment Plant ( STP ) and other support infrastructure.

¶41

6. In terms of paragraph 4.2(ii)(c) of the CRZ Notification, 2011, the competent authority for issuance of CRZ Clearance for ports, harbours, jetties, wharves, quays, slipways, ship construction yards, breakwaters, groynes and erosion control

¶42

Page 5 of 17

¶43

measures is SEIAA. As the project is related to port infrastructure, the project falls within the jurisdiction of SEIAA, Puducherry. Since the fish handling capacity of the project is less than 30,000 MTPA, Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006 is not applicable and therefore, CRZ Clearance is the sole statutory clearance required for the project.

¶44

7. The SEIAA has further explained that the proposal for CRZ Clearance was submitted by the Department of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare, Government of Puducherry before the Puducherry Coastal Zone Management Authority ( PCZMA ) on 28.08.2025 through the PARIVESH 2.0 portal under Proposal No. IA/PY/CRZ/549607/2025. The proposal was considered by the PCZMA in its 54^th meeting held on 03.09.2025 and upon appraisal, was recommended to SEIAA subject to certain conditions. Since the electronic forwarding facility through the PARIVESH 2.0 portal was not operational at the relevant time, the complete proposal along with supporting documents was forwarded physically to SEIAA vide letter dated 10.09.2025, which according to the Respondent does not affect the legality or validity of the appraisal process. The proposal was thereafter placed before the State Expert Appraisal Committee ( SEAC ) in its 34^th meeting held on 12.09.2025 for detailed technical appraisal under the CRZ Notification, 2011. The SEAC, after comprehensive examination, recommended the proposal for grant of CRZ Clearance subject to environmental safeguards. Subsequently, the proposal along with the recommendations of SEAC and PCZMA was placed before SEIAA, Puducherry in its 28^th meeting held on 15.09.2025 and the SEIAA accepted the recommendations and granted CRZ Clearance dated 16.09.2025, incorporating specific and general conditions relating to environmental safeguards, sustainable dredging practices, wastewater and solid waste management, marine biodiversity conservation and compliance with statutory requirements.

¶45

8. It is further stated in the report that the conditions relating to publication, communication and display of the CRZ Clearance are merely post-clearance procedural obligations intended to ensure transparency and public access to information

¶46

Page 6 of 17

¶47

and are not conditions precedent for grant of CRZ Clearance. According to the SEIAA, any alleged lapse in compliance with such procedural requirements cannot invalidate the clearance in the absence of any demonstrated environmental prejudice or illegality in the appraisal process. Though PCZMA has not received copies of newspaper publications from the Project Proponent, such obligation rests upon the Project Proponent and is subject to monitoring through six-monthly compliance reports.

¶48

9. It is further submitted that the Department of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare, Government of Puducherry, vide letter dated 14.11.2025 communicated copies of the CRZ Clearance to the District Collectorate, Tahsildar’s Office, Karaikal Municipality and PCZMA for public display and that the clearance was also displayed in the office of the 1^st Respondent housing the PCZMA. The SEIAA additionally states that the CRZ Clearance has been uploaded on the official websites of the Department of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare, Government of Puducherry and the PCZMA, and therefore substantial compliance with the disclosure requirements has been achieved.

¶49

10. The 2^nd Respondent/Department of Fisheries

¶50

and Fishermen Welfare submitted that the Appellant had earlier approached the Hon’ble Madras High Court by filing W.P. No. 17242 of 2025 challenging the tender process pertaining to the very same project and raising similar environmental and safety concerns. According to the respondent, the appellant has done forum shopping and abuse of process of law intended to stall a public welfare project. The project aims to ensure fishermen safety and welfare, hygienic fish handling, modern infrastructure, coastal resilience, disaster preparedness and promotion of sustainable fisheries in alignment with national Blue Economy objectives. The proposed project, being a port-related infrastructure facility with fish handling capacity below 30,000 MTPA, is governed by the provisions of the CRZ Notification, 2011 and that Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006 is not applicable to the project. The respondent submitted that only CRZ Clearance was statutorily required and that the competent authority to grant such

¶51

Page 7 of 17

¶52

clearance is the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA).

¶53

11. It is further stated that the project underwent comprehensive technical scrutiny at multiple levels prior to the grant of CRZ Clearance. In this regard, it was stated that a detailed Techno-Economic Feasibility Study had been prepared by the Central Institute of Coastal Engineering for Fishery, which assessed the optimal size and capacity of the harbour based on a fleet of 457 vessels with fish handling capacity of 29,647 MTPA. The Consent to Establish was obtained from the Puducherry Pollution Control Committee ( PPCC ) on 01.09.2025. Thereafter, the Puducherry Coastal Zone Management Authority, after due consideration in its meeting held on 03.09.2025, recommended the project to SEIAA. Subsequently, the proposal was appraised by the SEAC on 12.09.2025 and approved by SEIAA in its meeting held on 15.09.2025 culminating in grant of CRZ Clearance dated 16.09.2025. According to the respondent, the project has undergone multi-tier expert appraisal before issuance of CRZ Clearance.

¶54

12. The 2^nd Respondent also addressed the issue relating to compliance with the general conditions imposed in the CRZ Clearance. It was submitted that the CRZ Clearance was published in two newspapers on 24.01.2026 and the same was communicated to the PCZMA. Copies of the CRZ Clearance were communicated to the District Collectorate, Tahsildar, Karaikal Municipality, PCZMA and Regional Office of MoEF&CC for public display. Additionally, it was submitted that the CRZ Clearance was uploaded on the websites of the Fisheries Department and PCZMA. Hence, there has been substantial compliance with all postclearance procedural requirements and any alleged procedural lapses would not affect the validity of the CRZ Clearance granted after due appraisal and approval.

¶55

13. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the Appellant as well as the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶56

Page 8 of 17

¶57

14. The issues that arise for determination are:

¶58

I. Whether the expansion or modernisation requires Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006?

¶59

II. Whether the impugned CRZ Clearance dated 16.09.2025 is vitiated by conflict of interest?

¶60

III. Whether the EIA Report is adequate to issue the impugned CRZ Clearance dated 16.09.2025?

¶61

IV. Whether the impugned CRZ Clearance dated 16.09.2025 is liable to be set aside?

¶62

Issue No. I:

¶63

15. The EIA Study has been done by WAPCOS Limited in the year 2011 on behalf of the Project Proponent and in its Executive Summary, it is stated that the Karaikal Fishing Harbour was developed by the Department of Fisheries after obtaining the Environmental Clearance in 2004. However, there is no such clearance obtained by the 2^nd Respondent.

¶64

16. It is argued by the respondent that the Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006, is not required for the present project, as such clearance is mandatory for fishing harbours only when the handling capacity is 30,000 TPA or more. The present project capacity is 29,647 TPA, which falls below the prescribed threshold. Therefore, the CRZ Clearance alone is sufficient, as the capacity has been assessed based on the operational requirements of the existing fleet of 457 fishing vessels and it has not been understated or underestimated.

¶65

17. It is also stated that the project constitutes an expansion under Para 7 (ii) (a) of the EIA Notification, 2006, is misconceived, as the project does not increase the fishing activity or add new vessels but only modernises and upgrades the infrastructure to accommodate the existing fleet of 457 vessels under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana. The

¶66

Page 9 of 17

¶67

facilities proposed include berths, auction halls and parking areas, which are proportionate to the needs of the existing fleet.

¶68

18. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the handling capacity of the harbour is not even mentioned in the impugned CRZ Clearance or in the application form of the 2^nd Respondent. The authorities are misled by the terminology ‘fish handling capacity’ as the ‘expected fish catch’, as both are distinct from each other. It is added that a capacity of 29,647 TPA has been calculated based on the fish catch from the given fleet size, which is the figure derived as the expected average and it is bound to fluctuate. Therefore, the expected fish catch figure is not the handling capacity of the harbour as contemplated in the EIA Notification, 2006. Therefore, it was argued that the infrastructure proposed to be constructed is very large, including two auction halls, ETPs, fish processing unit, tuna fish hall, gear sheds, rest sheds, capacity to berth boats and trawlers, etc. Therefore, the proposed harbour ought to have obtained the Environmental Clearance.

¶69

19. In response to the same, the Project Proponent has submitted that the fish handling capacity has been assessed by the Technical Experts and accepted by the statutory authorities, namely, PCZMA, SEAC and SEIAA. In the absence of any expert report, scientific study or technical evidence to challenge these findings, based on mere assumptions or mathematical extrapolations, the Appellant is trying to displace the considered assessment of the expert bodies.

¶70

20. Para 7 (ii) (a) of the EIA Notification, 2006, mandates the Environmental Clearance for expansion projects with an increase in production capacity. In the present case, the approved capacity is 29,647 TPA, which is below the statutory threshold. Therefore, the Environmental Clearance is not required and the CRZ Clearance alone is sufficient. The present modernisation of the unit does not exceed the capacity prescribed.

¶71

Page 10 of 17

¶72

21. The allegation of the Appellant that the handling capacity is understated is unsupported by any technical or expert material, while the SEIAA, the competent authority, has duly exempted and declared the expected capacity. The Appellant has only equated the fish catch with the harbour handling capacity, which is misconceived. The EIA Notification, 2006, and the term ‘expansion’ will attract only when there is an expansion or modernisation that leads to an increase beyond the original permitted capacity or crosses the threshold, requiring the Environmental Clearance. As already held, the project is merely a modernisation of the existing fishing harbour serving 457 vessels without any additional vessels or increase in fleet capacity; it does not enhance the production capacity to trigger the EIA Notification, 2006.

¶73

22. The Project Proponent has stated in his application itself very clearly about the size of the project, the proposed development area and the fish handling capacity, which is rightly assessed by the 1^st Respondent. The 1^st Respondent has also categorically stated that even if there is an increase, it is accounted for by facilities, which do not themselves constitute capacity within the meaning of the notification.

¶74

23. Therefore, the first issue is held in favour of the Project Proponent.

¶75

Issue No. II:

¶76

24. The above issue is twofold. Firstly, it is argued that the clearance was granted within two weeks by the authorities, which is a supersonic clearance, resulting in non-application of mind. Secondly, the Project Proponent, namely, the Director, Department of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare, was a member of the PCZMA and participated in the 54^th Meeting of the PCZMA, wherein the project was recommended for clearance.

¶77

25. According to the Appellant, the application was submitted by the 2^nd Respondent on 28.08.2025. The same was placed on 10.09.2025 in its 54^th Meeting of the PCZMA, which

¶78

Page 11 of 17

¶79

recommended the project for clearance and on 12.09.2025, the SEAC considered and recommended the project for clearance to the 1^st Respondent. On 15.09.2025, the SEIAA granted the impugned clearance. Therefore, the Appellant has alleged that the speed at which the recommendation for award of the clearance was granted is without any critical appreciation or appraisal. The proposal was placed only in two of the meetings and was cleared within two weeks, which clearly goes to show that there is nonapplication of mind without any technical and scientific appraisal of the project.

¶80

26. The reason given by the Appellant for the speedy clearance of the proposal is attributed to the Project Proponent, i.e., the Director, Department of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare, who was a member of the PCZMA and participated in the very same meeting wherein the project was appraised and recommended for clearance. The same person also participated in the subsequent meeting as a representative of the Project Proponent, which is the case of clear conflict.

¶81

27. In this regard, the SEIAA has stated that the procedural irregularities do not vitiate a decision unless they cause prejudice or affect the fairness of the process. Citing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited Vs. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 338 , it was argued that unless the procedural lapse in Environmental Clearance has caused environmental prejudice, the same cannot be interfered with. As no such prejudice is demonstrated in this case, the composition of the PCZMA and the participation of the Project Proponent in its deliberation, in the ex-officio capacity, cannot be found fault with.

¶82

28. In this regard, the 2^nd Respondent has stated that, as per the CRZ Notification, 2011, the Director of Fisheries shall be a member of the CZMA and his membership is statutory and exofficio, arising solely by virtue of his office and not by personal choice. Unless the person has a personal, financial or proprietary interest in the outcome, his participation cannot be faulted with.

¶83

Page 12 of 17

¶84

The membership of the Director of Fisheries is mandated by statute and the member has no personal stake in the outcome.

¶85

29. Admittedly, when the meeting in which the clearance was granted was held, there were several other proposals, which were not connected to the Director of Fisheries. Besides the Chairman of the committee, there were seven others, including the Director of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare Department. Therefore, the mere presence of the Director of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare in his statutory and ex-officio capacity, which is only by virtue of his office and not by personal choice, cannot vitiate the clearance granted.

¶86

30. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd Respondent also argued that even if any theoretical conflict was to be presumed, the ‘ doctrine of necessity’ applies in the present case. As per the statute, the officer is required to be a member of the statutory authority and his participation in the meeting is a legal necessity. Therefore, disqualifying the Director of Fisheries from participation in CZMA would render the PCZMA itself nonfunctional and incomplete in its statutory composition, which was not the intention of the statute. Further, the clearance is granted only by the SEIAA based on the recommendation made by the PCZMA. So, the role of the CZMA is limited only to examining the proposals and making recommendations. The final decision rests exclusively with SEIAA, where the Director of Fisheries has no role to play.

¶87

31. It is also not out of place to mention that while considering the proposals by either the SEAC or the CZMA, the Project Proponents are called to the meeting to place their views through presentations. Therefore, the project is independently evaluated by the SEAC and SEIAA on the basis of the documents and the recommendations made by the CZMA.

¶88

32. The Appellant has not furnished any evidence of actual bias, improper influence or prejudice in the proceedings. The claim of bias cannot rest on vague suspicion or personal sensitivity, but must be specifically pleaded and proved by clear evidence. Bias

¶89

Page 13 of 17

¶90

cannot be presumed, as the burden lies entirely on the parties who allege it to substantiate the claim with verifiable material. As already stated, the Appellant has not established that the Director of Fisheries had personal, financial or any other prior involvement in the process to vitiate the procedure on the said ground.

¶91

33. Thus, the issue is answered accordingly.

¶92

Issue No. III & IV:

¶93

34. It is alleged that the EIA Guidance Manual for Ports and Harbours stipulates that the data has to be measured at least for two seasons. As per the said manual, the coastal hydrology requires collection of oceanographic data during the study period, covering various parameters, like tides, waves, currents, salinity, seawater temperature, seabed bathymetry, etc. Therefore, it mandates that line spacing has to be selected to obtain as much information as possible and at the same time avoid too much detail. However, other oceanographic data, like physical, chemical and biological data, has to be collected at selected stations, covering the demarcated grid. While geological/geophysical data like bathymetry, seismic and site scan sonar can be collected only at one time, the physical, chemical and biological data has to be collected in two to three seasons to understand the impact in different seasons like pre-monsoon and post-monsoon.

¶94

35. It is alleged that, in the present case, the collection is claimed to have been undertaken only during March to May 2025, which is only one season. Therefore, the Environmental Impact Assessment based on one month of study could not have been accepted by the SEIAA. When the minimum requirement for data collection was not met with by the 2^nd Respondent, the recommendation is said to be bad and has to be set aside.

¶95

36. In response to the said allegation, the 1^st Respondent has stated that the EIA Report contains a detailed socio-economic assessment based on the primary field surveys conducted as per the EIA Guidance Manual for Ports and Harbours. The data was collected along a vertical profile at each place at the surface,

¶96

Page 14 of 17

¶97

covering the core, buffer and outer zones of the Karukalacherry Village, which lies within the core impact zone and that was included in the assessment. The shoreline analysis in the EIA is based on scientific data from the National Centre for Coastal Research, ensuring reliance on credible technical sources.

¶98

37. The SEIAA has further stated that the EIA Guidance Manual for Ports and Harbours issued by the MoEF&CC is only advisory in nature and not a binding statutory requirement. The multi-season oceanographic studies indicated therein are generally required for large-scale port projects and not for modernisation of the existing riverine estuarine fishing harbour situated at about 900 metres upstream of the river mouth. Additionally, the EMP provides for ETP, STP, scientific dredging practices, solid waste management and biodiversity protection measures. These safeguards have been incorporated as binding conditions in the impugned clearance itself.

¶99

38. In this regard, the 2^nd Respondent has submitted that the EIA Report for the smart and integrated fishing harbour project at Karaikal is comprehensive, adequate and compliant in all respects and with all statutory requirements.

¶100

39. The Project Proponent has submitted that the environmental studies were conducted during the pre-monsoon season from March to May 2025, with ecological surveys of flora and aquatic fauna undertaken in April 2025. These ecological studies are consistent with accepted scientific practices for a rapid EIA. The rapid EIA for a fishing harbour project focuses on how construction and daily operations affect the local marine life, water quality and coastal communities. The harbours alter the shoreline and involve heavy boat traffic and the short-term study must pinpoint specific underwater and coastal risks quickly. The said rapid study should also include marine ecology (tracking the changes to fish breeding grounds, coral reefs and mangroves), water quality (monitoring the turbid water from dredging and fuel spills from boats), coastal dynamics (how the breakwaters change the local wave patterns), waste management (plans for handling fish waste, sewage from vessels and oily water) and

¶101

Page 15 of 17

¶102

finally, the social impact , which assesses the changes to the livelihoods of local small-scale fishermen.

¶103

40. The EIA Report for the proposed development of smart and integrated fishing harbour, prepared by M/s. ABC Techno Labs, has undertaken the study of marine ecology, which includes the breeding grounds and also mangroves. Regarding the water quality also, the study has been done, including dredging, turbidity, removal of benthic animals, organic matter and nutrients and mitigation measures, etc. Other areas, namely, coastal dynamics, waste management and social impact, are also provided in the EIA Report, which is a rapid one. In the rapid EIA for fishing harbour, baseline data is collected only for a single season, which would include marine biology, oceanographic, etc. Accordingly, the EIA Report also furnished the mitigation steps for dredging management, waste management, shore protection and community safety.

¶104

41. The harbour is located approximately 900 metres from the Arasalar River estuary. Therefore, it was contended by the Appellant that depending on the navigation channel or dredging will alter the natural velocity of tidal current.

¶105

42. In response, the Project Proponent has stated that it is located 900 metres upstream of the river mouth of the Arasalar River and it is not situated on the open sea-facing coastline. Therefore, the project does not involve new breakwaters, groynes or coastal protection structures and is essentially a modernisation of the existing river-based harbour. As the present riverine project does not interfere with the beaches, littoral drift or coastal geomorphology, the apprehension of the Appellant is not sustainable.

¶106

43. The Technical Report prepared by the NCCR has given the notable shoreline pattern changes for the Karaikal Region, which are as follows:

¶107

“ ➢ Northern Karaikal Coast (near Karaikal Port): Observed medium erosion, with some transects showing a net shoreward retreat of approximately –91 meters, particularly east and southeast of Tevanur and near Kil Vanjiyur.

¶108

Page 16 of 17

¶109

➢ Southern Karaikal Coast: Marked accretion trends—3% high, 20% moderate, and 32% low accretion in areas south of the Karaikal Port.

¶110

➢ Karaikal Coast Shifting Dynamics: The presence of the north breakwater of the Karaikal Port has influenced these trends—accelerating erosion to its north and promoting sediment buildup (accretion) to its south.

¶111

➢ Shoreline at Karaikal Fishing Harbour: Based on the Shoreline Change Map prepared by the National Centre for Coastal Research (NCCR), Ministry of Earth Sciences, the proposed Karaikal Fishing Harbour is situated on the bank of the Arasalar River, approximately 900 metres upstream from the river mouth, which opens into the Bay of Bengal. ”

¶112

44. In view of the above study, any change that would alter the coastal dynamics, like destruction of longshore sediment transport, erosion and accretion, and wave refraction and energy shifts, has to be addressed carefully by the Project Proponent. The Project Proponent also may be directed to consider sand bypassing by mechanically pumping the sand from the southern side of the harbour to the northern side to mimic the natural drift.

¶113

45. Issues No. III and IV are answered accordingly.

¶114

46. As the impugned CRZ Clearance has been granted based on the Rapid EIA Study, which has covered all the apprehensions expressed by the Appellant, the same is confirmed. However, in order to maintain the coastal dynamics, the Project Proponent is at liberty to take appropriate mitigation measures depending on the requirements.

¶115

47. In the result, the appeal [Appeal No.74 of 2025 (SZ)] is dismissed.

¶116

Sd/-

¶117

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶118

Sd/-

¶119

Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM

¶120

Internet – Yes/No All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

¶121

Appeal No.74/2025 (SZ), 03^rd September, 2026. Mn.

¶122

Page 17 of 17

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Hakimuddin Kasamali Hathyari (Vohra) vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

Faisal Mehbubbhai Khota vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

Protection of Environment and Public Service Committee through Its Chairman Mr. Bhagwanbhai B. Solanki vs Union of India through the Secretary

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

Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs Union of India through the Secretary

Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs Union of India through the Secretary

Mr Punem Ramulu vs the State of Telangana Rep by Its Chief Secretary

Indian Institute of Management Bangalore vs Karnataka State Control Board

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 11/2025 in Original Application No. 192/2021 of Human Rights Consumer Protection Cell Trust vs the State of Telangana Rep by Its Chief Secretary

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

Vivasayeegal Mattrum Suthrusuzhal Paathukapu Sangam Erode Represented by Vijayakumar vs Sunraja Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd.