Gangtok: The National Environmental Appellate Authority(NE AA) has rejected the appeal filed by the ACT against the Environment Impact Assessment and the Public hearing held for the Teesta Hydro Electric Project stage III.
In a decision pronounced on July05,2007, a three member bench of the Authority concluded that Contentions of ACT against the EIA and Public Hearing cannot be accepted and observed further that the Comprehensive Environment Monitoring Plan (EMP) and Rehabilitation Measures proposed in the management plans and R&R package strengthen the arguments of the respondents.
"This Authority has therefore decided to reject the prayers of the Appellant". The appeal, is accordingly,disallowed."
The order copies of which were released by the political advisor to CM K.T.Gyaltsen today reads:
ACT has approached NE AA in September 2006 with an appeal against the Environment clearance granted for Stage III by the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF).
The National Environment Appellate Authority has been established to hear appeals against orders granting environmental clearance. The Authority was established vide notification on 9Th April, 1997 after the enactment of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act.The Authority has a chairperson, vice-chairperson and can have up to three members. While the chairperson has to be a person who has been a judge of the Supreme Court or a Chief Justice of a High Court.The National Environment Appellate authority is a very important initiative in our quest for sustainable development and the preservation of our ecology and natural resources. The provides a greater voice to citizens in the adjudication of matters pertaining to the environment. The appeal rules for the authority have already been notified.
Filed on behalf of the ACT by its general secretary Dawa Lepcha, who is currently on hunger strike protesting hydel projects in North Sikkim.The appeal had listed the union of India,Government of Sikkim,State Pollution Control Board-Sikkim,and Project developersTeesta Urja Ltd as respondents.
The appeal was argued on three points:
- that the Environment Impact Assessment was 'inadequate and against the provisions of EIA notification 1994'
- that the Executive summary of the project and the EIA Report were not made available to the Public
- that the Public Hearing Conducted by the SP CB was 'faulty"
Based on these,ACT had prayed to Authority
- that Environment Clearance given to the project be stayed;
- that order issued to have the EIA revised taking into account relevant factors and providing complete information about the geological investigation
- that an order declaring the Public hearing held on 08June2006 be declared null and void
The case was heard over eight sittings, last held on May18,2007. The Ministry of Environment& Forests ,contesting the suggestion that no cumulative study had been conducted on the impact of six hydel projects envisioned on Teesta, placed that while granting Environment Clearance for Stage V in 1999 itself,the MoEF had stipulated that no other projects in Sikkim would be considered for environment clearance unless the carrying capacity study was completed.
Academically,such a study was undertaken by the Center for the Inter Disciplinary Studies of Mountains & Hill Environment(CISMHE),Delhi University.The expert committee of the MoEF considered the CISMHE Draft Report and based on their recommendation,the Ministry granted the Teesta stages III,IV,and VI , the Ministry disposed.
The ministry also clarified that the project developers would have to get their working designs cleared by the National Committee on Seismic Design Parameters,adding that the construction would also have to meet design specifications to protect against floods.
Considering the series of affidavits,counter-affidavits and rejoinders,the Appellant Authority accepted "the EIA Report has made a detailed examination of the geological conditions of the project areas and related aspects"
Going over the EIA Report and the Environment Management Plan for Teesta Stage III, the Authority has accepted that environment impact has been 'properly assessed'.
