1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

M.A. No. 965 of 2019

IN

Civil Appeal No. 12251 of 2018

Hanuman Laxman Aroskar …Appellant

Versus

Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

INDEX

A. Introduction

B. Appraisal by the EAC

B.1 Zero-Carbon programme

C. Genesis of the proposed airport

D. The present challenge

D.1 Domain Expertise of the EAC

2

D.2 Conflict of interest

D.3 Western Ghats and ESAs

D.4 Forestland and flora and fauna

E. Directions

PART A

3

A. Introduction

1 The Union of India in the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate

Change

1

moved these proceedings, seeking a direction that the Minutes of the

fortieth meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee

2

dated 23 April 2019 be taken

on the record so that the embargo imposed by this Court on the Environmental

Clearance

3

for a greenfield airport at Mopa Goa can be lifted. This follows upon

the judgment dated 23 April 2019 which was rendered on a challenge addressed

to this Court against a decision of the National Green Tribunal

4

upholding the EC,

subject to compliance with certain conditions. By the judgment of this Court,

reported as Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v Union of India

5

, the process leading

up to the grant of an EC on 28 October 2015 was held to be flawed. The

directions that were imposed by the Court were formulated in the following terms:

“175. …

(i) The EAC shall revisit the recommendations made by it for

the grant of an EC, including the conditions which it has

formulated, having regard to the specific concerns which have

been highlighted in this judgment;

(ii) The EAC shall carry out the exercise under (i) above

within a period of one month of the receipt of a certified copy

of this order;

(iii) Until the EAC carries out the fresh exercise as directed

above, the EC granted by the MoEFCC on 28 October 2015

shall remain suspended;

(iv) Upon reconsidering the matter in terms of the present

directions, the EAC, if it allows the construction to proceed

will impose such additional conditions which in its expert view

will adequately protect the concerns about the terrestrial eco

1

MoEF-CC

2

EAC

3

EC

4

NGT

5

(2019) SCCOnline SC 441

PART A

4

systems noticed in this judgment. The EAC would be at liberty

to lay down appropriate conditions concerning air, water,

noise, land, biological and socio-economic environment;

(v) The EAC shall have due regard to the assurance

furnished by the concessionaire to this Court that it is willing

to adopt and implement necessary safeguards bearing in

mind international best practices governing greenfield

airports;

(vi) We grant liberty to the State of Goa as the project

proponent and the MoEFCC, as the case may be, to file the

report of the EAC before this Court in the form of a

Miscellaneous Application so as to facilitate the passing of

appropriate orders in the proceedings; and

(vii) No other Court or Tribunal shall entertain any challenge

to the report that is to be submitted before this Court by the

EAC in compliance with the present order.”

Pending the completion of the process mandated in the above terms, this Court

suspended the EC which had been granted on 28 October 2015.

The directions issued by this Court required the EAC:

(i) To revisit its recommendations for the grant of the EC including the

conditions which it had imposed; and

(ii) To impose, in the event that it allowed the construction of the airport to

proceed additional conditions to adequately protect the concerns

governing the terrestrial eco-systems noticed in the judgment, besides

formulating conditions pertaining to air, water, noise, land, biological

and socio-economic environment. While doing so, the EAC was under

a mandate to take into consideration the specific concerns which were

highlighted in the judgment.

PART A

5

2 The basis of the directions that were issued by this Court was formulated

in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment which reads thus:

“174.Bearing in view the necessity to maintain a balance

between the need for an airport and environmental concerns,

we are of the view that it would be appropriate if the EAC is

directed to revisit the conditions subject to which it granted its

EC on the basis of the specific concerns which have been

highlighted in this judgment. Such an exercise primarily is for

the EAC to carry out in its expert decision making capacity.

The EAC is entrusted with that function as an expert body.

The role of judicial review is to ensure that the rule of law is

observed. Hence, we propose by the directions which we will

issue under Article 142 of the Constitution, to direct the EAC

to revisit the conditions for the grant of an EC. While doing

so, it would be open to the EAC to have due regard to the

conditions which were incorporated in the order of the NGT

and to suitably modulate those conditions in pursuance of the

liberty which we have preserved to it. To facilitate an

expeditious decision, we propose to direct the EAC to carry

out this exercise in a prescribed time schedule during which

period, the EC shall remain suspended. We propose to direct

that after the EAC has formulated its views, they shall be

placed before this Court in a Miscellaneous Application in the

present proceedings, so as to enable the Court to pass final

orders. The Miscellaneous Application may be filed either by

the State of Goa as the project proponent or by the MoEFCC.

We clarify that no other Court or Tribunal shall entertain any

challenge to the ultimate decision of the EAC and final orders

thereon shall be passed by this Court in the present

proceedings.”

3 Essentially, the concerns which were highlighted in the judgment of this

Court related to the need to preserve the biodiversity of the Western Ghats.

These concerns have been the subject of a seminal exercise carried out in 2013

by a High Level Working Group

6

on the Western Ghats chaired by Dr K

Kasturirangan

7

. The report of the HLWG has been dwelt upon in the earlier

6

HLWG

7

Kasturirangan Committee report

PART A

6

judgment and continues to be a focal point of the continuing debate in the present

case. The HLWG was constituted under the auspices of the MoEF-CC. Its report

dated 15 April 2013 is a valuable contribution to the preservation of biodiversity in

the pristine environment of the Western Ghats.

4 The judgment of this Court emphasized the failure of the State of Goa, as

the project proponent, to provide complete information on the existence of

reserved forests including those which fall within a 15 km radial distance of the

proposed airport at Mopa. Underlying the serious deficiency in the disclosure of

information by the project proponent, this Court noted its concerns on certain

specific aspects. These included primarily:

(i) Preservation of forests, including reserved forests;

(ii) Existence of Ecologically Sensitive Areas

8

with their attendant features

such as flora, fauna and environmental quality in terms of water, soil, noise

and climatic variations;

(iii) Impact of the proposed construction on the flow of water in natural water

channels; and

(iv) Socio-economic and environmental concerns which were raised in the

course of public consultations.

8

ESA

PART B

7

B. Appraisal by the EAC

5 Following the judgment of this Court, the project proponent furnished

supplementary information to the EAC which revealed certain significant

environmental features. The disclosure is extracted below:

“a) There are seven reserved forests within 15 km. of the

proposed Airport in the Goa region (under Section-20) and six

proposed reserved forests (under section-4) of Indian Forest

Act, 1927. (Survey of India Toposheet and Forest Working

Plan of North Goa)

b) There are twenty-nine proposed reserve forests within 15

km. of the proposed Airport in Maharashtra region under

Section-4 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Survey of India

Toposheet & Forest Department, Sawantwadi Division)

c) There are four rivers in Goa viz. Terekhol river, Kalna river,

Chapora river, Moide river and one river viz. Tilari river in

Maharashtra (source: Survey of India Toposheet).

d) There are few patches of mangroves observed near Moide

river, Terekhol river, Chapora river.

e) Western Ghat Mountain range falls within the study area.

f) There are two wetlands, of which one i.e. Anjuna reservoir

has been identified in National Wetland Atlas of Goa.

g) There are no coastal areas and declared biospheres in the

vicinity of the proposed airport site.”

6 The EAC tabulated the details of forest areas which fell within a radial

distance of 15 kms of the proposed airport and within the territories of the States

of Goa and Maharashtra. The forested areas were found to be situated in three

talukas in the State of Goa (Bicholim, Pernem and Bardez) and in three talukas in

the State of Maharashtra (Sawantwadi, Dodamarg and Vengurla). In Pernem

PART B

8

taluka, the information set out in the minutes of the EAC dated 23 April 2019

demonstrate the existence of reserved forests inter alia in Mopa.

7 While reviewing the Environmental Impact Assessment

9

, the EAC

observed:

“As per Forest Policy, 1988 of Government of India, required

forest cover is 33%. Whereas, India average is 21.54%,

Goa‟s forest cover as per India‟s state of forest report 2017 is

60.21%. There would be impact on forest due to felling of

trees but eventually the forest cover will improve with a 1:10

compensatory afforestation program to be undertaken over a

period of 5 years by the concessionaire, Goa State

Biodiversity Board and Directorate of Civil Aviation. The

enhanced forest cover would lead to healthy biodiversity.

Further impacts on water, air, soil and noise environment will

be minimal considering the felling of trees over a large area

and compensatory afforestation plan as approved.

It is noted that the airport site is not fragmenting the forest

area thus not restricting and affecting the movement of fauna.

The Airport plateau has villages on one side and forest cover

on the other side. The plateau is just an extension of forest

cover with trees, which had 15 houses, some grazing activity

and some agricultural activity where the animals from the

nearby forest may have been straying. The proposed airport

will be protected from all sides with compound wall as per

DGCA guidelines and thus animals will not able to enter the

airport premises.

The proposed 10 times compensatory plantation needs to be

monitored by the Government of Goa so that the target of

planting 5.5 lakhs saplings is achieved in a time bound

manner, their survival rate is monitored and mortality is

replenished. As major chunk of 2.5 lakh of saplings is

proposed to be done by the village level Biodiversity

Committees, it is necessary to ensure that people are largely

given native species and/or fruit bearing saplings so that they

will be able to derive economic benefits from such fruit crops

and also such trees will provide better biological environment

to birds.”

9

EIA

PART B

9

8 On the existence of ESAs, the EAC noted that the EIA report had only

indicated that Pernem taluka, where the project is to come up, has not been

earmarked as an ESA in the Kasturirangan Committee report. The EAC, in its

minutes dated 23 April 2019, took note of the fact that based on the

Kasturirangan Committee report, the MoEF-CC published a draft notification on 3

October 2018 indicating proposed ESAs in the Western Ghats according to

which, ten villages in Sawantwadi taluka of Sindhudurg district in Maharashtra

are comprised in the ESAs of the Western Ghats. Apart from the ESAs within the

State of Maharashtra, the EAC noted the existence of an additional eighteen

species of mammals and fourteen bird species in the study area on the basis of

data collected from the Zoological Survey of India

10

. Reviewing the EIA with

reference to the existence of ten ESAs within a radial distance of 10 Kms in the

State of Maharashtra, the EAC noted in its minutes dated 23 April 2019:

“EAC noted that all the 10 ESA areas within 10 kms in the

State of Maharashtra are beyond 4 kilometers from the

project boundary, the nearest one being at a distance of 4.1

kms (Village Galel). As per Airport guidance manual

maximum impact on the air and noise environment will be

there till the aircraft gains a height of 1000 ft. Emissions from

aircraft below 1,000 ft. above the ground will be there typically

around 3 km from departure or, for arrivals, around 6 km from

touchdown. The altitude of 1000 ft in landing and takeoff is

achieved within the project site. Considering that all the ESAs

are far away from the project, the impact on air and noise

environment is expected to be minimal. With regard to soil

environment, impact will be mostly on the airport site self. As

regards water environment, as the water flow from the airport

site will feed the water bodies in the State of Goa, no impact

is envisaged on the ESA areas.”

10

ZSI

PART B

10

9 The EAC also deliberated on the likely impact of the construction and

operation of an airport on the flora, fauna and hydrological systems in the ESAs

as well as in regard to climatic variations. The EAC categorized them in the

following terms:

“WATER ENVIRONMENT:

- Changes in the natural flow of storm water, stunted growth,

delayed flowering and fruiting.

- Fauna migration in search of water to other places.

- Change their habitat and breeding capacity.

- Due to eutrophication influence, certain toxic algae

production some animals can suffer symptoms like skin

irritation or health problems if drinking

SOIL ENVIRONMENT:

- Soil impact may lead in to non-germination of seeds &

stunted growth, delayed flowering & fruiting, erosion and

clearing of topsoil (loss of habitat & habitat fragmentation)

- Affects the quality of the environment or habitat in which

they live

- Affects the availability and quality of the food supply

- Soil erosion may increase the turbidity which could impact

aquatic fauna‟s respiration capacity.

- Loss of local aquatic biodiversity

- Habitat loss

- Erosion and clearing of topsoil (loss of micro-fauna).

- Influence the abundance and health of dependent species

AIR ENVIRONMENT:

Air impact may lead reduced productivity, changes in water

vapor levels.

SURROUNDING / NOISE ENVIRONMENT.

- Migration of birds

- Breeding capacity reduction

PART B

11

- Affect life cycle Shy mammals may move away

- Bird Aircraft strike

- Wild life hazard management

Climatic Variations:

- habitats of many species will move pole ward

- experience increase in temperature regimes, rainfall

- decrease in the moisture regimes and increase in fire

incidences.”

Dealing with these features and the impact upon them of the proposed project,

the EAC observed:

“The EAC noted that a total of 385 species of plants, 36

medicinal plant, 86 species of birds, 33 butterfly species, 5

species of amphibians, 18 species of reptiles, 35 fish species,

28 number of mammal species were identified in the study

area based on primary and secondary source of data. The

proposed project has minimal intervention and impact on the

surrounding ecosystem. There are mitigation measures

already prescribed in EC conditions so as to minimize the

impact on Biodiversity-Flora & Fauna, Hydrological Systems.

This will help enabling the process for sustainable

development that benefit both environment and local

livelihoods. With regards to climatic variations, the EAC felt

that additional initiatives such as Green Infrastructure

Development program, adoption of low emission intensive

technologies, renewable energy program, and Airport Carbon

Accreditation need to be adopted to reduce the impact on

Green House Gas (GHG) emissions and thereby climate

change.”

10 The next set of concerns that were dealt with by the EAC related to the

impact of the proposed project on natural channels for the drainage of water. This

Court had noted in its earlier judgment that the Mopa plateau is at a height of 155

PART B

12

metres above Mean Sea Level

11

and water from the plateau flows down to the

rivers in the State of Goa. The laterite plateau is an important source of drainage

by providing natural channels for water. The deficiency which was seen by this

Court was that the impact of a greenfield airport on the closing of natural

channels which feed water bodies had not been scientifically mapped or studied

and adequately addressed.

11 In reviewing the EIA on this aspect, the EAC in its minutes dated 23 April

2019 observed:

“If natural water channels that feed the local water bodies are

not protected then there will be water deficiency in the

villages for agriculture, fishing etc. Further, there will be

impact on the ground water levels in the villages. EAC while

granting EC for the project had detailed deliberation on this

aspect so as to ensure that natural water channels feeding

the water bodies are not blocked. The EAC reviewed the

entire gamut of natural/artificial drainage and the storm water

drainage pattern. As per the supplementary information

provided now, the airport site, by virtue of being located on a

plateau and the laterite soil surface, would naturally facilitate

the flow of storm water and other artificial drainage. The

proponent has designed for appropriate drainage channels in

such a manner that the water flow from project site is

channelized suitably into the natural water channels feeding

the water bodies down slope. All due precautions, however,

need to be exercised during the construction phase so as to

ensure that construction material/debris does not, in any

manner, block/obstruct the natural water channels or springs.

The EAC deliberated on the current state of the project

construction and noted that in the ensuing monsoon season

the earth piled up at the project site due to excavation may

drift to the natural water channels which may ultimately reach

the water bodies in the villages. This is a matter of grave

environmental concern which needs to be addressed by the

project proponent immediately by development of

embankment structures around the excavated earth so that

piled up earth doesn‟t drift to the natural water channels and

the run-off from the site does not pollute or contaminate the

11

MSL

PART B

13

water bodies. This shall be maintained during

construction/operation phase of the project.”

12 As regards the concerns which were raised in the course of public

consultations, the EAC dealt with environmental concerns which included:

“rain water harvesting, STP and solid waste management

plan, impact on flora and fauna, soil quality and its impact,

storm water management, impact on ground water, socio

cultural impact, dust pollution during construction activity,

employment opportunities to the local people, compensation

to the affected land owners”

The EAC has opined that these have been adequately addressed.

13 Finally, after analyzing the responses submitted before it, the EAC

summed up its analysis thus:

“1. The EAC observed that the earlier Form-1 did not give

proper disclosure in respect of the details of forests on the

land and nearby wet land as well as on the water bodies. The

EAC took into account the supplementary report that has

been submitted which takes into account the deficiency of

disclosure and the same thing has been complied with in the

supplementary report. In addition, it is also noticed that the

mitigation measures in respect of the depletion of forest cover

on the project land and water bodies have been taken into

account. As against 54,176 trees, which have been felled on

the project site based on earlier approvals given by

competent authority, the project proponent is proposing to

plant 5,50,000 trees (50,000 trees at the project site, 2,50,000

trees in the nearby villages supervised by the Biodiversity

Board and 2,50,000 trees under the supervision of DGCA.

This is 1:10 times the number of trees affected as against the

standard requirement of 1:3 times number of trees to be

planted. The overall supervision of this compliance within the

time frame of 5 years would be vested with DGCA. DGCA,

however, needs to constitute a local monitoring committee for

periodic monitoring of this vital exercise.

PART B

14

2. The EAC noted that neither the project site nor the villages

in area under study (primary data source) falls in any Eco-

Sensitive Zone (ESZ). The 10 villages in Maharashtra side fall

in ESA not ESZ and where the impacts of the project would

be minimal. The EAC also observed that the villages in

vicinity of the project in the Goa and Maharashtra region are

not located in very close proximity. The nearest village is

about 4.1 km from the boundary of the project. The EAC also

observed that beyond the runway of 3.75 km, the flight

operation generally found at an altitude of about 1000 feet

and thus there would not be any adverse impact on flora and

fauna in the surrounding area of the airport.

3. The EAC observed that a certificate from Chief Wildlife

Warden (CWLW) of State through State Government be

obtained confirming that none of the area of the project falls in

the notified Eco-sensitive Zone (ESZ) in the State of Goa and

no activity prohibited in the Ecosensitive zone will be taken up

be taken by the project proponent.

4. The EAC further observed that as per the supplementary

report and the proposal of the water bodies with respect to

observation regarding plateau effect of the land and also

laterite surface and the springs, streams and water courses in

the project land have been taken into account and

appropriate drainage channels have been designed to take

care of the water flows into the nearest water courses/rivers,

etc.

5. Appropriate storm water drainage channeling has been

taken into account not only for the pre-monsoon season but

also for monsoon and heavy rainfall. The drainage plan

should have ratification by the concerned water resources

department of Goa. It should be ensured that sustainable

water flow in the various channels of watershed in the plateau

is maintained. For the present, base level data on flow of

water should be collected and used for future monitoring.

6. The EAC observed that in respect of the fauna, the primary

data has been collected from one of the nearest village and

the secondary data has been collected from ZSI. In respect of

the observation of sighting a leopard by villager, the

authorities have indicated that they do not have any definitive

information on the same and this need to be

verified/authenticated.

7. It is a well-established fact of silvicultural science and

practice that no plantation can replace the natural forest. The

kind of biodiversity in any natural forest is almost impossible

to be replaced by any kind of plantation activity which at best

can be a mix of various monocultures. We are still far away in

PART B

15

our knowledge of replicating the creation of natural forest.

Therefore, to this extent, the EAC does not agree with the

assessment of project proponent that after cutting of trees

and planting of 1:10 trees, richer biodiversity the forest would

be created. However, 1:10 plantation activity under expert

guidance can to some extent compensate the loss of natural

forest.

8. With respect to the various points raised in the public

hearing, the EAC observed that the supplementary report has

made available point-wise clarifications on the various

concerns on the public hearing. However, Hon‟ble court

shortlisted 14 items of concern in the public hearing.

Solution/management plan to all these need to be clearly

spelt out in the EMP and implemented in letter and spirit.”

14 Accordingly, the EAC has recommended the grant of an EC to the project

with additional environmental safeguards and conditions, over and above those

which were stipulated in (i) the EC dated 28 October 2015; and (ii) the order of

the NGT dated 21 August 2018. The conditions which have been imposed by the

EAC have been classified under the following heads:

(i) Statutory compliance;

(ii) Air quality monitoring and preservation;

(iii) Water quality monitoring and preservation;

(iv) Noise monitoring and prevention;

(v) Energy conservation/ climate change measures;

(vi) Waste management;

(vii) Green Belt; and

(viii) Public hearing and human health issues.

PART B

16

15 The EAC has also incorporated as a part of its recommendations

additional conditions as mandated by the NGT in its order dated 21 August 2018

under the following heads:

(i) Air environment;

(ii) Water environment;

(iii) Land environment;

(iv) Noise environment;

(v) Land environment;

(vi) Biological environment; and

(vii) Socio-economic environment.

B.1 Zero-Carbon programme

16 During the course of the hearing before this Court, a statement has been

made on behalf of the concessionaire GMR Goa International Airport Limited,

that in the event of this Court sustaining the EC for the project, it stands

committed to fulfill the objective of making the proposed greenfield airport at

Mopa Goa, a zero carbon airport operation. The purpose of a zero carbon airport

operation is to eliminate anthropogenic carbon emissions reaching the

atmosphere completely or to the minimum extent possible from airport activities

PART B

17

performed during its operation. The statement which has been tendered by the

concessionaire before this Court is in the following terms:

“I. Zero carbon programme

1. The objective of making “Zero Carbon” airport operation is

to eliminate the anthropogenic carbon emissions reaching

to atmosphere completely or to the minimum extent

possible from the activates performed at Airport during its

operation.

2. Climate Change and its mitigation in Aviation Industry is

monitored by International Civil Aviation Organization

(ICAO) and the emissions from domestic aviation are

monitored by the respective countries under the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) frameworks.

3. Carbon emissions management is guided by Airports

Council International (ACI), through its globally

recognized Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) Program.

4. In airports, this is addressed by developing

infrastructures/systems which will generate zero or

minimum carbon emissions during its operations as per

UNFCCC approved market mechanisms by:

a. Adopting green building concepts,

b. Generation and use of renewable energy,

c. Use of energy efficient systems,

d. Developing green landscapes,

e. Plantations as carbon sink to absorb carbon emission

from the atmosphere

f. Adopting carbon offset measures for the residual

emissions of airport operations

5. Level 3+ is the highest level of accreditation for carbon

emission management of airports. As of July 30, 2019,

there were 52 Level 3+ (Neutrality) accredited airports

globally (out of 1,957 ACI member airports), including

GMR Group‟s Delhi and Hyderabad Airports (Additional

Affidavit of Respondent No. 5, pp.23-24).

6. Level 3+ Neutrality is achieved by fulfilling requirements

of Level 1,2 and 3 accreditation program (R-5 Affidavit,

Page 17) and offset of residual emissions under the

airport‟s control. (Sources of emission and measures

under the ACA Program – Page 18). The Zero Carbon

Emission Implementation Framework provides for various

measures such as:

a. Internal audit once in two year

b. External audit after every 5 years

c. Adopt Energy Management System – ISO 50001 and

3

rd

Party certification

PART C

18

d. Improve energy efficiency of buildings and equipment

& lightings,

e. Improve ground water availability

f. Promote energy efficient and alternate fuel vehicles.”

C. Genesis of the proposed airport

17 Before we deal with the principle challenges addressed before the Court

on behalf of the original appellant represented by Ms Anitha Shenoy, learned

Senior Counsel, it would be worthwhile to set out briefly the genesis of the

proposed airport at Mopa Goa. Mr K K Venugopal, learned Attorney General for

India emphasized the following features of the project:

(i) The construction of an airport at Mopa Goa has been on the drawing board

for nearly two decades;

(ii) The site at Mopa was chosen among three options after due examination

by experts;

(iii) The existing airport at Dabolim is a defence establishment which is closed

to area traffic between 8:30am to 1:30pm daily;

(iv) The existing airport at Dabolim was intended to serve four million

passengers annually while the existing passenger traffic is about 7.5

million annually;

(v) The passenger traffic at Goa is expected to rise in the upcoming financial

years to the following extent:

FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25

12.0 14.1 15.5 16.7 17.9

(million passengers)

PART C

19

(vi) Due to capacity constraints, international charter flights are not granted

parking facilities at night at Dabolim; and

(vii) The proposed greenfield airport will have a capacity to handle 4.4 million

passengers in Phase–I, 13 million passengers in Phase–II and 30 million

passengers in Phase–III annually.

18 The project area of the proposed Mopa airport is spread over 2,131 acres.

Terms of Reference

12

were issued on 1 June 2011 and were extended on 19

June 2013 and 29 May 2015. The process for land acquisition was initiated

around 2008. The Request for Qualification

13

for the Mopa airport was issued on

3 October 2014. The EC was granted on 28 October 2015. The concession

agreement was executed on 8 November 2016. The airport is required by the

terms of the agreement to be operational within thirty-six months from 4

September 2017. According to the concessionaire, as on 18 January 2019,

approximately 14.06 per cent of the project work had been completed. Pursuant

to the orders for the removal of trees, 54,176 trees were felled and 500 trees

were earmarked for transplantation. Ten trees of local species are to be replanted

for every tree which has been felled. 20,000 saplings have been re-planted. The

concessionaire has placed on record the following financial features of the

project:

“a. The indicative capital cost of the Mopa Airport,

Phase I, was estimated at INR 1,900 Cr. Total

Project Cost was estimated at INR 3,000 crores

(70% debt and 30% equity).

12

ToR

13

RFQ

PART C

20

b. Total debt commitment incurred by Respondent

No.5 for the Mopa Airport is approximately INR

1,330 Crs.

c. The annual debt servicing incurred by Respondent

No.5 based on current disbursement is

approximately INR 17 Crs.

d. Respondent No.5 has also entered into

contractual commitments for following amounts –

INR 1,377 Crs. Towards Engineering Contracts,

Project Consultant INR 38 Crs. Independent

Engineer INR 11 Crs. totaling – INR 1,426 Crs.

e. Prior to the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by

Hon‟ble Supreme Court directing status quo be

maintained, approximately 1,500 workforce were

gainfully engaged at the Project site along with

requisite plant and machinery.

f. The estimated traffic at Goa is (passengers in

Million Passengers per Annum – MPPA):

FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25

12.0 14.1 15.5 16.7 17.9

g. The Scheduled Commencement Date was

contemplated as 3 years from Appointed Date

(04.09.2017) – 03.09.2020.

h. The Concession Period is for 40 years from

Appointed Date with a right of first refusal to

Respondent No.5 for an extension of 20 years.

i. GoG‟s share of revenue – 36.99% on Gross

Revenue from 6

th

year of Commencement of

Appointed Date.”

According to the concessionaire, the following work was in progress at the project

site when the implementation of the EC was suspended:

PART D

21

“i. Airside Earthworks – these include excavation and

filling of runways, taxiways, aprons, parking bays, etc.

ii. PTB – foundations and column works in progress,

iii. ATC Building – excavation for foundations are in

progress,

iv. Administration Building – foundation and column

works in progress,

v. Precast Compound Wall works – casting of panels

and columns in progress,

vi. City Side Development Master plan works is in

progress.”

D. The present challenge

19 The essence of the controversy in the present case is whether the

concerns which were highlighted in the earlier judgment of this Court dated 29

March 2019, have been adequately addressed and remedied.

20 Ms Anitha Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of the

appellant submitted that by the judgment of this Court dated 29 March 2019, the

EAC was directed to revisit the EC granted to the project and to decide whether

or not the project should be approved. Ms Shenoy prefaced her submissions with

two preliminary points:

(i) The composition of the EAC (Infrastructure-2) which has thirteen members

does not qualify it as an expert body. None of the members had expertise

on ornithology or on terrestrial eco-system. The EAC is chaired by a former

Director of the Council for Social Development with retired officers of the

State and Central Pollution Control Boards. One of the members has an

architectural background, another in chemical engineering while one of the

PART D

22

members is a Professor of Law. The minutes do not disclose whether the

EAC sought the opinion of a subject specialist or specialized institution;

and

(ii) There is a conflict of interest on the part of the EIA consultant who had

prepared the EIA report. As on the date of EAC meeting, Engineers India

Limited

14

was the EIA consultant as well as an independent engineer on

the project. The EAC minutes recorded that the project proponent and EIL

made a detailed presentation on the observations of this Court with

comments and responses. EIL was defending its actions as an EIA

consultant while at the same time being an independent engineer for the

construction of the airport. This involves a conflict of interest.

Apart from addressing the above preliminary points, Ms Shenoy has urged

submissions focusing upon the following specific areas:

(i) Forests;

(ii) Western Ghats;

(iii) Ecologically Sensitive Areas; and

(iv) Absence of avi-faunal study.

21 Based on the submissions on the above four facets, Ms Shenoy has dwelt

upon mitigation measures suggested by the EAC and the need to factor in the

objections which were addressed during the process of public consultation. Ms

Shenoy urged that the EAC minutes are virtually a facsimile of the presentation

submitted by the concessionaire and that the EAC has failed to fulfill its remit of

14

EIL

PART D

23

revisiting the EC as mandated by the order of this Court. The submissions which

were addressed under each of the four heads noted above are catalogued below:

(i) Forests

In the supplementary information contained in updated Form 1, the project

proponent had disclosed a list of thirty-five proposed reserved forests

around the project site. However, there has been no collection of primary

data through remote sensing or ground truthing as required by the Airport

Guidance Manual. No impact study was carried out of the proposed project

on the newly disclosed forests. The EAC has merely recorded the fact that

the Western Ghats fall within the study area without undertaking a study of

the likely impact of the construction of the airport. The MoEF-CC, in its

affidavit before this Court, however sought to contend that the Western

Ghats are far away from the project and the impact due to the operation of

the airport would be minimal. Though there are ten villages in the taluka of

Sawantwadi in Sindhudurg district of Maharashtra located in the ESAs of

the Western Ghats, no study has been conducted of their vulnerability. The

HLWG recorded that Tiger and Elephant corridors mostly fall in the ESAs

of the Western Ghats. Thus, the EAC has arrived at a conclusion that there

will be no impact on the ESAs without knowing why an ESA is proposed to

be notified and without carrying out an impact assessment. The EAC has

equated the issue of tree felling at the project site with the issue of the

impact on the 42 forests surrounding the site. However, in its summing up,

the EAC has acknowledged that compensatory forestation can never

replace a natural forest.

PART D

24

(ii) Impact on Western Ghats

The EAC has only adverted to the fact that the Western Ghats fall within

the study area. While accepting the presence of this critical ecological

biodiversity hotspot, the EAC has not directed any study on the impact nor

has it adverted to the likely impact of the activity. The critical significance of

the Western Ghats has been emphasized in the HLWG report. Absent a

study by the EAC, the recommendations are flawed.

(iii) Ecologically Sensitive Areas

The EAC has noted that ten villages in the taluka of Sawantwadi in

Sindhudurg district are located in the ESA of the Western Ghats. The EAC

ought to have determined what makes each ESA ecologically sensitive

and to study the reasons for their vulnerabilities. The EAC has not

endeavored to find the specific vulnerability of each ESA and has recorded

its satisfaction with a generic explanation.

(iv) Flora and Fauna

The collection of primary and secondary data of flora and fauna in the EIA

report was perfunctory. Areas which are used by protected, important or

sensitive species of flora or fauna for breeding, foraging, nesting, resting,

over-wintering or migration were not considered by the project proponent.

The EAC merely included a number of additional species, citing a

publication of the ZSI as the source, as supplied by the project proponent.

Species found near the Maharashtra – Goa border as well as those found

throughout India in forested areas show at least 1172 species. On the

other hand, the list of species submitted by the project proponent does not

PART D

25

have a single Scheduled I species despite the fact that there are 42 dense

forests around the project area. Important species such as the Indian

elephant, royal Bengal tiger and leopard have been excluded. The EAC did

not direct the carrying out of an avi-faunal study, in violation of the

directions of this Court, the only reference being to bird strikes.

22 As regards the mitigation measures proposed by the EAC, Ms Shenoy

submitted that the Airport Guidance Manual requires a rigorous study of the

impacts of a proposed airport project on the biological environment and the

measures required to address these impacts. Information relating to the state of

the environment in the 15 km. radius was submitted before the EAC without there

being any primary or secondary data collection. The EAC however came to the

conclusion that the impact would be minimal. The additional environmental

safeguards proposed by the EAC have no bearing on the peculiar conditions of

the proposed airport at Mopa. Ms Shenoy ultimately urged that no effective

mitigating measures can be implemented unless:

(i) Authentic information about flora, fauna and natural features in the study

area exists;

(ii) A scientific objective and independent assessment of the likely impact of

the proposed project is made; and

(iii) A specific finding is arrived at by the EAC on whether the damage and

impact can be mitigated.

PART D

26

D.1 Domain Expertise of the EAC

23 The first aspect which merits scrutiny is the criticism leveled by Ms Anitha

Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel against the domain expertise of the EAC. At the

outset, it is necessary to note that the EAC (Infrastructure–2 Sector) was

constituted under an order dated 7 January 2019 of the MoEF-CC. The

composition of the Committee was as follows:

(i) Prof. T Haque, Retd. Director & CEO, Council for Social Development;

(ii) Dr N P Shukla, Ex. Chairman, MPPCB, Bhopal;

(iii) Dr H C Sharatchandra, Ex. Chairman, Karnataka, SPCB;

(iv) Sh. V Suresh, Former CMD, HUDCO;

(v) Dr V S Naidu, Member;

(vi) Sh. B C Nigam, Member;

(vii) Dr Manoranian Hota, Member;

(viii) Dr Dipankar Saha, Member;

(ix) Dr Jayesh Ruparelia, Member;

(x) Dr (Mrs.) Mayuri H Pandya, Member;

(xi) Dr M V Ramana Murthy, Member;

(xii) Representative of School of Architecture and Planning, New Delhi,

Member (to be nominated);

(xiii) Addl. Director/Director/Advisor of MoEF& CC, Member Secretary.

24 The EAC has a vital role in conducting the appraisal of proposed projects

in terms of their environmental impact and consequences. The EAC is intended

to be an expert body. The members of the EAC are expected to bring to the

deliberations of the body their knowledge and domain expertise. The composition

of the EAC as noted above indicates that it comprises of experts with a scientific

background as well as persons having domain knowledge on matters pertaining

to the environment. Among the members of the EAC were persons who had a

background of service in the State and Central Pollution Control Boards, the

PART D

27

Indian Forest Service, MoEF-CC and the National Institute of Ocean Technology.

The constitution of the Committee cannot be faulted on the ground that as a

body, the EAC lacked domain expertise. As a Committee which deals with

infrastructure projects, the body as constituted also comprises of persons with

relevant background and experience. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the decision

which has been arrived at by the EAC will be assessed during the course of the

judgment. At this stage, we are not inclined to accept a generalized challenge on

the ground that the members of the EAC lacked domain expertise.

25 It is necessary to emphasis two facets: First, under clause 4(vii) of the

order dated 7 January 2019 constituting the EAC, the chairperson is empowered

to co-opt an expert as a member for a particular meeting of the Committee.

Infrastructure projects which the EAC is called upon to assess and appraise do

not fall into one specific mould. Hence, the EAC should engage with the enabling

provision which has been made in clause 4(vii) to co-opt experts. The exercise of

this enabling discretion will facilitate the work of the EAC by allowing for the

benefit of the knowledge and expertise of an expert in a particular subject area

being made available to it. The failure to co-opt an expert does not, as a

consequence, lead to the invalidation of the exercise conducted by the EAC. But

the desirability of co-opting experts needs to be underscored so as to bring a

diversity of experience in the work of the EAC. Second, the composition of the

EAC is dominated in a large measure by retired officials drawn from the Pollution

Control Boards in the Centre and State and from former officials of the MoEF-CC.

In the composition of the EAC, the Union Government should travel beyond

former officials of the Pollution Control Boards and Ministries. Without

PART D

28

disparaging their credentials or their experience, it is nonetheless desirable that

the members of the EAC should comprise of a cross section of persons drawn

from different specialties having a bearing on environmental protection. Where

the EAC has to deal with infrastructure projects, it is of course necessary to

include persons who are familiar with the need for a balanced growth of

infrastructure consistent with environmental protection.

26 We strongly commend to the Union Government the need to ensure in the

composition of the EAC the inclusion of persons with specialized knowledge of

diverse disciplines in relation to environmental protection. Having commended

such an exercise to the Union government, we would leave the matter there. As

we have observed earlier, the challenge to the minutes of the 23

April 2019 must

be addressed on merits, there being no reasonable basis for this Court to

conclude that the EAC lacked the expertise to make its recommendations.

D.2 Conflict of interest

27 The second preliminary point that was urged by Ms Shenoy was of a

conflict of interest in the role and position of EIL as an EIA consultant as well as

an independent engineer for the project. The Attorney General for India in his

written note of submissions on behalf of the State of Goa has submitted that EIL

was appointed as a consultant for preparing the EIA report in 2012. The

assignment of EIL concluded upon the issuance of an EC by MoEF-CC on 28

October 2015. Thereafter, the Government of Goa floated a tender for the

appointment of an independent engineer to supervise the work of construction in

2017. EIL secured the bid and came on board as an independent engineer in

PART D

29

December 2017. After the judgment of this Court dated 29 March 2019 by which

the EAC was directed to revisit the EC conditions, the Government of Goa sought

the assistance of EIL which was the author of the EIA report in presenting its

case before the EAC. Hence, from the facts which have been set-forth before the

Court by the learned Attorney General, it becomes clear that EIL was appointed

as an independent engineer for the project only after the EC had been granted on

28 October 2015 and in a competitive tendering process. The role of the

independent engineer is to supervise the construction of the airport in accordance

with the ICAO standards. Certification and licensing of the airport is in the domain

of the Director General of Civil Aviation

15

of the Government of India. Compliance

with environmental conditions contained in the EC is monitored by the regional

office of the MoEF-CC at Bengaluru. Moreover, there is merit in the submission

which was urged by Ms ANS Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General

appearing for the MoEF-CC that the decision in regard to the grant of an EC rests

with MoEF-CC. The fact that EIL whose services were engaged as an EIA

consultant was subsequently appointed as an independent engineer after the

initial grant of an EC will not result in the invalidation of the EC.

D.3 Western Ghats and ESAs

28 Addressing the concerns of Ms Anitha Shenoy in relation to the Western

Ghats and the ESAs, Mr Nadkarni urged that the scope of the Kasturirangan

Committee report was to suggest an all-round and holistic approach for

sustainable and equitable development while keeping in focus measures to

15

DGCA

PART D

30

conserve, protect and rejuvenate the ecology in the Western Ghats. The HLWG,

with the aid of the National Remote Sensing Centre

16

developed a scientific and

objective methodology for identifying ESAs in the Western Ghats. In doing so, the

HLWG bore in mind diverse parameters including forest and vegetation types,

natural and cultural landscapes, forest fragmentation, biological richness, village

boundaries, population density, protected areas, wildlife corridors and world

heritage sites among other considerations. Ten ESAs falling within the study area

have been disclosed in the report along with mitigation measures. It was urged

that upon detailed discussion, it was found that the impact on these ESAs, as a

result of the project, would be minimal. The area where the project site is located,

it was urged, has not been identified as an ESA. The nearest village identified in

the State of Maharashtra – Galel – is at an aerial distance of 4.1 km from the

boundary of the project site. Mr Nadkarni rebutted the contention that the project

would impinge upon wildlife corridors. The nearest identified corridor, it was

submitted, is on the boundary of the States of Goa, Karnataka and Maharashtra

which is far away from the project site.

29 Volume-I of the report of the Kasturirangan Committee on the Western

Ghats dated 15 April 2013 contains a summary of the recommendations. The

report notes that the Western Ghats region straddles six states of which 60,000

square kms representing 37 per cent of the geographical coverage of the

Western Ghats has been identified as an ESA. In that context, the report notes:

“About 60,000 km

2

of natural landscape (approximately 37%

of the total geographical area of Western Ghats Region) has

been identified as Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) by

16

NRSC

PART D

31

HLWG, which represents more or less a contiguous band of

vegetation extending over a distance of 1500 km across 6

States of Western Ghats region and includes Protected Areas

and World Heritage Sites. The demarcation unit of ESA is the

village. IRS LISS III derived spatial layers on vegetation type

and landscape level indices (with a fine spatial resolution of

24 m) were used as the basis for identification of ecologically

sensitive areas (ESAs).

To facilitate sustainable development in the WG region, which

is inhabited by about 50 million people, the non ESA

comprising mostly cultural landscape is also demarcated.

HLWG recommends that the Central government should

immediately notify the ESA area, demarcated by HLWG in

public interest. The need for urgent action is evident. In this

notified area, development restrictions as recommended in

this report will apply.”

In its recommendations dealing with restrictions on development in the proposed

ESAs, the report notes:

“HLWG is recommending a prohibitory and regulatory regime

in ESA for those activities with maximum interventionist and

destructive impact on the ecosystem. All other infrastructure

development activities, necessary for the region, will be

carefully scrutinized and assessed for cumulative impact and

development needs, before clearance.”

Among the recommendations of the HLWG are the following:

“All other infrastructure and development projects/schemes

should be subject to environment clearance under Category

„A‟ projects under EIA Notification 2006.

All development projects, located within 10 km of the Western

Ghats ESA and requiring Environment Clearance (EC), shall

be regulated as per the provisions of the EIA Notification

2006.”

PART D

32

30 Chapter IV of the Kasturirangan Committee report explained the procedure

adopted to define and demarcate the boundaries of the Western Ghats for

identifying ESAs, in the absence of an accepted definition of Western Ghats.

Chapter V dealt with the need for a scientific, objective and practical strategy for

delineating ESAs within the natural landscape with the village as a unit. In that

context, the report notes:

“The results obtained based on the methodology adopted by

HLWG are analyzed for 188 talukas in terms of the area

covered under ESAs and number of villages falling under

ESA. Maps of Western Ghats showing vegetation and land

cover classes, natural and cultural landscapes, biodiversity

richness, fragmentation and human population density and

ESA, and Maps of each of Six States showing natural and

cultural landscapes and ESAs are also provided.”

Chapter III of the report analyses the impact of climate change on the ecology of

the Western Ghats. Explaining the criteria which it had adopted in demarcating

the Western Ghats, the report of the Kasturirangan Committee report notes :

“HLWG, in the absence of geologically and gemorphologically

sound criteria in demarcating WG, decided to adopt the

criteria followed by the Western Ghats Development

Programme of Planning Commission which defined WG in

terms of geology conceptually, but has taken altitude as the

criterion for identification of talukas/blocks under Western

Ghats Development Programme of Planning Commission as

recommended by High Level Committee, because the Ghats

are usually 760-915 m high. All those talukas/blocks at 600 m

and above elevation and those talukas having more than 20%

of the area at 600 m and above elevation that are contiguous

to higher altitudes and formed part of the administrative

boundaries of Western Ghats Development Programme are

listed under Western Ghats Development Programme. This

criterion has geological connotation – that at 600 m on the

east the WG springs from Deccan Plateau, on an average the

mean elevation of WG all along its length from north to south

PART D

33

is greater than 600 m, and most of the Ghats have height of

over 600 m.”

31 Adverting to the biodiversity of the Western Ghats, the report notes:

“The Western Ghats has unique taxonomic hierarchies,

remnant ecosystems and strong endemic associations. The

sholas, mangroves, kans, dry evergreen forests, swamps,

reeds and riverine belts represent the unique ecosystems.

The forests of WG are some of the best representatives of

non-equatorial evergreen forests in the world. The resource

value of this mega diversity centre spans from timber-non

timber category through wilderness–ecotourism to gene pools

of plants of medicinal-aromatic-food-industrial value…

Floristically the Western Ghats is one of the richest areas in

the country and harbours as many as 4000-4600 species of

flowering plants of which 56 generic and 2100 species are

endemic.”

32 The HLWG has catalogued three talukas of Goa as ESAs. These are

tabulated as follows:

State District Taluka Taluka

Area

(km

2

)

ESA No. of

Villages

with ESA

Goa North Goa

South Goa

Satari

Kankon

Sanguem

515

362

872

406

284

771

56

5

38

Goa

Total

1,749 1,461 99

In the district of Sindhudurg in Maharashtra, five talukas namely: Devgad,

Kankavli, Kudal, Sawantwadi and Vaibhavvadi have been demarcated as ESAs.

PART D

34

33 Figure 18 in the report of the HLWG which demarcates Elephant and Tiger

corridors which is reproduced below:

PART D

35

34 Figure 21 delineates the natural and cultural landscapes in the Western

Ghats region of Goa and is reproduced below:

PART D

36

35 The ESAs in the Western Ghats region of Goa are depicted in Figure 22 of

the Kasturirangan Committee report which is as follows:

PART D

37

36 Figure 23 provides a depiction of the natural and cultural landscapes in the

Western Ghats region of Maharashtra, which is as follows:

PART D

38

D.4 Forestland and flora and fauna

37 The criticism leveled against the recommendations of the EAC in its

appraisal of the impact of the project on forested areas has been dealt with in the

submissions as follows:

(i) Details of forested land as marked in working plans were obtained by the

project proponent from the Governments of Goa and Maharashtra, details

of which have been recorded by the EAC in its minutes of 23 April 2019,

within a 15 km. radial distance from the project site;

(ii) Concerns about non-disclosure were addressed by the project proponent

by giving details of forests with impacts and mitigation measures;

(iii) Remote sensing has been done by the project proponent as mentioned in

Annexure IX of the EIA report. Ground truthing is usually done on site,

performing surface observations and measurements of various properties

and features of the ground on the remotely sensed digital image. In this

case, the airport operation is within the boundaries of the project site and

details of forest, springs, wetlands etc. were also given and discussed in

the EAC; and

(iv) Impact of the airport operations on the air and noise environment will

generally extend until an aircraft gains a height of 1000 feet. According to

the Airport Guidance Manual, emissions from aircraft at a height upto a

1000 feet above ground will extend typically around 3 km from departure

or, in the case of arrivals 6 km from touchdown. Since the airport site is at

a height of 155 metres above MSL, the aircraft will gain a height of 1000

PART D

39

feet during departure within the project site. Aircraft operations follow a

dedicated path called the funnel, which in this case has an east-west

orientation for landing and takeoff. The impact on forests which are

primarily on the northern and southern sides of the airport site in Goa and

Maharashtra and their ecological features will be minimal. The project

proponent has relied on a Google image of the Mopa region indicating a

super imposed flight path for landing and takeoff at the airport which is

extracted below:

Similarly, an image indicating the location of all ESAs within 10 km. radius of

Mopa airport has been relied upon by the project proponent:

PART D

40

38 The criticism that the EAC has conflated the issue of the felling of trees

with the environmental impact on 42 forests has been addressed in the

submissions placed before this Court by Mr ANS Nadkarni, learned Additional

Solicitor General appearing for MoEF-CC. It has been submitted that:

(i) The forest eco-system comprises mainly of flora and fauna in the

environmental settings of air, water and land. The impacts of all these

elements have been assessed and mitigation measures have been

proposed;

(ii) The EAC took due cognizance of the presence of forest land and also

observed that though a significant number of trees were required to be

felled, this was a requirement in the wake of an identified project site. In

PART D

41

that context, it made a reference to the compensatory afforestation

programme required in the ratio of 1:10;

(iii) The EAC has noted that the airport site does not fragment the forest areas

and does not restrict the movement of fauna. The airport site is

predominantly a plateau and the forest cover is not contiguous to it. With a

boundary wall surrounding the airport, there is no possibility of animals

being endangered by entry into the project site;

(iv) The impact of airport operations on the soil and water environment has

also been assessed and necessary measures put into place by the EAC

for protection and conservation; and

(v) Nearly 3 lakh trees are to be planted: 50,000 at the site and 2,50,000 in

nearby villages within 15 km duly supervised by the Biodiversity board.

Besides this, another 2,50,000 trees are to be planted and monitored by

the DGCA. The EAC has mandated the plantation of native species and

fruit bearing saplings to enable residents depending on agriculture to

derive economic benefits while at the same time preserving the biological

environment to birds.

39 MoEF-CC has also responded to the criticism against the approach

adopted by the EAC in regard to avi-faunal studies and data. According to the

submission, the project proponent presented data drawn from the ZSI and other

sources. It has been submitted that the appellant while referring to the fauna

species from ZSI data has referred to “external distribution” in most cases.

However, ZSI data categorically mentions the “sighting area/localities” where

specific species have been actually sighted; all these locations are notably far

PART D

42

away from the project site. Moreover, as an example, it has been submitted that

the appellant in adverting to the sighting of leopards in Goa and Maharashtra did

not limit the submissions to the study area but to the entire territory of the States

of Maharashtra and Goa. ZSI studies on the fauna of Maharashtra records

leopard sightings in places like the Melghat Tiger Reserve, Tadoba-Andhari Tiger

Reserve, Pench National Park, Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Bhimashankar

Wildlife Sanctuary, and the Phansad Wildlife Sanctuary among others. None of

these sites fall within the study area. Similarly, the ZSI publication on fauna of

Goa records sightings of leopards in places like Molem National Park, Cotigao

Wildlife Sanctuary and Bondla Wildlife Sanctuary, not of which fall within the

study area. Moreover, in the Wildlife Institute of India

17

report (2010), the

presence of tigers has been recorded in Molem Wildlife Sanctuary and in the

forests of Ponda and Sanguen Tehsil which are not within a 10 km radius of

proposed Mopa airport. Relevant data drawn from the WII and the Wildlife Trust

of India (2017) on the presence of tigers and elephants has been relied upon.

40 The submission which has been urged on behalf of MoEF-CC is that the

distance of the ESA/ESZ is a prime factor in determining the likely impact of the

project activities on the environment. On examination by the EAC, it has been

found that neither the project site nor the villages under the study area fall in any

ESZ. Moreover, of the 10 ESA villages in Maharashtra falling within a 10 km.

radius of the project site, the nearest village (Galel) is about 4.1 kms from the

boundary of the project and is located in the northern direction. The runway of the

proposed airport has an east-west orientation. Beyond the runway of 3.75 km.,

17

WII

PART D

43

flight operations at an altitude of about 1000 feet would have a minimally adverse

impact on the flora and fauna surrounding the airport. Moreover, the common

faunal species would primarily be restricted to the forest areas. The proposed

airport site is not home to any of these species. It was, in this context that the

EAC has observed that the project site does not fragment any forest area. The

mitigation measures proposed in the EC conditions as well as the NGT directions

stipulate measures for minimizing the impact on biodiversity. The project

proponent would be bound to follow DGCA and ICAO aircraft strike hazard

management guidelines including the setting up of an Airfield Environment

Management Committee. Moreover, it has been submitted that EIL had stated

the migration status of various species of birds in the EIA report. This information

was updated with regard to the migratory status of additional fauna found in the

study area in supplementary Form 1. However, no set routes of flyways were

observed near the airport site. DGCA has published the National Aviation Safety

Plan 2018-2020 emphasizing avi-faunal and wildlife management in airports.

MoEF-CC has annexed to its submissions, DGCA circulars/directions on the

following aspects which would have to be implemented by the concessionaire:

a) Climate Change Initiatives and Local Air Quality Monitoring in Civil

Aviation, 2015;

b) Noise Management of Aircraft Operations at Airports, 2014;

c) Carbon Off-setting and reduction scheme for International Aviation;

d) Guidance on Wildlife Hazard Management;

e) National Aviation Safety Plan, 2018-2020, 2019.

PART D

44

41 In regard to the concerns which emerged during the course of the public

consultation, it has been submitted by MoEF-CC that the updated report

submitted by the project proponent took into account these concerns which

primarily are comprised within two categories (environment and livelihood). The

project proponent made a detailed presentation before the EAC on these

concerns and the action plans were discussed in the EAC meeting. The EAC has

stipulated the implementation of the environment management plan for

addressing the concerns which were raised during the course of the public

hearing. According to the Airport Guidance Manual, the concerns of the public

which were expressed during public consultation must be addressed by the

applicant either through an updated EIA and EMP or through a supplementary

report. The project proponent has done so through updated information.

42 During the course of the judgment which was rendered by this Court on 29

March 2019, certain flaws were noticed in the process leading up to the grant of

an EC on 28 October 2015. The project proponent had not complied with its

obligation to make a full disclosure of information on material aspects of the

environment in Form 1 as an intrinsic part of the EIA process. This Court

specifically recorded its concerns on vital aspects which had not been adequately

addressed by the EAC. Having noticed the flaws in the process and the

deficiencies in the decision making process of the EAC, the Court directed the

EAC to revisit the recommendations made by it for the grant of an EC including

the conditions which it had formulated, having regard to the specific concerns

which were highlighted in the judgment. Thereafter if the EAC were to allow the

construction to proceed, it was directed to impose additional conditions to protect

PART D

45

the terrestrial eco-systems. The EAC was under a specific mandate to lay down

conditions pertaining to air, water, noise, land and the biological and socio-

economic environment. During the course of this judgment, we have traced the

process as it evolved before the EAC following the earlier directions of this Court.

The net result of the process is that the concessionaire has been subjected to a

slew of mitigatory conditions: 53 in the original EC, 16 at the behest of NGT and

40 imposed by the EAC in the second round. On a reading of the process leading

upto the present proceeding, it cannot be said that the EAC has, in its appraisal

process, ignored the concerns which were highlighted by this Court. Ms Anitha

Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel, as we have noted earlier, focursed her

submissions on four areas namely (i) Forests; (ii) ESAs; (iii) Western Ghats; and

(iv) Flora and Fauna. The EAC has adequately addressed these concerns and

laid down additional conditions to ensure the adequate protection of the

environment.

43 The Airport Guidance Manual published by MoEF in February 2010

contains significant points for guidance having a bearing on the controversy

which has been raised in the present case. In relation to the study area, the

Manual states:

“Primary data through measurements and field surveys; and

secondary data from secondary sources are to be collected in

the study area within 10 km radius from Aerodrome

Reference Point (ARP). Primary data should cover one

season other than monsoon and secondary data is to cover

one full year. The basis for selection of these criteria is that

the aircraft gains a height of 1000ft in this area below which

noise and air pollution are generated maximum during its take

off stage. Secondary data should be collected within 15 km

aerial distance for the parameters as specifically mentioned at

column 9 (III) of Form I of EIA Notification, 2006. Details of

PART D

46

secondary data, the method of collection of secondary data,

should be furnished. Similarly the proposed locations of

monitoring stations of water, air, soil and noise etc should be

shown on the study area map.”

The study area in other words, comprises of a radial distance of 10 kms. from the

Aerodrome Reference Point. The Manual indicates that the basis for selection of

the criteria is that an aircraft gains a height of 1000 feet in this area and the

maximum impact of noise and air pollution is generated during the takeoff stage.

The Aircraft Guidance Manual also states that:

“Aircraft engines produce emissions that are similar to other

emissions resulting from any oil based fuel combustion.

These, like any exhaust emissions, can affect local air quality

at ground level. It is emissions from aircraft below 1,000ft,

above the ground (typically around 3km from departure or, for

arrivals, around 6km from touchdown) that are chiefly

involved in influencing local air quality.”

This is again emphasized in the following extract:

“Ambient Air Quality (AAQ) is important for the airport

projects. The significance of aviation's impact on air quality

will vary depending on many other factors such as,

background pollution levels, other sources of pollution,

weather and proximity of residential areas.

Aircraft engines produce emissions that are similar to other

emissions resulting from any oil based fuel combustion.

These, like any exhaust emissions, can affect local air quality

at ground level. It is emissions from aircraft below 1,000ft,

above the ground (typically around 3km from departure or, for

arrivals, around 6km from touchdown that are chiefly involved

in influencing local air quality. These emissions disperse with

the wind and blend with emissions from other sources such

as domestic heating emissions, factory emissions and

transport pollution.

PART D

47

The local air quality relevant emissions attributed to aircraft

operations at airports are oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon

monoxide (CO), Unburnt hydrocarbons (NMHC and VOCs),

sulphur dioxide(SO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).

Aircraft engines, auxiliary power units, apron vehicles, de-

icing, and apron spillages of fuel and chemicals emit these

pollutants. Local factors influence the significance of

individual emissions for each airport, but often NOx is by far

the most abundant and is considered the most significant

pollutant from an air quality stand point.

Baseline data of these parameters extending over an area of

10km radial distance from ARP of the project by observation

at a number of locations, predominantly in the windward

direction duly taking into account changes in predominant

wind direction in the monsoon period and changes in humidity

in atmosphere. Specific importance is to be attached to areas

in close proximity of project up to 3km is essential,

considering the mobile source of emission such as aircraft.”

44 A comprehensive process has been followed by the EAC bearing in mind

the requirements of the Airport Guidance Manual. The EAC took note of the

presence of reserved forests and of ESAs in the Western Ghats and deliberated

on the impact of the construction and operation of the proposed airport on flora or

fauna, hydrological systems and climatic variations. The process which has been

adopted by the EAC and its ultimate conclusions must be scrutinized, in the

course of judicial review, in the context of the limitations which are attached to the

court conducting a merits based review. In Lafarge Umiam Mining Private

Limited v Union of India,

18

an application was made under the 1994 EIA

notification for the grant of an EC to a proposed limestone mining project at

18

(2011) 7 SCC 338

PART D

48

Nongtrai Village, East Khasi Hills District Meghalaya. EC was granted for the

project in 2001. A three judge Bench of this Court rejected the challenge and

upheld the grant of the EC for the proposed project. Chief Justice S H Kapadia,

speaking for the Court, formulated the standard of judicial review which must be

applied in cases relating to the environment in the following terms:

“In the circumstances, barring exceptions, decisions relating

to utilisation of natural resources have to be tested on the

anvil of the well-recognised principles of judicial review. Have

all the relevant factors been taken into account? Have any

extraneous factors influenced the decision? Is the decision

strictly in accordance with the legislative policy underlying the

law (if any) that governs the field? Is the decision consistent

with the principles of sustainable development in the sense

that has the decision-maker taken into account the said

principle and, on the basis of relevant considerations, arrived

at a balanced decision? Thus, the Court should review the

decision-making process to ensure that the decision of MoEF

is fair and fully informed, based on the correct principles, and

free from any bias or restraint.”

The EAC has accounted for the relevant factors outlined by this Court in its

previous judgment in the assessment leading to the grant of the EC.

45 The evaluation of merits is a matter which primarily rests with an expert

authority. The court can certainly supervise procedural compliance and ensure

that all necessary inputs which are required to be factored into the decision-

making process have been duly borne in mind. Once this has been done, the

court must be circumspect in micro-managing the decision-making process by

the EAC by substituting its own opinion for that of the EAC. Undoubtedly, no

process can be perfect or free from studied criticism. Ms Anitha Shenoy, learned

Senior Counsel has attempted to perform such an exercise when she submitted

that the collection of primary faunal data from a nearby village and secondary

PART E

49

data from ZSI sources was not an adequate means of dealing with the concerns

expressed by this Court. In assessing these criticisms, we must equally be

cognizant of the fact that by the judgment of this Court dated 29 March 2019, the

EAC was required to carry out the exercise within a period of one month from the

receipt of the order of this Court. The Court did not quash the EC but directed

that it should remain under suspension unti l the EAC revisited its

recommendations in the light of the concerns which were expressed by this

Court. Having assessed the process which took place following the judgment of

this Court and the outcome, it would be difficult for this Court to hold that it fails to

meet the standards which the court applies in the course of judicial review in

environmental matters.

E Directions

46 For the above reasons, the minutes of the meeting of the EAC dated 23

April 2019 are taken on record as prayed for. The additional conditions which

have been imposed by the EAC shall, together with the original conditions of the

EC dated 28 October 2015 and the directions issued by the NGT be cumulatively

observed. The conditions cumulatively imposed for the grant of an EC, have been

set out below:

I. Conditions imposed by the EC dated 28 October 2015

A. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:

(i) „Consent to Establish‟ shall be obtained from State

Pollution Control Board under the Air (Prevention and

Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention

and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

(ii) The Project Proponent shall ensure availability of

adequate land at the junction of the Mopa Airport road

PART E

50

and Mumbai/Goa NH -17 for traffic

circulation/management and to provide for all the traffic

interchanges and proposed clover.

(iii) The approach and exit roads to the Airport shall be

approved from the NHA land should be according to IRC

norms.

(iv) A perusal of the Topo sheet superimposed on the runway

area indicates that the extreme end of the runway is

covering the drainage area partly. The drainage area

which is under the runway shall be channelized. The area

between the parallel taxiway and runway shall be handled

carefully to drain the water from the area in the outfall 2.

(v) The PP shall submit the site clearance certificate from

Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), before

commencement of work at the project site.

(vi) Sewage and other liquid effluent generated from the

airport including from the existing terminal should be

treated according to the norms laid down by the State

Pollution Control Board. The treated sewage shall be

recycled for flushing/gardening. Proper Dual plumbing

shall be provided.

(vii) The solid waste generated shall be properly collected,

segregated and disposed according to the provisions of

Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000.

The project proponent shall make provisions for drinking

water at convenient places for passengers and also at the

cafeterias as to reduce generation of solid wastes

including PET bottles.

(viii) Installation and operation of DG sets shall comply with the

guidelines of CPCB.

(ix) Parking provision shall be provided according to the

National Building Code of India, 2005.

(x) Water conservation fixtures shall be provided and water

balance shall be maintained through verifiable metering

for fresh raw water, recycled as well as rain water

harvesting.

(xi) Necessary permission shall be obtained for drawing of

ground water from competent authority prior to

construction/ operation of the project.

(xii) The land use around the Airport complex shall be

regulated through a plan to control unauthorized

development which may create problems in the operation

of the Airport.

PART E

51

(xiii) The wastewater from hangers shall be tested for presence

of heavy metals, if any, and shall be treated in STP. The

treated waste water shall be used for gardening/ flushing.

(xiv) Rain water harvesting shall be provided to recharge the

ground water.

(xv) Energy conservation to the extent of at least 20% shall be

incorporated including water conservation (reuse/ recycle,

rain water harvesting and water efficient fixtures) and

other green building practices for various buildings

proposed within the airport complex. The PP shall

consider ECBC Guidelines 2009 to achieve energy

efficiency. The energy conservation measures shall be

subject to periodic verification by the competent Energy

Conservation/Efficiency authority in the State.

(xvi) The project proponent shall prepare a detailed traffic

management plan to take care of increased vehicular

traffic which should also cover/clearly delineate

widening/increasing the existing roads and associated

road infrastructure approving/installation of road safety

features/pedestrian facility/FOB/under passes etc (that

can be done by carrying out road safety audits).

Measures shall be taken to prevent encroachment

along/within the ROWs on connecting/main arterial roads.

(xvii) All the recommendations of the EMP shall be complied

with in letter and spirit. All the mitigation measures

submitted in the EIA report shall be prepared in a matrix

format and the compliance for each mitigation plan shall

be submitted to RO, MoEF&CC along with half yearly

compliance report.

(xviii) The responses/commitments made during public hearing

shall be complied with in letter and spirit.

(xix) Project Proponent shall install noise level display system.

Noise level shall be monitored regularly in all seasons

(different meteorological conditions) within the compound

as well as nearby habitations and it shall be ensured that

the noise level is within the prescribed limits. During night

time the noise levels measured at the boundary shall be

restricted to the permissible levels to comply with the

prevalent regulations.

(xx) The location of monitoring stations and monitoring of

noise level during day and night shall be in accordance

with the CPCB guidance document “Requirement and

procedure for monitoring Ambient Noise Level due to

aircraft” published on 25

th

June 2008.

PART E

52

(xxi) Construction spoils, including bituminous material and

other hazardous materials, must not be allowed to

contaminate watercourses and the dumpsites for such

material must be secured so that they should not leach

into the ground water.

(xxii) Any hazardous waste generated during construction

phase, should be disposed off as per applicable rules and

norms with necessary approval of the SPCB.

(xxiii) Under the provision of Environment (Protection) Act,

1986, legal action shall be initiated against the project

proponent if it was found that construction of the project

has been started without obtaining environmental

clearance.

(xxiv) The project proponent will set up separate environmental

management cell for effective implementation of the

stipulated environmental safeguards under the

supervision of a Senior Executive.

(xxv) Corporate Environment Responsibility:

a) The Company shall have a well laid down

Environment Policy approved by the Board of

Directors.

b) The Environment Policy shall prescribe for standard

operating Process/procedures to bring into focus any

infringements/deviation/violation of the environmental

or forest norms/conditions.

c) The hierarchical system or Administrative Order of the

company to deal with environmental issues and for

ensuring compliance with the environmental clearance

conditions shall be furnished.

d) To have proper checks and balances, the company

shall have a well laid down system of reporting of non-

compliances/violations of environmental norms to the

Board of Directors of the company and/or

shareholders or stakeholders at large.

B. GENERAL CONDITIONS :

(i) Provision shall be made for the housing of

construction labour within the site with all necessary

infrastructure and facilities such as fuel for cooking,

mobile toilets, mobile STP, safe drinking water,

medical health care, creche etc. The housing may

be in the form of temporary structures to be

removed after the completion of the project.

(ii) A First Aid Room will be provided in the project both

during construction and operation of the project.

PART E

53

(iii) All the topsoil excavated during construction

activities should be stored for use in

horticulture/landscape development within the

project site.

(iv) Disposal of muck during construction phase should

not create any adverse effect on the neighbouring

communities and be disposed taking the necessary

precautions for general safety and health aspects of

people, only in approved sites with the approval of

competent authority.

(v) The diesel generator sets to be used during

construction phase should below Sulphur diesel

type and should conform to Environment

(Protection) Rules prescribed for air and noise

emission standards. The diesel required for

operating DG sets shall be stored in underground

tanks and if required clearance from Chief Controller

of Explosives shall be taken.

(vi) Vehicles hired for bringing construction material to

the site should be in good condition and should

have a pollution check certificate and should

conform to applicable air and noise emission

standards and should be operated only during non-

peak hours.

(vii) Fly ash usage shall be explored as building material

in the construction as per the provisions of Fly Ash

Notification of September, 1999 and amended as on

27

th

August, 2003.

(viii) Ready mixed concrete must be used in building

construction.

(ix) Storm water control and its re-use as per CGWB and

BIS standards for various applications.

(x) Water demand during construction should be

reduced by use of pre-mixed concrete, curing

agents and other best practices referred.

(xi) Separation of grey and black water should be done

by the use of dual plumbing line for separation of

grey and black water.

(xii) Use of glass may be reduced by upto 40% to reduce

the electricity consumption and load on air-

conditioning. If necessary, use high quality double

glass with special reflective coating in windows.

PART E

54

(xiii) Roof should meet prescriptive requirement as per

Energy Conservation Building Code by using

appropriate thermal insulation material to fulfill

requirement.

(xiv) Opaque wall should meet prescriptive requirement as

per Energy Conservation Building Code which is

proposed to be mandatory for all air-conditioned

spaces while it is aspirational for non-air-conditioned

spaces by use of appropriate thermal insulation

material to fulfil requirement.

(xv) The green belt of the adequate width and density

preferably with local species along the periphery of

the plot shall be raised as to provide protection

against particulars and noise.

(xvi) Traffic congestion near the entry and exit points from

the roads adjoining the proposed project site must

be avoided. Parking should be fully internalized and

no public space should be utilized.

(xvii) The construction of the structures shall be

undertaken as per the plans approved by the

concerned local authorities/local administration,

meticulously conforming to the existing local and

central rules and regulations.

(xviii) The construction material shall be obtained only

from approved quarries. In case new quarries are to

be opened, specific approvals from the competent

authority shall be obtained in this regard.

(xix) Adequate precautions shall be taken during

transportation of the construction material so that it

does not affect the environment adversely.

(xx) Full support shall be extended to the officers of this

Ministry/Regional Office by the project proponent

during inspection of the project for monitoring

purposes by furnishing full details and action plan

including action taken reports in respect of

mitigation measures and other environmental

protection activities.

(xxi) A six-monthly monitoring report shall need to be

submitted by the project proponents to the Regional

Office of this Ministry regarding the implementation

of the stipulated conditions.

(xxii) Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change or

any other competent authority may stipulate any

PART E

55

additional conditions or modify the existing ones, if

necessary in the interest of environment and the

same shall be complied with.

(xxiii) The Ministry reserves the right to revoke this

clearance if any of the conditions stipulated are not

complied with the satisfaction of the Ministry.

(xxiv) In the event of a change in project profile or change

in the implementation agency, a fresh reference

shall be made to the Ministry of Environment, Forest

& Climate Change.

(xxv) The project proponents shall inform the Regional

Office as well as the Ministry, the date of financial

closure and final approval of the project by the

concerned authorities and the date of start of land

development work.

(xxvi) A copy of the clearance letter shall be marked to

concerned Panchayat local NGO, if any, from whom

any suggestion/representation has been made

received while processing the proposal.

(xxvii) A copy of the environmental clearance letter shall

also be displayed on the website of the concerned

State Pollution Control Board. The EC letter shall

also be displayed at the Regional office, District

Industries centre and Collector‟s office/Tehsildar‟s

office for 30 days.

(xxviii) The funds earmarked for environmental protection

measures shall be kept in separate account and

shall not be diverted for other purpose. Year-wise

expenditure shall be reported to this Ministry and its

concerned Regional Office.

5 These stipulations would be enforced among others

under the provisions of Water (Prevention and

Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention

and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986, the Public Liability

(Insurance) Act, 1991 and EIA Notification 2006,

including the amendments and rules made

thereafter.

6 All other statutory clearances such as the approvals

for storage of diesel from Chief Controller of

Explosives, Fire Department, Civil Aviation

Department, Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 etc. shall be obtained,

PART E

56

as applicable by project proponents from the

respective competent authorities.

7 The project proponent shall advertise in at least two

local Newspapers widely circulated in the region,

one of which shall be in the vernacular language

informing that the project has been accorded

Environmental Clearance and copies of clearance

letters are available with the State Pollution Control

Board and may also be seen on the website of the

Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change

at http://www.envfor.nic.in. The advertisement

should be made within seven days from the date of

receipt of the Clearance letter and a copy of the

same should be forwarded to the Regional Office of

this Ministry.

…

9 Status of compliance to the various stipulated

environmental conditions and environmental

safeguards will be uploaded by the project

proponent in its website.”

PART E

57

II. Conditions imposed by the NGT in its order dated 21 August 2018

A. AIR ENVIRONMENT

1. Total Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM),

Respirable Particulate Matter (RPM) during construction

phase and un-burnet and Hydro Carbons (HC), Lead (Pb),

CO

2

, SO

2

, CO

2

, SOOT and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

during operation phase are going to be major pollutants in

this kind of project, Besides, fugitive emissions of Volatile

Organic Compounds (VOC) during fuel handling can be

another issue for ambient air environment. The provision

of only 6 (six) Air Quality Monitoring Stations is

inadequate as sampling duration has been given as „twice

a week, 4 weeks in a season as per CPCB standards for

NAAQM, 1994. It would be appropriate if the Project

Proponent establishes real time online continuous Air

Quality Monitoring Station also which is connected to

CPCB server and capable of monitoring all relevant and

critical parameters and mitigation measures taken.

2. Although all parameters w.r.t. ambient air

parameters have been found to be within limits for all 6

(six) locations monitored, we feel for the purpose of

giving/depicting holistic picture with regard to ambient air

in the area, at least 3 (three) more locations falling in the

State of Maharashtra be also monitored and documented.

B. WATER ENVIRONMENT

1. Only two number of Rain Water Harvesting pits

have been provided which we feel are not adequate and

there is a need to place other pits at such locations as to

capture all the excess drainage for water-recharge.

2. More frequent Water Quality Monitoring i.e.once

every month may be carried out by Project Proponent at

bore wells and STP discharge plants instead of 4 (four)

times in a year as proposed.

C. NOISE ENVIRONMENT

1. It has been proposed that ambient noise levels

shall be monitored around the premises of airport, near

DG sets and at main entrance/boundary of airport once a

week at 7 (seven) locations which we feel are inadequate.

Besides these, continuous monitoring of occupational

noise exposure limits in such industrial environments

would be appropriate with audible or visual alarm output

capability.

PART E

58

2. Integrated Noise Model (INM) be more frequently

used and mitigation undertaken during the operational

phase of project at regular intervals.

3. Although ambient noise levels have been found to be

within limits at 9 (nine) locations monitored, we feel for the

purpose of giving/depicting holistic picture with regard to

ambient noise levels in the area, at least 3 (three) more

locations falling in the State of Maharashtra be also

monitored and documented.

D. LAND ENVIRONMENT

1. There is a potential for impact on soil quality due

to project related spills and leaks of fuel and chemicals

and uncontrolled disposal of wastes and waste water.

Adequate care be taken to avoid spills and leaks of

hazardous substances and all project related wastes.

Littering on sites and beyond the sites needs to be

adequately prevented and controlled.

2. Debris and Muck Management Plan to be prepared and

implemented so as to avoid spillage of muck and debris

on the slopes.

3. Soil conservation and stabilization measures needs to

be undertaken by deploying both mechanical and bio-

engineering methods.

4. Remediation, restoration and compensation needs to

be integral part of policy so as to provide adequate relief

for any environmental or project related disasters.

E. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

1. Efforts be made to transplant the trees to other

locations in the same vicinity by using appropriate

mechanical devices which are available these days.

2. Efforts be made to plant indigenous species which are

tall in size rather than small saplings.

3. Concerns have been raised by appellants with

regard to plant species „Dipcadi concanense‟ which has

been claimed to be a threatened plant. This claim of the

appellants have been negated by the respondent by

producing a documentation of Botanical Survey of India,

Western Regional Centre, Pune, Maharashtra titled as „A

Note on Occurrence and Distribution of Dipcadi

Concanense”. By invoking Precautionary Principle, we

direct the Project Proponent to draw up a Conservancy by

Plan/Scheme for „Dipcadi concanense‟ in collaboration

PART E

59

with Forest Department, State of Goa and Botanical

Survey of India and ensure its implementation.

F. Socio-Economic Environment

1 Adequate drills with respect to implementation of

Disaster Management plan needs to be carried out at

regular intervals so as to ensure preparedness and

rapid response to any disasters both man made or

natural.

2 Although „Disaster Management Plan‟ as Annexure-II

is part of EIA Report under the sub head 1.2.1-National Disasters needs further elaboration

especially in terms of Emergency Response

Measures, Rules and Responsibility, Mitigation, etc.”

III. Conditions imposed in the revised assessment of the EAC dated 23 April 2019

I. STATUTORY COMPLIANCE :

(i) The project proponent shall obtain certificate from

Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW) of State through

State Government that none of the area of the

project falls in the notified Eco-sensitive Zone

(ESZ) and no activity prohibited in the Eco-

sensitive Zone will be taken up.

(ii) The project proponent shall obtain Consent to

Establish/Operate under the provisions of Air

(Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and

the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,

1974 from the concerned State Pollution Control

Board/Committee.

(iii) The project proponent shall obtain necessary

permission from the competent authority for

drawing of water from Tillari Irrigation Canal.

II. AIR QUALITY MONITORING AND

PRESERVATION:

(i) The project proponent shall install system to carry

out Ambient Air Quality monitoring for

common/criterion parameters relevant to the main

pollutants released (e.g. PM 10 and PM 2.5 in

reference to PM emission and SO

2

, and NOx in

reference to SO

2

and NOx emissions) within and

outside the airport area covering upwind and

downwind directions.

(ii) Notification GSR 94€ dated 25.01.2018 of

MoEF&CC regarding Mandatory Implementation

of Dust Mitigation Measures for Construction and

Demolition Activities shall be complied with.

PART E

60

(iii) Soil and other construction materials should be

sprayed with water prior to any loading, unloading

or transfer operation so as to maintain the dusty

material wet.

(iv) The excavation working area should be sprayed

with water after operation so as to maintain the

entire surface wet.

(v) Excavated materials shall be handled and

transported in a manner that they do not cause

any air pollution.

(vi) The soil/construction materials carried by the

vehicle should be covered by impervous sheeting

to avoid leaking of the dusty materials.

III. WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND

PRESERVATION:

(i) Appropriate drainage channels need to be

designed to take care of the water flow into the

nearest water courses/rivers, etc.

(ii) It should be ensured that sustainable water flow in

the various channels of watershed in the plateau

is maintained.

(iii) Storm water drains are to be built for discharging

storm water from the air -field to avoid

flooding/water logging in project area. Domestic

and industrial waste water shall not be allowed to

be discharged into the storm water drains and

directed to STP for treatment.

(iv) Proper drainage systems, emergency containment

in the event of a major spill during monsoon

season etc. shall be provided.

(v) The runoff from paved structures like Aprons can

be routed through drains to oil separation tanks

and sedimentation basins before being discharged

into rainwater harvesting structures.

(vi) Run off from chemicals and other contaminants

from aircraft maintenance and other areas within

the airport shall be suitably contained and treated

before disposal. A spillage and containment plan

shall be drawn up and implemented to the

satisfaction of the State Pollution Control Board.

(vii) The project activity shall conform to the General

Standards for Discharge of Environmental

Pollutants notified in the Environment (Protection)

Rules, 1986, and amended from time to time.

(viii) Rain water harvesting for roof run-off and surface

run-off, as plan submitted should be implemented.

Rain water harvesting structures shall conform to

CGWA guidelines. Before recharging the surface

PART E

61

run off-pre-treatment must be done to remove

suspended matter, oil and grease.

IV. NOISE MONITORING AND PREVENTION :

(i) Notification GSR 568(E) dated 18.06.2018 of

MoEF & CC regarding Ambient Air Quality

Standards with respect to Noise in Airport Noise

Zone shall be complied with.

(ii) Noise level survey shall be carried as per the

prescribed guidelines and report in this regard

shall be submitted to Regional Officer of the

Ministry as a part of six-monthly compliance

report.

(iii) Noise from vehicles, power machinery and

equipment on-site should not exceed the

prescribed limit. Equipment should be regularly

serviced. Attention should also be given to muffler

maintenance and enclosure of noisy equipments.

(iv) Acoustic enclosures for DG sets, noise barriers for

ground-run bays, ear plugs for operating

personnel shall be implemented as mitigation

measures for noise impact due to ground sources.

(v) During airport operation period, noise should be

controlled to ensure that it does not exceed the

prescribed standards. During night time the noise

levels measured at the boundary of the building

shall be restricted to the permissible levels to

comply with the prevalent regulations.

(vi) Where construction activity is likely to cause noise

nuisance to nearby residents, restrict it to only

during day time i.e. between 7 am to 6 pm.

V. ENERGY CONSERVATION/CLIMATE CHANGE

MEASURES:

(i) Energy conservation measures like installation of

LED should be integral part of the project design

and should be in place before project

commissioning.

(ii) Initiatives such as Green Infrastructure

Development program, adoption of less emission

intensive technologies, renewable energy

program, electrical vehicles and Airport Carbon

Accreditation need to be adopted to reduce its

impact on climate change and Green House Gas

(GHG) emissions as per environmental best

practices governing Greenfield airports.

VI. WASTE MANAGEMENT :

(i) Soil stockpile shall be managed in such a manner

that dust emission and sediment runoff are

PART E

62

minimized. Ensure that soil stockpiles are

designed with no slope greater than 2:1

(horizontal/vertical).

(ii) The project activity shall conform to the Fly Ash

notification issued under the EP Act of 1986.

(iii) The solid wastes shall be segregated as per the

norms of the Solid Waste Management Rules,

2016. Recycling of wastes such as paper, glass

(produced from terminals and aircraft caterers),

metal (at aircraft maintenance site), plastics (from

aircrafts, terminals and offices), wood, waste oil

and solvents (from maintenance and engineering

operations), kitchen wastes and vegetable oils

(from caterers) shall be carried out.

(iv) Solid inert waste found on construction sites

consists of building rubble, demolition material,

concrete; bricks, timber, plastic, glass, metals,

bitumen etc shall be reused/recycled or managed

so as to strictly conform to the Solid Waste

Management Rules, 2016, and Construction and

Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016.

(v) The project proponents shall implement a

management plan duly approved by the State

Pollution Control Board and obtain its permissions

for the safe handling and disposal of:

a Trash collected in flight and disposed at the

airport including segregation, collection and

disposed.

b Toilet wastes and sewage collected from

aircrafts and disposed at the Airport.

c Wastes arising out of maintenance and

workshops.

d Wastes arising out of eateries and shops

situated inside the airport complex.

e Hazardous and other wastes.

VII. GREEN BELT:

(i) Green belt shall be developed in area as

provided in project details, with native tree

species in accordance with Forest Department.

The green belt shall inter alia cover the entire

periphery of the Airport.

(ii) The plantation species in and around Airport site

should be carefully chosen to avoid bird nesting

and to improve pollution control and noise control

measures. Water intensive and/or invasive

species should not be used for landscaping.

(iii) Plantation activity should be taken up under the

expert guidance for forest department of Goa,

care should be taken that soil erosion measures

PART E

63

should be taken up on priority so that the right

mineralized soil of forest is not washed away.

The plantation activity should also have an

approach of soil conservation where planting is

done along the contours avoiding gully formation.

As far as possible monoculture plantation should

be avoided.

(iv) The proposed 10 times compensatory plantation

need to be monitored by the Government of Goa

so that the target of planting 5.5 lakh saplings is

achieved in a a time bound manner, their survival

rate is monitored and mortality is replenished. As

major chunk of 2.5 lakh of saplings is proposed to

be done by the village level Bio Diversity

Committees, it is necessary to ensure that people

are largely given native species and/or fruit

bearing saplings so that they will be able to

derive economic benefits from such fruit crops

and also such trees will provide better biological

environment to birds.

(v) Top soil shall be separately stored and used in

the development of green belt.

VIII. PUBLIC HEARING AND HUMAN HEALTH

ISSUES:

(i) Solution/management plan regarding redressal of

all the concerns raised in the public hearing must

be clearly spelt out in the EMP and shall be

implemented in letter and spirit. Compliance for

each mitigation plan shall be submitted to

Regional Office, MoEF&CC along with half yearly

compliance report.

(ii) Provision of Electro-mechanical doors for toilets

meant for disabled passengers shall be ensured.

Children nursing/feeding room shall be located

conveniently near arrival and departure gates.

(iii) Emergency preparedness plan based on the

Hazard identification and Risk Assessment

(HIRA) and Disaster Management Plan shall be

implemented.

(iv) Provision shall be made for the housing of

construction labour within the site with all

necessary infrastructure and facilities such as

fuel for cooking, mobile toilets, mobile STP, safe

drinking water, medical health care, creche etc.

The housing may be in the form of temporary

structures to be removed after the completion of

the project.

(v) Occupational health surveillance of the workers

shall be done on a regular basis.”

PART E

64

47 We have also taken note of the assurance which has been tendered on

behalf of the concessionaire that it will adopt a Zero Carbon Programme both in

the construction and operational phases of the airport. We accept the undertaking

of the concessionaire and issue a direction for compliance.

48 The earlier judgment of this Court highlighted numerous deficiencies by the

project proponent leading to the grant of the EC. This Court highlighted numerous

concerns including the preservation of forests, the existence of ESAs with their

attendant features and the impact of the proposed project on natural water

channels. The Court also noted the abject failure of the project proponent to

provide complete information on the existence of reserved forests. In the

proceedings that followed the judgment of this Court, the project proponent

sought to remedy its failure by taking into account additional information on

significant aspects of the environment. In the process leading to the grant of the

EC as well as the lifting of its suspension by this Court, numerous mitigatory

conditions have been imposed on the project proponent. We deem it appropriate

to ensure the oversight of the project by a specialized body to ensure compliance

with the directions cumulatively issued by this Court. We direct the National

Environmental Engineering Research Institute

19

to be appointed to oversee

compliance with the directions cumulatively issued by this Court. The project

proponent shall bear the costs, expenses and fees of NEERI.

19

NEERI

PART E

65

49 The suspension on the EC shall accordingly stand lifted. The

Miscellaneous Application is accordingly disposed of.

..……......................................................J

[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

..……......................................................J

[Hemant Gupta]

New Delhi;

January 16, 2020.