Federation Of Rainbow Warriors, Margao v. Union Of India And Others

1. This appeal has been preferred against the grant of Environmental Clearance for development of Greenfield International Airport at Mopa in Goa vide the impugned order dated 28.10.2015. According to the impugned order, the proposal was submitted to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEF&CC) for Environmental Clearance in terms EIA Notification, 2006 by the Director of Civil Aviation, Goa on 20.05.2015 followed by subsequent letter dated 06.08.2015 and 08.10.2015. The same was considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) in the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change for environmental approval of Infrastructure, Building /Construction and Miscellaneous projects, in its meetings held on 24 - 26 June, 2015, 7 - 9 September, 2015 and 20 October, 2015. The details of the project are mentioned as follows:-

“(i) The project was accorded TOR Vide letter No. 10-29/2011-IA.III dated 01.06.2011 and extension of validity was granted on 29.05.2015.

(ii) The Proposal involves development of Greenfield International Airport at MOPA of Tehsil Pernem (Goa) by Directorate of Civil Aviation, Govt. of Goa. The Project is located at N 15o°44′30″, E 73°52'00”.

(iii) The total area is 2271 acres. The land has been acquired based on approved compensation as per Govt. of Goa.

(iv) The project will be implemented in four phases. The components in Phase I of proposed Mopa Airport shall include one runway, with half parallel taxiway, three runway exits and Phase II includes one runway with full parallel building, security area and control points, GSE storage, parking, technical area, cargo, maintenance, general and business aviation areas, road network, rail connectivity and airport city.

(v) The airfield consists of one single runway with takeoff available distance of 3,750 meters and 60 meters of runway width to accommodate the super-jumbo A380 aircraft. The runway will be equipped with both elevated and inset lights for at all-time operations consisting of a CAT I approach system before both runway thresholds which comprises a row of lights along the extension of the runway axis, to a distance of 900m. The area required for these activities including apron and hangars, is expected to be 15,300 m2. The aircraft maintenance facilities are estimated to provide space for 1 hanger.

(vi) The water requirement in Phase I, Phase II, Phase III and Phase IV is 1 MLD, 1.8 MLD, 3 MLD and 6 MLD respectively. The source of water will be provided by Tillari Irrigation Cannal of Irrigation Department, Dhargal Div is ion.

(vii) The total solid waste generation will be 6.1 tonnes per day for Phase I and 18.2 tonnes per day for Phase IV. Solid waste collected will be disposed in disposal facility owned by Govt. of Goa. From airport, used oil, lubricants, electronic waste shall be generated and the same shall be disposed through SPCP authorized re-processor. Used batteries will be given to dealers as part of buy back arrangement.

(viii) the quantity of sewage generated in Phase I, Phase II, Phase III and Phase IV is 1 MLD, 1.5 MLD, 2.4 MLD and 5 MLD respectively and STP capacity is 1120 cum, 1500 cum, 2400 cum & 5000 cum respectively.

(ix) The sewage treatment plant will include tertiary treatment plant for reusing the treated effluent for irrigation of landscaping and garden areas. The aircraft waste will be chemically stabilized.

(x) The total power required for the proposed airport is 40 MW which will be sourced from 220/110KV independent High Tension (HT) lines from Western Grid: Tivim/Colvale/Mapusa substation and from Southern Grid of Karnataka/Amona at Sesa Goa and Ponda Substation. Emergency/generator power supply shall be met from 5 numbers of Generators each having capacity of 2000KW.

(xi) A Disaster management Plan for various scenarios which includes the emergency control measures, plan of coordination and interaction with various agencies including administrative agencies, rescue and relief operations, training and awareness to minimize the severity of disasters has been prepared to plan for emergency response and to provide for resource mobilization.

(xii) The greenbelt development will be 33% of total area.

(xiii) Minimum 20% energy conservation measures will be adopted incorporating provisions for use of LED, star rated A.Cs. etc.

(xiv) R&R issues: 14 houses need to be displaced and R&R Policy of Govt. of Goa to be followed.

(xv) Investment/Cost: The total cost of the project is Rs. 3000 Crores.

(xvi) Public Hearing was conducted on 01.02.2015 at SimechenAdven, Mopa, Goa. The major issues raised during public hearing and responses sought from the project proponent related to employment opportunities.

xvii) Wildlife issues: There are no National Parks, Wildlife Sancutary, Biosphere Reserves found in the 10 km buffer zone.

(xviii) Forest Land: No forest land is involved in the project.

(xix) There are no court cases/violations pending against the project.”

2. The EAC recommended the grant of Environmental Clearance and the MOEF&CC accordingly granted the Environmental Clearance subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The conditions included obtaining Consent to Establish under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, availability of land for traffic circulation/management, approach and exit roads channelizing the drainage area, site clearance town DGCA, treatment of sewage and liquid effluents, compliance of Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000, installation and operation of DG sets as per Central Pollution Control Board guidelines, parking according to the National Building Code of India, 2005 and other conditions mentioned therein in terms of the EIA Notification, 2006.

3. The appellants claim to be inhabitants of the area and aggrieved by the grant of EC. Their concerns are displacement of residents, damage to the environment, loss of ground water and flora and fauna of the region.

4. According to the appellants, Goa's water resources are facing severe crisis, Goa has scarcity of land for housing and food or for buffer zones. The Project Proponent concealed vital facts regarding the need for the environmental and socio-economic aspects. The Terms of Reference (ToR) concealed many important aspects. The report of the public hearing was not made available to the inhabitants. The same was in English language. The baseline data was three years old. Before public hearing was held, vested interest mobilize political workers from outside. While police force was brought to the place of hearing, the villagers could not attend the hearing or could not voice their opinions dais was far away from the attendees. The minutes of the public hearing do not reflect all the issues raised. The minutes were changed in the compliance statement. Expansion of validity of ToR was not justified. The Expert Appraisal Committee held 149, 151 and 152meetings. Final report was submitted without any visit to the site. The geology of the area is not properly projected. The flora and fauna data is incorrectly mentioned. The primary and secondary data is of 2011 but projected to be of 2013 December or 2014 February. There are endangered species which are not acknowledged, without any study of the floral diversity of the surroundings. No site visits were undertaken.

5. Reference is made to study conducted by Girish Punjabi and Atul Borkar. The Rescue Register of the Forest Department shows that there are rescued animal but they are not considered in the secondary data. Reliance has also been made to the studies to the Surveys conducted by Ms. Clara Correia and Shri Avinash Bhagat and Grey Headed Bulbul, Malabar Grey Hornbills, Crimson, Dr. Aparna Watve, Sanjay Thakur.

6. Further case of the appellants is that the EIA report concealed the facts that there are dense forests in the area and it does not mention the number of trees to be cut for the project. The project is also surrounded by un identified private forests as shown in Regional Plan 2021 maps. The Forest Survey of India Report 2013 shows the forest area to be much more than what is mentioned in the EIA report. Facts regarding agriculture have been concealed. There are perennial springs sustaining the area. Fodder is available. There is hang or tribal settlements. Only 14 houses are mentioned. There are fields and historical caves. There are thick forests. The impact study has not considered the impact of the airport city which will be built. The impact of residences and facilities to be built on the land nearby has also not been considered. 40% of the study area falls in the State of Maharashtra for which no study has been done. The loss of forest in Maharashtra, particularly impact on tigers and elephants using the Tiger corridor has not been considered. The site selection is not based on rigorous studies. An airport already exists and decision to built second airport is arbitrary. The existing airport could be upgraded. The same has been recently upgraded four times of its previous capacity. It can handle 12 million passengers which will be enough for next 20 years. International tourism in the Goa is on the decline. Acquisition of the site was before the impact assessment study by invoking urgency clause. The acquisition was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court subject to the compliance of the environment laws. The project is pushed by feudal land lords and speculators who have purchased land in the nearby area. Expansion of National Highway to give effect to the project will lead further damage to the environment. Illegal mining in Goa has already damaged the environment. The Project is against the National interest and only for short term speculative profits for a few. Investment in airport infrastructure should be channelized to other regions. The area does not have enough water for its present needs and the project will create further scarcity.

7. The appellants have relied upon several documents including Forest Survey of India Report of 2013, photographs showing agriculture, water collection, sacred groves, scientific study report and press reports.

8. An affidavit in reply has been filed by respondent no. 2, Directorate of Civil Aviation, Goa on 28.04.2016, stating that decision to setup second airport and the site where it is to be setup is a matter of policy decision and cannot be interfered with unless the same is shown to be arbitrary. Only an aggrieved person can file an appeal and the appellants do not meet that qualification. Objection to the project is by the citizens of South Goa where an airport already exists. The second airport is proposed in North Goa and only one person from the North Goa who has moved this Tribunal is Hanuman Laxman Aroskar.

9. According to the appellants, the objection of the appellants is for peripheral reasons as well as the existing cartelized business operators of the region. The project was envisioned in terms of the ‘Guidelines for Setting up of Greenfield Airports’ issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Union of India in the year 2008. The existing airport at Dabolim-Vasco da Gama is under the control and management of Indian Navy. It also operates as International and Domestic Civilian Airport. It is 9 busiest airport in India. The schedule for takeoffs and landings is congested. Even the enhanced capacity in the existing airport has been found to be deficient as per the Master Plan study carried out through Technical Consultants in the year 2011. The existing airport can cater to only 4 - 5 million passengers annually. Indian Navy has sought vacation of land. The most frequented beaches are in North Goa. Travelling to such beaches requires increased consumption of fuel and emission levels. Further expansion of existing airport is not feasible. Feasibility study report was submitted by International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The State Government identified three sites. Considering the geo-locations, available land, resources, nature of the land use and proximate population it was the considered expert opinion that site at Mopa was the most suitable and conducive for development of the proposed International Terminal.

10. The expert opinions were sought from the internationally acclaimed - Amman & Whitney USA, Gresler and Associates International Ltd and others to prepare and formulate an Airport Master Plan for the proposed International Airport in Goa. The Master Plan assessed the aviation capacity, needs and potential of the State of the Goa, the topography, geology, land use, climate and natural resources available at the proposed site at Mopa. Accordingly, a comprehensive Master Plan has been formulated which includes phase wise development strategy for the proposed project. The new airport will have world class services with the least carbon footprints and pollution emission levels. It will have comprehensive Rain Water Harvesting System, Sewage Treatment Plant, product of the STP will be channelled towards development of a Greenbelt covering 33% of the site area with endemic species of trees at a density of approximately 1500 trees per hectare. It was stated that this Greenbelt will not only mitigate noise pollution generated, but will also recharge the aquifers with allied forestry benefits.

11. The ToRs had to be extended after due application of mind on account of alteration of the project from 4,500 acres to 2,271 acres. The Engineers India Limited (EIL) was appointed to prepare the EIA report and EMP. The EIL is an Expert on the subject. Field studies were carried out by EMTRC Consultants Pvt. Ltd. from October to December 2011. In the said season most appropriate data is available. The data was assessed in respect of:

Ø Air at 6 locations namely at Mopa, Sinechaadvin, Patradevi, Pernem, Nagzor and Katwal;

Ø Groundwater at 4 locations namely at Patradevi, Mopa, Pernem and Dhargal.

Ø Surface water at 3 locations namely at Tiracol, Sinechaadvin and Chopora; and,

Ø Soil quality at 5 locations namely at Mopa, Sinechaadvin, Nagzor Pernem, and Katwal.

Ø Noise at 9 locations namely at Patradevi, Mopa, Sinechaadvin, Chandel, Varconda, Nagzor Pernem, Katwal and Dhargal.

12. Govt. of Goa has also appointed M/s Pragati Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. to conduct independent field studies and collect base line data. The data was collected for 10 km radius and refers to several studies including the following:

i. Birds of Goa by Heinz Lainer & Rahul Alvares;

ii. The Goan Jungle Book by Nirmal Kulkarni;

iii. A photographic guide to Butterflies of Goa by Parag Rangnekar;

iv. Flora of Goa, Diu, Daman, Dadra and Nagarhaveli (vol-1) by R S Rao;

v. Flora of Goa, Diu, Daman, Dadra and Nagarhaveli (vol-2) by R S Rao;

vi. Red Data Book published by Botanical Survey of India; and

vii. Study materials published in Goa ENVIS Centre were also referred.

13. The proposed site is a laterite rock plateau sparsely covered by shrubs, trees and minor cultivation by the inhabitants. It is pertinent to note that the dimensions of the project were substantively altered from 4500 acres to 2271 acres after preliminary inquiry, in order to exclude vegetated, inhabited and cultivated portions of the proposed land to be acquired for the proposed project, in sight of the socio-economic needs of the residents of the locality. This area is outside the Kasturirangan Committee Report. The objections are based on conjectures and surmises. The project is of national importance.

14. Respondent no. 1, MoEF&CC in its affidavit filed on 06.04.2016 supports the impugned order and also relies upon point-wise reply of the Government of Goa in its letter dated 08.10.2015 which was considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee (Infrastructure) in its meeting on 20.10.2015. The matter was considered in 146, 151 and 152 meetings held on 24 - 26 June, 2015, 7 - 9 September and 20 October, 2015 respectively. Due procedure has been followed. The letter of Government of Goa dated 08.10.2015 which appears to be the basis of the Environmental Impact Assessment recommendations is as follows:

S. No. Queries Replies 1. The Terms of Reference have expired on 31st May 2015 after tow extensions. The Office Memoranda issued by the MoEF & CC required Terms of Reference to be valid at the time of the consideration of the proposal by the committee. Hard copy of EIA report for EC was submitted to MoEF and CC on 20.05.2015 for consideration. Based on the same the proposal was included in the agenda of EAC meeting held on 24.06.2015 and 151st meeting held on 7-9 sep 2015. 2. The baseline data is over three years old. The Office Memoranda issued by the MoEF and CC require the baseline data to be strictly less than three years old at the time of the consideration of the proposal by the Committee. Due to delay in land acquisition process and finalizing project details. EIA study was completed in the month of December 2014 with baseline data collected during October 2011 to December 2011. Simultaneously, fresh baseline data collection was also carried out during November 2014 to January 2015 by M/s Pragati Labs, Hyderabad. A comparative study has been carried out between the old and new data to study the change in values and presented in EIA Report of chapter no. 4 in various sections and the values were within the limit. 3. The EIA study and report have completely ignored the study area lying in the State of Maharashtra, which constitutes a substantial portion of the study area (about 40% of the study area is completely ignored) and includes the protected Western Ghats corridor of Sawantwadi-Dodamarg. The Study area was considered as 10km radius from the project location (section 1.4) which includes Maharashtra. The data such as environmental settings, all remote sensing maps to study land use etc are provided in the EIA report in annexure IV, IX, X, XI and XII 4. The EIA Report has missed out all the hydro-geological features of the pleateau. Not a single spring out of the scores of perennial springs emanating out of the plateau is recorded, though no visit can be made to the plateau without noticing the springs and streams' All Maps available with the project proponent like the survey maps, topographical Maps and regional plan and google earth imagery clearly show the waterways. The water recharge characteristics of the plateau surface and the groundwater aquifers underneath have also not been studied. Present Ground Water Level At Mopa Is 5-10 Mbgl (Annexure IV). To Maintain The Recharge Of Ground Water Level After Construction Of The Proposed Airport At Rain Water Harvesting System As Given In Annexure II and III Of EIA Report Will Be Developed. The runoff Inside The Airport area will be collected thro' storm water drains and will be routed to the nearest natural drainage streams. There by, there will be no impact on ground and surface water resources. Catchment mapping was done both for study area (10km radius) and within the plot area. Please refer section no. 5.3.3 of chapter 5. 5. The rich floral diversity of the plateau can be observed in the monsoon months only. The baseline data was collected in October-December period in 2011. The count of floral species in the EIA study conducted by the project proponent is therefore less than half the actual number and exclude most of the rare and endemic species that are found on the plateau, especially in the monsoon season. The EIA study also fails to consider the forest patches that exist on the plateau and lakhs of forest trees that will need to be cut for the construction of the airport. The baseline data on flora was collected during October to December 2011. The same period is considered post monsoon period. However, the TOR mentioned the baseline data collection for one season only. The floral diversity mentioned in the report covered 10 km radius from the project site. All the forest patches surrounding the sites are considered for flora and fauna study. The airport is coming on the top of the hill which is a open scrub area. Very few trees need to be cut while constructing the airport. 6. The faunal diversity of the plateau is grossly understated in the EIA report. Scores of species of mammals that are resident on the plateau and surrounding slopes have been missed out, though the plateau abounds is located adjoining the main ranges of the western Ghats and form an essential part of the Western Ghats. Recent disturbance in neighboring parts of the western Ghats due to mining, dams, plantations and real estate has increased the ecological value of this plateau multifold, which is reflected in the presence of resident herds of bison, and high densities of all other large and small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds and other faunal species of the western Ghats The faunal diversity is considered for 10 km radius from the project site. The faunal species sighted while carrying out field study are mentioned in the EIA report Species found in the literature also included in the report. As per the recent report headed by Dr. K. Kasturirangan committee, the area is not included in Ecologically Sensitive Area of Western Ghats. 7. The springs, rich soils, forests and biodiversity of the plateau are the basis of the survival and livelihoods of over 10,000 persons living in the 6 villages in which the project is proposed, and beyond. The socioeconomic aspects of the plateau, especially the sustenance and ecological services provided to tens of thousands of persons' have not been considered. The cultural and political impact on the residents' who are connected with the plateau on religious, community and economic grounds, have not been considered. Socio economic profile of villages falling in the study area in terms of Households, population, occupational structure, literacy, economic resource, health status, culture, education, festivals are described in section 3.5 of Annexure XX. 8. The EIA study has been carried out without considering the road or train connectivity. There are no roads or train links at present to the plateau and constructing these infrastructures over the steep slopes of the plateaus will be quite a challenge. The study has conveniently ignored these basic requirements, especially in view of the necessity for diversions of reserved forests, which require poor clearances under the Forest conservation Act, 1980 before Environment Clearance is granted. Similarly, the runway approach lights need to be installed in forest land requiring forest diversion, but no such need is mentioned in the EIA report. The project proponent ha thus attempted to circumvent the directions of the MoEF and CC regarding the need for prior Forest Clearance. A 4 lane approach road is proposed in development of airport from NH-17. A bridge over the konan railway line and various viaducts and other structures are also proposed which will suffice the transport requirement to Airport and Goa city and villages. The sustainability of existing traffic and transportation arrangements especially at inter-section points of the approach road to the airport has been studied and a traffic circulation plan has been evolved for smooth running of traffic in the area. The same was submitted to MoEF and CC on 06.08.2015. No reserve forest area is found within the area allocated to airport. The runway approach lights shall be installed in the both side of runway. The runway is situated in the top of the hill which is a flat terrain with scattered trees and grassland which is not a part of reserved forest area. 9. The methodology used by the consultant is highly inadequate. The consultant has not attempted to quantify the trees, other flora, fauna, water resource, agricultural lands, communities and individual persons who are dependent on the plateau. The study fails to determine the impact of the proposed airport construction on the environment, such as the number of trees that will be cut, the loss of ground water recharge, the loss of bird species and numbers, etc. The study also fails to consider the relationship between the recharge afforded by the porous surface of the plateau and the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands of persons who live in settlements below and sustain themselves with spring water, forest produce, grazing and agriculture provided by the plateau. The study therefore completely fails to assess the impact of the proposed project on the environment, economy and society. The project site is predominantly occupied by grass species with scattered shrub species. The environment management plan for the proposed project with mitigation measures is included in the EIA report. There will be no loss to the bird habitat because most of the forested area is downside of the hill. The study could not find any schedule-I bird species habitat. Hence impact will be less on the faunal diversity. There will be no impact for water recharge as explained in point no. 4 there will be no disturbance in forest and agricultural land located in surrounding of project location. 10. The Public Hearing was held in the most stifling conditions, as is evident from the video recordings of the proceedings. Scores of buses were filled up with members of the ruling political party from remote parts of the District not connected with the plateau at all, but brought only to disturb the proceedings. The locals were present in large numbers to state their grievances, but many did not speak as they were intimidated by the large number of disruptive elements and other persons brought to intimidate the stakeholders. PH was conducted as per the procedure mentioned in EIA Notification 2006 and its amendments. 11. N o intimation regarding the Public Hearing was given to the villagers living in the study area in Maharashtra State. The villagers living in 40% of the study area had not been allowed to see the EIA Report and had also not been intimated about the Public Hearing. No project affected people (PAP) falls in Maharashtra part of study area. Public Hearing was conducted as per approved Terms of Reference. 12. The EIA study fails to consider the impact of the proposed airport on the Western Ghats as a whole, especially the Northern Section, which is completely dependent on the tiger corridor along which the plateau lies. The cumulative impact of various developments such as dams, plantations, mining, etc. on this vital corridor has not been studied by the proponent. The proponent has even failed to state the existence of the tiger corridor, though the MoEF and CC Guidelines clearly require wildlife corridors to be listed. Dr. K Kasturirangan Committee submitted an extensive report on Ecologically Sensitive Areas of Western Ghats. The report is prepared after wide discussion with the stake holders, research institutions, Government officials and local NGOs. After thorough deliberations, the report was released by MoEF and CC and the proposed project is not included in the Western Ghats ESA zones. Also, there is no mention of tiger corridor in the proposed project area. The tiger habitats are far away from the project site. 13. The EIA Report has not studied the benefits or feasibility of the proposed airport, which are necessary data to carry out a cost-benefit analysis Goa's existing airport, which is ideally located to serve the entire State and has sufficient capacity (already built and operational) for decades to come at current growth rates, will continue to operate whether the Greenfields airport is constructed or not. Sustaining present growth of air traffic to the State is not possible, as the tourism industry' which is the main source of traffic to the State, has exceeded the carrying capacity of the State decades ago, as reflected in the downturn experienced in quality and quantity of tourists in recent years despite huge spending on marketing and creation of infrastructure by the Government of Goa. The Greenfield airport proposed at Mopa has negligible benefits' which pale into insignificance compared with the horrendous costs to the environment, economy and State at large. Master plan of the proposed Greenfield airport was developed considering the feasibility of the proposed airport and cost-benefit analysis of Goa's existing airport has also been carried out. The salient features of the feasibility study carried out by M/s. Louis Berger are given in chapter 2 of EIA report. Project benefits and Environmental cost benefit analysis is given chapter 8 and 9.

15. The matter has been considered by this Tribunal on several dates. Since one of the Members, who was party to hearing on several dates has retired, we have heard the matter afresh at length. We have been taken through voluminous record and the studies.

16. The point made on behalf of the appellants is that in terms of parameters laid down in EIA Notification 2006, information was required to be furnished for 15 km radius around the project site. The information furnished was misleading and incorrect in respect of environmental sensitivity. Information was required to be furnished with reference to 12 parameters. The EIA Report presents a map covering the aerial distance of 10 kms. The Environmental Clearance is thus vitiated by consideration of false and misleading information.

17. Referring to the steps in the EIA process as per 2006 notification, it was submitted that at the ‘Scoping’ stage there has to be strict scrutiny and for radius of 15 km around the project location. It has to be ensured that there are no eco-sensitive areas which will be adversely affected. For this purpose, secondary data has to be collected by the project proponent and such data has to be disclosed. In the present case, it has not been done. The EIA report presents a map covering an aerial distance of 10 km from the proposed project boundary. Presentation of false information must lead to cancellation of environmental clearance. In preparation of detailed EIA report, concealment or misleading statement is required to be checked. In the present case, there is concealment in respect of tree cover on the project site. Trees required to be felled are more than 50,000 while the disclosure by the project proponent was that the area had sparse trees. Future Apron Areas will also require felling of trees. There is reserved forest but in the EIA report of the project proponent, it is stated that there was no reserved forest. Survey of India Toposheet No. D43B13 ‘Open Series Map’ shows that there are 14 reserved forests. There are water bodies even as per EIA report but EIA consultants have ignored the presence of 44 perennial spring trees. Contour map showing the slopes and drainage of the study site has not been submitted. Samples have been undertaken in casual manner through random walks and opportunistic observations. Flora and faunal elements are not separately shown, information in the EIA report is contradicted by the independent studies on the subjects of endangered species, wild species and birds. Impact of the project on the people has not been accurately reflected. The agriculture activity has not been fully disclosed. There is no Cumulative Impact Study in the EIA report. Alternatives to the project site have not been explored. Points emerging during the public hearing has been misunderstood and not given due consideration. It is wrongly projected that major issues relate to employment opportunities. The major issues were with regard to the environment such as buffer zones, impact on plantations and agriculture, rain water harvesting, water bodies, wildlife and bio-diversity.

18. It is submitted that public consultation process was in violation of norms of full participation of public with fair consideration of their view point. The appraisal by the Committee has not been there. The same has to be done in a transparent manner after detailed scrutiny of public consultation process. The same is not consisted with the ‘Public Trust Doctrine’ principle requiring protection of the ecology and the non-renewable natural resources.

19. Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, learned ASG appearing for the MoEF&CC, submitted that the site selection of the area involves a policy decision which must be left to the bonafide decision of the administration. The appellants' society has no link with the allegedly affected people of the area. MoEF&CC has duly considered the socio-economic and environmental issues. The affected 15 habitants are duly rehabilitated. While considering the challenge to the acquisition of land, the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 227 of 2013, Shri Hanuman Laxman Aroskar and 7 Others v. State of Goa, vide order dated 5 December, 2013 have found the requirement for second airport to be genuine. The site is not in the eco-sensitive area. He submitted that none of the reserve forest in Sawantwadi Forest Division, Maharashtra fall within 15 km radius of Mopa Airport in Maharashtra region and no felling of trees is involved. There is no declared Sawantwadi-Dodamarg Tiger Corridor as claimed. There is no violation of Terms of Reference (TORs) of the project. Validity of the TORs was duly extended. Public hearing was duly conducted. Forest Clearance has been duly taken. Out of 2271 Acres only 0.25 acres [i.e. 1133 sq. mts] is a notified government forest for which the project proponent has already applied for Forest Clearance under the Forest Conservation Act 1980 and has already obtained Stage-I clearance in respect of the same. 24,000 sq. mts is identified as private forests by the Forest Committee(s). However, the same has not been notified. Entire hydrology linked argument of the appellants is based and founded on the Report of ACWADAM which was not placed before the EAC. EIA is by a recognized expert in the area accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Education and Training (NABET). EMTRC collected the base line data according to the parameters set out in the Terms of Reference. Report relied upon to the effect that rare flower ‘Dipcadi concanense’ is found at the site of the proposed project, prima facie, appears to be a recent document tailor-made. Public hearing was done as per laid down procedure of screening, scoping and public consultation. The project is essential in public interest and meets the test of sustainable development. An amount of Rs. 96.47 crores has already been spent. Land has already been acquired. Major steps have been taken and the project is now listed in the key infrastructural projects. At the end of the arguments, the focus of the appellants grievance is that the site area covered is radius of 10km raised to 15 kms and that there is a gap in the data in studies relied upon by the appellant on the one hand and data projected before the Environmental Appraisal Committee (EAC). If the data presented by the appellants is taken into account, the project was not viable on the anvil of sustainable development principle. There will be huge impact on the inhabitants, on the wildlife, on plants and vegetations which can be avoided by shifting to more suitable site.

20. We have given due consideration to the rival submissions.

21. Before we consider the core factual issues, we may observe that in our jurisprudence the protection of environment is fully ingrained. It is not only part of Directive Principles under Article 48A and Fundamental Duties under Article 51A(g) but also inherent in the Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Principles of Sustainable Development, Precautionary Principle, and Intergenerational Equity are parts of our jurisprudence. Needs for development have to be fulfilled consistent with these principles. There can be no development at the cost of environment. Sparse and non-renewable natural resources have to be protected. The State has to act as trustee for such protection. Section 16(h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 confers appellate jurisdiction on this Tribunal against grant of environmental clearance. The appellate power is coextensive with the power of the original authority. The appellate authority can set aside, affirm or vary an order under appeal.

22. Having said that, we may also observe that the basic need of the present generation cannot be all together ignored, consistent with the concern for the environment protection. A public project meant for betterment of the living conditions of the people, can be set at naught only on the ground of clear threat to or degradation of environment. These principles are now well settled in judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P (2006) 3 SCC 549, Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd (2006) 3 SCC 434, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118, Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Assn. v. Noyyal River Ayacutdar Protection Assn (2009) 9 SCC 737, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 606, Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India

23. It will be appropriate to refer to some of the observations in the said Judgments, which are quoted in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G Sundarrajan v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620:

“238.……Promotion of development and protection of environment are to be harmonized at the same time:

238.1. In Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P., it has been held that merely asserting an intention for development will not be enough to sanction the destruction of local ecological resources. What is required to be prescribed is the principle of sustainable development and find a balance between the developmental needs and the environmental degradation.

238.2. In Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. (3) v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, while dealing with the concept of sustainable development and planned development vis-à-vis Article 21 of the Constitution, a two-Judge bench has opined thus: (SCC p. 521)

“251. It is often felt that in the process of encouraging development the environment gets sidelined. However, with major threats to the environment, such as climate change, depletion of natural resources, the eutrophication of waste systems and biodiversity and global warming, the need to protect the environment has become a priority. At the same time, it is also necessary to promote development. The harmonization of the two needs has led to the concept of sustainable development, so much so that it has become the most significant and focal point of environmental legislation and judicial decisions relating to the same. Sustainable development, simply put, is a process in which development can be sustained over generations. Brundtland Report defines ‘sustainable development’ as development that meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of he future generations to meet their own needs. Making the concept of sustainable development operational for public policies raises important challenges that involve complex synergies and trade offs.”

238.3. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, while stating about sustainable development and the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generation to meet their own needs, this Court has expressed thus: (SCC pp. 166-67, para 46)

“46. … The definition of ‘sustainable development’ which Brundtland gave more than 3 decades back still holds good. The phrase covers the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generation to meet their own needs. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v.Union of India this Court observed that sustainable development means the type or extent of development that can take place and which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation. In these matters, the required standards now is that the risk of harm to the environment or to human health is to be decided in public interest, according to a ‘reasonable person's’ test. [See Chairman Barton: The Status of the Precautionary Principle in Australia (Vol. 22, 1998, Harv. Envtt. Law Review, p. 509 at p. 549-A) as referred to in para 28 in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu.”

238.4. In Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Assn. v. Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Assn., while dealing with the concept of sustainable development, the Court has observed as under (SCC p. 747, para 26).

“26. The concept of ‘sustainable development’ has been explained that it covers the development that meets the needs. It means the development, that can take place and which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation. Therefore, in such matters, the required standard is that the risk of harm to the environment or to human health is to be decided in public interest according to a ‘reasonable person's’ test. The development of the industries, irrigation resources and power projects are necessary to improve employment opportunities and generation of revenue, therefore, cannot be ignored. In such eventuality, a balance has to be struck for the reason that if the activity is allowed to go on, there may be irreparable damage to the environment and thee may be irreparable damage to the economic interest. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (104) v. Union of India and M.C. Mehta v.Union of India.

238.5. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, this Court observed that: (SCC p. 628, para 35)

“35. It cannot be disputed that no development is possible without some adverse effect on the ecology and environment, and the projects of public utility cannot be abandoned and it is necessary to adjust the interest of the people as well as the necessity to maintain the environment. A balance has to be struck between the two interests. Where the commercial venture or enterprise would bring in results which are far more useful for the people, difficulty of a small number of people has to be bypassed. The comparative hardships have to be balanced and the convenience and benefit to a larger section of the people has to get primacy over comparatively lesser hardship.”

238.6. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v.Union of India, a three Judge bench, while dealing with the public projects and policies, has opined that the court does not become the approving authority of such policies. Thereafter, the Bench observed thus: (SCC p. 763, para 234)

“234. …. Normally such decisions are taken by the Government after due care and consideration. In a democracy welfare of the people at large, and no merely of a small section of the society, has to be the concern of a responsible Government.”

239. I have referred to the aforesaid pronouncements only to highlight that this Court has emphasized on striking a balance between the ecology and environment on one hand and the projects of public utility on the other. The trend of authorities is that a delicate balance has to be struck between the ecological impact and development.”

24. Reference may also be made to Lafarge Umiam Pvt v. Union of India(2011) 7 SCC 338, laying down as follows:

“139…-In that view of the matter when a particular policy decision was taken to develop a particular project supported by extensive research and study by the experts in the field who prepared the project report relying upon the three successive master plans of the city of Jaipur and the global tender was floated for development of land for tourism adjoining the lake area, entertaining PIL petition on the ground that the area in question is a wetland without substantiating the same in any manner i.e. neither from the revenue record nor any other material, the perception of PIL petitioners without factual basis cannot be allowed to prevail over the decision of the entire groups of experts which was finally accepted by the State Government through the project development report of a State agency which got the detailed project report (DPR) prepared and nothing could be brought to the notice of the court that DPR was not fit to be relied upon or that it was prepared in a clandestine manner. In our considered view unless the detailed project report. Master plan of Jaipur, revenue record indicating the nature of land that the Project was fraught with risk of environmental degradation which could establish with facts and figures that the decision is not in public interest, interference by the Court adopting an overall view smelling foul play at every level of administration is bound to make the governance an impossibility. Therefore, the courts although would be justified in questioning a particular decision if illegality or arbitrariness is writ large on a particular venture, excessive proble or restraint on the activity of a State is bound to derail execution of an administrative decision even though the same might be in pursuance of the policy decision supported by other cogent materials like survey and search by a reliable expert agency of a State after which the state project or private and public partnership project is sought to be given effect to.”

25. In Jal Mahal Resorts (P) Ltd v. P.K. Sharma (2014) 8 SCC 804, it was observed:

75. Universal human dependence on the use of environmental resources for the most basic needs renders it impossible to refrain from altering the environment. As a result, environmental conflicts are ineradicable and environmental protection is always a matter of degree, inescapably requiring choices as to the appropriate level of environmental protection and the risks which are to be regulated. This aspect is recognized by the concept of “sustainable development”. It is equally well settled by the decision of this Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India that the environment has different facets and care of the environment is an ongoing process. These concepts rule out the formulation of an across-the-board principle as it would depend on the facts of each case whether diversion in a given case should be permitted or not, barring “no go” areas (whose identification would again depend on undertaking of a due diligence exercise). In such cases, the margin of appreciation doctrine would apply.”

26. Coming to the facts of the present case, we note that while considering the challenge to the validity of acquisition of land to the project in question, the Division Bench of Bombay vide Judgment dated 5 December, 2013 in W.P No. 227 of 2013 observed as follows:

“It is to be noted that the project has been approved by an International Civil Aviation Organizations. It is also included in the Master Plan to build the airport. The Central Government has also approved the said project. The Division Bench of this Court while delivering the judgment has considered the said report which has taken into consideration the expansion of the airport at Dabolim, the passenger inflow, the capacity to handle the passengers and after considering all these aspects, has found the second airport at Mopa to be necessary. In any case, the requirement to have a second airport, the suitability of the land, the area to be needed for the construction of the airport, are all subjects within the domain of experts. When a body of experts after considering all these aspects, has found the second airport to be necessary and the proposed land to be suitable for the construction, it is not permissible for this Court while sitting in its jurisdiction under Article 226, to sit in an appeal over the decisions of the experts. In that view of the matter, we find that the objections have been correctly considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. 13. In so far as the impact of the environmental aspects are concerned the said issue has also been considered by the Division Bench in its earlier judgment and, as such, the petitioners could not have been permitted to again reopen the said issues.

14. In so far as the socioeconomic impact is concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer has found that there are only 14 dwelling houses during his site inspection and has also found that the land acquired is mostly having scattered cashew and jungle trees rocky area and few rice cultivation area. In that view of the matter, the authority has also taken into consideration the socioeconomic impact of the project. In any case, the question regarding socioeconomic impact has already taken care of by the State Government.”

27. We find that the Expert Appraisal Committee had before it point wise reply of the project proponent which we have already quoted above. Therein delay in land acquisition process and collection of fresh baseline data are mentioned. It is also mentioned that data for Maharashtra was also considered. Other issues duly explained are hydro-geological features and data with regard to flora and fauna, socio-economic profile, topography, vegetation, observance of due procedure in public hearing, relevance of study with regard to eco-sensitive areas of Western Ghats, feasibility of proposed airport in terms of cost benefit analysis as well as environmental cost benefit analysis. EAC also considered the data compiled by various offices. Mere fact that different opinions have been expressed by other experts is not enough to hold that EAC did not apply its mind. The rehabilitation programme was also produced before the EAC.

28. As regards the requirement of study of 15km radius instead of 10 km, it was explained that as per column 9(III) of Form I of EIA Notification, 2006, requirement of 15 km distance is only with regard to secondary data for parameters as specifically mentioned at the said column. The same has been done as shown at page 8 of the EIA Study.

29. We are, thus of the view that it is not a case where the project compromises with the environment, as claimed by the appellants.

30. At the same time further safeguards for environment protection need to be incorporated.

31. We affirm the impugned order, subject to the following conditions:

A. Air Environment

1. Total Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM), Respirable Particulate Matter (RPM) during construction phase and un-burnt and Hydro Carbons (HC), Lead (Pb), CO2, SO2, CO2, 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 week 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 so as to capture all the excess drainage for water re-charge.

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.

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 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.

32. The above requirements will be treated as additional conditions of Environmental Clearance.

In terms of the above order, both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.