1811-1812 OF 2015 M/s IL&FS
Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited…
Appellant Versus T. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 23.05.2012 in Appeal
No 17/2011 and judgment and order dated 10.11.2014 in Appeal No 50/2012 passed by the National Green Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NGT’), M/s IL&FS
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited has preferred the present appeals. The appellant submitted Form I under EIA Notification, 2006 to obtain Terms of Reference for the EIA study on 5.2.2008. 2 Vide order dated 23.05.2012 in Appeal No 17/2011, the NGT upheld the validity of the EC but directed the MoEF to review the EC based on the cumulative impact assessment study and stipulate any additional conditions, if required and directed that till then the EC shall remain suspended.
That thereafter, on 14.08.2012, MoEF based on the recommendations of the EAC, issued a corrigendum to the EC imposing additional conditions to the EC. By an interim order dated 10.02.2015, this Court stayed the impugned order dated 10.11.2014 passed in Appeal No 50/2012, which has been continued till date.
The power plant is situated in an energy deficient State (Tamil Nadu), and closing the plant would adversely affect power section of the State; (ii) Plant running in compliance with EC and Corrigendum: That the plant is in compliance with clearance conditions, and six-monthly reports being submitted to Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, latest report of April-September; (iii) Plant uses imported coal with low sulphur and uses FGD system: That Appellant uses imported coal from Indonesia for its thermal power plant, which already has low sulphur content. All over India only 20 power plants have FDGs, of which two units are the Appellant’s power plant; (iv) Appellant part of IL&FS Group and value to be maximized: That ITPCL/ Appellant is a group company of IL&FS which is under control of Govt.
3 It is further submitted that taking into consideration the additional conditions imposed vide corrigendum dated 14.08.2012, the appellant- company had installed FGD system at a cost of Rs.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has also made an elaborate submission on the maintainability of Appeal No 50/2012 before the NGT, filed by the original petitioners against the corrigendum dated 14.08.2012 issued by the MoEF.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
He has stated at the Bar that by and large all the conditions of the original EC as well as corrigendum to the EC have been complied with by the appellant/project proponent and few conditions are under continuous compliance. Therefore, he has submitted that if this Court is inclined to permit the appellant to continue with the power plants in the public interest, in that case, the appellant may be directed to comply with all the conditions imposed while issuing EC as well as additional conditions imposed while issuing corrigendum dated 14.08.2012.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the MoEF and original petitioners and the facts narrated hereinabove, it is to be noted that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the appellant has commenced two power plants in Phase- I, which are in operation since September, 2015. From the compliance report dated 20.09.2022 (latest compliance report) and the response of the project proponent, it appears that by and large there is a substantial compliance of the conditions imposed while issuing EC as well as the additional conditions imposed vide corrigendum to the EC dated 14.08.2012. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and subject to compliance of the conditions imposed while issuing EC and the additional conditions imposed vide corrigendum to the EC dated 14.08.2012 and subject to the conditions/additional conditions which are partly complied with, to be complied with within the time suggested in the response of the appellant/project proponent, reproduced hereinabove and keeping the larger question of law, namely, “whether for the project like this, a cumulative impact assessment study is required or not”, open and to be decided in an appropriate case, we dispose of the present appeals by permitting/allowing the appellant/project proponent to continue with the power plants which are in operation since September, 2015 and April, 2016 on the conditions as above, i.e., subject to compliance of all the conditions mentioned in the EC as well as additional conditions imposed vide corrigendum to the EC dated 14.08.2012 and to fully comply with the conditions which are 18 partly complied with within the stipulated time as suggested and prayed by the appellant company, prayed in response to the compliance report dated 20.09.2022, reproduced hereinabove.
Case Title: M/S IL AND FS TAMIL NADU POWER COMPANY LIMITED Vs. T. MURUGANANDAM . (2023 INSC 136)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001811-001812 / 2015
