# HANUMAN LAXMAN AROOSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1030
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-01-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 12251 of 2018
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hanuman-laxman-arooskar-v-union-of-india-ors-34417
- **Pages:** 61

## Headnote

Environment - Environmental clearance for a greenfield
airport - The Union of India sought a direction that the minutes of
the fortieth meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) dated
23.4.2019 be taken on the record so that the embargo imposed by
the Supreme Court on the Environmental clearance (EC) for a
greenfield airport at Mopa Goa can be lifted - Earlier, the Supreme
Court in its judgment reported as Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union
of India (2019 SCC Online 441) held that the process leading up to
the grant of an Environmental clearance on 28.10.2015 was flawed
- Held: On reading of the process leading upto the instant proceedings,
it cannot be said that EAC has, it its appraisal process, ignored the
concerns which were highlighted by the Supreme Court - The EAC
has adequately addressed four areas i.e. (i) Forests; (ii) Ecologically
sensitive areas; (iii) Western Ghats and (iv) Flora & Fauna and has
laid down additional conditions to ensure the adequate protection
of the environment - A comprehensive process has been followed by
the EAC bearing in mind the requirements of the Airport Guidance
Manual - 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 were attached to the
Court conducting a merits based review - Earlier, the Court did not
quash the EC but suspended it until the EAC revisited its
recommendations in the light of the concerns which were expressed
by the Supreme Court - Having assessed the process which took
place following the judgment of the Supreme Court and outcome, it
would be difficult to hold that it fails to meet the standards which
the Court applies in the course of judicial review in the environmental
matters - The minutes of the meeting of the EAC dated 23.4.2019
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1031
are taken on record - The additional conditions which have been
imposed by the EAC shall, together with the original conditions of
the EC dated 28.10.2015 and the directions issued by the NGT be
cumulatively observed - Also in the earlier judgment, the Supreme
Court noted abject failure of the project proponent to provide
complete information on the existence of reserved forests - In the
proceedings that followed the judgment, the project proponent sought
to remedy its failure by taking into account additional information
on the significant aspects of the environment - In the process leading
to the grant of the EC as well as the Registry of its suspension by
the Supreme Court, numerous mitigatory conditions have been
imposed on the project proponent - To ensure the oversight of the
project by a specialized body to ensure compliance with the
directions cumulatively issued by the Court, the National
Environmental Engineering Research Institute to be appointed to
oversee compliance with directions cumulatively issued by the
Supreme Court - The suspension on the EC accordingly, stand lifted.
Disposing of the Miscellaneous Application, the Court
HELD: 1. 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 the terrestrial eco-systems.

## Text

_Characters 0–38,758 of 116,219. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=38758 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1030
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
 [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1030
1030
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROOSKAR
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
M.A. No.965 of 2019 IN
(Civil Appeal No. 12251 of 2018)
JANUARY 16, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Environment - Environmental clearance for a greenfield
airport - The Union of India sought a direction that the minutes of
the fortieth meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) dated
23.4.2019 be taken on the record so that the embargo imposed by
the Supreme Court on the Environmental clearance (EC) for a
greenfield airport at Mopa Goa can be lifted - Earlier, the Supreme
Court in its judgment reported as Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union
of India (2019 SCC Online 441) held that the process leading up to
the grant of an Environmental clearance on 28.10.2015 was flawed
- Held: On reading of the process leading upto the instant proceedings,
it cannot be said that EAC has, it its appraisal process, ignored the
concerns which were highlighted by the Supreme Court - The EAC
has adequately addressed four areas i.e. (i) Forests; (ii) Ecologically
sensitive areas; (iii) Western Ghats and (iv) Flora & Fauna and has
laid down additional conditions to ensure the adequate protection
of the environment - A comprehensive process has been followed by
the EAC bearing in mind the requirements of the Airport Guidance
Manual - 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 were attached to the
Court conducting a merits based review - Earlier, the Court did not
quash the EC but suspended it until the EAC revisited its
recommendations in the light of the concerns which were expressed
by the Supreme Court - Having assessed the process which took
place following the judgment of the Supreme Court and outcome, it
would be difficult to hold that it fails to meet the standards which
the Court applies in the course of judicial review in the environmental
matters - The minutes of the meeting of the EAC dated 23.4.2019
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1031
are taken on record - The additional conditions which have been
imposed by the EAC shall, together with the original conditions of
the EC dated 28.10.2015 and the directions issued by the NGT be
cumulatively observed - Also in the earlier judgment, the Supreme
Court noted abject failure of the project proponent to provide
complete information on the existence of reserved forests - In the
proceedings that followed the judgment, the project proponent sought
to remedy its failure by taking into account additional information
on the significant aspects of the environment - In the process leading
to the grant of the EC as well as the Registry of its suspension by
the Supreme Court, numerous mitigatory conditions have been
imposed on the project proponent - To ensure the oversight of the
project by a specialized body to ensure compliance with the
directions cumulatively issued by the Court, the National
Environmental Engineering Research Institute to be appointed to
oversee compliance with directions cumulatively issued by the
Supreme Court - The suspension on the EC accordingly, stand lifted.
Disposing of the Miscellaneous Application, the Court
HELD: 1. 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 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, this Court has traced the process as
it evolved before the EAC following the earlier directions of this
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1032
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
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. The appellant focused 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. [Para 42][1069-G-H; 1070-A-D]
2. 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. 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. [Para 44]
[1072-C-F]
3. 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. The Appellant has attempted to perform such
an exercise when it was submitted that the collection of primary
faunal data from a nearby village and secondary data from ZSI
sources was not an adequate means of dealing with the concerns
expressed by this Court. In assessing these criticisms, this Court
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1033
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 until 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. [Para 45][1073-B-F]
4. 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. [Para 46][1073-G]
5. 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. This Court directs
the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute 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. [Para 48]
[1090-A-D]
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1034
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited v. Union of India
(2011) 7 SCC 338 : [2011] 7 SCR 954 - relied on.
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019)
SCCOnline SC 441 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 7 SCR 954
relied on
Para 44
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application
No. 965 of 2019. In Civil Appeal No. 12251 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2018 of the National
Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Appeal No. 6 of 2018
(earlier Appeal No. 1 of 2016/WZ)
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Ritwick
Dutta, Ms. Kanika Sood, Sanjana Thomas, Ms. Ayushana Awasthi,
Shankar Narayanan, Advs. for the Appellant.
K.K. Venugopal, AG, ANS Nadkarni, ASG, Parag P Tripathi,
Sr. Adv., Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, Akhil Abaraham Roy,
Vijay Valson, Ms. Suhasini Sen, S.B. Narayan, S.S. Rebello, Arzu Paul,
Neeleshwar Pavani, Shivika Agarwal, Niraj Kumar, Ms. Priya Soni,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, M.S. Ananth, Mahesh Agarwal, Yojit Mehra,
Srinivasan Ramaswamy, Ms. Aashna Agarwal, E. C. Agrawala, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
D.2
Conflict of interest
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1035
D.3
Western Ghats and ESAs
D.4
Forestland and flora and fauna
E.
Directions
A. Introduction
1. The Union of India in the Ministry of Environment, Forests and
Climate Change1 moved these proceedings, seeking a direction that the
Minutes of the fortieth meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee2 dated
23 April 2019 be taken on the record so that the embargo imposed by
this Court on the Environmental Clearance3 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 Tribunal4 upholding the EC, subject to
compliance with certain conditions. By the judgment of this Court, reported
as Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v Union of India5, 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 systems
1 MoEF-CC
2 EAC
3 EC
4 NGT
5 (2019) SCCOnline SC 441
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1036
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
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 constructionof the
airportto proceed additional conditionsto adequatelyprotect
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.
2. The basis of the directions that were issued by this Court
wasformulated in the penultimate paragraphof 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1037
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 preservethe biodiversity of the Western
Ghats. These concerns have been the subject of a seminal exercise
carried out in 2013 by a High Level Working Group6 on the Western
Ghats chaired by Dr K Kasturirangan7. The report of the HLWG has
been dwelt upon in the earlier 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
6 HLWG
7 Kasturirangan Committee report
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1038
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
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 EcologicallySensitive Areas8 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.
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 inNational Wetland Atlas of Goa.
8 ESA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1039
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 kmsof the proposed airport and within the territories
of the States of Goa and Maharashtra. The forested areas were found
to be situated in three talukasin the State of Goa (Bicholim, Pernem and
Bardez)and in three talukas in the State of Maharashtra (Sawantwadi,
Dodamarg and Vengurla). In Pernem 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 Assessment9, 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
9 EIA
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1040
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
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."
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 ESAin 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 India10. 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1041
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
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1042
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
- 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 tothe 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 metres above Mean Sea Level11 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
11 MSL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1043
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 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:
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1044
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
"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.
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1045
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 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.
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1046
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
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.
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1047
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.
Thepurpose 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 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
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1048
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
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 3rd
Party certification
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.