PANAJI
“More of an irregularity, less of a fraud,” is what the National Green Tribunal said as it decreed that the environmental clearance granted to the Leading Hotels for the golf course project is to be kept in abeyance while the process is done again this time through proper procedure.
“This may not be strictly falling under the category of fraud but is on the wafer thin edge of fraud and irregularity, but more inclined towards the irregularity,” the NGT observed in response to allegations by the Goa Foundation that procedure was deliberately bypassed amounting to fraud.
“The project in question is not a prohibited project but a permissible regulated activity. The project activity can be carried out with necessary environmental clearance and the CRZ clearance,” the NGT ruled.
According to the Goa Foundation the appropriate procedure to grant clearance for the project is for the full body of the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) which is a recommendatory body to the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to recommend a project to the SEIAA which then will grant the environmental clearance.
In the case of the golf course, however, the SEAC considered the project proposal on February 4, 2013 and March 8, 2013, but didn’t recommend the project on those two dates. Instead certain technical queries were raised and SEAC recorded that the appropriate authority for grant of EC could be Ministry of Environment and Forest.
The SEAC raised total nine queries on the project proposal which were subsequently responded to by the project proponent but the SEAC did not separately meet to discuss the responses and approve the project.
Only Chairman and Member Secretary of the SEAC have signed the recommendatory note dated April 10, 2013 for consideration of SEIAA, without the approval of the SEAC through a properly conducted meeting.
The Goa Foundation alleged that this was a conspiracy on the part of Member Secretary and Chairman SEAC to recommend such project to SEIAA through a note when they were not authorized to do so and that the EC has been granted without proper scrutiny and appraisal by SEAC.
In Defence of the SEAC and SEIAA, additional advocate general Lawande appearing for government authorities elaborately argued on provisions of EC Regulations and procedure to appraise certain projects submitting that while it is mandatory for SEIAA to hold the ‘meeting’ for appraising the project but such meeting of SEAC is not mandatory.
“Once the Chairman signs the documents, the records are final and the same has been done in public interest and performance of public duty,” he argued.
However the NGT ruled in favour of the Goa Foundation.
“The SEAC is expected to appraise the projects with the multi-disciplinary expertise available with it. It will not be out of context to note that unless the EC proposals are collectively appraised by multi-disciplinary expertise available with the SEAC, the appraisal process cannot be considered as complete,” the NGT ruled.
“The Goa-SEAC shall appraise the project by considering all the material on record within next four weeks and send its recommendations to SEIAA who shall further appraise the project for a decision on grant of EC within four weeks from the date of receipt of recommendations of SEAC.
“We do not have any hesitation to hold that all the decisions of the SEAC need to be taken in a meeting as per procedure prescribed in the rules,” the NGT further said ruling that the EC is kept in abeyance for next 4 months.
