CoP directed to justify NOC; given 8 weeks to file comprehensive reply despite work completion
MAPUSA
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) on Tuesday declined to dispose of a petition challenging maintenance dredging at the mouth of the Chapora river, despite being informed that the work had already been completed.
Instead, the green court directed the Captain of Ports (CoP) and other respondents to file a comprehensive report on the No Objection Certificate (NOC) and clearance granted for the project.
During the hearing, the tribunal observed that the completion of the dredging work, as stated by the CoP, indicated a possible violation of conditions suggesting that environmental damage compensation could be claimed from the authority.
The NGT granted the CoP eight weeks to file a detailed response instead of four weeks sought by the counsel for the department.
In an affidavit, Captain of Ports Octavio Rodrigues stated that he had received the NGT memo only on February 16, a day before the scheduled hearing on February 17, and therefore sought time to file a comprehensive reply.
Rodrigues submitted that Chapora was declared a non-minor port in 1967 and that the navigational channel at the river mouth has been periodically dredged to ensure safe navigation and maintain adequate draft for fishing vessels.
He maintained that the dredging in question was not a new activity but part of routine maintenance essential for maritime safety and continuity of fishing operations.
“In view of safety concerns arising from sedimentation and the formation of sandbars at the mouth of the Chapora river, there was an urgent and compelling need to undertake maintenance dredging to
restore navigability and prevent further accidents,” the affidavit stated.
The CoP said the work was undertaken pursuant to Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance and in accordance with the NOC granted by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA).
A contractor was appointed to execute the dredging, and in a letter dated February 12 informed the department that the work had been duly completed.
Rodrigues further clarified that the works were strictly limited to maintenance dredging within approved parameters and did not involve any expansion or alteration of the existing navigational alignment.
The petition was filed by local resident Sagardeep Sirsaikar, who challenged the NOC and clearance on the grounds that the dredging threatened protected turtle nesting sites and was approved without conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
The petitioner contended that the work was undertaken during the turtle nesting season and could adversely impact the beaches.
The Forest Department, in a prior communication, had expressed apprehension that dredging could affect the stability of Morjim and Mandrem beaches and recommended that an EIA be conducted before proceeding with the activity.
While the CoP appears to have expected the matter to become infructuous following completion of the work, the tribunal’s direction for a detailed report and its remarks on possible violations signal that the issue remains very much under judicial scrutiny.
