The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has asked the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to initiate action against the members of the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) - Kerala for issuing environment clearance to a multi-crore realty project in Kozhikode district in violation of norms under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification of 2006.
The Southern Bench of the tribunal comprising Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, and expert member Satyagopal Korlapati has set aside the environment clearance granted on March 12, 2020 by the SEIAA to the Landmark Trade Centre project of Calicut Landmark Builders & Developers (India) Pvt Ltd at Pantheerankavu village.
The Bench has directed the SEIAA to stop the project with immediate effect. The project proponent has been told to submit an application within two months, which shall be examined by the SEIAA or the ministry, as the case may be, on merits and as per rules in force.
The Kerala State Pollution Control Board has been told to impose environmental compensation on the builder within three months after assessing the damage that might have been caused to the environment due to the construction. The environment compensation shall be utilised for restoration of wetlands and removal of water hyacinths from major waterways and waterbodies in the State, according to the order issued by the tribunal on September 11.
The Bench has asked the Secretary of the ministry to initiate action after due inquiry against all members of SEIAA, who were party to the decision for the gross violations of norms. If these members are still part of the authority, all the proposals for prior environmental clearance may be referred to a new set of members pending enquiry, it said.
The tribunal stated that the SEIAA had decided to issue the environmental clearance after considering the project as an expansion project and without any appraisal by the State Environmental Appraisal Committee. About 90% of the project was completed on the date of issue of environmental clearance, defeating the requirement of prior environmental clearance.
In its response, the project proponent had stated before the tribunal that the Supreme Court had held that environmental clearance is not required for a township project, if the threshold limit is not met as in the Noida Park case.
