Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Him Privesh Environment Protection Society and others vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others .

Country/Territory
India
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
May 4, 2012
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Judge
Karol, S.
Gupta, D.
Language
English
Subject
Energy, Environment gen., Legal questions
Keyword
Environmental security Energy conservation/energy production
Abstract
The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed environmental clearance to its 25 MW thermal plant and imposed a penalty of Rs 100 crore for obtaining clearance for the cement plant by indulging in blatant “fraud and falsehood”. It also ordered dismantling of the thermal plant in Bagheri (Nalagarh) within three months while observing that “the time has come to deal sternly with the people who have no respect for law”. In one of the petitions filed by Him Privesh Environment Protection Society, it was alleged that the cement plant had been set up in gross violation of environment laws, especially the Environment Impact Assessment Notifications of 1994 and 2006. Also, no proper public hearing was conducted and village land had been wrongly transferred by the State in favour of the JAL. The project comprised a cement grinding and blending plant of 1.75 million tonne capacity for which the Pollution Control Board granted “Consent to Operate”. The JAL gave an impression that the cost of the plant was less than Rs 100 crore and, therefore, no environment clearance was required. The petitioner alleged that the cost was more than Rs 100 crore and the company purposely understated it to circumvent the EIA notification (1994). It pointed out that in the project report, the cost of the entire project was projected at Rs 450 crore. Out of this, only Rs 90 crore was the cost of the thermal plant. Hence, the cost of the cement plant was over Rs 350 crore. observed that the entire foundation of the environmental clearance was based on falsehood. The company lied about the cost of the cement plant. Besides, when it came to the thermal plant, it got permission without EIA clearance. Even after it was brought to its notice that the EIA clearance was required, the construction continued. It managed to “fool the government, the board, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests and the Expert Appraisal Committee” into believing that it was a standalone grinding unit not requiring environmental clearance.
Full text
COU-159224.pdf