KHIMJIBHAI LAKHABAI BARAIYA vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS País/Territorio India Tipo de la corte Nacional - corte superior Fecha Sep 9, 2011 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal Supreme Court of India Juez RADHAKRISHNAN, K.S.KUMAR, S. Idioma Inglés Materia Agua, Medio ambiente gen., Tierra y suelos Palabra clave Zonas húmedas Manejo de tierras Resumen The Supreme Court ordered detergent company Nirma to file its reply to the show cause notice issued by the Union ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) within three months. MoEF had issued the notice in May, asking the company to explain within two weeks why the environmental clearance granted to its cement plant in Gujarat should not be revoked. The site is believed to be on wetlands. The notice was issued after a report by a Supreme Court-constituted committee classified the project site in the states Bhavnagar district as a wetland and recommended relocation. The apex court order came while it was hearing a petition filed last year by Khimjibhai Lakhabai Baraiya, a Bhavnagar resident, on behalf of the local community. They say the plant will affect the wetland. During the hearing, the court also put MoEF on the spot saying it had learnt nothing from the judgement on Lafarge cement plant in Meghalaya in July. As per the Lafarge judgment by the apex court, experts nominated only by MoEF can give opinions on matters related to environmental clearances. The reprimand came in the wake of a letter written by MoEF to Nirma on August 25, in which it agreed to the companys request to undertake a three-month study of the flora and fauna of the project site. Nirma contends there is no information available on the flora and fauna of the sitea subject studied in the committee report. MoEF had also asked Nirma to ascertain “whether the site is a wetland or a water body". Finding no reason for MoEF to get into the question of flora and fauna, the court asked the ministry to file an affidavit explaining why it allowed Nirma to conduct its own study. The court said there is no question of examining whether the site is part of wetland or water body. The crucial point, the court said, is whether the land is on wasteland as Nirma had claimed while obtaining the environmental clearance in 2008. If the location consists of water bodies then the projects clearance will have to be revoked, the court said. Texto completo COU-159195.pdf