Shri Prafulla Samantra vs. Ministry of Environment and Forests and ors. País/Territorio India Tipo de la corte Otros Fecha Sep 15, 2010 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal National Environment Appellate Authority Sede de la corte New Delhi Juez Kala, C. Idioma Inglés Materia Recursos minerales Palabra clave Minería Participación pública Resumen The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) granted Environment Clearance for mining in the Niyamgiri Hills on 28 April 2009. The Mining lease is in favour of Orissa Mining Corporation but it is meant for supply of bauxite to the Alumina Refinery Plant at Lanjigarh of Vedanta Alumina Ltd. and later on to the Smelter plant at Jarsuguda, also of Vedanta. After the grant of Environment Clearance on 28 April 2009, the local Tribals and other concerned persons including the Dongaria Kondhs challenged the project before the National Environment Appellate Authority Under the provisions of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997. There were two EIA Reports for the Mining project: one prepared in 2002 by TATA AIG Group and the next prepared by VIMTA LABS in 2005. The second EIA report of 2005 does not mention the existence of the earlier EIA report of 2002. The Ministry of Environment and Forests in it Affidavit before the National Environment Appellate Authority has clearly stated that it is not aware of the 2002 EIA Report prepared by TATA AIG Group. It is noted that Tata AIG report was the document before the public to react to and raise their concerns. Vimta Lab report was not in the picture. Both the Appellants and the Respondents made their pleas in respect of the material difference the two reports would have caused in the outcome of Public Hearing and in turn in the EC. The authority also went through the minutes of two public hearings and also perused the minutes of 25th EAC meeting held on March 18-20th 2009, which considered, interalia, the issues raised during public hearings. From the submission of the Appellants and the Respondents, it is clear that the Vimta Lab EIA of 2005 on the basis of which the EC was granted, was never in public domain for people to express their views/concerns during the two Public Hearings held in Raiguda and Kalahandi during 2003, leading to non-compliance of Ministrys Notification. Further a perusal of rapid EIA by Vimta Labs reveals that it lacks analysis in respect of human miseries which the project is likely to inflict. However, except for some minor variations, there is a marked similarity in the two reports and whether the Tata AIG report could have provided some basis to the Ministry to incorporate additional safeguards or mitigative measures can best be assessed by the Ministry itself through its expert arm viz the Expert Appraisal Committee. In respect of Niyamgiri Hills, the Ministry of Environment and Forests vide letter dated 12-7-2004 had clearly directed the project proponent to prepare a comprehensive EIA report, which involves collection of four seasons data. This has clearly not been done by the project proponent. The EIA Report prepared in 2005 clearly mentions that it is a “Rapid EIA Report. The Authority therefore remits the matter to the Ministry with direction to revisit its Environment Clearance including the aspect of public hearing and take appropriate action. Till this process is over, the Environment Clearance stands suspended. Texto completo COU-156146.pdf Página web www.elaw.org