Vadalur vs The Union Of India. País/Territorio India Tipo de la corte Nacional - corte superior Fecha Dic 30, 2008 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal High Court of Madras Juez Mukhopadhaya, S.J.Paul Vasanthakumar., N. Idioma Inglés Materia Energía, Medio ambiente gen. Palabra clave Seguridad ambiental Conservación de energía/producción de energía Resumen The Writ petition was filed in public interest for forbearing the respondents from storage, transport of coal from or through Vadalur, Cuddalore District. The Chettinad Lignite Transport Services Ltd. Vadalur, extracts lignite from mine 1A of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC) and transport the same to Vadalur Railway Station, wherefrom the coal is transported to the 6th respondent-The STCMS Electric Company (P) Ltd., Chennai. There are more than 100 families reside in Srvodaya Nagar near the Vadalur Railway Station. The operation of the lignite depot at Vadalur results in high levels of suspended and respirable particulate matter being generated during various points such as, transport from the mine, storage at the bunker unit at Vadalur and transportation from the bunker to the silo by conveyance and transport from the silo to the zero unit. Apart from high risk to the ecology, there is also a high risk of serious human health impacts likely to be caused. Chettinad Lignite Transport Services (P) Ltd., Vadalur, who is in fact the transporter of lignite from Neyveli to Vadalur, while denied the allegation, has taken the plea that adequate safeguards have been taken to protect from any Environmental hazards part from other steps taken for transportation of lignite from Neyvely to Vadalur to prevent any pollution. The following steps seems to have been taken by the 7th respondent: (a) Providing dust suppression system through water spray nozzles for Dump Hopper, Transfer points in the conveyor and loading chutes.(b) Bag filters to arrest dust in the silos.(c) Covering all hoppers as well as conveyors with G.I.Sheets.(d) Provisions of Green Belt around the unit.(e) 17 mtrs. x 11 mtrs. Height wind cladding on all three sides of the dump hopper. This apart, the 7th respondent also stated that they have taken adequate steps to provide a green belt around the Control Room area as well as developing a green belt cross at dump hopper area. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board was asked to inspect and submit a report to find out as to whether the activities of the 6th and 7th respondents are detrimental to the public in general The unit was inspected on 03.09.2007 and the compliances of the steps taken to prevent pollution were checked positively. The second question is whether any public hearing was given before grant of Environmental Clearance, in favour of the 6th respondent. In the present case, the Environmental Clearance was given in favour of M/s.Neyveli Lignite Corporation, on 23.12.1988, which was subsequently transferred in favour of the 6th respondent. Thereafter, Environmental Clearance in favour of the petitioner was given on 3.5.1994. For more than 8 to10 years no objection was raised by any individual including the petitioner till the company invested the total amount and started functioning since December, 2002. In any case, the mandate of public hearing was made optional since 3.5.1994. From the above said facts it is evident that when the original Environmental Clearance was given in favour of NLC, there was no requirement for public hearing and subsequently when it was issued in favour of the 6th respondent, it was made optional. In these circumstances, no further order is required to be passed in the present case. The writ petition is disposed of. Texto completo COU-156274.pdf