Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshna Samithy, Chithanya v. State of Kerala

Pays/Territoire
Inde
Type de cour
Autres
Date
Oct 17, 2001
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
High Court of Kerala
Siège de la cour
Ernakulam
Juge
Balasubramanyan
Numéro de référence
OP 3581/2001
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Énergie
Mot clé
Participation du public Accès-à-l'information
Résumé
The Kerala State Electricity Board took a decision to construct a Dam across the Chalakudy River and establish a Hydro Power Generating Project. A Public Interest Litigation was filed complaining that, among others, there was no proper environmental clearance obtained for the project in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act and the relevant amendment relating to establishment of such Hydro Electric Projects and hence the proposed coming into existence of the project was illegal. There was also apprehension that the valley would be deprived of even drinking water in addition to the displacement of the Tribals and the disastrous consequences to flora and fauna. The entire decision should be set aside and there should be a proper environmental clearance before the work could be proceeded with. The court noted that before the final decision regarding the environmental clearance was taken by the authority, an amendment to the relevant law, namely the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 1994, had come into force. According to the amendment, a public hearing became mandatory. It enabled persons including bonafide residents, environmental groups and others located at the project site likely to be affected, to participate in the hearing. There was no public hearing before environmental clearance was ultimately granted. The respondent submitted that the protection of the environment should go hand in hand with development and since the State needed more power and power at as cheap a rate as possible, the Court had to objectively consider whether the studies undertaken were not sufficient rather than placing emphasis on the procedural formalities insisted upon by the amendment. The court was of the view that the authority concerned should be directed to reconsider the question of the grant of environmental clearance after directing the Board to comply with the requirement of public hearing as envisaged by the amendment, before deciding to grant or refusing to grant the environmental clearance. The amendment had the definite purpose to ensure that the Environment Protection Act and the policy behind it was fully implemented before the grant of clearance for projects like the Hydro Electric Project. A public hearing was made mandatory by the amendment and the environmental clearance could only follow after the report of a public hearing was scrutinized by the concerned authority. Though normally, a substantial compliance would have satisfied the court while entertaining writ petitions termed as "Public Interest Litigations", the court had a duty to ensure that the requirements of the Environment Protection Act, the Rules and the Notifications were strictly complied with.
Texte intégral
text.asp