Case title:
M/s IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited vs T. Muruganandam & Others
Date of Order:
17th February, 2023
Bench:
Justice M R Shah and C T Ravikumar
Parties:
Petitioner: M/s IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited
Defendant: T. Muruganandam & Others
Facts:
Feeling wronged and unsatisfied by the National Court's challenged judgement and order from Appeal No. 17/2011, dated 23 May 2012, and judgement and order from Appeal No. 50/2012, dated 10 November 2014. The present appeals have been prioritised by M/s IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Ltd for consideration by the New Delhi-based Green Tribunal (Principal Bench), sometimes known as the "NGT."
Prior to the National Environment Appellate Authority, the initial petitioners—who identified themselves as fishermen and those advocating for the welfare of fishermen—filed appeals against the EC under the numbers NEAA Appeal Nos. 19 and 20 of 2010. Regarding the establishment of the NGT, Appeal No. 20/2010, which was filed with the National Environment Appellate Authority, was transferred to the NGT and was given the new numbers Appeal Nos. 16 and 17.
The appellant-senior company's counsel, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argues that it would not be in the public interest to shut down the power plant at this time. According to the argument, Tamil Nadu, a state with a power shortage, has been using the appellant's power plant since September 2015. Since September 2015 and April 2016, the appellant has run two 600MW plants, providing electricity to almost 40 lakh homes each month. The power plant is located in Tamil Nadu, a state with a lack of energy, so closing it would have a negative impact on the state's power industry.
As a result, the appellant had never challenged earlier conditions imposed while issuing the EC, the first judgement and order passed by the NGT dated 23.05.2012, and even the corrigendum dated 14.08.2012 issued by the MoEF imposing additional conditions, according to Shri Shiv Mangal Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the MoEF. As a result, the appellant is bound by the conditions imposed while issuing the EC and corrigendum to the EC dated 14.08. He highlighted a few partial or complete violations of a few requirements as well as the appellant's response.
Therefore, he has argued that if this Court decides to allow the appellant to continue operating the power plants in the public interest, in that case, the appellant may be ordered to comply with all the requirements set forth in the EC as well as any additional requirements set forth in the corrigendum dated 14.08.2012.
If this Court decides to allow the appellant to continue operating the power plants in accordance with the EC and the corrigendum dated 14.08.2012, which have been in operation since 2015, Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, learned counsel representing the original petitioners, has pleaded that in that case, the legal question of "whether for the project like this conducting a cumulative environment impact assessment study is must or not" may be kept open as so many other such cases.
Regarding the maintainability of an appeal before the NGT against the order of a corrigendum, it is asserted that an appeal would be maintainable before the NGT against the corrigendum to the EC against the extra conditions imposed by the corrigendum of August 14, 2012.
Issues Raised:
Original petitioners, has pleaded that in that case, the legal question of whether for the project like this conducting a cumulative environment impact assessment study is must or not?
Agruments:
After hearing from Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, and the knowledgeable counsel representing the MoEF and original petitioners, as well as the facts outlined above, it is important to note that the appellant started two power plants in Phase I in response to the interim order issued by this Court, and they have been operating since September 2015.
Since September 2015 and April 2016, the appellant has been running two 600 MW plants, which currently electricity about 40 lakh households. The power stations are located in a state with an energy shortage (Tamil Nadu). So, closing the power plants or units would have a negative impact on the state's power sector and would not be in the interests of the general population, particularly the power-scarce State of Tamil Nadu.
The appellant must nevertheless abide by all the requirements set forth in the EC as well as the additional requirements imposed by the corrigendum to the EC of 14.08.2012. According to the compliance report dated 20.09.2022, the most recent compliance report, and the project proponent's response, it appears that the conditions imposed when the EC was issued, as well as the additional conditions imposed by the corrigendum to the EC dated 14.08.2012, have all been substantially met.
The conditions imposed when issuing EC 11 and the extra conditions imposed via the corrigendum to the EC dated 14.08.2012 do not appear to have been fundamentally violated or disregarded. While the appellant has answered and agreed to comply with the criteria, some of them are still only partially met. The specifics of the requirements, partial compliances, and the response to them were submitted in the court.
Taking into account the aforementioned facts and circumstances, subject to compliance with the conditions set forth when issuing the EC and the additional conditions imposed via the corrigendum to the EC dated 14.08.2012, as well as the conditions/additional conditions that are partially complied with, to be complied with within the time suggested in the response of the appellant/project proponent, reproduced above, and keeping the more general legal question, namely "whether for the project," in mind as suggested and prayed for by the appellant company in response to the compliance report dated 20.09.2022, which is reproduced above, the appellant company requested full compliance of all the conditions mentioned in the EC as well as additional conditions imposed via corrigendum to the EC dated 14.08.2012 and to fully comply with the conditions which are 14partially complied within the stipulated time.
Conclusion:
In response to the question of "whether an appeal before the NGT would be maintainable or not against the corrigendum to the EC along with additional conditions," we are of the opinion that an aggrieved party may always challenge the corrigendum to the EC, but the appeal will be limited to the corrigendum to the EC on additional conditions only, if the original EC is not undone. The appeals under consideration are dismissed in the manner stated above. We expressly state that the current order cannot be used as precedent in any other situation.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
