Cement Energy and Environment

learance. to the Centre f~ t~ry public Further, the man s~ent of EIA hearing and asses orts raise 'EIA rep t report (see d environmen alarm., p31) an EAC were management plan by bypassed . runoff d urban . Motor oil an reservoir could pollute . th~elwade)The (Photo : DhananJ~Y d the centre . fact mJsle f EIA state, In p.plicability o JulY the a In on . Lavasa. the notification on d written to nt 2005, MoEF ha environm.:ct Maharashtra . the proJ A Dasve town 's waterfront was created by building a weir has already spent about Rs 3,0bo crore on the project and investors have gained third party rights in the city. The project has brought employment and development to a neglected area, LCL said. t say1ng f El departmen · · ns 0 . to prOVISIO d 1t attracts d aske ses . . t' n an aces not1f1ca IO ance pr ber 'The Adarsh housing society in Mumbai was ordered to be demolished under Section 5 of 11 clear nnenn ensure a The wa are followed . h Maharasl·ed f t e reP 1 secretary 0 1 Board Pollution Contro . a . h housm~ 'The Law applied to Adat s . L sa' quire Mumbai also applies to ava d'd not re tr L ------~:_..:_-:---:----:--~;t'thE~ ·ect ' cen that the proJ m the below the Environment Protection Act. fro ·ght 1 t clearance s at a hel . nrllen The same law applies 0 t a ro '" because i w tate enVI the Lavasa ,'' adds Choudhari . The s to o 1,OOOm. 's letter zo1 department. August letter EAC said it was ready to consider post facto clearance on certain conditions, Which include a penalty for violating laws and creation of an environment EIA notifications flouted restoration fund by the company. EAC observed that substantial development has already taken Place in about 700 ha. "In view of this and considering all related consequences, there is no other alternative before EAc , except appraising the project Post facto," the Panel said . . But activists are unhappy With EAC's recommendations On March 10, NAPM moved court, challenging the ~etrospective clearance. "There IS . no Provision in the Environment Protection Act for Po~t facto clearance . At the t· ~Is . 1me N su,ng show cause notice on thovember 25, MoEF had asked e company h unauthorise w Y the not b d structures should e removed Th legalise it · ey cannot Vishwambar now, " says NAPM. Choudhari of LCL has denied charges of violating environmental laws. The environment department of Maharashtra gave the final clearance to LCL in March 2004 under the Maharashtra Hill Station Regulations of 1996. The company did not apply to the Centre though the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification of 1994 mandated clearance from MoEF for tourism-related Projects between 200m and 50om of high tide line and for Projects at an elevation of more than 1,000m from sea level , involving investment of over Rs 5 crore. Since 58 ha of Lavasa city is ab~~e 1.00om height and the PrGJect cost more than Rs 5 crore, LCL ought to have applied m The d'd ministry this stand. 1994 'u reiterated . . ation of as a 'd EIA notlfiC project ween sa1 to the bet not apply were constructions onn altitude. the 640m and 90 . ·al in trol . offiCI con ' A semor pollution ·nistrY s Maharashtr~ ed the nn~ stated Board confirm d bY th visite as ignore as re the letter w ase w rder. ·s When the c F staY o inistrY he MoE he nn trorfl after t of t . sin9 the original copf~und J111~ an.~mef'l letter was e boar t "v• d. the files of ~epartrnebn~ tolJf'l",'' . ment 0 t oP' environ uld n te c the tt r co lica the le e us a dU~ plying ded LCL gave .d lnll . nee f1'1 . 1 sal · 1t frO the officla aware e . ir was 8 nc v1t company 1 clear ffida per . menta ·ts a eiO env1ron sut in 1 de" the Centre . rt the . h cou · the hlg rwise . claimed othe I \