 |
| The Vedanta plant |
Cuttack, July 19: Vedanta Aluminum Limited’s hopes of salvaging its expansion plan at Lanjigarh were dashed today with Orissa High Court rejecting its plea on the issue.
The ministry of environment and forest had halted expansion of the company’s refinery and power plant at Lanjigarh in Kalahandi seven months ago citing violations.
On October 20, 2010, the Centre withdrew the terms of reference (ToR) issued on March 12, 2009, for expansion of the company’s alumina refinery from 1MTPA to 6MTPA and captive power plant from 75MW to 300MW and consequently cancelled public hearing on it. It ordered for status quo to be maintained at the site as the company had gone ahead with construction before obtaining environmental clearance.
Initially, the company had filed a writ petition in Orissa High Court challenging the Centre’s order. But, subsequently in an amended petition, it had sought directions for considering the application filed by it under the “office memorandum” issued by the Centre on November 16, 2010, which provided a method of regularising violation of environmental clearance rules.
The two-judge bench of Chief Justice V. Gopal Gowda and Justice B.N. Mohapatra, however, dismissed the plea. While upholding the October 20, 2010, order, the high court held that “the Centre had justifiably cancelled the ToR for expansion and public hearing on it”.
The high court further endorsed that “the process for environmental clearance for expansion has to be started de novo as the appraisal process had not been completed for the 1MTPA alumina refinery and 75MW captive power plant”.
“Accordingly, the company will have to now submit a fresh proposal to the Centre for obtaining environmental clearance for the expansion project,” assistant solicitor general Saktidhar Das told The Telegraph.
The high court, in its order, approved the Centre’s contention that “the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) revision would be required in the light of the environment impacts that have been caused due to the activities which have been undertaken without incorporation of necessary environmental mitigation measures. The proposal for expansion from 1MTPA to 6MTPA has to be also revised based on the suggestions of the expert appraisal committee (EAC) and the sub-committee which visited the site. The company’s proposal needs to be submitted afresh for environmental clearance under the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006”.
The court ignored the company’s allegation that the Centre was adopting a partisan approach in adoption of its method of regularising violation of the environmental clearance rules citing the case of Lavasa Corporation Limited, Pohang Steel Company and Jindal Power Limited. The central government counsel had contended that “the cases stand on a footing quite different than the Vedanta case”.