accessinitiative

Meeting of EAC on CRZ and Infrastructure Development and Other Projects

taiindia — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:49:15 +0000

Shankar Prasad Pani, Bhubneshwar:

The Minutes of the 78th Meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee for Coastal Regulation Zone, Infrastructure Development and Miscellaneous projects held on 20- 22^nd July, 2009 at Van Vigyan Bhawan, Sector-V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi (India).

The CRZ Clearance for establishment of Vedanta University at Puri, Orissa by M/s. Anil Agarwal Foundation. [F.No.11-38/2009-IA.III].

As presented by the project proponent, the proposal involves establishment of a fully residential multi-disciplinary University having a capacity of 1 lakh students along with support facilities and township at Puri. The Project envisages construction of 2,73,68,959 Sq meters spread out over approximately 6,892 Acres in Puri, Orissa. The Government is in the final stages of transferring about 4,000 acres of land, acquired by it for the project. Balance land is in the process of being acquired by the Government of Orissa. The population expected to be housed within the campus is approximately 4.5 lakhs. Total water requirement during the operational phase will be 64200 KLD, the STP proposed is 51760 KLD, municipal waste generation will be 225 T per day. Final power requirement would be 530 MW. The total cost of project is approximately Rs. 15,000 crores.

The Government of Orissa has given ? Permissive Possession? of water bodies and allied areas (coming within the CRZ area) with the condition that no construction or discharge of waste water is allowed.

In March 2007, had applied to the MoEF for Environment Clearance and it was considered in the EAC in its 45th meeting in July 2007. The Orissa State Coastal Zone Management Authority has recommended the project for the issue of CRZ clearance vide letter dated 26.05.2009 reiterating some of the conditions of permissive possession..

During discussion, the following point emerged:

(i) The layout plan of the complex shall be superimposed on the HTL/LTL map prepared and demarcated by an authorized agency shall be submitted to the Ministry within three months.

(ii) The Committee recommends the proposal for CRZ Clearance with the above condition in the Clearance letter for strict compliance by the project proponent.

CAG report pointing out the noncompliance of required inspection of mine

taiindia — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:21:07 +0000

August 7, 2009: Shankar Prasad Pani, Bhubneshwar

The CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General of India) report for 2007-08 says that there is a gross manipulation and noncompliance in Mines and Minerals revenue. The report says that the Mines department is deaf to non compliance of Forest Conservation Act even after the forest department raised objection to operating of mines in forest area. Most of the mines are either operating without permission or have not renewed their lease agreement.

Inspection default: Out of 1,798 inspections required to be conducted in respect of working mines, 262 inspections were conducted during 2003-04 to 2006-07. Similarly, in respect of non-working mines, out of 505 inspections due, inspection in only two cases was conducted. Quarterly review required to be conducted by the Director was never done.
Some other points highlighted by CAG

Due to the absence of a system of monitoring the settlement process, the directorate and the Government were not aware of the low percentage of settlement of lease applications which was only 4.93 per cent and consequent non-realisation of dead rent of Rs. 8.69 crore and stamp duty and registration fee of Rs. 8.94 crore. (Paragraph 7.2.7)
Failure of the Government to safeguard the interest of the revenue before prescribing the basis for calculation of annual royalty for levy of stamp duty and registration fees led to loss of revenue of Rs. 4.94 crore. (Paragraph 7.2.8)
For illegal mining of 10.22 lakh MT of minerals without a mining lease, Rs. 88.47 crore though realisable towards the cost of mineral was not realised. (Paragraph 7.2.13)
Due to inaction of the department for disposal of left over minerals, revenue of Rs. 66.38 crore remained unrealised. (Paragraph 7.2.14)
Due to non-adherence to the prescribed assessment procedure, there was non/short levy of royalty of Rs. 15.95 crore. (Paragraph 7.2.15)
Due to non-initiation of proposals to resettle the non-working mines, the Government was deprived of revenue of Rs. 25.26 crore.

Members Post

taiindia — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:49:26 +0000

July 16, 2009

Post by: Manoj Misra Convenor Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan

Dear Friends,

It was a one man show against the legal might of the nation (Attorney General, Solicitor General and a large number of ASGs) in the Yamuna Case (Rajendra Singh & othrs vs State of Delhi and othrs) at the Supreme Court of India before a three member bench headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.

What was remarkable that it was over almost the whole day (larger part of forenoon and the entire afternoon) for Sri Sanjay Parikh, our advocate to not only withstand the litany of falsehoods belched out by the official legal might of the nation, before the bench but also make a very cogent and pointed points before the bench that clearly highlighted the high handedness of the DDA in eliciting the Environmental Clearance for the impugned structure called the Games Village in the river bed, from the MOEF, but also laid bare the illegailities committed by the MOEF, DMRC as well as the DDA in the matter.

While the legal might of the nation tried to belittle the judgement of the High Court suggesting the appointment of an Expert Committee headed by Dr R K Pachauri, trying to point out holes in the judgement, Sri Parikh established through brilliant exposition of logic and reasoning that the said judgement was consistent and valid.

The manner in which the MOEF violated the provisions of the EIA 2006 notification in dealing with the case was made amply clear before the bench by Sri Parikh, ably assisted by Ms Anita Shenoy and Sri Ritwick Dutta.

All said and done the case now hangs delicately balanced on the fact whether the court accepts High Court’s findings of the construction happening on the river bed / flood plain or not and thus constitutes an Expert Committee as suggested by the High Court in its judgement dated 3 11 2008. For some strange reason the bench remains enamoured of the fact that most famous cities (London, Paris in particular) are on their rivers. Sri Parikh’s submission that those rivers and our rivers are different did not seem to convince them. Also the bench showed incredulity on the fact as narrated by Sri Parikh that the entire river bed including the current site/s of Akshardham and Games Village were under flood waters during the floods of 1978, 1988 and 1995?

The judgement has it seems been reserved and parties have been asked to file written submissions in the matter before the bench within a week.

What happen’s now in the Supreme Court is a matter of conjecture and for keeping one’s fingers crossed.

Shall the truth or falsehood triumph and the river survives or remains doomed shall be decided in few days. For what the Supreme Court decides it seems is seen by most people in the land as the gospel truth ! Akshardham case which was not even decided on questions of merit but on the fact that the advocate for the petitioners could not “rebut” the DDA’s stand (as observed by the SC itself) is seen as the vindication of the state’s action in that particular act.

Whatever, that a WRONG IS IN THE MAKING both by the DDA and the DMRC on the river bed is for all to see for themselves.

Manoj Misra
Convenor
www.yamunajiyeabhiyaan.blogspot.com