The western region bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in Pune has dismissed an appeal that sought to challenge the environmental and coastal regulation zone (CRZ) clearances granted for the expansion project of Gujarat Pipavav Port Limited in Amreli district, Gujarat.
NGT Bench Finds No Grounds to Challenge Clearance
In a detailed order passed on November 26, the bench comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh and expert member Sujit Kumar Bajpayee stated that it found no sufficient grounds to question the environmental clearance in question. The tribunal dismissed the appeal at the admission stage itself after a thorough examination of the records and arguments presented.
The bench extensively referred to the project's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report. It highlighted that the study involved detailed consideration of flora, fauna, plant diversity, and marine ecology. The tribunal specifically noted the conclusion of the Avian Diversity Impact Study, which stated the port "emerges as a haven for avian diversity."
"Therefore, no significant adverse impact of this port on the biodiversity is found to be there as per the documents reported by the applicant. Therefore on this count also, we do not find any sufficient ground to entertain this appeal," the NGT order stated.
Appellant's Arguments and NGT's Counterpoints
The appeal was filed by activist Chetan Kumar Navintray Vyas. One of the primary contentions was that the expansion approval granted in July was invalid because it relied on an environmental clearance issued back in 2012, which had since expired. Vyas argued the expansion would severely impact local biodiversity, including marine mammals, Olive Ridley turtles, avian species, and mangrove ecosystems.
The NGT, however, observed that the appellant failed to provide any legal basis to prove that renewing a clearance after an expiry gap automatically renders the new clearance illegal. The tribunal clarified that the validity or expiry of an earlier clearance does not, by itself, nullify a freshly granted clearance unless expressly prohibited by law.
Validity of Public Hearing Upheld
Another argument raised by Vyas questioned the legitimacy of the project's public hearing. He contended it was conducted by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) instead of an Additional District Magistrate (ADM), violating the 2006 EIA notification.
The green tribunal rejected this argument, holding that the SDM was legally authorised to conduct the hearing because the entire project area falls within a single sub-division. Since the Pipavav Port project site is located entirely within Rajula taluka, the bench ruled the SDM-conducted hearing was both valid and legally permissible.
The NGT's dismissal reinforces the environmental clearance for the port expansion, concluding that due process was followed and documented studies did not indicate significant ecological harm.
