The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea challenging the expansion of Pipavav port in Gujarat, faulting the environmental clearance granted for the project. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymlaya Bagchi, bluntly asked the petitioner: "Show us a single project where these environmentalists have said we welcome this." The court emphasized that the country cannot develop without infrastructure.
Environmentalist's Arguments
Senior advocate Anitha Shenoy, representing environmentalist Chetan Kumar Navintray Vyas, argued strenuously that the project had been stalled for over a decade. She contended that the environmental clearance was granted without considering the adverse impact on marine mammals, Olive Ridley turtles, avian species, and mangroves.
Court's Response
The bench noted that the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report had found the apprehensions baseless. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) had also given a considered opinion, green-lighting the port expansion. When Shenoy continued to emphasize that the NGT did not consider a series of deficiencies in the EIA report, the bench stated that port development activities are essential for the country's development.
"You want to stall everything in the name of the environment. How can the country develop without infrastructure? No doubt precautionary measures are essential. But tell us where else the depth of the sea permits big ports as in Gujarat," the bench asked. It further queried, "Where else can such ports be set up? Do you want the port related economic activities to go to other countries?"
Petitioner's Concerns
The counsel argued that 90% of the fish landing off the Saurashtra coast takes place at Pipavav port area. The expansion, she claimed, would be a death knell for the fisherfolk and the economic activities connected to the fish business. However, the bench replied that economic activity is not a consideration while preparing the EIA report. "Your basic objection was that it would disturb the turtle nesting area. The Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) has found your claim to be not true. Their inspection report says so," the bench said.
NGT Order
The tribunal, in its November 26 order, referred to the project's EIA report. It noted that detailed studies on plant diversity, marine ecology, and biodiversity, including an Avian Diversity Impact Study, showed no significant adverse impact. The study even described the port area as a haven for bird diversity.
While refusing to entertain the appeal against the NGT order, the Supreme Court permitted the environmentalist to approach the western zone NGT in Pune again, pointing out the non-consideration of his objections to the project.
