(ii) No instance or details of the criminal/vigilance cases referred to have been furnished. Further in the order dated 29.03.2012 in Writ Petition ( C) No. 3407 of 2012 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by the Project Proponent, it has been directed that the Police Department shall maintain law and order at the work site, if disturbance of any nature is caused for any of the works done by the petitioner. Moreover, the Application No. 38 of 2013 (SZ) filed by Aranmula Heritage Village Action Council represented by its Patron Shri Kummanam Rajasekharan, who is also the signatory in the instant petition was withdrawn and the Tribunal awarded a cost of Rs. 25,000/- payable by the applicant to the respondent's side.
(iii) The Legislative Committee on Environment has not categorically expressed any reservation against the project as such, but also on the other hand, it has recommended that the excess land notified in industrial area except the land under the process of KGS Group may be denotified urgently and orders issued.
(iv) The report of Salim Ali Foundation says that there are extensive wetlands in the village, but there is no identified wetland in Aranmula Village as per the report of the Centre for Earth Science Studies which prepared the wetlands in Kerala. As per the definition of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetlands Act, 2008, paddy land is not wetland. The provisions of the Central Wetland Act are also similar.
(v) The State Government would like to have modern infrastructure facilities in the State with least disturbance to environment and as 71 such the State Government is in favour of the project. The objections against the vital infrastructure and employment generating development projects, which would be a boon to the educated unemployed in the State and such employment generating projects in a State like Kerala with its teeming educated unemployed cannot but be welcomed in the larger public interest and the economic interest of the country, of course, subject to all environmental protection measures as per law. The State Government has decided to take 10% equity in this project vide G.O. (Ms).No. 4/2013/Trans dated 16.01.2013.
73. As regards the allegation by the Salim Ali Foundation that the EIA report is inadequate, did not recognize the fertile, wetlands on the flood plains of River Pampa and presence of endemic and economically important species in the area, non- inclusion of source for filling the land, the EAC has suggested ToRs and the EIA has been prepared as per the ToRs. The EAC has sought additional information on noise level modeling, analysis of impact, traffic management, NOC from Civil Aviation etc., before recommending the project. The ministry has also called for additional information on the details of the area required to be filled, source of material, likely impact and referred back to EAC. The EAC again in August 2012 examined and recommended. The EIA study covered the flora and fauna under Chapter III of the EIA report.
74. The 1st respondent, therefore, concludes that the EAC after due consideration of the relevant documents submitted by the Project Proponent and additional clarifications furnished in response to its observations, recommended for 72 the grant of EC to the project and accordingly, the MoEF granted necessary EC for the project as per the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006 and its subsequent amendments subject to strict compliance of the terms and conditions.
75. At the outset the 2nd respondent/Secretary to Government, Environment Department, Kerala Government took preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the appeal on the grounds of jurisdiction and locus standi and submits that the above appeal is not maintainable either in law or on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant has no locus standi to file the above appeal and the tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the same in an application filed by the Appellant.
76. The interim order has been passed not in accordance with the procedure established by law. The appellant herein is a total stranger to the EC proceedings and does not have any right under the statute to challenge the same. In the present appeal, the appellant has not revealed complete facts, suppressed material facts and therefore the appeal itself is liable to be dismissed at the threshold itself. The issue regarding the construction of Airport at Aranmula by the 4th respondent and the allied issues are already pending consideration of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C)No.6004/2013 filed by the appellant along with others and also in W.P.(C)No.8794/2013, W.P.(C)No.14220/2013, W.P.(C)No.15101/2013 as well as D.B.P No.145/2013 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The grounds raised and the reliefs sought for in the above Writ Petitions and the present appeal relates to the same and the identical matter.
77. The EIA is the important management tool for integrating environmental concerns in development process and for improved decision making. The very EIA notification issued by MoEF on 14.09.2006 as S.O. 1533 purports to impose certain 73 restrictions and prohibitions on new projects or activities or on the expansion of the existing projects or activities based on their potential environmental impacts as indicated in the schedule to the notification, and as per the procedure specified therein. Environment Impact Assessment Notification of 2006 has categorized the developmental projects in two categories, i.e., Category A and Category B. The 'Category A' projects are appraised at national level by EAC. The MoEF has constituted the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) to decentralize the environmental clearance process. These institutions are responsible for appraising certain categories of projects, termed as 'Category B' projects, which are below a prescribed threshold level. 'Scoping' is the primary essential element of consideration of the application for prior EIA clearance by which the EAC determine detailed and comprehensive Terms of Reference (ToR) addressing all relevant environmental concerns for preparation of the EIA report in respect of the project for which environmental clearance is sought. Approved ToR shall be displayed in the website of the MoEF. Therefore, the State Government has no role in the environmental clearance regime.
78. The policy understood as declared by MoEF is that the infrastructure shortages of one country has impeded its investment flow and constrained economic growth. Therefore, for ensuring sustainability of the growth process, it is imperative to remove the infrastructure constraints particularly in energy, roads, ports, airports and urban and rural infrastructure. Thus, projects such as airports are possible and necessary as sustainable development projects in the economic interest of the country. In the case of Kerala such development projects compatible to 74 environmental protection are warranted in consideration of the growing unemployment as well.
79. The Environment Policy of the State (2009) unequivocally declares the matter of environmental considerations in the development process of the State as follows:
'1.7. The policy has been designed to suit the specific local conditions of the state of Kerala and to help reorient its development in conformity with environmental perspectives so as to make the development sustainable.
1.8. This policy document provides a frame work within which conservation and development can be achieved simultaneously with a view to maximise the quality of life for everyone in the state, optimising the ecological load on the natural systems as well as building up the state's economy while minimising environmental degradation.'
80. Thus, the environmental fall out, if any, of the airport project at Aranmula can be minimised or prevented by appropriate interventions by the measures depicted in EC granted by the MoEF. In the EC itself several measures are prescribed for mitigation and minimising the probable environmental fallouts. There are well settled substantive and procedural guidelines for environmental clearance. It is understood that the application for EC was processed by the 1st respondent as per the usual procedure for clearance. The EC will not be accorded to development projects that may result in irredeemable environmental degradation. So also, the 75 developmental activities facilitating employment generation in the State having high educated unemployed and unlikely to create large scale environmental impacts or which could be mitigated cannot but be implemented. The MoEF has notified the EIA Notification 2006, under the Environmental (Protection) Act 1986 encompassing environmental conservation, sustainable development, generational equity etc. It is the Expert Advisory Committee constituted as per the provisions of the above notification recommended to the Ministry as early as on 16.12.2011 that the application for prior EC for the Aranmula Airport project is eligible for clearance subject to certain conditions. The recommendation of Expert Advisory Committee was after consideration of the duly prepared EIA report and following the due procedure.
81. The EIA study which is a part of the proceedings can be undertaken only by an accredited agency of the MoEF. It is for the project proponent themselves to arrange for the EIA study through an accredited agency and to submit the report to the Ministry. The public hearing and eliciting the response of the general public are integral parts of the proceedings before the report is submitted for clearance. It was after strictly adhering to all the statutory requirements that the report was prepared and decided upon by the statutory agencies. It is the decision of the EAC what matters. It was 24 months after the EAC report; the decision was taken on environment clearance to the project. The Ministry took the final decision in further consultation with the EAC on all aspects including the petitions received and reports in media against the project. The EAC had as early as on 15/16.12.2011 had taken the decision based on the EIA study Report, which duly considered the environmental / ecological aspects as per the ToR. The EIA report is the sine qua non in EIA clearance procedure. It is understood that the MoEF has taken the 76 decision only on objective, statutory and policy considerations, and not overwhelmed by any extraneous considerations. The environmental and ecological considerations to be apprised in such projects are a function of the EAC. This project appraisal was duly and repeatedly complied with. Thereafter, decision favourable to the project was taken but with conditions what was intimated much earlier. In the appraisal of airport projects the EAC is required to consider the required general information at the outset. All the required environmental and ecological aspects of the project will be duly appraised by the EAC. The EIA was on the basis of probable impacts assessed on in situ spatial and temporal considerations and not on what the site was a few decades back. In the case of this project the EIA report which is the statutory material on the environmental / ecological status of the location had been considered by the EAC of MoEF and decision communicated to the Ministry. The MoEF has accorded final clearance to the project after religiously following the procedure contemplated. It is worthwhile to extract a portion of the same for reference:
'Regarding the allegation by the Salim Ali Foundation that the EIA report is inadequate, did not recognise the fertile wetlands on the flood plains of river Pampa, and presence of endemic and economically important species in the area, non inclusion of source of earth for filling the land, it is stated that EAC has suggested ToRs and the EIA has been prepared as per the ToR. EAC has sought additional information on noise level modelling, analysis of impact, traffic management, NOC from Civil Aviation etc, before recommending the project. Ministry has also called for additional information on details of the area in August 2012, source of material, likely impacts and referred back to EAC. EAC again in August 2012 77 examined and recommended. It is noted that EIA study covered the flora and fauna under Chapter -III of the EIA report'.
82. As regards the contentions of the appellant based on report of Salim Ali Foundation, the circumstances under which such a study was commissioned and the agency to which it is submitted etc., are conspicuously not disclosed in the appeal. It is not an accredited agency to conduct EIA study for environmental clearance. The appellant is estopped from producing or relying on the Salim Ali Foundation report in impugning the EC granted by the MoEF, In so far as his main objection to EC is that the agency that prepared the EIA is not an accredited one by the Ministry of Environment & Forests. The Salim Ali Foundation (Annexure A2) report is prepared only in just 4 days. More importantly, the very report the appellant relies to bring home and to prove his allegations against the EC is seen to have been prepared with the active involvement of the appellant himself as is duly acknowledged in the Salim Ali Foundation Report (at page no. 12 of Annexure. A2). In page No. 5 of Annexure A 2 also, it is stated that 'the map was prepared by Shri. Sreeranganathan of Aranmula' (appellant). Annexure A 2 has no evidentiary value and cannot be relied on Annexure A 2 may be rejected outright as biased. The EC (Annexure A 1) would reveal that the apprehensions and the allegations are unfounded. Those not covered by the actual project particulars as given in Annexure A 1 need not be taken for consideration, for whatever works and activities not categorically cleared at the site as per EC have not been considered for EC and cannot be implemented. It is after a detailed study in which environmental and ecological considerations were duly considered and appraised and that the representations against the project were duly examined that the MoEF has accorded final EC to the project. The date of receipt of application for EC was 27.06.2011. It is seen that the EAC had recommended the 78 project for EC on 16.12.2011 itself. Thereafter, the case has again been recommended on 17.08.2012. It is only after 2 years of the date of receipt for clearance, i.e., on 18.11.2013 that the final clearance was given by the Ministry. It is to be pointed out that the environmental and ecological considerations have been duly taken care of in the EIA in all the matters related to the environmental aspects of the project, what holds the field is the EC.
83. The project site was a paddy land years ago and now waterlogged. A portion thereof has been reclaimed during the pre 2008 periods when the Kerala Paddy land and Wetland Conservation Act, 2008 was not there. The Principal Agricultural Officer Pathanamthitta has reported that due to the increased seepage from the Pampa Irrigation Canal there is permanent water logging in the paddy fields of Aranmula, Kidangannoor and Mezhuveli villages which resulted in a situation where paddy fields became unfit for cultivation. The biodiversity of the area is typical of the middle stream of river Pampa. There are no endemic species in Aranmula puncha (fields). It is due to the environmental degradation of Pampa river and encroachment of canals and streams that connected the paddy fields which were spawning grounds of fishes, to the river that the native aquatic biodiversity dwindled. It is submitted that all the relevant environmental concerns expressed in the EIA report and the petitions filed against granting clearance have been duly taken care of and remedies were stipulated in the final Environmental Clearance. The MoEF has consented the project with 20 specific conditions, ensuring mitigation of the environmental concerns so far raised, with other 7 conditions on maintenance of the rivulet, (Kozhithodu), passing through the site. The rivulet portion coming under runway is directed to be constructed with three spans of 15 m x 3.2 m vent. As for biodiversity, the condition is as follows:
79
'Though the site is not a wetland, in view of the presence of various plant species proponent shall fill only minimum area required for runway, apron, taxiway etc. and the remaining area will be preserved in its natural form as committed.  The soil required for land filling shall be met from elevated area of about 14.5 acres available within the site itself. Necessary permission for levelling shall be taken'.
84. Thus, the project has been environmentally cleared only with stringent impact minimisation conditions, and makes those justifiable in the context of the verifiable ground situations. The clearance stipulations take due care of the environmental and ecological implications if any that may manifest. Whatever environmental concerns now being raised against the project had been flagged in the public hearing and duly recorded. Initially there was not much opposition at the local level and it is subsequent to the public hearing that the opposition to the project was orchestrated. All the aspects that had to be appraised have been duly considered and mitigation or remedial actions stipulated in Annexure A1. It may be seen from Annexure A1 that all the objections and media reports against the project subsequent to the public hearing on environmental matters had been duly examined by the Ministry in consultation with the EAC and appropriate impact minimisation measures suggested to be implemented.
85. The statement that the proposed airport area is 'mainly paddy land and wetland,' which essentially is the flood plains of river Pampa' is not fully correct and hence denied. Wetlands cannot be reclaimed, whereas paddy lands may be filled up 80 for public purpose in accordance with the procedure in the 2008 Act. A place cannot be paddy land and wetland at the same time. Due to the ecological damages already set in, in river Pampa nearby now there is no regular flooding of the plains as earlier, as the flood water confines to the river channel itself, and such paddy fields are unable to function in such situations as flood plains of the river. As regards loss of ecosystem services, the site is now a degraded land. That the fallow land by its ecosystem services would sustain a larger section of the people than 'the meager benefits of a few people for their comforts' is only an unduly speculative and biased approach. It may be noted that it is the owners of the paddy fields (who apparently had no benefits out of the land) that sold it by their own for non- agricultural activities.
86. The contention that the airport being set up at Aranmula for which EC is given is on the banks of river pampa is not fully correct. It is true that the river is near to the site. The Aranmula Parthasarathy temple referred in the memorandum comes in between the site and the river . The site has no special significance than any other similar paddy fields in the surrounding areas left fallow. The further contention that the project site is a 'pristine environmental area' is not correct. It was a fallow paddy land now abandoned and waterlogged. It is not a paddy field where paddy cultivation is going on. Paddy cultivation had been discontinued in the entire area for years due to various reasons. It is on consideration that it is a project that does not create irreparable environmental damages that the EAC of the MoEF has recommended the project with conditions and all necessary conditions incorporated in the EC. The appellant has no case that the conditions and mitigation measures enumerated in the EC are ineffective or insufficient to remediate the probable environmental impacts at the site.
81
87. The Kerala State Biodiversity Board has reported that there are no endemic species in this area. The Board also has proposed mitigatory measures which could take care of the probable ecosystem impacts. The repeated reference to 'wetlands' in the Salim Ali Foundation Report (Annexure A2) report might be with reference to the rivulet. Wetland does not include paddy land and river. No such wetlands have been identified here in the wetland map specially prepared for the purpose of the Wetland Conservation Rules 2010. As per Section 2 (xii) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and wetlands Act, 2008, 'Paddy land' means all types of land situated in the State where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow, and includes its allied constructions like bunds, drainage channels, ponds and canals. It may be the ponds (Chaal, Thalakkulam etc.,) in the vast paddy fields which are natural or constructed water storage and drainage structures forming part of the paddy land that is being mistaken as 'wetlands'. The intangible ecosystem services of wetlands as mentioned in Annexure A2 report seem wholly irrelevant at the site. The contention that the project area could fetch fish worth Rs.335 - 440 Crore per year from paddy fields which would be dry at some spells (if the drainage system functions) and flooded at other by the river waters are not correct and hence denied. The other statements on dislocation of families, loss and damage to ancestral heritage, etc are not borne out by facts and cannot refute a scientifically prepared EIA report following the ToR.
88. The environmental safeguards stipulated by the MoEF in the EC would enable the proposed project with the least disturbance to the ecology and providing more tangible social and economic benefits than leaving the land fallow. The airport projects get EC, on being assessed by experts and decided by the Ministry of Environment and that the impacts as identified that will not cause grave 82 environmental problems could be mitigated. The comparative benefits are what matters in such cases. The State Government would like to have modern infrastructure facilities in the state having appreciable employment generation opportunities with least disturbance to environment and as such the state Government has recommended the project. In this context, it is relevant to point out that the Ministry has already granted EC to the Greenfield Airport at Kannur. The objection against the vital infrastructure and employment generating development project which would be a boon the educated unemployed in the state, on arbitrary environmental considerations is ill-advised and baseless. Such employment generating projects in a state like Kerala with its teeming educated unemployed cannot but be welcomed also in the larger public interest and the economic interest of the country, subject of course to all environmental protection measures as per law. While recognizing that environmentally disagreeable activities in ecologically pristine locations shall not be permitted, the environmental fall out of this project, if at all any, can be duly mitigated, through balanced and nuanced measures, creating an enabling process to promote the environmentally sound development project that benefit local livelihoods and economy, than leaving the once fertile paddy lands fallow and abandoned causing more grave environmental problems. The comparative gains of the proposed project would favour its establishment for which the central Government has already consented under the relevant statutes with necessary conditions.
89. In consonance with the avowed policy of State Government for Care and Development, State Government is keen to ensure that the development needs of the State are complimentary to the appurtenant environmental considerations. There cannot be development ignoring environment and State cannot develop until it grows 83 sustainably incorporating environmental concerns in developmental aspects. Towards this end, greater scientific rigour has been incorporated into environment impact assessment of projects. A project environmentally cleared following all the statutory proceedings and extra examination in further consultation with the EAC of the MoEF may not be assailed on biased, arbitrary and speculative considerations. The second respondent is of the stand that the project could be allowed at the site complying with all the environmental and other conditions stipulated in the EC. Hence, the 2nd respondent herein prays that the impugned EC may be upheld and to dismiss appeal.
90. The 6th respondent, namely the Secretary to Government, Environment Department of the State of Kerala would state in reply to Appeal No. 174 of 2014 (SZ) and adopted in other appeals as well as below:
91. By virtue of Annexure A 1 order, the 18th respondent/MoEF accorded EC for the Airport project as per the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006. The Appellant also further seeks for a direction against respondents 17 and 20 to conduct a public hearing. The appellant also seeks for a direction directing the State Government to complete the proceedings initiated against 19th respondent, namely K.J. Abraham of Kozhencherry Village in Pathanamthitta District in the State of Kerala for restoring the reclaimed paddy land. All the allegations raised in the memorandum of appeal are denied except to the extent to which they are admitted hereunder.
92. At the outset the 6th respondent/Secretary to Government, Environment Department, Kerala Government took preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the appeal on the grounds of jurisdiction and locus standi and submits that the above appeal is not maintainable either in law or on the facts and 84 circumstances of the case. The appellant has no locus standi to file the above appeal and the tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the same in an application filed by the Appellant. The appellant herein is a total stranger to Annexure A 1 proceedings and does not have any right under the statute to challenge the same. In the present appeal, the appellant has not revealed complete facts, suppressed material facts and therefore the appeal itself is liable to be dismissed at the threshold itself. The issue regarding the construction of airport at Aranmula by the 18th respondent is already pending consideration of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C)No. 8794/2013 and W.P.(C)No. 14220/2013 filed by the appellant herein before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and also in W.P.(C)No. 6004/2013, W.P.(C)No. 15101/2013 as well as D.B.P No.145/2013 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The grounds raised and the reliefs sought for in the above Writ Petitions and the present appeal relates to the same and identical matter.
93. Moreover, the appellant herein has already filed an application in Application No. 38 of 2013 (SZ) before this Tribunal to stop all construction activities in Aranmula in which contentions regarding filling up of wetland, proceedings under Land Reforms Act etc were advanced. However, after hearing the State, the appellant withdrawn the application in which he was directed to pay cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondents. The appellant has also filed writ petition Nos. 8794/2013 and 14220/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala raising various contentions including direction against Government of India not to grant EC also the State Government to resume excess land. It is submitted that appellant is abusing the process of the Court under the garb of a public spirited person before this Tribunal which is the creation of a Statute. Primarily, the appellant has no locus standi to challenge the present order. Secondly, the prayers raised in the appeal 85 cannot be brought under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as per Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act.
94. The impugned EC has been issued by Government of India after analyzing the pros and cons of the project. The EIA report, which is in fact the primary requirement for obtaining EC, had been placed before the Government of India on 16.12.2011. However, the final clearance was issued by the Ministry only on 18.11.2013. i.e., only after two years of the date of receipt of EIA that the final clearance was given by the Ministry. Therefore, the challenge raised against Annexure A 1 on the grounds like non-application of mind is absolutely false and hence denied.
95. The EC is self-explanatory. In the opening paragraph itself, it is stated that the proposal has been appraised as per the prescribed procedure in the light of the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006 on the basis of mandatory documents. As per Annexure A1, the EAC met on 21st to 23rd September 2011, 15th to 16th December 2011 and 15th to 16th August 2011. It was also explained in Annexure A1 that the project was considered by the EAC in its meeting held on 21st to 23rd September 2011 and the ToR was finalized including the public hearing. It was also stated in Annexure A1 that ToR for the project was accorded on 13.10.2010 and public hearing was conducted on 10.05.2011 at District Collectorate, Pathanamthitta. It is stated in the EC that major issues in public hearing were about filling up of paddy field, restoration of Kozhythodu a tributary of Pampa River etc. As per the EC, the Project Proponent committed the minimum area required for runway, apron, taxi way etc., and the remaining area will be preserved in its natural form while Kozhythodu will be maintained in consultation with the Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Kerala. It was stated in the EC that representations, news items, 86 joint petition from MLAs and also a report from Salim Ali Foundation against the project were considered and comments on the issues projected in the representations were sought from the project proponent and Government of Kerala. Comments were provided promptly by Government of Kerala and the issues raised in the representations were considered by Government of India before issuing the EC. The EC was issued only after considering the various objections raised against the project. Therefore, the primary argument of the appellant that the EC was issued without considering the various allegations against the project is not correct.
96. The Government of India has issued the EC considering the fact that the EAC after due consideration of the relevant documents submitted by the project proponent have recommended for the grant of EC for the project. The EC was issued subject to the strict compliance of the terms and conditions set forth therein. Accordingly, the EC depicts in paragraph 10, twenty specific conditions and in paragraph 11, thirty one general conditions. Among the specific conditions, Government of India has directed conditions to prevent any degradation to environment. The specific conditions stipulated as per paragraph 10 of EC are as follows:
(i) The consent to establish shall be obtained from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and a copy shall be submitted to the Ministry before starting construction work at the site.
(ii) Despite the proponent informed absence of any wet land, the Minor Irrigation Department of the State of Kerala was entrusted to study and streamline flow of Kozhithodu riverlet and on the result of such study, the measures recommended by the department to 87 maintain the riverlet (rivulet) was directed to be carried out with (in) letter and spirit.
(iii) Despite the finding of absence of any wet land, in view of the presence of various plant species proponent was directed to fill only minimum area required for runway, apron, taxi way etc. and the remaining area was directed to be preserved in its natural form. (Area required for runway = 1000x150 metres at 1 metre height). Soil required for filling shall be met from the elevated area within the site itself and necessary permission for leveling should be taken.
(iv) Prohibition of disposal of solid or liquid waste in Kozhithodu. (v) State Government shall consider the observation of
'Legislative Committee on Environment' about de-notification of excess land except land under the possession of the KGS Group and appraise the Ministry.
(vi) Project proponent shall have a master plan for the project and other related facilities. Other facilities shall be considered by the competent authority after a cumulative Environment Impact Assessment is carried out.
(vii) Commitments like Maintenance of Kozhithodu, minimum filling of site etc. made through public hearing shall be strictly complied with.
(viii) Sewage and other liquid flow generated from the airport should be treated as per the norms laid down from the Pollution 88 Control Board and recycled. Auto conservation fixtures shall be provided.
(ix) Solid waste generated shall be properly collected, segregated and disposed as per the provisions of Solid Waste Management and Handling Rules 2000.
(x) Recommendations of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and Disaster Management Plan shall be strictly complied with. (xi) Installation and operation of DG Sets, if ay, shall comply with the guidelines of Central Pollution Control Board. (xii) Energy Conservation Measures shall be taken up as per Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC) 2009. (xiii) Parking provision shall be provided as per National Building Code of India 2005. (xiv) Switches used for outdoor lighting, generally do not take
variation and hence the timer should be used as sensitive to season variations and on the basis of actual length of day/night.
(xv) All cooling equipments should meet the minimum efficiency requirements as specified in Energy Conservation Building Code 2007.
(xvi) Terminal building shall incorporate features of local architecture in and around area as well as special measures to highlight the Indian antiquity through a museum like corner depicting the same.
89
(xvii) Land use around the airport complex shall be recollected though a plan to control unauthorized development, which may create problems in the operation of the airport.
(xviii) Necessary permission shall be obtained for flowing of ground water from competent authority prior to the construction or operation of the project.
(xix) Legal action shall be initiated against the project proponent if it was found that construction was started without obtaining Environmental Clearance.
(xx) Project proponent will set up separate environmental management cell for effective implementation of the stipulated environmental safeguards under the supervision of a senior executive.
97. Therefore, the EC was issued after considering the entire objections raised from various quarters and after incorporating preventive and mitigating measures to ensure least environmental degradation.
98. As per Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, the Tribunal can exercise its appellate jurisdiction only in the circumstances enumerated under Sections 16(a) to 16(j) of the Act. The prayers sought by the appellant as prayers b and c at paragraph 7 of page 32 of the memorandum of appeal cannot be considered in an appeal filed under Section 16 exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal. As regards prayer (a) sought by the appellant, such prayer cannot be raised by a person like the appellant as per Section 18 of the NGT Act, 2010. The appellant has not sustained any injury by virtue of Annexure A1. No damage has been caused to appellant's property, no death has been resulted 90 from damage if any, appellant is not an agent duly authorized by any owner of such property or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, appellant is not at all a person aggrieved. Though the appellant purports to challenge the order granting environmental clearance, majority of the averments pertains to disputes relating to the nature of the land, filling of the land, application of Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, invocation of Kerala Land Reforms Act, nature of public hearing etc. None of the grounds raised on the basis of nature of land, application of various state statutes like Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, application Kerala Land Reforms Act etc cannot be agitated and maintained in the present appeal since such matters are not covered under the NGT Act, 2010. Moreover, all the allegations pertaining to the state statues and nature of land etc., are repeatedly alleged and agitated by the appellant before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 8794/2013 as well as in W.P.(C) No. 14220/2013.
99. As per Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Sangathan Vs. Union of India, 2012(8) SCC 326, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared that only those environmental issues and matters covered under the National Green Tribunal Act, Schedule-1 should be instituted and litigated before the National Green Tribunal. It has been declared that such approach is necessary to avoid likelihood of conflict of orders between the High Courts and NGT. However the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not transfer a case which required administrative supervision connected to Bhopal Gas tragedy to the NGT in the above case. Therefore, the issues raised in the appeal need not be considered by this Tribunal since the appellant has already invoked the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala on the same and similar set of facts regarding allegation of operation of State statutes. As already pointed out appellant cannot 91 agitate any contentions against the EC since he is not a person aggrieved as per the Act.
100. The appellant has not raised any grounds against the conditions on which EC has been given. On the other hand, the allegations raised by the appellant revolves around factors regarding reclamation of land, application of Kerala Land Utilization order, finding regarding non existence of any wetland, application of Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, actual extent of land possessed by the proponent, exemption under the Kerala Land Reforms Act etc. Primarily, in the matter of grant of EC, the pivotal issue is the report of the EAC. The report of the committee cannot be assailed on the basis of any authority or organization who are not competent to comment on ecological matters. It is pertinent to point out that the EAC has already been apprised of the fact that the project site was in paddy land, which required reclamation. The aspect that the proposed site is a paddy land is already intimated to EAC as reflected in EC. Further, the 6 th respondent/Department of Environment, State of Kerala had corresponded with EAC, the 17 th respondent i.e., Department of Environment of Forest, Government of India. By the letter dated 26.06.2012, the 6th respondent had categorically informed that it is to be examined by the Government of India that whether the mitigative measures, if any suggested would be sufficient. Apart from the above, as regards the alleged depletion of ground water level due to filling it was reported that there were water recharge methods. These factors have been duly included in the final environmental clearance issued and the EC permits reclamation of paddy land with necessary permission to the extent of 1000 x 150 meter x 1 meter (height) in addition to the land already filled up and sold by the 19th respondent. Therefore, the Government of India has duly considered the representations, petitions, comments etc, received for and against 92 the project, and the important environmental concerns were addressed as reflected in the EC. The appellant has no case that the specific conditions as per paragraph 10 and general conditions as per paragraph 11 thereto are not sufficient or relevant so as to mitigate the probable environmental degradation.
101. The allegation raised by the appellant that Government of India has proceeded on the assumption that the proposed site is a dry land is not correct and hence stoutly denied. The allegation that the word 'wet land' is used opposite to the word dry land is misconceived. It is submitted that the term 'wet land' is defined under the (Wet Land Conservation and Management) Rules 2010 as per Rule 2(g). According to Section 2(g) Wet Land means ......"an area of marsh, fen, peat land or water; natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh brackish or salt, including areas of marine water, the depth of which at low tide does not exceed 6 metres and includes all inland waters such as lakes, reservoir, tanks, backwaters, lagoon, creeks, estuaries and manmade wet land and zone of direct influence on wet lands that is to say the drainage area or catchment region of the wet lands as determined by the authority, but does not include many river channels, paddy fields and the coastal wet land covered under the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forest, S.O. number 114(E) dated the 19th February 1991 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub Section (ii) dated the 20th February 1991."
102. The Wet Land Conservation Management Rules has been notified by the Central Government as per the Gazatte Notification No. GSR 951(F) dated 04.12.2010 to enhance the wetland conservation and management efforts in the country. These rules have beeen issued in exercise of powers conferred by 93 Environment (Protection) Act 1986. As per Rule 8(2) of the Rules, the State Government had designated the Department of Environment and Climate Change as the nodal agency for regulating the use of wetlands in the State as per GO (Rt) No. 51/11/Envt. Dated 30.05.2011. As per Rule 6(2) of the Wet Land Conservation Management Rules, the State Government shall prepare within a period of one year from commencement of rules, a 'brief document' identifying and clarifying the wetlands within their respective territories in accordance with the crieteria specified under Rule 3. Rule 3 stipulates those wetlands which shall be regulated under the rules and their classifications. Therefore, by virtue of notification dated 30.05.2011, the Department of Environment and Climate Change has prepared an inventory by incorporating the guidelines such as geographical dealiation of wetlands, demarcation on the basis of the zone of influence along with proper maps, calculated the size of the wetland and given an account of preexisting rights and previleges consistent or not consistent with the ecological health of the wetland. It is worthwhile to mention that proposed project site for which the EC clarfication has been granted under the Annexure A1 is not a wetland as per the inventory prepared under the Wetland Conservation Management Rules, 2010. The project site is only a paddy land which is now waterlogged and degraded and which was lying as unfit for paddy cultivation for the past so many years. It is also stated that the EC has been issued after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the environmental issues and for issuance of EC, no orders and consent of the State Government other than those required as per the notification dated 14.09.2006 on enviormental clearence is necessary. It is submitted that the EIA proceedigns are completed and de novo hearing is not requried. The aspects of public hearing narrated by the petitoner were already considered for the EC and Governemnt of India has 94 considered not only the report of the enviornmental assessment committee but also the objection raised from various quarters by sending representaitons, petitons etc., to various departments of the Government of India. The EC also reflects consideration of the same.
103. As per the instructions from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, public hearing was fixed for 10.03.2011 by the KSPCB after consulting with the District Collector of Pathanamthitta. Wide publicity was given on 06.02.2011, in a national and two regional vernacular dailies, in the manner and within the time specified in the Notification. More than 30 days' time was given between the date of publication and the date of hearing and the notice was published in the dailies. However, due to the declaration on 01.03.2011 about the forthcoming Elections to the Kerala State Legislative Assembly on 13.04.2011, the date of public hearing was postponed to 29.04.2011 by the answering respondent after consulting the District Collector. Wide publicity was again given through the same national and regional vernacular dailies on 27.03.2011. More than 30 days time was again given between the date of publication and the date of hearing. The date of public hearing had to be again postponed to 10.05.2011 due to a hartal call at Pathanamthitta on 29.04.2011. This postponement was also given wide publicity through the same National and Regional vernacular dailies. This publication was made on 28.04.2011.
104. The soft copies of the draft EIA report and the Malayalam and English versions of its executive summary were made available for public scrutiny in the State Pollution Control Board's website www.keralapcb.org and its hard copies were made available at the following offices:-
a. District Collectorate, Pathanamthitta 95 b. District Industries Centre, Kozencherry c. District Panchayat, Pathanamathitta d. Elanthoor Block Panchayat e. Aranmula Grama Panchayat f. Mezhuveli Grama Panchayat g. Mallapuzhassery Grama Panchayat h. Science Technology & Environment Department, Thiruvananthapuram i. Pollution Control Board, Pathanamthitta District Office j. Pollution Control Board, Head Office, Thiruvananthapuram
105. The Draft EIA report and the Malayalam and English versions of its executive summary were made available for public scrutiny at the above places for more than eighty days from 06.02.2011 to 10.05.2011. Thus, the documents were made available for more than the mandatory 30 days for the public to furnish their responses. The Public Hearing as announced was held at 11.00 AM on 10.05.2011 at the Conference Hall of the Pathanamthitta District Collectorate. The venue was selected considering its proximity to the project site and the facilities available at the Conference Hall to conduct the hearing. The distance from the project site to the venue was only 15 km. There were 80 participants in the public hearing and most of them were from Aranmula and adjoining areas. The hearing was presided over by the District Collector. The proceedings of the public hearing, representations in original received before and during the hearing and video recording of the hearing were forwarded to the MoEF as required under the EIA Notification, 2006. The proceedings of the public hearing were prominently displayed at the Head Office and Pathanamthitta District Office of the State Pollution Control Board and action was also taken to similarly display the Proceedings at the offices listed above. Thus, it is 96 submitted that the allegation that the public hearing was not conducted in accordance with rules is not correct and hence denied.
106. Hence, the 6th respondent in this appeal, namely the Secretary to Government, Department of Environment, Government of Kerala states that the EC has been issued after following the procedure established by law and seeks to dismiss the appeal.
107. M/s. K.G.S. Aranmula International Airports Ltd., has filed a common reply affidavit in respect of all the appeals referred to above and the gist of the reply of this respondent can be stated thus:
108. The State of Kerala is internationally renowned for its lush, green vegetation, its untouched and pristine forests as well as its ancient temples and hoary tradition. The state lies along the coastline, to the extreme south west of the Indian peninsula, flanked by the Arabian Sea on the west and the mountains of the Western Ghats on the east. The Western Ghats, bordering the eastern boundary of the state, form an almost continuous mountain wall, and as such, almost the entire state is characterized by hilly terrain. The backbone of the economy of this densely populated state has always been tourism, and the emphasis on the same has only intensified over the recent past.
109. The above unique features of the state have made better transport facilities fundamental to the sustained growth and development of Kerala. The hilly terrain of the state means that undulating and winding roads are a feature of road travel in Kerala, frequently traversing steep and narrow sections of ghat roads. The roads are also frequently subject to monsoonal storms, and as a result, travelling on 97 these roads takes far longer than similar distances elsewhere and is also far more dangerous and strenuous for passengers. In the Pathanamthitta District of Kerala lies the temple of Lord Ayyappa in Sabarimala, which is one of the most important and 2nd most visited religious centre in the world. The annual pilgrimage to Sabarimala undertaken by devotees has been estimated as the largest in the world. Hence, the need and demand for improved connectivity and accessibility to the area is not merely a state priority, but also assumes national and international significance. The location of an airport near the town of Sabarimala is therefore, not only a necessity in the context of the needs of devotees, the spurt to the local economy and the convenience for every stakeholder. The development of the area immediately surrounding the Ayyappa temple is impossible as the entire hill and indeed, the surrounding areas are of immense religious, cultural and historical significance as well as being densely forested. In fact, a significant extent of the entire district is covered by forest. As such, there remain very few locations which can even be considered for the construction of an airport. Moreover, the region is also home to a large population of emigrant Keralites who have settled in foreign lands and hence, the need for an international airport in the area is widely felt in the local as well as nonresident communities. The need for the present project and the objections that have been raised against the same have to be considered in the above context. The fundamental principle of environmental law in general is that of sustainable development. It is submitted that the law of environmental protection does not insist that man ought not to change the surroundings he lives in to his advantage. It is only necessary that the same is tempered with and balanced by due regard to protecting vitally important aspects of the environment. 98
110. In the state of Kerala, which as explained above, is a small but fertile region, an insistence on an extent of 500 acres of contiguous lands without vegetation as a precondition for any large development, however necessary, is unreasonable and impracticable. The project is one of national importance as evinced by the announcement of approval for the Aranmula Airport Project by His Excellency, the President of India in his address of the joint session of both the Houses of Parliament on 21.02.2013. The land for the proposed project has been carefully selected as one where there is no irreparable damage caused to the environment. The land required for the project was bought from the land owners directly by this Respondent by paying the market price without involving any eviction or compulsory acquisition or displacement of any houses, commercial areas or places of worship. The proposed international airport will generate direct employment to 1500 and indirect employment to more than 6000 people. The project will provide a boost to the State of Kerala in the field of tourism, pilgrimage, trade and industry and other spheres, thereby bringing sizable sum of revenue to the State and local Government departments, and shall be advantageous to the numerous expatriates who are hailing from the Central Travancore. The airport location is close to multiple tourist destinations such as Kumarakom, the backwaters of Alappuzha and high ranges. This proposed Airport is only one hour drive from Sabarimala, the second largest pilgrim centre in India and fourth largest in the world with annual pilgrims of around 4.5 crore. This airport facility will considerably reduce the traffic and related pollution during the peak season. The majority of non-resident Indians (NRI) passengers and non-resident Keralites (NRK) passengers of Trivandrum and Kochi Airport originate within 50 km radius of this site. 40% of the Kerala air traffic is 99 hailing from the influential zone of the airport. It is expected to serve four districts in Kerala State namely Pathanamthitta, Kottayam, Idukki and Alappuzha.
111. This airport will considerably reduce the road traffic to Kochi and Thiruvananthapuram. The consequential benefits of the airport will extend to poorer devotees and pilgrims to Sabarimala as well in as much as the demand for and traffic in other forms of public transport such as rail and road transport will reduce. The airports play a vital role in the development of industry and commercial trade as they offer crucial services for transportation of goods and passengers from one place to another. They are also essential for domestic and international tourism, where limitation of time is the key factor. While airports play catalyst to economic development, the economic developments in turn generate demand for the former. As a result, the aircraft fleets of airlines are growing at a rapid speed with improved technology, better speed, time, capacity, etc., to cater to ever-increasing demand. Thus, continuous improvement of airports needs airport management for planning, developing and operating efficiently and profitability to meet the present and future need of air travel; both, domestic and international. It is submitted that the people of Kerala would like to have modern infrastructure facilities in the State with least disturbance to environment and as such the State Government, representing the public interest, is in favour of this project. The objections against the vital infrastructure and employment generating development projects, which would be a boon to the educated unemployed in the State, are baseless. Such employment generating projects in a State like Kerala, with its teeming educated unemployed, cannot but be welcomed in the larger public interest, and in the economic interest of the Country as a whole and the respondent is following the guidelines and procedure for setting up of this Greenfield Airport. There is phenomenal growth in air traffic that 100 has been enabled by liberalized policies of the Government of India. The growth rate of passenger traffic has steadily increased. This rapid growth in passenger traffic has put enormous pressure on airport infrastructure causing severe congestion at major airports. The anticipated investment in airport development during the Eleventh Plan is over Rs 40,000/- crore, both from public and private sources, including for Greenfield airports according to Greenfield Airports Policy adopted by the Central Government. The project is supported by an overwhelming majority of persons living in and around Aranmula and that only a few persons with vested interests are opposed to the same. The present appeals under reply are not maintainable either on law or on facts. The appellants have no locus standi to file the present appeals. Smt. Sugathakumari, Shri. Sreerenganathan and Shri. Induchoodan have already approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP (C) No. 6004/2012 challenging the same matter, wherein this Appellant (in Appeal No. 172/2013) is the 2 nd Petitioner in the said case. In the Relief Portion, the Relief No. 2 Prayer "to declare 9th Respondent (this Respondent herein) or others have no authority to establish a Green Field Airport at Aranmula in the land covered by the notification declaring the project area as industrial area and environmental clearance if any, obtained by the 9th Respondent (this Respondent herein) is neither legal nor valid or sufficient raising almost the same environmental issues raised in this Appeal. The said matter is an issue pending consideration by the Hon'ble High Court which had arisen directly and substantially between the parties or their privies. This is a clear abuse of the process of law. The filing of this case itself is oppressive. These appeals lack bona fides and are frivolous, vexatious & oppressive and will result in miscarriage of justice. This Appellant (in Appeal No. 172/2013) is sub silentio regarding the 2nd Relief sought in WP (C) No. 6004/2012 pending before the Honourable High Court of 101 Kerala. The Proposed Airport as stated by the Appellants is not on the banks of River Pampa. The said Airport is situated almost 2 Kms from the Pampa River as can be clearly seen in the EIA Report and will be located at Aranmula, Kidanganoor and Mallapuzhassery Villages, Kozhencherry Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. Aranmula was declared by the UNDP as a "Heritage Village" due to Uthirattathi Boat Race and Aranmula Mirror which are unique of this Village and not based on environmental or physical features. This Airport project once commenced will showcase these unique cultural aspects globally and will ensure international visibility, ensuring tourist flow. This respondent will definitely preserve the rich heritage of the area and the sanctity of Sree Aranmula Parthasarathy Temple. Further, it is submitted that the fears of damage to the structure of the temple are completely unfounded and speculative. These allegations have been made even though they fall outside the scope of the enquiry of this Hon'ble Tribunal in a mischievous attempt to prejudice this Hon'ble Tribunal. This Respondent has purchased the fully developed land where no agricultural operation was being conducted. The statement to the effect that Mallapuzhassery, Aranmula and Kidangannur Villages where the airport is to be set up are agricultural villages with paddy being the crop is incorrect and misleading. The property was purchased by this respondent as completely reclaimed with no agricultural operation, for the last 3 decades, as is certified by the Agricultural Officer, besides the dry land and Rubber Plantations. A portion of the water logged land might have been filled about ten years back by the prior owner. Therefore, any legal action ought to be taken only against the prior owner and the present respondent cannot be punished for the same. The appellants were aware of the said situation at that time but were silent regarding the said conversion at that time and did not raise any objection regarding 102 the said conversion before any authority. The State of Kerala vide GO (MS) No. 30/12/Agri dated 16/02/2012 granted permission for filling up an area of 429.28 ares (10.62 acres) in the adjoining "Aranmula Punja", declaring the so called wetland as not cultivatable. This was because the character of the land had been permanently altered and no agricultural activities were done for several years and permission was therefore granted for the purpose of starting Cape Engineering College and it is also learnt that District level Committee has also recommended for filling an area of 10 acres for Aranmula Vasthu Vidya Gurukulam in the same Aranmula Punja. The Agricultural Officer, Pathanamthitta by its letter dated 29/02/2012 certified that the said 429.28 ares of land is not cultivatable and without any agricultural activities whatsoever for the last so many years. The present proposal involves development of the airport at Mallapuzhassery, Aranmula and Kidanganoor Villages, Kozhencherry Taluk, Pathanamthitta District, Kerala on a plot area of 500 Acres which includes certain water logged fallow land, dry land and Rubber Plantations. After purchasing the land, this respondent had not converted or reclaimed any part of land in its possession or made any attempt to fill up the land. M/s Enviro Care India Pvt Ltd is an ISO Certified company approved by the MoEF. At the time of presentation, there was no QCI implemented accredited Scheme (NABET) and all the consultants enlisted and approved by the first respondent were eligible for conducting EIA. The Office Memorandum issued by Government of India, MoEF clearly provides accreditation of the EIA Consultants and after the review of the accreditation progress by the QCI/NABET, the competent authority has approved a list of 265 consultants, wherein said Enviro Care India Pvt. Ltd., is arrayed as Sl.No. 73 and they are permitted to appear before State Level Expert Appraisal Committee/State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEAC/SEIAA) for 103 Category "B" Projects and the EAC for Category "A" Projects till 30th June 2011. These 265 Consultants will also be permitted to certify various documents, as consultants, such as EIA/EMP. The MoEF after evaluating the EIA Report submitted by Enviro Care India Pvt. Ltd is completely aware that the said agency is competent to prepare an EIA report since the said agency already submitted EIA reports for Chennai, Raipur and Vadodara Airports. Hence the statement to the effect that EIA has not been prepared by an accredited agency and the EIA submitted by the present Respondent is inadequate, misleading and is a fraud perpetrated by this Respondent, is totally false, misleading and is denied in toto.
112. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board conducted public consultation as provided in Clause 111 stage 3. As provided thereunder a public hearing was conducted by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board with the District Collector, Pathanamthitta in Chair. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board issued public notices in vernacular dailies Malayala Manorama dated 06.02.2011, Mathrubhumi daily dated 06.02.2011 and Kerala Kaumudi dated 06.02.2011 about the hearing to be held on 10.03.2011 at Collectorate Conference Hall, Pathanamthitta. The notice was published in English daily as well. The notice was also published in the website of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. On 10.03.2011, the public hearing has been adjourned and the same has been published in the daily dated 09.03.2011. Since the General Election to Kerala Legislative Assembly 2011 was declared, public hearing was adjourned to 29.04.2011 (because a harthal has been declared on that day by the Left Parties) and again to 10.05.2011 on the basis of the direction of Election Commission, since the Model Code of Conduct is enforced from the date of announcement of election schedule by the Election Commission and only on the basis of the directions given by the Election Commission, Public hearing was 104 conducted on 10.05.2011. For the adjourned hearing also public notices were published in news papers dated 28.04.2011. The notice of hearing was affixed in all public places like Village Office, Panchayat Office, Collectorate and so on. The notices were published at public places by hoardings and banners. The public hearing was conducted on 10.05.2011 at Conference Hall, Collectorate, Pathanamthitta with the District Collector in chair. In the meeting, representatives of the people and public were present. Hence the statement to the effect that the Public Hearing conducted for the purposes of the Airport in a clandestine undemocratic manner in violation of the EIA Notification, 2006 is absolutely false and denied in toto. The appellants were aware of the entire proceedings and did not raise any objection regarding the non participation in public hearing before any authority or in the Writ Petition pending before High Court of Kerala in WP (c) No. 6004/2012. The date of public hearings and its adjourned hearings are clearly notified in news papers. The Order of the Taluk Land Board declaring 232 acres of land purchased from the previous owner as excess land has been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court in CRP (LR) No. 187/2013 on 27.11.2013 and the Hon'ble Court has directed the Taluk Land Board to hear the matter afresh. Since the appeal is pending before Government of Kerala to exempt the land required for the airport project under Section 81 (3) of KLR Act, the Hon'ble High Court has directed this respondent not to construct in 232 acres, which form part of a larger extent, till the decision of TLB is taken within six months or otherwise terminated. The statement to the effect that we have not disclosed about the cases pending before the High Court is absolutely false and denied. The Aranmula Heritage Village Action Council in page No. 10 of their Appeal have admitted that whatever litigations stated to have been filed against this Respondent were not pending at the time of submitting the application on 105 28.06.2010. As per the impugned order, only the minimum area is required for filling. Moreover, all the cases mentioned in the Writ Petitions are not admitted so far and also no interim order also passed against this Respondent. Moreover in paragraph 5 of the Appeal filed by the Aranmula Heritage Village Action Council, they have also admitted that only the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has got jurisdiction to entertain any issue relating to the State Acts. For the proposed project, the EIA Report was prepared and ToR finalized on 13th October 2012. The public hearing was held at District Collectorate, Pathanamthitta on 10th May 2011 and the EAC recommended the project for clearance on 15.12.2011. This Respondent has also furnished periodical information called for by the Ministry of Environment & Forests from time to time and answered all queries raised by the Ministry in this regard. The issues dealt with are briefly summarized herein under.
A. Aranmula, Pathanamthitta District is connected by a good network of State Highway Roads. These roads have two-line riding surface of minimum 35ft with adequate space on the sides for future expansion. Following are the four vital arteries that pass through Aranmula:-
(a) Pathanamthitta-Aranmula.
(b) Thiruvalla-Aranmula.
(c) Chengannur-Aranmula.
(d) Pandalam-Aranmula.
B. Good connectivity from Alappuzha, Kottayam and Idukki Districts exists towards Pathanamthitta District. They further gain importance due to non-resident 106 Malayalies of above four districts, Sabarimala pilgrims during season, Sabarimala pilgrims proceeding to shrine every month, pilgrims converging at Maramon Convention every season, tourists (domestic and foreign) and regular traffic. The Airport will have a proper network of road communication around it. The allegation that the EIA must also include within its scope roads that may or may not be built in future by the State or Central Governments, which are completely different entities and which are governed by different norms and regulations, is clearly unsustainable. It is submitted that providing roads is a public function which is governed by different standards and policies and there is no requirement of an EC for such state activities.
C. Airport Land is interspersed with a small rivulet 'Kozhithodu' which is crossing the runway. This rivulet eventually merges with the famous Pampa River. A cross vent of 20 x 2.5 m underneath the runway is planned to maintain free flow of water in Kozhithodu. General lay of the land is towards Kozhithodu from South and North which facilitates free flow of water from both ends of run way towards Kozhithodu and the proposed drain.
D. Energy Conservation methods:
Energy conservation is a global concern and this Respondent will endeavor to implement all energy saving programmes conforming to nation's clean energy future while undertaking Airport construction.
Following are certain measures proposed to be implemented:-
(a) Solar energy. It is one form of energy which helps in maintaining the ecological balance. Maximum use of Solar Energy will be 107 adopted through PV system and solar power plant processes for external/internal electrification.
(b) Buildings are responsible for 40% of energy use in India and they are said to be major contributors to global emissions. Essential guidelines at micro level in line with the proposed Energy conservation building code will be complied with in respect to internal lighting, refrigeration, electronic/electrical gadget usage etc., through a Standard Operating Procedure (Dos & Don'ts).
(c) Construction sector has enormous environmental impact. Current trend of making structures "green" will be transplanted in true spirits on to ground while carrying out the Airport construction. Primary focus will be on salient aspects like preserving terrain, retention of green coverage, maximising natural cooling/natural lighting and minimum use of unsustainable building materials. Wastewater recycling, eliminating reliance on external source like water harvesting etc. Moreover, periodic energy audit by experts will be in place to monitor the programme.
E. Land Filling:
The Company has purchased about 300 acres of land in a single block, from the owners in a more or less developed form, the development of which was completed in 2000-2004. The area required for building the runway to a distance of almost 1500 meters have already been developed as part of the original plan by the then owner of certain lands to have a flying club in the area. Certain areas of the 108 project land purchased by us are dry land and Rubber Plantations. There is not and never has been any proposal to fill up the entire project area (500 acres) and our filling will be restricted to runway and terminal building sites, leaving the remaining in its natural form.
F. Plan for site filling:
The present respondent will be developing an additional area of 1000 meters for the runway with a maximum width of 150 meters and to a height of 1 meter. The soil required for this filling is calculated as under; 1000x150x1 = 150000 m3 of soil. G. Source of Soil:
There is an elevated portion at the site which is the source for filling. This elevated area is around 10 to 12 acres of land, with an average height of 3 to 5 metres. Quantity of Soil available by leveling this elevated portion will be about 2 million cubic meters. The soil available at this elevated place is laterite and identical with the soil at the site. Hence there is no need to bring soil from outside. The Appellants claim that the present respondent is leveling hills for the purpose of leveling the surface is completely fanciful and is denied. No such leveling has been carried out by the respondent.
H. Impact of filling:
As the present project requires filling the bare minimum area required for safe airport operation, leaving the remaining area in its natural form, there will be no environmental impact due to this activity. The recharge also remains unaffected. On 109 the whole, the minimum filling with the local material ensures environmental homogeneity and produces no impact on environment.
I. Wetland Conservation:
There are a few patches of water logged area at this site, due to poor flow. There is no notified wet land in the project site. But, there is an accumulated water body which remains scattered in different parts of the project site. This is mainly due to the fact that for the last more than 30 years, there was no agricultural operation in the area, which has resulted in frequent flooding during rainy seasons and remaining as wasteland during summer. Further, there is a small rivulet (Kozhithodu) which is passing through the project site. This rivulet collects water from uphill areas and joins the Pampa River, down below. The flow in this rivulet due to poor maintenance over the years is blocked at various points causing small water bodies in different parts of the project site. The flow in this rivulet is also blocked by silting and by growth of African weeds. In fact it is submitted that it was at the instance of the present respondent that the Minor Irrigation department, Government of Kerala has cleared the blockage of Kozhithodu by dredging for about 8 km from uphill upto the Pampa River. When the present respondent purchased the land from the original owner, the whole area was remaining wasteland with patches of water bodies and some of the portion of Kozhithodu (rivulet) partially blocked. It was the present respondent which ensured minimum interference with the environment and topography of the area. To ensure smooth flow of water through Kozhithodu (rivulet), this respondent has entrusted the work to the Minor Irrigation Department of Government of Kerala to study the topography, water flow, and to ensure that the accumulated water in the project site is systematically collected and smoothly flows through the Kozhithodu 110 (rivulet) down to Pampa River. This will increase the water table in the vicinity. Accordingly, the Department has devised ways and means to ensure smooth flow of water to Pampa River and to avoid flooding of the area during monsoon. The expenses required will be met by this respondent as per Government norms. This project design will be put in place during the implementation of the project. In order to protect and preserve the natural flow of Kozhithodu (rivulet), which will be cutting across the runway, it has been designed in such a way that this Kozhithodu (rivulet) passes right under the runway without any hindrance. This respondent has also planned excellent drainage system along the runway and around the terminal building to ensure traffic safety coupled with protection of environmental factors. These measures will ensure a comprehensive conservation plan for the water flow in the area and a systematic drainage system so that there is no flooding in and around the airport, which is an imperative security prerequisite. The water requirement will be only 7550 litres/day which is not on large scale as specified. The present ground water potential is sufficient for the water requirement. The area receives plenty of rainfall and natural recharge will take care of water replenishment. The proposed project has been planned with utmost care to ensure minimum interference with the environmental factors. The present respondent also undertakes that this project will be implemented with extreme care and with comprehensive conservation plan with strict adherence to the guidelines issued by the MOEF and in accordance with the MoEF's Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance Manual for Airports. The allegations that data on sensitive habitats, wild or endangered species in the project area is to be collected from Zoological Survey of India (ZSI), Botanical Survey of India (BSI), Wildlife Institute of India (WII) and Ministry of Earth Sciences is wholly misleading as there is no data to show that any such species or habitats are native 111 to the project site. The proposed airport is in the public interest and for the development of the country. There will not be any destruction of any ecosystem. The recommendations made by the Salim Ali Foundation report do not reflect the actual prevailing environmental situation of Aranmula. It depends largely upon certain suppositions and conjectures in arriving at the conclusion and highly arbitrary and without any proper scientific basis. The particular land, which is a fallow land, could be productively used for this ambitious airport project. Salim Ali Foundation appears to have taken up the study about the environmental impact of Aranmula Airport suo motu. Unfortunately, it is not a competent agency recognized by the Airport Authority of India, to study the environmental impact of Airports in India. The Report by Salim Ali Foundation on the whole is too vague, superficial, incomplete and most unscientific. The report per se reflects distorted background of the project, whims and fancies of the researchers and does not explain the research methodology, which has been adopted for this study. This very fact makes this project report totally unscientific, biased and hence cannot be relied up on. The list of flora and fauna recorded as part of the study is all of generic nature, which is available throughout the State of Kerala and hence have no preservative value. It is a mere reproduction of standard material with little relevance to the project site. The Salim Ali Foundation report does not disclose the size of the population, sample collected, sampling technique adopted and the reasoning for arriving at any definite conclusion, which are most crucial to any scientific report.
113. The criticism about the EIA report prepared by the Enviro Care in light of the supposed findings of the Salim Ali Foundation is superficial and without any basis in data, statistical analysis and qualitative appreciation. It is also pertinent to note that none of the members of the Salim Ali Foundation had cared to associate 112 with this Project during the EIA study, Public hearing or in any other way till this date, and to ventilate their points/concerns, for reasons best known to them. The gross inadequacies, total lack of systematic research methodology presumptions and assumptions have been summarized as 14 recommendations submitted at the end of the study by Salim Ali Foundation. All these recommendations are mere suggestions without any scientific background or substantiating evidence. It appears to be a more emotional report on hearsay evidence, false press reports, inadequate or total ignorance about airport projects and above all without even an attempt at a scientific approach to the whole issue. There is not a single recommendations substantiated by scientific data or authenticated reports. The commercial viability of a fifth airport, flight frequency etc., as mentioned in the recommendations of the Salim Ali Foundation are commercial questions which are irrelevant to the appellants. The very fact that the entire funding is met by the investor without a single Rupee of public fund makes these contentions totally baseless and irrelevant. The utilization of the land for Airport project where there was no agricultural operation for more than two decades and which has been lying as a fallow land for more productive, employment oriented and infrastructural development project for the overall development of the State of Kerala with special reference to Pathanamthitta District is a boom to economic growth of the State. This respondent have taken every care and caution to protect and preserve the natural habitat, flora and fauna, rivulets and such other natural features, in the best possible form, with least interference during the implementation of the Airport Project. The Government of Kerala after evaluating the whole project in toto, developmental contribution, employment potential, better connectivity and nature friendly has taken 10% stake in this Greenfield Airport Project. The appellants 113 have attempted to claim that there are wetlands in the area which will be affected by the project. But there is no identified wet land in Aranmula Village as per the Report of the Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS). The CESS has prepared a report on wetlands in Kerala in which there is no mention of any wetland in the Pathanamthitta district. Thus, the allegation that the present Respondent has purchased consent for the proposed project is vehemently denied. It is submitted that the irresponsible manner in which such serious allegations have been made by the appellants is indicative of the frivolous nature of the present appeals. As the definition of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008, Paddy Land is not wet Land. The provisions of Central Wet Land Act are also similar. Therefore, it seems the authors of the Report of Salim Ali Foundation have confused Paddy Land with Wet Land.
114. Regarding the allegation raised by the appellants based on the Salim Ali Foundation Report that the EIA Report is inadequate, did not recognize the fertile, wetlands on the flood plains of river Pampa and presence of endemic and economically important species in the area, non inclusion of source of earth filling the land, it is stated that that EAC has suggested ToR's and the EIA has been prepared as per the TOR's. EAC has sought additional information on Noise level modeling, analysis of impact, Traffic management, NOC from Civil Aviation etc, before recommending the Project. The MOEF has also called for additional information on the details of the area required to be filled, source of material, likely impacts and referred back to the EAC. The EAC, again in August 2012 examined and recommended the approval of the project. It is noted that the EIA study conducted by Enviro Care India Pvt., Ltd., covered the methodology of EIA, scope of EIA, study 114 period, air environment, noise environment, water environment, land environment, eco-system, socio-economic development, project description, disaster management plan, basic infrastructure required, existing environmental status, ambient air quality, noise environment, water quality, soil quality, land environment, biological environment, socio- economic environment, identification and prediction of impacts, positive environmental impacts, negative environmental impacts, environmental management plan, environmental impact statement etc., by adopting sampling locations, micrometeorology, temperature, rainfall, relative humidity, wind direction, wind speed, dust fall etc., These were all dealt with extensively by the report and the attempt of the appellants to contradict the findings of this extensive study on the basis of flimsy material is clearly untenable. A habitat or an area comprises of different kinds of Plants and animals within its boundary. The distribution of flora and fauna in the given area represents the biological environment. The biological portion of the environment includes, what is present in the study area, its values, and its responses to impacts description of community uniqueness, the dominant species, and an evaluation of rare or endangered species. The study was conducted by Enviro Care Pvt. Ltd., like the field monitoring stations were installed in four different locations in 10 km radius area.  Thus, the EIA study covered the flora and fauna under Chapter-III of the EIA Report. The EAC, after due consideration of the relevant documents submitted by this respondent and additional clarifications furnished in response to its observations, have recommended for the grant of EC for the project as per the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 and its subsequent amendments, 115 subject to strict compliance of the terms and conditions envisaged in the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the MOEF is a speaking order and this respondent declares that it will adhere and follow strictly the specific conditions laid down in the said order. The said order is not given overnight, but was granted after a detailed and exhaustive analysis of all the environmental aspects. The method of assessment of impact including studies carried out, modeling techniques adopted to assess the impact where pertinent has been elaborated in the EIA Report. The report details the impact of the baseline parameters, both during the construction and operational phases and suggests the mitigation measures to be implemented by this respondent. The report also covers the planned environmental monitoring program and has provided the overall justification for implementation of the project and has explained how the adverse effects will be mitigated. It is submitted that therefore factors such as noise pollution, which are a natural consequence of any human activity, especially airports, have been duly considered before granting the impugned E C . All efforts will be made to mitigate these effects but it is humbly submitted that the principle of sustainable development governs the decision to permit a project in the public interest such as the present project and the application of the said principle by the MoEF in the present case has been most satisfactory. The allegation that more than 50 items were taken up on the day and that hence, there could be no application of mind is clearly incorrect in so far as the additional material which was specifically requested by the MoEF before clearance was granted shows that the decision was taken over a period of time and that only the formal approval was finally given on the same day. The decision making process was carried on over a long period and over elaborate deliberations. The Ministry of 116 Civil Aviation published the Greenfield Airport Policy enabling private establishments to establish and operate airports in India and accordingly this respondent had decided to establish an airport at Aranmula, Kozhencherry Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. By virtue of Clause 2.4 (b) of Greenfield Airport Policy, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its place of business in India and having the criteria prescribed thereunder is an "Airport Company" entitled to set up an airport. This respondent satisfies all the conditions in Clause 2.4 of Greenfield Airport Policy and is an Airport Company defined thereunder. The appeal for setting up of an a i r p o r t a t Aranmula under the Greenfield Airport Policy was submitted to the proper authority. The Airports Authority of India by the letter dated 15.10.2009 recommended the site for the International Airport. This Respondent then applied to the State of Kerala for a No Objection Certificate for establishing Airport at Aranmula. This respondent after cabinet clearance by order dated 08.09.2010 issued No objection Certificate for establishment of the airport. The respondent State of Kerala in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 2 and 5 of Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Development Act, 1999 (Act 5 of 2000) declared the proposed area in which the Airport is to be established as an Industrial area of the State and constituted a Single Window Clearance Board for the said area to be known as "Greenfield Airport, Aranmula Single Window Clearance Board" for the purpose of speedy issue of various licenses, clearances or certificates required under the various State enactments and constituted 15 Member Board. The G o v e r n m e n t h a s appointed the Secretary to Government (Industrial Promotion), Industries Department to be the Chairman of the Board and the Managing Director, KINFRA as convener. On 117 12/11/2010, Government of Kerala after evaluating the comprehensive developmental impact which this Airport project will bring to the State of Kerala were pleased to give direction to the District Collector to initiate every action to commence the construction of the p roject including the registration of the land in the name of this Respondent and based on this District Collector has given direction to the Additional Tahsildar, Kozhencherry for mutating the property in the company's name. Accordingly this respondent purchased the land required for the project and mutation was effected in the Company's name, based on the permission given by the District Collector, Pathanamthitta. The District Collector also gave direction to the Sub Registrar, Aranmula to effect registration of properties in the name of this Respondent.
115. The Ministry of Defence, Government of India by its proceedings dated 24.08.2011 addressed to the MoEF gave NOC for setting up of airport at Aranmula. Since the proposed airport is within 150 km within the existing airports, the respondent obtained consent from the MoEF for establishing the Green Field Airport at Aranmula. It is submitted that if the proposed Airport is beyond 150 km of an existing Civilian Airport prior approval of the Central Government is not necessary by virtue of Clause 9.1 of Exhibit R4 (b) Policy. Clause 9.1 of Exhibit R4 (b) Policy makes it clear that the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is the competent Authority to give clearance for the setting up of a new Airport within 150 km from an existing civilian a i rport. Thus, the Exhibit R4 (j) consent issued by the MoEF satisfies the requirement under Clause 9.3 of Exhibit R 4 (b) Policy. Kerala Traffic has grown five times in last eight years from two million to 10 million. Kerala economy depends on foreign remittance of Rs 60,000 crores per year. One out of three Keralite uses Airport facility and out of 3 crore population, 1 118 crore people has travelled by air. Recently, the f irst respondent has given Environmental Clearance for the Kannur Airport in Kerala, which is situated only Eighty Five Kilometers from the existing Calicut and Mangalore Airports. This respondent has purchased the fully developed land where no agricultural operation was being conducted. The property was purchased by this Respondent as completely reclaimed with no agricultural operation, for the last 3 decades, as is certified by the Agricultural Officer, besides the dry land and Rubber Plantations. The State of K e r a l a vide GO (MS) No. 30/12/Agri d a t e d 16/02/2012 granted permission for filling up an area of 429.28 a res (10.62 a cres) in the adjoining "Aranmula Punja", declaring the so called wet land as not cultivatable. This was because the character of the land had been permanently altered and no agricultural activities were done for several years and permission was therefore granted for the purpose of starting Cape Engineering College and it is also learnt that District level Committee has also recommended for filling an area of 10 Acres for Aranmula Vasthu Vidya Gurukulam in the same Aranmula Punja. The Agricultural Officer, Pathanamthitta by its letter dated 29/02/2012 certified that the said 429.28 Ares of land is not cultivatable and without any agricultural activities whatsoever for the last so many years. The statement to the effect that construction of the a irport is in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008, Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, Environment Protection Act, 1986, Land Acquisition Act etc are false and denied in toto. In any event, the present Tribunal is not concerned with alleged violations of state enactments as they fall beyond the purview of the Scheduled enactments to the National Green Tribunal Act. This respondent does not make any representation of facts and it is the 119 appellants which are continuously suppressing material facts and defaming the image and reputation of this respondent through media and unnecessarily dragged this respondent into litigation with ulterior motive. This respondent has purchased the property starting from 27.12.2010 from Kozhencherry Charitable Educational Society and o thers. In that deed the nature of property is stated as "dry land". At the time of purchase of the property itself, the nature of land which was purchased from Kozhencherry Charitable Educational Society was in a developed state. The major portions of the land are rubber plantations. After purchasing the land, this respondent had not converted or reclaimed any part of land in its possession or made any attempt to fill up the land. This respondent has not done anything whatsoever till this date to fill/reclaim the purchased land or convert any poramboke thodu or filled any Kozhithodu (rivulet) as alleged by the appellants. The revenue authorities also confirmed that that this respondent has not filled any land. The present respondent had purchased certain lands, which were already converted prior to enactment of Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The Aranmula Grama Panchayat has passed a resolution dated 22.09.2004 and also issued a letter to the Prior owner of certain lands supporting conversion of land. The Kozhencherry Charitable Educational Society owned 232 Acres of land spread over in three villages- Aranmula, Mallapuzhassery and Kidanganoor Villages in Pathanamthitta District. This respondent cannot be held liable for the conversion of land by a prior owner before the enactment of the Act. Hence, the allegation to the effect that this respondent is continuing the illegal activity of filling paddy and wet lands is denied in toto.
120
116. This respondent had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala for granting adequate and sufficient police protection for its employees and workers in their duties in connection with the establishment of Aranmula airport project. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order in W.P.( C).No. 3407 of 2012 dated 15.02.2012 has directed the police authorities to give necessary and adequate protection to proceed with the work, after examining all the documents/sanctions received from both Central and State Governments and hearing the Advocate General. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble High Court has reiterated that the very establishment of International Airport at Aranmula is for "public utility". The Writ Petition filed by this appellant before Hon'ble High Court as W.P. (C). No.6004/2012 has been tagged together along with W.P. (C).No. No. 3407/2012 and the Hon'ble High Court have again reiterated that sufficient police protection should be granted for any construction work being done in our property.
117. The present project has received support from all government at every level as evidenced by the letter of the Government of Kerala dated 26.09.2011 addressed to the Ministry of Civil Aviation expressing its support to the establishment of the Airport at A ranmula. This respondent who is implementing the project has purchased the land in a more or less developed form and we have obtained all clearances as per the Greenfield Airport Policy, promulgated by the Government of India. Considering the statutory and constitutional position of the State Committee, this respondent has agreed to carry out all the recommendations, applicable to this respondent in letter and spirit. This respondent is committed to do this developmental infrastructure project strictly in accordance with law, absolute transparency and all out protection to the nature 121 and environment.
118. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board conducted public consultation as provided in Clause 111 stage 3. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board had issued the summary of the details of the proposed project and public consultation including the details of executive summary and EIA Report of the project and made available for reference in the following offices like District Collector, Pathanamthitta, District Industries, Kozhencherry, District Panchayat Office, Pathanamthitta, Elanthoor Block Panchayat Office, Elanthoor, Pathanamthitta, Aranmula Grama Panchayat Office, Aranmula, Pathanamthitta, Mallapuzhassery Grama Panchayat Office, Pathanamthitta, Science, Technology & Environment Department, Sasthra Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram, District Office, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Makkamkunnu, Pathanamthitta and Head Office, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Thiruvananthapuram. In the said notification, it is clearly mentioned that all concerned persons are welcome to communicate comments on environmental aspects of the project within 30 days of the date of publication or to participate in Public Consultation. As provided there under a public hearing was conducted by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board with the District Collector, Pathanamthitta in the Chair. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board issued public notices in vernacular dailies Malayala Manorama dated 0602.2011, Mathrubhumi daily dated 06.02.2011 and Kerala Kaumudi dated 06.02.2011 about the hearing to be held on 10.03.2011 at Collectorate Conference Hall, Pathanamthitta. The notice was published in English daily as well. The notice was also published in the website of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. The environmental public hearing was scheduled on 10.03.2011. But due to the announcement of the date for General Election to Kerala Legislative 122 Assembly 2011, the Chief Electoral Officer instructed to defer the public hearing till the election process was over. In accordance with that, the public hearing was postponed to 29.4.2011. Since a harthal has been declared on that day by Left Parties, the Public Hearing has been re-adjourned to 10.05.2011. Since the General Election to Kerala Legislative Assembly 2011 was declared, public hearing was adjourned to 29.04.2011 (because of harthal) and again to 10.05.2011 on the basis of the direction of the Election Commission, since the Model Code of Conduct is enforced from the date of announcement of election schedule by the Election Commission and only on the basis of the directions given by the Election Commission, public hearing was conducted on 10.05.2011. The Election Commission is entitled to issue such directions under Article 324 (1) of the Constitution of India as it thinks fit, for conducting free and fair elections and for maintaining the purity of election process. Election Commission is a constitutional authority under Article 324 of the Constitution having plenary of power and directed to defer till the election process is over. For the adjourned hearing also public notices were published in newspapers. The notice of hearing were affixed in all public places and public places like Village Office, Panchayat Office, Collectorate and so on. The notices were published at public places by hoardings and banners. The public hearing was conducted on 10.05.2011 at Conference Hall, Collectorate, Pathanamthitta with District Collector in the chair. In the meeting representatives of the people and public were present. This respondent who is implementing the project has purchased the land in a more or less developed form and we have obtained all clearances as per the Greenfield Airport Policy, promulgated by the Government of India. Considering the statutory and constitutional position of the State 123 Committee, this respondent has agreed to carry out all the recommendations, applicable to this respondent in letter and spirit. This respondent is committed to do this developmental infrastructure project strictly in accordance with law, absolute transparency and all out protection to the nature and environment.
119. The entire meeting was video graphed and sent to the MoEF. Amongst 250 people participated in the hearing of whom 80 persons signed in the minutes book. Moreover, there is no prescribed quorum for the public hearing as contemplated under the Appendix IV of 6.2 of the procedure for conduct of Public Hearing. It is submitted that in pursuance of the public hearing held on 10.05.2011 and on the basis of the minutes of the meeting and all relevant records and the subsequent detailed scrutiny by the EAC recommendations were made to the MoEF, the first respondent. On the basis on the recommendation made by the said Board, the EAC, Government of India has recommended the E C for the airport project. After hearing and perusing documents, video and other connected records, E A C recommended the project for EC to the first respondent, MoEF. Thus, the stipulations in Exhibit R 4 (b) have been fully complied with and also as per Schedule-IV for the Procedure for Public Hearing and since the Model Code of Conduct is enforced in the State of Kerala by the Election Commission and only on the basis of their directions only, Public hearing was conducted on 10.05. 2011. This appellant failed to file any objection or raise their concerns regarding the said Public Hearing or any environmental impact, if any to the Kerala State Pollution Control Board within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice which have been already produced and marked as Exhibit R 4 (q). The impugned order has been passed by the MoEF after reviewing the adequacy of the consultation process and examined the procedure followed as 124 per MoEF notification.
120. There will not be any environmental hazard as alleged by the appellants. M/s Enviro Care India Pvt. Ltd., is an ISO certified company approved by the Airport Authority of India. The said Company conducted detailed impact study on the establishment of the airport at Aranmula and submitted report. This respondent made the presentation about the environmental aspects before the Expert Appraisal Committee of Ministry of Environment and Forests. After satisfying that the proposed Airport does not have any environmental impact, recommended to the Government as per Exhibit R 4(O). The procedure adopted is an elaborate one. There are several stages for obtaining EC. Firstly, we have to identify an agency approved by Airport Authority of India, who is competent to study environmental impact assessment and submit an EIA report. M/s Enviro Care is an ISO Certified Company and approved by Airport Authority of India at that time. Secondly, the company so engaged will conduct a field study for one year touching all aspects of nature, climatic conditions, flora and fauna, water, air, pollution aspects, noise, visibility, rainfall etc. Thirdly, based on the primary data collected in the year, they will prepare EIA. This will be submitted to MoEF, the first respondent through Kerala State Pollution Control Board. The first respondent after examining the EIA report and evaluating our presentation before them will finalize the ToR. These aspects will be again studied and report will be submitted to EAC along with t h i s respondent's presentation. If the report and presentation based on the ToR is approved by EAC, then they will direct for holding a public hearing at the District Headquarters after giving wide publicity through print and publishing media including hoardings, newspaper advertisements etc. During the public hearing, any person of the locality 125 who has any interest whatsoever in the project can come and present his point of view regarding the project and all such points will be addressed satisfactorily. Thereafter, the minutes of the meeting prepared by District Collector, Pathanamthitta, will be read out and was unanimously passed by the Public so assembled. This minute along with the video recording of the proceedings will be forwarded to MoEF, the first respondent, by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to EAC. The EAC after scrutiny of the minutes and attending the presentation by us, if satisfied will recommend the project for clearance to the MoEF. The present respondent has undertaken the whole process satisfactorily and successfully. The impugned order has been passed by the MoEF after reviewing the adequacy of the consultation process and examined the procedure followed as per MoEF notification.
121. The statement to the effect that evacuations of families will take place as a result of the project are totally baseless, false and far from truth. Not a single person was evicted so far and this is a deliberate false propaganda to create fear psychosis among the local people and to provoke them to agitate against this project, which will definitely bring sustainable development to the State of Kerala. The statement to the effect that there are more than 1000 families residing in the said region is absolutely false and denied in toto. The major portions of the land are rubber plantations and fallow lands. The averments that there are about 700 houses in the proposed airport land are false and hence denied. There will not be any eviction, acquisition or displacement of any houses. As directed by the Government, this respondent has negotiated with land owners and land has been purchased in conformity with the prevailing market value in the locality. The Google Map produced pertains to the entire locality consisting of 126 more than 3000 Acres. The proposed airport area is limited to 500 Acres. Hence, the question regarding evacuation of people historically, culturally and economically connected with the region does not arise and there is no violation of the right to life as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Government of Kerala after evaluating the project in toto including connectivity, infrastructure development, employment potential and comprehensive development to the State were pleased to take 10% equity in the project and also ordered that Government puramboke land essential for the operations of the airport shall be given to the Company after levying market price vide G.O (Ms) No. 04/2013/Trans dated 16/01/2013.  The Governments have given permission to proceed with this airport project and is a continuing policy of both the Governments. Persons having vested interest are raising objections. Already employment for several persons has been given by the Company. Several skilled and unskilled workers are working for the Company for the purpose of establishing this Airport. The impugned EC has been issued by the 1st respondent only after a proper study of the extensive EIA submitted by this respondent. The allegations that the EIA Report is invalid as M/s Enviro Care Pvt. Ltd., is not a qualified agency is clearly untenable. True Copies of the Office Memorandum issued by Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest dated 28.06.2010 and dated 31.12.2010 regarding accreditation of EIA consultants is produced. The allegations regarding the basic information submitted by this respondent are absolutely false and denied. At the time of giving basic information on 28.06.2010, what all are stated in the information are true and correct. As already stated, the present respondent has purchased the land in a developed state 127 and most of the lands are lying as water logged fallow land, dry land and Rubber Plantations. The previous owner Kozhencherry Charitable Educational Society owned 232 acres of land spread over in three villages- Aranmula, Mallapuzhassery and Kidanganoor Villages in Pathanamthitta District. As per the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010, List of Wetlands in India Identified as Ramsar Sites under Ramsar Convention on Wet Land, wherein no portion of the airport project has been identified as "Wet Land" in the appended Schedule. Moreover, there is no protected Wetland in the Project area as per the said rules. It is true that there is no pending litigation against this respondent at the time of submission of information in Form I of the appeal. Hence, the statement to the effect that this respondent had made false statement regarding the pending litigation against the Project at the time of submission of the appeal is absolutely false. There is no local land use plan. Moreover, there is no zonal classification in the airport area and hence the land will be used only for the airport purpose with strict adherence to the conditions stipulated in the impugned order. There is no need for any demolition as there is no structure in the project area. There is no need for any further reclamation as the project area has been purchased in a developed state. There is no need for any reclamation work in this p r o j e c t . Most of the project site is in a developed form/rubber plantation and dry land. The purpose regarding the sensitive man- made land uses (like hospitals etc) are to be interpreted as items directly or indirectly affecting the operation of the airport. It is necessary to identify the presence of such obstructive structures, for which the present respondent has separately conducted Obstruction Study before embarking on the project, after the submission of the basic information. This will complement the appeal. The aerial 128 distance is for the purpose to identify any man- made structures like hospital that would interfere the operation of the Airport. This study was conducted by a comprehensive and mandatory obstruction study by M/s. Aero Survey, G-11, Second Floor, Green Park Extension, and New Delhi, who is a recognized agency for conducting Obstacle Study for Airport Project by Civil Aviation, Airport Authority and DGCA. There is no protected monument within the area which will be affected by the proposed project. Hence, there was no misrepresentation by the respondent. Kaviyoor temple, Aranmula temple and other monuments are not affected by the temple and are not monuments officially protected by the Archeological Survey of India.
122. Challenging the very same grounds raised by the appellants, an appeal was filed by Aranmula Heritage Action Council represented by its Patron Sri Kummanam Rajasekharan, who has also challenged the same before the First Respondent, as Appeal No. 38/2013 before this Tribunal has been withdrawn and this Tribunal awarded a cost of Rs 25000/- payable to the respondent's side. Further, the Kerala State Legislative Committee on Environment has not expressed any reservation against the project as such but on the other hand, it has recommended that the excess land notified as Industrial Area, except the land under the possession of this respondent is to be de-notified and orders issued. The Committee consisting of 8 Members of the Legislative Assembly under the chairmanship of Shri C.P. Mohammed examined the allegations and submitted their report on 12.06.2012. The main findings and recommendations of the Committee have been answered by this respondent to the MoEF, the first respondent which is as follows:-
129
123. A. The project should be implemented after considering the Topography environmental study and discussion with the concerned departments:-
This Project has complied with all the above recommendations. The EIA study was carried out by Enviro Care India Pvt. Ltd, Madurai, which is a recognized agency for conducting and preparing EIA report. Thereafter, the ToR were formulated by the EAC in the 91st EAC Meeting held on 21st to 23rd September, 2010 and intimated to us vide MoEF Letter No. 10-51/2010-IA.III th dated 30 October 2010. The public hearing was held on 10.05.2011 with the District Collector, Pathanamthitta in t h e Chair and cleared by the EAC on 21st to 23rd September 2011. Thereafter, based on the article in news paper "The Hindu" dated 02.01.2012, the issues raised were again re-examined on 105th Meeting of the EAC held on 16th to 17th August 2012 and cleared the project. Hence, all the formalities stipulated by the first respondent has been complied with.
B. The opinion of the local public has to be considered:
Public hearing which was held on 10.05.2011 with the District Collector in chair was attended around 250 local people and all of them have unanimously supported the project. The minutes of the meeting has been submitted along with video graph by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board vide Kerala Pollution Control Board vide Letter No. PSB/HO/PTA/04/2011 dated 13.05.2011. Further, it has been certified by the Agricultural Officer, Pathanamthitta that there is no paddy cultivation in that area for so long and hence the land identified for 130 the project is waste land.
C. There is a Government land in the project site and action should be initiated to recover the same:
The Government vide G.O. (Ms) 04/2012/Trans dated 16.02.2013 has already taken 10% stake in the project and have decided to transfer the Government land within the project site to this respondent at market price.
D. The rivulet (Kozhithodu) passing through the project site is seen blocked due to silting. This may be addressed and natural flow restored.
This respondent has conducted a Hydrological study of rivulet (Kozhithodu) with reference to Aranmula airport through the Department of Minor Irrigation, Government of Kerala and as per their recommendations, the blockade in the Kozhithodu has been removed and natural flow restored.
E. Efforts to be made for reviving agriculture in the area which has been lying as wasteland due to shortage of water:
No Economic Agriculture/Operation is possible in the area as the land has already been reclaimed and the local farmers abandoned the agriculture for the past so many years.
F. The Kerala Government should hold discussion with all connected departments before declaring any areas Industrial Zone.
The project area has been declared as Industrial area as per G.O. (P) No. 131 54/11/ID dated 24.02.2011, after observing all formalities. The recommendation of the committee has been accepted by the Government.
G. The Government may examine the various judgments by High Court of Kerala regarding the filling of Agricultural land and earnest efforts must be made to implement the same.
The Government has accepted this recommendation.
H. The Government should initiate action against persons who has filled and blocked the Kozhithodu.
Action has already been initiated against the miscreants who had filled and blocked the Kozhithodu. An agreement has signed b e t w e e n the KGS Group and the Assistant Executive Engineer, of Aranmula Minor Irrigation sub division and as per the agreement; dredging has already been done for smooth running of water.
I. The area outside the project which has been notified as Industrial area may de-notified:
The Government has already initiated action to de-notify the excess land from the notified area.
J. The action has to be initiated against person who had converted agricultural land in the area:
The Government has already initiated appropriate action against the persons as directed.
K. The EAC of the State Government has not conducted any study about the project 132 site. Hence, the Govt .may examine the circumstances under which the State Pollution Board has recommended theProject to Government of India.
124. The Pollution Control Board has recommended this Project after observing all the formalities and after examining the EIA Report prepared by the Enviro Care India Pvt. Ltd., Madurai. The public response recorded during the public hearing, after visit to the site and perusal of all the connected records.
125. All these suggestions have been taken on board by the present respondent and that the proposed project will be constructed strictly in accordance with the provided by the MoEF and the terms thereof. The project area has been declared as "Industrial Area" by the Government of Kerala under due process of Law thereby stipulating all formalities. The appeal period for challenging the notification is 30 days and nobody till date has challenged the said notification within the stipulated period. The statement to the effect that the MOEF had granted the impugned order without application of mind is vague and totally false and frivolous. There is no acquisition of land as alleged by the Appellants.
126. The suggestion that the proposed runway cannot possibly be constructed in the proposed site is plainly absurd which is based upon an early map of a much smaller extent of land. The proposed project is within a 500 acre area and the same can easily accommodate a 2800 m runway and the detailed plans of the proposed project clearly demonstrate the same.
127. The present respondent has not violated the EIA Notification, 2006 as alleged. The airport has been proposed in an area of 500 acres, of which this 133 Respondent had purchased more than 350 acres as preliminary step. Simultaneously, this respondent have to work out the orientation of the runway, lay out for the taxiway, apron, fire and rescue facility etc which are primary aspects associated with the implementation work. The preliminary work includes feasibility study, financial viability, hydro graphic study, land survey, budgetary allocation and identification of suitable site etc. The impugned order passed by the MOEF is a speaking order and has been passed after considering all relevant environmental factors, and after due consideration of the relevant documents submitted by this respondent and additional clarifications furnished in response to its observations. The EIA has only thereafter recommended the grant of Environmental Clearance for the p roject as per the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 and its subsequent amendments, subject to strict compliance of the terms and conditions as envisaged in the impugned order. The present respondent hereby undertakes that it will comply with the specific conditions envisaged in the impugned order in letter and spirit.
128. On the above grounds, the respondent namely M/s. K.G.S. Aranmula Airport Projects Pvt. Ltd., seeks to dismiss the appeals.
129. M/s. Enviro Care India Pvt. Ltd., the 5th respondent in Appeal No. 19 of 2014 (SZ) in reply would state as follows:
This respondent is a company who has been actively involved in developing cleaner environment throughout the country, more particularly in the region since 2004 and an I.S.O 9001 certified company having Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) accreditation and having laboratory facilities accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) and the Department of 134 Science and Technology for chemical and biological testing. The company is having National Accreditation Board's certification for Education and Training (NABET) from Quality Council of India (QCI) and the respondent is also doing consultancy services such as EIA/EMP study, risk assessment, detailed project report proposals and environmental audit and training for several turnkey projects.
130. The EIA study conducted by this respondent for the airport project covered recognized and accepted methodology of EIA, scope of EIA, study period, study period, air environment, noise environment, water environment, land environment, eco-system, socio-economic development, project description, disaster management plan, basic infrastructure required, existing environmental status, ambient air quality, noise environment, water quality, soil quality, land environment, biological environment, socio- economic environment, identification and prediction of impacts, positive environmental impacts, negative environmental impacts, environmental impact assessment, environmental management plan, environmental impact statement etc by adopting sampling locations, micrometeorology, temperature, rainfall, relative humidity, wind direction, wind speed, dust fall etc., This respondent has already EIA reports for Chennai, Raipur and Vadodara airports and it was based on these reports the said projects were successfully completed.
131. At the time of submission of the report and presentation, there was no QCI implemented accredited scheme (NABET). As per the provisions of law and other regulations governing the conduct of environmental study and consequent submission of the EIA report, all consultants enlisted and approved by the MoEF are eligible for conducting EIA and this respondent is also an enlisted and approved by 135 the MoEF. The Office Memorandum issued by the MoEF clearly provided accreditation of the EIA consultants listed therein and after the accreditation process by the QCI/NABET, the competent authority has approved a list of 265 consultants wherein this respondent is arrayed as serial No. 73. These 265 consultants are also permitted to certify various documents such as EIA/EMP in their capacity as recognized and accredited consultants.
132. This respondent has conducted a detailed impact study regarding the establishment of an airport at Aranmula and submitted a detailed report to the authorities. The said report is submitted based on the ToR approved by EAC. This respondent had also attended the public hearing held at the conference hall of the District Collector, Pathanamthitta. This respondent had done a field study from July 2010 to October 2010 for collection of base line data. After submission of the application on 02.07.2010 by the Company, this respondent had started the study from July itself for one season (three months) which is also included in the ToR. This respondent had conducted field studies touching all the aspects of nature, climatic conditions, flora and fauna, water and air pollution aspects, noise, visibility rainfall etc., The EIA study was conducted covering prescribed methodology of EIA and etc., as aforesaid and adhered to the ToR prescribed by the EAC. A habitat or an area comprises of different kinds of plants and animals within its boundary. The distribution of flora and fauna in the given area represents the biological environment. The biological part of the environment includes, what is present in the study area, its values, and its responses to impact description of community uniqueness, the dominant species and an evaluation of rare or endangered species. During the course of the study conducted by this respondent, field monitoring stations were installed in four locations in 10 km radius area. The bio diversity 136 studies were carried out in seventeen transacts points of 10 km radius and the EIA study carried by the respondent covered the flora and fauna under Chapter-III of the EIA report. The EAC consists of experts in disciplines such as eco system management, air/water pollution control, water resources management, flora and fauna conservation and management, land use planning, social sciences/rehabilitation, project appraisal, ecology, environment health and other subjects area specialists and other representatives. The said Committee twice recommended for the EC for this airport project after satisfying themselves after viewing the presentation and the EIA report of this respondent and after due consideration of the relevant documents submitted by various parties, agencies and other authorities and after additional clarifications were furnished in response to the observations/queries raised by various persons/organizations and authorities as the case may be. The appellant is trying to give an impression that approval was granted in a lackadaisical manner which is false. This process is going on for years and this respondent has done a valid and thorough study of environmental impact of setting up the said airport at the location to the ecology, environment, flora and fauna, land etc., and submitted the report which presents the correct position and the generalities as it exists at the location of the study.
133. The EAC has recommended for the grant of EC for the project as per the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 and its subsequent amendments. The EIA study has been conducted and report submitted based on the ToR pertaining to Aranmula site. This report covers the planned environmental monitoring programe and provided overall justification for implementation of the project and it also explained how the adverse effects can be mitigated. This respondent has downloaded the Google Map and enclosed in the EIA report to give the actual 137 status of the present condition of the site and to mention the lie of the land and nature of the site. The entire field study was made during July 2010 to October 2010 and the same covers all the relevant aspects. The water requirement is only 7550 litres/day which is not on a large scale and the present ground water table potential is sufficient for the water requirement. The area receives plenty of rainfall and the natural recharge will take care of water replenishment. The designed capacity of the actual sewage is 7M3 per day and after taking into account the future expansion, the designed capacity of STP is 50 M3 per day. As per the EIA Notification, 2006, the study area should be within 10 km radius of the site and the study has been conducted based on ToR and as per Chapter IV regarding description of EIA guidelines for airports. The method of assessment of impact includes studies carried out, modeling techniques adopted to assess the impact which has been elaborated in the EIA report. The report gives the details of baseline parameters, both during construction and operational phases and suggests mitigation measures to be implemented by the airport company. The air sampling equation was done and is set out in page No. 62 of the report and followed the necessary parameters as set out in page No. 74. As per clause 3.9.3 of the report, particulate matter-PM 10, PM 25, Sulphur di oxide and oxides of nitrogen are within limits in and around the project site. Carbon monoxide is very limited in the area and this respondent has conducted the ambient air quality standards as per the new norms. The hydrocarbons can be reduced by developing a green belt and air environment and noise impact have been mentioned at page No. 101 and 102 of the report. The disposal of hazardous waste and the solid waste generation can be made as per the guidelines prescribed from time to time. In any case, the airport company has to obtain necessary consent to establish and consent to operate from the Kerala State 138 Pollution Control Board. The ToR has been prepared for the airport sector after duly catering to the commonly expected environmental concerns and the identification of specific issues by the proponent company and the ToR has been prepared the EIA report upon the approval of the ToR by the EAC and this respondent in the EIA report has studied various environmental parameters which would occur during construction and operational phases of the airport project for assessment of the impact on the surrounding environment. No part of the project area of 500 acres is wetland and the revenue records would evidence to this effect. There is no need to reclaim any part of the said area and further no cultivation has taken place in that area for several years. As per the Wetlands (Conservation and Management Rules), 2010, a list of wetland in India identified as Ramsar Sites under the Ramsar Convention of Wetland is set out and no portion of the land included in the Aranmula airport project is found in the identified wetland and the repeated contention of the appellants that the project site consists of wetland is not supported by record.
134. The rivulet which was identified as passing through the land was blocked and clogged and water was not flowing for years and the water was flowing in the said rivulet now and the same has been and will continue to b safeguarded. The paddy lands can be reclaimed for public purposes as per Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008. The project land is a degraded land with water logging and invasive plant species affecting native bio diversity and the project site has no ecological/geographical significance other than the fact that the said land was paddy land more than 20 years ago and is now a fallow, water logged land unfit for paddy cultivation as is evident from the report of the Agriculture Officer. The paddy lands are not wetlands.
139
135. The area is not a heritage site due to any aspect of the land or the people and the heritage status has not been granted for any of the environmental sectors. The heritage status is granted to the area only due to 'Uthirattadhi Boat Race' and the 'Aranmula Mirror' which are unique to this village and which will not affected by the establishment of an airport in the project area. There are no protected monuments in the project area which will be affected by the establishment of an airport and though the temple and the mast are not monuments protected by the ASI, they will be protected and will not be affected by the airport project. The alleged issues raised in the report of the Salim Ali Foundation could erode the validity of the EIA study are denied by this respondent.
136. The ToR along with the compliance report is clearly mentioned in the EIA report after examining the following aspects:
(i) baseline environmental quality along with projected incremental load to the proposed project activities such as ambient air quality,
(ii) analysis and submission of details of comprehensive risk assessment and disaster management plan including emergency evacuation during natural, man-made disaster integrating with airport such as fire detection and fighting, bomb threats, earthquake, and oil spillage,