D.Saravanan v. The Union of India

For respondent 1 : Mr.P.Wilson, Assistant Solicitor General.For respondents 2 to 5 : Mr.T.Murugesan, Senior Spl.Govt.Pleader (Pondicherry).For respondent 6 : Mr.N.R.Chandran, Senior Counsel, for M/s.Sathish Parasaran.O R D E RV.DHANAPALAN,J.The order of the first respondent, dated 27.07.2006,granting Environmental Clearance to the sixth respondent forconstruction of Medical College-cum-Hospital, is under challengein this Writ Petition, filed under Public Interest Litigation.2. The case of the petitioner is as below :2.1. Ousteri lake is an inter-state lake, of which 50% ofthe water spread lies in Pondicherry and the rest in Tamil Nadu.The said lake plays a crucial role in recharging the ground wateraquifers and it also harbours rich flora and fauna. It is animportant wintering ground for migratory birds and has beenidentified as one of the heritage sites by International Union forConservation of Nature and ranked as one of the most importantwetlands of Asia. It is a source of ground water recharge forwells in Pondicherry and Tamil Nadu. Apart from that, the lake isa source of irrigation for lands situated both in Pondicherry andTamil Nadu through seven channels. The surface waters of the lakehave also been identified by the Pondicherry Government as asource of drinking water supply for Pondicherry. 2.2. That being so, the sixth respondent intended toestablish a Hospital-cum-Medical College adjacent to Ousteri lakeand placed a proposal before the Pondicherry Pollution Committee.Initially, it was decided by the committee that permission couldnot be granted considering its location and large requirement ofground water and quantity of waste water generation. But, in spiteof such rejection, the sixth respondent started construction.Thereafter, the same committee, without assigning any reason,directed the sixth respondent to conduct a public hearing andcarry out the Environmental Impact Assessment Study. Accordingly,public hearing was conducted, but contrary to the EnvironmentalImpact Assessment Notification (in short, "EIA Notification"),wherein objections were raised, but not considered. 2.3. Since the construction was going on without gettingpermission from Pondicherry Pollution Committee and clearance fromthe first respondent as per EIA Notification vide GO 60 (E), dated27.01.1994, Writ Petition No.12277 of 2007 was filed, seeking toforbear the sixth respondent from proceeding with the construction https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and an interim injunction was granted and the said Writ Petitiondismissed, following the issuance of Environmental ClearanceCertificate, dated 27.07.2006, by the first respondent.Challenging the said Environmental Clearance Certificate, thisWrit Petition has been filed.3. Per contra, the case of the first respondent is asfollows :3.1. The project for construction of Medical College-cum-Hospital at Olvaikkal Revenue Village, Agaram, Villianur Commune,Pondicherry by M/s.Lakshmi Ammal Educational Trust, who is thesixth respondent herein, was forwarded by Pondicherry PollutionControl Committee, Department of Science, Technology andEnvironment, Government of Pondicherry, on 26.06.2006, vide letterNo.2/PPCC/NOC/VCP/EE/2006/1582, dated 19.06.2006. The documentsalso included a No Objection Certificate, issued by the MemberSecretary of the Pondicherry Pollution Control Committee videletter No.PPCC/NOC/VCP/EE/2006/1580, dated 19.06.2006, and theminutes of the public hearing held on 05.06.2006 and the same werepresented with an estimate of cost for the remedial scheme inaccordance with statutory compliance and the first respondent,after a thorough study and appraisal by the Expert Committee,granted Environmental Clearance on 27.07.2006, subject to strictcompliance of the conditions. 3.2. This Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on thesole ground that the petitioner has not chosen to exhaust thealternative remedy of appeal available to him under Section 11 ofNational Environment Appellate Authority Act,1997, under which theCentral Government has established the National EnvironmentAppellate Authority situated at New Delhi and the same isfunctioning as on today, disposing of the appeals. Also, thisWrit Petition cannot be treated as PIL, as the petitioner himselfparticipated in the hearing and objected for granting ofClearance.4. The above stand of the first respondent is adopted bythe other respondents as well.5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioneris four fold viz., (1) the Writ Petition is very wellmaintainable and the petitioner need notapproach the Appellate Authority under theNational Environment Appellate AuthorityAct,1997 ;(2) the third respondent and thesixth respondent have not complied with theEIA Notification dated 27.01.1994 whileconducting public hearing and pursuing theapplication before the first respondent ;(3) the Pondicherry Pollution ControlCommittee has no power to review its ownorder and it has not considered the EIA Study https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Report properly before granting NOC and(4) the first respondent has notapplied his mind while passing the impugnedClearance Certificate, dated 27.07.2006.The learned counsel has relied upon the following authorities : (i)A.P.Pollution Control Board II vs. Prof.M.V.Nayudu (Retd.) and others, 2001 (2) SCC 62 : "45. The above reasoning given by us doesnot mean that exemption can be given to allindustries within a particular radius of thereservoirs unmindful of the possible danger ofpollution to the lakes. In fact, exemptiongranted even to a single major hazardous industrymay itself be sufficient to make the water in thereservoirs totally unsafe for drinking waterpurposes. The Government could not pass suchorders of exemption having dangerous potential,unmindful of the fate of lakhs of citizens of thetwin cities to whom drinking water is suppliedfrom these lakes. Such an order of exemptioncarelessly passed, ignoring the "precautionaryprinciple", could be catastrophic.46.Therefore, G.O.No.153 dated 03.07.1997granting exemption must be held to be withoutstatutory backing and also wholly arbitrary andviolative of Article 21. Points 1 and 2 aredecided against the 7th respondent. 47.In our earlier judgment inA.P.Pollution Control Board (1) vs. Prof.M.V.Nayudu, this Court had occasion to refer tothe basis of the precautionary principle and toexplain the basis and content of the veryprinciple. This Court also explained the newprinciple of burden of proof. 48.Therefore, it was for the 7th respondentIndustry to establish that there would be nodanger of pollution to the two reservoirs even ifthe industry was established within 10km radiusof the said reservoirs. In the presentproceedings, the 7th respondent has failed todischarge the said onus. 49.Before the State Government, theindustry produced no expert opinion except to saythat it had got the new technology from theIndian Institute of Chemical Technology,Hyderabad (IICT) and it relied on a statement ofDr.Siddhu, Chairman of the 7th respondent andformerly Director General of CSIR. The affidavit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Dr.Santappa was produced only before theAppellate Authority under Section 28 of the WaterAct, 1974. "(ii)L.Krishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Revenue, 2005 (4) CTC 1 : "12.Apart from the above we may alsorefer to Article 51-A(g) of the Constitutionwhich makes it a fundamental duty of everycitizen "to protect and improve the naturalenvironment including forests, lakes, rivers andwild life". This duty can be enforced by theCourt, vide Animal and Environment Legal DefenceFund vs. Union of India."(iii)N.D.Jayal and another vs. Union of India and others, 2004(9) SCC 362 :"22.Before adverting to other issues,certain aspects pertaining to the preservationof ecology and development have to be noticed.In Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum vs. Union ofIndia and in M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India, itwas observed that the balance betweenenvironmental protection and developmentalactivities could only be maintained by strictlyfollowing the principle of "sustainabledevelopment". This is a development strategythat caters to the needs of the present withoutnegotiating the ability of upcoming generationsto satisfy their needs. The strict observanceof sustainable development will put us on a paththat ensures development while protecting theenvironment, a path that works for all peoplesand for all generations. It is a guarantee tothe present and a bequeath to the future. Allenvironment-related developmental activitiesshould benefit more people while maintaining theenvironmental balance. This could be ensuredonly by strict adherence to sustainabledevelopment without which life of the cominggenerations will be in jeopardy.23.In a catena of cases we have reiteratedthat right to clean environment is a guaranteedfundamental right. Maybe, in a differentcontext, the right to development is alsodeclared as a component of Article 21 in caseslike Samatha vs. State of A.P. and in MadhuKishwar vs. State of Bihar.24.The right to development cannot betreated as a mere right to economic bettermentor cannot be limited as a misnomer to simpleconstruction activities. The right to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ development encompasses much more than economicwell-being, and includes within its definitionthe guarantee of fundamental human rights. The"development" is not related only to the growthof GNP. In the classic work, Development asFreedom, the Nobel prize winner Amartya Senpointed out that "the issue of developmentcannot be separated from the conceptualframework of human right". This idea is alsopart of the UN Declaration on the Right toDevelopment. The right to development includesthe whole spectrum of civil, cultural, economic,political and social process, for theimprovement of peoples' well-being andrealization of their full potential. It is anintegral part of human rights. Of course,construction of a dam or a mega project isdefinitely an attempt to achieve the goal ofwholesome development. Such works could verywell be treated as integral component fordevelopment. "(iv) Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. C.Kenchappaand others, 2006 (6) SCC 371 :"41.Experience of the recent past has broughtto us the realisation of the deadly effects ofdevelopment on the ecosystem. The entire world isfacing a serious problem of environmentaldegradation due to indiscriminate development.Industrialisation, burning of fossil fuels andmassive deforestation are leading to degradation ofenvironment. Today the atmospheric level ofcarbondioxide, the principal source of globalwarming, is 26% higher than pre-industrialconcentration.42.The earth's surface reached its recordlevel of warming in 1990. In fact, six of the sevenwarmest years on record have occurred since 1980,according to the World Watch Institute's 1992Report. The rise in global temperature has also beenconfirmed by the Inter-Governmental Panel on ClimateChange set up by the United Nations in its finalreport published in August 1990. The global warminghas led to unprecedented rise in the sea level.Apart from melting of the polar ice it has led toinundation of low-lying coastal regions. Globalwarming is expected to profoundly affect species andecosystem. Melting of polar ice and glaciers,thermal expansion of seas would cause worldwideflooding and unprecedented rise in the sea level ifgas emissions continue at the present rate.Enormous amount of gases and chemicals emitted bythe industrial plants and automobiles have led todepletion of ozone layers which serve as a shield to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ protect life on the earth from the ultraviolet raysof the sun.43.The dumping of hazardous and toxic wastes,both solid and liquid, released by the industrialplants is also the result of environmentaldegradation in our country.44.The problem of "acid rain" which is causedmainly by the emissions of sulphur dioxide andnitrogen oxides from power stations and industrialinstallations is a graphic example of it. The ill-effects of acid rain can be found on vegetation,soil, marine resources, monuments as well as onhumans. Air pollutants and acids generated by theindustrial activities are now entering forests at anunprecedented scale."(v)Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of Indiaand others, 1996 (5) SCC 281 : "27.The present case also shows thathaving issued the main Notification, no follow-upaction was taken either by the coastal States andUnion Territories or by the Central Government.The provisions of the main Notification appear tohave been ignored and, possibly violated withimpugnity. The coastal States and Union Territoryadministrations were required to prepare ManagementPlans within a period of one year from the date ofthe notification but this was not done. TheCentral Government was to approve the plans whichwere to be prepared but it did not appear to havereminded any of the coastal States or the UnionTerritory administrations that the plans had notbeen received by it. Clause 4 of the mainNotification required the Central Government andthe State Governments as well as Union Territoryadministrations to monitor and enforce theprovisions of the main Notification, but noeffective steps appear to have taken and this iswhat led to the filing of the present writpetition.31.While examining the validity of the1994 Notification, it has to be borne in mind thatnormally, such notifications are issued after adetailed study and examination of all relevantissues. In matters relating to environment, it maynot always be possible to lay down rigid or uniformstandards for the entire country. While issuingthe notifications like the present, the Governmenthas to balance various interests includingeconomic, ecological, social and cultural. Whileeconomic development should not be allowed to takeplace at the cost of ecology or by causing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ widespread environment destruction and violation;at the same time, the necessity to preserve ecologyand environment should not hamper economic andother developments. Both development andenvironment must go hand in hand, in other words,there should not be development at the cost ofenvironment and vice versa, but there should bedevelopment while taking due care and ensuring theprotection of environment. This is sought to beachieved by issuing notifications like the present,relating to developmental activities being carriedout in such a way so that unnecessary environmentaldegradation does not take place. "(vi)Susetha vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2006 (6) SCC543 :"19.The matter has also been considered insome detail by this court in Intellectuals Forum,wherein again while dealing with naturalresources, it was opined:"This is an articulation of the doctrinefrom the angle of the affirmative duties of theState with regard to public trust. Formulatedfrom a negatory angle, the doctrine does notexactly prohibit the alienation of the propertyheld as a public trust. However, when the Stateholds a resource that is freely available for theuse of the public, it provides for a high degreeof judicial scrutiny on any action of theGovernment, no matter how consistent with theexisting legislations, that attempts to restrictsuch free use. To properly scrutinise suchactions of the Government, the courts must make adistinction between the Government's generalobligation to act for the public benefit, and thespecial, more demanding obligation which it mayhave as a trustee of certain public resources."(emphasis supplied)20.The court has not, in the aforesaiddecisions, laid down a law that alienation of theproperty held as a public trust is necessarilyprohibited. What was emphasised was a higherdegree of judicial scrutiny. The doctrine ofsustainable development although is not an emptyslogan, it is required to be implemented taking apragmatic view and not on ipse dixit of the court."(vii) M.C.Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and others, 1997 (1) SCC 388:"The issues presented in this case illustratethe classic struggle between those members of thepublic who would preserve our rivers, forests, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ parks and open lands in their pristine purity andthose charged with administrative responsibilitieswho, under the pressures of the changing needs ofan increasingly complex society, find it necessaryto encroach to some extent upon open landsheretofore considered inviolate to change. Theresolution of this conflict in any given case isfor the legislature and not the courts. If thereis a law made by Parliament or the StateLegislatures, the courts can serve as aninstrument of determining legislative intent inthe exercise of its powers of judicial reviewunder the Constitution. But in the absence of anylegislation, the executive acting under thedoctrine of public trust cannot abdicate thenatural resources and convert them into privateownership, or for commercial use. The aestheticuse and the pristine glory of the naturalresources, the environment and the ecosystems ofour country cannot be permitted to be eroded forprivate, commercial or any other use unless thecourts find it necessary, in good faith, for thepublic good and in public interest to encroachupon the said resources."(viii)Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi vs. State of A.P. & others, 2006 (2) CTC 71 :"45. Therefore, under the present circumstances,the Court should do the most it can to safeguard thetwo tanks in question. However, due to thepersistent developmental activities over a longtime, much of the natural resources of the lakes hasbeen lost, and considered irreparable. This, thoughregrettable, is beyond the power of this Court torectify. One particular feature of this case wasthe competing nature of claims by both the partieson the present state of the two tanks and thefeasibility of their revival. We thought that itwould be best, therefore, if we place reliance onthe findings of the expert committee appointed by uswhich has considered the factual situation and thefeasibility of revival of the two tanks. ..."6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties andalso gone through the records.7. The sole issue that arises for consideration in thisWrit Petition is, whether the order impugned, namely,Environmental Clearance Certificate, issued by the firstrespondent to the sixth respondent for construction of MedicalCollege-cum-Hospital at Olvaikkal Revenue Village, Agaram,Pondicherry, is bad in law ?8. In this connection, it is more beneficial to extract theorder impugned, in its entirety, which reads as under : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "No.21-299/2006-IA.IIIGovernment of IndiaMinistry of Environment & ForestsParyavaran Bhawan,CGO Complex,New Delhi-110003.Dated :- 27th July,2006.Mr.J.Sandeep AnandM/s.Sri Lakshmi Narayan Institute of Medical Science,Ulvaikkal Revenue Village, Agaram,Pondicherry-605014.Sub :Environmental Clearance regarding – MedicalCollege-cum-Hospital named M/s.Lakshmi AmmalEducational Trust at Ulvaikkal Revenue Village,Agaram, Pondicherry.Sir,"This has reference to Government ofPondicherry letter No.2/PPCC/NOC/VCP/EE/2006/1582,dated 19.06.2006, seeking prior environmentalclearance for the above project under the EIANotification, 1994. The above proposal has beenappraised as per prescribed procedure on the basisof the mandatory documents enclosed with theapplication viz., the Questionnaire, EIA, EMP,Public Hearing proceedings furnished to the ExpertCommittee constituted by the competent authority inits meeting held on 7-8 July,2006.2.It is, interalia, noted that M/s.SriLakshmi Narayan Institute of Medical Science isproposing a Medical College-cum-Hospital atUlvaikkal Revenue Village, Agaram, Pondicherry. Theproject consisting of 300 bedded hospital and intake150 students per year. Total land area of theproject is 26 acres & total built area is 24281sq.m. Total water requirement is 195.75 m3/day (135m3/day for hospital, 60.75 m3/day for college) andsewage generation is about 160 m3/day.Approximately 225 kg/day waste will be generated bythe project. Govt.of Pondicherry (Department ofScience & Technology & Environment) has issued NOCon 19.06.2006. Public Hearing was held on20.02.2006. The total cost of the project is Rs.75crores including of land cost of Rs.1 crores,construction cost Rs.13 crores and plant & machinerycost of 61 crores.3. The Expert Committee after dueconsiderations of the relevant documents submittedby the project proponent and additionalclarifications furnished in response to itsobservations have accorded environmental clearance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as per the provisions of Environment ImpactAssessment Notification-1994 and its subsequentamendments, subject to strict compliance of theterms and conditions as follows :PART-A-SPECIFIC CONDITIONSI. Construction Phasei)All required sanitary and hygienic measuresshould be in place before starting constructionactivities and to be maintained throughout theconstruction phase.ii)A First Aid Room will be provided in theproject both during construction and operation ofthe project.iii)Adequate drinking water and sanitaryfacilities should be provided for constructionworkers at the site. The safe disposal ofwastewater and solid wastes generated during theconstruction phase should be ensured.iv)All the topsoil excavated duringconstruction activities should be stored for use inhorticulture/landscape development within theproject site.v)Disposal of muck, including excavatedmaterial during construction phase should not createany adverse effects on the neighbouring communitiesand should be disposed off taking necessaryprecautions for general safety and health aspects.vi)The diesel generator sets to be used duringconstruction phase should be enclosed type andshould conform to E(P)A Rules prescribed for air andnoise emission standards.vii)Construction spoils, including bituminousmaterial and other hazardous materials, must not beallowed to contaminate watercourses and the dumpsites for such material must be secured so that theyshould not leach into the ground water.viii)Regular supervision of the above and othermeasures should be in place all through theconstruction phase so as to avoid disturbance to thesurroundings.II.Operation Phase i)The installation of the Sewage TreatmentPlant (STP) should be certified by an independentexpert and a report in this regard should be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted to the Ministry before the project iscommissioned for operation. Discharge of treatedsewage if any shall conform to the norms & standardsof the Govt.of Pondicherry (Department of Science,Technology & Environment).ii)The solid waste generated should be properlycollected & segregated before disposal to the CityMunicipal Facility. Wet garbage should be disposedby the vermiculture method.iii)Any hazardous waste including biomedicalwaste should be disposed of as per applicable Rules& norms with necessary approvals of the Govt.ofPondicherry (Department of Science, Technology &Envoronment).iv)Diesel generator sets proposed as back uppower for lifts and common area illumination shouldbe of enclosed type and conform to E(P)A Rulesprescribed for air and noise emission standards asper CPCB guidelines. Exhausts should be raised to 4meters above the rooftop.v)The green belt design along the periphery ofthe plot shall achieve attenuation factor conformingto the day and night noise standards prescribed forresidential land use. The open spaces inside theplot should be suitably landscaped and covered withvegetation of indigenous variety.vi)Incremental pollution loads on the ambientair quality, noise and water quality should beperiodically monitored after commissioning of theproject.vii)The project should regularly monitor groundlevels and the ground water status.viii)Application of solar energy should beincorporated for illumination of common areas,lighting for gardens and street lighting in additionto provision for solar water heating. A hybridsystem or fully solar system for a portion of theapartments should be provided.ix)Measure should be taken to avoid any trafficcongestion near the entry and exit points from theroads adjoining the proposed project site. Allparking must be internalized.x)The values of R & U for the buildingenvelope should meet the requirements of the hot &humid climatic location. Details of the buildingenvelope should be worked out. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ xi)Suitable insulation material should beprovided in the roof structure to reduce the U valueto about 0.4 Watts per sq.m.per degree Centigrade.xii)A Report on the energy conservationmeasures based on Bureau of Energy Efficiency normsshould be prepared incorporating details aboutbuilding materials & technology, R & U factors etc.and submit to the Ministry in three months time. PART-B - GENERAL CONDITIONSi)The environmental safeguards contained inthe EIA Report should be implemented in letter andspirit.ii)Provision should be made for the supply ofkerosene or cooking gas/pressure cooker to thelaborers during construction phase.iii)All the laborers to be engaged forconstruction works should be screened for health andadequately treated before the issue of work permitsiv)Six monthly monitoring reports should besubmitted to the Ministry and its Regional OfficeBangalore.4.Officials from the Regional Office of MOEF,Bangalore who would be monitoring the implementationof environmental safeguards should be given fullcooperation, facilities, and documents/data by theproject proponents during their inspection. Acomplete set of all the documents submitted to MOEFshould be forwarded to the CCF, Regional Office ofMOEF, Bangalore.5.In the case of any change(s) in the scope ofthe project, the project would require a freshappraisal by this Ministry.6.The Ministry reserves the right to addadditional safeguard measures subsequently, if foundnecessary, and to take action including revoking ofthe environment clearance under the provisions ofthe Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, to ensureeffective implementation of the suggested safeguardmeasures in a time bound and satisfactory manner.7.All other statutory clearances such as theapprovals for storage of diesel from ChiefController of Explosives, Fire Department, CivilAviation Department (if required), CRZ Regulation,Forest (Conservation) Act,1980 etc. shall beobtained by project proponents from the competentauthorities. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.The project proponent should advertise in atleast two local newspapers widely circulated in theregion, one of which shall be in the vernacularlanguage informing that the project has beenaccorded environmental clearance and copies ofclearance letters are available with the BangaloreState Pollution Control Board and may also be seenon the website of the Ministry of Environment andForests at http://www.envfor.nic.in. Theadvertisement should be made within 7 days from theday of issue of the clearance letter and a copy ofthe same should be forwarded to the Regional officeof this Ministry at Bangalore.9.These stipulations would be enforced amongothers under the provisions of Water (Prevention andControl of Pollution) Act,1974, the Air (Preventionand Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment(Protection) Act,1986, the Public Liability(Insurance) Act,1991 and EIA Notification,1994,including the amendments.10.Further, it is added that the environmentalclearance recommended to the project is subject tothe specific condition that :* The treated waste water must also be usedfor flushing of toilets.* A green belt development plan must besubmitted to the Ministry.* The bio medical wastes must be handled andmanaged in compliance with BMW (M&H) Rules,1998 &its amendments.* The cost of environmental management planand environmental monitoring scheme must be as partof the project budget and worked out detailsfurnished to Ministry.The same must be submitted to the Ministrywithin one month.Sd/-Dr.N.H.Hosabettu Director (IA)"9. A perusal of the above impugned order would clearlyindicate that the proposal for construction of Medical College-cum-Hospital has been appraised by the first respondent, namely,Ministry of Environment & Forests, as per the prescribed procedureon the basis of the mandatory documents enclosed with theapplication viz., the Questionnaire, EIA, EMP, Public Hearingproceedings furnished to the Expert Committee constituted by thecompetent authority, pursuant to the request of the Government of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Pondicherry, for which No Objection Certificate was also issued bythe Department of Science & Technology & Environment, Governmentof Pondicherry on 19.06.2006, following the public hearing on20.02.2006. Besides, the Expert Committee, after dueconsiderations of the relevant documents submitted by the projectproponent and additional clarifications furnished in response toits observations, has accorded environmental clearance as per theprovisions of Environment Impact Assessment Notification-1994 andits subsequent amendments, subject to strict compliance of theterms and conditions, which include revocation of theenvironmental clearance under the provisions of the Environment(Protection) Act,1986, to ensure effective implementation of thesuggested safeguard measures in a time bound and satisfactorymanner.10. Adverting to the first contention of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, it is to be stated that Section 11 ofthe National Environment Appellate Authority Act,1997,specifically provides for an appeal remedy before the NationalEnvironment Appellate Authority against the orders issued by theMinistry of Environment & Forests, regarding EnvironmentalClearance, and the said Appellate Authority is very muchfunctioning, which is evident from the letter produced by thelearned Assistant Solicitor General from the Director (IA),Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi, dated 25thOctober,2006. 11. With regard to the second contention, it is seen thatNotice of Hearing was given in newspaper, namely, DINA MALAR, on18.01.2006, whereby public were called upon to send theiropinion, appraisal, objections within 30 days from the date ofNotice. It was also indicated therein that concerned individuals,environmental activists and organizations who are likely to beaffected either directly or indirectly by the industrial plan mayparticipate in the Public Hearing and depose orally or in writingtheir opinion before the Director, Department of Environment andthe Member Secretary, Pondicherry Pollution Control Committee, IIIFloor, Housing Board Building, Anna Nagar, Nellithoppu,Pondicherry-5. 12. As for the third contention, it is to be stated thatthe project agency submitted Environment Impact Assessment andManagement Plan, wherein it is mentioned that at least 73m.cu./day of water can be obtained by meticulous rain waterharvesting and, thereafter, the project was put up before theExpert Appraisal Committee in its 24th meeting held on 7th- 8thJuly,2006 and the Committee, after examining the project indetail, recommended for issuance of Environmental Clearance,subject to strict compliance of the terms and conditions.13. In view of the failure of the above three contentions,with regard to the fourth contention, it cannot also be said thatthe first respondent has not applied its mind while passing theimpugned Clearance Certificate dated 27.07.2006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14. Also, earlier, Writ Petition No.12277 of 2007 was filedby the petitioner, seeking to forbear the sixth respondent fromproceeding with the construction and the said Writ Petition cameto be dismissed, following the issuance of Environmental ClearanceCertificate, which is impugned in this Writ Petition.15. The present Writ Petition was admitted by a DivisionBench of this Court, holding that it was not possible to acceptthe preliminary objection raised by Mr.Chandran that thepetitioner should resort to the remedy of appeal under the Act.However, it was also held therein that the interim relief couldnot be continued inasmuch as the environment clearance had alreadybeen granted and Essentiality Certificate had also been issued tothe sixth respondent and the medical college had startedfunctioning.16. Under the circumstances, we see no infirmity in theorder impugned in this Writ Petition. Therefore, this WritPetition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connectedM.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2006 and 1 of 2008 are also dismissed. 17. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach theNational Environment Appellate Authority to exhaust his appellateremedy against the order impugned in this Writ Petition, in whichevent this order will not stand in the way of the AppellateAuthority in disposing of the appeal on merit. Sd/- Asst. Registrar / True Copy / Sub.Asst Registrar dixitTo1.The Secretary to Government, Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, 6th Floor, CGO Complex, Paryavaran Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.2.The Secretary to Government, Union of India, Department of Science, Technology and Environment, Union Territory of Pondicherry, Pondicherry.3.The Member Secretary, The Pondicherry Pollution Control Committee, Secretariat, Pondicherry.4.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Union Territory of Pondicherry, Pondicherry. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.The Chief Town Planner, Town and Country Planning, Union Territory of Pondicherry, Pondicherry.+ 1 CC to M/s.Satish Parasaran,Advocate,SR.20765+ 1 CC to Senior Government Pleader cum Senior Public Prosecutor for Pondicherry,SR.20766 W.P.No.29434 OF 2006MG(CO)EM/27.5