1    

                                       REPORTABLE    

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

M.A. No. 965 of 2019    

IN     

Civil Appeal No. 12251 of 2018    

 Hanuman Laxman Aroskar         …Appellant        

Versus     

Union of India & Ors.                   ...Respondents  

J U D G M E N T  

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J  

INDEX  

A. Introduction  

B. Appraisal by the EAC  

B.1 Zero-Carbon programme  

C. Genesis of the proposed airport  

D. The present challenge  

D.1 Domain Expertise of the EAC

2    

D.2 Conflict of interest  

D.3 Western Ghats and ESAs  

D.4  Forestland and flora and fauna  

E. Directions

PART A   

3    

A. Introduction  

1 The Union of India in the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate  

Change 1  moved these proceedings, seeking a direction that the Minutes of the  

fortieth meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee 2  dated 23 April 2019 be taken  

on the record so that the embargo imposed by this Court on the Environmental  

Clearance 3  for a greenfield airport at Mopa Goa can be lifted. This follows upon  

the judgment dated 23 April 2019 which was rendered on a challenge addressed  

to this Court against a decision of the National Green Tribunal 4  upholding the EC,  

subject to compliance with certain conditions. By the judgment of this Court,  

reported as Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v Union of India 5 , the process leading  

up to the grant of an EC on 28 October 2015 was held to be flawed. The  

directions that were imposed by the Court were formulated in the following terms:  

“175. …  

(i) The EAC shall revisit the recommendations made by it for  

the grant of an EC, including the conditions which it has  

formulated, having regard to the specific concerns which have  

been highlighted in this judgment;   

(ii) The EAC shall carry out the exercise under (i) above  

within a period of one month of the receipt of a certified copy  

of this order;   

(iii) Until the EAC carries out the fresh exercise as directed  

above, the EC granted by the MoEFCC on 28 October 2015  

shall remain suspended;   

(iv) Upon reconsidering the matter in terms of the present  

directions, the EAC, if it allows the construction to proceed  

will impose such additional conditions which in its expert view  

will adequately protect the concerns about the terrestrial eco  

                                                           1  MoEF-CC  

2  EAC  

3  EC  

4  NGT  

5  (2019) SCCOnline SC 441

PART A   

4    

systems noticed in this judgment. The EAC would be at liberty  

to lay down appropriate conditions concerning air, water,  

noise, land, biological and socio-economic environment;   

(v) The EAC shall have due regard to the assurance  

furnished by the concessionaire to this Court that it is willing  

to adopt and implement necessary safeguards bearing in  

mind international best practices governing greenfield  

airports;    

(vi) We grant liberty to the State of Goa as the project  

proponent and the MoEFCC, as the case may be, to file the  

report of the EAC before this Court in the form of a  

Miscellaneous Application so as to facilitate the passing of  

appropriate orders in the proceedings; and   

(vii) No other Court or Tribunal shall entertain any challenge  

to the report that is to be submitted before this Court by the  

EAC in compliance with the present order.”  

Pending the completion of the process mandated in the above terms, this Court  

suspended the EC which had been granted on 28 October 2015.   

The directions issued by this Court required the EAC:  

(i) To revisit its recommendations for the grant of the EC including the  

conditions which it had imposed; and   

(ii) To impose, in the event that it allowed the construction of the airport to  

proceed additional conditions to adequately protect the concerns  

governing the terrestrial eco-systems noticed in the judgment, besides  

formulating conditions pertaining to air, water, noise, land, biological  

and socio-economic environment. While doing so, the EAC was under  

a mandate to take into consideration the specific concerns which were  

highlighted in the judgment.  

PART A   

5    

2 The basis of the directions that were issued by this Court was formulated  

in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment which reads thus:  

“174.Bearing in view the necessity to maintain a balance  

between the need for an airport and environmental concerns,  

we are of the view that it would be appropriate if the EAC is  

directed to revisit the conditions subject to which it granted its  

EC on the basis of the specific concerns which have been  

highlighted in this judgment. Such an exercise primarily is for  

the EAC to carry out in its expert decision making capacity.   

The EAC is entrusted with that function as an expert body.  

The role of judicial review is to ensure that the rule of law is  

observed.  Hence, we propose by the directions which we will  

issue under Article 142 of the Constitution, to direct the EAC  

to revisit the conditions for the grant of an EC.  While doing  

so, it would be open to the EAC to have due regard to the  

conditions which were incorporated in the order of the NGT  

and to suitably modulate those conditions in pursuance of the  

liberty which we have preserved to it.  To facilitate an  

expeditious decision, we propose to direct the EAC to carry  

out this exercise in a prescribed time schedule during which  

period, the EC shall remain suspended.  We propose to direct  

that after the EAC has formulated its views, they shall be  

placed before this Court in a Miscellaneous Application in the  

present proceedings, so as to enable the Court to pass final  

orders. The Miscellaneous Application may be filed either by  

the State of Goa as the project proponent or by the MoEFCC.   

We clarify that no other Court or Tribunal shall entertain any  

challenge to the ultimate decision of the EAC and final orders  

thereon shall be passed by this Court in the present  

proceedings.”     

3 Essentially, the concerns which were highlighted in the judgment of this  

Court related to the need to preserve the biodiversity of the Western Ghats.  

These concerns have been the subject of a seminal exercise carried out in 2013  

by a High Level Working Group 6  on the Western Ghats chaired by Dr K  

Kasturirangan 7 . The report of the HLWG has been dwelt upon in the earlier  

                                                           6  HLWG  

7  Kasturirangan Committee report

PART A   

6    

judgment and continues to be a focal point of the continuing debate in the present  

case. The HLWG was constituted under the auspices of the MoEF-CC. Its report  

dated 15 April 2013 is a valuable contribution to the preservation of biodiversity in  

the pristine environment of the Western Ghats.  

4 The judgment of this Court emphasized the failure of the State of Goa, as  

the project proponent, to provide complete information on the existence of  

reserved forests including those which fall within a 15 km radial distance of the  

proposed airport at Mopa. Underlying the serious deficiency in the disclosure of  

information by the project proponent, this Court noted its concerns on certain  

specific aspects. These included primarily:  

(i) Preservation of forests, including reserved forests;  

(ii) Existence of Ecologically Sensitive Areas 8  with their attendant features  

such as flora, fauna and environmental quality in terms of water, soil, noise  

and climatic variations;  

(iii) Impact of the proposed construction on the flow of water in natural water  

channels; and  

(iv) Socio-economic and environmental concerns which were raised in the  

course of public consultations.  

                                                           8  ESA

PART B   

7    

B. Appraisal by the EAC  

5 Following the judgment of this Court, the project proponent furnished  

supplementary information to the EAC which revealed certain significant  

environmental features. The disclosure is extracted below:  

“a) There are seven reserved forests within 15 km. of the  

proposed Airport in the Goa region (under Section-20) and six  

proposed reserved forests (under section-4) of Indian Forest  

Act, 1927. (Survey of India Toposheet and Forest Working  

Plan of North Goa)  

b) There are twenty-nine proposed reserve forests within 15  

km. of the proposed Airport in Maharashtra region under  

Section-4 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Survey of India  

Toposheet & Forest Department, Sawantwadi Division)  

c) There are four rivers in Goa viz. Terekhol river, Kalna river,  

Chapora river, Moide river and one river viz. Tilari river in  

Maharashtra (source: Survey of India Toposheet).  

d) There are few patches of mangroves observed near Moide  

river, Terekhol river, Chapora river.  

e) Western Ghat Mountain range falls within the study area.  

f) There are two wetlands, of which one i.e. Anjuna reservoir  

has been identified in National Wetland Atlas of Goa.  

g) There are no coastal areas and declared biospheres in the  

vicinity of the proposed airport site.”  

6 The EAC tabulated the details of forest areas which fell within a radial  

distance of 15 kms of the proposed airport and within the territories of the States  

of Goa and Maharashtra. The forested areas were found to be situated in three  

talukas in the State of Goa (Bicholim, Pernem and Bardez) and in three talukas in  

the State of Maharashtra (Sawantwadi, Dodamarg and Vengurla). In Pernem

PART B   

8    

taluka, the information set out in the minutes of the EAC dated 23 April 2019  

demonstrate the existence of reserved forests inter alia in Mopa.  

7 While reviewing the Environmental Impact Assessment 9 , the EAC  

observed:  

“As per Forest Policy, 1988 of Government of India, required  

forest cover is 33%. Whereas, India average is 21.54%,  

Goa‟s forest cover as per India‟s state of forest report 2017 is  

60.21%. There would be impact on forest due to felling of  

trees but eventually the forest cover will improve with a 1:10  

compensatory afforestation program to be undertaken over a  

period of 5 years by the concessionaire, Goa State  

Biodiversity Board and Directorate of Civil Aviation. The  

enhanced forest cover would lead to healthy biodiversity.  

Further impacts on water, air, soil and noise environment will  

be minimal considering the felling of trees over a large area  

and compensatory afforestation plan as approved.  

It is noted that the airport site is not fragmenting the forest  

area thus not restricting and affecting the movement of fauna.  

The Airport plateau has villages on one side and forest cover  

on the other side. The plateau is just an extension of forest  

cover with trees, which had 15 houses, some grazing activity  

and some agricultural activity where the animals from the  

nearby forest may have been straying. The proposed airport  

will be protected from all sides with compound wall as per  

DGCA guidelines and thus animals will not able to enter the  

airport premises.  

The proposed 10 times compensatory plantation needs to be  

monitored by the Government of Goa so that the target of  

planting 5.5 lakhs saplings is achieved in a time bound  

manner, their survival rate is monitored and mortality is  

replenished. As major chunk of 2.5 lakh of saplings is  

proposed to be done by the village level Biodiversity  

Committees, it is necessary to ensure that people are largely  

given native species and/or fruit bearing saplings so that they  

will be able to derive economic benefits from such fruit crops  

and also such trees will provide better biological environment  

to birds.”  

                                                           9  EIA

PART B   

9    

8 On the existence of ESAs, the EAC noted that the EIA report had only  

indicated that Pernem taluka, where the project is to come up, has not been  

earmarked as an ESA in the Kasturirangan Committee report. The EAC, in its  

minutes dated 23 April 2019, took note of the fact that based on the  

Kasturirangan Committee report, the MoEF-CC published a draft notification on 3  

October 2018 indicating proposed ESAs in the Western Ghats according to  

which, ten villages in Sawantwadi taluka of Sindhudurg district in Maharashtra  

are comprised in the  ESAs of the Western Ghats. Apart from the ESAs within the  

State of Maharashtra, the EAC noted the existence of an additional eighteen  

species of mammals and fourteen bird species in the study area on the basis of  

data collected from the Zoological Survey of India 10

. Reviewing the EIA with  

reference to the existence of ten ESAs within a radial distance of 10 Kms in the  

State of Maharashtra, the EAC noted in its minutes dated 23 April 2019:  

“EAC noted that all the 10 ESA areas within 10 kms in the  

State of Maharashtra are beyond 4 kilometers from the  

project boundary, the nearest one being at a distance of 4.1  

kms (Village Galel). As per Airport guidance manual  

maximum impact on the air and noise environment will be  

there till the aircraft gains a height of 1000 ft. Emissions from  

aircraft below 1,000 ft. above the ground will be there typically  

around 3 km from departure or, for arrivals, around 6 km from  

touchdown. The altitude of 1000 ft in landing and takeoff is  

achieved within the project site. Considering that all the ESAs  

are far away from the project, the impact on air and noise  

environment is expected to be minimal. With regard to soil  

environment, impact will be mostly on the airport site self. As  

regards water environment, as the water flow from the airport  

site will feed the water bodies in the State of Goa, no impact  

is envisaged on the ESA areas.”  

                                                           10

ZSI

PART B   

10    

9 The EAC also deliberated on the likely impact of the construction and  

operation of an airport on the flora, fauna and hydrological systems in the ESAs  

as well as in regard to climatic variations. The EAC categorized them in the  

following terms:  

“WATER ENVIRONMENT:  

- Changes in the natural flow of storm water, stunted growth,  

delayed flowering and fruiting.  

- Fauna migration in search of water to other places.  

- Change their habitat and breeding capacity.  

- Due to eutrophication influence, certain toxic algae  

production some animals can suffer symptoms like skin  

irritation or health problems if drinking  

SOIL ENVIRONMENT:   

- Soil impact may lead in to non-germination of seeds &  

stunted growth, delayed flowering & fruiting, erosion and  

clearing of topsoil (loss of habitat & habitat fragmentation)   

- Affects the quality of the environment or habitat in which  

they live   

- Affects the availability and quality of the food supply   

- Soil erosion may increase the turbidity which could impact  

aquatic fauna‟s respiration capacity.   

- Loss of local aquatic biodiversity   

- Habitat loss  

- Erosion and clearing of topsoil (loss of micro-fauna).   

- Influence the abundance and health of dependent species   

AIR ENVIRONMENT:   

Air impact may lead reduced productivity, changes in water  

vapor levels.   

SURROUNDING / NOISE ENVIRONMENT.  

- Migration of birds   

- Breeding capacity reduction  

PART B   

11    

- Affect life cycle Shy mammals may move away   

- Bird Aircraft strike   

- Wild life hazard management   

Climatic Variations:   

- habitats of many species will move pole ward   

- experience increase in temperature regimes, rainfall   

- decrease in the moisture regimes and increase in fire  

incidences.”  

Dealing with these features and the impact upon them of the proposed project,  

the EAC observed:  

“The EAC noted that a total of 385 species of plants, 36  

medicinal plant, 86 species of birds, 33 butterfly species, 5  

species of amphibians, 18 species of reptiles, 35 fish species,  

28 number of mammal species were identified in the study  

area based on primary and secondary source of data. The  

proposed project has minimal intervention and impact on the  

surrounding ecosystem. There are mitigation measures  

already prescribed in EC conditions so as to minimize the  

impact on Biodiversity-Flora & Fauna, Hydrological Systems.  

This will help enabling the process for sustainable  

development that benefit both environment and local  

livelihoods. With regards to climatic variations, the EAC felt  

that additional initiatives such as Green Infrastructure  

Development program, adoption of low emission intensive  

technologies, renewable energy program, and Airport Carbon  

Accreditation need to be adopted to reduce the impact on  

Green House Gas (GHG) emissions and thereby climate  

change.”  

10 The next set of concerns that were dealt with by the EAC related to the  

impact of the proposed project on natural channels for the drainage of water. This  

Court had noted in its earlier judgment that the Mopa plateau is at a height of 155

PART B   

12    

metres above Mean Sea Level 11

and water from the plateau flows down to the  

rivers in the State of Goa. The laterite plateau is an important source of drainage  

by providing natural channels for water. The deficiency which was seen by this  

Court was that the impact of a greenfield airport on the closing of natural  

channels which feed water bodies had not been scientifically mapped or studied  

and adequately addressed.   

11 In reviewing the EIA on this aspect, the EAC in its minutes dated 23 April  

2019 observed:  

“If natural water channels that feed the local water bodies are  

not protected then there will be water deficiency in the  

villages for agriculture, fishing etc. Further, there will be  

impact on the ground water levels in the villages. EAC while  

granting EC for the project had detailed deliberation on this  

aspect so as to ensure that natural water channels feeding  

the water bodies are not blocked. The EAC reviewed the  

entire gamut of natural/artificial drainage and the storm water  

drainage pattern. As per the supplementary information  

provided now, the airport site, by virtue of being located on a  

plateau and the laterite soil surface, would naturally facilitate  

the flow of storm water and other artificial drainage. The  

proponent has designed for appropriate drainage channels in  

such a manner that the water flow from project site is  

channelized suitably into the natural water channels feeding  

the water bodies down slope. All due precautions, however,  

need to be exercised during the construction phase so as to  

ensure that construction material/debris does not, in any  

manner, block/obstruct the natural water channels or springs.   

The EAC deliberated on the current state of the project  

construction and noted that in the ensuing monsoon season  

the earth piled up at the project site due to excavation may  

drift to the natural water channels which may ultimately reach  

the water bodies in the villages. This is a matter of grave  

environmental concern which needs to be addressed by the  

project proponent immediately by development of  

embankment structures around the excavated earth so that  

piled up earth doesn‟t drift to the natural water channels and  

the run-off from the site does not pollute or contaminate the  

                                                           11

MSL

PART B   

13    

water bodies. This shall be maintained during  

construction/operation phase of the project.”  

12 As regards the concerns which were raised in the course of public  

consultations, the EAC dealt with environmental concerns which included:  

“rain water harvesting, STP and solid waste management  

plan, impact on flora and fauna, soil quality and its impact,  

storm water management, impact on ground water, socio  

cultural impact, dust pollution during construction activity,  

employment opportunities to the local people, compensation  

to the affected land owners”  

The EAC has opined that these have been adequately addressed.   

13 Finally, after analyzing the responses submitted before it, the EAC  

summed up its analysis thus:  

“1. The EAC observed that the earlier Form-1 did not give  

proper disclosure in respect of the details of forests on the  

land and nearby wet land as well as on the water bodies. The  

EAC took into account the supplementary report that has  

been submitted which takes into account the deficiency of  

disclosure and the same thing has been complied with in the  

supplementary report. In addition, it is also noticed that the  

mitigation measures in respect of the depletion of forest cover  

on the project land and water bodies have been taken into  

account. As against 54,176 trees, which have been felled on  

the project site based on earlier approvals given by  

competent authority, the project proponent is proposing to  

plant 5,50,000 trees (50,000 trees at the project site, 2,50,000  

trees in the nearby villages supervised by the Biodiversity  

Board and 2,50,000 trees under the supervision of DGCA.  

This is 1:10 times the number of trees affected as against the  

standard requirement of 1:3 times number of trees to be  

planted. The overall supervision of this compliance within the  

time frame of 5 years would be vested with DGCA. DGCA,  

however, needs to constitute a local monitoring committee for  

periodic monitoring of this vital exercise.  

PART B   

14    

2. The EAC noted that neither the project site nor the villages  

in area under study (primary data source) falls in any Eco-

Sensitive Zone (ESZ). The 10 villages in Maharashtra side fall  

in ESA not ESZ and where the impacts of the project would  

be minimal. The EAC also observed that the villages in  

vicinity of the project in the Goa and Maharashtra region are  

not located in very close proximity. The nearest village is  

about 4.1 km from the boundary of the project. The EAC also  

observed that beyond the runway of 3.75 km, the flight  

operation generally found at an altitude of about 1000 feet  

and thus there would not be any adverse impact on flora and  

fauna in the surrounding area of the airport.  

3. The EAC observed that a certificate from Chief Wildlife  

Warden (CWLW) of State through State Government be  

obtained confirming that none of the area of the project falls in  

the notified Eco-sensitive Zone (ESZ) in the State of Goa and  

no activity prohibited in the Ecosensitive zone will be taken up  

be taken by the project proponent.  

4. The EAC further observed that as per the supplementary  

report and the proposal of the water bodies with respect to  

observation regarding plateau effect of the land and also  

laterite surface and the springs, streams and water courses in  

the project land have been taken into account and  

appropriate drainage channels have been designed to take  

care of the water flows into the nearest water courses/rivers,  

etc.  

5. Appropriate storm water drainage channeling has been  

taken into account not only for the pre-monsoon season but  

also for monsoon and heavy rainfall. The drainage plan  

should have ratification by the concerned water resources  

department of Goa. It should be ensured that sustainable  

water flow in the various channels of watershed in the plateau  

is maintained. For the present, base level data on flow of  

water should be collected and used for future monitoring.  

6. The EAC observed that in respect of the fauna, the primary  

data has been collected from one of the nearest village and  

the secondary data has been collected from ZSI. In respect of  

the observation of sighting a leopard by villager, the  

authorities have indicated that they do not have any definitive  

information on the same and this need to be  

verified/authenticated.  

7. It is a well-established fact of silvicultural science and  

practice that no plantation can replace the natural forest. The  

kind of biodiversity in any natural forest is almost impossible  

to be replaced by any kind of plantation activity which at best  

can be a mix of various monocultures. We are still far away in

PART B   

15    

our knowledge of replicating the creation of natural forest.  

Therefore, to this extent, the EAC does not agree with the  

assessment of project proponent that after cutting of trees  

and planting of 1:10 trees, richer biodiversity the forest would  

be created. However, 1:10 plantation activity under expert  

guidance can to some extent compensate the loss of natural  

forest.  

8. With respect to the various points raised in the public  

hearing, the EAC observed that the supplementary report has  

made available point-wise clarifications on the various  

concerns on the public hearing. However, Hon‟ble court  

shortlisted 14 items of concern in the public hearing.  

Solution/management plan to all these need to be clearly  

spelt out in the EMP and implemented in letter and spirit.”  

14 Accordingly, the EAC has recommended the grant of an EC to the project  

with additional environmental safeguards and conditions, over and above those  

which were stipulated in (i) the EC dated 28 October 2015; and (ii) the order of  

the NGT dated 21 August 2018. The conditions which have been imposed by the  

EAC have been classified under the following heads:  

(i) Statutory compliance;  

(ii) Air quality monitoring and preservation;    

(iii) Water quality monitoring and preservation;  

(iv) Noise monitoring and prevention;  

(v) Energy conservation/ climate change measures;    

(vi) Waste management;  

(vii) Green Belt; and   

(viii) Public hearing and human health issues.   

PART B   

16    

15 The EAC has also incorporated as a part of its recommendations  

additional conditions as mandated by the NGT in its order dated 21 August 2018  

under the following heads:  

(i) Air environment;  

(ii) Water environment;   

(iii) Land environment;  

(iv) Noise environment;  

(v) Land environment;  

(vi) Biological environment; and   

(vii) Socio-economic environment.  

B.1 Zero-Carbon programme   

16 During the course of the hearing before this Court, a statement has been  

made on behalf of the concessionaire GMR Goa International Airport Limited,  

that in the event of this Court sustaining the EC for the project, it stands  

committed to fulfill the objective of making the proposed greenfield airport at  

Mopa Goa, a zero carbon airport operation. The purpose of a zero carbon airport  

operation is to eliminate anthropogenic carbon emissions reaching the  

atmosphere completely or to the minimum extent possible from airport activities

PART B   

17    

performed during its operation. The statement which has been tendered by the  

concessionaire before this Court is in the following terms:  

“I. Zero carbon programme  

1. The objective of making “Zero Carbon” airport operation is  

to eliminate the anthropogenic carbon emissions reaching  

to atmosphere completely or to the minimum extent  

possible from the activates performed at Airport during its  

operation.  

2. Climate Change and its mitigation in Aviation Industry is  

monitored by International Civil Aviation Organization  

(ICAO) and the emissions from domestic aviation are  

monitored by the respective countries under the United  

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change  

(UNFCCC) frameworks.  

3. Carbon emissions management is guided by Airports  

Council International (ACI), through its globally  

recognized Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) Program.   

4. In airports, this is addressed by developing  

infrastructures/systems which will generate zero or  

minimum carbon emissions during its operations as per  

UNFCCC approved market mechanisms by:  

a. Adopting green building concepts,  

b. Generation and use of renewable energy,  

c. Use of energy efficient systems,  

d. Developing green landscapes,  

e. Plantations as carbon sink to absorb carbon emission  

from the atmosphere  

f. Adopting carbon offset measures for the residual  

emissions of airport operations  

5. Level 3+ is the highest level of accreditation for carbon  

emission management of airports. As of July 30, 2019,  

there were 52 Level 3+ (Neutrality) accredited airports  

globally (out of 1,957 ACI member airports), including  

GMR Group‟s Delhi and Hyderabad Airports (Additional  

Affidavit of Respondent No. 5, pp.23-24).  

6. Level 3+ Neutrality is achieved by fulfilling requirements  

of Level 1,2 and 3 accreditation program (R-5 Affidavit,  

Page 17) and offset of residual emissions under the  

airport‟s control. (Sources of emission and measures  

under the ACA Program – Page 18). The Zero Carbon  

Emission Implementation Framework provides for various  

measures such as:  

a. Internal audit once in two year  

b. External audit after every 5 years  

c. Adopt Energy Management System – ISO 50001 and  

3 rd

Party certification

PART C   

18    

d. Improve energy efficiency of buildings and equipment  

& lightings,  

e. Improve ground water availability  

f. Promote energy efficient and alternate fuel vehicles.”          

C. Genesis of the proposed airport  

17 Before we deal with the principle challenges addressed before the Court  

on behalf of the original appellant represented by Ms Anitha Shenoy, learned  

Senior Counsel, it would be worthwhile to set out briefly the genesis of the  

proposed airport at Mopa Goa. Mr K K Venugopal, learned Attorney General for  

India emphasized the following features of the project:  

(i) The construction of an airport at Mopa Goa has been on the drawing board  

for nearly two decades;  

(ii) The site at Mopa was chosen among three options after due examination  

by experts;  

(iii) The existing airport at Dabolim is a defence establishment which is closed  

to area traffic between 8:30am to 1:30pm daily;  

(iv) The existing airport at Dabolim was intended to serve four million  

passengers annually while the existing passenger traffic is about 7.5  

million annually;  

(v) The passenger traffic at Goa is expected to rise in the upcoming financial  

years to the following extent:   

FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25  

12.0 14.1 15.5 16.7 17.9  

        (million passengers)

PART C   

19    

(vi) Due to capacity constraints, international charter flights are not granted  

parking facilities at night at Dabolim; and  

(vii) The proposed greenfield airport will have a capacity to handle 4.4 million  

passengers in Phase–I, 13 million passengers in Phase–II and 30 million  

passengers in Phase–III annually.   

18 The project area of the proposed Mopa airport is spread over 2,131 acres.  

Terms of Reference 12

were issued on 1 June 2011 and were extended on 19  

June 2013 and 29 May 2015. The process for land acquisition was initiated  

around 2008. The Request for Qualification 13

for the Mopa airport was issued on  

3 October 2014. The EC was granted on 28 October 2015. The concession  

agreement was executed on 8 November 2016. The airport is required by the  

terms of the agreement to be operational within thirty-six months from 4  

September 2017. According to the concessionaire, as on 18 January 2019,  

approximately 14.06 per cent of the project work had been completed. Pursuant  

to the orders for the removal of trees, 54,176 trees were felled and 500 trees  

were earmarked for transplantation. Ten trees of local species are to be replanted  

for every tree which has been felled. 20,000 saplings have been re-planted. The  

concessionaire has placed on record the following financial features of the  

project:  

“a. The indicative capital cost of the Mopa Airport,  

Phase I, was estimated at INR 1,900 Cr. Total  

Project Cost was estimated at INR 3,000 crores  

(70% debt and 30% equity).  

                                                           12

ToR  13

RFQ  

PART C   

20    

b. Total debt commitment incurred by Respondent  

No.5 for the Mopa Airport is approximately INR  

1,330 Crs.  

c. The annual debt servicing incurred by Respondent  

No.5 based on current disbursement is  

approximately INR 17 Crs.   

d. Respondent No.5 has also entered into  

contractual commitments for following amounts –  

INR 1,377 Crs. Towards Engineering Contracts,  

Project Consultant INR 38 Crs. Independent  

Engineer INR 11 Crs. totaling – INR 1,426 Crs.   

e. Prior to the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by  

Hon‟ble Supreme Court directing status quo be  

maintained, approximately 1,500 workforce were  

gainfully engaged at the Project site along with  

requisite plant and machinery.  

f. The estimated traffic at Goa is (passengers in  

Million Passengers per Annum – MPPA):  

FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25  

12.0 14.1 15.5 16.7 17.9  

g. The Scheduled Commencement Date was  

contemplated as 3 years from Appointed Date  

(04.09.2017) – 03.09.2020.  

h. The Concession Period is for 40 years from  

Appointed Date with a right of first refusal to  

Respondent No.5 for an extension of 20 years.  

i. GoG‟s share of revenue – 36.99% on Gross  

Revenue from 6 th  year of Commencement of  

Appointed Date.”    

According to the concessionaire, the following work was in progress at the project  

site when the implementation of the EC was suspended:

PART D   

21    

“i. Airside Earthworks – these include excavation and  filling of runways, taxiways, aprons, parking bays, etc.   

ii. PTB – foundations and column works in progress,  

iii. ATC Building – excavation for foundations are in  progress,  

iv. Administration Building – foundation and column  works in progress,  

v. Precast Compound Wall works – casting of panels  and columns in progress,  

vi. City Side Development Master plan works is in  progress.”        

D. The present challenge   

19 The essence of the controversy in the present case is whether the  

concerns which were highlighted in the earlier judgment of this Court dated 29  

March 2019, have been adequately addressed and remedied.   

20 Ms Anitha Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of the  

appellant submitted that by the judgment of this Court dated 29 March 2019, the  

EAC was directed to revisit the EC granted to the project and to decide whether  

or not the project should be approved. Ms Shenoy prefaced her submissions with  

two preliminary points:  

(i) The composition of the EAC (Infrastructure-2) which has thirteen members  

does not qualify it as an expert body. None of the members had expertise  

on ornithology or on terrestrial eco-system. The EAC is chaired by a former  

Director of the Council for Social Development with retired officers of the  

State and Central Pollution Control Boards. One of the members has an  

architectural background, another in chemical engineering while one of the

PART D   

22    

members is a Professor of Law.  The minutes do not disclose whether the  

EAC sought the opinion of a subject specialist or specialized institution;  

and  

(ii) There is a conflict of interest on the part of the EIA consultant who had  

prepared the EIA report. As on the date of EAC meeting, Engineers India  

Limited 14

was the EIA consultant as well as an independent engineer on  

the project. The EAC minutes recorded that the project proponent and EIL  

made a detailed presentation on the observations of this Court with  

comments and responses. EIL was defending its actions as an EIA  

consultant while at the same time being an independent engineer for the  

construction of the airport. This involves a conflict of interest.   

Apart from addressing the above preliminary points, Ms Shenoy has urged  

submissions focusing upon the following specific areas:  

(i) Forests;   

(ii) Western Ghats;  

(iii) Ecologically Sensitive Areas; and   

(iv) Absence of avi-faunal study.  

21 Based on the submissions on the above four facets, Ms Shenoy has dwelt  

upon mitigation measures suggested by the EAC and the need to factor in the  

objections which were addressed during the process of public consultation. Ms  

Shenoy urged that the EAC minutes are virtually a facsimile of the presentation  

submitted by the concessionaire and that the EAC has failed to fulfill its remit of  

                                                           14

EIL

PART D   

23    

revisiting the EC as mandated by the order of this Court. The submissions which  

were addressed under each of the four heads noted above are catalogued below:  

(i) Forests   

In the supplementary information contained in updated Form 1, the project  

proponent had disclosed a list of thirty-five proposed reserved forests  

around the project site. However, there has been no collection of primary  

data through remote sensing or ground truthing as required by the Airport  

Guidance Manual. No impact study was carried out of the proposed project  

on the newly disclosed forests. The EAC has merely recorded the fact that  

the Western Ghats fall within the study area without undertaking a study of  

the likely impact of the construction of the airport. The MoEF-CC, in its  

affidavit before this Court, however sought to contend that the Western  

Ghats are far away from the project and the impact due to the operation of  

the airport would be minimal. Though there are ten villages in the taluka of  

Sawantwadi in Sindhudurg district of Maharashtra located in the ESAs of  

the Western Ghats, no study has been conducted of their vulnerability. The  

HLWG recorded that Tiger and Elephant corridors mostly fall in the ESAs  

of the Western Ghats. Thus, the EAC has arrived at a conclusion that there  

will be no impact on the ESAs without knowing why an ESA is proposed to  

be notified and without carrying out an impact assessment.  The EAC has  

equated the issue of tree felling at the project site with the issue of the  

impact on the 42 forests surrounding the site. However, in its summing up,  

the EAC has acknowledged that compensatory forestation can never  

replace a natural forest.

PART D   

24    

(ii) Impact on Western Ghats   

The EAC has only adverted to the fact that the Western Ghats fall within  

the study area. While accepting the presence of this critical ecological  

biodiversity hotspot, the EAC has not directed any study on the impact nor  

has it adverted to the likely impact of the activity. The critical significance of  

the Western Ghats has been emphasized in the HLWG report. Absent a  

study by the EAC, the recommendations are flawed.  

(iii) Ecologically Sensitive Areas  

The EAC has noted that ten villages in the taluka of Sawantwadi in  

Sindhudurg district are located in the ESA of the Western Ghats. The EAC  

ought to have determined what makes each ESA ecologically sensitive  

and to study the reasons for their vulnerabilities. The EAC has not  

endeavored to find the specific vulnerability of each ESA and has recorded  

its satisfaction with a generic explanation.    

(iv) Flora and Fauna  

The collection of primary and secondary data of flora and fauna in the EIA  

report was perfunctory. Areas which are used by protected, important or  

sensitive species of flora or fauna for breeding, foraging, nesting, resting,  

over-wintering or migration were not considered by the project proponent.  

The EAC merely included a number of additional species, citing a  

publication of the ZSI as the source, as supplied by the project proponent.  

Species found near the Maharashtra – Goa border as well as those found  

throughout India in forested areas show at least 1172 species. On the  

other hand, the list of species submitted by the project proponent does not

PART D   

25    

have a single Scheduled I species despite the fact that there are 42 dense  

forests around the project area. Important species such as the Indian  

elephant, royal Bengal tiger and leopard have been excluded. The EAC did  

not direct the carrying out of an avi-faunal study, in violation of the  

directions of this Court, the only reference being to bird strikes.   

22 As regards the mitigation measures proposed by the EAC, Ms Shenoy  

submitted that the Airport Guidance Manual requires a rigorous study of the  

impacts of a proposed airport project on the biological environment and the  

measures required to address these impacts. Information relating to the state of  

the environment in the 15 km. radius was submitted before the EAC without there  

being any primary or secondary data collection. The EAC however came to the  

conclusion that the impact would be minimal. The additional environmental  

safeguards proposed by the EAC have no bearing on the peculiar conditions of  

the proposed airport at Mopa. Ms Shenoy ultimately urged that no effective  

mitigating measures can be implemented unless:  

(i) Authentic information about flora, fauna and natural features in the study  

area exists;  

(ii)  A scientific objective and independent assessment of the likely impact of  

the proposed project is made; and  

(iii) A specific finding is arrived at by the EAC on whether the damage and  

impact can be mitigated.         

PART D   

26    

D.1 Domain Expertise of the EAC  

23 The first aspect which merits scrutiny is the criticism leveled by Ms Anitha  

Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel against the domain expertise of the EAC. At the  

outset, it is necessary to note that the EAC (Infrastructure–2 Sector) was  

constituted under an order dated 7 January 2019 of the MoEF-CC. The  

composition of the Committee was as follows:  

(i) Prof. T Haque, Retd. Director & CEO, Council for Social Development;  

(ii) Dr N P Shukla, Ex. Chairman, MPPCB, Bhopal;  

(iii) Dr H C Sharatchandra, Ex. Chairman, Karnataka, SPCB;   

(iv) Sh. V Suresh, Former CMD, HUDCO;  

(v) Dr V S Naidu, Member;  

(vi) Sh. B C Nigam, Member;  

(vii) Dr Manoranian Hota, Member;  

(viii) Dr Dipankar Saha, Member;  

(ix) Dr Jayesh Ruparelia, Member;  

(x) Dr (Mrs.) Mayuri H Pandya, Member;  

(xi) Dr M V Ramana Murthy, Member;  

(xii) Representative of School of Architecture and Planning, New Delhi,  

Member (to be nominated);  

(xiii) Addl. Director/Director/Advisor of MoEF& CC, Member Secretary.   

24 The EAC has a vital role in conducting the appraisal of proposed projects  

in terms of their environmental impact and consequences. The EAC is intended  

to be an expert body. The members of the EAC are expected to bring to the  

deliberations of the body their knowledge and domain expertise. The composition  

of the EAC as noted above indicates that it comprises of experts with a scientific  

background as well as persons having domain knowledge on matters pertaining  

to the environment. Among the members of the EAC were persons who had a  

background of service in the State and Central Pollution Control Boards, the

PART D   

27    

Indian Forest Service, MoEF-CC and the National Institute of Ocean Technology.  

The constitution of the Committee cannot be faulted on the ground that as a  

body, the EAC lacked domain expertise. As a Committee which deals with  

infrastructure projects, the body as constituted also comprises of persons with  

relevant background and experience. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the decision  

which has been arrived at by the EAC will be assessed during the course of the  

judgment. At this stage, we are not inclined to accept a generalized challenge on  

the ground that the members of the EAC lacked domain expertise.  

25 It is necessary to emphasis two facets: First, under clause 4(vii) of the  

order dated 7 January 2019 constituting the EAC, the chairperson is empowered  

to co-opt an expert as a member for a particular meeting of the Committee.  

Infrastructure projects which the EAC is called upon to assess and appraise do  

not fall into one specific mould. Hence, the EAC should engage with the enabling  

provision which has been made in clause 4(vii) to co-opt experts. The exercise of  

this enabling discretion will facilitate the work of the EAC by allowing for the  

benefit of the knowledge and expertise of an expert in a particular subject area  

being made available to it. The failure to co-opt an expert does not, as a  

consequence, lead to the invalidation of the exercise conducted by the EAC. But  

the desirability of co-opting experts needs to be underscored so as to bring a  

diversity of experience in the work of the EAC. Second, the composition of the  

EAC is dominated in a large measure by retired officials drawn from the Pollution  

Control Boards in the Centre and State and from former officials of the MoEF-CC.  

In the composition of the EAC, the Union Government should travel beyond  

former officials of the Pollution Control Boards and Ministries. Without

PART D   

28    

disparaging their credentials or their experience, it is nonetheless desirable that  

the members of the EAC should comprise of a cross section of persons drawn  

from different specialties having a bearing on environmental protection. Where  

the EAC has to deal with infrastructure projects, it is of course necessary to  

include persons who are familiar with the need for a balanced growth of  

infrastructure consistent with environmental protection.    

26 We strongly commend to the Union Government the need to ensure in the  

composition of the EAC the inclusion of persons with specialized knowledge of  

diverse disciplines in relation to environmental protection. Having commended  

such an exercise to the Union government, we would leave the matter there. As  

we have observed earlier, the challenge to the minutes of the 23   April 2019 must  

be addressed on merits, there being no reasonable basis for this Court to  

conclude that the EAC lacked the expertise to make its recommendations.   

D.2 Conflict of interest  

27 The second preliminary point that was urged by Ms Shenoy was of a  

conflict of interest in the role and position of EIL as an EIA consultant as well as  

an independent engineer for the project. The Attorney General for India in his  

written note of submissions on behalf of the State of Goa has submitted that EIL  

was appointed as a consultant for preparing the EIA report in 2012. The  

assignment of EIL concluded upon the issuance of an EC by MoEF-CC on 28  

October 2015. Thereafter, the Government of Goa floated a tender for the  

appointment of an independent engineer to supervise the work of construction in  

2017. EIL secured the bid and came on board as an independent engineer in

PART D   

29    

December 2017. After the judgment of this Court dated 29 March 2019 by which  

the EAC was directed to revisit the EC conditions, the Government of Goa sought  

the assistance of EIL which was the author of the EIA report in presenting its  

case before the EAC. Hence, from the facts which have been set-forth before the  

Court by the learned Attorney General, it becomes clear that EIL was appointed  

as an independent engineer for the project only after the EC had been granted on  

28 October 2015 and in a competitive tendering process. The role of the  

independent engineer is to supervise the construction of the airport in accordance  

with the ICAO standards. Certification and licensing of the airport is in the domain  

of the Director General of Civil Aviation 15

of the Government of India. Compliance  

with environmental conditions contained in the EC is monitored by the regional  

office of the MoEF-CC at Bengaluru. Moreover, there is merit in the submission  

which was urged by Ms ANS Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General  

appearing for the MoEF-CC that the decision in regard to the grant of an EC rests  

with MoEF-CC. The fact that EIL whose services were engaged as an EIA  

consultant was subsequently appointed as an independent engineer after the  

initial grant of an EC will not result in the invalidation of the EC.   

D.3 Western Ghats and ESAs  

28 Addressing the concerns of Ms Anitha Shenoy in relation to the Western  

Ghats and the ESAs, Mr Nadkarni urged that the scope of the Kasturirangan  

Committee report was to suggest an all-round and holistic approach for  

sustainable and equitable development while keeping in focus measures to  

                                                           15

DGCA

PART D   

30    

conserve, protect and rejuvenate the ecology in the Western Ghats. The HLWG,  

with the aid of the National Remote Sensing Centre 16

developed a scientific and  

objective methodology for identifying ESAs in the Western Ghats. In doing so, the  

HLWG bore in mind diverse parameters including forest and vegetation types,  

natural and cultural landscapes, forest fragmentation, biological richness, village  

boundaries, population density, protected areas, wildlife corridors and world  

heritage sites among other considerations. Ten ESAs falling within the study area  

have been disclosed in the report along with mitigation measures. It was urged  

that upon detailed discussion, it was found that the impact on these ESAs, as a  

result of the project, would be minimal. The area where the project site is located,  

it was urged, has not been identified as an ESA. The nearest village identified in  

the State of Maharashtra – Galel – is at an aerial distance of 4.1 km from the  

boundary of the project site. Mr Nadkarni rebutted the contention that the project  

would impinge upon wildlife corridors. The nearest identified corridor, it was  

submitted, is on the boundary of the States of Goa, Karnataka and Maharashtra  

which is far away from the project site.   

29 Volume-I of the report of the Kasturirangan Committee on the Western  

Ghats dated 15 April 2013 contains a summary of the recommendations. The  

report notes that the Western Ghats region straddles six states of which 60,000  

square kms representing 37 per cent of the geographical coverage of the  

Western Ghats has been identified as an ESA. In that context, the report notes:  

“About 60,000 km 2  of natural landscape (approximately 37%  

of the total geographical area of Western Ghats Region) has  

been identified as Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) by  

                                                           16

NRSC

PART D   

31    

HLWG, which represents more or less a contiguous band of  

vegetation extending over a distance of 1500 km across 6  

States of Western Ghats region and includes Protected Areas  

and World Heritage Sites. The demarcation unit of ESA is the  

village. IRS LISS III derived spatial layers on vegetation type  

and landscape level indices (with a fine spatial resolution of  

24 m) were used as the basis for identification of ecologically  

sensitive areas (ESAs).   

To facilitate sustainable development in the WG region, which  

is inhabited by about 50 million people, the non ESA  

comprising mostly cultural landscape is also demarcated.  

HLWG recommends that the Central government should  

immediately notify the ESA area, demarcated by HLWG in  

public interest. The need for urgent action is evident. In this  

notified area, development restrictions as recommended in  

this report will apply.”  

In its recommendations dealing with restrictions on development in the proposed  

ESAs, the report notes:  

“HLWG is recommending a prohibitory and regulatory regime  

in ESA for those activities with maximum interventionist and  

destructive impact on the ecosystem. All other infrastructure  

development activities, necessary for the region, will be  

carefully scrutinized and assessed for cumulative impact and  

development needs, before clearance.”  

Among the recommendations of the HLWG are the following:  

“All other infrastructure and development projects/schemes  

should be subject to environment clearance under Category  

„A‟ projects under EIA Notification 2006.  

All development projects, located within 10 km of the Western  

Ghats ESA and requiring Environment Clearance (EC), shall  

be regulated as per the provisions of the EIA Notification  

2006.”  

PART D   

32    

30 Chapter IV of the Kasturirangan Committee report explained the procedure  

adopted to define and demarcate the boundaries of the Western Ghats for  

identifying ESAs, in the absence of an accepted definition of Western Ghats.  

Chapter V dealt with the need for a scientific, objective and practical strategy for  

delineating ESAs within the natural landscape with the village as a unit. In that  

context, the report notes:  

“The results obtained based on the methodology adopted by  

HLWG are analyzed for 188 talukas in terms of the area  

covered under ESAs and number of villages falling under  

ESA. Maps of Western Ghats showing vegetation and land  

cover classes, natural and cultural landscapes, biodiversity  

richness, fragmentation and human population density and  

ESA, and Maps of each of Six States showing natural and  

cultural landscapes and ESAs are also provided.”  

Chapter III of the report analyses the impact of climate change on the ecology of  

the Western Ghats. Explaining the criteria which it had adopted in demarcating  

the Western Ghats, the report of the Kasturirangan Committee report notes :  

“HLWG, in the absence of geologically and gemorphologically  

sound criteria in demarcating WG, decided to adopt the  

criteria followed by the Western Ghats Development  

Programme of Planning Commission which defined WG in  

terms of geology conceptually, but has taken altitude as the  

criterion for identification of talukas/blocks under Western  

Ghats Development Programme of Planning Commission as  

recommended by High Level Committee, because the Ghats  

are usually 760-915 m high. All those talukas/blocks at 600 m  

and above elevation and those talukas having more than 20%  

of the area at 600 m and above elevation that are contiguous  

to higher altitudes and formed part of the administrative  

boundaries of Western Ghats Development Programme are  

listed under Western Ghats Development Programme. This  

criterion has geological connotation – that at 600 m on the  

east the WG springs from Deccan Plateau, on an average the  

mean elevation of WG all along its length from north to south

PART D   

33    

is greater than 600 m, and most of the Ghats have height of  

over 600 m.”  

31 Adverting to the biodiversity of the Western Ghats, the report notes:  

“The Western Ghats has unique taxonomic hierarchies,  

remnant ecosystems and strong endemic associations. The  

sholas, mangroves, kans, dry evergreen forests, swamps,  

reeds and riverine belts represent the unique ecosystems.  

The forests of WG are some of the best representatives of  

non-equatorial evergreen forests in the world. The resource  

value of this mega diversity centre spans from timber-non  

timber category through wilderness–ecotourism to gene pools  

of plants of medicinal-aromatic-food-industrial value…  

Floristically the Western Ghats is one of the richest areas in  

the country and harbours as many as 4000-4600 species of  

flowering plants of which 56 generic and 2100 species are  

endemic.”  

32 The HLWG has catalogued three talukas of Goa as ESAs. These are  

tabulated as follows:  

State District Taluka Taluka  

Area    

(km2 )  

ESA No. of  

Villages  

with ESA  

Goa North Goa  

South Goa  

Satari  

Kankon  

Sanguem  

515  

362  

872  

406  

284  

771  

56  

5  

38  

Goa  

Total  

 1,749 1,461 99  

In the district of Sindhudurg in Maharashtra, five talukas namely: Devgad,  

Kankavli, Kudal, Sawantwadi and Vaibhavvadi have been demarcated as ESAs.  

PART D   

34    

33 Figure 18 in the report of the HLWG which demarcates Elephant and Tiger  

corridors which is reproduced below:   

PART D   

35    

34 Figure 21 delineates the natural and cultural landscapes in the Western  

Ghats region of Goa and is reproduced below:  

PART D   

36    

35 The ESAs in the Western Ghats region of Goa are depicted in Figure 22 of  

the Kasturirangan Committee report which is as follows:  

PART D   

37    

36 Figure 23 provides a depiction of the natural and cultural landscapes in the  

Western Ghats region of Maharashtra, which is as follows:  

PART D   

38    

D.4 Forestland and flora and fauna  

37 The criticism leveled against the recommendations of the EAC in its  

appraisal of the impact of the project on forested areas has been dealt with in the  

submissions as follows:  

(i) Details of forested land as marked in working plans were obtained by the  

project proponent from the Governments of Goa and Maharashtra, details  

of which have been recorded by the EAC in its minutes of 23 April 2019,  

within a 15 km. radial distance from the project site;  

(ii) Concerns about non-disclosure were addressed by the project proponent  

by giving details of forests with impacts and mitigation measures;  

(iii) Remote sensing has been done by the project proponent as mentioned in  

Annexure IX of the EIA report. Ground truthing is usually done on site,  

performing surface observations and measurements of various properties  

and features of the ground on the remotely sensed digital image. In this  

case, the airport operation is within the boundaries of the project site and  

details of forest, springs, wetlands etc. were also given and discussed in  

the EAC; and  

(iv) Impact of the airport operations on the air and noise environment will  

generally extend until an aircraft gains a height of 1000 feet. According to  

the Airport Guidance Manual, emissions from aircraft at a height upto a  

1000 feet above ground will extend typically around 3 km from departure  

or, in the case of arrivals 6 km from touchdown. Since the airport site is at  

a height of 155 metres above MSL, the aircraft will gain a height of 1000

PART D   

39    

feet during departure within the project site. Aircraft operations follow a  

dedicated path called the funnel, which in this case has an east-west  

orientation for landing and takeoff. The impact on forests which are  

primarily on the northern and southern sides of the airport site in Goa and  

Maharashtra and their ecological features will be minimal. The project  

proponent has relied on a Google image of the Mopa region indicating a  

super imposed flight path for landing and takeoff at the airport which is  

extracted below:  

Similarly, an image indicating the location of all ESAs within 10 km. radius of  

Mopa airport has been relied upon by the project proponent:

PART D   

40    

38 The criticism that the EAC has conflated the issue of the felling of trees  

with the environmental impact on 42 forests has been addressed in the  

submissions placed before this Court by Mr ANS Nadkarni, learned Additional  

Solicitor General appearing for MoEF-CC. It has been submitted that:  

(i) The forest eco-system comprises mainly of flora and fauna in the  

environmental settings of air, water and land. The impacts of all these  

elements have been assessed and mitigation measures have been  

proposed;  

(ii) The EAC took due cognizance of the presence of forest land and also  

observed that though a significant number of trees were required to be  

felled, this was a requirement in the wake of an identified project site. In

PART D   

41    

that context, it made a reference to the compensatory afforestation  

programme required in the ratio of 1:10;  

(iii) The EAC has noted that the airport site does not fragment the forest areas  

and does not restrict the movement of fauna. The airport site is  

predominantly a plateau and the forest cover is not contiguous to it. With a  

boundary wall surrounding the airport, there is no possibility of animals  

being endangered by entry into the project site;  

(iv) The impact of airport operations on the soil and water environment has  

also been assessed and necessary measures put into place by the EAC  

for protection and conservation; and   

(v) Nearly 3 lakh trees are to be planted: 50,000 at the site and 2,50,000 in  

nearby villages within 15 km duly supervised by the Biodiversity board.  

Besides this, another 2,50,000 trees are to be planted and monitored by  

the DGCA. The EAC has mandated the plantation of native species and  

fruit bearing saplings to enable residents depending on agriculture to  

derive economic benefits while at the same time preserving the biological  

environment to birds.   

39 MoEF-CC has also responded to the criticism against the approach  

adopted by the EAC in regard to avi-faunal studies and data. According to the  

submission, the project proponent presented data drawn from the ZSI and other  

sources. It has been submitted that the appellant while referring to the fauna  

species from ZSI data has referred to “external distribution” in most cases.  

However, ZSI data categorically mentions the “sighting area/localities” where  

specific species have been actually sighted; all these locations are notably far

PART D   

42    

away from the project site. Moreover, as an example, it has been submitted that  

the appellant in adverting to the sighting of leopards in Goa and Maharashtra did  

not limit the submissions to the study area but to the entire territory of the States  

of Maharashtra and Goa. ZSI studies on the fauna of Maharashtra records  

leopard sightings in places like the Melghat Tiger Reserve, Tadoba-Andhari Tiger  

Reserve, Pench National Park, Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Bhimashankar  

Wildlife Sanctuary, and the Phansad Wildlife Sanctuary among others. None of  

these sites fall within the study area. Similarly, the ZSI publication on fauna of  

Goa records sightings of leopards in places like Molem National Park, Cotigao  

Wildlife Sanctuary and Bondla Wildlife Sanctuary, not of which fall within the  

study area. Moreover, in the Wildlife Institute of India 17

report (2010), the  

presence of tigers has been recorded in Molem Wildlife Sanctuary and in the  

forests of Ponda and Sanguen Tehsil which are not within a 10 km radius of  

proposed Mopa airport. Relevant data drawn from the WII and the Wildlife Trust  

of India (2017) on the presence of tigers and elephants has been relied upon.   

40 The submission which has been urged on behalf of MoEF-CC is that the  

distance of the ESA/ESZ is a prime factor in determining the likely impact of the  

project activities on the environment. On examination by the EAC, it has been  

found that neither the project site nor the villages under the study area fall in any  

ESZ. Moreover, of the 10 ESA villages in Maharashtra falling within a 10 km.  

radius of the project site, the nearest village (Galel) is about 4.1 kms from the  

boundary of the project and is located in the northern direction. The runway of the  

proposed airport has an east-west orientation. Beyond the runway of 3.75 km.,  

                                                           17

WII

PART D   

43    

flight operations at an altitude of about 1000 feet would have a minimally adverse  

impact on the flora and fauna surrounding the airport. Moreover, the common  

faunal species would primarily be restricted to the forest areas. The proposed  

airport site is not home to any of these species. It was, in this context that the  

EAC has observed that the project site does not fragment any forest area. The  

mitigation measures proposed in the EC conditions as well as the NGT directions  

stipulate measures for minimizing the impact on biodiversity. The project  

proponent would be bound to follow DGCA and ICAO aircraft strike hazard  

management guidelines including the setting up of an Airfield Environment  

Management Committee. Moreover, it has been submitted that EIL had stated  

the migration status of various species of birds in the EIA report. This information  

was updated with regard to the migratory status of additional fauna found in the  

study area in supplementary Form 1. However, no set routes of flyways were  

observed near the airport site. DGCA has published the National Aviation Safety  

Plan 2018-2020 emphasizing avi-faunal and wildlife management in airports.  

MoEF-CC has annexed to its submissions, DGCA circulars/directions on the  

following aspects which would have to be implemented by the concessionaire:  

a) Climate Change Initiatives and Local Air Quality Monitoring in Civil  

Aviation,  2015;  

b) Noise Management of Aircraft Operations at Airports, 2014;  

c) Carbon Off-setting and reduction scheme for International Aviation;  

d) Guidance on Wildlife Hazard Management;  

e) National Aviation Safety Plan, 2018-2020, 2019.  

PART D   

44    

41 In regard to the concerns which emerged during the course of the public  

consultation, it has been submitted by MoEF-CC that the updated report  

submitted by the project proponent took into account these concerns which  

primarily are comprised within two categories (environment and livelihood). The  

project proponent made a detailed presentation before the EAC on these  

concerns and the action plans were discussed in the EAC meeting. The EAC has  

stipulated the implementation of the environment management plan for  

addressing the concerns which were raised during the course of the public  

hearing. According to the Airport Guidance Manual, the concerns of the public  

which were expressed during public consultation must be addressed by the  

applicant either through an updated EIA and EMP or through a supplementary  

report. The project proponent has done so through updated information.   

42 During the course of the judgment which was rendered by this Court on 29  

March 2019, certain flaws were noticed in the process leading up to the grant of  

an EC on 28 October 2015. The project proponent had not complied with its  

obligation to make a full disclosure of information on material aspects of the  

environment in Form 1 as an intrinsic part of the EIA process. This Court  

specifically recorded its concerns on vital aspects which had not been adequately  

addressed by the EAC. Having noticed the flaws in the process and the  

deficiencies in the decision making process of the EAC, the Court directed the  

EAC to revisit the recommendations made by it for the grant of an EC including  

the conditions which it had formulated, having regard to the specific concerns  

which were highlighted in the judgment. Thereafter if the EAC were to allow the  

construction to proceed, it was directed to impose additional conditions to protect

PART D   

45    

the terrestrial eco-systems.  The EAC was under a specific mandate to lay down  

conditions pertaining to air, water, noise, land and the biological and socio-

economic environment. During the course of this judgment, we have traced the  

process as it evolved before the EAC following the earlier directions of this Court.  

The net result of the process is that the concessionaire has been subjected to a  

slew of mitigatory conditions: 53 in the original EC, 16 at the behest of NGT and  

40 imposed by the EAC in the second round. On a reading of the process leading  

upto the present proceeding, it cannot be said that the EAC has, in its appraisal  

process, ignored the concerns which were highlighted by this Court. Ms Anitha  

Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel, as we have noted earlier, focursed her  

submissions on four areas namely (i) Forests; (ii) ESAs; (iii) Western Ghats; and  

(iv) Flora and Fauna. The EAC has adequately addressed these concerns and  

laid down additional conditions to ensure the adequate protection of the  

environment.    

43 The Airport Guidance Manual published by MoEF in February 2010  

contains significant points for guidance having a bearing on the controversy  

which has been raised in the present case. In relation to the study area, the  

Manual states:  

“Primary data through measurements and field surveys; and  

secondary data from secondary sources are to be collected in  

the study area within 10 km radius from Aerodrome  

Reference Point (ARP).  Primary data should cover one  

season other than monsoon and secondary data is to cover  

one full year. The basis for selection of these criteria is that  

the aircraft gains a height of 1000ft in this area below which  

noise and air pollution are generated maximum during its take  

off stage.  Secondary data should be collected within 15 km  

aerial distance for the parameters as specifically mentioned at  

column 9 (III) of Form I of EIA Notification, 2006. Details of

PART D   

46    

secondary data, the method of collection of secondary data,  

should be furnished. Similarly the proposed locations of  

monitoring stations of water, air, soil and noise etc should be  

shown on the study area map.”  

The study area in other words, comprises of a radial distance of 10 kms. from the  

Aerodrome Reference Point. The Manual indicates that the basis for selection of  

the criteria is that an aircraft gains a height of 1000 feet in this area and the  

maximum impact of noise and air pollution is generated during the takeoff stage.  

The Aircraft Guidance Manual also states that:  

“Aircraft engines produce emissions that are similar to other  

emissions resulting from any oil based fuel combustion.  

These, like any exhaust emissions, can affect local air quality  

at ground level. It is emissions from aircraft below 1,000ft,  

above the ground (typically around 3km from departure or, for  

arrivals, around 6km from touchdown) that are chiefly  

involved in influencing local air quality.”  

This is again emphasized in the following extract:  

“Ambient Air Quality (AAQ) is important for the airport  

projects.  The significance of aviation's impact on air quality  

will vary depending on many other factors such as,  

background pollution levels, other sources of pollution,  

weather and proximity of residential areas.  

Aircraft engines produce emissions that are similar to other  

emissions resulting from any oil based fuel combustion.  

These, like any exhaust emissions, can affect local air quality  

at ground level. It is emissions from aircraft below 1,000ft,  

above the ground (typically around 3km from departure or, for  

arrivals, around 6km from touchdown that are chiefly involved  

in influencing local air quality. These emissions disperse with  

the wind and blend with emissions from other sources such  

as domestic heating emissions, factory emissions and  

transport pollution.

PART D   

47    

The local air quality relevant emissions attributed to aircraft  

operations at airports are oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon  

monoxide (CO), Unburnt  hydrocarbons (NMHC and VOCs),  

sulphur dioxide(SO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).  

Aircraft engines, auxiliary power units, apron vehicles, de-  

icing, and apron spillages of fuel and chemicals emit these  

pollutants. Local factors influence the significance of  

individual emissions for each airport, but often NOx is by far  

the most abundant and is considered the most significant  

pollutant from an air quality stand point.  

Baseline data of these parameters extending over an area of  

10km radial distance from ARP of the project by observation  

at a number of locations, predominantly in the windward  

direction duly taking into account changes in predominant  

wind direction in the monsoon period and changes in humidity  

in atmosphere. Specific importance is to be attached to areas  

in close proximity of project up to 3km is essential,  

considering the mobile source of emission such as aircraft.”  

44 A comprehensive process has been followed by the EAC bearing in mind  

the requirements of the Airport Guidance Manual. The EAC took note of the  

presence of reserved forests and of ESAs in the Western Ghats and deliberated  

on the impact of the construction and operation of the proposed airport on flora or  

fauna, hydrological systems and climatic variations. The process which has been  

adopted by the EAC and its ultimate conclusions must be scrutinized, in the  

course of judicial review, in the context of the limitations which are attached to the  

court conducting a merits based review. In Lafarge Umiam Mining Private  

Limited v Union of India, 18

an application was made under the 1994 EIA  

notification for the grant of an EC to a proposed limestone mining project at  

                                                           18

(2011) 7 SCC 338

PART D   

48    

Nongtrai Village, East Khasi Hills District Meghalaya. EC was granted for the  

project in 2001. A three judge Bench of this Court rejected the challenge and  

upheld the grant of the EC for the proposed project. Chief Justice S H Kapadia,  

speaking for the Court, formulated the standard of judicial review which must be  

applied in cases relating to the environment in the following terms:  

“In the circumstances, barring exceptions, decisions relating  

to utilisation of natural resources have to be tested on the  

anvil of the well-recognised principles of judicial review. Have  

all the relevant factors been taken into account? Have any  

extraneous factors influenced the decision? Is the decision  

strictly in accordance with the legislative policy underlying the  

law (if any) that governs the field? Is the decision consistent  

with the principles of sustainable development in the sense  

that has the decision-maker taken into account the said  

principle and, on the basis of relevant considerations, arrived  

at a balanced decision? Thus, the Court should review the  

decision-making process to ensure that the decision of MoEF  

is fair and fully informed, based on the correct principles, and  

free from any bias or restraint.”  

The EAC has accounted for the relevant factors outlined by this Court in its  

previous judgment in the assessment leading to the grant of the EC.   

45 The evaluation of merits is a matter which primarily rests with an expert  

authority. The court can certainly supervise procedural compliance and ensure  

that all necessary inputs which are required to be factored into the decision-

making process have been duly borne in mind. Once this has been done, the  

court must be circumspect in micro-managing the decision-making process by  

the EAC by substituting its own opinion for that of the EAC. Undoubtedly, no  

process can be perfect or free from studied criticism. Ms Anitha Shenoy, learned  

Senior Counsel has attempted to perform such an exercise when she submitted  

that the collection of primary faunal data from a nearby village and secondary

PART E   

49    

data from ZSI sources was not an adequate means of dealing with the concerns  

expressed by this Court. In assessing these criticisms, we must equally be  

cognizant of the fact that by the judgment of this Court dated 29 March 2019, the  

EAC was required to carry out the exercise within a period of one month from the  

receipt of the order of this Court. The Court did not quash the EC but directed  

that it should remain under suspension until the EAC revisited its  

recommendations in the light of the concerns which were expressed by this  

Court. Having assessed the process which took place following the judgment of  

this Court and the outcome, it would be difficult for this Court to hold that it fails to  

meet the standards which the court applies in the course of judicial review in  

environmental matters.   

E Directions   

46 For the above reasons, the minutes of the meeting of the EAC dated 23  

April 2019 are taken on record as prayed for. The additional conditions which  

have been imposed by the EAC shall, together with the original conditions of the  

EC dated 28 October 2015 and the directions issued by the NGT be cumulatively  

observed. The conditions cumulatively imposed for the grant of an EC, have been  

set out below:   

I. Conditions imposed by the EC dated 28 October 2015  

A. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:  

(i)  „Consent to Establish‟ shall be obtained from State  

Pollution Control Board under the Air (Prevention and  

Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention  

and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.  

(ii)  The Project Proponent shall ensure availability of  

adequate land at the junction of the Mopa Airport road

PART E   

50    

and Mumbai/Goa NH-17 for traffic  

circulation/management and to provide for all the traffic  

interchanges and proposed clover.  

(iii)  The approach and exit roads to the Airport shall be  

approved from the NHA land should be according to IRC  

norms.  

(iv)  A perusal of the Topo sheet superimposed on the runway  

area indicates that the extreme end of the runway is  

covering the drainage area partly.  The drainage area  

which is under the runway shall be channelized. The area  

between the parallel taxiway and runway shall be handled  

carefully to drain the water from the area in the outfall 2.  

(v)  The PP shall submit the site clearance certificate from  

Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), before  

commencement of work at the project site.  

(vi)  Sewage and other liquid effluent generated from the  

airport including from the existing terminal should be  

treated according to the norms laid down by the State  

Pollution Control Board. The treated sewage shall be  

recycled for flushing/gardening. Proper Dual plumbing  

shall be provided.  

(vii)  The solid waste generated shall be properly collected,  

segregated and disposed according to the provisions of  

Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000.   

The project proponent shall make provisions for drinking  

water at convenient places for passengers and also at the  

cafeterias as to reduce  generation of solid wastes  

including PET bottles.  

(viii)  Installation and operation of DG sets shall comply with the  

guidelines of CPCB.  

(ix)  Parking provision shall be provided according to the  

National Building Code of India, 2005.  

(x)  Water conservation fixtures shall be provided and water  

balance shall be maintained through verifiable metering  

for fresh raw water, recycled as well as rain water  

harvesting.  

(xi)  Necessary permission shall be obtained for drawing of  

ground water from competent authority prior to  

construction/ operation of the project.  

(xii)  The land use around the Airport complex shall be  

regulated through a plan to control unauthorized  

development which may create problems in the operation  

of the Airport.

PART E   

51    

(xiii)  The wastewater from hangers shall be tested for presence  

of heavy metals, if any, and shall be treated in STP.  The  

treated waste water shall be used for gardening/ flushing.  

(xiv)  Rain water harvesting shall be provided to recharge the  

ground water.  

(xv)  Energy conservation to the extent of at least 20% shall be  

incorporated including water conservation (reuse/ recycle,  

rain water harvesting and water efficient fixtures) and  

other green building practices for various buildings  

proposed within the airport complex. The PP shall  

consider ECBC Guidelines 2009 to achieve energy  

efficiency. The energy conservation measures shall be  

subject to periodic verification by the competent Energy  

Conservation/Efficiency authority in the State.  

(xvi)  The project proponent shall prepare a detailed traffic  

management plan to take care of increased vehicular  

traffic which should also cover/clearly delineate  

widening/increasing the existing roads and associated  

road infrastructure approving/installation of road safety  

features/pedestrian facility/FOB/under passes etc (that  

can be done by carrying out road safety audits).   

Measures shall be taken to prevent encroachment  

along/within the ROWs on connecting/main arterial roads.  

(xvii)  All the recommendations of the EMP shall be complied  

with in letter and spirit.  All the mitigation measures  

submitted in the EIA report shall be prepared in a matrix  

format and the compliance for each mitigation plan shall  

be submitted to RO, MoEF&CC along with half yearly  

compliance report.  

(xviii)  The responses/commitments made during public hearing  

shall be complied with in letter and spirit.  

(xix)  Project Proponent shall install noise level display system.  

Noise level shall be monitored regularly in all seasons  

(different meteorological conditions) within the compound  

as well as nearby habitations and it shall be ensured that  

the noise level is within the prescribed limits. During night  

time the noise levels measured at the boundary shall be  

restricted to the permissible levels to comply with the  

prevalent regulations.  

(xx)  The location of monitoring stations and monitoring of  

noise level during day and night shall be in accordance  

with the CPCB guidance document “Requirement and  

procedure for monitoring Ambient Noise Level due to  

aircraft” published on 25 th  June 2008.  

PART E   

52    

(xxi)  Construction spoils, including bituminous material and  

other hazardous materials, must not be allowed to  

contaminate watercourses and the dumpsites for such  

material must be secured so that they should not leach  

into the ground water.  

(xxii)  Any hazardous waste generated during construction  

phase, should be disposed off as per applicable rules and  

norms with necessary approval of the SPCB.  

(xxiii)  Under the provision of Environment (Protection) Act,  

1986, legal action shall be initiated against the project  

proponent if it was found that construction of the project  

has been started without obtaining environmental  

clearance.  

(xxiv) The project proponent will set up separate environmental  

management cell for effective implementation of the  

stipulated environmental safeguards under the  

supervision of a Senior Executive.  

(xxv)  Corporate Environment Responsibility:  

a) The Company shall have a well laid down  

Environment Policy approved by the Board of  

Directors.  

b) The Environment Policy shall prescribe for standard  

operating Process/procedures to bring into focus any  

infringements/deviation/violation of the environmental  

or forest norms/conditions.  

c) The hierarchical system or Administrative Order of the  

company to deal with environmental issues and for  

ensuring compliance with the environmental clearance  

conditions shall be furnished.  

d) To have proper checks and balances, the company  

shall have a well laid down system of reporting of non-

compliances/violations of environmental norms to the  

Board of Directors of the company and/or  

shareholders or stakeholders at large.  

B. GENERAL CONDITIONS:  

(i)  Provision shall be made for the housing of  

construction labour within the site with all necessary  

infrastructure and facilities such as fuel for cooking,  

mobile toilets, mobile STP, safe drinking water,  

medical health care, creche etc. The housing may  

be in the form of temporary structures to be  

removed after the completion of the project.  

(ii)  A First Aid Room will be provided in the project both  

during construction and operation of the project.

PART E   

53    

(iii)  All the topsoil excavated during construction  

activities should be stored for use in  

horticulture/landscape development within  the  

project site.  

(iv)  Disposal of muck during construction phase should  

not create any adverse effect on the neighbouring  

communities and be disposed taking the necessary  

precautions for general safety and health aspects of  

people, only in approved sites with the approval of  

competent authority.  

(v)  The diesel generator sets to be used during  

construction phase should below Sulphur diesel  

type and should conform to Environment  

(Protection) Rules prescribed for air and noise  

emission standards.  The diesel required for  

operating DG sets shall be stored in underground  

tanks and if required clearance from Chief Controller  

of Explosives shall be taken.  

(vi)  Vehicles hired for bringing construction material to  

the site should be in good condition and should  

have a pollution check certificate and should  

conform to applicable air and noise emission  

standards and should be operated only during non-

peak hours.  

(vii) Fly ash usage shall be explored as building material  

in the construction as per the provisions of Fly Ash  

Notification of September, 1999 and amended as on  

27 th  August, 2003.  

(viii) Ready mixed concrete must be used in building  

construction.  

(ix) Storm water control and its re-use as per CGWB and  

BIS standards for various applications.  

(x)  Water demand during construction should be  

reduced by use of pre-mixed concrete, curing  

agents and other best practices referred.  

(xi)  Separation of grey and black water should be done  

by the use of dual plumbing line for separation of  

grey and black water.  

(xii)  Use of glass may be reduced by upto 40% to reduce  

the electricity consumption and load on air-

conditioning. If necessary, use high quality double  

glass with special reflective coating in windows.

PART E   

54    

(xiii) Roof should meet prescriptive requirement as per  

Energy Conservation Building Code by using  

appropriate thermal insulation material to fulfill  

requirement.  

(xiv) Opaque wall should meet prescriptive requirement as  

per Energy Conservation Building Code which is  

proposed to be mandatory for all air-conditioned  

spaces while it is aspirational for non-air-conditioned  

spaces by use of appropriate thermal insulation  

material to fulfil requirement.  

(xv) The green belt of the adequate width and density  

preferably with local species along the periphery of  

the plot shall be raised as to provide protection  

against particulars and noise.  

(xvi) Traffic congestion near the entry and exit points from  

the roads adjoining the proposed project site must  

be avoided. Parking should be fully internalized and  

no public space should be utilized.  

(xvii) The construction of the structures shall be  

undertaken as per the plans approved by the  

concerned local authorities/local administration,  

meticulously conforming to the existing local and  

central rules and regulations.  

(xviii) The construction material shall be obtained only  

from approved quarries. In case new quarries are to  

be opened, specific approvals from the competent  

authority shall be obtained in this regard.  

(xix) Adequate precautions shall be taken during  

transportation of the construction material so that it  

does not affect the environment adversely.  

(xx) Full support shall be extended to the officers of this  

Ministry/Regional Office by the project proponent  

during inspection of the project for monitoring  

purposes by furnishing full details and action plan  

including action taken reports in respect of  

mitigation measures and other environmental  

protection activities.  

(xxi) A six-monthly monitoring report shall need to be  

submitted by the project proponents to the Regional  

Office of this Ministry regarding the implementation  

of the stipulated conditions.  

(xxii) Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change or  

any other competent authority may stipulate any

PART E   

55    

additional conditions or modify the existing ones, if  

necessary in the interest of environment and the  

same shall be complied with.  

(xxiii) The Ministry reserves the right to revoke this  

clearance if any of the conditions stipulated are not  

complied with the satisfaction of the Ministry.  

(xxiv) In the event of a change in project profile or change  

in the implementation agency, a fresh reference  

shall be made to the Ministry of Environment, Forest  

& Climate Change.  

(xxv) The project proponents shall inform the Regional  

Office as well as the Ministry, the date of financial  

closure and final approval of the project by the  

concerned authorities and the date of start of land  

development work.  

(xxvi)  A copy of the clearance letter shall be marked to  

concerned Panchayat local NGO, if any, from whom  

any suggestion/representation has been made  

received while processing the proposal.  

(xxvii) A copy of the environmental clearance letter shall  

also be displayed on the website of the concerned  

State Pollution Control Board. The EC letter shall  

also be displayed at the Regional office, District  

Industries centre and Collector‟s office/Tehsildar‟s  

office for 30 days.  

(xxviii) The funds earmarked for environmental protection  

measures shall be kept in separate account and  

shall not be diverted for other purpose. Year-wise  

expenditure shall be reported to this Ministry and its  

concerned Regional Office.  

5 These stipulations would be enforced among others  

under the provisions of Water (Prevention and  

Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention  

and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment  

(Protection) Act, 1986, the Public Liability  

(Insurance) Act, 1991 and EIA Notification 2006,  

including the amendments and rules made  

thereafter.  

6 All other statutory clearances such as the approvals  

for storage of diesel from Chief Controller of  

Explosives, Fire Department, Civil Aviation  

Department, Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and  

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 etc. shall be obtained,

PART E   

56    

as applicable by project proponents from the  

respective competent authorities.  

7 The project proponent shall advertise in at least two  

local Newspapers widely circulated in the region,  

one of which shall be in the vernacular language  

informing that the project has been accorded  

Environmental Clearance and copies of clearance  

letters are available with the State Pollution Control  

Board and may also be seen on the website of the  

Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change  

at http://www.envfor.nic.in.  The advertisement  

should be made within seven days from the date of  

receipt of the Clearance letter and a copy of the  

same should be forwarded to the Regional Office of  

this Ministry.  

…  

9 Status of compliance to the various stipulated  

environmental conditions and environmental  

safeguards will be uploaded by the project  

proponent in its website.”  

PART E   

57    

II. Conditions imposed by the NGT in its order dated 21 August 2018  

A. AIR ENVIRONMENT  

1. Total Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM),   

Respirable Particulate Matter (RPM) during construction  

phase and un-burnet and Hydro Carbons (HC), Lead (Pb),  

CO 2 , SO

2 , CO

2 , SOOT and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)  

during operation phase are going to be major pollutants in  

this kind of project, Besides, fugitive emissions of Volatile  

Organic Compounds (VOC) during fuel handling can be  

another issue for ambient air environment. The provision  

of only 6 (six) Air Quality Monitoring Stations is  

inadequate as sampling duration has been given as „twice  

a week, 4 weeks in a season as per CPCB standards for  

NAAQM, 1994.  It would be appropriate if the Project  

Proponent establishes real time online continuous Air  

Quality Monitoring Station also which is connected to  

CPCB server and capable of monitoring all relevant and  

critical parameters and mitigation measures taken.  

2. Although all parameters w.r.t. ambient air  

parameters have been found to be within limits for all 6  

(six) locations monitored, we feel for the purpose of  

giving/depicting holistic picture with regard to ambient air  

in the area, at least 3 (three) more locations falling in the  

State of Maharashtra be also monitored and documented.  

B. WATER ENVIRONMENT  

1.  Only two number of Rain Water Harvesting pits  

have been provided which we feel are not adequate and  

there is a need to place other pits at such locations as to  

capture all the excess drainage for water-recharge.  

2. More frequent Water Quality Monitoring i.e.once  

every month may be carried out by Project Proponent at  

bore wells and STP discharge plants instead of 4 (four)  

times in a year as proposed.  

C. NOISE ENVIRONMENT  

1.  It has been proposed that ambient noise levels  

shall be monitored around the premises of airport, near  

DG sets and at main entrance/boundary of airport once a  

week at 7 (seven) locations which we feel are inadequate.  

Besides these, continuous monitoring of occupational  

noise exposure limits in such industrial environments  

would be appropriate with audible or visual alarm output  

capability.  

PART E   

58    

2. Integrated Noise Model (INM) be more frequently  

used and mitigation undertaken during the operational  

phase of project at regular intervals.  

3. Although ambient noise levels have been found to be  

within limits at 9 (nine) locations monitored, we feel for the  

purpose of giving/depicting holistic picture with regard to  

ambient noise levels in the area, at least 3 (three) more  

locations falling in the State of Maharashtra be also  

monitored and documented.  

D. LAND ENVIRONMENT  

1.  There is a potential for impact on soil quality due  

to project related spills and leaks of fuel and chemicals  

and uncontrolled disposal of wastes and waste water.  

Adequate care be taken to avoid spills and leaks of  

hazardous substances and all project related wastes.  

Littering on sites and beyond the sites needs to be  

adequately prevented and controlled.  

2. Debris and Muck Management Plan to be prepared and  

implemented so as to avoid spillage of muck and debris  

on the slopes.  

3.  Soil conservation and stabilization measures needs to  

be undertaken by deploying both mechanical and bio-

engineering methods.  

4.  Remediation, restoration and compensation needs to  

be integral part of policy so as to provide adequate relief  

for any environmental or project related disasters.  

E. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT  

1.  Efforts be made to transplant the trees to other  

locations in the same vicinity by using appropriate  

mechanical devices which are available these days.  

2. Efforts be made to plant indigenous species which are  

tall in size rather than small saplings.  

3.  Concerns have been raised by appellants with  

regard to plant species „Dipcadi concanense‟ which has  

been claimed to be a threatened plant. This claim of the  

appellants have been negated by the respondent by  

producing a documentation of Botanical Survey of India,  

Western Regional Centre, Pune, Maharashtra titled as „A  

Note on Occurrence and Distribution of Dipcadi  

Concanense”. By invoking Precautionary Principle, we  

direct the Project Proponent to draw up a Conservancy by  

Plan/Scheme for „Dipcadi concanense‟ in collaboration

PART E   

59    

with Forest Department, State of Goa and Botanical  

Survey of India and ensure its implementation.  

F. Socio-Economic Environment  

1  Adequate drills with respect to implementation of  

Disaster Management plan needs to be carried out at  

regular intervals so as to ensure preparedness and  

rapid response to any disasters both man made or  

natural.  

2  Although „Disaster Management Plan‟ as Annexure-II  

is part of EIA Report under the sub head 1.2.1-

National Disasters needs further elaboration  

especially in terms of Emergency Response  

Measures, Rules and Responsibility, Mitigation, etc.”  

III.  Conditions imposed in the revised assessment of the EAC dated 23 April 2019  

I. STATUTORY COMPLIANCE:  

(i) The project proponent shall obtain certificate from  

Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW) of State through  

State Government that none of the area of the  

project falls in the notified Eco-sensitive Zone  

(ESZ) and no activity prohibited in the Eco-

sensitive Zone will be taken up.  

(ii) The project proponent shall obtain Consent to  

Establish/Operate under the provisions of Air  

(Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and  

the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,  

1974 from the concerned State Pollution Control  

Board/Committee.  

(iii) The project proponent shall obtain necessary  

permission from the competent authority for  

drawing of water from Tillari Irrigation Canal.  

II. AIR QUALITY MONITORING AND  

PRESERVATION:  

(i) The project proponent shall install system to carry  

out Ambient Air Quality monitoring for  

common/criterion parameters relevant to the main  

pollutants released (e.g. PM 10 and PM 2.5 in  

reference to PM emission and SO 2 , and NOx in  

reference to SO 2  and NOx emissions) within and  

outside the airport area covering upwind and  

downwind directions.  

(ii) Notification GSR 94€ dated 25.01.2018 of  

MoEF&CC regarding Mandatory Implementation  

of Dust Mitigation Measures for Construction and  

Demolition Activities shall be complied with.

PART E   

60    

(iii) Soil and other construction materials should be  

sprayed with water prior to any loading, unloading  

or transfer operation so as to maintain the dusty  

material wet.  

(iv) The excavation working area should be sprayed  

with water after operation so as to maintain the  

entire surface wet.  

(v) Excavated materials shall be handled and  

transported in a manner that they do not cause  

any air pollution.  

(vi) The soil/construction materials carried by the  

vehicle should be covered by impervous sheeting  

to avoid leaking of the dusty materials.  

III. WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND  

PRESERVATION:  

(i) Appropriate drainage channels need to be  

designed to take care of the water flow into the  

nearest water courses/rivers, etc.  

(ii) It should be ensured that sustainable water flow in  

the various channels of watershed in the plateau  

is maintained.  

(iii) Storm water drains are to be built for discharging  

storm water from the air-field to avoid  

flooding/water logging in project area. Domestic  

and industrial waste water shall not be allowed to  

be discharged into the storm water drains and  

directed to STP for treatment.  

(iv) Proper drainage systems, emergency containment  

in the event of a major spill during monsoon  

season etc. shall be provided.  

(v) The runoff from paved structures like Aprons can  

be routed through drains to oil separation tanks  

and sedimentation basins before being discharged  

into rainwater harvesting structures.  

(vi) Run off from chemicals and other contaminants  

from aircraft maintenance and other areas within  

the airport shall be suitably contained and treated  

before disposal. A spillage and containment plan  

shall be drawn up and implemented to the  

satisfaction of the State Pollution Control Board.  

(vii) The project activity shall conform to the General  

Standards for Discharge of Environmental  

Pollutants notified in the Environment (Protection)  

Rules, 1986, and amended from time to time.  

(viii) Rain water harvesting for roof run-off and surface  

run-off, as plan submitted should be implemented.  

Rain water harvesting structures shall conform to  

CGWA guidelines. Before recharging the surface

PART E   

61    

run off-pre-treatment must be done to remove  

suspended matter, oil and grease.  

IV. NOISE MONITORING AND PREVENTION:  

(i) Notification GSR 568(E) dated 18.06.2018 of  

MoEF & CC regarding Ambient Air Quality  

Standards with respect to Noise in Airport Noise  

Zone shall be complied with.  

(ii) Noise level survey shall be carried as per the  

prescribed guidelines and report in this regard  

shall be submitted to Regional Officer of the  

Ministry as a part of six-monthly compliance  

report.  

(iii) Noise from vehicles, power machinery and  

equipment on-site should not exceed the  

prescribed limit.  Equipment should be regularly  

serviced. Attention should also be given to muffler  

maintenance and enclosure of noisy equipments.  

(iv) Acoustic enclosures for DG sets, noise barriers for  

ground-run bays, ear plugs for operating  

personnel shall be implemented as mitigation  

measures for noise impact due to ground sources.  

(v) During airport operation period, noise should be  

controlled to ensure that it does not exceed the  

prescribed standards. During night time the noise  

levels measured at the boundary of the building  

shall be restricted to the permissible levels to  

comply with the prevalent regulations.  

(vi) Where construction activity is likely to cause noise  

nuisance to nearby residents, restrict it to only  

during day time i.e. between 7 am to 6 pm.  

V. ENERGY CONSERVATION/CLIMATE CHANGE  

MEASURES:  

(i) Energy conservation measures like installation of  

LED should be integral part of the project design  

and should be in place before project  

commissioning.  

(ii) Initiatives such as Green Infrastructure  

Development program, adoption of less emission  

intensive technologies, renewable energy  

program, electrical vehicles and Airport Carbon  

Accreditation need to be adopted to reduce its  

impact on climate change and Green House Gas  

(GHG) emissions as per environmental best  

practices governing Greenfield airports.  

VI. WASTE MANAGEMENT:  

(i) Soil stockpile shall be managed in such a manner  

that dust emission and sediment runoff are

PART E   

62    

minimized.  Ensure that soil stockpiles are  

designed with no slope greater than 2:1  

(horizontal/vertical).  

(ii) The project activity shall conform to the Fly Ash  

notification issued under the EP Act of 1986.  

(iii) The solid wastes shall be segregated as per the  

norms of the Solid Waste Management Rules,  

2016. Recycling of wastes such as paper, glass  

(produced from terminals and aircraft caterers),  

metal (at aircraft maintenance site), plastics (from  

aircrafts, terminals and offices), wood, waste oil  

and solvents (from maintenance and engineering  

operations), kitchen wastes and vegetable oils  

(from caterers) shall be carried out.  

(iv) Solid inert waste found on construction sites  

consists of building rubble, demolition material,  

concrete; bricks, timber, plastic, glass, metals,  

bitumen etc shall be reused/recycled or managed  

so as to strictly conform to the Solid Waste  

Management Rules, 2016, and Construction and  

Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016.   

(v) The project proponents shall implement a  

management plan duly approved by the State  

Pollution Control Board and obtain its permissions  

for the safe handling and disposal of:  

a    Trash collected in flight and disposed at the  

airport including segregation, collection and  

disposed.  

b    Toilet wastes and sewage collected from  

aircrafts and disposed at the Airport.  

c    Wastes arising out of maintenance and  

workshops.  

d   Wastes arising out of eateries and shops  

situated inside the airport complex.  

e    Hazardous and other wastes.  

VII. GREEN BELT:  

(i) Green belt shall be developed in area as  

provided in project details, with native tree  

species in accordance with Forest Department.  

The green belt shall inter alia cover the entire  

periphery of the Airport.  

(ii) The plantation species in and around Airport site  

should be carefully chosen to avoid bird nesting  

and to improve pollution control and noise control  

measures. Water intensive and/or invasive  

species should not be used for landscaping.  

(iii) Plantation activity should be taken up under the  

expert guidance for forest department of Goa,  

care should be taken that soil erosion measures

PART E   

63    

should be taken up on priority so that the right  

mineralized soil of forest is not washed away.  

The plantation activity should also have an  

approach of soil conservation where planting is  

done along the contours avoiding gully formation.  

As far as possible monoculture plantation should  

be avoided.  

(iv) The proposed 10 times compensatory plantation  

need to be monitored by the Government of Goa  

so that the target of planting 5.5 lakh saplings is  

achieved in a a time bound manner, their survival  

rate is monitored and mortality is replenished. As  

major chunk of 2.5 lakh of saplings is proposed to  

be done by the village level Bio Diversity  

Committees, it is necessary to ensure that people  

are largely given native species and/or fruit  

bearing saplings so that they will be able to  

derive economic benefits from such fruit crops  

and also such trees will provide better biological  

environment to birds.  

(v) Top soil shall be separately stored and used in  

the development of green belt.  

VIII. PUBLIC HEARING AND HUMAN HEALTH  

ISSUES:  

(i) Solution/management plan regarding redressal of  

all the concerns raised in the public hearing must  

be clearly spelt out in the EMP and shall be  

implemented in letter and spirit. Compliance for  

each mitigation plan shall be submitted to  

Regional Office, MoEF&CC along with half yearly  

compliance report.  

(ii) Provision of Electro-mechanical doors for toilets  

meant for disabled passengers shall be ensured.  

Children nursing/feeding room shall be located  

conveniently near arrival and departure gates.  

(iii) Emergency preparedness plan based on the  

Hazard identification and Risk Assessment  

(HIRA) and Disaster Management Plan shall be  

implemented.  

(iv) Provision shall be made for the housing of  

construction labour within the site with all  

necessary infrastructure and facilities such as  

fuel for cooking, mobile toilets, mobile STP, safe  

drinking water, medical health care, creche etc.  

The housing may be in the form of temporary  

structures to be removed after the completion of  

the project.  

(v) Occupational health surveillance of the workers  

shall be done on a regular basis.”    

PART E   

64    

47 We have also taken note of the assurance which has been tendered on  

behalf of the concessionaire that it will adopt a Zero Carbon Programme both in  

the construction and operational phases of the airport. We accept the undertaking  

of the concessionaire and issue a direction for compliance.   

48 The earlier judgment of this Court highlighted numerous deficiencies by the  

project proponent leading to the grant of the EC. This Court highlighted numerous  

concerns including the preservation of forests, the existence of ESAs with their  

attendant features and the impact of the proposed project on natural water  

channels. The Court also noted the abject failure of the project proponent to  

provide complete information on the existence of reserved forests. In the  

proceedings that followed the judgment of this Court, the project proponent  

sought to remedy its failure by taking into account additional information on  

significant aspects of the environment. In the process leading to the grant of the  

EC as well as the lifting of its suspension by this Court, numerous mitigatory  

conditions have been imposed on the project proponent. We deem it appropriate  

to ensure the oversight of the project by a specialized body to ensure compliance  

with the directions cumulatively issued by this Court. We direct the National  

Environmental Engineering Research Institute 19

to be appointed to oversee  

compliance with the directions cumulatively issued by this Court. The project  

proponent shall bear the costs, expenses and fees of NEERI.     

                                                           19

NEERI

PART E   

65    

49 The suspension on the EC shall accordingly stand lifted. The  

Miscellaneous Application is accordingly disposed of.   

          ..……......................................................J  

[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]    

..……......................................................J  

              [Hemant Gupta]  

 New Delhi;  January 16, 2020.