In a setback for the French cement major Lafarge, the Supreme Court has declined to grant permission to the company for its limestone mining activities in Meghalaya forests.
It has instead asked the company to obtain a fresh Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) clearance for the project. The limestone mined is meant for the company’s Bangladesh-based cement project.
“We will not give permission without EIA. If this court has not allowed anyone to do mining without EIA, why would you (get a different treatment)?” a Forest Bench comprising Chief Justice of India, KG Balakrishnan, and Justices, SH Kapadia and Aftab Alam, said.
Rejecting the request of Attorney-General GE Vahanvati to give the green signal for Lafarge to mine till the EIA is complete, the court specified that it would not allow mining without the company getting EIA clearance based on the Central Empowered Committee’s new guidelines.
Vahanvati sought the court's nod to the French company for resumption of mining in Meghalaya saying prohibiting it would lead to a strain in diplomatic ties between India and Bangladesh. This was because the Indian Government had given a commitment to Bangladesh regarding limestone supply, he said. But the court rejected this contention.
Significantly, the court also directed the Attorney General to submit a proposal by the next date of hearing (April 9) on the modalities of completing the EIA and the conditions that the Government would like to impose on Lafarge on the lines of the ‘Sterlite judgment'.
This followed Vahanvati’s submission regarding a proposal based on the Sterlite model as mooted during the last hearing by senior advocate Harish Salve, who is assisting the court in the matter.'
The Government has now recommended setting up a special purpose vehicle that has the representation of stakeholders including the locals, the Government and the company. According to the Government's proposal, the special purpose vehicle would administer a fund for the welfare of the affected people and the development of the area around the project site.
“Every year, Lafarge would pay into this SPV Rs 10 crore or 30 per cent of its annual profit till such time limestone is quarried,” said Vahanvati.
He said the SPV would also submit its annual return to the court.
Counsel for tribals affected by the Lafarge project, PS Narasimha and Somiran Sharma, opposed this saying the project was an environmental loss for them and it cannot be compensated in this manner.
It has instead asked the company to obtain a fresh Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) clearance for the project. The limestone mined is meant for the company’s Bangladesh-based cement project.
“We will not give permission without EIA. If this court has not allowed anyone to do mining without EIA, why would you (get a different treatment)?” a Forest Bench comprising Chief Justice of India, KG Balakrishnan, and Justices, SH Kapadia and Aftab Alam, said.
Rejecting the request of Attorney-General GE Vahanvati to give the green signal for Lafarge to mine till the EIA is complete, the court specified that it would not allow mining without the company getting EIA clearance based on the Central Empowered Committee’s new guidelines.
Vahanvati sought the court's nod to the French company for resumption of mining in Meghalaya saying prohibiting it would lead to a strain in diplomatic ties between India and Bangladesh. This was because the Indian Government had given a commitment to Bangladesh regarding limestone supply, he said. But the court rejected this contention.
Significantly, the court also directed the Attorney General to submit a proposal by the next date of hearing (April 9) on the modalities of completing the EIA and the conditions that the Government would like to impose on Lafarge on the lines of the ‘Sterlite judgment'.
This followed Vahanvati’s submission regarding a proposal based on the Sterlite model as mooted during the last hearing by senior advocate Harish Salve, who is assisting the court in the matter.'
The Government has now recommended setting up a special purpose vehicle that has the representation of stakeholders including the locals, the Government and the company. According to the Government's proposal, the special purpose vehicle would administer a fund for the welfare of the affected people and the development of the area around the project site.
“Every year, Lafarge would pay into this SPV Rs 10 crore or 30 per cent of its annual profit till such time limestone is quarried,” said Vahanvati.
He said the SPV would also submit its annual return to the court.
Counsel for tribals affected by the Lafarge project, PS Narasimha and Somiran Sharma, opposed this saying the project was an environmental loss for them and it cannot be compensated in this manner.
Next Story
