The legal battle between Lavasa Corporation, an arm of Hindustan Construction Company involved in the development of a hill city in Maharashtra, and the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is expected to prolong further. Lavasa Corporation filed a fresh petition last week in the Bombay High Court against the MoEF order giving a conditional clearance for the project while continuing its stop work order.
The company alleged that the order clearly passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is unreasoned as it fails to consider various facets of the submissions made by the company, including those in respect of jurisdiction and non-applicability of the EIA Notification 2006.
The company has prayed that MoEF's January 17 order and the technical committee's report on January 14 be quashed. Besides, pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the operation of the showcause notice served by the ministry on November 25 last year and the present order be stayed.
MoEF, in its order, called for a payment of penalty for the violation of environmental laws, creation of an Environmental Restoration Fund and imposition of stringent terms and conditions to ensure that no further environmental degradation takes place at the project site.
The respondents are the MoEF, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, MoEF Director Bharat Bhushan, MoEF advisor Nalini Bhat and the Maharashtra government. Lavasa Corporation sources told Business Standard "The company has filed a writ petition challenging the ministry's order issued on January 17."
Further, the company submitted that the manner in which the MoEF and its technical committee conducted the hearing clearly established an inherent bias in the process.
"The respondents deliberately avoided referring to the material on record which clearly explains various aspects raised in the report. The deliberate failure to initially provide the documents to the committee and thereafter to refer to the explanations given by the company demonstrates how the technical committee's visit at the project site was with preconceived and biased intention."
The company objected to the technical committee's observations that the development may lead to uncontrolled and induced development, claiming that it was absurd, arbitrary and a deliberate one.
"The very purpose of Hill Station Regulation is to have a controlled development. The state government has noticed the uncontrolled and induced rapid urbanisation. The criticism therefore, is unwarranted. The Hill Station Regulation prescribes parameters for development which is the part of the regional plan and therefore any regulation framed is necessarily required to be considered as a regulation for better planning," the company said.
According to the company, the MoEF and its technical committee did not address how development of a hill station is possible without hill cutting. The hill cutting is carried out only for three purposes which include construction of road, construction of buildings and quarrying.
There is nothing to indicate that beyond these purposes the hill cutting is carried out by the petitioner.
There is also nothing in the entire report to indicate that the company has violated the norms prescribed for construction of roads, norms prescribed for houses and norms prescribed for quarrying or norms followed for slope protections.
