CASE ANALYSIS OF

Save Mon Region Federation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., NGT,
Appeal No. 39 Of 2012

By:-

SHRADDHA SHARMA

4thYr., BSc.LLB.(Hons)

JECRC UNIVERSITY, JAIPUR

Mob. : -9680268681

www.probono-india.in

November 25, 2020

Abstract - In Save Mon Region Federation and Ors. versus Union of India and Ors., an
organization named Save Mon Region Federation has filed an appeal alongside a social activist
for the freedom given to a hydro venture worth INR 6,400 crore. The project was near a
wintering site for a winged creature Black-necked Crane, which is incorporated under Schedule I
species under the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. It additionally goes under the “Threatened
Birds of India”, a writing by the appellants for this situation.

It additionally had other endangered species, for example, the red panda, snow leopard, and so
on The court provided requests to suspend the leeway for the task. It likewise coordinated the
EAC to make another proposition for natural freedom. The tribunal additionally coordinated the
Ministry of Environment and Forest in the nation to set up an analysis on the protection ofbirds
associated with the case.

At last NGT suspended the Environment Clearance and concluded in favour of hydro plant.

Key Words – Birds, protection, activists, environment, hydro venture

INTRODUCTION

The case is a Appeal No. 39 Of 2012

In Save Mon Region Federation and Ors. versus Union of India and Ors., an organization named
Save Mon Region Federation has filed an appeal alongside a social ativist for the freedom given
to a hydro venture worth INR 6,400 crore. The project was near a wintering site for a winged
creature Black-necked Crane, which is incorporated under Schedule I species under the Wildlife
Protection Act of 1972. It additionally goes under the “Threatened Birds of India”, a writing by
the appellants for this situation.

It additionally had other endangered species, for example, the red panda, snow leopard, and so
on The court provided requests to suspend the leeway for the task. It likewise coordinated the
EAC to make another proposition for natural freedom. The tribunal additionally coordinated the
Ministry of Environment and Forest in the nation to set up an analysis on the protection ofbirds
associated with the case.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

In the current Appeal, Save Mon Region Federation - an organization comprising of residents of
Monpa indigenous network in Tawang locale of Arunachal Pradesh and Mr. Lobsang Choedar a
Social Activist, Senior Buddhist Lama and Chief Advisor of the said Federation, have pounced
upon award of Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 19.4.2012 to the development of 780 Mega
Watts (MW) Nyam Jang Chhu Hydroelectric Project (NJC-HEP) in Tawang area of Arunachal
Pradesh.

Truly, 780 MW HEP visualizes development of 10.2m high and 15m long blast on eco-delicate
stretch of Naymjang Chhu River bowl close to Zemithangin locale Tawang of Arunachal
Pradesh. The task includes 23.45km long and 6.2m. distance across Head Race Tunnel (HRT)
requiring broad burrowing in geographically delicate scene and includes eight (8) de-silting loads
and with underground Powerhouse having 6x130MW Pelton Turbines. The HRT sidesteps
around 35kms stretch of waterway among torrent and the force to be reckoned with. The
Appellant adds that the undertaking additionally includes development of hostage hydropower
task of 7.5MW, Khangteng HEP to give power during development of 780MW Nyamjang Chhu
venture.

It is additionally not contested that absolute land proposed to be gained for the undertaking is
around 254.55ha, out of which 10.08ha is private land and 244.46ha is network land with all out-
submergence region of 39.34ha, and 89.5271ha of woodland land has been considered for
redirection proposition under the Forest Act.1

ISSUES OF THE CASE

The appeal is filed on the issue of grant of Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 19.4.2012 to the
construction of 780 Mega Watts (MW) Nyam Jang Chhu Hydroelectric Project (NJC-HEP) in
Tawang district of Arunachal Pradesh. And also challenging the legality of existing order.

The case is decided by – Principal Bench2

1
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
ARGUMENTS FROM THE APELLANT SIDE

The Appellants have tested the award of EC (Environment Clearance), principally on the
accompanying grounds:

(1) Faulty Scoping Process:

a) Concealment of data, accommodation of bogus and misdirecting information in Form-I,

b) Lack of utilization of psyche by the EAC at checking stage, since it ignored wrongness for
siting torrent at the spot utilized by Black necked Crane for wintering, avoidance of ToR for
sway appraisal of hostage little hydel power 7.5MW Khangteng HEP and auxiliary frameworks,
inappropriate rejection of significant TORs from Model TOR for North-Eastern activities,
nonattendance of solution for combined effect evaluation and riverine bowl concentrates in
Tawang River Basin, and nonappearance of ToRs identifying with effects of Catchment Area
Treatment (CAT) and Compensatory Afforestation (CA).

(2) Faulty public discussion measure, because of the fact that the EIA report was not according
to TOR, low quality of EIA Report, ridiculous hearing.

(3) Lack of utilization of brain by the EAC and MoEF during evaluation of task and from that
point by MoEF.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE

1. Respondent No. 1-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of

India got gives together with answers dated 26.7.2013 and dated 11.1.2016. In conclusion,
MoEF depended upon the record and battled that the EAC had altogether investigated the
proposition for award of EC being referred to and upon assessment suggested the task for
perusing leeway, and formal proceeding for the undertaking was led according to
arrangements of the EIA Notification, 2006 and immediately EAC completely analyzed
the natural issues prior to suggesting the venture for award of EC and, from there on, the
2
Bench - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson) Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Jyothimani (Judicial Member)
Hon'ble Dr. D.K. Agrawal (Expert Member) Hon'ble Dr.G.K. Pandey (Expert Member) Hon'ble Prof. A.R. Yousuf
(Expert Member) on Dated: March 14, 2013 Justice Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson)
 Ministry appropriately allowed EC to the task in the wake of following due system
according to arrangements of the EIA Notification, 2006. Respondent No. 1 MoEF, set
before us duplicates of the Minutes of EAC Meetings hung on 20-21 July, 2015 and 24-25
August, 2015, wherein the report on "conveying limit investigation of Tawang River
bowl" through North-Eastern Hill University got in June, 2015, was considered vide oath
dated 11.1.2016.
2. Respondent No. 2-APSPCB denied Appellant's disputes and explicitly battled that the
formal proceeding was organized by the Respondent No. 2 in precise, time bound and
straightforward way guaranteeing vastest chance of public cooperation at or about the task
site according to Appendix (IV) of the EIA Notification, 2006. The Respondent No. 2
uncovered that date, time and scene for lead of formal proceeding were settled in
interview with the Deputy Commissioner, Tawang region and Notices for formal
conference were given, both in English and in nearby Monpa lingo in the English content
and distributed in two (2) neighborhood papers "Arunachal Times" and "Arunachal Front"
the two versions dated 6.1.2011 for broadest exposure, and the names of assigned officials
where people in general could get to the draft EIA Report and the Executive Summary of
EIA Report before the formal proceeding were obviously referenced in the formal
conference Notices publicized in papers; and these archives were made accessible in such
workplaces and were available to the general population for assessment as ordered in the
EIA Notification, 2006. The Respondent No. 2 uncovered that leader rundown of EIA
Report and different subtleties of the venture were transferred on the Website of the Board
and Notice of formal review welcoming recommendations, perspectives, remarks and
protests from public was allowed thirty (30) days' ahead of time of the planned date of
public meeting. The Respondent No. 2 further uncovered that upwards of 457 people an
enormous scope public interest in inadequately populated State of Arunachal Pradesh,
went to formal review at Multi-Purpose Hall, New Lumla, Tawang area on 8.2.2011; and
whole procedures of formal review was Video diagramed properly recorded and
dispatched to the Regulatory Authority according to arrangements contained in the EIA
Notification, 2006. Duplicates of record of the formal proceeding were put before us by
Respondent No. 2-APSPCB alongside its answer dated thirteenth May, 2013.
 3. Respondent No. 3 NJC Hydro Power Limited - Project Proponent (PP), opposed Appeal
with answer dated 17.7.2013 and Sur-response dated 24.9.2013 to the reply documented
by the Appellants. As per Respondent No. 3, HEPs are most eco-accommodating venture,
producing hydropower, a favorable sustainable wellspring of energy, required for creating
frameworks in distant territories and the State Govt. has marked Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) for building up a few such activities in State of Arunachal Pradesh
in compatibility to its arrangement 'Arunachal Pradesh Hydro Power Policy, 2008' for
improvement of hydropower possibilities. A Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) was
endorsed between Respondent No. 4-Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and Bhilwara Enginery
(BEL) on 28.5.2009 to create Nyamjang Chhu HEP and a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)
for the sake of NJC Hydro Power Ltd. was framed by BEL for execution of Nyamjang
Chhu HEP with assent given by the Respondent No. 4 on 10.6.2010 as far as said
arrangement. The Respondent No. 3 further uncovered that the task is run of the waterway
type plot with topping poundage to outfit the hydropower capability of River Nyamjang
Chhu with its redirection blast close to Zemithang town with force to be reckoned with in
town Kharteng about 4km upstream of the conversion of Nyamjang Chhu with Tawang
Chhu. As indicated by the Respondent No. 3, lion's share of catchments, upstream of
redirection structure lies in Tibet, and the catchment inside Indian Territory downstream
of redirection structure will remain generally undisturbed because of a few feeders joining
the waterway framework. At first, the Respondent No. 3, uncovered that the venture was
allocated in three phases, yet on premise of pre-attainability report to which the
Respondent No. 4 concurred its assent the undertaking was discovered to be more
reasonable and ecologically less requesting in single stage, and Memorandum of
Agreement in addition to other things including arrangements for the accompanying
formative and government assistance exercises for advantage of neighborhoods endorsed
on 28.5.2009:

LEGAL ASPECTS

The case revolves around two statutes –

1. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980–

 i) This Act aims at - To protect the forest, its flora, fauna and other diverse ecological
component. And to protect the integrity, territory and individuality of the forests.

2. Environment Clearance Regulations of 2006 –

• The main objective of environmental clearance is to reduce the environmental damages
that have been taking place for years due to industrialization, as people do not care for the
environment where their own interest is lost.
• Environmental Clearance solely monitors and restricts all public and environmental
damages that may be caused due to upcoming projects.

VIEWS OF THE COURT

Hence, it can be seen from the method set down in the Environment Clearance Regulations of
2006 for award of earlier EC that the data or information outfitted by the Applicant in its
Application structures premise of whole cycle specified for award of earlier EC, as
data/information provided sires TOR prompting arrangement of EIA Report which is vital for
cycle of public interview delivered required by law to comprehend public worries comparable to
natural effects of the task; and which thusly are liable for creating the EAC proposals. In this
way, the data/information provided by the Applicant has falling impact on the ultimate result of
cycle of EC. Peaks, a result of checking measure are material to EIA examines, which prompts
the EIA Report and from that point the last EIA Report as aforementioned fundamental for
framing target sentiment by the EAC during the time spent evaluation for making suggestions to
the Regulatory Authority. Material issue, hence, should be replied in the current Appeal is with
regards to whether cycle of award of earlier EC to the task being referred to experiences bad
habit of defective checking measure or not.

The EIA report doesn't record any of these realities nor does it allude to any of this broad writing
in its report. This is a genuine oversight and it mistakenly expresses that the region and its
encompassing territories harbor no uncommon or endangered untamed life".

The facts demonstrate that these material realities were not before the EAC when perusing was
finished. Normally, ToRs endorsing EIA concentrate as respects these material realities were not
recommended consequently bringing about vacuum in the EIA Report on this material angle.
Thusly, inescapable distortion creeps in the evaluation done by the EAC for suggesting award of
EC being referred to.

Nonetheless, this report has surfaced simply after open discussion held in February, 2011.
Respondent No. 1-MoEF presents that Tawang bowl study is now an aggregate effect study did
and deals with supposed concerns and Nyam Jang Chhu being the main undertaking in the whole
catchment of Nyam Jang Chhu River, and no more investigation is needed as respects miniature
hydel power task of Khangtang and Shyrao as important clearances have been acquired and they
are 32-40 km away from the venture and are being utilized essentially to uproot utilization of
diesel as a fuel during development of the task. Learned Counsel showing up for the benefit of
MoEF further presents that it should be left to the carefulness of EAC and MoEF to choose
whether new 'formal review' or interview are needed by virtue of changes in extension
arrangement/venture highlights/activity system and new investigations charged for venture.

OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT

The facts demonstrate that hydel power venture gives eco well-disposed inexhaustible wellspring
of energy and its advancement is vital, nonetheless, we are of the considered view that such
improvement should be 'reasonable turn of events' without there being any unrecoverable
misfortune to climate. We are additionally of the view that reviews done should be open for
public interview to offer an occasion to influenced people having conceivable stake in climate to
communicate their interests following such examinations. This would encourage target choice by
the EAC on every single natural issue and open a path for maintainable advancement of the
district. To do equity in the issue, along these lines, we pass the accompanying headings:

"I) The EC dated 19.4.2011, is suspended till the time the investigations as coordinated are
completed, public conference subsequently done, the EAC thinks about result of such open
discussion, does a new evaluation of proposition for award of EC, makes suggestion to the
MoEF&CC, and the MoEF&CC follows up on such proposals as per law.

ii) The MoEF&CC will cause to be made a different investigation of E-stream prerequisite for
assurance of living space of the Black necked Crane and for preservation of the Black necked
Crane through the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, as quickly as could reasonably be
expected and make such examination report alongside Tawang River Basin study accessible for
'public discussion' and will hold 'public counsel' in consistence of the previously mentioned
bearing as per law.

iii) The EAC will immediately, make new examination of the proposition for award of EC and
take proper choice for making proposals to the MoEF&CC, who will take choice immediately as
per law.

iv) The Appeal stands discarded with no organization as to costs."

CONCLUSION

The National Green Tribunal concluded: “It is true that hydel power project provides eco
-friendly renewable source of energy and its development is necessary, however, we are of the
considered view that such development should be ‘sustainable development’ without there being
any irretrievable loss to environment. We are also of the view that studies done should be open
for public consultation in order to offer an opportunity to affected persons having plausible stake
in environment to express their concerns following such studies. This would facilitate objective
decision by the EAC on all environmental issues and open a way for sustainable development of
the region.”

The NGT suspended the environmental clearance until the Ministry of Environment, Forests and
Climate Change undertakes an environmental flow study to determine how to protect the black-
necked crane and its habitat.  All studies must be provided to the public for consultation. 
Thereafter the EAC must make a fresh appraisal of the dam project, with the new information
and public comments in mind.  

REFERENCES

1. P. Leela Krishnan, Environmental Law in India (Lexis Nexis, 4th Edition)

2. Shyam Diwan& Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India, Oxford
University Press
3. S. C. Shastri, Environmental Law, Eastern Book Company

4. Environmental & Pollution Laws In India (Set of 2 Volumes) by Justice T S Doabia,

Lexis Nexis
BRIEF ABOUT AUTHOR

ShraddhaSharma is a 4thyear BSc.LLB (Hons.) student at JECRC University, Jaipur. She has a
keen interest in Criminal Law, IPR, and Human Rights. She was associated with Niti Manthan as
their Legal Research and Content Writer. She has done various internships in different fields.
She is also the campus Ambassador of Lex Jura Law Journal and Law Learners.