NEW DELHI: Refusing to entertain a plea against expansion of Pipavav port in Gujarat faulting the environmental clearance, the Supreme Court on Monday bluntly asked – “Show us a single project where these environmentalists have said we welcome this”, while also emphasising that country cannot develop without infrastructure.Senior advocate Anitha Shenoy, for environmentalist Chetan Kumar Navintray Vyas, strenuously argued that the project was stalled for more than a decade and the environmental clearance was given without considering the adverse impact on marine mammals, Olive Ridley turtles, avian species and mangroves.
‘You want to stall everything in the name of environment’
A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymlaya Bagchi said the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report had found the apprehensions baseless and the National Green Tribunal also has since given a considered opinion green lighting the port expansion.When Shenoy continued to emphasise that the NGT did not consider a series of deficiencies in the EIA report, the bench said port development activities are required for the development of the country. “You want to stall everything in the name of the environment. How can the country develop without infrastructure? No doubt precautionary measures are essential. But tell us where else the depth of the sea permits big ports as in Gujarat,” it asked. “Where else can such ports be set up? Do you want the port related economic activities to go to other countries,” the bench asked. While refusing to entertain the appeal against NGT order, it permitted the environmentalist to approach western zone NGT at Pune again pointing out the non-consideration of his objections to the project.The counsel said 90% of the fish landing off Saurashtra coast takes place at Pipavav port area and the expansion would be a death knell for the fisherfolk of the area and the economic activities connected to the fish business.The bench said economic activity is not a consideration while preparing the EIA report. “Your basic objection was that it would disturb the turtle nesting area. The Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) has found your claim to be not true. Their inspection report says so,” the bench said.The tribunal in its Nov 26 order had referred to the project’s EIA report, noting that detailed studies on plant diversity, marine ecology and biodiversity including an Avian Diversity Impact Study, showed no significant adverse impact. The study even described the port area as a haven for bird diversity.
