Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Expansion of Refinery Capacity Of Nayara Energy Limited In Gujarat

"In view of the above findings, which have been arrived at and having perused the record, we find that no substantial question of law would arise for consideration by this Court."

The Environmental Clearance proposal of the company was considered by the Environment Assessment Committee wherein Nayara and its consultant CSIR and NEERI made a detailed presentation. The clearance was granted on 05.01.2021 for expansion. Eventually the petitioner preferred an appeal before the NGT against the grant of Environmental Clearance for the expansion, which was dismissed. The order was challenged before the Apex Court and set aside. The appeal was restored to the file of NGT for fresh consideration. The NGT constituted a 3-member committee comprising Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat, Director, Marine National Park and the State Pollution Control Board to evaluate risk associated with the expansion of the project. The said Joint Committee submitted its report on 03.12.2021. On perusal of the same the NGT dismissed the appeal.

While refusing to grant relief to the petitioner, the Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli took note of the fact that the NGT had observed there was no adverse impact on the marine ecosystem since

1. the mangrove cover has increased in 2021 as compared to 2019;
2. the unit has complied with the recommendations of the National Environment Engineering Research Institute on risk assessment;
3. the inter-tidal assessment of corals and biotic community shows no adverse impact, thereby maintaining biodiversity; and
4. the unit has a well defined system in place for maintaining health, safety and other safeguards.

The Bench was satisfied that both the Environmental Assessment Committee and the Joint Committee had visited the site of impact and consulted stakeholders. Public hearings were conducted on the subject which demonstrate that there was no objection from the stakeholders' end.

The Bench noted -

"The expansion, as the above extract from the report indicates, is within the precincts of the refinery and there is an assessment by the expert adjudicatory body that the expansion would not have any adverse effect on the environment."

The petition submits that the NGT has not appreciated the fact that the Joint Committee relied on the India State of Forest Report 2019 Forest Survey of India report and report of National Institute of Oceanography, which deals with the period before the expansion of the refinery. It does not indicate the impact upon the expansion of the refinery capacity on the mangrove forests. The petition argues that the Joint Committee had not assessed the adverse impact of the expansion, which the petition claims, would cause serious hazards to both marine biology and to the mangroves. The petition also emphasises that drawing 928 MLD more water on account of expansion from 20 MMTPA to 46 MMTPA as well as discharge of 573 MLD water will have adverse effect on mangrove forest as well as corals and coral reefs situated in the buffer zone of 10 km.

The appellants were presented by Advocate, Mr. Purvish Malkhan. Respondent No. 2. M/s. Nayara Energy Ltd. was represented by Senior Advocates, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Chinmoy Sharma and Advocate, Mr. Somiran Sharma.

[Case Title: Sanghar Zuber Ismail v. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change And Anr. CA No. 5516 of 2022]