EIA public hearing for IT Park Block-2 was held today
in office of DC(NE).
DC-nominee chaired. DPCC, MCD, Delhi Govt (Env), SDM
and 3 senior citizens were rest of the panel. The
project proponent was represented by 7 persons.
There were 2 members-of-the-public (1 of the senior
citizens on the panel had also signed the attendance
sheet meant for public, and after the 2
members-of-the-public had joined, the 3 senior
citizens on panel began participating like public, to
raise counter-views).
By the time the 2 members-of-the-public reached, the
power-point presentation was over. The senior
citizens on the panel were asking questions about
implications for traffic in the course of
construction, etc, and the project proponents were
answering. The seating was workshop-style, tables
around a well, with coffee in china cups and wafers
and water. The officials on the panel were on one
side, with the project proponents on the opposite side
and the 3 senior citizens on the panel spilling on to
the side in between, next to whom were accommodated
the 2 members-of-the-public (Manoj Chaudhry of
Wildrift Adventures and I).
Wildrift Adventures and other eco-visitation and
adventure enterprises have issues with the sort of
recreation-amusement that DMRC is planning next to its
puny IT-park on the riverside. They had missed the
public notice and noticed hearing date on the web and
had called DPCC to inform they would participate (and
had called me to check if I had objected and needed a
lift to nandnagri-shahdra and I had said aye aye).
They suggested EIA for the whole 52 Ha (that includes
the 6 Ha IT Park of 3-blocks of which block-2 was
being EIA-ed) since whole impact is greater than sum
of part-impacts in their experience (notification also
requires EIA of whole project if designed in phases)
and comparative appraisal of project and site options
since EIA ought not to be limited to justifying
projects but ought to focus on fit on sites like
riverbed (notification also requires some such
appraisal).
The lady among senior citizens said the project was
definitely good in comparative terms, as otherwise
there were jhuggis (though EIA report states no
displacement is involved). Manoj patiently explained
the sort of sensible business options he meant,
mentioning to the officials in the panel that those
suggestions had been duly filed in their response to
the public notice for land use change for IT Park (btw
the RTI effort of Wildrift Adventures to ascertain the
fate of those suggestions has ended with a peculiar
dismissal of second appeal on grounds of locus
standii, which sarbjit has objected to).
I had filed detailed objections promptly after I
received RTI reply from DDA informing that for
post-facto building permit for IT Park block-1 DMRC
had paid 1.97 crore penalty and processing of building
permit for block-2 was waiting EIA clearance. (on the
way we noticed that that further penalty-inviting
construction of block 2 has reached third floor and
was going on also today).
I confirmed that my objections (long list of false
statements in the EIA report, which makes the
application liable for rejection by MoEF as per the
notification) was on record, asked for the panel to be
introduced to me, noted there was no central govt
nominee, and asked for details of the complaint made
against the construction w/o EIA before issuing public
notice without which the hearing is arguably illegal,
in addition to, in any event, not being public.
Unencumbered by NGO noise-making (and with only one
lady among the 3 senior citizens -- senior gentlemen
seldom scrap with me once I have clarified I am expert
and not ladies-NGO-proprietress or
ladies-president-of-RWA) I was able to persuade the
chairperson that they need to look into the legality
of processing this case.
On the request of metro-men that I clarify my
environmental objections instead of harping on
procedural issues, I also clarified that my objections
were specifically on para-verse-n-rhyme of their EIA
report and read out from it a couple of environmental
violations. We had a scrap about the claim of no
displacement. I cited the case DMRC had filed for
encroachment-removal. They said I had not seen the
site and the encroachment was a km away. I said the
site was 52 Ha when the case was filed (prior to land
use change of 6 Ha in it for IT Park) and LG had been
ordered to settle the petition as representation and
they ought to file LG order (I have CIC order to LG
Sectt to provide me on oath status of compliance).
I also brought to the notice of the panel the point
about the 1.97 cr penalty just paid for block-1 and
the further penalty presumably being readied for
block-2 under construction without permit (not
mentioned in EIA report, though clearances are to be
disclosed) and the circularity in first seeking land
use change by (falsely) claiming EIA clearance and
then seeking EIA clearance by claiming land use
compliance (while being under notice in my humble one
duly amended to seek quashing of land use change
notification).
The senior lady said something to the effect
so-what-if-there-is-illegality-it-is-better-than-illegal-jhuggis.
Manoj patiently explained why it is wrong to compare
DMRC with jhuggis. One of the senior gentlemen said
the EIA process ought to be allowed if DMRC can
produce clearances from experts (DMRC had mentioned
CWC and some research institutions). I explained CWC
is advisory and CGWA is authority and while all are
generalist environmental experts, CGWA scientist are
like me frog-in-the-well specialist experts and he
would not be disappointed if he visited CGWA website.
Afterwards he exchanged phone numbers, as did the
other senior gentleman (the one that signed the
attendance sheet for public) who is into
company-n-corporate law and was experiencing EIA for
the first time and perceived by end of it clear
violation and was keen to take up environmental-law.
The senior lady was being profusely thanked by the
metro-men and left and I went after her to say
no-hard-feelings-mam and found she is prez of seniors
(NE) and of RWA (as were the other 2 seniors).
The NGO/experts on environment and metro had
abstained. But Delhi Govt rep said (at end of pow-wow
about expertise) that MOEF has expert committee that
will look into my objections, etc. I let that
expert-committee scam biz pass, as MOEF was not
represented on the panel.
----
So. 2 members-of-the-public (ie, not RWA/NGO but
ordinary business and ordinary professional) objected
to the commercial IT Park on the riverbed. not bad.
btw, on complaint of ajit singh ji (ordinary citizen,
not NGO/RWA) another EIA clearance was lately stalled
and in related development some chaps are in the
cooler. (ajit singh ji, btw, is of the family that
owned the VK malls site, for which unfortunately EIA
clearance is imminent, thanks to the NGO/RWA-public)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com