CEC to MOEFF

People's forum for steps against forest fellers

Statesman News Service

BHUBANESWAR, March 9. — The Loka Shakti Abhijan, a people's forum led
by Mr Prafulla Samantara today said that the state government should
break its "nexus" with the corporate mafia and take exemplary action
against those who had violated forest laws and engaged in illegal
felling to favour mining activity.

Referring extensively to the ongoing hearing in the Vedanta Alumina
case by the Central Empowered Committee in which he is one of the
petitioners, Mr Samantara said, besides the Vedanta issue there were
17 other instances of violations which had subsequently been
"regularised" by the government.

Now these 17 instances have also figured during the hearing and it is
time for the state government to own up responsibility, said Mr
Samantara at a press conference here.

The CEC has directed the ministry of environment and forests not to
decide on any proposal for diversion of forest land or mining activity
as far as Vedanta project is concerned till the matter is pending
before the CEC is disposed.

The state government has been caught on the wrong foot. It is clear
that the ministry had also erred in accordance with the environment
clearances for the plant site despite the fact that 58 hectares of
forest land was involved and secondly the plant was linked to the
mining area of Niyamagiri said Samantara.

The fact that there was an attempt to segregate the two (mines and
plant area) and claim that the plant site had no forest land has been
exposed, he maintained. The Loka Shakti Abhijan leader and Mr Biswajit
Mohanty, secretary of the Wildlife Society of Orissa, who is also a
petitioner, said they have pressed for identification and action
against all those who had violated the forest law. Tribals and the
common man are hauled up even for minor forest offences whereas
companies in the mining sector have been left untouched, they charged.
Listing out his demands, Mr Samantara said Orissa needs to be saved
from the corporate plunder.

The state government, as well as the Vedanta Alumina, are of the view
that the mining from the proposed forest area is an integral part of
the project without which the project cannot be made viable.Hence an
environmental clearance has been accorded under the wrong premise that
no forest land is involved. In this situation how can any
environmental clearance for the plant area alone be valid when the
same for the mining area has not been granted and when forest land
exists even in the plant area, he asked.

Mr Samantara released a letter issued by the CEC to the ministry of
environment and forests where views were sought on how environmental
clearances were accorded to the plant area when it involved 58
hectares of forest land, how work had started when guidelines
prohibited such work pending clearances, whether any action is
proposed to be initiated against the project authorities for obtaining
environmental clearance on wrong premises etc.
The hearing has been posted to 29 March, added Mr Samantara.
____________________________________________________________ __________

CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE
(CONSTITUTED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL NO. 202/95 & 171/96)

Gate No. 31, Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3, Tel:
30944904 Fax: 24363976

F.No.2-1/CEC/SC/2005 Dated:
2nd March 2005

To
Mr. A.D.N. Rao
Standing Counsel for the MoEF

Sub: Hearing of Application Nos. 564, 571 and 579 regarding bauxite
mining and refinery project by M/s Vedanta Aluminum Ltd.

Sir,

As decided during the hearing held on 28.2.2005 views of
the MoEF on the following may please be made available to the CEC
immediately:

(i) environmental clearance to the project has been
accorded by the MoEF stating that it does not involve any forest land.
Actually about 58 ha. and 680 ha. of forest land is involved for
setting up of the plant and for mining respectively. The State
Government as well as M/s Vedanta Alluminum Ltd. are of the view that
mining from the proposed forest area is an integral part of the
project without which the project cannot be viable. It is therefore
seen that the environmental clearance has been accorded under wrong
premise that no forest land is involved. Under these circumstances,
how the environmental clearance of the project can remain valid and
whether the MoEF is initiating action to stop the ongoing work of the
project.

(ii) the MoEF guidelines issued for implementation of
the FC Act prohibits starting of work on non forest land pending a
decision about non forestry use of forest land under the FC Act. IN
the instant case substantial work has already been carried out.
Whether any action in this regard has been initiated by the MoEF.

(iii) the guidelines issued by MoEF stipulate that the
environmental clearance and the FC Act clearance to a project
involving use of the forest land will be accorded simultaneously. In
the instant case since a decision under the FC Act has not been taken,
whether the environmental clearance accorded to the project is being
withdrawn.

(iv) whether any action is proposed to be initiated
against the project authorities for obtaining environmental clearance
on wrong premise and also for starting the work without obtaining
clearance under the FC Act

(v) in the report of the Fact Finding Team of the CEC,
a copy of which has already been made available to you, a view has
been taken:

"..Niyamgiri is a very rich forest from biodiversity point of view. A
proposal has already been approved in the working place to declare
this area as a Sanctuary. The relevant abstracts are part of the
petition. It was further revealed that the State Government have made
a proposal to include this area in the proposed new elephant reserve.
Further, the hills form the origin of Bansadhara river. The rivulets
coming across these hills are source of water for the local
communities. Any mining in this area is bound to destroy the
biodiversity and affect the availability of water for local people.
The question of pollution of Basadhara river is also there. Under
these circumstances, alternative sources of ore should be explored for
the Project."

View of the MoEF on the above may please be given. View on the other
issues raised in the report of the Fact Finding Team may also be made
available.

(vi) during the hearing the applicant had stated that
the river originates from the proposed mining site whereas the
affidavit of the State Government has statedthat its origin is 235
metres beloe the proposed mining site. View of the MoEF in this regard
and

(vii) as the submissions made by the applicants there are
17 reported cases in Orissa where mining was illegally carried out in
forest land and thereafter it was regularized by granting permission
under the FC Act. Factual position in this regard may be provided.

It is requested that the above information may please be provided
immediately. It is also requested that pending examination of the
project by the CEC and/ or filing of the report in the Supreme Court,
the proposal received under the FC Act for diversion of forest land
for the project and /or mining may not be decided.

Yours faithfully

(M.K. Jiwrajka)

Member Secretary

Copy to:

(i) Shri Ritwick Dutta, Advocate for Applicatnt in Applications Nos.
564, 571 and 579
(ii) Shri J.K. Das, Advocate for State of Orissa
(iii) Shri C.A. Sundermam, Senior Advocate for Respondent M/s Vedanta
Aluminum Ltd

( With thanks from Forest Case Update)