|
| Lafarge told to submit DPR before Supreme Court |
| Press Trust of India / New Delhi Jan 14, 2011, 19:35 IST |
|
The Supreme Court today directed the French cement major Lafarge to submit the Detailed Project Report (DPR) of its Bangladesh-based plant in connection with its mining project in Khasi hill of Meghalaya where irregularities have allegedly taken place for getting environment clearance.
A special forest Bench headed by the Chief Justice S H Kapadia directed the French cement giant Lafarge to submit DPR of the project, which Lafarge has submitted to the banks for getting loans for the project.
"Submit the DPR which is submitted to the banks for getting loans to this project," said the Bench which also consisted Justices Aftab Alam and K S Radhakrishnan.
Meanwhile, the Apex Court also directed the government to submit a copy of the approval granted for this mining project to one Lum Mawshun Minerals Private Ltd, in June 1999, which was originally given license for this project, situated in the forest of Khashi Hills of Meghalaya.
"The Attorney General would produce papers, giving permission to Lum Mawshun Minerals on June 18 (1999) in relation to the Environment Impact Assessment (under the notification of 1994) conducted," said the Bench.
The Apex Court direction came after senior advocate Shyama Devan appearing for the residents of Shella Village of the Khasi Hills, opposed the stand of Lafarge that it had no knowledge of any forest area in the mining area.
He submitted that Lafarge's Bangladesh project was a huge project and has required lots of funding from international financial institutions and for a project of such magnitude, DFR must have been prepared.
"Lafarge must have knowledge of the topography. They knew well that it was in the middle of the forest area," said Devan adding that, in their DFR they might have mentioned about the geography of the area.
Lafarge is defending its action of mining in the forest area on the basis of a report by the Divisional Forest Officer given on June 30, 2000 stating that it was a waste land and there was no forest.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, amicus curiae, also supported it and said that the area where Lafarge was mining was in the forest area.
He highlighted the irregularities while getting approval for the project and said, "Lafarge must go."
Salve further submitted that the two reports of the Chief Conservator of Forest have clearly stated that mining area was in the forest and has even presence of some wild animals of schedule I and schedule II.
Salve submitted that permission to mine was initially granted to one Shilong-based Lum Mawshun Minerals for this project and not to Lafarge.
"As per the Forest Act, where not less than 25 trees per acre exist, is a forest. This translates around 62.5 trees per hectare, the total area being 100 hectare. In 77 hectare which is the unbroken area, the enumeration indicates 9,345 trees. It is obvious that this area was forest and any suggestion to the contrary is simply not true," he said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Read Business news in |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content Guide
