SC defers hearing on Mundra SEZ

The Supreme Court today deferred for three weeks the hearing on the petition filed by Gujarat fishermen challenging the allocation of 600 acre of land for Rs 7,400-crore multi-product Special Economic Zone (SEZ) promoted by Adani Group of companies in the state on the ground that it comes under protected maritime zone.

The fishermen had filed the petitions in 2008 alleging the land alloed for the SEZ falls in the areas that come within the purview of the Coastal Regulation Zone.

The apex court had in August 2009 issued notices to the Adani Group of Companies, the Centre and others on a plea seeking a halt to work on the project.

Though, a Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, adjourned the matter, the proponents of the project submitted that an independent agency should be allowed to visit the areas to ascertain the fact.

Besides Adani, the Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Environment and Forests and Mundra Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd, Gujarat government, Gujarat Pollution Control Board and others are named as parties to the petition.

Mundra SEZ, established under the SEZ Act of 2005, is proposed to come up on about 6,000 acre of land.

The Gujarat High Court had, in its interim order, rejected the plea of the fishermen for staying the development activities at Mundra SEZ.

The fishermen have assailed the filling and construction activity in the Coastal Regulation Zone undertaken by the Adani group in the creeks situated in Mundra area of Kutch district.

According to the petitioners, the company, after allotment of an additional area of 2113.7962 hectare of land, had undertaken construction and development activity for the additional SEZ without obtaining prior environmental clearance as mandated by the Ministry of Environment and Forests' notification of September 14, 2006.

The fishermen have alleged the Adani Group had constructed an air strip and airport, residential township, roads and fencing and reclaimed water front area and filled up creeks, which was in violation of the notification.