Lafarge's Meghalaya mining site lies in forest: govt

The Centre today told the Supreme Court that French cement company Lafarge's mining site in Khasi hill of Meghalaya was a forest land and environment clearance was given in the belief that it was in non-forest area.

Attorney General Goolam E Vahanvati, who was appearing for the centre, said that the environmental clearance given to Lafarge in August 9, 2001 was based on a report submitted by the East Khashi Hill Autonomous Council that there was no forest and plantation in the area.

"The Ministry of Environment and Forest granted environmental clearance to the project after detailed examination of the Environment Impact Assessment conducted by the local authorities only," he told the apex court.

Vahanvati further submitted that East Khashi Hill Autonomous Council, which has the rights over the local forests, had given no objection certificate to Lafarge in August 1997.

The local body in a spot enquiry report had observed that there was no forest, plantation or habitation in the area, which was mainly barren land.

On this, a special forest bench headed by the Chief Justice SH Kapadia asked, "was the MOEF fully aware that the area was a non-forest area."

The bench, which also comprised justices Aftab Alam and Swatanter Kumar, further asked,"does the EIA assessment report also says that there was no forest in that area?"

Replying to it, Vahanvati said,"there was enough material for us to prove that there was no forest. This is the basis on which we proceed."

However, the bench did not look satisfied by the government counsel answer and demanded a copy of the representation made by Lafarge before the Asian Development Bank for getting financial assistance for the project.

"What was the representation made by them for ADB loans; whether they have said it was a forest area or non forest area," the bench asked.

The MOEF has given revised environmental clearance to Lafarge on April 19, 2010 and April 22, 2010 on the directions of the Supreme Court after finding the mining project in the forest land.

During the proceedings, Vahanvati accused Shella Villagers for opposing the project and said they were trying to mislead the court by giving misrepresentations.

"An impression has been created that MOEF has created a fraud in this case," he said, adding that the site was 5 Km away from the Shella village.

He also criticised senior advocate Harish Salve, an amicus curiae, and said," his work was to balance the things. He deviated from the facts and gave wrong suggestion".

During the last hearing on January 14, Salve had said that the area where Lafarge was mining was in the forest area. He had highlighted the alleged irregularities while getting approval for the project and said," Lafarge must go".

Lafarge is defending its case 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 there.

The apex court was hearing plea over the revised environmental clearance given to Lafarge.

People of Shella village are opposing the revised clearance given by the Ministry of Environment and Forest.

On April 24, the ministry told the Supreme Court that it has cleared the mining project of Lafarge Umiam Mining, a sister concern of the French major, with strict riders.

The MoEF revised clearance came after the apex court had on April 12 directed it to take a final decision on the 116 hectare limestone mine area in the Khasi Hills Forest area of Meghalaya.

On February 5, last year, it had stopped Lafarge from carrying out limestone mining in Meghalaya for its cement plant in Bangladesh, saying that mining in the environment sensitive zone cannot be allowed.

The $255 million Lafarge Surma Cement project at Chhatak in Bangladesh is wholly dependent on limestone extracted from East Khasi Hills of Meghalaya.

Limestone is transported from Meghalaya to Bangladesh in a 17-km-long conveyor belt.