SC asks TN to give views on NEERI's report on Sterlite plant

The Supreme Court today directed Tamil Nadu government and the state pollution control board to submit their views on environment impact study of NEERI on Vedanta Group subsidiary Sterlite Industries' copper smelting plant at Tuticorin by August 5.

"The Tamil Nadu government and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board would submit suggestions and objections to the NEERI's report... So that the court has a clear view of the ground situation there," a two-member bench of Justice RV Raveendran and Justice AK Patnaik said.

The bench was hearing a petition filed by Sterlite Industries against the Madras High Court order on September 28, 2010 for closure of its smelting plant for non-compliance of environmental norms. SC had stayed that order on October 2010.

The apex court today directed Sterlite to give its reply over the report of Tamil Nadu government and TNPCB by August 10, the next date of hearing.

The two-member bench while hearing a petition of the Vedanta Group company on April 29 had asked the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) to conduct a study of compliance of environmental norms by Sterlite's copper smelting unit at Tuticorin.

Following this, the NEERI in its report absolved the Tuticorn plant of any enviroment violations, saying that the company was following all the norms.

During the proceedings today, MDMK Leader Vaiko, who is also a party to this case, alleged that Sterlite was violating the environmental norms, which is damaging ecology of the area.

However, Vaiko's plea was opposed by Sterlite's counsel CA Sundaram, who said that the MDMK Leader had created obstructions when NEERI's team was conducting environmental assessment of the area.

"There are so many other industries in that area, including a thermal power plant and a steel plant but Vaiko has no problems with them. Why Sterlite only... Right from the beginning, he has been targeting Sterlite," Sundaram said.

Earlier, the high court had ordered closure of the company's plant on the grounds that it was within 25 km of an ecologically fragile area and that the company had failed to develop a 250 metre-wide green belt around the plant.

The company, however, has disputed the high court order, saying that it was not given a proper hearing by the court, which ignored its submissions.