INDIA BUSINESS WORLD - JULY 1st - JULY 31st - 2008
ADANIS GET APEX COURT NOD FOR MUNDRA SEZ
IN A reprieve to the Adani Group, the Supreme Court has allowed the company to go ahead with construction activities for setting up a Rs 7,400-crore multiproduct special economic zone (SEZ) at Mundra in Gujarat. The court vacated its stay order on the plea made by the Adanis, stating that construction activities for developing a worldclass SEZ had come to a standstill.
The company had approached the court seeking lifting of the stay order passed on July 1. The apex court, on a PIL filed by Imran Salim Jat, and others had ordered status quo, taking into account the plea that construction activities would be dangerous for the ecologically-fragile areas. It would also rob the livelihood of the fishermen of the area, the petitioners had said.
They had submitted that the permission given by the Centre without clearance under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notifications for the SEZ was illegal and violated Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act. It also violated their Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, stated the petition.
A bench comprising chief justice K G Balakrishnan, justice P Sathasivam and justice JM Panchal, however, asked the petitioners—the fishermen in the area on whose plea the apex court had put on hold Adani’s construction activities—to approach the Gujarat high court. “Before July 18, you move the high court and raise the objections,” said the bench. The court also questioned the locus standi of the petition against the Adanis. “How can this court (Supreme Court) supervise the allegations relating to environmental issues in a state,” said justice Balakrishnan.
The petitioner’s counsel said that a direction should be given to the company to fill up the creek where a large number of trees were removed for construction of the SEZ. The counsel said that it was essential to preserve the mangroves around the areas. At this, the court said: You may raise all such objections before the high court.
|
