Case: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. &amp; ORS

Kulem by NBWL should be revoked for the reasons as stated hereinafter. 20. The Ministry of Railways or RVNL have failed to provide any substantial basis for the requirement of doubling the railway line by addressing the impact which it would have on the habitat and the damage that it would cause to the environment. RVNL attempted to justify its decision on the ground that there is a likelihood that the requirement of coal and other raw materials would be doubled in the future and the proposed project is very much essential for transportation of said goods. Reliance was placed by RVNL on a Parliamentary clarification dated 02.02.2022 and a letter of the Ministry of Power, Government of India to argue that there is no likelihood of shift from coal-based economy. We are in agreement with the CEC that the requirement of coal can be met by utilising the Krishnapatnam port which is a viable alternative for transportation of coal. The said suggestion would also prevent the degradation of the Western Ghats. Even according to RVNL, traffic on Konkan railway line is frequently dislocated due to landslides, breaches etc. especially during the rainy season. In view of the difficult terrain having sharp curves and gradient as high as 1:37 for the proposed project, any further construction would invite a great disaster in the sensitive areas of Western Ghats as well. 21. The landscape in which the railway line is proposed to pass is an important tiger corridor, connecting the three States of Goa, Karnataka and Maharashtra. The report prepared by the NTCA regarding the viability of such a railway line is only for the Karnataka part of the project. No such report has been prepared for the Goa part. The Standing Committee of NBWL ought to have sought for a report from NTCA on the Goa part of the project before granting approval for the doubling of the railway line between Castlerock to Kulem in view of the fact that it is an important tiger corridor where instances of killing of tigers have been reported. We find merit in the recommendations made by the CEC regarding the necessity of taking into account the actual loss of the wildlife habitat by the construction activity for the doubling of the railway line for which heavy machinery would have to be moved and crusher units will have to be established for dumping construction material. The point raised by RVNL before CEC regarding the enhancement of connectivity between Goa and Karnataka by the proposed project was rightly rejected on the ground that there was a proposal for 4-lanning of National Highway-4 along with the same route and augmentation of air connectivity to Goa. We are unable to uphold the approval granted to the project by NBWL on the basis of the assurance given by RVNL that all possible mitigation measures shall be taken to protect bio-diversity and eco system of the protected areas under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. RVNL has proposed to undertake impact assessment, thorough study of long-term impact, planning of various mitigation measures for safeguarding interest of wildlife habitat and flora and fauna. RVNL has also proposed to construct under-passes/overbridges at identified locations of track crossings by wild animals to ensure safe crossings of tracks by animals. CEC in its report submitted that it was noticed during the site visit that it was not possible to construct any sort of under-passes at the said location. Therefore, the mitigation measure proposed to be undertaken by RVNL is not clear. The report prepared by Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, Biodiversity and Environmental Assessment of proposed doubling of railway track between Kulem and Castlerock in Goa-Karnataka relied upon by RVNL was considered by CEC which observed that according to NTCA the study report of Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru lacks in critical assessment, particularly of project impacts. NTCA further suggested that there should be an independent and detailed assessment of the cumulative impact of the project for the entire stretch from Tinaighat to Kulem. 22. It is necessary that there should be a detailed study and analysis of the impact of the proposed project on the bio- diversity and ecological system of the protected areas under wildlife sanctuary. A detailed study undertaken by NTCA on the viability of the project for the Goa part is essential in view of the Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary being an important tiger corridor. Even according to NTCA, an independent and detailed assessment of the cumulative impact of the project for the entire stretch from Tinaighat to Kulem has to be undertaken. The impact of the increase of section capacity by 2.5 times than by doubling the railway line in comparison to the single line along with increased mobility on wildlife problems in terms of sound pollution, vibrations etc. has not been taken into account by the Standing Committee of NBWL while recommending the project. Assessment of the impact which the project would have on the environment, especially in the protected area and wildlife sanctuary taking into account all the major factors such as the impact on the habitat, species, climate, temperature etc. caused due to felling of trees (not only for the laying of railway tracks but also for the secondary works such as setting up machinery, disposal of waste, and putting in place various mitigation measures etc.), movement of trains, human-wildlife interactions would have to be strictly undertaken before the project is considered by the NBWL. There is also no credible supporting data for the projections that are given by RVNL relating to the traffic between Karnataka and Goa project for the period 2022-2023 and 2030-2031 and there is no explanation regarding the projected traffic for the next 4-5 years which is required for the completion of the construction of the project. Such data, projections and speculations will have to be supported by an independent and credible source before undertaking any kind of construction activity in the Western Ghats which is worlds eight hotspots of biological diversity.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]15. Adherence to the principle of sustainable development is a constitutional requirement. While applying the principle of sustainable development one must bear in mind that development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. Therefore, Courts are required to balance development needs with the protection of the environment and ecology T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2008) 2 SCC 222 . It is the duty of the State under our Constitution to devise and implement a coherent and coordinated programme to meet its obligation of sustainable development based on inter-generational equity A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718 . While economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environment destruction and violation; at the same time, the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other developments. Both development and environment must go hand in hand, in other words, there should not be development at the cost of environment and vice versa, but there should be development while taking due care and ensuring the protection of environment Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 281 .16. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647,  this Court held that the Precautionary Principle is an essential feature of the principle of Sustainable Development. It went on to explain the precautionary principle in the following terms: -(i) Environmental measures — by the State Government and the statutory authorities — must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.(ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.(iii) The onus of proof is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign.18. A situation may arise where there may be irreparable damage to the environment after an activity is allowed to go ahead and if it is stopped, there may be irreparable damage to economic interest M.C Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118 . This Court held that in case of a doubt, protection of environment would have precedence over the economic interest. It was further held that precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm and that harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. Further, this Court emphasises in the said judgment that it is not always necessary that there should be direct evidence of harm to the environment.We are of the view that the CEC is right in its conclusion that the proposal for the doubling of the railway line between Castlerock to Kulem by NBWL should be revoked for the reasons as stated hereinafter.20. The Ministry of Railways or RVNL have failed to provide any substantial basis for the requirement of doubling the railway line by addressing the impact which it would have on the habitat and the damage that it would cause to the environment. RVNL attempted to justify its decision on the ground that there is a likelihood that the requirement of coal and other raw materials would be doubled in the future and the proposed project is very much essential for transportation of said goods. Reliance was placed by RVNL on a Parliamentary clarification dated 02.02.2022 and a letter of the Ministry of Power, Government of India to argue that there is no likelihood of shift from coal-based economy. We are in agreement with the CEC that the requirement of coal can be met by utilising the Krishnapatnam port which is a viable alternative for transportation of coal. The said suggestion would also prevent the degradation of the Western Ghats. Even according to RVNL, traffic on Konkan railway line is frequently dislocated due to landslides, breaches etc. especially during the rainy season. In view of the difficult terrain having sharp curves and gradient as high as 1:37 for the proposed project, any further construction would invite a great disaster in the sensitive areas of Western Ghats as well.21. The landscape in which the railway line is proposed to pass is an important tiger corridor, connecting the three States of Goa, Karnataka and Maharashtra. The report prepared by the NTCA regarding the viability of such a railway line is only for the Karnataka part of the project. No such report has been prepared for the Goa part. The Standing Committee of NBWL ought to have sought for a report from NTCA on the Goa part of the project before granting approval for the doubling of the railway line between Castlerock to Kulem in view of the fact that it is an important tiger corridor where instances of killing of tigers have been reported. We find merit in the recommendations made by the CEC regarding the necessity of taking into account the actual loss of the wildlife habitat by the construction activity for the doubling of the railway line for which heavy machinery would have to be moved and crusher units will have to be established for dumping construction material. The point raised by RVNL before CEC regarding the enhancement of connectivity between Goa and Karnataka by the proposed project was rightly rejected on the ground that there was a proposal for 4-lanning of National Highway-4 along with the same route and augmentation of air connectivity to Goa. We are unable to uphold the approval granted to the project by NBWL on the basis of the assurance given by RVNL that all possible mitigation measures shall be taken to protect bio-diversity and eco system of the protected areas under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. RVNL has proposed to undertake impact assessment, thorough study of long-term impact, planning of various mitigation measures for safeguarding interest of wildlife habitat and flora and fauna. RVNL has also proposed to construct under-passes/overbridges at identified locations of track crossings by wild animals to ensure safe crossings of tracks by animals. CEC in its report submitted that it was noticed during the site visit that it was not possible to construct any sort of under-passes at the said location. Therefore, the mitigation measure proposed to be undertaken by RVNL is not clear. The report prepared by Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, Biodiversity and Environmental Assessment of proposed doubling of railway track between Kulem and Castlerock in Goa-Karnataka relied upon by RVNL was considered by CEC which observed that according to NTCA the study report of Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru lacks in critical assessment, particularly of project impacts. NTCA further suggested that there should be an independent and detailed assessment of the cumulative impact of the project for the entire stretch from Tinaighat to Kulem.22. It is necessary that there should be a detailed study and analysis of the impact of the proposed project on the bio- diversity and ecological system of the protected areas under wildlife sanctuary. A detailed study undertaken by NTCA on the viability of the project for the Goa part is essential in view of the Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary being an important tiger corridor. Even according to NTCA, an independent and detailed assessment of the cumulative impact of the project for the entire stretch from Tinaighat to Kulem has to be undertaken. The impact of the increase of section capacity by 2.5 times than by doubling the railway line in comparison to the single line along with increased mobility on wildlife problems in terms of sound pollution, vibrations etc. has not been taken into account by the Standing Committee of NBWL while recommending the project. Assessment of the impact which the project would have on the environment, especially in the protected area and wildlife sanctuary taking into account all the major factors such as the impact on the habitat, species, climate, temperature etc. caused due to felling of trees (not only for the laying of railway tracks but also for the secondary works such as setting up machinery, disposal of waste, and putting in place various mitigation measures etc.), movement of trains, human-wildlife interactions would have to be strictly undertaken before the project is considered by the NBWL. There is also no credible supporting data for the projections that are given by RVNL relating to the traffic between Karnataka and Goa project for the period 2022-2023 and 2030-2031 and there is no explanation regarding the projected traffic for the next 4-5 years which is required for the completion of the construction of the project. Such data, projections and speculations will have to be supported by an independent and credible source before undertaking any kind of construction activity in the Western Ghats which is worlds eight hotspots of biological diversity.