Kamal Ghorui
Noida: Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) informed National Green Tribunal about the status of ponds under its jurisdiction that have been restored and rejuvenated. It also defended the acquisition of 14 ponds for Noida International Airport and challenged the scope of judicial review once environmental clearance was already granted, adding that eight new ponds have been excavated to replace them.The matter was scheduled for a hearing on Wednesday. In a separate affidavit, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) also provided a status update for 281 ponds under its jurisdiction.YEIDA, in its April 10 affidavit, replied to concerns raised by the National Green Tribunal in its Jan 19 order, stating that it was granted environmental clearance (EC) on March 9, 2020, under the EIA Notification, 2006. The EC grant expressly takes into account the impact on existing ponds and incorporates mitigation measures, including the creation of alternative water bodies. Therefore, the decision is a fully informed and reasoned one, taken in accordance with the statutory framework, the affidavit said.“The environmental impacts of the project, including the impact on certain ponds, have been duly assessed and mitigated through the creation of larger alternative water bodies. Thus, the present case represents a classic instance of sustainable development in action, where environmental considerations have not been disregarded but have been integrated into the project design and implementation,” it said.While hearing an application filed by environmentalist Abhisht Kusum Gupta, the tribunal in its Jan 19 order had directed YEIDA and the UP govt to place on record a copy of the state govt order dated June 3, 2016, allowing utilisation of ponds and creation of alternate water bodies, using which ponds/land was transferred for the airport project.While issuing the order, the green bench relied upon the Supreme Court judgment reported in 2020, in the matter of Jitendra Singh v. MoEF&CC, in which the apex court rejected the validity of the state govt’s 2016 order, saying: “It is clear that schemes which extinguish local water bodies albeit with alternatives, as provided in 2016 govt order by the State of UP, are violative of constitutional principles and are liable to be struck down.”YEIDA specifically distinguished the scope of the two cases, stating that the Jitendra Singh v. MoEF&CC judgment arose in the context of alienation of village ponds to private industrial entities without adequate environmental assessment (no prior environmental clearance) and in a manner that effectively deprived local communities of their traditional water resources.
Poll
How effective do you think the creation of alternative water bodies is for sustainability?
“The court, in those facts, held that such mechanical substitution of natural water bodies with artificial alternatives was impermissible, whereas in the present case, the acquisition of ponds forms part of a statutorily sanctioned project, backed by environmental clearance granted after due appraisal. The project is not for private industrial exploitation but for a public infrastructure facility of national significance,” the YEIDA counsel said, attaching details of restoration and rejuvenation work of ponds carried out till date.Meanwhile, the GNIDA affidavit states that there has not been much change in the status of ponds under its jurisdiction. Of the 281 ponds, 50 continue to remain encroached, and rejuvenation work was accomplished on only three ponds under phase 2 of the pond development work under GNIDA.
