GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

SOCIAL WELFARE (LTR.1) DEPARTMENT

U. O. NOTE NO. 4123/LTR.1/2005-20 Dated:16-01-2007

Sub : Tribal Welfare-Representation from "SAKTI" a Voluntary Organization of Hyderabad- Reg .

Ref : From P. Sivaramakrishna, SAKTI, a Voluntary Organization, repn., dt. 27-12-2006.

X-X-X

A copy of the representation from the "SAKTI", a Voluntary Organization regarding Public hearing on 28 th , November JSWHL Allumina Plant at Sabbavaram in Visakha district to stop further steps as per the directions of the High Court of A.P. In W. P. No. 1571 of 2006 is sent herewith to the Industries & Commerce Department for taking necessary action in the matter.

V. NAGI REDDY

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (TW)

To

The Industries & Commerce Department, A. P. Secretariat. (w.e)

Copy to : The SAKTI, a voluntary organization, 305 & 308, 1 st Block, Janapriya Abodes, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad-500 080.

//Forwarded::By order//

G. Swetha

Section Officer

* SAKTI

Date: 27-12-2006.

To

1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Government of Andhra Pradesh

Industries and Commerce (Mines) Department,
Secretariat, HYDERABAD .

2. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Energy, Forest , Environment, Science &

Technology Department, Secretariat,
HYDERABAD .

3. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat,
HYDERABAD .

4. The Secretary to Government,
Union of India, Department of Environment,
Forests & Wildlife, Paryavaran bhavan,
C.G.O.Complex, Lodhi Road, NEW DELHI.

5. The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes,
6th floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,

Khan Market,
NEW DELHI - 110003.

6 The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director,
A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.
No.8.3.945, II Floor, Pancom Business Center,
Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500 016.

7. M/s. Jindal South West Holdings Public Limited,

Jindal Mansion , 5-A, Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg,

MUMBAI - 400 026

(All above parties are respondents in the High Court order: 20-06-2006
(W.P.No.1571 of 2006)

8. The District Collector and Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam District,

Visakhapatnam .

9. The Member Secretary,

A.P. Pollution Control Board Paryavarana Bhavan,
A-3, I.E., Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 018

10. A. P. Pollution Control Board,

Zonal Office, 6th Floor, Udyog Bhavan Complex,

Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam - 530 003.

Dear Sirs

Sub: - Public hearing on 28, November JSWHL alumina plant at Sabbavaram in
Visakha district. - request to stop further steps - Reg.

Ref: - 1. High Court order dated: 20-06-2006 (W.P.No.1571 of 2006)

2. Stormy public hearing over Jindal project - The Hindu, November 28, 2006.

I came to know through press reports that a public hearing was conducted on EIA of Alumina factory to be established by JSWHL(Jindal South West Holdings Ltd.) around Sabbavaram of Visakha district.

The Hon'ble high court while disposing the case in their order dated: 20-06-2006 (W.P.No.1571 of 2006) directed that "till the required permission is obtained by the State Government in terms of Section 2(2) of the Act as also environment clearance is granted by the competent authority, the agreement entered into between respondent No.1 (The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce (Mines) Department, Secretariat, HYDERABAD) and respondent No.7 (M/s Jindal South West Holdings Public Limited, Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr.G.Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026) shall not be implemented.

As per the agreement, factory is dependent on the ore to be supplied by A.P.M.D.C. Since the APMDC did not so far get the necessary permissions, the attempts to push proposals on factory are premature. So I request you to stop further steps on the proposals on the factory forthwith.

Yours sincerely,

­ ­­­ ­

(P.SIVARAMAKRISHNA)

Encld:

1. High Court order Date: 20-06-2006 (W.P.No.1571 of 2006)

2. Stormy public hearing over Jindal project. The Hindu 28-11-06

305 & 308, 1 st Block, Janapriya Abodes, Ganshinagar, Hyderabad-500 080

Ph: 040-66614787 (o) & (Fax) 040-6627893 (r ) email: saktisrk@yahoo.com

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT HYDERABAD

HON'BLE SHRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY

WRIT PETITION NO. 1571 OF 2006

BETWEEN

"DHIMSA", a society registered under A.P. Societies
Registration Act, 2001, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District
rep. by its President K. Krishna Rao & another

"SAKTI" a voluntary Social Organisation for the upliftment
of Tribes people, (Regd.No.79/85) Rampachodavaram,
East Godavari District, represented by its Director,
Dr.P.Sivaramakrishna. . Petitioners

And

Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal
Secretary, Industries and Commerce(Mines) Department,
Hyderabad & others. . Respondents

::O R D E R ::

Counsel for Petitioner s : Shri A. Ramalingeswara Rao

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Government Pleader for Industries &
Commerce

Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 : Shri A. Raja Sekhar Reddy

Counsel for Respondent No.6 : Government Pleader for Environment

Counsel for Respondent No.7 : Shri S.R. Ashok

Dated: 20.06.2006

Per G.S. SINGHVI, CJ

In this petition filed in public interest, the petitioners have prayed for declaring as unconstitutional the following expression appearing in proviso "to an undertaking owned or controlled by the State or Central Government or" to sub-section (5) of Section 11 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. They have further prayed for quashing the agreement entered into between the State Government and respondent No.7 for supply of Bauxite mineral through respondent No.6 in an extent of 2,446 hectares in Araku and Sapparla area of Visakhapatnam District.

In the counter-affidavit filed by Shri K. Yadava Reddy, Deputy Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce Department, the factum of an agreement having been entered into between the State Government and respondent No.7 has not been denied, but it has been averred that mining lease would be granted to respondent No.6 only after taking forest and environment clearances. In the affidavit filed by Ms. Janaki R. Kondapi, Principal Secretary to Government, Environment Forests Science and Technology Department, it has been averred the proposal submitted by Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation (respondent No.6) under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act') for diversion of forest land for mining Bauxite in Anantagiri and Arakuvalley was rejected by the Government of India vide letter dated 03.05.2001. It has been further averred that fresh proposals submitted by respondent No.6 have been forwarded to the Principal Secretary to Government, EFS&T Department vide PCCF Rc.No.34162/2005-F1, dated 22.02.2006. According to Ms. Janaki R. Kondapi, the fresh proposals are pending consideration before the Central Government.

In view of the stand taken by respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, it is clear that so-called agreement entered into between respondent No.7 and the State Government cannot be implemented till the Central Government grants permission in terms of Section 2(2) of the Act and environment clearance is granted by the competent authorities. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be disposed of as premature. Ordered accordingly.

However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall be free to file fresh petition as and when the Central Government grants permission in terms of Section 2(2) of the Act and environment clearance is given by the competent authorities.

While disposing of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, we make it clear that till the required permission is obtained by the State Government in terms of Section 2(2) of the Act as also environment clearance is granted by the competent authority, the agreement entered into between respondent No.1 and respondent No.7 shall not be implemented.

G.S. SINGHVI, CJ

G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J

ksld/ks

20.06.2006

- The Hindu, November 29, 2006.

Stormy public hearing over Jindal project

Our Bureau

No groundwater resources will be tapped for the plant: Vimta Labs

Visakhapatnam , Nov. 28

The public hearing on the proposed 1.4 MTPA Jindal alumina refinery project in the Sabbavaram mandal of Visakhapatnam district turned out to be a stormy one here in the VUDA children's auditorium on Tuesday, with several agitating Left parties' workers being forcibly removed by the police from the spot.

Vimta Labs prepared the environment impact assessment (EIA) report, according to which the plant is "going to incorporate the latest technology with many environmental control measures. No groundwater resources will be tapped for the main refinery plant or the 71-MW captive co-generation power plant near Vangali village in Sabbavaram mandal."

Mr E. Shyam Sundar, Associate Vice-President of Vimta Labs Ltd, explained that wastewater would be treated, recycled and reused in the plant itself. All the treated effluents would also be reused and it would be a "zero discharge plant".

Geo-textile lining for red mud pond and ash pond would be provided to eliminate the possibility of groundwater contamination and a 50-metre green belt would be provided all along the plant boundary.

The residents of the four surrounding villages need not worry over the plant, he assured the audience. He said the company would spend Rs 88 crore on pollution control measures.

From then on, the hearing continued in a turbulent atmosphere and there was an uproar when a district CPM leader, Mr Suryanarayana, was prevented from speaking by some people. Mr S.K Sultania, Joint Collector, had a difficult time controlling the proceedings.

Many representatives from the four villages, while extending support to the project, wanted proper rehabilitation and relief for the farmers to be displaced. The project would require 1,700 acres of land which, according to revenue records, belongs to the Government, but the farmers contended that they had been cultivating it for more than two decades and, though they did not have ownership rights, they were entitled to compensation. The Joint Collector assured them that their petition would be considered.

Mr Rebbapragada Ravi, Executive Director of Samatha, an NGO here opposing the project, pointed out that the information provided to the farmers and others was sketchy and superficial and not sufficient to take an informed decision. The EIA conducted was a rapid one and therefore a proper, four-seasons EIA should be conducted before conducting the hearing, he pleaded.

Further, within the 1,700 acres identified for the project, there were many water bodies which would be contaminated. There was also reserve forest in the vicinity of the project site, and he wanted to know if the permission of the Union Ministry of Forests and Environment had been obtained.

The bland statement made by the company that groundwater resources would not be used was not at all satisfactory, and he wanted to know if the water meant for Vizag would be diverted to the project through the Yeleru canal. He also felt that the hearing should have been conducted at Sabbavaram village instead of Vizag.

Dr T. Patanjali Sastry, of the Centre for Environment, Rajahmundry , made several attempts to express his views, but he could not get a chance in the melee.