Gujarat Eco Textile Park v/s Expert Appraisal Committee,

Building Construction
GETP (Gujarat Eco Textile Park) is an integrated textile park at
Palsana in Surat, Gujarat, near National Highway NH 8. The park was
established under the Scheme for Integrated Textile Park (SITP) of
the Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India, which was aimed at providing
world-class infrastructure to industry for setting up units. It has a
board comprising 11 members. The park has been designed to
include 35 industrial units. It has provisions for rainwater harvesting
at the level of individual units, plantation of 30000 trees and a green
belt spread across 110 acres. It was inaugurated by then Union
Minister of Textiles Mr. Dayanidhi Maran.1
GETP Ltd. Applied to the EAC (Expert Appraisal Committee) of the
Building Construction Dept., New Delhi for an amendment to the EC
(Environmental Clearance) granted to it. It wanted to take into the
fold of its CETP (Common Effluent Treatment Plant) the effluents
from industrial units operating outside the textile park. The EAC
refused to amend the EC and did not grant the permission to let
GETP use its CETP for testing the effluent of these industrial units.
The CETP of the park had a capacity to treat 100 MLD (million litres
per day) of effluent. At the time in question, the member industrial
units permitted to use this facility were those located inside the
park. Considering all their operations, the total utilization of the
CETP came to be only about 35 MLD, leaving more than 50% of the
capacity unutilized. Thus, GETP sought the membership of units
located outside the park. When these units consented, it sought an
amendment to its EC.
The EAC, in its 113th meeting, declined to accept the proposal on the
ground that the industrial units whose membership was sought by
GETP Ltd. for its CETP were existing members of another CETP,
which was being constructed outside the park at the time in
question. The judgement of the tribunal hints at the GPCB (Gujarat
Pollution Control Board) also declining the proposal.
The court observed two important flaws in the EACs decision- first,
the EAC in its 98th meeting, held on the 3rd and the 4th of March
2011, had recommended the appeal made by GETP Ltd. This
position was based on the view that the inclusion of units located
outside the park as members of the CETP would not have any
adverse environmental impact, but will actually lead to the
betterment of the discharge, which eventually went into the Khadi, a
natural water body. So the committee basically went back on its
stand. The appellant also promised not to enhance the capacity of
the CETP beyond 100 MLD, which would invite action under the
Water Act. The proponent of the ETP being constructed outside the

park also withdrew an objection (to GETP Ltd.s appeal) it had raised
earlier.
The second major flaw the tribunal observed was that the
overturning of its recommendation was not based on any
environmental ground. The EAC had not been able to justify that the
amendment to the EC would result in any adverse environmental
impact. The tribunal therefore formed no plausible reason for the
committee to revert from its earlier position. Also, the stand taken
by EAC, that the industrial units in question were members of the
another CETP, and so could not become members of the CETP in
question, was not tenable.
Hence, the court observed that EACs decision was arbitrary and the
denial of the amendment to the EC was not on the basis of any
comprehensible adverse impact to the environment. The tribunal
thus set the EACs decision aside and directed it to amend the EC
given to GETP in line with what was sought by the appellant.

Learnings
1. The NGT was formed with the objective to provide speedy
trails to cases pertaining to environment protection and
conservation of forest and other Natural resources and help
reduce the burden on the higher courts. For this particular
case NGT has pronounced the judgment in less than 6 months
which has not only solved the purpose of the court but it has
also benefitted the business. Without the NGT, the matter
could have taken years in the standard courts of the country.
As a result it would have led to loss to the business and delay
in setting up the CETP.
2. From the case we can also interpret that businesses are not
always at fault for the environmental issues and delays. It
might be because of the government policies and procedures
that might unnecessary cause checks and regulations which.