Sending a clear signal to corporate India that the environment ministry means business, Union minister for environment and forests Jairam Ramesh has accused Lavasa Corporation Ltd (LCL) of unauthorised construction resulting in extensive environmental degradation while building India’s first planned hill resort near Pune.

The MoEF has ordered that status quo on the Lavasa project remain with LCL not being allowed to continue to undertake any further construction. Lavasa has been hauled under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 that emphasises violations made under the provisions of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification of 1994 (amended in 2004 and 2006).
While submitting an affidavit before the Bombay high court on Tuesday, the ministry said the violations by LCL were of a serious nature and it was difficult to ignore them despite the fact that the entire project was at an advanced stage.
The ministry did, however, leave a small window of opportunity open to LCL — that if the promoters provided relevant and credible material to proceed, the project could be considered on merit. The MoEF is ready to consider the project taking into account the investment already incurred, third-party rights which are accrued, the various steps taken for establishment of a comprehensive hill station, the employment generated and the development of the area. However, for this, LCL will have to comply with various MoEF directives. The company will have to submit a detailed project report, information related to construction contracts, full plans, audited statements for all amounts spent on the project directly or indirectly, information related to land purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, and details of future planning. The terms and conditions that the MoEF has proposed include the payment of a substantial penalty for violation of environmental laws, creation of an environment restoration fund by LCL with a sufficiently large corpus to be managed by an independent body, imposition of stringent terms and conditions to ensure that no further environmental degradation takes place, and rectification of any degradation that has already occurred within a time-bound schedule.
The ministry’s order further states that LC has not provided details of the number of buildings, built-up area, parking, or conditions for mitigating environmental impact even though it received environmental clearance.
Tuesday’s order is based on a report filed by an MoEF committee headed by former IAS officer Naresh Dayal following a three-day visit to the project site (January 5-7). The committee had received representations from both supporters and those who oppose this project.
Dr Nalini Bhat, adviser to the MoEF impact assessment team, had also heard the complaints of the National Alliance of People’s Movement and the sarpanches affected by the construction.
NAPM members had highlighted that the massive hill-cutting being undertaken was in violation of the original permission where no hill-cutting had been permitted. They asked how LC had been permitted to construct 10 dams within Varasgaon which would adversely affect the ecology of the Western Ghats, considered one of the most sensitive eco-systems. MoEF’s showcause notice said the proposed luxury township had got clearance in 2004 to construct only on 2,000 hectares of land less than 1,000 metres above sea level. However, investigations by the Pune collector revealed that 47.30 ha of the land on which the promoters had started construction was above 1,000 metres. Further, the ministry said, deviations were made from the approved plan during the first phase of construction, which began in 2004, and that the developers did not obtain clearance from MoEF for this. The ministry also said the company did not get the necessary clearances following an amendment to the environment regulations in the same year.
Lavasa reiterated it had not constructed anything above 1,000 metres, the only exception being the entry gate, a symbolic structure on the main access road to Lavasa. The first development was about two km from the gate and was at an altitude of 925 metres. The highest point where development was being carried out was 975 metres above sea level. However, the bulk of the development represented by the town centres was around the lake edge, which was 640 metres above sea level, it contended.
LC has refuted these charges, claiming the MoEF order is based more on jurisdiction than on environment issues. LC says the order challenges the Maharashtra government’s hill stations policy of 1996, stating that it should be reviewed and thereby making this a jurisdiction issue between the state and the Centre, and not one relating to the environment.
Accusing the MoEF of not having objective and measurable norms, Lavasa maintained that it should have restricted itself to “environmental issues” instead of questioning the state government’s jurisdiction over matters relating to the Special Planning Authority, MKVDC land transfer, land purchase, Lavasa master plan approval by the collector, the hill station policy, the regional development plan and the MRTP.
LC also pointed out that while the state government had given environmental clearance for 2,000 hectares in 2004, LC had applied to the MoEF for environmental clearance for project expansion of 3,000 hectares in 2009. In spite of having submitted all relevant documents, the ministry had yet to grant them environment clearance.
The MoEF had amplified minor faults while ignoring all the environmental work that the organisation had done. LCL officials also believe that greater weightage has been given to villagers supporting Medha Patkar than to those supporting the project.
LCL, a subsidiary of Hindustan Construction Company, had challenged the MoEF’s notice of November 25, 2010 before the Bombay high court.
Meanwhile, NCP MP Supriya Sule, daughter of Union minister and NCP leader Sharad Pawar, went public with her plea that the Lavasa project receive a sympathetic hearing. Ms Sule stressed that a huge amount of money was invested in it and it had tremendous job potential. She also reiterated a point that has often been stressed by the MoEF minister — that there must be a fine balance between development and the environment.
Reacting to the MoEF order, the LCL spokesperson said, “The task entrusted to the technical committee was to survey and inspect the site and present the report, which would be of great consequence to the competent authority to pass the final order. If the report misrepresents the state of affairs at the site by amplifying minor faults and ignoring the environmental work done, it is bound to have a negative bearing on the decision of the competent authority. LCL legal counsels are studying the order and will explore all options available.”