Read original pdf at : http://www.ecoinsee.org/6bconf/Theme%20F/F.1.4%20Geetanjoy.pdf
1
Theme: Towards Green and Sustainable Socio-economic Systems
Sub-Theme: Sustainable Urban Habitats
Sustainable Urban Habitats through Institutional and Community Interface:
A Case Study of Dahanu Town in Maharashtra
Geetanjoy Sahu
1 Introduction
Dahanu Town is situated 120 km. north of Mumbai, in the Thane district of Maharashtra, and is
one of the last green belts along the country's rapidly industrializing western coast. Dahanu was
"notified", or classified, under the Indian Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) by the Ministry of
Environment & Forests (MoEF) on 19 th February, 1991.
2 The CRZ bans any new construction
and development activities within 500 meters of the high tide line. Dahanu Taluka was also
declared “eco-fragile” by a government notification of June 21, 1991
3 (Notification under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, restricts the development of industries, mining operations and other development in the region). Even though Dahanu had been declared an ecologically fragile
area, political and industrial interests continued to bring forward development projects in Dahanu
Taluka, sidelining both the eco-fragile notification and the CRZ notification of the Government
of India. This led environmentalist Bittu Sehgal to file a writ petition in the Supreme Court in
1994, asking the Court to implement the notifications in Dahanu Taluka.
4 The Supreme Court then appointed the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) to investigate the issues set forth in the petition. Based on the findings of the NEERI report, the Supreme Court upheld the Dahanu Notification prohibiting any change of land-use in the region and ordered that a committee of experts be formed under Section 3 of the Environmental
1 Assistant Professor, Centre for Water Policy & Governance, School of Habitat Studies, Tata Institute of Social
Sciences (TISS), Mumbai. Email id: geetanjoy.sahu@gmail.com, geetanjoy@tiss.edu.
2 For more details, see Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Notification dated 19 th February 1991, New Delhi.
3 See Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Notification dated 20
th June 1991, New Delhi.
4 See Bittu Sehgal v. Union of India, W.P. (Civil) No. 231 of 1994.
2 Protection Act of 1986 to ensure implementation of the environmental laws protecting Dahanu's
eco-fragility. The MoEF appointed the Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Authority in
1996 under the chairmanship of retired Mumbai High Court Justice C S. Dharmadhikari and
supported by a team of eleven expert members.
5 Since the formation of the DTEPA in 1996, the
Authority has been engaged in resolving several disputes revolving around environmental issues.
In this paper, I argue that an independent and proactive Court-appointed monitoring committee,
namely the DTEPA, has not only ensured the effective implementation of environmental laws
and sustained the rare urban habitats in India but has also exposed the anti-environment bias of
both the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and the State Government of
Maharashtra. Further, the DTEPA has created a space for urban based civil society groups and
other stakeholders to be part of the monitoring committee to help implement Court directions. I
discuss how the DTEPA’s inclusive approach has empowered the local people to participate in
decision-making that affects their environment. In establishing this argument, however, I argue
that the implementation of environmental laws through Court Appointed Committee is also
triggered by the active and consistent involvement of urban middle class and civil-society groups
at the grassroots level.
Powers of DTEPA
With a mandate to protect the ecology, natural resources and livelihoods of a region, the Dahanu
Taluka Environment Protection Authority (DTEPA) has for a period of ten years been more than
just a watchdog institution. Recognising the ecological politics of control over natural resources,
the Authority has unwaveringly stood by the principles of social justice and equitable rights for
local communities. With its landmark orders, the DTEPA has contributed to the environmental
5 For more details, see Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Notification dated 19 th December 1996, New Delhi. 3
discourse in India. Considered a quasi-judicial body, the Authority has functioned like a peoples'
court, responding to local environmental complaints and problems. Through a process of
hearings, the Authority has been able to discuss and debate issues in a democratic manner,
holding both public and private institutions accountable.
The MoEF appointed the Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Authority in 1996 under the
chairmanship of retired Mumbai High Court Justice S. Dharmadhikari and supported by a team
of eleven expert members.
6 The Authority is empowered to exercise the following powers and
functions:
• to protect the ecologically fragile areas of Dahanu Taluka and to control pollution in the
said area;
• to consider and implement the "Precautionary Principle" and the "Polluter Pays
Principle";
• to consider and implement the recommendations given by NEERI in respect of Dahanu
Taluka;
• to ensure the implementation of the notifications issued by the Government of India in
the Ministry of Environment and Forests No. S.O. 114(E) dated the 19 th February, 1991 and No. S.O. 416 (E) dated the 20 th June, 1991;
• to comply with the relevant orders issued by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme
Court from time to time;
• to deal with any other relevant environment issues pertaining to Dahanu Taluka,
including those which may be referred to it by the Union Ministry of Environment and
Forests; and
• to furnish a progress report about its activities at least once in two months to the Central
Government via the MoEF
Activities of DTEPA from 1996-2008
6
For more details, see Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Notification dated 19 th December 1996, New Delhi. 4
Since the formation of the DTEPA in 1996, the Authority has been engaged in resolving several
disputes revolving around environmental issues. In this section, we highlight the major activities
of the Authority for environmental protection and improvement in Dahanu Taluka.
Background: The Dahanu Thermal Power Plant Case
In 1989 the State Government of Maharashtra approved a proposal of the Bombay Suburban
Electricity Supply Company (BSESC), to set up a coal-based thermal power plant in the Dahanu
Town of Thane District. On March 29, 1989, two local environmental activists: Nergis Irani and
Kityam Rustom (Members of the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group) along with
Bombay Environmental Action Group filed writ petitions first in the Bombay High Court and
then in the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Central Government to build the
power plant.
7 They lost the case, with the Court citing the necessity of energy to power the city
of Mumbai as strong grounds to sanction the project. To allay petitioners’ apprehensions of
environmental damage, the Court directed that the condition requiring the installation of a Flue
Gas Desulphurisation (FGD)
8 plant should not be relaxed without a full consideration of the
consequences.
While this condition was imposed in 1989, no attempt was made by the BSESC to install FGD.
The environmentalists took up the issue with the specially constituted quasi-judicial Authority,
the DTEPA, that passed an order on May 12th 1999 directing the company to initiate the process
of "setting up of the FGD unit within a period of six months and complete the same within a
reasonable time period."
9 Over the years, the company tried to escape this mandatory
environmental clearance by challenging the order of the Dahanu Authority in the High Court of
7 Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group v. Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Company Ltd. with
Bombay Environmental Action Group v. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 1991 (2) SCC 539.
8 A Flue gas de-sulphurisation unit performs the important role of reducing the sulphur di-oxide emissions from the
thermal power plant.
9 Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Authority Report dated May 12 th 1999. 5
Mumbai as well in the Supreme Court of India. However, the Authority's order was upheld both
by the High Court of Mumbai and the Supreme Court in 2000. Therefore, it was mandatory for
the company to install FGD as directed by the Authority.
The thermal power plant was taken over from BSESC by Reliance Energy Ltd (REL) in 2002.
As per the DTEPA order and REL's own schedule FGD was supposed to be installed in February
2005. When contacted about the delay, the Dahanu Power Plant Manager
10 said that “the
company has been keeping all the emission parameters well below the most stringent standards
without the installation of FGD. So why is there a need for FGD?”
In March 2005, the environmentalists filed an application with the Dahanu Authority seeking
redressal in the form of a 300 crore rupees bank guarantee from the company demonstrating its
commitment to installing a pollution control device in an ecologically fragile zone. After several
hearings, the Dahanu Authority passed an order holding Reliance Energy responsible for the
unnecessary delay in abiding by environmental clearance conditions as well as Court orders that
demanded the setting up of the FGD unit. The Dahanu Authority directed Reliance Energy to put
down a bank guarantee of Rupees 300 crore to prove its commitment to protecting Dahanu's
environment.
11 Reliance Energy appealed against this order in the Mumbai High Court in April
2005. In June 2005, the Mumbai High Court upheld the Authority's verdict regarding installation
of the FGD unit, but lowered the amount of the bank guarantee from Rs.300 to Rs.100 crores.
12 A deadline of October 2007 was accepted by all as being the final time schedule for the
installation of the FGD unit. When contacted about the status of implementation, the
Chairperson
13 of the Authority acknowledged that the deadline had been met.
The Vadhavan International Port Case
10 Interview with Prasad Rao, Dahanu Thermal Power Station Head by Geetanjoy Sahu on 23.09.2008.
11 Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Authority Report dated 19 th March 2005.
12 For more details, see Michelle Chawla “Dahanu: The Environmentalists versus The People”, available at
http://infochangeindia.org/200504055755/Environment/Features/Dahanu-The-Environmentalists-versus-ThePeople.html
13 Interview with Justice S Dharmadhikari, Chairperson of DTEPA, by Geetanjoy Sahu on 28.09.08. 6
On 17 February 1997, the State Government of Maharashtra accepted a proposal from P&O
Australia to build an international port at Vadhavan - a small fishing village in the Dahanu
region. The State Government required that P&O Australia submit a detailed feasibility report,
including an environmental impact assessment study, within six months, and obtain all the
necessary environmental clearances from the Central Government.
14 Meanwhile, objection was
raised by the Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Group, People’s Alliance for
Implementation of Laws, Vadhavan Bandar Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti, and others that, in view of
the decision of the Supreme Court as well as the two notifications to save Dahanu’s green belt,
the construction or establishment of such a Mega Port is not permissible. Moreover, in the
Regional Plan prepared for the Dahanu area, there is no provision for a Port at Vadhavan or any
other place in Dahanu Taluka. Hence, the proposed Port would be in clear violation of the
Regional Plan.
15 The proposal to develop a port at Vadhavan in Dahanu region was forwarded by the MoEF to the DTEPA in November 1997 for its examination. The DTEPA gave its final decision on this
matter on 19 September 1998. The DTEPA distinguished between two different questions raised
by the port proposal: the legality of the project and its environmental feasibility. It was initially
reluctant to decide the legality issue without considering also the feasibility question. For that
purpose, it gave P&O Ports (India) permission to complete a detailed Environmental Impact
Assessment of the project.
16 While P&O India did carry out several preliminary studies, it was
not ready to proceed with a full scale EIA unless the question of the project legality was
resolved.
14 See Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Authority Report dated 19
th September 1998.
15 For more details, see www.freedahanu.org. Also, see Ritu Dewan & Michelle Chawla (1999), ‘Of Development
Amidst Fragility: A Societal and Environmental Perspective on Vadhavan Port’, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan.
16 See Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Authority Report dated 19
th
September 1998, p.2. 7
The Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group argued that building a Mega-Port in Dahanu
would be inconsistent with the Dahanu and CRZ Notifications, and with the Supreme Court’s
decision of 31 October 1996. Moreover, as there was no provision for such a port in Dahanu’s
Regional Plan, the proposed port was also in violation of this plan. These arguments were
rejected by the project promoters. While they admitted that the Dahanu Notification provided
several restrictions for the setting up of industries in Dahanu, they argued that the term
‘industries’ should be interpreted as applying only to “industries processing or manufacturing
goods”, and that the Notification has, therefore, “no application to the setting up of a port”.
The DTEPA rejected the arguments of the project sponsors. It noted that the current Regional
Plan for Dahanu provided no place for an industrial port. It noted, further, that while the word
‘industry’ was not defined in the Dahanu Notification, “such a vast port, will obviously fall
within the ambit and scope of the word industry”, and that, therefore, “the construction or
establishment of such a Mega Port is wholly prohibited by [the] notification".
17
The DTEPA
pointed, to the large back up facilities which would be required for the operation of the port, and
to the fact that the cargo handled by the port will include cement, coal, petroleum products and
chemicals. The DTEPA emphasized that unless the notification is amended, any modification of
the Regional Plan would have to be in conformity with it. The DTEPA justified its interpretation
by noting that Dahanu is the last surviving Green Zone on that Coastal area, is an ecologically
fragile area, and the construction of such a port will be detrimental to the environmental and the
socio-economic conditions of Dahanu area.
The DTEPA concluded that in view of these considerations the construction of such a Mega Port
at Vadhavan would be “wholly impermissible and, therefore, will be illegal”. The DTEPA’s
independence of the local political establishment enabled it to see clearly what would be the
social and environmental implications of the proposed port. In view of the DTEPA’s decision,
17
Id at 4. 8
P&O India announced that it would not be going ahead with the plan to develop a port in
Dahanu.
18
DTEPA vis-à-vis MoEF
Ever since Dahanu was declared an eco-fragile area in 1994 and the Court’s direction to
implement the notification in 1996 through the DTEPA, the political parties across their
ideological differences have not only defaulted on implementing the notification but have been
actively lobbying to rewrite the laws of the land to benefit developers and builders.
Environmentalists accuse industry and vested interests of subverting various laws that were
formulated to preserve the ecological fragility of the tribal-dominated Dahanu Taluka.
19
Proponents of development, on the other hand, feel cheated by the notification and have
challenged it in the Mumbai High Court.
In fact, there have been several serious attempts to de-notify Dahanu as well as disband the
Dahanu Authority, by a section of powerful industrialists, builders and local politicians. In 2003,
a special committee was constituted to ascertain if Dahanu could be considered eco-fragile.
20
This Committee held a large public hearing in Dahanu with the aim of determining the views of
the people. However, the meeting was conducted by local commercial interests and politicians,
who asserted that the Dahanu notification was a major stumbling block to development in the
region, and that it should be withdrawn. Misrepresenting the notification to claim that even a
flour mill was not permitted in the area, the Committee created an atmosphere that projected a
collective opposition to the Notification and the function of the Authority.
18
For more details, see Oren Perez “Reflections on an Environmental Struggle: P & O, Dahanu and the Regulation
of Multinational Enterprises”, Working Paper No. 1-2, May 2002, Bar-llan University.
19
Interview with local environmental activist Nergis Irani of Dahanu by Geetanjoy Sahu on 22.09.08
20
See Mohan Rao Committee Report of 2003. 9
Since its very inception, the Maharastra Government has been hostile to the notification, allege
environmentalists.
21
The state government seems insincere about implementing the eco-fragile
notification. Most surprisingly, in January 2002, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, an
agency which should be protecting Dahanu and other eco-fragile areas, filed an application in the
Supreme Court demanding an end to DTEPA on the grounds that it had already completed its
work. The ministry claimed that it needs a single authority to monitor all eco-fragile areas.
22
The
environmentalists fought this application at the Supreme Court and in January 2004, the
application was dismissed.
The ministry's move to scrap the DTEPA seems to lack any credible reason. It said that the
continuance of the Authority was not necessary as its only remaining activity was the finalisation
of the development plan for Dahanu. The MoEF argued that Dahanu is too small an area to have
a separate Authority of its own. Both the MoEF and the State Government of Maharashtra have
showed little willingness to engage in constructive discussions with the local community, and
seemed prepared to ignore the deep environmental and social problems of the development
projects. The ministry has starved the Authority of operating funds, although the Authority has
continued to function without these resources. The fault of the Authority seems to be that it took
action. It would appear that the government does not appreciate efficiency at the cost of
dissatisfying the industrialists. The DTEPA may just have been too effective for a government
appointed committee: it has experts and not figureheads on its board.
23
21
Interview with Michelle Chawla, Coordinator of Save Dahanu and also member of DTEPG of Dahanu, by
Geetanjoy Sahu on 22.09.08
22
In addition to Dahanu, more recently, the hill stations of Matheran and Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani have been
notified eco-sensitive zones in Maharashtra after a lot of pressure from environmentalists. There are other regions in
the country that are similarly notified, such as the Doon Valley (the first), the Aravalli range, Pachmarhi in Madhya
Pradesh and Numaligarh in Assam.
23
See note 11 above. 10
Why Is DTEPA Effective?
There are three crucial factors that determined the effective functioning of the Authority. First,
the Authority has been quite open to ideas and viewpoints of different stakeholders in dealing
with various environmental issues. Unlike other monitoring committees
24
of the Supreme Court,
the Authority has conducted regular meetings and public hearings giving sufficient notice to each
and every party to the dispute. In this way, the local communities have found their voice with
regard to any development issues in Dahanu through their participation in the DTEPA meeting
and public hearing. The Authority has responded to all public appeals within a stipulated timeframe. There is no discrimination in this regard. The DTEPA demonstrates how the Environment
Protection Act can be used to give decentralised powers to an expert committee. The very idea of
an Authority of this type was to evolve a more decentralised approach to implementation of the
law. The Authority has proved this and seems worthy of emulation.
Second, effective leadership has been an important factor in the success of the Authority. The
Authority is functioning under the leadership of retired Justice S. Dharmadhikari, who is
committed to the Gandhian vision of development and protecting environment from rapid
industrialization. He believes in strict adherence to the implementation of environmental laws.
His commitment to saving Dahanu’s green belt is explained in this observation: “There are
several industrial zones in Maharashtra for development activities; then why not spare 2% land
of Dahanu from development activities?” He also noted that around 60% of the people of
Dahanu Taluka are Scheduled Tribes who depend upon agriculture and fishing activities, for
whom modern forms of development are not going to generate any kind of livelihood.”
25
24
Apart from Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Authority, there are several monitoring committees in
different environmental cases to ensure the implementation of Court directions, such as Loss of Ecology Authority
in the Vellore Industrial Pollution Case, Central Empowered Committee in the T N Godavarman Case, and Bhurelal
Committee in the Delhi Vehicular Pollution Case.
25
See note 11 above. 11
As Chairperson of the DTEPA, Dharmadhikari has introduced new principles in the field of
rehabilitation in the Dahanu environmental case, namely the principles of “pre-afforestation,”
and “pre-habilitation,” which are unprecedented. Before cutting a tree, authorities concerned are
obliged to plant ten trees; before demolishing a house, authorities are obliged to construct a new
house for a person who is likely to be displaced, and only after the person shifts to the new house
is demolition of the old house permitted. Under the Justice’s leadership, afforestation
programmes have taken place in several villages of Dahanu Taluka, such as in Khambale,
Chikhala, Kodad, Khanivade, Nandgaon, Jalsar, and also in Dahanu Town.
Third, the composition of the Authority has been one of the significant factors in its effective
functioning. The Authority consists of one retired judge as Chairperson and eleven expert
members from different fields. The coordination among the members to deal with any kind of
environmental problem is quite unique. DTEPA may be the only Authority in India that has been
consistently conducting its meeting and submitting its report as per the direction of the Court.
None of the derailing strategies – from the Ministry of Environment and Forests to the political
and industrial lobby – have succeeded in influencing the impartial and independent function of
the members of the Authority. This commitment reflects a sustained willingness of the members
to render the decision-making process more democratic and participatory. Furthermore, the
DTEPA, in its strong standing against the local political and industrial establishment, has
effectively reflected the hopes and aspirations of environmentalists and local community
members in Dahanu Town.
Lessons to be drawn
The effectiveness of DTEPA can be followed as a model for other Court-appointed committees.
What has allowed the independent functioning of this committee, despite various problems
created by the MoEF and state agencies, was its ability to provide hope and a mode of expression
to the local community. The fact that the Court decisions in a majority of cases have not been
implemented has not discouraged the local community in Dahanu Town in having faith in the 12
justice system. Thus, the work of the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority was of
significant not only for its democratic nature of functioning but also because its multidisciplinary structure and highly independent mode of operation created a new deliberative
space, which was open to the arguments of the local community in Dahanu Town. The
independent and impartial nature of functioning of the Authority suggests that the expert
members of a Court-appointed committee, once selected, must rise above any other
considerations to find out the ground reality. They should discharge their functions judiciously
and objectively. If this happens and the expert body is empowered to take independent decisions,
a Court-appointed monitoring committee can be an effective instrument for India’s long term
environmental management.
