IN RE.: 'CONSTRUCtlON OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY ANAND ARYA & ANR. T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

an "Area Development project" rather than a "Building and A Construction project" under category 8(a), in reply he took a line that nullifies any distinction between the two. Mr. Bhushan submitted that so far as construction projects are concerned there is no qualitative difference between items 8(a) and 8(b) and the difference between the two items was only quantitative. 8 Projects were categorized under items 8(a) or 8(b) as "Building and Construction projects' or "Townships and Area Development projects" not on the basis of their nature ·and character but depending upon the extent of construction. Learned counsel pointed out that the upper limit under item 8(a) c (1,50,000 square metres of built-up area) was the threshold mark under item 8(b) and contended that this was a clear indication that projects with built up area up to 1,50,000 square metres would be defined as "Building and Constru.ction projects" and projects with built up area in excess of 1,50,000 D square metres would be categorized as "Townships and Area Development projects". In support of the contention, Mr. Bhushan gave the example of a "Building and Construction project'', consisting of a number of multi-storied buildings, the aggregate of the built-up area of which exceeds 1,50,000 E square metres. Mr. Bhushan submitted that since the total built- up area of the project crosses the upper limit of item 8(a) the project would not fall within that item. But at the same time since the project is a "Building and Construction project" and not a «"Township and Area Development project'', it would not come under item 8(b) and this would be indeed a highly anomalous position where a project with a smaller built-up area would fall within the ambit of the notification, whereas a project with a larger built-up area would escape the rigours of the notification.

54Copy pinpoint54. The amicus, also arguing in the same vein, submitted that as far as building and construction projects are concerned there was no qualitative difference in items 8(a) and 8(b) of the schedule to the notification. A combined reading of the two clauses of item 8 of the schedule would show the continuity in the two provisions; 1,50,000 square metres of built ~p area that H

836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S C.R

A was the upper limit in item 8(a) was the threshold marker in item 8(b). This clearly meant .that building and construction projects with built-up area/activity area between 20000 square metres to 1,50,000 square metres would fall in category 8 (a) and projects with built up area of 1,50,000 square metres or B more would fall in category 8 (b). The amicus further submitted that though it was not expressly stated, the expression "Built Up area" in item B(b) must get the same meaning as in item B(a), that is to say,' if the construction had facilities open to sky the whole of the "activity area" must be deemed to constitute the c "built-up area".

55Copy pinpoint55. It is extremely difficult to accept the contention that ~he categorization under items 8 (a) and 8 (b) has no bearing on the natur~ :ind r.hararter of the project and is based purely on th13 built up area. A building and construction project is nothing but addition of structures over the land. A township project is the development of a new area for residential, commercial or industrial use. A township project is different both quantitatively and qualitatively from a mere building and construction project. Further, an area development project may be connected with the township development project and may be its first stage • I when grounds are cleared, roads and pathways are laid out and 1.

provisions are made for drainage, sewage, electricity and telephone lines and the whole range of other civic infrastructure. Or an area development project may be completely independent of any township development project as in case of creating an artificial lake, or an urban forest or setting up a zoological or botanical park or a recreational, amusement or a theme park. \

56Copy pinpoint56. The illustration given by Mr. Bhushan may be correct to an extent. Constructions with built up area in excess of 1,50,000 would be huge by any standard and in that case the project by virtue of sheer magnitude would qualify as township development project. To that limited extent there may be a H quantitative correlation between items B(a) and B(b). But it m~t be realized that the converse of the illustration given' by ·Mt.

IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA ANAND ARYA, 83 7 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.0.1. [AFTABALAM, J.]

Bhushan may_ no~ be true. For example, a project which is by its nature and cha.racter an "Area Development project" would not becoml •.a "Building and Construction project" simply because it f~is short of the threshold mark under item 8 (b) but comes within ,the area specified in item 8 (a). The essential difference between items 8(a) and 8(b) lies not only in the different magn~udes but in the difference in the nature and character of the ·projects enumerated there under. . .

57Copy pinpoint57. In light of the above discussion it is difficult to see the project in question as a "Building and Construction project". C Applying the test of 'Dominant Purpose or Dominant Nature' of the project or the "Common Parlance" test, i.e. how a common person using it and enjoying its facilities would view it, the project can only be categorized under item 8(b) of the schedule as a Township and Area Development project". But under that category it does not come up to the threshold marker D inasmuch as the total area of the project (33.43 hectares) is less than 50 hectares and its built-up area even if the hard landscaped area and the covered areas are put together comes to 1,05,544.49 square metres, i.e., mu1:;R be]Qw the threshold marker of 1,50,000 square metres. E

58Copy pinpoint58. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that the project does not fall within the ambit of the EIA notification S.O. 1533(E) dated September 14, 2006. This is not to say that this is the ideal or a very happy outcome but that is' how the notification is framed and taking any other view would be doing gross violence to the scheme of the notification.

59Copy pinpoint59. Sihce it is held that the project does not come within the ambit of the notification, the other three arguments based on the activity area, the application of general condition and the application of the office memorandum dated December 2, 2009 become irrelevant and need not be gone into in this case]

THE PROJECT/ AND THE bKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY:

838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A, 60. Mr. Bhushan next raised the issue of the project being located virtually adjoining the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. The very close proximity of the project site to the bird sanctuary actually raises issues of serious concern and poses a dilemma. On the one hand the project proponents can not be said to have broken any law or violated a definite order or direction of the court but on the other hand the project may possibly cause serious and irreparable harm to the bird sanctuary.

61Copy pinpoint61. Before the CEC the State Government took the plea that the project area was situated well outside the boundaries of the bird sanctuary and the construction of the project had caused no adverse impact on the Sanctuary. It was further stated that NOlDA which was the prgject proponent was equally conscious about its responsibility iri regard to the preservation and conservation of the habitat of the Sanctuary. A management plan for the Sanctuary was being prepared by the Wildlife Institute of Dehradun for which NOIDA had released Rs.17,35,350.00 in favour of the Institute and the NOIDA was also planning to set up a corpus for the Scientific and effective implementation of the Management Plan. E

62Copy pinpoint62. On this issue the MoEF in its responses before the CEC put the blame squarely on the State Government. It stated that despite its letter of May 27, 2005 followed by a number of reminders the Government of Uttar Pradesh did not submit its proposal for declaration of "Eco-sensitive Zone" around the Sanctuaries and National Parks. It further stated that the State Government failed to take any steps in this regard even after the order of this Court passed on December 4, 2006 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 460/2004 by which the MoEF was directed to give all the States final opportunity to send their proposals for declaration of "Eco-sensitive Zones" to the MoEF within four weeks. The MoEF made the accusation that in the case of the present project the State Government of Uttar Pradesh was trying to take advantage of its own omission. In its second response dated August 22-24, 2009, however, the MoEF, -

IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA ANAND ARYA. 839 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.0.1. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

though still blaming the UP Government for its failure to notify the "Eco-sensitive Zones" conceded that "till Eco-sensitive zone is declared the construction work did not seem to violate any law/Act". But it went on to say that having regard to its location the project was better suited to be made part of extension of the bird sanctuary. B

63Copy pinpoint63. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh took the stand that no,proposals were sent from its side because the MoEF failed to issue the necessary guidelines for the purpose. On behalf of the State of UP, reference was made to a meeting called by the Director General of Forests and Special Secretary, C MoEF on May 13, 2010. In that meeting it was decided that the Director General of Forests, MoEF would constitute a committee of officers to finalize the guidelines for declaration of eco-sensitive zones. A reference was also made to a subsequent meeting held on July 4, 2010 at Lucknow in which D\ the attention of the Government of India was drawn to the decision taken in the earlier meeting. Yet, no guidelines were issued by the Government of India so far.

64Copy pinpoint64. The CEC in its report to the Court dated September E 4, 2009 put the blame on the State Government of UP for its omission to identify the Eco-sensitive zones but like the MoEF ; seemed to accept that in the absence of a decision/notification · there was no legal bar against the construction of the project on the ground that it was sited adjacent to the bird sanctuary. FI In its report to the Court, the CEC observed as follows:

32. The issue regarding identification/notification of Eco- Sensitive Zone around the National Park and Sanctuaries is presently pending for consideration before this Hon'ble Court. The National Board of Wild Life (NBWL) had earlier G decided that area within 10 km around National Parks/ Sanctuaries should be the Eco-Sensitive Zone. Later on, it was decided by the NBWL that Eco-Sensitive Zone should be specific to each National Park/Sanctuary. The CEC had recommended that 500 meter around National H ' '

840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Park/Sanctuary should be declared as Eco-Sensitive Zone. The recommendation of the CEC has not so far been accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after the Learned Amicus Curiae took a view that 500 meter may not be adequate. Pursuant to this Hon~ble Supreme Court B order dated 4.8.2006 in the TWP matter, mining is presently prohibited up to a distance of one kilometre from the boundary of National Parks/Sanctuaries. For other projects, no restriction has so far been 'imposed. The MoEF has time and again requested the States/UT's to identify the eco sensitive zone around the National Parks/ Sanctuaries. However, the State of Uttar Pradesh has so for not prt·pared any proposal in this regard. The CEC is of t:;e view that in the absence of a decision/notification, presently there is no legal restriction against the implementation of the project on the ground that the project is adjacent to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary.

33. However, it has to be borne in mind that the project area is hardly at a distance of 50 meter from the Okhla Bird Sanctuary and that in all probability the project site would have fallen in the Eco-Sensitive Zone, had a timely decision in this regard been taken by the State Government/ MoEF.

(emphasis added)

65Copy pinpoint65. The report of the CEC succinctly sums up the situation. Though everyone, excepting the project proponents, views the construction of the project practically adjoining the bird sanctuary as a potential hazard to the sensitive and fragile ecological balance of the Sanctuary there is no law to stop it. G This unhappy and anomalous situation has arisen simply because despite directions by this Court the authorities in the Central and the State Governments have so far not been able to evolve a principle to notify the buffer zones around Sanctuaries and National Parks to protect the sensitive and I H delicate ecological balance required for the sanctuaries.

IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDAANANDARYA, 841 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.0.1. [AFTABALAM, J.]

66Copy pinpoint66. But the absence of a statute will not preclude this Court A from examining the project's effects on the environment with particular reference to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. For, in the jurisprudence developed by this Court Environment is not merely a statutory issue. Environment is one of the facets of the right to life guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution 1• B Environment is-, therefore, a matter directly under the Constitution and if the Court perceives any project or activity as harmful or injurious to the environment it would feel obliged to step in. The question of the likelihood of the project causing any adverse effects on the Okhla Bird Sanctuary must, c therefore, be examined from this angle.

67Copy pinpoint67. We may note here that Mr. Venugopal presented before us some photographs trying to show the situation on the western boundary of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary at its Delhi end. In the photographs there is a road, about forty to sixty feet wide, D (The Kalindikunj-lrrigation Colony-Batla Road) running right next to the wire mesh fencing of the Sanctuary. Next to the road is a long row of cheek by jowl concrete structures/houses that .seem to lean against one another. The road has the bustling traffic of Delhi where all kinds of vehicles (and cattle!) appear E jostling for space. The situation on the western boundary of the Sanctuary is indeed deplorable but that is no reason to strangulate the Sanctuary from the NOIDA side as well.

68Copy pinpoint68. Earlier in the judgment, it is noted that on April 22, 2010, F the Court had asked the MoEF to make a study of the environmental impact of the project and to suggest measures for undoing the environmental degradation, if any, caused by the project and the amelioration measures to safeguard the adjacent bird sanctuary. In pursuance of the Court's directions G the MoEF had asked the project proponents to _have the environmental impact assessment of the project done by some 'expert agencies. NOIDA, the project proponent got three studies made of the impact assessment of the project. One is 1 . a joint study prepared by the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology 1:::1

842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A and Natural History (SAGON), Deccan Regional Station, Hyderabad and the All India Network Project on Agricultural Ornithology, Aacharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad (Annexure II of Paper book Volume IV); the other by the Wildlife Institute of India (Wll) (Annexure Ill of Paper book :·:a Volume IV); and the third by a group of three individuals that ;• was vetted by the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi (Annexure IV of Paper book Volume IV).

69Copy pinpoint69. The SAGON, in its report practically gave a clean chit to the project and made the following observations in connection with the felling of trees and the impact of the project construction on the Okhla Bird Sanctuary:

1 The Okhla Bird Sanctuary is primarily an urban wetland and supports primarily water birds majority of them migrating and using in the winter season. These are confined to the water bodies and peripheral marshy vegetation and were not nesting or roosting on the trees of the adjacent parks. The extent of terrestrial habitat is the sanctuary is very small or insignificant.

2 The entire development works including removal of trees and construction had taken place outside the boundary of the sanctuary and the construction and felling of trees in the project site has not altered or interfered with the wetland ecosystem of the OBS and the area was undisturbed. 3 The birds in the wetland of Okhla Bird Sanctuary are estimated during the month of January by the G Wildlife Wing of U.P. Forest Department during winter, which is the period for the migratory birds. The estimation of birds are as under:

IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDAANANDARYA, 843 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.0.1. [AFTABALAM, J.]

1 The clearing of the project site for construction and landscaping was started in the month of the January, 2008 and continued till 9th October, 2009. The bird estimates during migratory season clearly 'B shows that there has been no reduction in the number of birds in the sanctuary despite ' developmental activities in ·the park. This clearly shows that the construction and felling of trees in the project site has no impact on OBS. c I 2 It appears that the existence of High tension line along the boundary wall of the project site before the start of the project might have been a barrier for movement of the birds from OBS as high electro magnetic influence would restrict the movement of birds. Hence, the construction and the felling of trees in the project site has minimal influence on the OBS.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that felling of trees and construction have no perceptible impact on the OBS habitat."

70Copy pinpoint70. The SACON suggested certain proactive environmental measures (see Paper book Volume IV, page 110) that would form part of this judgment. F

71Copy pinpoint71. The other report by the Wildlife Institute of India (Wll) is not so sanguine about the project's impact on the bird sanctuary. In the Wll report under the heading "Assessment of the Impact" it was observed as under: G " .... From this, it is concluded that the erstwhile woodland would have been used by 51-101 species of terrestrial birds and was an extended habitat for the wildlife ofthe Okhla Bird Sanctuary, primarily terrestrial birds. Some of H

844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A these birds may be using the erstwhile woodland for breeding as well. ..

"..... The erstwhile woodland was acting as a buffer against these disturbances. The project area which was in continuation with the vegetation along the left afflux bund B was providing a green belt approximately 2 km long and 218 m wide on and average. Before the felling of trees this patch might have acted as a protective green belt of approximately 190 m width with a tree density of 203.5 trees/ ha (density of trees felled) which is now reduced to c approximately 28 m (between the western wall of the project and OBS boundary of left afflux dam). From this it is concluded that the Sanctuary lost its buffer of around 33.43 ha that will have significant impact on the OBS and its tranquility .... D " ... Such carbon sequestration value of the erstwhile woodland was lost, though the NOIDA has already taken up ameliorative steps in form of afforestation in and around the project site .... E " ..... With the loss of buffer and increased artificial light at the project site, it is likely that the migratory bird population may get affected in long run. Bird friendly diffused light with blue tinge may reduce the negative impacts, though much research on this aspect is required." F

72Copy pinpoint72. The Wll also suggested certain mitigation measures (see Paper book Volume IV, page 134) that would form part of this judgment.

73Copy pinpoint73. The llT, New Delhi in its review of the report prepared by the group of three people does not record any serious negative finding in regard to the effects that the project may have on the Sanctuary.

74Copy pinpoint74. Finally, the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) H constituted by the Government of India, MoEF in its 88th

IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDAANANOARYA, 845 TN. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPA9 v. U.0.1. [AFTABALAM, J.]

meeting held on June 28-29, 2010, reviewed the project in question in light of the aforementioned reports and made a number of recommendations (Paper book Volume 111, page 32) that would form part of this judgment.

75Copy pinpoint75. It is significant to note that none of the ~xpert bodies has taken the view that the project is so calamitous or ruinous for the bird sanctuary that it needs to be altogether scrapped in order to save the Sanctuary. The expert bodies have·given recommendations which allow the completion of the project subject to certain conditions. On behalf of the State of U.P. it is unequivocally stated that all the conditions laid in the reports of the Expert Bodies are acceptable to the State Government/ NOIDA in their entirety. In light of the two study reports-and the report submitted by the EAC, we see no justification for directing the demolition of the constructions made in the project, as prayed for on behalf of the applicants. We would rather allow the project to be completed, subject, of course to the conditions suggested by the three expert bodies and further subject to the directions contained herein below.

76Copy pinpoint76. It may be noted that the report of the Wll has focused on the felling of trees resulting in the disappearance of the woodland that acted as a protective,buffer for the bird sanctuary and its first recommendation is- to compensate the loss of vegetation. It has secondly focus~d on the increased artificial light at the project site, which is likely to affect the migratory bird population in the long run. Apart from this, we feel that the extent of stone and concrete constructions in the name of "hard landscaping" is highly out of proportion. In the modified layout plan, the project proponents have reduced the area under hard surface to 35.54% of the total project area. In our opinion, even that is unacceptable from the environmental point of view. The are~ under hard surface, whether covered, uncovered (includir;ig pathways and boundary wall etc.) or of any kind whatsoever must not .exceed 25% of the total project area; of the rest, 25% sho1,1ld be used for soft/green landscaping and the remaining, I: . H

846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A preferably 50% must have a thick cover of trees of the native variety, a list of which is given by the State of UP (Annexure 4(b), Paper book Volume IV) The plantation of trees 'should be especially dense towards the Okhla Bird Sanctuary on .the western side of the project area. Any construction work should B commence only on completion of the planting of the trees . . --

77Copy pinpoint77. In order to ensure full compliance with the recommendations of the expert bodies (which form part of the judgment) and the directions of this Court, the construction of the project needs to be overseen by an expert committee. One C member of the committee, preferably an ornithologist will be nominated by the MoEF, the other member will be nominated by the CEC in consultation with the amicus and the Chairman- cum-CEO of NOIDA will be the member-secretary of the committee. The committee should be constituted within two D weeks from today.

78Copy pinpoint78. It is made clear that the above directions are given in the peculiar facts of this case and nothing said in the judgment shall form precedent when the court is hearing the matter of the E "buffer zones".

79Copy pinpoint79. Before putting down the records of the case a few observations may not be out of place. The EIA notification dated September 14, 2006 urgently calls for a close second look by the concerned authorities. The projects/activities under F items 8(a) and 8(b) of the schedule to the notification need to be described with greater precision and clarity and the definition of built-up area with facilities open to the sky needs to be freed from its present ambiguity and vagueness. The question of application of the general condition to the projects/ G activities listed in the schedule also needs to be put beyond any debate or dispute. We would also like to point out that the environmental impact studies in this case were not conducted either by the MoEF or any organization under it or even by any agencies appointed by it. All the three studies that were finally placed before the Expert Appraisal Committee and which this

IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDAANANDARYA, 847 TN. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.0.1. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

Court has also taken into consideration, were made at the behest of the project proponents and by agencies of their choice. This Court would have been more comfortable if the environment impact srudies were made by the MoEF or by any organization under it or at least by agencies appointed and recommended by it. s_

80Copy pinpoint80. The IAs stand disposed of with the above observations and directions.

D.G. IAs disposed of. -- c APPENDIX I '{by SACON):

7. SUGGESTED PROACTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES Although there-appears to be no perceptible impact, as a D precautionary approach, we suggest following measures for the , overall improvement of the OBS:

1. The periodical removal of water hyacinth should be ensured for better quality of water. E

2. Artificial nest boxes should be placed along the western boundary of the sanctuary and adjoining parts to enhance breeding potential of birds.

3. Periodical monitoring of water quality parameters F should be undertaken to enhance wetland dependent species and their population.

4. Regular monitoring of population of avi fauna should be undertaken. On the terrestrial habitat, also monitoring of small mammals may be carried out. G

5. Extensive planting of native species suitable for urban habitat should be done more than 10 times in and around the project area. This will in turn help in sustainability of key bird species. It is noteworthy H

848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A to mention that NOIDA Authority has already planted 1,70,000 saplings.

6. For the scientific management of the OBS, the prescriptions of the Management Plan under preparation by the Wildlife Institute of India, B Dehradun should be followed with necessary · financial support.

7. Inside the sanctuary, battery operated vehicles should be used for visitors. c 8. For the effective protection and management of the OBS, the sanctuary should be suitably fenced.

9. In view of its unique location and interspersion of ecological settings of various landscape elements, D it is suggested that the proposed park may have an ecological interpretation centre.

APPENDIX II (by Wiil:

E 5. SUGGESGED MITIGATION MEASURES

To mitigate the loss of tree cover and the change in 1andscape structure due to the construction of the Park and subsequent anticipated increase in disturbance due to the increased human activities adjacent to the OBS, following mitigation measures have been suggested:

(1) Re-vegetation of the Project site to compensate the loss of vegetation: Ameliorative measures have already been ,aken up by the NOIDA by planting both native and exotic species within in the project area and on the eastern flank of left afflux bund of the Yamuna River/OBS at close spacing. However, emphasis should be given to propagate only the native species. H

IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA ANAND ARYA, 849 TN. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.0.1. [AFTABALAM, J.]

(2) Reduction of adverse impact on the OBS: It is suggested that buffer at the north and north eastern side of the Sanctuary to reduce direct disturbance . to the OBS may be created. The area north of the weir bund of the OBS is a promising site for water birds which prefer shallow w~ter or grass growth particularly geese and waders. It is suggested that the waterlogged Yamuna floodplain north to the OBS and up to the DND flyover having an area of 130 ha (Fig .1) may be included with the OBS or protection to it as the buffer under the provision of c WPA, 197.2 be provided.

The str.ip of woodland with an area of 24 ha immediately to the north of the project area (Fig.1) needs to be protected as buffer of the OBS also and its land~use needs to be maintained unaltered. D Being in close proximity of the OBS it will have an ameliorative effect on the Sanctuary. It would also provide additional habitat to the terrestrial bird species of the OBS. E Efforts should also be made to keep the intensity of artificial light and noise at the project site to a bare minimum during night, especially after sunset in migratory seasons of birds (October-March). Bird friendly diffused light with blue tinge during night, F may reduce the negative impacts if any on OBS, though much research on this aspect is required.

It is suggested that at the periphery of the OBS, fence wherever not existing be created and the breach in the existing fence be mended on priority. G

(3) Eliciting support from the Government of Delhi for the conservation of OBS: As the OBS is a interstate Protected Area having open access from all side it is imperative that the Government of Delhi may H

850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R

A also be persuaded to take active part in its management.

(4) Ensuring financial commitment for the improved conservation management of the Park: As per the Order of the Honorable Supreme Court granted for B other development project adjacent to Protected Area (e.g. IA No.856/2006), 5% of the total costs of the project be deposited with the Forest Departmer.t, Government of U.P. to improve the ecosystem structure and functions, waterbird c habitat, public amenities and interpretation centre and improved management of the OBS.

APPENDIX Ill (by EAC):

D During discussions following points emerged:

(i) Naida Authority, while making presentation, informed that the project involves the renovation, preservation and beautification of Park on a total plot area is 33.43 Ha. The total built-up area of the covered construction is 6,999 sq. E m. Before the development of site there were 6;803 trees of different species out of which 6241 trees were cut and 562 trees were shifted to other parks. Further they informed that the following components of the project have already been completed: F (a) Boundary wall and gate - 90%

(b) Construction of Monument building - 60%

(c) Landscaping and plantation - 80% G (d) Pavements - 75%

The other infrastructural works proposed by Naida Authority for environmental safeguards/measures and for effective EMP are use of treated waste water, sold waste H

IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOi DA ANAND ARYA, 851 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.OJ [AFTAB ALAM, J.] management, energy saving, tree plantation and parking etc. The other works which are important in the context of Okhla Bird Sanctuary·are control of noise, glare and efficient traffic management.

(ii) Possibility should be explored to increase the greenery and plant broad leaf native trees along the pathways inside and outside the park. This will help in the reduction 9f surface runoff.

(iii) The water quality and water balance are key elements and require detailed management and monitoring. No c fresh water/ground water should be used for gardening/ horticulture purposes. The requirement of water should be met from self recycling treated sewage without placing of strain on the supply system for the nearby residential and commercial areas. D (iv) Treated waste water from Sector 54 Sewerage Treatment Plant is proposed for horticulture purposes. It must also be utilised as much as possible for such purposes as toilet flushing and pavemenU floor washing. i;he aforesaid purposes will need tertiary treatment of E ·sewage.

(v) No more than 20 per cent of rain water shall be discharged out of the project site into the ~xisting drain. The rain water harvesting system should be designed based on the soil characteristics and highest level of _,,... ground water table. (vi) The species of ttees inside the park and in buffer zone both on Okhla Bird Sanctuary side and road side should be of indigenous types that do not disturb the water balance of the area. The grass and artificial plantations which are not native should be avoided.

(vii) Adequate noise barriers in the form of thick plantation of appropriate species of trees and bushes laid in a tiered H

852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A form to create a green screen on either side of bund road should be provided. A no horn zone should be declared and maintained around the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. The develooment of qreen belt and tree plantation shall be carried out in consultation with Indian Council of Forest B Research and Education, Dehradun.

(viii) Solar energy should be utilized for illumination of common areas, lighting of gardens and paved footpaths etc. c (ix) No artificial illumination on tall poles or towers should be allowed inside the park during the night hours. The street lights on the bund road and the round about should be of special design, low ~ntensity and low height with least disturbance to the birds' habitat. D (x) The solid waste generated should be properly collected and segregated before disposal. The in-vessel bio- conservation technique should be used for composting the organic waste. E (xi) The opening of the park would increase the traffic load on the front road and adjoining link road intersections. A detailed traffic study should be carried out and proposals for necessary widening redesign of intersections and strengthening of road structure should be prepared. F (xii) Provision of a parking area is proposed inside the park. Allocation and configuration of spaces for other modes of transport like mini buses, 2-3 wheelers, cycle- rickshaws and bicycles and even pedestrians have to be G considered for realistic assessment of traffic and parking management.

(xiii) All required sanitary and hygienic measures should be in place before the opening of the park and should be maintained through out the operation. H

IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDAANANDARYA,853 TN. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.0.1. [AETABALAM, J.]

(xiv) Adequate drinking water and sanitary facilities should A be provided in the park.

(xv) A monitoring committee should be constituted for overseeing the project so as to ensure effective implementation and compliance to environmental 8 safeguards. ·