The National Green Tribunal's East Zone Bench has admitted an appeal challenging the environmental clearance granted to Neelachal Ispat Nigam Limited (NINL) for the expansion of its steel plant at Kalinganagar in Odisha's Jajpur district. On May 19, the bench issued notices to multiple authorities, including the State Pollution Control Board, the Odisha chief secretary, and NINL itself.
The bench, comprising judicial member Justice Sheo Kumar Singh and expert member Ishwar Singh, has scheduled the next hearing for August 10. The appeal was filed by Rathia Munda and Mrutyunjay Deo of Jajpur district, who raised concerns over tree felling, impact assessment, and the public hearing process. Advocates Sankar Prasad Pani and Ashutosh Padhy represented the appellants through videoconferencing.
Counsel for the State Pollution Control Board, Papiya Banerjee Bihani, accepted the notice on behalf of the board. Notices were also issued to the Odisha chief secretary; additional chief secretary, forest and environment department; Jajpur collector; divisional forest officer, Cuttack; chairman of Odisha State Biodiversity Board; and NINL. The respondents have been directed to file their replies within six weeks.
Environmental clearance challenged
The petition challenges the environmental clearance granted on February 24 for the expansion of NINL's crude steel production capacity from 0.981 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) to 6.2 MTPA at the Kalinganagar Industrial Complex. According to the appeal, around 91,892 trees have been identified within the project area, of which nearly 70,387 are proposed to be felled. The appellants alleged that no proper assessment was conducted to study the environmental impact of such large-scale tree cutting.
Allegations of violation
The appeal further alleged that the company had already started felling trees and construction activities even before obtaining environmental clearance, which, according to the petitioners, should have brought the project under the "violation category." The plea also alleged that authorities failed to consider a revised project layout aimed at reducing tree felling and conserving forest cover before granting the environmental clearance.
The appellants contended that no biodiversity impact assessment, cumulative impact assessment, or carrying capacity study was carried out for the area prior to the approval of the project expansion. Questioning the public hearing process, the petitioners claimed the venue was located far from the project site, preventing effective participation of affected local residents and making the hearing "unfair and faulty."
