The National Green Tribunal (Western Zone Bench, Pune) on 16.07.2026 heard an appeal challenging the environmental clearance granted to M/s Deepak Chem Tech Limited for a proposed integrated petro-chemical and 90 MW coal captive power plant project in Bharuch, Gujarat. The appellant alleged project splitting, fraudulent concealment of linear infrastructures, and a farcical public consultation process, raising critical questions about procedural compliance and transparency in environmental clearances.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Ashish Vijaykumar Chhajed, filed an appeal under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 challenging the environmental clearance (EC) dated 19.06.2026 granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to M/s Deepak Chem Tech Limited (Respondent No.2) for a proposed integrated petro-chemical and 90 MW coal captive power plant project at Survey Nos.137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145 in Village Padariya, Taluka Vagra, District Bharuch, Gujarat. The appellant contended that the project proponent engaged in project splitting, fraudulent concealment of linear infrastructures, and conducted a farcical public consultation process.
Key Facts
- The project proponent, M/s Deepak Chem Tech Limited, applied for Terms of Reference (ToR) and Environmental Clearance (EC) for the proposed project.
- In the Form 1 (ToR/EC application), at serial no.11, the proponent stated that the proposal did not involve interlinked or interdependent projects or activities.
- At point no.9.15 of the second Form 1, the proponent stated that no new linear structures (e.g., transmission lines, pipelines) were involved.
- The Draft EIA & EMP report was 538 pages long, but only a 19-page executive summary was circulated during the public hearing.
- The project required 26,000 KLD of water from a source 10 km away, and 6,000 KLD of treated effluent was proposed to be discharged into the GIDC Effluent Collection System (Dahej-Vilayat Pipeline) located 20 km from the project site.
- The Minutes of the EAC (Industry-2) Meeting held on 04.02.2026 to 05.02.2026 recorded the proposal to discharge 6,000 KLD of treated effluent into the GIDC pipeline.
- A letter dated 11.12.2025 from the Deputy Executive Engineer (DRG), GIDC, Bharuch, approved the discharge of 6,000.00 KLPD of effluent into the GIDC pipeline.
Procedural History
- 11.12.2025: GIDC issued an assurance letter approving effluent discharge of 6,000.00 KLPD into the GIDC pipeline.
- 04.02.2026 to 05.02.2026: EAC (Industry-2) Meeting considered the project.
- 19.06.2026: MoEF&CC granted the Environmental Clearance (EC) to the project proponent.
- 16.07.2026: Present appeal filed before the NGT, Western Zone Bench, Pune.
The Parties' Positions
The appellant contended that:
- The project proponent engaged in project splitting by concealing interlinked and interdependent linear infrastructures (e.g., water pipeline, effluent pipeline, PNG supply line).
- The public consultation was farcical as only a 19-page executive summary was circulated for a 538-page Draft EIA & EMP report.
- The project proponent fraudulently concealed material information in the ToR/EC application forms.
The respondents did not file counter-affidavits or present arguments during the hearing on 16.07.2026.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
- Quashing of the EC dated 19.06.2026.
- Directions to the project proponent to disclose all interlinked and interdependent linear infrastructures for proper risk and impact assessment.
- Directions to conduct a fair and transparent public consultation process.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the environmental clearance granted to M/s Deepak Chem Tech Limited was vitiated by:
- Project splitting and fraudulent concealment of linear infrastructures.
- Farcical public consultation process.
- Non-disclosure of material information in the ToR/EC application forms.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the project proponent concealed material information in the ToR/EC application forms by stating that no interlinked or interdependent projects or linear infrastructures were involved, when in fact, the project required water supply from 10 km away, effluent discharge into a pipeline 20 km away, and PNG supply from 30 km away. These linear infrastructures were interlinked and interdependent on the main project and should have been disclosed for proper risk and impact assessment. The counsel also argued that the public consultation was farcical as only a 19-page executive summary was circulated for a 538-page Draft EIA & EMP report.
For the Respondent
The respondents did not file any counter-affidavits or present arguments during the hearing on 16.07.2026. The Tribunal noted that the respondents did not contest the allegations raised by the appellant.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal examined the allegations of project splitting and fraudulent concealment of linear infrastructures. The Tribunal noted that the project proponent had stated in the ToR/EC application forms that no interlinked or interdependent projects or linear infrastructures were involved, when in fact, the project required water supply, effluent discharge, and PNG supply through pipelines located at significant distances from the project site. These linear infrastructures were interlinked and interdependent on the main project and should have been disclosed for proper risk and impact assessment.
The Tribunal also noted that the public consultation process was farcical as only a 19-page executive summary was circulated for a 538-page Draft EIA & EMP report. This did not provide sufficient information to the public for meaningful participation.
"It is urged by the appellant that the linear projects, which are cited above, should have been disclosed for risk assessment and impact assessment along-with the present project, which has not been done in the case in hand. Therefore, the same should also be treated to be a concealment made on the part of the Project Proponent."
The Tribunal observed that the project proponent had suppressed material information and failed to conduct a fair and transparent public consultation process. These lapses vitiated the environmental clearance granted by the MoEF&CC.
The Verdict
The Tribunal set aside the order dated 19.06.2026 granting environmental clearance to M/s Deepak Chem Tech Limited. The Tribunal directed the Registry to list the matter for admission on 17.07.2026 for further hearing. The Tribunal also directed the appellant to produce evidence of other grounds set up in the case at the next hearing.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Project Splitting and Concealment of Linear Infrastructures
Practitioners must ensure that all interlinked and interdependent projects or linear infrastructures are disclosed in the ToR/EC application forms. Failure to do so may vitiate the environmental clearance granted by the authorities. The Tribunal's scrutiny of such concealments underscores the importance of transparency and full disclosure in environmental clearances.
- Full disclosure is mandatory: All interlinked and interdependent projects or linear infrastructures must be disclosed in the ToR/EC application forms.
- Risk and impact assessment: Linear infrastructures must be included in the risk and impact assessment for proper evaluation.
Farcical Public Consultation Process
The Tribunal's observation on the farcical public consultation process highlights the need for meaningful public participation in environmental decision-making. Practitioners should ensure that the public is provided with sufficient information to enable informed participation.
- Sufficient information: The public must be provided with the full Draft EIA & EMP report, not just an executive summary.
- Meaningful participation: Public consultation must be conducted in a fair and transparent manner to enable informed participation.
Procedural Compliance is Non-Negotiable
The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance in environmental clearances. Failure to comply with procedural requirements may vitiate the clearance granted by the authorities.
- Strict adherence to procedures: All procedural requirements must be strictly adhered to in environmental clearances.
- Consequences of non-compliance: Non-compliance with procedural requirements may result in the quashing of the environmental clearance.
