EFFECT OF DAHANU THERMAL ON ENVIRONMENT

North of Bombay, on the west coast of India lies Dahanu, an ecologically sensitive region with a thrivingagrarian
economy. This place is best known for its chinos fruit, guava and coconut. It supplies fodder, rice, milk and poultry to
the surrounding regions and Bombay metropolitan area. Fishermen reap a rich harvest of fish, crab and shrimp.
According to DTEWA (Dahanu Taluka Environment Welfare Association) nearly half of the sub-district is under forest
cover. About 65% of the Dahanu population is comprised of tribals who are engaged in cultivating their land and
working on orchards. The DTEWA's secretaries vigorously campaigned against the despoliation of this area. Their
campaign began in the late 1980s when the Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Company (BSES) decided to establish
a 500 MW coal-fired thermal power station at Dahanu. BSES engaged a consulting firm to locate a suitable site for the
power station to supply electricity to Bombay. Out of the nine sites investigated only one was found technically viable.
However this site, Bassein was discarded because it fell within the Bombay Metropolitan region and would add to the
existing high level of pollution in the area. Eventually, the authorities approved the site Dahanu as the suitable one to
set up the power station.
The location of any thermal power station, which depends on seawater to cool its turbines, is bound tocause an effect
on the marine environment. The warm water discharged could affect the marine life because some creatures thrive in
warm water whilst some may not survive. There was also a fear that the Sulphur dioxide discharged from the
proposed coal-fired plants would affect the crops. The disposal of ash in the wetlands and the creek areas was
another problem. The DTEWA and the Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG) urged the court to stall the
project becausei.

The Central Government had issued environmental clearance contrary to the opinion of its appraisal
committee of its Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MEF).

ii.

The project was being set up within 500 meters of the High Tide Line (HTL) mark, contrary to the guidelines
and condition imposed by the MOEF.

iii.

The discharge of the warm water would increase the sea temperature and adversely affect marine life.

A division bench of the Bombay High Court rejected the petitions finding that the site offered several advantages. The
land was barren, no tree would be felled, and there was no habitation at the site and therefore no relocation. It was
also felt that the use of marine water would help conserve scarce fresh water resources. Accepting the stand of the
state government and BSES that the 500 metres distance from the HTL would be maintained, the court found that the
concerned authorities had considered relevant features and had imposed stringent safeguards and hence there was
no justification for interfering with the project under Article 226 of the Constitution.
On 20 June 1991, the MOEF declared Dahanu as ' an ecologically fragile area, and imposed restrictions on the
establishment of industries under section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 (EPA). This notification
lists the industries that are permitted and prohibited in Dahanu and also required the state government to prepare
within a year a regional plan based on the existing land use in the region. The state was asked to clearly demarcate
on the plan the existing green areas, orchards, tribal areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. The Dahanu
notification prohibited a change in land use and confined industrial activity in the Taluka to a maximum of 500 acres
within designated industrial estates. The notification was a triumph for the environmental groups which had long
campaigned to preserve Dahanu's natural heritage. The notification remains the foundation of DTEWA's efforts to
protect the Dahanu environment. Predictably, local businessmen as well as the state have lobbied the MOEF to dilute
or repeal the notification. To thwart the challenge, in 1994, the environmental groups filed a writ petition under Article
32 of the constitution before the Supreme Court complaining that despite the 1991 notification, the state government
and the local authorities have been permitting unchecked industrial growth, which was irreversibly harming Dahanu.
The principal grievance was that the state government had failed to prepare a regional plan within a year under the
terms of the notification.
In March 1996, the MoEF approved the regional plan for Dahanu submitted belatedly by the state government.
According to the environmentalist, this plan violated the Dahanu notification and at their request on 24
September1996, the Supreme Court directed the NEERI, Nagpur to study the plan and report on whether it confirmed
to the Dahanu Notification and Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) notification of 1991. NEERI, in October reported that
the plan breached the notification and it was also ecologically and environmentally unviable. With specific reference to
BSES plant, the report observed that the thermal power station was located on wetlands in violation of the CRZ. The
report recommended that the BSES should use natural gas as fuel instead of coal and remove all obstructions to free
flow of seawater into the creeks. It also instructed the company to keep a check on the hot water discharges as well
as air quality and emissions. NEERI also suggested BSES to conduct a study on the effect of gaseous emissions on
horticulture.
By an order dated 31 October 1996 the Supreme Court directed the State government to implement the regional plan
subject to the conditions imposed by MoEF. The state was also asked to implement all the recommendations of the
NEERI as reproduced in Supreme Court order. In its report to the Supreme Court, NEERI found that between October
1991 and October 1996, the ecology of the Dahanu Creek, where the BSES hot water discharges occurred had

dramatically changed and there was a steep decline in the biomass. The number of fish and prawn varieties had
decreased within five years of the commissioning of the thermal power plant. There was a drop in the salinity and this
was the major reason for the change in the aquatic fauna.
NEERI also observed that there was a decrease in the wetlands and the natural drains, which functioned as breeding
grounds for aquatic fauna, which aided nutrient recycling, and erosion control was disappearing. On December 19th
1996, the MoEF constituted the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority chaired by Justice
C.S.Dharmadikari, a retired judge of Bombay High Court. The authority was charged with protection of the ecologically
fragile areas of Dahanu whilst having regard to the 'precautionary principle' and the 'polluter pays principle' as
enunciated by the Supreme Court. The next challenge to DETWA came from the state government issuing a letter of
intent on February 17th 1997 to the Indian subsidiary of P&O Ports, Australia for establishing a giant port at Vadhavan,
Dahanu. The State was anxious to build a major port facility in North Maharashtra for the purpose of handling coal,
hazardous chemicals and other international cargo. The special geographical feature of Vadhavan, the natural rock
strata attracted the P&O Ports and this was also to save the company substantial costs when building the port
facilities. This campaign enjoyed mass political support from the fishermen, agriculturists, and tribals because they
feared that the port would harm their community and disrupt and deplete the natural resources, on which they
depended completely. In April 1998, the Dahanu authority restrained the government and the P&O Ports from
proceeding further in the matter until the authority finally decided the question relating to the feasibility of the
Vadhavan Port. In September 1998, the Authority ruled that the proposed port would breach the CRZ Regulations of
1991 and the regional plan for Dahanu. The P&O Ports or the state government had not challenged the order of the
authority and project appeared to have been shelved.

Environmentalists claim that a powerful industrial lobby is pressing the termination of

the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority, which has been doing its job of
protecting this tribal-dominated, eco-sensitive area of Maharashtra, only too well

Even as the environment ministry notifies more eco-sensitive areas, it is trying to

scrap the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority (DTEPA), constituted by the
Supreme Court in 1996 to regulate the implementation of the law in that area.

Dahanu taluka in Maharashtra was only the second region in the country to be
declared eco-fragile by a government notification of June 21, 1991. In 1994, Bittu
Sehgal, environmentalist and editor of Sanctuary Magazine, filed a writ petition in the
Supreme Court, demanding the implementation of the notification in Dahanu taluka.
The Supreme Court subsequently constituted the DTEPA by its order of October 31,
1996. (Notification under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, restricts the
development of industries, mining operations and other development in the region.)

The DTEPA is a good example of 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 was working quite efficiently and was even worthy of emulation.

In January 2002, the ministry of environment, 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.
For a year now the case has dragged on with ten adjournments. From its initial
standpoint of scrapping the DTEPA, the ministry has decided it needs a single
authority to monitor all eco-fragile areas. 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.

The ministry's move to scrap the DTEPA lacks any credible reason. It said that the
continuance of the Authority was not necessary as it has already considered and dealt
with various matters and the only major activity was the finalisation of the
development plan for Dahanu. Suddenly the MOEF feels that Dahanu is too small an
area to have a separate Authority of its own, and it was better to have a committee at
the central level.
Perhaps the only fault of the Authority was that it took action. It would appear that the
government does not appreciate efficiency at the cost of ruffling powerful feathers.
The DTEPA may just have been too effective for a government-appointed committee,
the difference being that it has experts and not figureheads on its board.
Things turned rocky for the DTEPA the minute it took tough decisions like the refusal
of permission to a 29-berth port at Vadhwan in Dahanu taluka.
The notification of Dahanu as an eco-fragile area has been repeatedly attacked by
local industrialists and Mumbai MP Ram Naik, who is the petroleum minister. Press
reports said that in September 2001, the Union cabinet wanted to ask the Supreme
Court to discontinue the DTEPA. This information was released by the public relations
office of Petroleum Minister Ram Naik.
In 1988, BSES Ltd planned to locate a coal-fired thermal power plant in Dahanu for its
consumers in Bombay, despite various recommendations to the contrary. The possible
effects of the plant, mainly the sulphur dioxide emissions, alarmed local farmers, not
the least of them Nergis Irani who was in a small way trying to improve environmental
consciousness in the area. Already, the neighbouring Vapi and Ankleshwar areas had
become centres for highly polluting industries and unplanned and haphazard
development. Alarmed by the possibility of Dahanu going the same way, she and
Kitayun Rustom founded the Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Group which
has been renamed the Dahanu Taluka Environmental Welfare Association (DTEWA) to
fight the plant and prevent it being set up in the area. Irani filed a writ petition
challenging the location of the plant in the Bombay High Court in 1989. Both the High
Court and the Supreme Court threw out her contention.
BSES is the largest power distribution company in India, distributing approximately
4,000 MW, and holding the exclusive license for distribution of power in substantial
areas of Mumbai, Delhi and the state of Orissa. BSES and its subsidiaries/associates
provide electricity to nearly 5 million consumers in areas covering approximately 1.24
lakh square km, and with an estimated population of 8.5 million. The existing power
generation capacity of BSES and its subsidiaries/associates is 885 MW, in the states of
Maharashtra, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh. For the year ended March 31, 2002, BSES
registered a total income of Rs 2,783 crore (US$ 577 million), cash profit of
approximately Rs 495 crore ($102.7 million) and profit after tax of Rs 281 crore (US$
58 million). In January 2003, BSES became part of the Reliance group.
Environmentalists accuse industry and vested interests of subverting various laws that
were formulated to preserve the ecological fragility of the tribal-dominated Dahanu
block in Thane district of Maharashtra. Industry, on the other hand, feels cheated by
the notification and has even challenged it in the Mumbai High Court.