Set up to act as a redressal mechanism to challenge environmental clearance for development projects granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEEA) has been running sans a chairman—the judicial head of the authority—for the last five years. The term of its vice-chairperson ended a month back. The body now has no members, and a joint secretary in the Environment Ministry has been given additional charge of the body.This comes at a crucial juncture when clearance to projects like the Sethu Samundram have been challenged. The Madras High Court had said that objections to the project should be filed before the appellate authority.The NEAA, set up on March 26, 1997, is supposed to have a chairperson (nominated by the Chief Justice of India), vice-chairperson (a secretary- level officer) and three technical members. All the posts were now vacant. There have been no technical members for two years. ‘‘Those selected for the chairperson’s post declined to accept it. It’s an important body and we can’t nominate the technical members till the chairperson comes in,’’ environment secretary Prodipto Ghosh said. A former Chief Justice of Rajasthan too declined to accept the post, and the previous vice-chairman (Vishwanath Anand) was not in a position to continue further, he added. The search for incumbents was still on.Records reveal problems other than vacant posts plaguing the NEAA. From 1998 to 2003, only 15 appeals were filed. This year, only five cases— all hydro-power projects, three in Uttaranchal, and one each in West Bengal and Arunachal Pradesh—were filed. Four were dismissed for being filed later than the 30-day time-limit set for receiving petitions. Last year, no case was filed at all. In 2003, two cases—one against an asbestos factory and the other against a hydro-electric project—were filed. One was rejected for default while the other again exceeded the time limit.Environment lawyer Ritwick Dutta, who has filed cases before the NEAA, says that the 30-day limit was a deterrent, however, petitioners had 60 more days to convince the court that there was a good reason for the delay. ‘‘It’s often impossible to adhere to the 30-day limit. The time starts from the date of clearance. In one case involving a hydro-power project, the clearance came on March 11 but the newspaper advertisement announcing the clearance came on May 1. The limit was over on April 11,’’ Dutta said. According to the Ministry, people were not making use of the NEAA. ‘‘They are either satisfied with the verdict or don’t care,’’ said the Environment secretary.
