Green Tribunal stays nod to Mormugao Port’s channel deepening project in Goa

The National Green Tribunal’s interim order did not permanently cancel the clearances. Instead, it temporarily prevented the environmental clearance and Coastal Regulation Zone clearance from taking effect while the tribunal examines concerns raised by the appellants.

The Western Zone Bench in Pune issued the order on September 26. It referred to discrepancies in how the clearances were granted. The tribunal also questioned whether an IIT Bombay air-pollution study had been given to the Expert Appraisal Committee and noted that some clearance conditions appeared copied and pasted.

The project therefore cannot proceed under those clearances until the next hearing, scheduled for November 2. The port authority must provide evidence within two weeks about the study’s submission to the committee. The order keeps the project under scrutiny rather than deciding the appeal finally.

Environmental clearance, or EC, is regulatory approval for a project after its likely environmental effects are assessed. Coastal Regulation Zone, or CRZ, clearance addresses activities proposed in protected or regulated coastal areas. These approvals are separate but connected safeguards.

For Mormugao Port, deepening the approach channel involves dredging the seabed and changing port operations. The larger vessels could also increase coal and ore handling. That creates potential concerns about marine disturbance, air pollution, water pollution, and effects on nearby communities and fisheries.

Both clearances are relevant because the project combines construction or seabed work with expanded coastal industrial activity. In this case, the NGT examined both approvals together and ordered that neither be operationalised temporarily. It also questioned whether the appraisal properly considered pollution, affected residents, fishermen, and the documents placed before the EAC.

Mormugao Port’s coal and ore-handling capacity could rise from 12 million tonnes per annum to 42.1 million tonnes per annum. The proposed level is therefore more than three times the existing capacity described in the appeal.

The increase is linked to deepening the approach channel for cape-size vessels. A deeper channel would allow larger vessels to dock at the port. The appellants said this expanded access would support much greater handling of coal, coke, and other metallurgical ores.

The scale matters because increased handling could intensify dust and other pollution concerns near Vasco Da Gama. The appellants argued that more than 1 lakh people within two kilometres could be directly affected by increased coal and coke dust. The tribunal is now examining whether the clearances properly assessed these consequences before allowing the proposed expansion.

Allowing larger vessels could expand the port’s coal and ore-handling capacity sharply. The appellants said handling coal, coke, and other metallurgical ores could release dust and increase air and water pollution. These risks matter because the project is close to a substantial population and fishing communities.

The appeal said more than 1 lakh people living within two kilometres could face increased air pollution from coal and coke dust. It also said the livelihoods of fishermen in 10 fishing villages within the 10-kilometre study area had been overlooked. Dredging could remove seabed gravel and damage fish-spawning grounds.

These are claimed impacts, not final findings in the interim order. The NGT’s pause allows it to examine whether the appraisal and clearances properly considered them. It also requested evidence about the IIT Bombay source-apportionment study, which could help clarify pollution sources in Vasco Da Gama.

A source-apportionment study identifies the sources contributing to air pollution in a particular area. The NGT asked about the IIT Bombay study because the Expert Appraisal Committee should consider relevant evidence when evaluating a project’s environmental effects and proposed controls.

The tribunal directed the port authority to produce, within two weeks, evidence that the study of air quality in Vasco Da Gama had been placed before the EAC. The appellants’ counsel said the port authority had not brought the study before the committee. That created a question about whether the appraisal used all important information.

The issue matters because the project could greatly increase coal and ore handling, from 12 MTPA to 42.1 MTPA. If the study was not considered, the tribunal may examine whether the pollution assessment and clearance conditions were adequately informed. The order did not yet decide that question.

The project’s earlier environmental clearance did not survive. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change had granted it in February 2016 for deepening the channel and inner basin. Later that year, the NGT quashed and set it aside.

The reason was procedural but important: a public hearing, described as mandatory, had not been conducted. The tribunal remanded the matter to the Ministry’s Expert Appraisal Committee for further action. A fresh application followed, and terms of reference for the environmental impact assessment study were approved in 2016.

The project eventually received fresh environmental and CRZ clearance on July 21, 2025. That approval is now being challenged by Rupesh Shinkre, Sanjay Redkar, and Jayesh Shetgaonkar. The NGT has temporarily stopped the clearances from being operationalised while it examines alleged gaps in the appraisal and approval process.

Dredging is the removal of material from the seabed or bottom of a waterway. Ports use it to deepen channels and basins so vessels can reach or manoeuvre within the port. Here, dredging forms part of the plan to deepen Mormugao Port’s approach channel.

The appellants said removing gravel from the seabed could lead to the loss of fish-spawning grounds. Spawning grounds are places where fish reproduce, so damage there could affect fish populations and catches. The appeal linked this possible harm to the livelihoods of fishermen in 10 fishing villages within the 10-kilometre study area.

The article presents these as concerns raised in the appeal, not as findings finally established by the tribunal. The NGT’s interim order keeps the clearances from being operationalised while it considers whether marine and community impacts were properly assessed before approval.