The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Centre to consider French cement company Lafarge?s application for granting environmental and forest clearances and also look into the conditions proposed by Attorney General GE Vahanvati for lifting ban on mining operations of the company.

Attorney General G E Vahanvati told a special forest bench headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan that the expert committee, constituted by the ministry of environment and forests, while giving clearance to the French company had confirmed that most of the environmental conditions have been complied by Lafarge. FE was the first to report on the diversion of tribal land by the company on March 17. The Bench gave two weeks time to the Centre to give various clearances and posted the matter for hearing on April 26.

The Attorney General insisted that limestone mining in Meghalaya?s dense forest by the French multinational for its cement plant in Bangladesh should be allowed to resume after asking the company to pay for diversion of forest land for non-forest uses.

Contrary to claims of Shella Action Committee, a voluntary agency claiming to represent the interests of the tribal people of the region, Vahanvati said the local people are quite satisfied with the French major as it had undertaken several development works besides providing jobs to the locals.

Even the expert committee had found that the impact of mining on the surrounding villages in Nongtrai and Shella (especially Nongtrai) was found very positive and beneficial to the residents due to huge amount of cash going to Village Durbar and reaching to individual households improving the financial health of the population of the villages, the Attorney General told the court. Opposing Vahanvati, Amicus curie UU Lalit argued that everything about the project was done in a shoddy manner including the forest clearance that was obtained in 2001 with a false description of the land as barren when it actually was dense forest.

Lalit said: ?We should not accept the report as Lafarge had given fraudulent representation to the government. It has indulged in tribal violation and has been humiliating the environment. Anyone who violates cannot be allowed? Even the Centre?s conduct is apprehensive and done with impignity?There has to be sustainable development keeping forest and environment in mind.? Lafarge senior counsel F S Nariman while giving the chronology of the case said the ministry had already given environment clearance to Lafarge.

Welcoming the AG?s recommendation to set up a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), Lafarge in a press statement said it had plans to intensify activities. ?Lafarge is committed to total legal and environmental compliance. We are therefore confident of an early and speedy resolution of the matter in the best interest of all stakeholders,? it stated.

MoEF on Friday had made out a strong case to lift the ban saying Lafarge should be asked to deposit Rs 55 crore as five times of the NPV with an interest of 6% per annum due from April 1, 2007. The payment would have to be made in one installment within four weeks of the order of the apex court.

Besides, the company should be asked to deposit Rs 90 per tonne of the limestone mined with the SPV every month which will be kept in an interest-bearing account with a public sector bank. According to the Attorney General, the environment ministry would give the revised environmental clearance that will permit the company to divert 116 hectares of forest land for its project, after taking into consideration all the conditions imposed.

He had proposed that a SPV headed by the chief secretary of Megahalaya should be set up to administer the fund which will benefit the local community including the tribals who will have to be removed from the land. The projects would include development of health, education, economy, irrigation and agriculture within the project area of 50 kms, he said.