Case story

  • India

Parties

CAO Case - India / Ramky-03 / Gummidipoondi

Gummidipoondi village and Corporate Accountability Desk Complaint Regarding Ramky Infrastructure Ltd., India 2007

This case story originates from BASESwiki.org, a platform based on wiki style contributions from a virtual network or individuals, companies and organizations with relevant expertise. Though some of the information may be outdated or inaccurate due to the wiki-nature of the BASESwiki platform, they still present a valuable resource. ACCESS is reviewing and updating all BASESwiki case stories. 

Story

In August and September 2005, CAO received two complaints (Ramky-01 and Ramky-02) which were subsequently deemed not eligible for assessment. However, in October 2007 a group of residents from the Gummidipoondi village and Corporate Accountability Desk, a non-governmental organization, lodged a third complaint (Ramky-03) with CAO. The complainants asserted that the project violated municipal laws and IFC regulations as a result of the following:

  1. Statutory permission had not been granted to the company by the local community to proceed with the project; and

  2. The submission of an incomplete Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (EIA) caused the environmental permitting process to be flawed.

CAO Action

The complaint related to an integrated hazardous waste treatment facility operated by the Ramky Group in the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) Industrial Area near Gummidipoondi village. The purpose of this project was to design, build and operate hazardous municipal waste facilities at various locations around India. In March 2008, CAO concluded that the complaint was not amenable to resolution through a negotiated process. As such, CAO compliance conducted an appraisal for audit of the project to determine whether the case merited an audit of IFC.

Outcome

Case Status: Closed

The Appraisal Report for Audit, completed in June 2008, highlighted that a modification to IFC’s proposed commitment with the client resulted in the investment shifting to engineering, procurement and construction signifying no further affiliation with hazardous or municipal waste management. This raised the issue of non-deliverance of promised development outcomes, however IFC was no longer linked to the site near Gummidipoondi. Accordingly, CAO concluded that the complaint did not merit an audit of IFC and closed the case in June 2008.

References

CAO case story page: http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/case_detail.aspx?id=100

Contributor(s): This article was modified by Pic1 (3), Nicolaclayre (2), and Kyle (1).


Attachments