National Green Tribunal
1. Priyansh Choubey S/O Mr. Bhubnesh ... vs 1. M/S Shambhavi Associates Through ... on 21 July, 2023
Item No.04
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(By Virtual Mode)
Appeal No.03/2022(CZ)
Priyansh Choubey Appellant(s)
Versus
M/s Sambhavi Associates & Others Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 21.07.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohit Vyas, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sachin K. Verma, Advocate for MP SEIAA
and State of M.P.
Mr. Shreyank Tiwari, Advocate with Vikram
Aditya Singh, Advocate for R-1
Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Advocate for MPPCB
Mr. Kanishk Devesh, Advocate for R-2
ORDER
1. Heard Learned Counsel for appellant and respondents.
2. This appeal under Section 16 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'NGT Act, 2010') has been preferred against Environmental Clearance (hereinafter referred to as 'EC') dated 12.01.2022 issued by State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'SEIAA, MP'), in favour of respondent 1, permitting mining of stones (by open cast semi-mechanized process) on the land at khasra no. 445 area 3.004 hectares at village-Jharkuan, District- Panna (Madhya Pradesh). Permitted quantity for mining per annum is 13038 m3.
3. It is stated that earlier there were two different quarry leases granted at village-Jharkuan, District-Panna to respondents 1 and 2. Respondent 1 1 was allowed mining on 3.004 hectares area while respondent 2 was allowed mining on 2.0 hectares land. Both the mining sites were within distance of 500 meters, therefore, constituted a cluster but without considering the provisions meant for cluster mining, EC was granted to respondent 1 by SEIAA MP on 22.05.2019. When a complaint was made, the matter was examined and finding that there was a cluster at the time when EC was granted to respondent 1 on 22.05.2019, SEIAA, MP issued order dated 06.01.2021, cancelling EC dated 22.05.2019. Thereafter, respondent 2 got his mining lease/quarry lease over khasra no. 448/मिन-1 area 2.00 hectares in village-Jharkuan, District-Panna cancelled vide order dated 09.08.2021 issued by District Collector, Panna. Respondent 1 then filed an Application No. 8751/2021 for grant of EC for excavation of stone at khasra no. 445 area 3.004 hectares at village-Jharkuan, District-Panna. Since there was only one quarry lease existing and operating in favour of respondent 1, the matter was examined by respondent 5 (SEIAA, MP) in accordance with provisions of Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'EIA 2006') and, thereafter, EC was granted on 12.01.2022 to respondent 1.
4. Appellant said that cancellation of quarry of respondent 2 is nothing but a fraudulent activity and thus cancellation is also illegal, therefore, EC dated 12.01.2022, without following cluster procedure, granted to responded 1 on 12.01.2022, is also illegal.
5. However, we find no force in the submission of applicant. There was only one quarry lease sanctioned in favour of respondent 1 and no quarry lease of respondent 2 was in existence when EC dated 12.01.2022 was granted. Whether respondent 2 got his mining lease cancelled validly or not, is not a question which can be examined by this Tribunal for the 2 reason that the issue relating to mining lease are governed by the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'MMDR Act, 1957') and Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996. The Statute regarding grant of mining lease i.e., MMDR Act, 1957 is not one of the Scheduled enactments under NGT Act, 2010 and, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 14 of NGT Act 2010. Under Section 16, while considering Appeal against grant of EC, only legality of EC has to be examined and not the mining lease.
6. Learned Counsel for appellant could not dispute, when questioned, that at the time of grant of EC dated 12.01.2022, there was no cluster mining leases in the area in question and in fact, there was only one quarry lease granted in favour of respondent 1 and hence procedure cluster mining was not applicable.
7. No other point has been argued to show any illegality or infirmity in EC dated 12.01.2022.
8. We find no merit in this Appeal. Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed.
Sudhir Agarwal, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM July 21, 2023 Appeal No.03/2022(CZ) R 3