National Green Tribunal
Renny Jacob George vs Kerala Pollution Control Board on 7 August, 2020
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan
Item No.01:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 142 of 2020 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
Renny Jacob George,
...Applicant(s)
Versus
Kerala State Pollution Control
Board and others.
Date of hearing: 07.08.2020.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Sri. K.K. Ashkar
For Respondent(s):. Smt. Rema Smrithi for R1 and R2
Sri. E.K. Kumaresan for R3,R4,R6 &R 7.
ORDER
1. The grievance in this application is non compliance of the provisions of mining lease in respect of implementation of closure plan after period of lease was over by the 8th respondent 1 and consequential recovery of the compensation due to be caused to the environment and restoration of mined area.
2. It is alleged in the application that 8th respondent was earlier granted a mining lease for an extent of more than 5 hectares and he had done the mining work without getting environment clearance, which is against the provisions of EIA notification 2006, and also the dictum laid on the decision reported in (M/s. Depak Kumar's Case) by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thereafter, the activity of the 8th respondent was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by filing Writ Petition and Hon'ble High Court had set aside the mining lease and restrained the 8th respondent from carrying out his mining operation without getting necessary environment clearance.
3. Thereafter, he was doing crushing work there by causing new over burden by keeping huge amount of the quarrying materials and that was also challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and since he had removed the over burden of earth stocked there, the Writ Petitions were closed. On account of the mining operation, there are two huge pits created, in the mining area and though he abandoned the mining area during 2016 and 2017, no steps have been taken by him to close the pits 2 and reclaim the area as required under the mining lease and as per the mining closure plan produced by him.
4. On account of the illegal activity by the 8th respondent, damage has been caused to the environment and that prompted the applicant to file this application seeking the following reliefs:-
1) 'Direct the 8th respondent to reclaim the unfathomable mining pits formed out of illegal mining carried over by the 8th respondent in property covered under Annx-A1 andA2 mining lease dated 22.02.2008 and 14.11.2005 respectively, within a time frame;
2) Direct the respondents 1 to 7 to ensure that 8th respondent is not engaged in illegal mining of earth and subsurface soil from the property of the 8th respondent without obtaining prior environment clearance.
3) Direct the respondents 1 to 7 to ensure 8th respondent is not discharging wash out effluents from his metal crusher cum M- sand unit to the nearby creek and land;
4) Direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to initiate penal action under Section 19 of the Environment Protection Act against the 8th Respondent for conducting mining of granite stone in area of 5.91962 Hectares comprised in Survey No. 328/6, 329/9, 329/10, 327/1, 325/1, 325/2. 305/10 and 305/11 of Anicadu Village in Mallappally Taluk of Pathanamthitta District in Kerala as per Annex-A2 quarrying lease without obtaining prior environment clearance and also for conducting illegal mining of 3 ordinary earth from the property comprised in Sy.Nos. 229/2-1 and 299/4-1 of Anicadu Village without EC/permits from the concerned authorities, against which act 8th respondent was issued Annx-A12 notice;
5) Direct the 3rd respondent State of Kerala to initiate penal action against the concerned officials who have issued Annx-A2 quarrying lease and Annx-A3 lease transfer order without obtaining environment clearance in accordance with EIA notifications, 2006;
6) Direct the 3rd respondent State of Kerala to initiate penal action against the concerned Environmental Engineers who have sanctioned the mining operations of the 8th respondent under Annx-A2 quarrying lease by issuing Annx-A4 , A16 and A-17 consents to operate respectively;
7) to recover environmental compensation from the 8th respondent for the illegal mining of granite stone from land comprising sy.no, 328/6, 329/9, 329/10, 327/1, 325/1, 325/2, 305/10 and 305/11 of Anicadu Village in Mallappally Taluk of Pathanamthitta District in Kerala without obtaining environment clearance under EIA notification 2006 during the period 22.02.2008 to 16.03.2016, after assessing the quantity of the granite stone extracted from the area and calculating the quantum of compensation at the rate of 100% value of the mineral mined;'
5. When the matter came up for hearing for admission today 4 through Video Conference. Sri. K.K. Ashkar appeared for the applicant. Smt. Rema Smrithi represented respondents 1 and 2, Sri. E.K. Kumaresan represented respondents 3,4,6 and 7.
6. Ongoing through the allegations in the application, we are satisfied that there arises a substantial question of environment which requires the interference of this Tribunal for resolving the same. So, we admit the matter.
7. Since official respondents except 5th respondent and the private party 8th respondent entered appearance through standing counsel, direct notice to them is dispensed with.
8. The applicant is directed to take steps to issue notice to respondent 5 and 8 by Registered Post with acknowledgement due and by e-mail and as well as by Dusthi and produce proof of such service by filing affidavit along with the documents of service before this Tribunal as per rules.
9. The applicant is directed to take steps to serve copy of the application and documents produced on the standing counsel appearing for the official respondents 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 within a week.
10. The applicant is also directed to produce necessary requisite 5 before this Tribunal along with postal cover and necessary postal stamps for the purpose of enabling the Tribunal to send notice to them through Tribunal and that should be done within a period of one week.
11. In order to ascertain the present status and also damage caused to the environment, we feel it appropriate to constitute a joint committee comprising of 1) District Collector, Pathanamthitta, District, 2) Senior Officer/Scientist from State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) Kerala, 3) The Director, Directorate of Mining and Geology, and 4) Senior Officer from Kerala State Pollution Control Board, to inspect the area in question and submit a status as well as action taken report in respect of violation of mining lease and mining closure plan committed by the 8th respondent and if there is any violation found, to assessthe environmental damage to be recovered from him and if anyexcess mining has been done after the Hon'ble High Court had declared that the operation of the 8th respondent was illegal, then that also will have to be taken note of by the committee for the purpose of fixing the environmental compensation to be recovered from him apart from the royalty if any to be recovered from him for excess 6 mining.
12. The Director, Mining and Geology Department will be the nodal agency for co-ordination and for providing all necessary logistics for this purpose.
13. The applicant is directed to submit a set of papers to the members of the committee within a week.
14. The committee is directed to submit the report to this Tribunal within a period of two months i.e., on or before 19.10.2020 by e-filing.
15. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the members of the committee immediately by e-mail, so as to enable them to comply with the direction of this Tribunal.
16. For appearance of parties and for filing their responses and consideration of report, post on 19.10.2020. ` `....................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) ................................E.M. (Shri. Saibal Dasgupta) O.A. No.142/2020 07th August 2020. Sr. 7 ..
8