Deepak Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand Through Chief ... on 30 January, 2023

[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

National Green Tribunal

Deepak Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand Through Chief ... on 30 January, 2023

1. This order will deal with Appeal No. 39/2022 and Original Application No. 702/2022. Common issue in both matters relates to violation of environmental norms in setting up and operation of M/s Balaji 1 Stone Crusher, the project proponent (PP) at Khasra No. 1125 Ka and Ga, village Baluwala, Pargana Pachhwadoon, Tehsil Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, Uttrakhand in eco sensitive Doon Valley area.

2. While the Appeal is against order of the SEIAA, Uttarakhand dated 12.08.2021 granting EC for establishment of the stone crusher plant without considering impact on environment, particularly its location on the bed of Sheetla river, the OA seeks quashing of Notification dated 06.01.2020 issued by MoEF&CC, order dated 15.01.2021 passed by the Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board by which screening plants have been recategorized from 'red' to 'orange' category and siting criteria as per notifications of the Uttarakhand Government under the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act 1957 - Uttarakhand Stone Crusher, Screening Plant, Mobile Stone Crusher, Pulveriser Plant, Hot Mix Plant, Readymix Plant Anugya Niti, 2020 (2020 policy), replaced by Uttarakhand Stone Crusher, Screening Plant, Mobile Stone Crusher, Pulveriser Plant, Hot Mix Plant, Readymix Plant Anugya Niti, 2021 (2021 policy) with consequential directions against operation of stone crushers by virtue of said provisions.

3. Broadly case of the appellant/applicant (hereinafter petitioner) is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 30.8.1988 in Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P & Ors., (1989 Supp 1 SCC 504 dealt with the eco sensitiveness of the Doon Valley area and devastating effect of mining on its fragile ecology and prohibited mining therein, considering the stand of expert committees and the MoEF. Following the said judgment, the MoEF issued Notification dated 01.02.1989 declaring the area as eco sensitive zone under the EP Act and prohibiting and regulating activities therein. This had the effect of not permitting stone crushing activity. Inspite of this, without undertaking any scientific or expert assessment of the environmental impact on the Doon 2 valley area, the said notification has been amended on 6.1.2020 which has the effect of permitting stone crushing activity against the spirit of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and against the concept of sustainable development. Challenge is also to CPCB order dated 07.03.2016 under Section 18(1)(b) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 changing stone crushing activity from red, which is prohibited in Doon valley area, to orange category.

4. EC has been challenged inter alia on the ground that it was granted even before license to operate the stone crusher and without conducting any environment impact assessment as required in terms of EIA notification dated 14.9.2006 read with notifications dated 1.2.1989 and 6.1.2020. There is no permission for extraction of ground water while the EC notes that water requirement will be met from bore-well. In Form-I, the application for EC, the project activity is stated to be 'building and construction project' under Entry 8(a) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 while the EC mentions the project to be for stone crusher. EC is for 1.433 hectares while the stone crusher is on the area of 3.043 hectares. Director, Geology and Mining is father of Anuj Patrick, the project proponent (PP) and thus the EC/permission is vitiated by bias and conflict of interest.

Preliminary orders dated 27.9.2022 and 28.9.2022

5. Vide order dated 27.09.2022, considering the case of the appellant in the appeal, the Tribunal constituted a joint Committee of CPCB, State PCB and District Magistrate, Dehradun to ascertain the factual position with reference to the averments in the appeal. Vide order dated 28.09.2022, OA was directed to be listed with Appeal No. 39/2022. 3 Report of the joint Committee dated 17.1.2023

6. In pursuance of above, report of the joint Committee dated 17.01.2023 has been filed by the State PCB to the effect that the stone crusher was not complying with the air pollution control norms for which action was being taken. In the annexed inspection report dated 07.12.2022, it is inter alia stated that the unit has not provided green belt as per State Policy, 2021. However, the stone crusher is not in the flood plain of the river. At the same time, the report refers to Revenue Department report that Khasra No. 1731 and 1732 is entered in record as submerged in river. Recommendations in the report are as follows:-

"Recommendations:

It is evident from above observations, stone crusher is not observed completely complying with the stipulated conditions of permission granted by Industrial Development Section, Govt. of Uttarakhand as well as conditions stipulated in Uttarakhand stone crusher, screening plant, mobile stone crusher, mobile screening plant, ready-mix plant State policy 2021.The stone crusher may impose Environmental Compensation by SPCB and directed to comply with following at the earliest:

a) The unit should properly provide covered processing area for control of fugitive emission

b) The units should provide ducting and scrubbing system in cover shed to arrest dust as per State Policy,202l.

c) The unit should provide pucca drain for wastewater conveyance to settling tank.

d) The unit should provide proper overflow system in settling tank

e) The unit should provide proper water sprinklers with sufficient pressure as per state policy 2021.

f) The unit should install interlock system for air pollution control device and process

g) The unit should expedite to construct brick wall of sufficient height. The unit should provide adequate green belt as per State policy 2021.Till the adequate growth of plants, the unit may provide other alterative arrangement for fugitive emission control.

h) The unit should provide complete metaled road as per State policy 2021.

i) The unit should maintain proper log book of fresh water consumption."

Reply of the PP

7. The PP has filed reply opposing the appeal inter alia on the ground of limitation. It is stated that the area being in eco-sensitive zone as per Notification dated 01.02.1989, requisite EC has been granted on 12.08.2021. Appeal has been filed on 27.08.2022, beyond the statutory period of limitation which is 60 days and which can be extended by 30 days further. O.A No. 702/2022 is also barred by limitation under Section 14(3) of NGT Act which is six month from the date of cause of action. On merits, it is stated that EC has been rightly granted and the conditions are being followed. Stone crusher is rightly treated as 'orange' category as per CPCB classification dated 07.03.2016. Notification dated 01.02.1989 has been amended on 13.12.2007 and 06.01.2020 permitting orange category activities which include stone crushers. The site is at distance of 600 meters from the non perennial river which is permissible as per 2020 and 2021 policies of the State. There is no illegality in extraction of groundwater upto 10 cum/day for small industries in view of Department of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation Guidelines to Regulate and Control Ground Water Extraction, 2020. It is drawing less than the prescribed quantity of water. It is using green mesh/net on the boundary walls so that no particles from the unit can move outside, waste water treatment unit, and undertaking trees plantation and is thus compliant with the EC conditions and all laid down environmental norms. Rejoinder of the Petitioners

8. In rejoinder, the petitioners have stated that the appeal is within limitation in view of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "In Re:

Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Suo Moto Writ Petition(C) No. 3/2020)" extending limitation due to covid for 90 days from 01.03.2022.

Appeal was filed vide filing no. 0701110009262022 within 60 days from 5 1.3.2022 on 30.05.2022. It had defects. Removing defects, appeal was filed on 27.08.2022. Thus, delay is only in curing defect which may be condoned, to which there is no legal bar. The unit does not meet siting criteria of one km from the river as per 2020 policy which applies as EC is prior to 11.11.2021 when 2021 policy commenced, reducing the distance to 500 meters. Infact distance is 0 from the river as confirmed by the report of the revenue department referred to in the report of the joint committee.

Stone crusher has been set up at a site different from the one for which the EC is granted. PP is also undertaking illegal mining as huge pits have come up in the river visible in the Google Images dated 20.11.2022. There are pathways from the pits to the crusher which are also visible in the said image. EC does not take into account air quality of the area and impact of stone crusher which adds to air pollution, as acknowledged in the order of this Tribunal 26.10.2021 in O.A No. 607/2018, Vinod Kumar Jangra Vs. State of Haryana. Pollution carrying capacity of the area has not been assessed. The distance has been wrongly claimed to be 600 meters and wrongly taken as 350 mtr but even then the unit is within prohibited zone from Sheetla river. Sand washing plant has been set up within the crusher site which consumes more water than permitted limit, in violation of EC conditions. As per Google map image dated 20.11.2022, washed material is dumped on Sheetla river bed adjoining the site. Such plant requires more than 10 Cum of water per day. Mitigation measures have not been taken as per EC conditions which requires 50% of the project area to be converted into green belt. The said condition is as follows:-

"23. 50 percent of the total project site area shall be converted into green belt. The green belt shall not include kitchen garden, flower pots and grasses/herbs in the area. It shall comprise of tree stand of aesthetic/fruit/timber value. Quality planting material shall be used during plantation as per standards of State Forest Department. The species should include criterion of fruit bearing and fast growth."

9. As per order of this Tribunal dated 07.12.2022 in O.A No. 699/2022, Sanjay Kumar vs. UOI distinction in perineal and non-perineal rivers has been held to be illegal. Observations of the Tribunal are as follows:-

"In view of above, we hold that distinction of perennial and nonperennial for locating stone crushers or other such plants for maintaining distance is hit by the principle of 'Sustainable Development' under Section 20 read with Section 15 of the NGT Act, 2010 and is illegal. Accordingly, we direct the State of Uttarakhand to revisit its policy/regime to do away with such distinction for protection of all streams, water courses/rivers. This will also apply to all existing establishments."

Questions for consideration

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and given due consideration to the matter. Main questions for consideration are:

       i.     Whether the Appeal is within limitation

       ii.    Whether the unit of the PP at present location is permissible

in absence of siting criteria in terms of notification dated 6.1.2020 and not meeting siting criteria under mining law laid down by the State, being within prohibited distance from Sheetla river, as reported by the Revenue Department iii. Whether the stone crushers are wrongly categorised as orange by CPCB instead of red and can be allowed to be set up in Doon Valley eco sensitive zone, even without siting criteria by MoEF in terms of notification dated 6.1.2020 iv. Whether larger questions of validity of validity of MoEF notification dated 6.1.2020 and Stone Crusher Policy, 2021 issued by Uttarakhand Government and other issues raised in OA against stone crushers in Doon Valley eco sensitive zone are to be gone into by the Tribunal v. Order to be passed in facts and circumstances of the present case 7 Consideration and findings Re : (i) Limitation

11. As per order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022, In Re:

Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, 90 days limitation has been extended from 1.3.2022 i.e. till May 30, 2022. The record shows that the appeal was filed on 27.08.2022. But defective appeal was filed on 30.05.2022 within limitation, as per filing no.

0701110009262022. Thus, if date of appeal originally filed on 30.5.2022 is taken into account, delay is only in removing defects and not in filing.

Accepting prayer for condonation in removing defects and filing appeal without defects on 27.8.2022, we treat the appeal to be within limitation in the interest of justice. We do not agree that such course is beyond jurisdiction of this Tribunal under rule 24 of NGT procedure Rules 2011.

12. The OA raises issue not merely of EC but also non compliance of EC conditions and siting criteria. Under section 15(3) of NGT Act, limitation is 5 years from cause of action.

13. Thus, objection of limitation is rejected. We proceed to deal with the matter on merits.

Re: (ii) Permissibility of the unit at current location

14. As per notification dated 01.02.1989, under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act), issued in the wake of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, supra, only specified activities are permissible subject to aid down restrictions. Mining and stone crushing activities are not permitted as they fall in red category and are not in the annexure listing permissible activities. Vide Notification dated 13.12.2007, under Section 5 of the EP Act, it was directed that even permitted activities will have to 8 follow impact assessment procedure laid down in EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006, even if they do not fall in the EIA Notification as such. CPCB vide order dated 07.03.2016 under Section 18(1)(b) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 modified earlier categorisation and placed stone crushing activity in orange category. Thereafter, vide notification of MoEF dated 06.01.2020, earlier Notification dated 01.02.1989 was amended replacing Annexure to notification dated 1.2.1989 listing permissible activities in terms of CPCB order dated 07.03.2016 under Section 18(1)(b) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 for harmonization of classification of industries under 'red', 'orange', 'green' and 'white' categories. It may be noted that though CPCB categorisation is general, the same has been made applicable to eco sensitive zone for which, according to the petitioners, no particular study has been conducted. Thus, stone crushing is taken as orange category and in view of general categorisation by CPCB taken as permissible in eco sensitive zone also as per notification dated 6.1.2020. The said notification puts restrictions and makes the amendment subject to compliance of siting criteria approved by the 'competent authority' as shown by the operative part of the said notification as follows:

"In the said notification, for clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and ANNEXURE, the following shall be substituted, namely:-

"(i) Location/siting of industrial units - It has to be as per modified directions issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) vide letter No. B-29012/ESS(CPA)/2015-16, dated the 7h March, 2016 under section 18(1)(b) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 regarding harmonization of classification of industrial sectors under red/orange/green/white categories and as may be amended from time to time by the CPCB and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

(ii) Mining - Approval of the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change must be obtained before starting any mining activity.

(iii) Tourism - It should as per Tourism Development Plan (TDP), to be prepared by the State Department Tourism and duly approved by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

(iv) Grazing - As per the plan to be prepared by the State Government and duly approved by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

(v) Land Use - As per Master Plan of development and Land Use Plan of the entire area, to be prepared by the State Government and approved by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

Note:

(a) Red categories of industries shall not be permitted in Doon Valley;

(b) The total number of fuel burning industries that shall be permitted in the Doon Valley shall be limited by 8 tonnes per day of Sulphur Dioxide from all sources. (This corresponds to 400 tonnes per day Coal with 1 % Sulphur);

(c) Siting of Industrial areas shall be based on the prescribed criterion and with prior approval of Competent Authority;

(d) Existing orange categories industries, which are now in the red categories of industries shall be continued, however, no expansion shall be allowed."

15. For purposes of this order, we are not going into the question of validity of amendment dated 6.1.2020 and proceed on the basis that stone crushing is permissible activity subject to compliance of notification dated 6.1.2020. However, no criteria has been laid down for such activity by the 'competent authority' in terms of the said notification.

16. Under section 6(2)(e) of the EP Act and Rule 5(3)(a) of the EP Rules, such authority is Central Government. The said provision is reproduced below:

"6. Rules to Regulate environmental pollution.

(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules in respect of all or any of the matters referred to in section 3.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:--

(a) to (d) xx...................... xx.........................xx

(e) the prohibition and restrictions on the location of industries and the carrying on of processes and operations in different areas;"

xxx......................................xxx.................................xxx "5. Prohibitions and restrictions on the location of industries and the carrying on processes and operations in different areas-

(1) xxx......................................xxx.................................xxx (2) xxx......................................xxx.................................xxx (3) (a) Whenever it appears to the Central Government that it is expedient to impose prohibition or restrictions on the locations of an industry or the carrying on of processes and operations in an area, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette and in such other manner as the Central government may deem necessary from time to time, give notice of its intention to do so."

17. Under rule 3, standards of emission from stone crushing units are laid down as per Entry 37 of Schedule I to the EP Rules but no siting criteria has been laid down by it so far. In absence thereof, it is doubtful that stone crushing activity can be taken as permitted in terms of notification dated 6.1.2020. Siting criteria laid down by the State Government under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act cannot be taken as substitute for criteria to be prescribed with reference to EP Act and the Rules as State is not competent authority to do so. Even as per the said criteria laid down by the State under Mining law, on the date of grant of EC as per 2020 policy, distance from river has to be one km for perennial river. For non perennial, such distance is 500 meters. Said distinction has been struck down by this Tribunal and longer distance has thus to be 11 taken as prescribed distance. Further, as per 2021 policy dated 11.11.2021, such distance has been further reduced as follows:

"    Sl. Place                                               Minimum Distance of
     No.                                                     Stone Crusher and
                                                             Screening Plant

     1.   Government Forest                                       100 meter
     2.   (A) From the bank of Ganga River District                 1 Km.
          Haridwar
          (B) From the bank of perennial river in other          500 meter
          plains
          (C) From the bank of non-Perennial river                50 meter
     5.   Religious places (Temple, Mosque, Gurudwara &           300 meter
          Church etc.)
     6.   School, Educational Institute, Hospital, Nursing        300 meter
          Home etc.
     7.   Distance from Population                                300 meter           "

18. Vide order dated 07.12.2022 in OA No. 699/2022, Sanjay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors., this Tribunal considered the issue of validity of classification of streams into perennial and non-perennial for siting criteria for stone crushers. Referring to the said criteria not being consistent with Section 24 of the Water Act and 'River Ganga (Rejuvenation, Protection and Management) Authorities Order, 2016' dated 7.10.2016 issued by MoEF&CC under Section 3 of the EP Act and also earlier order of this Tribunal dated 29.10.2018 in OA No. 358/2016, Bhag Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., the Tribunal held that distinction of perennial and non- perennial for location of stone crushers was against the sustainable development principle. It was further held that permitting such establishments within 50 meters of the river will be inconsistent with the need for protection of flood plain zones as held by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.12.2020 in O.A. No. 22/2020(EZ), Dilip Kumar Samantaray vs. State of Odisha Board & Ors. No activity is permissible within 100 meters from the river which is taken as flood plain zone till it is demarcated. Nature of activity permissible beyond 100 meters depends on such activity and its impact on environment. As per report of revenue department, 12 quoted in the report of the joint Committee, part of the site is in doob Kshetra, the sub-merged area of the river and remaining is contiguous and is thus within flood plain zones. Thus, there is no factual basis in the stand of the PP that there is a distance of 600 meters from the river. Certificate produced by the PP to the contrary cannot change this clear factual position on the ground nor defeat the environment law or considerations which have to override any perceived individual's right. View of the joint Committee that location of the stone crusher is not within prohibited zone is clearly erroneous for same reason. So is record of Irrigation Department relied upon by PP. It is well known that environmental issues are governed by reverse burden. PP is to establish that its unit is not within prohibited zone and does not damage environment which it has failed to establish.

19. Thus, we conclude that the unit of the PP cannot be allowed to be located at present site. EC has been granted without any consideration of this aspect and cannot be sustained. Firstly, on facts unit is at 0 distance from river. Secondly, the Central Government being competent authority has to lay down siting norms and without such laid down criteria, hazardous activity of stone crusher cannot be allowed on river bed as per notification dated 6.1.2020. Thirdly, norms under Mining Act are not sustainable so as to permit stone crusher within 50 meter of river bed. Fourthly, applicable siting norm even as per State policy has to be taken in the present case to be one km as on date of EC when 2020 policy applied and for perennial river one km distance was prescribed which according to judgment of the Tribunal is applicable to non perennial rivers also. Precautionary principle has to apply in eco sensitive area for hazardous activity close to river where potential for damage to the environment is higher. Prescribed distance has to be beyond doubt and not taken as conclusive from irrigation or other record which is contradicted by Revenue 13 record. Thus, EC has to be quashed on this ground alone. It is not necessary to go into questions of non compliance of EC conditions which are also established for which action initiated may continue as per law. Appeal succeeds.

RE: (iii) & (iv) Larger question of permissibility of stone crushers in eco sensitive doon valley area

20. Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, supra, shows that considering eco sensitivity of Doon Valley area, mining was held to be unsustainable and even existing mines were directed to be closed. Even MoEF took the stand that mining is not sustainable in the area. It was in this background that notification dated 1.2.1989 was issued which did not permit stone crushing activity. We may only refer to observations in paras 22, 39 and 40 from the said judgment:

"22. We have already indicated that several expert Committees appointed by this Court have opined generally against continuing the mining activity in the Valley. The Second Working Group found in as late as 1987 that limited mining in the ongoing mines was not congenial to ecological and environmental discipline. This Court by its order on October 19, 19871, called upon the Union of India: (SCC p. 492, para 9) "..... to place before the Court on affidavit the minimum total requirement of this grade of limestone for manufacture of quality steel and defence armaments. The affidavit should also specify as to how much of high grade ore is being imported into the country and as to whether other indigenous sources are available to meet such requirement. This Court would also require an affidavit from responsible authorities of the Union of India as to whether keeping the principles of ecology, environmental protection and safeguards and anti-pollution measures, it is in the interest of the Society that the requirements should be met by import or by tapping other alternate indigenous sources or mining activity in this area should be permitted to a limited extent. The Court expects the Union of India to balance these two aspects and place on record its stand not as a party to the litigation but as a protector of the environment in discharge of its statutory and social obligation for the purpose of consideration of the Court .....

The two affidavits filed on behalf of the Union of India have been dealt with elsewhere in the judgment and it would be sufficient for the 1 (AIR 1987 SC 2426) 14 instant aspect to extract from the affidavit of Mr. Seshan, Secretary to the Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests, where he has stated :

"5.1 Union of India submits that from the point of view of protection of the environment in the unique Doon Valley, it would be desirable that lime stone mining operations in the Valley are stopped completely."

Mr. Nariman questioned the value of this statement in view of the indication in the affidavit that it was the department's submission to the Court. We do not think that the Ministry Secretary's affidavit can be brushed aside that way. Read in the background of the directions in the Order of October 19, 1987, and in the sequence of the first affidavit not having been accepted by the Court as compliance, we must assume that Mr. Seshan has disclosed the stand of the Union of India with full authority and with the intention of binding the Union of India by his statement.

xxx .....................................xxx.........................................xxx

39. In our order dated October 19, 1987, we had categorically indicated that mining in this area has to be stopped but instead of outright closing down total mining operations we were of the view that mining activity may have to be permitted to the extent it was necessary in the interest of defence of the country as also by way of the safe-guarding of the foreign exchange position. Pursuant to our direction in the said order2 the Union of India filed an affidavit on November 18, 1987, through Dr. S. Maudgal, Director in the Department of Environment, Forests & Wildlife in the Ministry of Environment and Forests. That affidavit inter alia stated:

xxx .....................................xxx.........................................xxx

40. Adverting to the question as to whether mining activity in this area should be permitted to a limited extent, keeping the principles of ecology in view, the affidavit stated:

"The Union Government has all along taken the stand that the Doon Valley is a fragile eco-system and is endowed by nature with perennial water streams, lush green forests and scenic beauty. All these factors have contributed to Mussoorie being called the queen of hill stations and Dehradun becoming an important place of tourist attraction as well as centre of education. The unscientific and uncontrolled limestone quarrying operations spread over the entire 40 km. belt on the Mussoorie slopes however, endangered the delicate ecological balance resulting in ugly scars, excessive debris flow, drying up of water streams and perennial streams and rivulets and deforestation.

Taking note of the disastrous ecological consequences, the technical group constituted by the State and Union Governments since 1979 have consistently recommended only 2 (AIR 1987 SC 2426) 15 controlled mining in this area. The Technical Expert Committee constituted by the Honourable Supreme Court under the Chairmanship of Shri D.N. Bhargav examined all the operating quarries and came to the conclusion that all of them, to a larger of smaller extent, have violated the statutory provisions relating to mines. Conditions in some of the mines were considered to be so bad that 20 of these were closed immediately in 1983. The Committee, under the Chairmanship of Shri D. Bandy- opadhyaya examined the Mining and Environmental Management Plans prepared by parties and came to the unanimous conclusions that none of these plans are satisfactory. Therefore, the Bandyopadhyaya Committee strongly recommended that none of the mines reviewed by it should be allowed to operate. It is relevant to reiterate here that closure of these mines has been recommended by the Bandyopadhyaya Committee not just on the ground that they are located within the Mussoorie city limits but after due consideration of the environmental implications, status of preparedness of mining and Environmental Management Plans and capability of the lessee to under-take mining operations on a scientific basis so that the damage to life and property, apart from environmental degradation, is avoided. None of the mines already closed is, therefore, fit to be considered for operation.

It is the view of Government that to prevent any further degradation of the ecology and environment in the area and to allow for rejuvenation, it is essential that limestone mining operations, if they are to continue, should be on a limited scale and completely regulated to ensure that they are done in an entirely scientific manner consistent with the imperatives of preservation and restoration of the ecology and environment in this area. In order to meet the essential requirements of steel industry, it would be necessary to maintain supply of low silica limestone from the Dehradun Mussoorie area. The State Government of U.P. also has brought to our notice that certain other vital industrial and agricultural operations are dependent on limestone supplies from this area. In view of these considerations, it is felt that limestone mining on a limited scale may have to continue under strict regulation."

This affidavit of Dr. Maudgal was not accepted by this Court as it did not fulfil the requirements of the directions given in this Court's order dated October 19, 1987. Then came another affidavit dated February 24, 1988, by Shri T.N. Seshan, Secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Forests. This affidavit indicated that 90 per cent of the low silica high grade limestone was supplied by the Rajasthan mines to the Steel Authority of India Ltd. and 10 per cent of supplies came from the Dehradun quarries. Tata Iron and Steel Company at Jamshedpur, however, received a sizeable supply from the Dehradun quarries. According to this affidavit, in 1986, the total production of high grade limestone in the Dehradun-Mussoorie area was 6.02 lakh tonnes. The affidavit indicated availability of such limestone in several other parts of the country. In regard to import of limestone and foreign exchange components, this affidavit indicated that as low silica high grade limestone is available from indigenous 16 sources, import thereof could be dispensed with. In paragraph 5 of this affidavit, the question as to whether keeping in view the principles of ecology, mining activity in the Dehradun-Mussoorie area could be permitted to a limited extent, perhaps as pleaded in the earlier affidavit, has been dealt with. This affidavit stated:

"5.2 Now that high grade low silica limestone is also available in the extensive deposits covering large areas in the State of Rajasthan which can meet the requirements of the steel industry which also includes Defence requirements, there is justification for disconstinuance of the existing mining operation in the Dehradun-Mussoorie area and, in fact, complete closure of the said mines in this area."

It is fact that while in the first affidavit, controlled and limited mining was suggested, in the second affidavit filed after a gap of about three months total stoppage of mining activity in this area has been stressed. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh and UPSMDC offered serious criticism against this changed stance and we were called upon to reject the second affidavit also. We do not find any justification in this plea for rejection of the affidavit. This Court in its order of October 19, 1987, had in clear terms indicated what aspects were exactly required to be answered by the affidavit of the Union of India. Since the first affidavit did not answer those points it was rejected and a further affidavit was directed to be filed. There can be no two opinions that both the affidavits pleaded for banning of mining; but the first affidavit suggested controlled and limited mining in view of the demands while the second affidavit, on consideration of the fact that alternate sources were available for supply of the limestone of the desired quality, asked for total stoppage of mining operations. As we have already indicated in another part of this judgment, awareness of the environmental problem has been gradually increasing and though in the first affidavit, the Union of India had expressed its view that limited and controlled mining could be permitted, on a reconsideration of the matter and taking into account the relevant aspects for reaching its conclusion, the Union of India has come to adopt the view that there should be no mining in this area. We can well gather why the UPSMDC would feel aggrieved by the second affidavit but so far as the State of Uttar Pradesh is concerned, we do not see any justification in its critical stand against the second affidavit on the plea that the stand accepted in the first affidavit has been given a go by. Maintenance of the environment and ecological balance is the obligation of the State and the Central Governments and unless there was any real objection to the opinion of the Union of India as to continuing or closing down of mining activity, it should have been taken in the proper light and the little modified stand adopted in the second affidavit should have been welcomed."

21. It is surprising that mining is being allowed in doon valley area inspite of clear stand of the MoEF&CC before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that no such mining can be allowed which stand was accepted and 17 directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Stone crushing is as hazardous as Mining and setting up of stone crushers in eco sensitive zone has potential to enable illegal mining (for raw material) unless stringent safeguards, particularly about location of unit away from the source of mineral are followed. In this background, question whether notification dated 6.1.2020 meets the mandate of sustainable development will need to be seriously considered for giving effect to the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment as well as protection of fragile environment of eco sensitive doon valley area. The OA be listed separately on 01.03.2023. The applicant may serve a set of papers on MoEF&CC, CPCB, State PCB, State of Uttarakhand and SEIAA, Uttarakhand to enable them to furnish their response, if any, before the next date by email and file an affidavit of service within one week. The response may specifically explain how in violation of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mining permissions are being granted in doon valley area.

Re: (v) Order in facts of this case

22. In view of above discussion and finding under head Re (ii), Appeal No. 36/2022 has to be allowed. Impugned EC is quashed. M/s Balaji Stone Crusher is liable to be closed in absence of valid EC. The State PCB and District Magistrate, Dehradun may accordingly take further steps in the matter. OA be separately listed to consider larger questions.

23. We have also noted that SEIAA, Uttarakhand has granted EC for mining on 31.5.2014 at Village Jasso Wala, Tehsil Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun. Though there is no specific challenge to the same, we direct SEIAA, Uttarakhand to revisit the same in the light of above order. The State PCB may also revisit consents given by it under the Water Act and the Air Act on the same ground.

24. I.A. No. 24/2023 is for waiver of cost imposed vide order dated 20.01.2023 is allowed having regard to facts and circumstances explained. IA No. 1/2023 filed by the PP for recall of order dated 27.9.2022 is dismissed being without merit.

A copy of this order be forwarded to MoEF&CC, CPCB, Uttarakhand State PCB, State of Uttarakhand, SEIAA, Uttarakhand and District Magistrate, Dehradun by e-mail for compliance.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM January 30, 2023 Appeal No. 39/2022 (I.A. No. 01/2023 & I.A. No. 24/2023) With Original Application No. 702/2022 (I.A. No. 229/2022) AB+DV 19

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

National Green Tribunal