V Ramasubbu vs Member Secretary on 1 May, 2023

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

National Green Tribunal

V Ramasubbu vs Member Secretary on 1 May, 2023

Bench: K. Satyagopal

Item No.07:-
               BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
                    SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

                          (Through Video Conference)


                         Appeal No. 45 of 2022(SZ)


IN THE MATTER OF:


V. Ramasubbu,
Tirunelveli.
                                                             ...Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

Member Secretary,
SEIAA, Vijayawada and Ors.
                                                            ...Respondent(s)



Date of hearing: 01.05.2023.


CORAM:

HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER


For Appellant(s):        None.


For Respondent(s):       Mrs. Madhuri Donti Reddy for R1, R2 & R4 to R7.
                         Mr. S. Janarthanan for R3.
                         Mr. A. Abdul Hameed, Senior Advocate a/w.
                         Mr. P. Gowthaman for R5.




                                  Page 1 of 4
                            ORDER

1. This is an appeal challenging the grant of Environmental Clearance for mineral beneficiation under Clause 2 (b) in favour of the Project Proponent/5th respondent.

2. According to the 5th respondent, the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation (APDMC) which is a public sector unit has floated a tender on 01.02.2022 for the processing of 2.80 Lakh Tonnes of beach sand mineral tails which were confiscated from the Transworld Garnet India Private Limited, Srikakulam by the Andhra Pradesh Government. The 5th respondent emerged as a successful bidder and was awarded the contract. As per the contract, the 5th respondent has to process the concentrate and separate individual beach sand minerals viz., Ilmenite, Sillimanite, Garnet, Rutile and handover these minerals to the APMDC for further disposal.

3. As per the schedule of activities requiring prior Environmental Clearance, Item 2 (b) provides for 'mineral beneficiation' greater than or equal to 0.5 Million Ton/Annum comes under 'Category

- A' and less than 0.5 Million Ton/Annum comes under 'Category - B'.

4. According to the project proponent, since it is less than 0.5 Million Ton/Annum, it comes under B1 - Category. Further, as per the conditions for issuing the prior Environmental Clearance, the mining proposal with mineral beneficiation shall be appraised together for grant of Environmental Clearance.

Page 2 of 4

5. In this case, admittedly, the Environmental Clearance is granted for mineral beneficiation for the confiscated beach sand mineral tails from the Transworld Garnet India Private Limited, Srikakulam. If the EIA conditions provides for composite mining proposal with mineral beneficiation, then the Environmental Clearance granted is correct.

6. However, it is stated that as on date there is no Consent to Establish (CTE) or Consent to Operate (CTO) is obtained from the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board.

7. The 3rd respondent / Department of Atomic Energy has stated that as per the amended Section 10 A (2) (c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, any mining lease of beach sand mining by private person is prohibited and the MoEF&CC is requested not to grant Environmental Clearance for these proposals.

8. Admittedly, in this case, there is no mining activity. It should have been considered along with the mineral beneficiation as a composite activity. It is also stated that the public hearing was exempted by the SEIAA for the reasons best known to them.

9. The learned counsel for the Department of Atomic Energy produced a Circular dated 11.04.2019 which prohibits statutory clearance for mineral concessions of beach sand minerals held by private persons.

Page 3 of 4

10. So, in view of the above prohibition by various authorities, it is not possible for the project proponent to proceed with the project, as it will amount to serious violation.

11. In this regard, we direct the 6th Respondent/APMDC to file its detailed report referring to the fact as to how they issued this beneficiation contract when private persons are basically prohibited and it should only be a composite project of both mining and mineral beneficiation together. In the meanwhile, the Department of Atomic Energy/3rd Respondent is directed to file a counter along with the supporting documents.

12. Let the SEIAA - Andhra Pradesh also give the answer as to how the Environmental Clearance was granted for the project, when it is not a composite project of both mining and mineral beneficiation.

13. Post the matter on 13.07.2023.

Sd/-

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/-

Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM Appeal No.45/2022(SZ) 01st May 2023. Mn.

Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

National Green Tribunal