National Green Tribunal
Surjeet Singh vs The Member Secretary State Environment ... on 10 February, 2026
Item No.09
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Appeal No.12/2024(CZ)
(I.A. No.50/2025)
Surjeet Singh Appellant(s)
Vs.
Member Secretary, MP SEIAA & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing: 10.02.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Appellant (s): Mr. Udit Singh Parihar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pranjal Pandey, Adv. for R-1
Mr. Prashant M. Harne, Adv. for R-2
Dr. Sapna Aggarwal, Adv. for R-3
Mr. Shantanoo Saxena, Adv. with
Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava, Adv. for R-4
ORDER
1. This Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Sections 16 & 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, before this Tribunal challenging the permission dated 22.05.2024 granted by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) in favour of Smt. Kunwar Rani Ayodhya Singh, Respondent No.4, and to stop the illegal mining activities in land Survey No.361 and 378 situated in Satanu Village, District-Gwalior.
2. The SEIAA, Madhya Pradesh, considering the grant of Environmental Clearance (EC) to the project activity under the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006, regarding application for EC in respect of the project 1 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
submitted to the SEIAA vide proposal dated 21.09.2023, approved and granted the permission of EC in the following manner:-
"संदर्भः प्रस्ताव क्र. SIA/MP/MIN/452712/2023 प्रकरण क्र. 9987/2023 पररयोजना प्रस्तावक श्रीमती कं वर रानी अयोध्या ससंह सनवासी फलैट न. 508, आसकभड टावर, महाराना प्रताप नगर ग्वासलयर सजला ग्वासलयर (म.प्र) द्वारा आयरन और खदान, (ओपनकास्ट सेमी मैकेनाइज्ड सवसि), उत्पादन क्षमता 1,13,299 टन प्रसतवर्भ रकबा 10.718 हे ०, खसरा क्रमांक 337/1/समन1/3. 361/1, 378 ग्राम सााँ तउ तहसील सगदभ , सजला ग्वासलयर (म.प्र.) की पूवभ पयाभ वरणीय स्वीकृसत के सलये आवेदन। र्ारत सरकार के ई.आई.ए. असिसूचना एस.ओ. 1533 (E) सदनां क 14 ससतंबर 2006 एवं उपरां त के संशोिनों तथा राज्य पयाभ वरण प्रर्ाव आं कलन प्रासिकरण (SEIAA) के समय-समय पर जारी ज्ञापनों के पररपालन में पूवभ पयाभ वरणीय स्वीकृसत हे त र्ारत सरकार के पररवेश पोटभ ल पर सनिाभ ररत प्रपत्र एवं प्रसक्रया अनरूप पररयोजना प्रस्तावक द्वारा आनेंलाईन आवेदन के साथ प्रस्तत पररयोजना प्रस्ताव (क्र. SIA/MP/MIN/452712/2023 एवं MP SEIAA में पंजीयन सदनांक 12/12/2023) एवं संबंसित असनवायभ दस्तावेजों के आिार पर राज्य सवशेर्ज्ञ मूल्ांकन ससमसत (SEAC) और राज्य पयाभ वरण प्रर्ाव आं कलन प्रासिकरण (SEIAA) के द्वारा परीक्षण एवं मूल्ां कन सकया गया।
II. पररयोजना प्रस्तावक से प्राप्त अनमोसदत खनन योजना के अनसार खसनपट्टा अक्षां श 26°05'35.11" से 26°05′59.314" और दे शां तर 78°07'41.953" से 78°07′35.404" र्ौगोसलक सनदे शां क पर स्थित है ।
(अ) पररयोजना प्रस्तावक एवं असिकृत सलाहकार द्वारा प्रस्तत की गई असर्प्रमासणत जानकारी तथा दस्तावेजों के आिार पर पररयोजना प्रस्तावक एवं असिकृत सलाहकार द्वारा प्रस्तत की गई असनप्रमासणत जानकारी तथा दस्तावेजों के आिार पर राज्य स्तरीय पयाभ वरण प्रर्ाव आं कलन प्रासिकरण (SEIAA) की 849वीं बैठक सदनां क 14.05.2024 में सवस्तृत सवचार सवमशभ उपरां त एवं राज्य स्तरीय सवशेर्ज्ञ मूल्ां कन ससमसत (SEAC) की 738वी बैठक सदनां क 22.04.2024 में प्रकरण पर की गई अनशसा के आिार पर सवसशष्ट, सािारण / मानक शते असिरोसपत करते हुये पूवभ पयाभ वरणीय स्वीकृसत प्रदान करने का सवभसम्मसत से सनणभय सलया गया है ।
I..... राज्य स्तरीय पयाावरण समाघात निर्ाारण प्रानर्करण (SEIAA) द्वारा प्रकरण में पयाावरणीय मुद्दों पर नवस्तृत चचाा व परामर्ा उपराोंत SEAC की 738वी बैठक नििाोंक 22.04.2024 की नवनर्ष्ट र्तों एवों स्टे ण्डर्ा र्तों (सोंलग्नक-ए) सनित की गई अिुर्ोंसा कद मान्य करते हुए प्रानर्करण की निम्ननलखित अनतररक्त नवनर्ष्ट र्तों के साथ प्रानर्करण की 831 वी ों बैठक नििाोंक 20.02.2024 में अनर्रदनपत मािक र्तों (पररनर्ष्ट-4) तथा SEAC की 738वी बैठक नििाोंक 22.04.2024 में 2 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
अनर्रदनपत समस्त र्तों सनित प्रकरण में पयाावरणीय स्वीकृनत प्रिाि नकये जािे का निणाय नलया गया :-
I. म.प्र. खसनज सािन सवर्ाग मंत्रालय का आदे श क एफ 2-474/1997/12/1 सदनांक 31.01.2020 के माध्यम से 50 वर्भ (सदनां क 13.01.1982 से 12.01.2032) तक पूरक अनबंि सनष्पादन सकया गया है , अतः यह पयाभ वरणीय स्वीकृसत जारी होने की सदनांक 12.01.2032 तक वैि मान्य रहे गी।
II. पररयोजना प्रस्तावक द्वारा अनमोसदत खनन योजना अनसार खनन क्षेत्र में ब्लास्थस्टंग एवं सवस्फोटक का प्रयोग नहीं सकया जायेगा एवं खनन क्षेत्र में ब्लास्थस्टंग ना सकये जाने का प्रदशभन सडस्प्ले बोडभ पर सकया जावे।
III. पररयोजना प्रस्तावक द्वारा संशोसित सरफेस र्ेप अनसार खनन हे त आवंसटत कल 10.718 हे. में से SEAC द्वारा अनशंससत खनन् योग्य क्षेत्र 4.10 हे. क्षेत्र में ही उत्खनन कायभ सकया जाये।
IV. पररयोजना प्रस्तावक द्वारा खनन गसतसवसि शरू करने से पहले पक्की सड़क से न्यूनतम 100 मीटर तक" नो माइसनंग जोन' के रूप में हररत क्षेत्र सवकससत सकया जायेगा एवं उक्त क्षेत्र का सीमां कन राजस्व असिकाररयों द्वारा एवं खसनज असिकारी की उपस्थिसत में सकया जायेगा। (माननीय एनजीटी (सप्रंससपल बेंच) के ओए नंबर 304/2019 में जारी सनदे शानसार पत्थर खदान की अनमसत में संवेदनशील क्षेत्रों से न्यूनतम दू री के सलये सनिाभ ररत मापदण्ड के दृसष्टगत नॉन ब्लास्थस्टंग संसक्रया के सलए न्यूनतम दू री 100 मीटर और ब्लास्थस्टंग संसक्रया के सलए न्यूनतम 200 मीटर की दू री तय है )। पररयोजना प्रस्तावक द्वारा उपरोक्तानसार सनिाभ ररत दू री (नो माईसनंग जोन) का सीमां कन करवाये जाने के उपरांत खनन योग्य उपलब्ध क्षेत्र की पनभरीसक्षत खनन योजना तैयार कर सक्षम प्रासिकारी से असनवायभतः अनमोदन प्राप्त कर खनन संसक्रया आरं र् की जाये। V. पररयोजना प्रस्तावक द्वारा खनन गसतसवसि शरू करने से पहले वन क्षेत्र एवं कृसर् र्ूसम से न्यूनतम 25 मीटर तक" नो माइसनंग जोन" के रूप में हररत क्षेत्र सवकससत सकया जायेगा एवं उक्त क्षेत्र का सीमां कन राजस्व असिकाररयों द्वारा एवं खसनज असिकारी की उपस्थिसत में सकया जायेगा। पररयोजना प्रस्तावक द्वारा उपरोक्तानसार सनिाभ ररत दू री (नो माईसनंग जोन) का सीमां कन करवाये जाने के उपरां त खनन योग्य उपलब्ध क्षेत्र की पनभरीसक्षत खनन योजना तैयार कर सक्षम प्रासिकारी से असनवायभतः अनमोदन प्राप्त कर खनन संसक्रया आरं र् की जाये।
VI. पररयोजना प्रस्तावक द्वारा खनन क्षेत्र का सम्पूणभ डर े नेज लान इस प्रकार से सकया जाये सक सवद्यमान खदानों एवं आस-पास के क्षेत्र की डर े नेज व्यविा पूवाभनसार रहे एवं सजससे पूवभ जल प्रवाह व्यविा प्रर्ासवत न हो।
VII. पररयोजना प्रस्तावक द्वारा खदान क्षेत्र में मौजूद 68 वृक्षों में से काटे जाने वाले 47 पेड़ों के एवज में क्षसतपूसत वृक्षारोपण के तहत रोसपत 1770 पौिों का एवं शेर् बचे वृक्षों सरं क्षण सकया जायेगा एवं उक्त पौिो के संरक्षण हे त टर ी-गाडभ लगाये जायें। 3 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
l. पररयोजना प्रस्तावक जनसनवाई के दौरान की गई प्रसतबद्धता अनसार सर्ी आश्वासनों का अनपालन ससनसित करे गा एवं प्रत्येक छमाही अनपालन प्रसतवेदन जमा करे गा।
............x...............x................x................x..........................." and this Permission/EC granted with the specific and general conditions.
3. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant are that this area has been classified as forest land as per the joint list dated 07.05.2002 submitted by the Collector/DFO Gwalior, in compliance with the Supreme Court's order dated 12.12.1996 passed in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs Union of India & Ors.: (AIR 1997 SC 1228). The Appellant is a resident of Gwalior and is worried about rampant deforestation and harm being caused to the forest areas of the district of Gwalior and around. Considering the mass deforestation and mining activities in the adjoining areas of forests, the Forest Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, issued an order bearing No. F/16/81/10-3 dated 07.10.2002 directing that no mining lease shall be granted within 250 meters of forest land as provided in condition 2(b). Condition 2(e) of the said order specify that this order does not apply if mining permission has already been granted. The Respondents have deliberately ignored the subsequent order bearing No. Order F/5/16/81/10-3 dated 22.01.2009, which emphasized that conditions laid down in the order dated 07.02.2002 shall be taken into consideration at the time of renewal of the mining permissions previously granted. Recognizing the forest's significance and its conservation within 250 meters from its boundaries, a committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner was constituted vide order no. F-19-71/2012/1/4 dated 31.07.2012. The committee determined that Survey Nos. 337 of Santau village, District Gwalior, is within 250 4 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
meters of the forest boundaries, while survey Nos. 361 and 378 containing a forest of Chhota Bada Jhad Ka Jangal. Despite these findings, the Mining Officer, Gwalior, vide letter dated 27.04.2023 (Q/3/M.R./ML-01/2000/741), issued an 'Ekal Praman Patra' to the Member Secretary, SEIAA, knowingly omitting that survey nos. 337 is within 250 meters of the forest boundaries and survey nos. 361, and 378 are containing Chhota Bada Jhad Ka Jangal. Furthermore, the Mining Officer incorrectly stating in the Ekal Patra that permission of the Committee headed by Divisional Commissioner is not required for mining operations on the said land. Thus, misinterpreting and suppressing the facts that the Government had specifically mentioned in the 2009 circular that the conditions as imposed in the 2002 circular shall be taken into consideration at the time of renewal of the Mining Permission. The land encompassing survey nos. 337, 361, and 378, totalling 20.235 hectares, was initially allotted to respondent no. 4 Mrs. Kunwar Rani Ayodhya Singh, who obtained permission under false pretences by concealing the fact that the area is within the definition of forest as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Godhavarman case.
4. In reply to the above contentions, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 MP SEIAA are that the present appeal is filed under the provisions of Section 16 read with Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, wherein the limitation period to file an appeal before the National Green Tribunal is 30 days, whereas in the present matter the appeal is preferred by the Appellant after 58 days of issuance of Environmental Clearance. The Mineral Resource Department, Mantalaya, vide its Order dated 31.01.2020, has approved the renewal of the mining lease for a period 5 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
of 50 years. This renewal is effective from the original date of sanction, which is 13.01.1982. The order extends the validity of the lease, thereby allowing the leaseholder to continue mining operations in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the original lease agreement for the extended duration. In the online application, the Project Proponent, submitted an Ekal Praman Patra, dated 27.04.2023 issued by the office of Collector, the Mining Department, District Gwalior. The certificate specifies that based on the information received by Forest Department, Gwalior, vide letter dated 26.04.2023, there is no Tiger Reserve or National Park situated within a 10-kilometer radius of the mining lease. However, the mining lease is located 4.5 kilometers from the boundary of the Notified Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) surrounding the Ghatigaon Hukana / Son Gariyal Wildlife Sanctuary. Furthermore, the mining site, situated at Khasra No.378 and 361/1 (part), shares a boundary with the Santau Reserve Forest Block. It is pertinent to note here that, consent from the Divisional Level Forest Committee (DLFC) is not required for mining activities on previously sanctioned mining leases. the application of the Project Proponent for EC was transferred to State Expert Appraisal Committee and the same was taken up in its 738th Meeting dated 22.04.2024, wherein all the documents (including but not limited to Ekal Praman Patra, lease sanctioned and Renewal Order, Mine plan, EIA/EMP, NOCs) submitted by the Project Proponent was thoroughly reviewed and the same were observed satisfactory and grant of EC was recommended. It is pertinent to note here that SEAC further recommended 25m setback from the south-eastern side of the forest area as No Mining Zone, thereby reducing the mining area to 4.10 hectares. The Project Proponent was granted EC based on the recommendations of SEAC by the answering 6 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
respondent in its 849th Meeting dated 14.05.2024 and thereafter EC dated 22.05.2024 with specific and standard terms and conditions was issued in favour of the Project Proponent. Given the sensitivity of the area, including the proximity of forest land adjacent to the mining lease, certain specific conditions (Condition III & V) were imposed by the answering respondent. That for the convenience of this Tribunal Specific Condition III & V enumerated in EC dated 22.05.2024 are reproduced herein below:-
"III. पररयोजना प्रस्तावक द्वारा संशोसित सरफेस मेप अनसार खनन हे त आवंसटत कल 10.718 है. में से SEAC द्वारा अनशंससत खनन् योग्य क्षेत्र 4.10 हे. क्षेत्र में ही उत्खनन कायभ सकया जाये।
V. पररयोजना प्रस्तावक द्वारा खनन गसतसवसि शरू करने से पहले वन क्षेत्र एवं कृसर् र्ूसम से न्यूनतम 25 मीटर तक" नो माइसनंग जोन' के रूप में हररत क्षेत्र सवकससत सकया जायेगा एवं उक्त क्षेत्र का सीमां कन राजस्व असिकाररयों द्वारा एवं खसनज असिकारी की उपस्थिसत में सकया जायेगा। पररयोजना प्रस्तावक द्वारा उपरोक्तानसार सनिाभ ररत दू री (नो माईसनंग जोन) का सीमां कन करवाये जाने के उपरां त खनन योग्य उपलब्ध क्षेत्र की पनभरीसक्षत खनन योजना तैयार कर सक्षम प्रासिकारी से असनवायभतः अनमोदन प्राप्त कर खनन संसक्रया आरं र् की जाये।"
5. Government of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 31.01.2020 permitted the mining in favour of the Project Proponent after due consideration of the relevant records and in the meantime, certain objections have been raised from the SEIAA while considering the project and vide communication dated 02.04.2023, the Collector communicated the Member Secretary replying the questions raised by the SEIAA. The relevant replies are quoted below:-
7
Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
6. After that, the matter was considered by the Expert Committee on 22.04.2024 as Item No.24. The minutes of the meeting are quoted below:-
"24. Case No. 9987/2023 Smt. AYODHYA KUWARANI, Lessee, Flat No. 508 Orchid Tower Maharana Pratap Nagar, Gwalior (M.P) Pin no 474001. Prior Environment Clearance for SANTAU IRON ORE MINE, Area 10.718 ha., (113299 Ton/Year) khasra No. 337/1/min-1/3, 361/1, 378, at Village -Santau, Tehsil-Gird Distt.-Gwalior, (M.Ρ.). पररयोजना प्रस्तावक अयोध्या कवरानी. एवं उनके पयाभवरणीय सलाहकार श्री अमर ससंह यादव, मेससभ एसीररज इं वायरोटे क इं सडया प्रा. सल., नोयडा, (उ.प्र.) आज सदनांक 12/07/2023 को उपस्थित हुए और उनके द्वारा ससमसत के समक्ष प्रस्ततीकरण सकया गया।8
Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
पररयोजना प्रस्तावक ने प्रस्ततीकरण के दौरान बताया सक यह खदान वर्भ 2002 के पूवभ से स्वीकृत होने के कारण संर्ागीय आयक्त की ससमसत से अनमसत की आवश्यकता नही है । दसक्षण पूवभ सदशा में वन क्षेत्र होने की वजह से 25 मी. का से टबेक गैर खनन क्षेत्र के रूप में छोड़ा गया है। अतः खनन कायभ हे त 4.10 हे . क्षेत्र उपलब्ध होता है जो प्रस्तासवत उत्पादन क्षमता के सलये उपयक्त है ।"
7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that necessary permission from the Forest Department has been taken by the authorities concerned and this area was not within the Forest area. The contention of the Project Proponent/Respondent No.4 are that the present appeal is not maintainable as barred by limitation filed beyond the stipulated period and there is no application for condonation of delay. Thus, it cannot be entertained.
8. It is further argued that he, who seeks equity, must do equity and the Appellant has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands with 9 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
correct facts. The present appeal stands on the edifice of Environmental Clearance dated 22.05.2024 issued by SEIAA. The statutory period for filing appeal as encapsulated in the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, is 30 days of the communication order. However, the instant Appeal has been filed on 24.07.2024, i.e., after lapse of 62 days of the issuance of EC by Respondent No.1/ SEIAA. Hence, the instant appeal is hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 16 (g) of the NGT Act, 2010. It is stated that the Appellant has not presented any supporting documents to substantiate their claims nor has the Appellant disclosed about procurement of documents filed along with appeal. No averments with regard to documents, rendering these documents legally untenable, before any court of law. Furthermore, it is submitted that the documents filed in this appeal are nearly identical to those filed in the Revisional Authority case of Majboot Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh in case 16/(03)/2019/RC-II, which was decided in favour of Respondent. The Appellant's residence to the subject area exceeds the distance mentioned in the Appeal, thus the Appellant lacks locus standi to file this Appeal. It is asserted that the Appellant has not clarified his bonafides and is not an aggrieved person as understood under Sections 16 of the NGT Act' 2010. In this regard Answering Respondent relied upon the order passed by National Green Tribunal (EZ) in Appeal No. 05/2021 titled Anand Kumar Jha v. UOI & Ors., wherein the Tribunal has regarded the testing of bonafides of the Applicant in approaching the Tribunal. The Tribunal relying upon the judgment dated 21.10.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Uday Education and Welfare Trust and Others [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1469], observed as follows:- 10
Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
"14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2407-2412 of 2021, The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Etc. Etc. vs. Uday Education and Welfare Trust & Anr. Etc. Etc. and connected cases, has held that when issues and objections to the credentials and bonafides of litigants approaching the National Green Tribunal are seriously raised, the same cannot be ignored. Before a litigant is permitted to knock the doors of justice and seek orders which have far reaching effects of affecting the employment of thousands of persons, stopping investment in the State, prejudicing the interests of the farmers; the credentials and bonafides of the Applicants must be tested. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, laid stress that when credentials and bonafides of such litigants are seriously raised and when entertaining the grievance of such litigants, which is likely to affect the rights of many, the National Green Tribunal should ensure the bonafides and credentials of such litigants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that the Tribunal must examine questions as to what were the aims and objectives of the Applicants and what are their sources of funding etc. Merely filing some Public Interest Litigations in the past would not suffice".
9. It is further argued that the State Government has passed a speaking and reasoned order dated 17.10.2017/01.11.2017 after taking into consideration all the documents/record. It is mentioned in Para 11 of the Order that "The mining lease in question was approved 20 years before the issue of the above circular dated 07.10.2002, and even the application for renewal of the mining lease in question was submitted before the issue of the above circular dated 07.10.2002. The definition of 'forest' has been determined by the circular number 16-10-seven/2- A/90 dated 13.01.1997 of the Revenue Department of Madhya Pradesh Government. In the above-mentioned circular of the Revenue Department dated 13.01.97, the definition of forest has been laid down as follows: - "A land shall be considered as forest land, if (a) it is recorded as forest land in the government records. (b) it is a plot of 10 hectares and it has 200 trees per hectare or more. The land in question is neither recorded as forest land in the government records nor does it 11 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
have 200 trees per hectare as per the Forest Department report dated 05.09.2016 present in the file. Thus, both the conditions for determining 'forest' are not present in the land in question. Furthermore, the State Government's decision dated 17.10.2017 /01.11.2017 was again challenged and the same issue was again raised by the Revisionist (Mazboot Singh) in the 16/03/2019/RC-II and the Revisional Authority again vide order no. 16/2023 dated 23.03.2023 decided the case in favour of the Answering Respondent. The documents placed with the instant appeal is nearly same with what has been filed in the above-mentioned revision by the Revisionist, Majboot Singh. In December 2017, two individuals, Mazboot Singh and Jagdish Singh, aggrieved by the State Government's order dated 17.10.2017, challenged this order through W.P. (C) No. 21525 of 2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior. Which was dismissed on dated 20.11.2018. Subsequently, another W.P. (C) No. 21525 of 2017 was filed, for restoration, wherein vide order dated 23.04.2019, the Hon'ble High Court, Gwalior Bench passed an order stating, "When faced with such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to avail the remedy of revision under Section 30 of the Act, 1957, read with Rule 54 of the MCR, 1960. Prayer allowed. Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with the said liberty.
10. It is further argued that on the basis of Terms of Reference (TOR) dated 10.08.2023, which was issued by the SEEIA to the Respondent No.4 and uploaded on the website, public hearing conducted on 05.10.2023 over the subject land. Environment Clearance e-Application dated 21.11.2023 was submitted by the Respondent No.4 to SEIAA, and Subsequently, after following due process Environment Clearance was 12 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
granted by SEIAA on 22.05.2024 in favor of Respondent No. 4. That, MPPCB, after due verification granted the Consent to Establish (CTE) on dated 16.07.2024. The Mining Plan has also been approved by the IBM vide letter dated 01.07.2022 and further supplementary agreement was executed on 22.12.2022. That, NOC granted by the Gram Panchayat Santau Janpad Panchayat, Ghatigaon (M.P.) on dated 24.01.2023. The Appellant has deceptively concealed the facts narrated above with regard to adjudication on every repeated allegation averred in the instant appeal qua.
11. The Respondent/Project Proponent has raised the issue that the answering Respondent cannot be questioned by the Appellant as he has no locus standi to file this appeal, since the Appellant is not a resident of the area in which the Environmental Clearance has been granted.
12. In response to the contention raised by the respondent, Project Proponent that the appellant has no locus standi, the Appellant had submitted that the legislative intent of the legislature in keeping the issue of locus standi before this Hon'ble Tribunal can also be seen from the 186th Law Commission Report on 'proposal to constitute Environmental Courts' whereby it was proposed to constitute Green Tribunals. On the issue of locus standi the report advocates for a wide locus standi and clearly says that:-
"Locus Standi: So far as locus standi before the proposed Court in original petitions is concerned, it must be wide as it is today before the High Court/Supreme Court in writ jurisdiction in environment matters. This is the position in Austrlia and New Zealand also, any person or organization who or which is interested in the subject public matter or in interest must be able to approach the Court."13
Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
5. That in Vimal Bhai u Ministry of Environment and Forests (2111) SCC Online NGT 16, giving a wide interpretation it was held by this Hon'ble Tribunal that "Once the mandate is of every citizen, any person can approach this Tribunal complaining environmental threat in the activities of the State or any organization or individual." The complete paragraph of the Judgment is reproduced as follows:-
"A reading of Section z(j)(i) to (viii) would reveal that any individual, Hindu undivided family, Company, Firm, an association of persons or a body of individuals whether incorporated or not, trustees ofa trusl a local authority and every artificial juridical person not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses, would indicate "person" who can maintain an application/appeal under the NGT Act. But, it is the argument of the learned counsel of the Respondent that even the above defined person shall be a person either aggrieved or injured directly or indirectly and not otherwise. Then the question arises whether in the environmental matters, a person who is really aggrieved/ injured shall alone be permitted to approach this Tribunal. A combined reading of the above sections, would indicate that any person whether he is a resident of that particular area or not whether he is aggrieved and/or injured or not, can approach this Tribunal, In such situations, it is of course necessary to scan and find out the credentials of the applicant/appellant as to their true intentions and motives. No doubt that in the present case though the appellants have participated in the EC proceedings and they have not challenged the same. However, that does not mean that they cannot challenge the FC proceedings on any available legal grounds (However, it is to be noted that in the guise of challenging the FC, the appellants cannot be permitted to raise the grounds which might be raised, had the EC was challenged). Appellants apprehend a great danger and disaster to the environment and ecology, if the project is not properly envisaged and does not satisfy the principles of sustainable development and precautionary principles as is mandated under Section 20 of the NGT Act. In the matters of environmental cases, any individual or persons and body of individuals can agitate as to the correctness of the study of environment and ecology made by the granting authority. Further, nothing substantial has been demonstrated to doubt the credential of the appellant except saying that they (appellants) are not 14 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
aggrieved and/or injured person (s) under the Ad and they are a busy body and their motives are ulterior.
The person injured per-se as occurred in Section 18 (2) of the NGT Act is only for the purpose of claiming relief, compensation or settlement of disputes, is altogether different from the person aggrieved as available in Section 16. Person aggrieved and person injured are two different words which connote different meaning. Under Section 16 any person aggrieved can approach this Tribunal by way of filing an appeal. Whereas, under Section 18 (2) the person injured per-se, whether it is an individual or a body of individual or a social organization or a Hindu joint family etc. Further under Section 14 and 16 any person can approach this Tribunal for appropriate relief including the relief under Section 18".
From the above it is clear that the State shall endeavour and safeguard the environment and wild life and it is the fundamental duty of the citizen to improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife and also to have compassion for living creatures. Once, the protection and improving the natural environment is the fundamental duty of a citizen, any person can approach this Tribunal and agitate his grievance as to protection and improvement of the natural environment. The statutory provisions are subservient to the constitutional mandates. The person as defined or person aggrieved as occurs in Section 2(j) 16 and 18 (2) of the NGT Act cannot be placed above "every citizen" as appears in Article 51(A) of the Constitution of India, Once the mandate is of every citizen, any person can approach this Tribunal complaining environmental threat in the activities of the State or any organization or individual.
Therefore, we are of the view that the appellants are interested persons in the environment and ecology of the area, though they are not directly affected, injured at this point of time, But, they can be definitely called aggrieved persons since they apprehend some danger, if the project is launched without taking proper precautions. The person aggrieved in environmental matters must be given a liberal construction and needs to be flexible. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that persons like the appellants are also entitled to approach this Tribunal and the appeal is maintainable," 6. That in Save Mon Region Federation us. Union of India and ΟΕ, (Μ.Α. ΝΟ. 704 OF 2072 in Appeal No. 15 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
39 OF 2012) it has been held that: "18. Law gives a right to 'any person who is aggrieved by order to prefer an appeal. The term 'any person has to be widely construed. It is to include all legal entities so as to enable them to prefer an appeal, even if such an entity does not have any direct or indirect interest in a given project. The expression aggrieved again, has to be construed liberally, The framers of law intended to give the right to any person aggrieved, to prefer an appeal without any limitation as regards his locus or interest,"
(Emphasis supplied)
7. The National Green Tribunal in Krishan Kant Singh vs. M/s Triveni Engg. Industries Ltd, [O.A NO.31 7/2014] held that: "Under the provisions of the NGT Act any aggrieved person can approach the Tribunal for redressal of his grievances in relation to environment within the ambit and scope of Sections 14, 16 and 18 of the NGT Ad. The legislative object appears to be to catalyse the access to environmental justice, which need not be circumscribed by strict rule of locus standi in legal prescriptions."
8. Therefore, while consideration of the above-stated judgments, it is very clear that in order to maintain the Appeal direct legal injury is not required and therefore, the Appellant has the requisite locus standi in this case.
9. Further, in the case of Samata & Ann v. MoeF & Ors., 2076 SCC Online NGT 479 this Tribunal had held that:
"Both under Section 11 of the NEAA Ad, 1997 and Section 18 of the NGT Act, 2010 any person aggrieved by the grant of EC as shown above can maintain an appeal. The 'aggrieved person' as contemplated in the Ad came up for interpretation before the Tribunal in a number of cases. An aggrieved person contemplated in the above provisions would refer to the substantial grievance as to denial of some personal, pecuniary or property right or imposing an obligation on a person. The grievance so ventilated should not be either fanciful or sentimental, but must be substantial. A person calling himself as an 'aggrieved must have suffered a legal grievance that he has been wrongfully deprived of something or refused wrongfully. The aggrieved person can either be aggrieved either directly or indirectly. In so far as the environmental matters are concerned it cannot be stated that the person really aggrieved 16 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
should alone be permitted to initiate an action. It is not necessary that the person, who initiates action, is a resident of that particular area wherein the proposed industrial site is located. It is true that the appellants have not participated in the proceedings of the public hearing. It is true that it is necessary to scan the credentials of the appellants as to their intention and motive. Even assuming that the appellants have not participated in the proceedings of the public hearing, to they would not lose their right challenge the approval or the EC. If the appellants come forward with a case apprehending damage and danger to environment and ecology if the project in question was not properly not satisfy the Principles of Sustainable Development and Precautionary Principles, they can maintain the appeal and be allowed to agitate as to the correctness of the study made in respect of ecology and environment."
10. The issue of locus standi was also raised before this Tribunal in the case of Samir Mehtan Union of India & Ors., 2016 SCC online NGT 479 before the PRINCIPAL BENCH of this Tribunal wherein after going through a plethora of cases discussing the issue this Hon'ble Tribunal held that:-
"From the above judgment it is clear that locus standi of an Applicant cannot be given a strict connotation under the environmental laws of our country. Environment, is not a subject which is person oriented but is society centric. The impact of environment is normally felt by a larger section of society. Whenever environment is diluted or eroded the results are not person specific. If we were to adopt the reasoning given by the Respondents then it would lead to undesirable results. The provisions of a statute must be examined in light of the scheme of the Act and the scheme of both enactments afore referred do not permit recourse to such narrower interpretation."
11. That in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar us, Union of India, (2019) 15 SCC 401, it has been held that:
"164. Before we part with the present case, we consider it appropriate to record a finding on the bona fides of the appellants before this court. It was briefly urged by the respondents that the appellants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court based on a personal agenda and consequently, the 17 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
present appeal is liable to be dismissed. This argument cannot be accepted. We accept the submission of Ms Shenoy, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, that the non- consideration of vital issues by EAC has led to the invocation of the statutory remedy available to them under Section 22 of the NGT Act, 2010. Vague aspersions on the intention of public- spirited individuals does not constitute an adequate response to those interested in the protection of the environment. If a court comes to the finding that the appeal before it was lacking bona fides, it may issue directions which it thinks appropriate in that case. In cases concerning environmental governance, it is a duty of courts to assess the case on its merits based on the materials present before it. Matters concerning environmental governance concern not just the living, but generations to come. The protection of the environment, as an essential facet of human development, ensures sustainable development for today and tomorrow".
13. The Respondent has argued that the applicant is not person aggrieved and in reply thereof the applicant relied on Vimal Bhai Vs MoEF and Ors., (Appeal No. 5 of 2011) on 14th December, 2011, dealt with the interpretation of section 16 and section 18 to explain the meaning of 'person aggrieved under the NGT Act and observed:-
"The person injured per-se as occurred in Section 18 (2) of the NGT Act is only for the purpose of claiming relief, compensation or settlement of disputes, is altogether different from the person aggrieved as available in Section 16. Person aggrieved and person injured are two different words which connote different meaning. Under Section 16, any person aggrieved can approach this Tribunal by way of filing an appeal, whereas, under Section 18 (2), the person injured per-se, whether it is an individual or a body of individual or a social organization or a Hindu joint family, etc. Further, under Section 14 and 16 any person can approach this Tribunal for appropriate relief including the relief under Section 18. The only exception to be made for treating an appeal/application as not maintainable could be a matter which falls beyond the seven (7) Acts as notified in Schedule I of the NGT Act 2010 and in a case of 18 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
mala-fide and vexatious litigation brought before this Tribunal and not otherwise."
14. In M.C. Mehta Vs University Grants Commission & Ors., on 17 July, 2014 (Original Application No.12 of 2014), this Tribunal has examined and explained intent of legislature and scope of Section 14,15 and 16 of the NGT Act, 2010. In the said decision, the Principal Bench spelt out that "jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Act is distinct from that of Ss. 14 and 15" and held:-
"12. This Tribunal is vested with three different jurisdictions. Firstly, it has the original jurisdiction in terms of Section 14 of the 10 NGT Act to deal with all civil cases raising a substantial question relating to environment. and where such questions arise out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I of the NGT Act. Secondly, it is vested with appellate jurisdiction against the various orders / directions/decisions as stated in Section 16 (a) to (j) of the NGT Act. Thirdly it has a special jurisdiction in terms of Section 15 to grant relief of compensation and restitution as per the scheme contemplated under that provision. Admittedly, the present application has been filed under Section 14 of the NGT Act. Thus, it must plead and raise the following:
It should be a civil case.
Where a substantial question relating to environment or enforcement of any legal right relating to environment is involved. Such question arises out of implementation of enactment specified in Schedule I of the NGT Act.
13. Once these three ingredients are satisfied, then Section 14 does not appear to place any restriction on the locus or character of the Applicant who wishes to move an application under Section 14 of the Act. Similarly, Section 15 also does not describe the description of an Applicant who can move the Tribunal for seeking reliefs like compensation, restitution of the property and the environment. In contradistinction thereto, Section 16 restricts the Applicant entitled to file an Appeal to be 'any person aggrieved. In other words, it is only a person aggrieved who can invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 16 and not any Applicant. Section 18 deals with the procedure which has to be followed by an applicant or appellant, who 19 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
prefers to file an application or appeal before the Tribunal. It deals with all the three jurisdictions specified under Section 14, 15 and 16 of the NGT Act. However, Section 18 (2) of the NGT Act provides the details in regard to locus and character of an Applicant who is entitled to move the Tribunal by filing an Application for grant of relief or compensation or settlement of dispute. Section 18(2) has been worded by the legislature with wide amplitude besides covering any person aggrieved and the legal representatives of the various categories. In terms of Section 16, it includes various other persons as described under clauses (a) to (d) and 0 of sub-Section 2 of Section
18. The locus and character of an applicant specified under these provisions has to receive liberal construction and would cover variety of applicants. As far as Section 14 (1) of the NGT Act is concerned, the only restriction that appears to be imposed is that it must satisfy the prerequisites stated in that Section."
15. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A petition is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the Appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In-fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the Appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide: State of 20 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta MANU/SC/0012/1951MANU/ SC/0012/1951: SC AIR 1952 12; Saghir Ahmad and Anr. D. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0110/1954 MANU/SC/0110/1954: AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. MANU/SC/0063/1962 MANU/SC/0063/1962: AIR 1962 SC 1044; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0690/1996 MANU /SC/0690/1996: AIR 1996 SC 736; and Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) D. S.C. Sekar and Ors. MANU/SC/8375/MANU/SC/8375/2008: (2009) 2 SCC 784).
16. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected jeopardised. (Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home Insurance or Co. of New York MANU/SC/0017/1974 MANU/SC/0017/1974: AIR 1974 SC 1719; and State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0370/1977MANU/SC/0370/ 1977: AIR 1977 SC 1361).
17. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai MANU/SC/7106/2008MANU/SC/7106/2008 : AIR 2008 SC 1289, a similar view was taken by Court, observing that, if a person claiming relief is not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or the selection of other persons.
18. In A. Subhash Babu v. State of A.P. MANU/S C /0845/2011 MANU/SC/0845/2011: AIR 2011 SC 3031, Court held:-
21
Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
"The expression 'aggrieved person' denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of complainant's interest and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the complainant."
19. Hon'ble Court, even as regards the filing of a habeas corpus petition, has explained that the expression, 'next friend' means a person who is not a total stranger. Such a petition cannot be filed by one who is a complete stranger to the person who is in alleged illegal custody. (Vide:
Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India and Ors.
MANU/SC/0009/1950MANU/SC/0009/1950: AIR 1951 SC 41; v.
Delhi Sunil Batra (II) Administration MANU/SC/ 0184/1978MANU/SC/0184/1978: AIR 1980 SC 1579; Mrs. Bihar Neelima Priyadarshini D. State of MANU/SC/0253/1987MANU/SC/0253/1987: AIR 1987 SC 2021;
Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India
MANU/SC/0058/1993MANU/SC/0058/1993: AIR 1993 SC 280;
Karamjeet D. Union of India Singh
MANU/SC/0059/1993MANU/SC/0059/1993: AIR 1993 SC 284; and Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/0892/ 2012MANU/SC/0892/2012: JT (2012) 10 SC 393).
20. Hon'ble Court has consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of the court. The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system must be provided. 22 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court and that, "ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a Visa". Many societal pollutants create new problems of non-redressed grievances, and the court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. (Vide: P. S. R. Sadhanantham versus Arunachalam and another MANU/ SC /0083/1980 MANU/SC/0083/1980: AIR 1980 SC 856; Dalip Singh versus State of U.P. and others. MANU/SC/1886/2009MANU/SC/1886/2009: (2010) 2 SCC 114; State of Uttaranchal versus Balwant Singh Chaufal and others MANU/SC/0050/2010MANU/SC/0050/2010: (2010) 3 SCC 402; and Amar Singh versus Union of India & another.
MANU/SC/0596/2011MANU /SC/0596 /2011: (2011) 7 SCC 69).
21. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. V. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. MANU/SC/0541/1998MANU/ SC/0541/1998: AIR 1999 SC 114; Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/1 060/2004 MANU/SC/1060/2004: AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu v. State of Punjab and Ors. MANU/SC/7008 /2007MANU/SC/7008/2007: AIR 2007 SC 758).
22. In Ghulam and Qadir Special Tribunal Ors.
MANU/SC/0608/2001MANU/SC/0608/2001: (2002) 1 SCC 33, Court considered a similar issue and observed as under:-
"There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is 23 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest. The existence of the legal right of the Petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under the aforesaid article. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the Court has undergone a sea change with the development of constitutional law in our country and the constitutional Courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on hyper- technical grounds. In other words, if the person is found to be not merely a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, he cannot be non-suited on the ground of his not having the locus standi."
23. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad and Ors. MANU/SC/0186/2012MANU /SC /0186/2012: (2012) 4 SCC 407, held as under:-
"Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, ex-President was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversarial litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eye of the law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria.
The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest.
In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party ina lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro ratione voluntas reasons ie. a claim devoid of reasons.
Under the garb of being a necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person 24 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person who wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party."
24. A similar view has been re-iterated by Court in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. MANU/SC/0925/2008MANU/SC/0925/ 2008: (2008) 3 SCC 512, wherein it was held that, the applicant before the High Court could not challenge the appointment of a person as she was in no way aggrieved, for she herself could not have been selected by adopting either method. Moreover, the appointment cannot be challenged at a belated stage and, hence, the petition should have been rejected by the High Court, on the grounds of delay and non- maintainability, alone.
25. In Balbir Kaur and Anr. v. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and Ors. MANU/SC/7743/2008 MANU/SC/7743/2008: (2008) 12 SCC 1, it has been held that a violation of the equality clauses, enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, or discrimination in any form, can be alleged, provided that, the writ Petitioner demonstrates a certain appreciable disadvantage qua other similarly situated persons.
26. While dealing with the similar issue, The Court in Raju Ramsingh Vasave ບ. Mahesh Deorao Bhiavapurkar and Ors.
MANU/SC/3754/2008MANU/SC/3754/2008: (2008) 9 SCC 54 held:-
"We must now deal with the question of locus standi. A special leave petition ordinarily would not have been entertained at the instance of the Appellant. Validity of appointment or otherwise on the basis of a caste certificate granted by a committee is ordinarily a matter between the employer and the employee. This Court, however, when a question is raised, can take cognizance of a matter of such grave 25 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
importance suo motu. It may not treat the special leave petition as a public interest litigation, but, as a public law litigation. It is, in a proceeding of that nature, permissible for the court to make a detailed enquiry with regard to the broader aspects of the matter although it was initiated at the instance of a person having a private interest. A deeper scrutiny can be made so as to enable the court to find out as to whether a party to a lis is guilty of commission of fraud on the Constitution. If such an enquiry subserves the greater public interest and has a far-reaching effect on the society, in our opinion, this Court will not shirk its responsibilities from doing so." (also: Manohar Joshi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2012)3 SCC 619)
27. In Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/ 0252 / 2001 MANU/SC/0252/2001: AIR 2001 SC 1739, Court held:
"Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury оn illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of person is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief."
28. Since a serious question of application of environmental rule has been raised in this matter and reply has been filed by the parties thus, it is desirable that the application should be heard and decided on merit. Thus, we proceed on merit.
29. Second issue which has been raised by the learned Counsel for the Project Proponent is with regard to the opinion of the Expert Committee by the SEAC or the EAC and further submitted that on the recommendations of the expert body, the SEIAA has approved the Mining Plan and issued Environmental Clearance and the opinion of the exert body cannot be challenged.
30. The deliberations taken place in the EAC/SEAC meeting are always of technical nature. The objections and clarification of the Project Proponent is fully complied on the various issues raised by the 26 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
EAC/SEAC Members and the proposal was recommended for grant of EC. The preposition that EAC findings cannot be questioned by anybody have found place in the following case laws:-
"A. Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority [2021 SCC OnLine SC 7] "494. The minutes of the two meetings of EAC are self- explanatory and reveal due application of mind, in light of the principles relating to application of mind enunciated above. We do not wish to repeat the same to avoid prolixity. EAC is an expert body and it is amply clear that it has been made aware of all relevant information relating to the project and it has applied its mind to the proposal. Even on settled principles of judicial review, it is clear that relevant material has been considered by the committee and no reliance has been pointed out on any irrelevant material. The specific recommendations given by the committee do indicate that the committee was aware of the need for precautionary measures in environmental matters and accordingly, it suggested requirement of further permissions on certain counts.
495. Once an expert committee has duly applied its mind to an application for EC, any challenge to its decision has to be based on concrete material which reveals total absence of mind. Absent that material, due deference must be shown to the decisions of experts. The facts of the case do not reveal any deliberate concealment of fact/information from the EAC or supply of any misinformation....
515. We, therefore, upon a thorough examination, decline to interfere in the grant of EC. The expertise developed by the EAC cannot be undermined in a light manner and as noted above, due deference must be accorded to expert agencies when their 384 decisions do not attract the taint of legal unjustness".
B. N.D. Jayal & Anr. vs. Union of India (2004 (9) SCC 362): A 3- Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the exercise of judicial restraint in matters involving technical expertise.
27 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
20. This Court cannot sit in judgment over the cutting edge of scientific analysis relating to the safety of any project. Experts in science may themselves differ in their opinions while taking decisions on matters related to safety and allied aspects. The opposing viewpoints of the experts will also have to be given due consideration after full application of mind. When the Government or the concerned authorities after due consideration of all viewpoints and full application of mind took a decision, then it is not appropriate for the Court to interfere. Such matters must be left to the mature wisdom of the Government or the implementing agency. It is their forte. In such cases, if the situation demands, the Courts should take only a detached decision based on the pattern of the well settled principles of administrative law. If any such decision is based on irrelevant consideration or non consideration of material or is thoroughly arbitrary, then the Court will get in the way. Here the only point to consider is whether the decision making agency took a well informed decision or not. If the answer is yes then there is no need to interfere. The consideration in such cases is in the process of decision and not in its merits.
21. In this context, reliance is sought to be placed on the decision of this Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board u. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) and Ors., 1999 (2) SCC 718. In that decision, this Court viewed that in scientific matters of complex nature resulting in uncertainty, reference has to be made to a specialised technical/expert body and not merely decide the matter well known principles of administrative law of court not reexamining the matter if all relevant considerations have been taken note of. In the present case when once a decision had been given by this Court on safety aspects on an earlier occasion and thereafter the matter was again examined by the Government through different agencies and had taken a decision as to the necessity of further test by way of abundant caution should be relevant or not, we do not think, we can sit in judgment over such decision, particularly when there is no difference of opinion among the Experts as to the safety of the dam......
C. Sam Built Well Private Limited us Deepak Builders [2018 (2) SCC 176]: This judgement was rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of judicial review of tenders. However, several 28 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
observations were made qua exercising judicial restraint in matters involving technical expertise.
12. We have already noticed that three expert committees have scrutinized Respondent No. Is tender and found Respondent No. 1 to be ineligible. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court expressly states that no malafides are involved in the present case. Equally, while setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench does not state that the three expert committees have arrived at a perverse conclusion. To merely set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and then jump to the conclusion that Respondent No.1s tender was clearly eligible, would be directly contrary to the judgments aforestated. Not having found malafides or perversity in the technical expert reports, the principle of judicial restraint kicks in, and any appreciation by the Court itself of technical evaluation, best left to technical experts, would be outside its ken. As a result, we find that the learned Single Judge was correct in his reliance on the three expert committee reports. The Division Bench, in setting aside the aforesaid judgment, has clearly gone outside the bounds of judicial review. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and restore that of the learned Single Judge.
D. Bombay Environmental Action Group us State of Maharashtra [1990 SCC OnLine Bom 357]: The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay made several observations discouraging judicial interference in technical matters pertaining to the environment.
16. The, petitioners, as public spirited organisations and citizens, have, through their respective Counsel, done their duty by invoking this Courts writ jurisdiction and placing before us all such facts and circumstances as considered best by them. We in our turn, have done our duty by carefully examining all the facts and circumstances in the context of the rival contentions advanced before us on either side. In the course of this elaborate exercise and at every stage of the judicial process, we have kept asking ourselves the question - Have the authorities shown such lack of awareness or have they been so oblivious of the needs of environment as to warrant Courts interference? We do not think so. On the contrary, considerable though deliberation, consultation and application of mind by all concerned 29 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
authorities and experts has gone into the decision making process. We find on the part of the authorities, and experts all the seriousness while considering and deciding upon the varied factors and circumstances including environment in relation to this project. The indepth analysis, the conditions imposed and the precautions taken inspire Courts confidence and, if, at the end of it all, the Court finds that a very conscious decision has been taken in the light of all possible pros and cons, it would then not interfere. The decision of the authorities cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious or one not in good faith or actuated by improper motive or extraneous considerations.
17. Environmental issues are relevant and deserve serious consideration. But the needs of the environment require to be balanced with the needs of the community at large and the needs of a developing country. If one finds, as in this case, that all possible environmental safe-quards have been taken, the check and control by way of judicial review should then come to an end. Once an elaborate and extensive exercise by all concerned including the environmentalists, the State and the Central authorities and expert-bodies is undertaken and effected and its end result judicially considered and reviewed, the matter thereafter should in all fairness stand concluded. Endless arguments, endless reviews and endless litigation in a matter such as this, can carry one to no end and may as well turn counterproductive. While public interest litigation is a welcome development, there are nevertheless limits beyond which it may as well cease to be in public interest any further.
31. In view of the above facts, we find that the matter was referred to the Expert Committee and after due consideration and recommendation, the SEIAA considered it after application of mind. Thus, the contention as raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that there is no application of mind is baseless and this cannot be scrutinized again without any technical expert opinion.
30 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
32. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has further highlighted Annexure- R-4/3 (paper book 128), with regard to the revision filed by Shri Mazboot Singh in File No.16/(03)/2019/RC-II, where the Project Proponent was impleaded as Respondent and the order was duly considered and decided and the revision filed by the Appellant dismissed by the Revisional Authority/Joint Secretary, Government of India.
33. Another application was moved before the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Mines, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.10.2017 directing the execution of the document of mining, permitting the mine and issuance of lease order for the relevant period as follows:-
"मध्यप्रिे र् र्ासि िनिज सार्ि नवभाग मोंत्रालय :: आिे र् ::
भदपाल, नििाोंक 17.10.2017 क्रमां क-एफ 2-474/1997/12/1- प्रकरण सदनां क 03.10.2017 को सनवाई में सलया गया, संिाररत असर्लेखों, सवर्ागीय संक्षेसपका के अनसार सजला ग्वासलयर ग्राम सां तऊ सवे क्रमां क-361, 337, 378 (डी) के कल रकबा 20.235 है . (97 बीघा) क्षेत्र पर खसनज लौह अयस्क का खसनपट्टा श्रीमती कं वररानी अयोध्या ससंह के पक्ष में 20 वर्भ की अवसि हे त शासनादे श क्रमां क-एफ 3-123/79/12 सदनां क 24.10.1981 से स्वीकृत सकया गया था, तत्समय सनष्पासदत अनबंि अनसार खसनपट्टा की अवसि सदनां क 13.01.82 से सदनां क 12.01.2002 तक सनिाभ ररत थी।
2- खसनपट्टा िारक श्रीमती कं वररानी अयोध्या ससंह ने तत्समय प्रवृत्त सनयमानसार पट्टा अवसि का अवसान होने से एक वर्भ पूवभ अथाभ त सदनांक 15.11.2000 को नवकरण आवेदन पत्र प्रस्तत सकया था।
म.प्र. शासन, खसनज सािन सवर्ाग ने अपने आदे श क्रमां क एफ 2-274/97/12-1 सदनां क 16.09.2005 से अन्य खसन ररयायत आवेदन पत्रों के साथ-साथ श्रीमती कं अर रानी अयोध्या ससंह द्वारा प्रस्तत उल्लेस्थखत नवकरण आवेदन पत्र सदनां क 15.11.2000 र्ी सनरस्त कर सदया था, उक्त नवकरण सनरस्ती आदे श सदनांक 16.09.05 में सनरस्तीकरण का कारण यह बताया गया था सक वन सवर्ाग द्वारा नवकरण पर आपसत्त प्रकट की गई है ।31
Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
3-नवकरण सनरस्ती आदे श सदनां क 16.09.2005 के सवरूद्ध र्ारत सरकार, खान मंत्रालय, ररवीजनल अथॉररटी के समक्ष श्रीमती कं वररानी अयोध्या ससंह द्वारा ररवीजन आवेदन पत्र क्रमां क 16/ (33)/2005/आर.सी.-ii दायर सकया गया था । ररवीजनल अथॉररटी ने आदे श क्रमां क-481/2010 सदनां क 26.10.2010 पाररत कर राज्य शासन द्वारा पाररत नवकरण सनरस्ती आदे श सदनांक 16.09.05 को अपास्त कर सदया था एवं राज्य शासन को सनदे श सदए थे सक सवर्यािीन क्षेत्र का वन र्ूसम एवं राजस्व र्ूसम के आिार पर सीमां कन कराया जाए. पनरीक्षणकताभ को सनवाई का मौका सदया जाए एवं प्रकरण को नए ससरे से सवसिसम्मत तरीके से सनराकृत सकया जाए । 4-ररवीजनल अथॉररटी ने अपने उक्त आदे श सदनां क 26.10.2010 में सनम्नानसार सटप्पणी र्ी की थी :-
"it is not disputed that the area was under ML and mining activity was being undertaken there for 20 years. It is also not disputed that the State Government has recently granted ML of 0.5 hects. In the same Village to Smt. Dhanwanti Devi alicrinually rejecting her application. Her Revision Application No. 16/(10)/2006/RC-II was accordingly disposed off vide order No. 222/2010 dated 16-07-2010. From above it appeard that there is substance in the contention of the Revisionist that the area dose not have trees. It being alredy under ML. The Revisionist was also not given an opportunity by the State Government before dismissing her application. The Impugned order treats the new ML/PL application and the renewal application on the same footing. The renewal application has to be treated differently as the MMDR Act and MCR provide preference treatment for renewal application. There are also prívísion of deemed renewals."
ररवीजरल अथॉररटी के उक्त आदे श सदनां क 26.10.2010 के पालन में कलेक्टर, ग्वासलयर से सवर्यािीन क्षेत्र का सीमां कन प्रसतवेदन प्राप्त सकया गया । 5-कलेक्टर, ग्वासलयर ने अपने पत्र सदनां क 23.06.2014 से सीमां कन प्रसतवेदन शासन को उपलब्ध कराया था, सीमां कन प्रसतवेदन में वन सवर्ाग एवं राजस्व सवर्ाग से पृथक- पृथक प्राप्त प्रसतवेदनों को शासमल सकया गया था, सीमां कन प्रसतवेदन के अनसार आवेसदत र्ूसम वन र्ूसम नहीं थी, बस्थि वन सीमा से लगी हुई अथवा वन सीमा से 250 मीटर के र्ीतर स्थित राजस्व र्ूसम थी। (आवेसदत सवे क्रमां क-361, 378 वन कक्षा क्रमां क-52 से लगा हुआ क्षेत्र राजस्व क्षेत्र है और सवे क्रमां क-337 वन सीमा से 250 मीटर के र्ीतर स्थित राजस्व क्षेत्र है ।) 6-वन सवर्ाग द्वारा यह र्ी प्रसतवेसदत सकया गया था सक वन सवर्ाग के पत्र क्रमां क-एफ 5/16/81/10-3 सदनां क 07.10.2002 के अनसार कायभवाही की जाए, उक्त सीमांकन प्रसतवेदन प्राप्त होने के उपरांत सदनां क 09.06.2015 को पनरीक्षणकताभ को सनवाई का अवसर सदया गया था, परं त इसी बीच MMDR Amendment Act., 2015 प्रर्ावशील 32 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
हो जाने के कारण नवकरण का प्राविान समाप्त कर सदया गया था, और पूवभ स्वीकृत खसनपट्टों की अवसि नए प्राविानों के अनसार मूल स्वीकृसत से 50 वर्भ तक सवस्ताररत कर दी गई थी।
7- पनरीक्षणकताभ को उपरोक्तानसार सदनां क 09.06.15 को सनवाई का अवसर दे ने के उपरां त शासनादे श क्र. एफ 2-474/1997/12/1, सदनां क 27.06.2015 से कलेक्टर को सनदे सशत सकया गया था सक संर्ागायक्त, ग्वासलयर की अध्यक्षता में गसठत ससमसत की अनशंसा प्राप्त होने के उपरां त सवर्ागीय सनदे श क्रमां क- 19-5/2015/12-1 सदनांक 12.03.2015 के अनसार कायभवाही ससनसित सकया जाए ।
शासनादे श क्र. एफ 2-474/1997/12/1, सदनां क 27.06.2015 के सवरूद्ध कं अररानी अयोध्या ससंह ने शासन के समक्ष पनरीक्षण दायर कर शासनादे श के अंसतम पैरा में उल्लेस्थखत संर्ागायक्त की अध्यक्षता में गसठत ससमसत के समक्ष सवचारण हे त प्रस्ताव प्रेसर्त सकया जाना सवलोसपत करने की मां ग की है ।
सदनां क 11.09.17 को आवेदक के प्रसतसनसि द्वारा अभ्यावेदन प्रस्तत करते हुये सनवाई कर प्रकरण का सनराकरण सकये जाने का अनरोि सकया गया, तदनसार प्रकरण में सदनां क 03.10.17 को सनवाई सतसथ सनयत की गई, सनयत सतसथ को सनवाई के समय आवेदक कं अररानी अयोध्या ससंह की ओर से उनके प्रसतसनसि श्री अरसवंद कमार उपस्थित हुये, उन्हें सना गया ।
8- सनवाई के समय कं अर रानी अयोध्या ससंह के प्रसतसनसि द्वारा उपरोक्त उल्लेस्थखत म.प्र. शासन, वन सवर्ाग के पररपत्र क्र. एफ 5/16/81/10-3 र्ोपाल सदनां क 07.10.02 की ओर ध्यानाकसर्भत करते हुये बताया सक उक्त पररपत्र की कंसडका 2 (छ) के प्राविानों के अनसार यह आदे श पूवभ से स्वीकृत खदानों पर लागू नहीं होंगे। सवर्यां सकत प्रकरण में उल्लेस्थखत खसनपट्टा न तो नवीन पट्टा स्वीकृसत का है और न ही पट्टा नवकरण का है । बस्थि खान एवं खसनज (सवकास एवं सवसनयमन) संशोिन असिसनयम 2015 की िारा 8 (ए) (6) के प्राविानों के अनसार खसनपट्टे की मूल स्वीकृसत सदनां क से स्वमेव 50 वर्भ तक सवस्ताररत खसनपट्टा समयावसि के पररप्रेक्ष्य में है । तदनसार मात्र पूरक अनबंि होना शेर् है । इससे स्पष्ट है सक प्रकरण पूवभ से स्वीकृत खसनपट्टे से संबंसित है सजस पर म.प्र. शासन, वन सवर्ाग के पररपत्र क्र. एफ 5/16/81/10-3 र्ोपाल सदनां क 07.10.02 की कंसडका 3 (छ) के प्राविानों के अनसार यह आदे श पूवभ से स्वीकृत खदानों पर लागू नहीं होता। अतएव सवर्यािीन प्रकरण संर्ागायक्त की अध्यक्षता वाली ससमसत के असिकार क्षेत्र से बाहर है । इन सर्ी तथ्ों के दृसष्टगत राज्य शासन के आदे श क्र. एफ 2- 474/1997/12/1, सदनांक 27.06.2015 में से संर्ागायक्त की अध्यक्षता वाली ससमसत की अनशंसा लेने संबंिी कथन सवलोसपत करने संबंिी संशोिन सकये जाने का अनरोि सकया गया है ।
9- सनवाई के दौरान उपस्थित आवेदक के प्रासिकृत प्रसतसनसि श्री अरसवंद कमार द्वारा मौस्थखक / सलस्थखत तकभ प्रस्तत सकए गए, प्रस्तत मौस्थखक /सलस्थखत तको, सवर्ागीय संक्षेसपका नस्ती में संिाररत अन्य प्रासंसगक असर्लेखों का श्रवण/अवलोकन एवं परीक्षण के 33 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
पिात आवेदक का यह तकभ उसचत प्रतीत होता है सक प्रस्तत प्रकरण ना तो नवीन पट्टा स्वीकृसत से संबंसित है और ना ही खसनपट्टा नवकरण से संबंसित है MMDR Amendment Act., 2015 की िारा 8 (ए) (6) के प्राविानों के अनसार पूवभ स्वीकृत खसनपट्टों की पट्टा अवसि मूल स्वीकृसत सदनां क से 50 वर्भ तक स्वमेव सवस्ताररत मान्य की गई है ।
MMDR Amendment Act., 2015 की उल्लेस्थखत िारा 8 (ए) (6) के अनसार कायभवाही ससनसित करने हेत सवर्ागीय पररपत्र क्र. एफ 19-5/15/12-1 सदनांक 12.03.15 से सजला कलेक्टरों को सनदे सशत सकया गया।
10- प्रस्तत प्रकरण में प्रश्नािीन सवर्ागीय आदे श क्र. एफ 2-474/1997/12/1 सदनांक 27.06.15 में र्ी सवर्ागीय पररपत्र क्र. एफ 19-5/12/12-1 सदनां क 12.03.15 के अनसार कायभवाही करने (अथाभ त मूल स्वीकृसत से 50 वर्भ तक अवसि सवस्ताररत करने) संबंिी सनदे श सदए गए हैं परन्त उक्त कायभवाही करने से पूवभ संर्ागायक्त की अध्यक्षता वाली वन ससमसत की अनशंसा लेने संबंिी शतभ रखी गई है ।
संर्ागायक्त की अध्यक्षता वाली वन ससमसत का असर्मत लेने संबंिी शतभ वन सवर्ाग के पररपत्र क्र. एफ 5/16/81/10-3 सदनां क 07.10.02 के वतभमान में प्रवृत्त यथा संशोसित प्राविानों के तहत रखी गई है जबसक वन सवर्ाग के उक्त पररपत्र सदनां क 07.10.02 की कंसडका 2 (छ) में स्पष्ट उल्लेख है सक उक्त पररपत्र के प्राविान पूवभ स्वीकृत खदानों पर लागू नहीं होंगे।
11- सवर्यािीन खसनपट्टा उक्त पररपत्र सदनां क 07.10.02 जारी होने से 20 वर्भ पूवभ स्वीकृत हो चका था बस्थि सवर्यािीन खसनपट्टा के नवकरण का आवेदन पत्र र्ी उक्त पररपत्र सदनां क 07.10.02 के जारी होने से पूवभ ही प्रस्तत हो चका था । म.प्र. शासन, राजस्व सवर्ाग के पररपत्र क्र. 16-10-सात/2-ए/90 सदनांक 13.01.1997 से 'वन' की पररर्ार्ा सनिाभ ररत की गई है । राजस्व सवर्ाग के उक्त पररपत्र सदनां क 13.01.97 में वन की पररर्ार्ा सनम्नानसार सनिाभ ररत की गई है :-
" सकसी र्ूसम को वन र्ूसम माना जायेगा, यसद
(a) यसद शासकीय असर्लेखों में उसे वन र्ूसम के रूप में दजभ सकया गया हो ।
(b) 10 हे क्टेयर का चक हो और उसमें 200 वृक्ष प्रसत हे क्टेयर या असिक की दर से सवद्यमान हो ।
प्रश्नािीन र्ूसम ना तो शासकीय असर्लेखों में वन र्ूसम के रूप में दजभ है और नस्ती में मौजूद वन सवर्ाग के प्रसतवेदन सदनां क 05.09.16 के अनसार 200 वृक्ष प्रसत हे क्टेयर की दर से सवद्यमान नहीं है इस तरह 'वन' को सनिाभ ररत करने वाली दोनों पररस्थिसतयााँ सवर्यािीन र्ूसम में सवद्यमान नहीं है ।
प्रश्नािीन र्ूसम में नवकरण सनरस्ती सदनां क 16.06.05 तक सवसि सम्मत तरीके से खदान संचासलत रही है । संचासलत खदान क्षेत्र में वृक्ष होने संबंिी कथन सवसंगसतपूणभ होने संबंिी सटप्पणी र्ारत सरकार ने र्ी अपने आदे श सदनां क 26.10.10 में की है । 34 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
सवर्यािीन ग्राम/क्षेत्र के ही एक अन्य सहस्से पर शासनादे श क्र. एफ 3-54/81/12/1 सदनां क 16.03.07 से श्रीमती िनवंती दे वी के पक्ष में समान खसनज का खसनपट्टा स्वीकृत सकया गया है । श्रीमती िनवंती दे वी के प्रकरण में कलेक्टर (र्ू असर्लेख) ग्वासलयर ने अपने पत्र क्र. क्यू/8-र्ू.अ./19-11/अ.र्ू.अ. / गोदाबमभन / 06 सदनां क 19.12.06 से स्वीकार सकया था सक पटवारी की त्रसट से उक्त सम्पूणभ क्षेत्र को छोटे बड़े झाड़ के जंगल के अंतगभत बता सदया गया, जबसक ऐसा नहीं था ।
12- सवर्यािीन प्रकरण (अथाभत कं वर रानी अयोध्या ससंह से संबंसित) के संदर्भ में आयक्त, र्ू-असर्लेख, म.प्र. द्वारा प्रेसर्त प्रसतवेदन सदनां क 07.04.17 में उल्लेख सकया गया है सक कलेक्टर ग्वासलयर ने अपने पत्र सदनां क 07.05.02 से छोटे बड़े झाड़ जंगल मद की जो जानकारी प्रेसर्त की गई है उसका खसन पट्टों से कोई संबंि नहीं है । अतएव ऊपर वसणभत तथ्ों / असर्लेखों पर सम्पूणभ सवचारोपरां त राज्य शासन के प्रश्नािीन आदे श क्र. 2-474/97/12-1 सदनां क 27.06.15 में से संर्ागायक्त की अध्यक्षता वाली ससमसत की अनशंसा प्राप्त करने संबंिी अंश अप्रासंसगक होने के कारण सवलोसपत करने का सनणभय सलया जाता है । साथ ही कलेक्टर ग्वासलयर को MMDR Amendment Act., 2015 की िारा 8 (ए) (6) के पालन में सवर्यािीन खसनपट्टे की अवसि मूल स्वीकृसत से 50 वर्भ तक सवस्ताररत करने संबंिी पूरक अनबंि सनष्पासदत करने की कायभवाही पूणभ सकये जाने हे त सनदे सशत सकया जाता है , तद् नसार पूरक अनबंि सनष्पासदत कर शासन को अवगत कराया जाए।"
34. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh by filing the Writ Petition No.21525 of 2017 and the same has been disposed of without granting any relief to the Appellant.
35. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh/Respondent No.2 are that firstly the appeal is time barred and not maintainable and further that the Forest Department Letter No. 5/16/81/10-3 dated 07th October 2002, applies only to new mining leases and explicitly excludes already sanctioned mining leases. The State Government of Madhya Pradesh issued a letter on 22.01.2009 reiterating that the letter dated 07.10.2002 does not apply to previously sanctioned mining leases. In the present case the alleged lease in question has already been granted by the State Government on 24.10.1981, so in compliance of the letter of the forest department dated 07.10.2002 the forest department issued no objection on dated 35 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
24.02.2014. In fact, an application for the grant of a Mining Lease to extract Iron Ore over an area of 30.72 hectares, located at Khasra Nos.
361, 378, 379, and 337 was submitted on 31.03.1979. Subsequently, the area was reduced to 20.235 hectares in Khasra Nos. 361, 337, and part of 378, demarcated for mining iron ore. After satisfying itself about the conformity with environment and other aspects under the law, the Mining Lease was granted by the State Government vide order dated 24.10.1981 in favour of mine owner for 20 years i.e. upto 12.01.2002.
Accordingly mining lease was executed on 13.01.1982 by the State Government in favour of Mine Owner of the Subject Area and that the land in question in Khasra No.337, 361 and 378 is not forest land.
36. It is further argued that the Appellant has misconstrued the Hon'ble Supreme court order in T.N. Godavarman vs. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267 on dated 12th December, 1996 and the Circular No. 16610/7/1-A dated 13th January, 1997, issued by the Revenue Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, wherein on the recommendation of the Expert Committee the following criteria has been fixed to declare the tree clad areas in the state as 'Forest' but not yet notified as 'Forest' under any Act and not recorded as 'Forest' in Government records : -
i. The extent of area should be 10 hectares or more;
ii. On an average the area should consist at least 200 naturally growing trees per hectare;
It is submitted that the land in Khasra Nos. 361 and 378 is less than 10 hectares and is not a compact and contiguous area. Therefore, the allegations are wrong, hence denied.
37. It is also stated that on 12.01.2015, after insertion of Section 8A by way of amendment in the MMDR Act, 1957, the Mining lease of 36 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
Respondent no. 4 has already been extended by the order of state government dated 31.01.2020 for a total period of 50 years by virtue of the provisions of Section 8A of the MMDR Act 1957. After passing the order the supplementary agreement has been executed and registered on dated 22.12.2022. The Letter No. 5/16/81/10-3 dated 07th October 2002 of the Forest Department of M.P. is only applicable for grant of new mining leases and not for the old mines. It is clearly mentioned in the said letter that it does not apply to already sanctioned mining leases. Following this, the letter dated 22.01.2009 issued by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh for compliance with the letter dated 07.10.2002 specifies that no action should be taken against mining leases that have already been sanctioned. Following the insertion of Section 8A by way of amendment in the MMDR Act, 1957, in 2015, the said lease of has already been extended for a total period of 50 years by virtue of the provisions of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, 1957.
38. Further submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent are that the matter has been clarified by the State of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 07.10.2002 sub-clause (cha) that the deemed forest matter or distance criteria is not applicable with regard to the mining which has been granted prior to the issuance of the letter.
39. Learned Counsel for the State Mr. Prashant M. Harne has further submitted and argued that the entire case of the appellant is based on assumption that the mining lease of Respondent No.4 is renewed, thus, the consideration of the Committee is required. In fact, following the insertion of Section 8A by way of amendment in MMDR Act, 1987, in 2015, the said lease has already been extended for a total period of 50 years by virtue of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, 1957, therefore, the assumptions of the Appellant are baseless. The subject land is neither 37 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
the forest land nor does it fall under the criteria parameter of forest as defined by the Government of Madhaya Pradesh.
40. Learned Counsel for the MoEF&CC has argued that the MoEF&CC has notified the EIA Notification, 2006, empowering the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority to issue the EC coming in the criteria and the EC was issued in favour of the Project Proponent vide order 22.05.2024 impugned. It is further argued that all projects and activities are broadly categorized into two categories - Category "A" and Category "B" based on the spatial extent of potential impacts and potential impacts on human health and natural and manmade resources. All projects or activities included as Category 'A' in the Schedule, including expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities and change in the product mix, require prior environmental clearance from the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and all projects or activities included as Category 'B' in the Schedule require prior environmental clearance from the State/Union Territory Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and that all projects or activities included as Category 'B' in the Schedule including expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities but excluding those which fulfill the General Conditions (GC) stipulated in the Schedule, will require prior environmental clearance from the State/Union Territory, Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). The SEIAA shall base its decision on the recommendations of a State or Union Territory level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) as to be constituted for in this notification. It is stated that project mentioned in the appeal falls under category 'B' which requires a prior environmental clearance from the concerned regularly authority i.e. 38 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEACs) and State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs).
41. It is further argued that the Ministry vide notification no. S.O. 637 (E) dated 28.02.2014 delegated the power to SEIAA to issue show cause notice to project proponents in case of violation of the conditions of the Environmental Clearances (EC) issued by the said Authorities to project proponents for keeping such EC in abeyance or withdrawing them, if required, for violations. It is stated that the Ministry vide notification S.O. 1886 (E) dated 20.04.2022 has delegated the power to the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to grant Environmental Clearances to all minor mineral mining projects, irrespective of mine lease area and ≤250 ha. mining lease area in respect of major mineral mining lease other than coal. It is also stated that the State Department of Mines and Geology serves as the Nodal Authority within the State for managing the allotment of mining leases under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, (MMDR Act) and is also responsible for enforcing and regulating mining operations, including addressing distance of illegal mining. Further, under Section 23C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the State Government is vested with the authority to formulate rules for the prevention of illegal mining, as well as the transportation and storage of minerals and the State Pollution Control Board is the Nodal Authority in the State for dealing with cases related to pollution or environment management coming under the purview of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
39 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
42. Learned Counsel for the Project Proponent has submitted that there are several litigations regarding the matter and another O.A. has been filed as O.A. No.32/2025(CZ) in which this Tribunal has constituted a Committee to submit the report with regard to the violations and Joint Committee has examined and observed and submitted the report with the following facts:-
"............x..................x....................x...........x.......................
OBSERVATION AND FINDINGS OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON VISIT Details of observation and chronology of various events related to Santau Iron Ore Mine gathered by the joint committee are as under:
1. Joint Committee made following observation at mine site during visit-
❖ Santau Iron Ore Mine, Owner Smt. Kunwar Rani Ayodhya Singh is situated on a piece of land bearing Survey Nos. 337/1/Min-1/3, 361/1 and 378 in village Santau, Tehsil City Center, District Gwalior.
❖ Sanctioned mining lease area of the mine is 10.718 Hectare. ❖ Sanctioned production capacity of the mine is 113299 TPA of Iron Ore.
❖ This is an opencast semi-mechanized mine with no blasting provision.
❖ The mine is situated in hilly terrain.
❖ Within lease area of mine shrubs type vegetation predominantly seen. There were very less trees seen.
❖ Mining lease area of this mine is adjacent to the reserve forest boundary. It is about 4.50 kilometer away from the notified ESZ of Ghatigaon-Hukna Sanctuary (Son Chiraiya Abhyaranya). ❖ SEIAA Bhopal granted Environmental Clearance to this mine of mining lease area 10.718 Hectare for a minable area of 4.10 Hectare only. Distance of this minable area is about 285 meter from the nearest school and about 200 meter from the nearest village Santau population.
❖ During inspection site cleaning activities of the mine was going on. ❖ Photographs taken during visit are enclosed as Annexure - C3. 40 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
CHOROLOGICAL EVENTS RELATED TO SANTAU IRON ORE MINE OWNER SMT. KUNWAR RANI AYODHYA SINGH 41 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors. 42 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors. 43 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors. 44 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors. 45 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
Conclusion:
Joint committee investigated the allegations described in this application submitted by applicant to Hon'ble NGT. It is found that all the allegations were properly addressed by respective departments in their orders passed time to time. Details are already mentioned in this report on the basis of information and documents available in Mining Department Gwalior, Forest Department Gwalior and MPPCB Gwalior and observations of Joint Committee during visit of Santau Iron Ore Mine. Also this mine already obtained required clearances/permissions from various departments as per lawful procedures such as Environment Clearance, Consent to Establishment and Consent to Operate, Mining Plan approval, Extension of Mining Lease period with reduced lease area etc. Mining lease area is far away from the Ghatigaon-Hukna Sanctuary ESZ boundary, no forest land is involved in mining lease area, distance of 46 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.
permitted mineable area of this mine from nearby school and residential area are as per prescribed distances. Also State Government Mineral Resources Department clearly stated in their orders that Forest Clearance and NOC from Divisional Commissioner level committee are not applicable to this mine since it is existing mine since year 1982 and lease period was extended as per Government of India Notification to 50 years and it was not the case of lease renewal or fresh lease grant. Thus it seems that all the allegation mentioned in application are properly and lawfully addressed and rectified by various departments and appellate committee."
43. Learned Counsel for the State and the State PCB have submitted that the State of Madhya Pradesh has notified the category of deemed forest and this area does not fall within the category of deemed forest.
44. After the perusal of the report, submissions by the SEIAA and the State of Madhya Pradesh, we are of the view that the expert committee of the SEAC duly considered the proposal and after the opinion of the expert body the Environmental Clearance has been sanctioned. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned and the area does not fall within the category of deemed forest.
45. Accordingly, the Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM 10th February, 2026, Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) (I.A. No.50/2025) AK 47 Appeal No.12/2024(CZ) Surjeet Singh Vs. Member Secretary, MPSEIAA & Ors.