National Green Tribunal
P Rajarao vs The Commissioner Geology And Mining ... on 22 February, 2022
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.05:-
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 175 of 2021 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
P. Raja Rao (M/A 45 years)
S/o Pandurangan Rao,
Ex. President - Kallukurukki Panchayat,
No.1/428, New Housing board,
Sathya Sai Nagar, Kallukurukki,
Krishnagiri - 635 002.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
1) The Commissioner,
Geology & Mining Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu
Alandur Road, Guindy, Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
2) The District Collector,
Collectorate Road,
Krishnagiri District - 635 115.
3) The Assistant Director,
Geology and Mining Department,
Krishnagiri Collectorate complex,
Krishnagiri - 635 00l.
4) The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
No.76, Mount Road, Guindy,
Chennai - 600 032.
5) The District Environment Engineer
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri - 635 126.
6) M. Venkatraman
S/o Muniappan,
Door No.3/245, Azad Nagar,
Venkatapuram, Krishnagiri Town and Taluk,
Krishnagiri - 635 001.
Page 1 of 30
7) V. Rajesh
S/o M.Venkatraman,
Door No.3/245, Azad Nagar,
Venkatapuram, Krishnagiri Town & Taluk,
Krishnagiri - 635 001.
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Mr. A.J. Mohammed Kassim
For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R1 to R3.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R4 & R5.
Date of Judgment: 22nd February 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
1. The grievance in this application is regarding the violation of conditions and also illegal mining that is being done by the Respondents 6 and 7. According to the applicant, Respondents 6 and 7 are father and son and both are having mining permission in the same Survey Number viz., 399/1 Part A in Kallukurukki Village of Krishnagiri Taluk and District. The 6 th respondent is having mining lease from the year 2010, and his son also obtained another mining lease of the neighbouring area in the same survey number. There was a Writ Petition filed as W.P. No. 2114/2016 by some contractor and obtained some favourable order and the same was challenged by filing Writ Appeal as W.A. No. 983 of 2017 which was also disposed of.
Page 2 of 302. It was further alleged in the application that the 7th Respondent had not executed the mining lease and he had not obtained necessary clearance or permission from the authorities. He is illegally conducting the quarry in that area. Further, the siting criteria between quarries have not been followed as well. They have not provided the pollution control mechanism and huge sound as well as dust is emanating due to the operations causing health hazards in that area. Further, due to unscientific method of quarrying, they are trying to raze down the hillock which will have impact on environment.
Though complaints were made to the authorities, no action has been taken to them.
3. So, the applicant filed this application for seeking the following reliefs:-
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court National Green Tribunal may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to take actions in stopping the quarrying operation in both survey no. 399/1 (Part
-A) and 399/2 (Part-B) Kallukurukki Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and District for the purpose of protecting environment form pollution at the earliest."
4. The 2nd Respondent filed counter in the form of an application stating that this Tribunal had appointed a Joint Committee with certain directions and the Joint Committee was constituted as per the proceedings of the District Collector, Krishnagiri vide Proceedings No. R.C. No.666/2021/Mines dated 17.08.2021. They further stated that detailed survey will have to be conducted and they wanted time.
5. Respondents No.6 & 7 filed their counter affidavit through the 6th Respondent for himself and on behalf of the 7th Respondent. They denied the allegations made in the application. The 2nd Respondent called for the sealed tender cum public auction for the lease of land in Krishnagiri district Page 3 of 30 for the purpose of quarrying rough stone, jelly and sized stone. The 6th Respondent participated in the said tender process and became a successful bidder for the land in S.No.399/1 (Part-A) for an extent of 5.00.0 Hectares for a period of five years. The 2nd Respondent executed the lease cum licence agreement from 11.06.2010 to 10.06.2015, but the area demarcated in the FMB sketch annexed to the lease deed is only about 2.00.0 Hectares. A representation dated 15.10.2011 was made to demarcate the area, according to the lease deed and the same has not been considered. The transport permits on payment of seigniorage fee commenced from 11.03.2013 only.
Hence, no quarrying operation was initiated in the year 2010. Since the authorities have not chosen to redress the grievance for more than a year, he approached the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.30780/2012 for a direction to admeasure the 5.00.0 Hectares in accordance with the lease deed executed by the 2nd Respondent in favour of the 6th Respondent. After the due hearing, the Hon'ble High Court issued direction dated 28.01.2013 in his favour.
Thereafter only the land was demarcated. The legal battle was there for about two years and nine months and they could not conduct the quarry during that period. They could quarry only 5% of the allotted quantity. In order to compensate the loss of period, a Writ Petition No.2114/2016 was filed for extension of lease period, as there was no fault on their side. The same was considered by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.2114/2016 dated 08.03.2016 and given an order in favour of the 6th Respondent. The 2nd Respondent preferred an appeal as W.A.983/2017 and the same was dismissed on 30.07.2017. So, the allegations regarding proceedings pending before the Hon'ble High Court are not correct. The 2nd Respondent again called the tender cum public auction for the government land in the Krishnagiri for quarry business. The 7th Respondent also participated and Page 4 of 30 became the successful bidder and allotted the area in S.No.399/1 (Part-B) Kallukurrukki village to an extent of 1.00.0 hectare for a period of five years and so far no lease cum license agreement was executed in favour of the 7th Respondent. So, he approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing W.P.No.11728/2021 and the same is pending for consideration. Even after the payment of the tender amount, no lease was executed. But a person who participated in the same tender for the adjacent land got lease cum license agreement for a period of 10 years. They have been unnecessarily dragged to the Court. He had given the details of quarried area till 05.07.2021 as follows:-
S.No. Year Quarried area per
Cb.M.
1. 2019-2020 8100 Cb.M.
2. 2020-2021 10,300 Cb.M.
3. 2021-2022 2,700 Cb.M.
(till 05.07.2021)
Total 21,150 Cb.M.
6. They have not conducted excess quarrying as alleged. They were doing only manual operation without electricity. The blast carried out in the day time with the help of certified blast assistant. All safety measures are adhered to strictly, while blasting and transporting the materials. There was no violation of any conditions. The applicant and his aid namely, Mr. Ramakrishnan quarried the area in S.No.399/1 (Part-B) and violated all the norms and the V.A.O. namely, T. Vaithyalingam approached the authorities about their violation and atrocity. Consequently, the applicant and his aid assaulted/threatened him and consequently, a case was registered against them as Crime No.80/2015 for the offence under Section 2a, 4(b), 353 of IPC on the file of the Maharajakadai Police Station and the same is pending. The applicant's wife is a village president now and under her influence and Page 5 of 30 failure on the part of their demand of money, a false case has been filed.
They further contended that they have not committed any violation and they are doing the mining strictly in accordance with law and as far as the 7 th Respondent is concerned, he is not carrying out the mining operation, as no lease has been executed in his favour. So, they prayed for dismissal of the application.
7. On 11.08.2021, while admitting the matter, this Tribunal had appointed a Joint Committee comprising of (i) The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) Krishnagiri Taluk and District, (ii) The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining Department, Krishnagiri Taluk and District and (iii) The District Environmental Engineer (DEE) - Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), Krishnagiri District to inspect the area in question and submit a factual as well as action taken report, if there is any violation found.
8. The committee was directed to ascertain as to (i) whether Respondents No.6 and 7 are having necessary permissions and clearances as required under the environmental laws for carrying out their mining operation, (ii) whether the siting criteria between the two quarries is being complied with, (iii) whether the pollution control mechanism provided are sufficient and if not, what is the deficiency and how that will have to be rectified, (iv) whether on account of the operation of the quarry by Respondents No.6 and 7, is there any pollution caused in that area and if so, what is the nature of action taken and the remedial measures to be taken to curb the same, (v) whether there is any excess mining done by them, and if so, what is the quantity of excess mining done and assess the environmental compensation apart from the royalty or other penalty to be imposed and also cost of restoration of damage caused to Page 6 of 30 the ecology, (vi) whether on account of unscientific mining or quarrying, any damage has been caused to the topography or terrain of the hill said to be affected as per the applicant and if so, what are the remedial measures to be taken to restore the same or to prevent any possible danger being caused to the hillock.
9. The Mining and Geology Department, Krishnagiri Taluk and District was designated as the nodal agency for co-ordination and for providing necessary logistics for this purpose.
10. As per order dated 13.12.2021, this Tribunal had considered the Joint Committee report signed by the members 21.10.2021, e-filed on 10.11.2021 and extracted in Para (3) of the order which reads as follows:-
"JOINT COMMITTEE REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI IN CONNECTION WITH O.A.No.175 of 2021
1. PREAMBLE :
i. One Thiru.P.Raja Rao has filed original Application No.175 of 2021(SZ) before ·the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai with a prayer that this Hon'ble Court National Green Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Krishnagiri to take action in stopping the quarrying operation in both S.F.No.399/l(Part-A) and 399/2(part-B) in Kallukurukki Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and District for the purpose of protecting environment form pollution at the earliest.
ii. In order to ascertain the genuineness of the allegations and alleged violations committed, the National Green Tribunal vide order dated 11.08.2021 ordered to appoint a joint committee consisting of (1) The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Krishnagiri (2) The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining Department, Krishnagiri District and (3) The District Environmental Engineer (DEE), Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), Krishnagiri District to inspect the area in question and submit a factual as well as action taken report if there is any violation found.
iii. In the said order it has been stated that, the Mining and Geology Department, Krishnagiri District will be the nodal agency for Page 7 of 30 co ordination and for providing necessary logistics for this purpose and directed to submit the report on or before 20.09.2021.
iv. Further, based on the request made by the District Collector, the time limit for submission of the report was extended upto 25.10.2021 by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal vide order dated:20.09.2021.
2. Composition of the Committee:
i. In view of the above, as per the National Green Tribunal order dated
11.08.2021 the Joint Committee consisting of the following members had been constituted vide District Collector, Krishnagiri proceedings Rc.No.666/2021/Mines (Annexure-1) dated: 17.08.2021.
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri.
2. The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Krishnagiri
3. The District Environmental Engineer (DEE), Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
ii. The District Collector, Krishnagiri has given instructions to the members of the joint committee to conduct field inspection in the subject area in accordance with the National Green Tribunal order dated 11.08.2021 and submit detailed report to the Tribunal within the time stipulated.
iii. Further, the District Collector, Krishnagiri has also given instruction to the Tahsildar, Krishnagiri to render necessary assistance for providing revenue records during inspection and issue suitable instructions to the Firka Surveyor to verify the boundaries and to take measurements of pits noticed in the subject area and to submit report.
3. Observation of the Joint Committee:
The Joint committee consisting of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri, District Environmental Engineer (DEE), Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), Hosur and Deputy Director of Geology and Mining had inspected the subject area on 08.09.2021, 08.10.2021 and 19.10.2021. During inspection the Village Administrative Officer, Kallukurikki village, Revenue Inspector, Krishnagiri, Firka Surveyor and Surveyor (Mines) 0 / o. of the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Krishnagiri were also present and assisted at the time of inspection. The lessee cum seventh respondent Thiru.
M. Venkataraman was also present at the time of inspection in the quarry site.
The details of quarry leases granted / precise area communication issued in the subject area in Government land S.F.No.399 of Kallukurukki village is given as under.
Page 8 of 30 Page 9 of 30 Page 10 of 304. Quantity of Rough Stone permitted in the approved mining plan / Environmental Clearance and transport permit obtained by the lessee and Details of quarrying in the non lease area.
The Surveyor (Mines) O / o. the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Krishnagiri has measured all the quarried pits in the subject area (Annexure XII, XIII) along with Assistant Geologist (Mines) and complied the permit obtained details as given below.
From the above, it is estimated that,
(i) Thiru.Venkataraman has obtained transport permit for a quantity of 42090cbm of rough stone during the two spells of lease and as per pit dimension he has quarried and removed only 20830cbm of rough stone in the lease granted area and hence he has misused the transport permits obtained for quarrying stone in the non lease area.
(ii) Thiru.Venkataraman has encroached the adjacent non lease area on the southern side and quarried 30102cbm unauthorizedly, and also encroached the area for which lease to be granted to Thiru.Rajesh on the eastern side and quarried 770cbm of stone unauthorizedly. Hence, in total he has quarried stone in the non lease area with a quantity of 30872cbm of rough stone without paying seigniorage fee.
(iii) Thiru.Ramakrishnan has obtained transport permit for a quantity of 55367cbm of rough stone and as per pit dimension he has quarried and removed only 63306cbm of rough stone and hence he has removed and transported 7939cbm of rough stone without paying seigniorage fee in the earlier lease granted area.
(iv) Thiru.Ramakrishnan has encroached the adjacent non lease area on the southern ·side and quarried 26682cbm of stone unauthorizedly without paying seigniorage fee.
Page 11 of 305. Violations observed during the inspection within the area granted under lease:
1. Lease granted area to Thiru.Venkataraman S.F.399 /1(Part-
A) Extent:5.00.0 hect:
i. The lessee has not maintained the boundary pillars in the lease granted area as stipulated in special condition No.10 (12) of the lease extension order dated: 19.06.2019.
ii. The lessee had not carried out mining operation in accordance with approved mining plan thereby violated the conditions stipulated in rule 41 (1 0)(i) of TNMMCR 1959.
iii. The lessee has not renewed consent to operate issued by the District Environmental Engineer (DEE), Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), Hosur and operated quarry without consent from 01.10.2020 to 05.07.2021. for the said violation show cause notice was issued vide District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Hosur proceedings No.F /HSR.2483/RS/ DEE/TNPCB/HSR/W&A/2021 dated:02.09.2021 (Annexure XIV).
iv. The lessee has not erected the name board at the quarry site. v. In the quarry lease granted area to Thiru.Venkataraman, an accident occurred on 06.07.2021 at about 4.00 PM and the employee named Thiru.Vijay aged 35 got injured and demised in the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri. FIR in Crime No.95/2021 U/s. 279, 304(A) IPC dated:06.07.2021 had been filed in the Maharajakadai Police Station of Krishnagiri Taluk. Hence the quarry operation was temporally stopped vide District Collector proceedings Rc.No.666 /2021 /Mines dated:22.07 .2021 (Annexure-XV).
vi. The lessee has obtained transport permit for a quantity of 42090cbm of rough stone and as per pit dimension measured by the Surveyor (Mines) the lessee has quarried and removed only 20830cbm of rough stone and hence he has misused the transport permits obtained for quarrying stone from the non lease area.
vii. The lessee has encroached and also carried out quarrying in the non lease granted area situated on the southern side of the lease area. The quantity of rough stone quarried in the non lease area worked out by the Surveyor (Mines) 1s 30872 cbm.
2. Lease granted earlier to Thiru.Ramakrishnan in S.F.399 / l(Part- B) expired on 07.02.2015.
(i) At the time of grant of lease there are two age old pits noticed and marked in the lease deed sketch itself. The quantity of the above two pits were not included in the present calculation because the Ex-lessee Thiru.Ramakrishnan is no way connected for the said pits.
(ii) Thiru.Ramakrishnan has obtained transport permit for a quantity of 55367cbm of rough stone only and as per pit dimension he has quarried and removed 63306cbm of rough stone and hence he has removed and transported Page 12 of 30 excess quantity of 7939cbm of rough stone without paying seigniorage fee in the earlier lease granted area.
(iii) Thiru.Ramakrishnan has encroached the adjacent non lease area on the southern side and quarried 26682cbm of stone unauthorizedly without paying seigniorage fee.
3. Lease to be granted to Thiru.Rajesh:
i. The applicant has not erected the boundary pillars demarcating the subject area.
ii. No men and machinery is noticed in the subject area. iii. The applicant has not yet obtained consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board. Further, he has filed W.P.11728/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras with a prayer to take action to execute the lease deed and also to extend the lease period from 05 years to 1 0 years. The execution of lease deed is pending.
6. Environmental compensation and cost required for Environmental damages:
As per the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Hosur letter dated 20.10.2021, a. There is no deposition of dust particles were observed in the agriculture lands, habitations located in the vicinity of the said quarry located at S.F.No.399 / 1 (Part-A), Kallugurikki Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and Krishnagiri District.
b. The siting criteria provided as per the above B.P No. 04 dated 02.07.2004 is applicable only to the stone crusher and not applicable to the rough stone quarries as claimed by the petitioner.
c. The lessee has not renewed consent to operate issued by the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Hosur and operated quarry without concerned from 01.10.:.2020 to 05.07.2021. Hence, show cause notice was issued vide District Environmental Engineer (DEE), Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), Hosur proceedings dated:
No.F/HSR.2483/RS/DEE/TNPCB/HSR/W&A/2021 02.09.2021.
d. The unit has submitted reply vide letter dated 16.09.2021 to TNPCB stating that, 'They have not carried out the quarry operations due to the fatal accident happened at their quarry site on 6th July 2021 and as per the letter dated July 2021. Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic situation they are unable to file the application for the renewal of consent order from the TNPCB board and assured to pay the consent fee and apply for the renewal of consent order of the Board immediately in TNPCB OCMMS portal. Further the unit has requested not to take any further proceedings against their stone quarry.' e. The unit has not complied with the 101 owing condition imposed in the Environmental Clearance and Consent to operate orders issued under the Water (P&CP) Act, 197 4 as amended and Air (P&CP) Act, 1981 as amended.
i) Air sampling at intersection point should be conducted and reported to TNPCB, Department of Geology and Mining and Regional Director, Page 13 of 30 MoEF, GOI. periodically once in six months.
ii) Free silica test should be conducted and reported to TNPCB, Department of Geology and Mining and Regional Director, MoEF, GOI once in three months.
iii) The project proponent shall ensure a minimum of 2.5 I of the annual turnover will be utilized for the CSR Activity.
iv) The periodical analysis of Air, dust, vibration and noise to be done while mining.
f. In view of the above, the District Environmental Engineer (DEE), Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), Hosur has arrived the environmental compensation has detailed below:
As per the Central Pollution Control Board guidelines the Environmental Compensation shall be calculated as, (Annexure-XVI) Environmental compensation to be paid (EC)=Pl x N x Rx S x LF - Where Pl Pollution index of Industrial sector - 80 for Red category Industries N Number of days for which violation took place
1. Revenue records verified and maintained with unit during inspection on 01.09.2021 that the quarry was operated up to 05.07.2021.
2. Hence, the period of violation taken into account is = 278 days [from 01.10.2020 to 05.07.2021] (the unit's consent to operate was expired on 31.03.2020 however, the validity of the consent was extended upto 30.09.2020 due to Covid-19 pandemic as per the Board office order. No. TNPCB/P&D/2020 dated: 01.07.2020.
R - factor in Rupees - Rs.250/- for violation.
S - Scale of operation - 0.5 for small scale unit LF - Population is less than one million, Hence location factor - 1.0 Hence, Environmental Compensation = 80 x 278x 250 x 0.5 x 1.0 = Rs.27.80 Lakhs.
The above Environmental Compensation is arrived based on the available records. Hence, it is submitted that an environmental compensation of Rs.27.80 lakhs may be levied to the unit bases on the above calculations and as per the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal dated:20.09.2021 in O.A.No.175 of 2021 (SZ).
7. Recommendations:
a) For illegal and unlawful quarrying of 30872cbm of rough stone quarried in the non lease area without paying necessary seigniorage fee and excess quantity of 21260cbm of rough stone for which permit obtained and misused by Thiru.Venkataraman for the adjacent non lease area, necessary action has to be initiated by the concerned authority as per rule 36-A of TNMMCR 1959.
b) For illegal and unlawful quarrying of 26682cbm of rough Page 14 of 30 stone quarried in the non lease area without paying necessary seigniorage fee and excess quantity of 7939cbm of rough stone quarried in the earlier lease period for which permit not obtained and transported unauthorizedly by Thiru.Ramakrishnan, necessary action has to be initiated by the concerned authority as per rule 36-A of TNMMCR-1959
c) For the violations of the lease deed conditions penal action may be imposed against Thiru.Venkataraman in respect of such breach and lease may be cancelled after granting an opportunity of hearing to the lessee as per rule 36(5)(h) of TNMMCR 1959.
d) Quarrying may be allowed only after taking remedial measures and after getting concurrence from the Director General of Mines Safety and District Collector.
e) The committee recommends that the lessee shall deposit Environmental compensation as arrived by the District Environmental Engineer (DEE), Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), Hosur and the amount shall be used for restoration of Environment and for necessary remedial and preventive measures in regard to Environmental matters."
11. Respondents No.4 & 5/State Pollution Control Board also filed their report signed by them on 15.11.2021, e-filed on 23.11.2021 and extracted in Para (4) of the order which reads as follows:-
"REPORT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 4TH & 5TH RESPONDENTS TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD I, S. Ragupathi, son of Thiru. Sanganan, Hindu, aged about 57 years, having office at No.76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai-32, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:
1. I am the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai and I am filing this Report on behalf of the 4th & 5th Respondent Board and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case as per records.
2. It is respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble NGT in its order dated 20.09.2021 has directed inter alia that "Para 5:... the committee as well as the Pollution Control Board to file their respective report apart from parties filing independent response and complete the pleadings".
3. It is respectfully submitted that, in order comply with the said NGT order, the respondent quarry site of Survey No. 399/1 (Part-A), Kallugurikki Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and Krishnagiri District and its surroundings were Page 15 of 30 jointly inspected by the TNPCB officials, RDO, Krishnagiri and Deputy Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Krishnagiri on 01.09.2021 & 08.10.2021.
During inspection the following were observed:
i. The respondent unit of M/s. M Venkatraman Rough Stone Quarry, S.F.No.399/1 (Part-A), Kallugurikki Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and Krishnagiri District has obtained Environmental Clearance from the DEIAA in their letter No. 03/DEIAA-GK1/EC No.32/2018/dt.27.08.2018 under the EIA Notification, 2006 with validity upto 18.03.2022.
ii. The unit has entered the lease agreement with the District Collector, Krishnagiri District ROC.No. 165//2011/ Mines /dt. 19.06.2019 for the period of 2 year 9 Months (ie., upto 18.03.2022).
iii. Consent to operate Order was issued to the respondent unit of M/s. M Venkatraman Rough Stone Quarry, S.F.No.399/1 (Part-A), Kallugurikki Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and Krishnagiri District by the DEE, TNPCB, Hosur vide Proc. No. F.2086HSR/RS/DEE/TNPCBI HSR/W&A/2019 dated 28.03.2019 with validity upto 31.03.2020 subject to certain conditions stated therein.
iv. The product manufacture is Rough Stone Quarrying over an Extent of 5.00 Hectare in Govt. land S.F. No. 399/1 (Part- A) of Kallugurikki Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and Krishnagiri District - 1226973 cubic meter/2 year & 9 months.
v. Mining lease was accorded by the District Authority and Department of Geology and Mining, Krishnagiri based on the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 considering the distance criteria that there is no habitations, Village Natham, approved house layouts and Archaeological important places were located within 300 meter radius from the S.F.No.399/1 (Part-A), Kallugurikki Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and Krishnagiri District.
vi. The lessee has carried out cutting of fencing stones, dressed masonry stone blocks without adopting blasting operation. From the field observation it is observed that, the lessee has not carried out the rough stone quarrying abstracting stone boulders using blasting operations.
vii. There is no deposition of dust particles were observed in the agriculture lands, habitations located in the vicinity of the said quarry located at S.F.No.399/1 (Part-A), Kallugurikki Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and Krishnagiri District.
viii. No representation have been received from the Applicant so far in the 5th Respondent office ie., District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
ix. The siting criteria provided as per the above B.P No. 04 dated 02.07.2004 is applicable only to the stone crusher and not applicable to the rough stone quarries as claimed by the petitioner.
x. M/s. M Venkatraman Rough Stone Quarry was not found under operation at present.
xi. It was informed that they had stopped quarry activity due to fatal Page 16 of 30 accident happened inside the quarry premises during July 2021.
xii. However, as per the records maintained by the quarry unit, it was found that the quarry was operated without valid renewal consent to operate of the Board until July 2021.
4. It is respectfully submitted that, based on the observation, show cause notice was issued to the respondent unit by the DEE, TNPCB. Hosur vide Proceeding No.F. HSR.2483/RS/DEE/TNPCB/HSR/W&A/2021, dated:02.09.2021 for operating the unit without obtaining valid renewal consent of the Board.
5. It is further submitted that the unit has submitted reply vide letter dated 16.09.2021 to the 5th respondent DEE, TNPCB, Hosur stating that, 'they have not carried out the quarry operations due to the fatal accident happened at their quarry site on 6th July 2021 and as per the letter dated 03.08.2021 received from Director General of Mines Safety (DGMS), they have stopped the quarry operation during July 2021. Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic situation they are unable to file the application for the renewal of consent order from the TNPCB Board and assured to pay the consent fee and apply for the renewal of consent order of the Board immediately in TNPCB OCMMS portal. Further, the unit has requested to not to take any further proceedings against their stone quarry'.
6. It is further submitted that, in the meantime, the Hon'ble Tribunal its order dated 20.09.2021 and directed that "Para 4: "hat respondents 6 & 7 were having earlier Environmental Clearance (EC) and also Consent to Operate etc., but that expired. Thereafter, it has not been renewed and without EC and consent, they were continuing with the operation and thereafter, they have stopped the operation due to some incident occurred within the quarry. Now, they are not operating the quarry".
7. It is further submitted that, the respondent has operated the unit without valid renewal consent to operate of the Board (consent to operate expired on 31.03.2020) and violated the consent order conditions. Hence, the Environmental Compensation as per the CPCB methodology for assessing environmental compensation as follows:
Environmental Compensation formulae = PIxNxRx S x LF PL - Pollution index for industry - 80 for Red Category Industries. N - Number of days for which violation took place-278 days R-A Factor in Rupees for EC- 250. S-Factor for Scale of operation - 0.5 for Small scale unit LF - Population is less than one million, Hence location factor - 1.0.
Hence, Environmental Compensation = 80 x 278 x 250 x 0.5 x 1.0 = Rs. 27.80 Lakhs.Page 17 of 30
8. It is respectfully submitted that TNPC Board has issued show cause notice under Section 5 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to the respondent unit of M/s. Thiru. M. Venkatraman Rough Stone Quarry why the Board shall not levy and recover the Environmental compensation for operating the quarry without valid renewal consent to operate of the Board and violated the consent order conditions vide Board's Proceeding No. T4/TNPCB/LAW/LA- 11/18388/Show Cause Notice/2021 dated 22.10.2021.
Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone), Chennai may be pleased to pass such further or other orders as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and thus render justice."
12. On that date, this Tribunal had considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.6 & 7 that they have not started the quarry operation at all, though he applied for the Environmental Clearance (EC) and obtained the same. He has not executed the lease deed and he was not doing any illegal mining. They wanted some time to file reply to the Joint Committee report.
13. After considering the report submitted by the Joint Committee and State Pollution Control Board, this Tribunal had pointed out that though in the Joint Committee it was mentioned that the 6th Respondent/Mr. Venkatraman and one Mr. Ramakrishnan, who is not a party to the proceedings were doing mining operation and they have done excess mining and a compensation of Rs.27,80,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only) was calculated, it was not clear from the report whether the compensation in respect of both the parties together or it is calculated independently and it was also not clear as to whether the Mining Department has taken any independent action for recovery of royalty or any other penalty for the alleged extraction of excess mining and they were directed to file further statement in this regard. Thereafter, the case was Page 18 of 30 adjourned to 06.01.2022 for completion of pleadings, filing objections (if any) to the report and also for consideration of report.
14. On 06.01.2022, this Tribunal had considered the report submitted by the Department of Mines and Geology signed by the officer on 20.12.2021, e-filed on 23.12.2021 and extracted in Para (3) of the order which reads as follows:-
"REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI IN CONNECTION WITH O.A.No.175 of2021 BY THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINING.
1. PREAMBLE:
i. One Thiru.P.Raja Rao has filed original Application No.175 of 2021(SZ) before the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai with a prayer that this Hon ble Court National Green Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Krishnagiri to take action in stopping the quarrying operation in both S.F.No.399 / l(Part-A) and 399 /2(part- B) in Kallukurukki Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and District for the purpose of protecting environment form pollution at the earliest.
ii. In order to ascertain the genuineness of the allegations and alleged violations committed, the National Green Tribunal vide order dated 11 .08.2021 ordered to appoint a joint committee consisting of (1) The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Krishnagiri (2) The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining Department, Krishnagiri District and (3) The District Environmental Engineer (DEE), Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), Krishnagiri District to inspect the area in question and submit a factual as well as action taken report if there is any violation found.
iii. In the said order it has been stated that, the Mining and Geology Department, Krishnagiri District will be the nodal agency for co ordination and for providing necessary logistics for this purpose and directed to submit the report on or before 20.09.2021.
iv. Further, based on the request made by the District Collector, the time limit for submission of the report was extended upto 25.10.2021 by the Hon 'ble National Green Tribunal vide order dated:20.09.2021.
Page 19 of 30v. Subsequently, the joint committee report was submitted before the Hon'ble NGT (SZ). The NGT vide order dated: 12.2021 has directed to submit the Department wise report. Accordingly, the report on the Department of Geology and Mining has been prepared and submitted before the National Green Tribunal.
2. Field Observations of the Joint Committee:
The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining had inspected the subject area on 08.09.2021, 08.10.2021 and 19.10.2021. During inspection the Village Administrative Officer, Kallukurikki village, Revenue Inspector, Krishnagiri, Firka Surveyor, the Assistant Geologist (Mines) and Surveyor (Mines) O/o. the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Krishnagiri were also present and assisted at the time of inspection. The lessee cum seventh respondent Thiru.M.Venkataraman was also present at the time of inspection in the quarry site.
The details of quarry leases granted / precise area communication issued in the subject area in Government land S.F.No.399 of Kallukurukki village is given as under.Page 20 of 30 Page 21 of 30
3. Quantity of Rough Stone permitted in the approved mining plan / Environmental Clearance and transport permit obtained by the lessee and details of quarrying in the non lease area.
The Surveyor (Mines) O/o. the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Krishnagiri has measured all the quarried pits in the subject area (Annexure XI, XII) along with Assistant Geologist (Mines) and complied the permit obtained details as given below.
Page 22 of 30From the above, it is estimated that,
(i) Thiru.Venkataraman has obtained transport permit for a quantity of 42090cbm of rough stone during the two spells of lease and as per pit dimension he has quarried and removed only 20830cbm of rough stone in the lease granted area and hence he has misused the transport permits obtained for quarrying stone in the non lease area.
(ii) Thiru.Venkataraman has encroached the adjacent non lease area on the southern side and quarried 30102cbm unauthorizedly, and also encroached the area for which lease to be granted to Thiru.Rajesh on the eastern side and quarried 770cbm of stone unauthorizedly. Hence, in total he has quarried stone in the non lease area with a quantity of 30872cbm of rough stone without paying seigniorage fee.
(iii) Thiru.Ramakrishnan has obtained transport permit for a quantity of 55367cbm of rough stone and as per pit dimension he has quarried and removed only 63306cbm of rough stone and hence he has removed and transported 7939cbm of rough stone without paying seigniorage fee in the earlier lease granted area.
(iv) Thiru.Ramakrishnan has encroached the adjacent non lease area on the southern side and quarried 26682cbm of stone unauthorizedly without paying seigniorage fee.
4. Violations observed during the inspection within the area granted under lease:
1. Lease anted area to Thiru.Venkataraman S.F.399 1 Part-
A Extent:5.00.0 hect:
i. The lessee has not maintained the boundary pillars in the lease granted area as stipulated in special condition No.10 (12) of the lease extension order dated: 19.06.2019.
ii. The lessee had not carried out mining operation in accordance with approved mining plan thereby violated the conditions stipulated in rule 41 ( lO)(i) of TNMMCR 1959.Page 23 of 30
iii. The lessee has not erected the name board at the quarry site. iv. In the quarry lease granted area to Thiru.Venkataraman, an accident occurred on 06.07.2021 at about 4.00 PM and the employee named Thiru.Vijay aged 35 got injured and demised in the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri. FIR in Crime No.95/2021 U/s. 279, 304(A) IPC dated:06.07.2021 had been filed in the Maharajakadai Police Station of Krishnagiri Taluk. Hence the quarry operation was temporally stopped vide District Collector proceedings Rc.No.666/2021/Mines dated:22.07.2021 (Annexure-XID).
v. The lessee has obtained transport permit for a quantity of 42090cbm of rough stone and as per pit dimension measured by the Surveyor (Mines) the lessee has quarried and removed only 20830cbm of rough stone and hence he has misused the transport permits obtained for quarrying stone from the non lease area.
vi. The lessee has encroached and also carried out quarrying in the non lease granted area situated on the southern side of the lease area. The quantity of rough stone quarried in the non lease area worked out by the Surveyor (Mines) is 30872 cbm.
2. Lease granted earlier to Thiru.Ramakrishnan in S.F.399/l(Part-
B) expired on 07.02.2015.
(i) At the time of grant of lease there are two age old pits noticed and marked in the lease deed sketch itself. The quantity of the above two pits were not included in the present calculation because the Ex-lessee Thiru.Ramakrishnan is no way connected for the said pits.
(ii) Thiru.Ramakrishnan has obtained transport permit for a quantity of 55367cbm of rough stone only and as per pit dimension he has quarried and removed 63306cbm of rough stone and hence he has removed and transported excess quantity of 7939cbm of rough stone without paying seigniorage fee in the earlier lease granted area.
(iii) Thiru.Ramakrishnan has encroached the adjacent non lease area on the southern side and quarried 26682cbm of stone unauthorizedly without paying seigniorage fee.
3. Lease to be granted to Thiru.Rajesh:
i. The applicant has not erected the boundary pillars demarcating the subject area.
ii. No men and machinery is noticed in the subject area. iii. The applicant has not yet obtained consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board. Further, he has filed W.P.11728/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras with a prayer to take action to execute the lease deed and also to extend the lease period from 05 years to 10 years. The execution of lease deed is pending.
5. Recommendations:
a) For illegal and unlawful quarrying of 30872cbm of rough stone quarried in the non lease area without paying necessary seigniorage fee and excess quantity of 21260cbm of rough stone for which permit obtained and Page 24 of 30 misused by Thiru.Venkataraman for the adjacent non lease area, necessary action has to be initiated by the Revenue Divisional officer, Krishnagiri as per rule 36-A ofTNMMCR-1959.
b) For illegal and unlawful quarrying of 26682cbm of rough stone quarried in the non lease area without paying necessary seigniorage fee and excess quantity of 7939cbm of rough stone quarried in the earlier lease period for which permit not obtained and transported unauthorisedly by Thiru.Ramakrishnan, necessary action has to be initiated by the Revenue Divisional officer, Krishnagiri as per rule 36-A ofTNMMCR-1959
c) For the violations of the lease deed conditions penal action may be imposed against Thiru.Venkataraman in respect of such breach and lease may be cancelled after granting an opportunity of hearing to the lessee as per rule 36(5)(h) of TNMMCR 1959."
15. Further, this Tribunal had considered the additional report submitted by the State Pollution Control Board signed by the officer on 05.01.2022, e-filed on the same date and extracted in Para (4) of the order which reads as follows:-
"REPORT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 4TH & 5TH RESPONDENTS TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD I, R. Rajamanickam, son of P.M. Ramsamy, Hindu, aged about 59 years, having office at No.76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai-32, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:
1. I am the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai and I am filing this Report on behalf of the 4th & 5th Respondent Board and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case as per records.
2. It is respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble NGT in its order dated 13.12.2021 has directed inter alia that "Para 6: As regards 6th respondent is concerned, he wanted some time for filing objection to the Joint Committee report. Though in the Joint Committee it was mentioned that both Mr. Venkatraman and one Mr. Ramakrishnan, who is not a party to this proceedings were doing the mining operation and they have done excess mining and a compensation of Rs. 27,80,000/- (27.80 Lakhs) was calculated, but it is not clear from the report as to whether the compensation is in respect of both parties together or it is calculated independently and it also not clear as to whether Mining Department has taken any independent action for recovery of royalty or any other penalty for the alleged extraction of excess mining."
3. It is respectfully submitted that TNPC Board has issued direction under Section 5 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to the respondent unit of Page 25 of 30 Thiru.M.Venkatraman Rough Stone Quarry to remit the Environmental compensation for Rs.27.80 Lakhs for operating the quarry without valid renewal consent to operate of the Board and violated the consent order conditions vide Board's Proceeding dated 09.12.2021 within one month. The unit is yet to remit environmental compensation.
4. It is respectfully submitted that the levy of Environmental Compensation to the tune of Rs.27,80,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only) was imposed only to the unit of M/s. M. Venkatraman Rough Stone Quarry, S.F.No.399/1 (Part-A), Kallugurikki Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and Krishnagiri District. The unit of M/s. Ramakrishnan Rough Stone Quarry, S.F.No.399/1 (Part B), Kallugurikki Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and Krishnagiri District is not in operation and the lease granted to the unit was expired on 07.02.2015 itself.
Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone), Chennai may be pleased to pass such further or other orders as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and thus render justice."
16. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 27.01.2022 for completion of pleadings, filing objections (if any) to the report and also for hearing. On 27.01.2022, it was adjourned to today by notification.
17. When the matter came up for hearing today, we have received another report filed by the State Pollution Control Board signed by the officer on 18.02.2022, e-filed on 21.02.2022 which reads as follows:-
"REPORT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 4TH & 5TH RESPONDENTS TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD I, R. Rajamanickam, son of P.M. Ramasamy, Hindu, aged about 57 years, having office at No.76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai-32, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:
1. I am the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai and I am filing this Report on behalf of the 4th & 5th Respondent Board and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case as per records.
2. It is respectfully submitted that Show Cause Notice was issued already vide Board's proceeding dated 09.12.2021 to the unit of M/s. M.Venkataraman Rough Stone Quarry to remit an Environmental Compensation of Rs. 27.80 Lakhs/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only) for operation of quarry without obtaining renewal of consent to operate from the TNPCB and the Page 26 of 30 unit is yet to remit the Environmental Compensation even after the lapse of one month time.
3. Further, it is respectfully submitted that the Board vide letter dated 21.01.2022 has issued a letter to the Deputy Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Krishnagiri to not issue permit for quarrying of rough stone to the unit of M/s. M.Venkataraman Rough Stone Quarry till the unit remits the Environmental Compensation of Rs. 27.80 Lakhs/- to the TNPCB.
Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone), Chennai may be pleased to pass such further or other orders as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and thus render justice."
18. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and other official respondents. There was no representation for Respondents No.6 & 7.
19. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that in view of the report submitted, the matter can be disposed of directing the authorities to take appropriate action for recovery of the amount from the concerned person.
20. The grievance in this application was that both the Respondents No.6 & 7 who are father and son were doing illegal mining and excess mining and on account of their operation, severe damage has been caused to the environment. But it is seen from the report and also the statement given by the Respondents No.6 & 7 that though the 7th Respondent was the successful bidder in respect of mining operation in Sy. No.399/1 (Part-B), no lease deed was executed by the Mining Department, though he obtained Environmental Clearance (EC) and he had not started the mining operation. This was in a way admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well. So under such circumstances, there is no necessity to pass any orders against the 7th Respondent.
Page 27 of 3021. As regards the 6th Respondent is concerned, it is seen from the report that certain violations have been found. It is seen from the additional statement submitted by the Department of Mines and Geology that the 6th Respondent had done illegal and unlawful quarrying of 30,872 Cu.M. of rough stone in non-lease area without paying any seigniorage fee and excess quantity of 21,262 Cu.M. of rough stone, for which, permit was obtained and misused by the 6th Respondent in the adjacent non-lease area and necessary action will have to be taken by the RDO as per Rule 36-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. For illegal and unlawful quarrying of 26,682 Cu.M. of rough stone in the non-lease area without paying necessary seigniorage fee and excess quantity of 7,939 Cu.M. of rough stone quarried in the earlier lease area period, for which, permit was not obtained and transported unauthorizedly by one Mr.Ramakrishnan, necessary action will have to be taken by the RDO in this regard. For violation of the lease deed conditions, penal action may be imposed against the 6th Respondent in respect of such breach and lease may be cancelled after granting an opportunity of hearing of the lessee as per Rule 36 (5) (h) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
22. It is not known as to whether on the basis of the recommendations made by the Department of Mines and Geology, any action has been taken in this regard. The latest report submitted by the State Pollution Control Board which was extracted above shows that they have issued a show cause notice under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for conducting the quarry without obtaining renewal of consent and running the unit for such time and no reply has been received and the proceeding is still pending and they may culminate the proceedings in accordance with law and take steps Page 28 of 30 to recover the amount. Further, it is mentioned in the report that the 6 th Respondent is not doing any quarrying operation in that area. So under such circumstances, we feel that the application can be disposed of by giving directions.
23. So, the Original Application is disposed of as follows:-
(i) The Department of Mines and Geology and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri District are directed to take appropriate action against the 6th Respondent for the said illegal and unauthorized mining done as noted in the reports, after giving opportunity to the 6th Respondent as per the Rules and pass appropriate orders and recover the amount due from him as provided under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 as amended from time to time and submit a report to this Tribunal within a period of 4 (Four) months to that effect.
(ii) The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is directed to complete the proceedings already initiated for imposing environmental compensation for running the unit by the 6th Respondent without renewing the Consent to Operate, applying the due principle of law and giving opportunity to them and then take steps to recover the amount from the 6th Respondent in accordance with law and file a further action taken report to that effect before this Tribunal within a period of 4 (Four) months.Page 29 of 30
(iii) Considering the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective cost in the application.
(iv) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Assistant Director - Department of Mines and Geology, Krishnagiri District, District Collector - Krishnagiri District, Revenue Divisional Officer - Krishnagiri District and the Chairman - Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for their information and compliance of directions.
(v) As and when the reports are received, the Registry is directed to place the same before the Bench for consideration and issuing necessary directions (if any) required in this regard.
24. With the above observations and directions, this Original Application is disposed of.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM O.A. No.175/2021 (SZ) 22nd February 2022. Mn.
Page 30 of 30