National Green Tribunal
Eas Sarma vs Union Of India on 29 September, 2022
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.1:- Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
(Through Video Conference)
Appeal No. 02 of 2020 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF
EAS Sarma
14-40-4/1, Gokhale Road,
Maharanipeta,
Visakhapatnam - 530 002.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
Union of India
Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change
Through its Secretary
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jorbagh Road, Aligunj,
New Delhi - 110 003 and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s): Mr. Ritwick Dutta.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Me. Saraswathy for R1.
Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali for R2.
Mr. T. Sai Krishnan for R3.
Mr. A. Sanjeev Kumar, Spl. G.P. for R4.
Judgment Pronounced on: 29th September 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
ORDER
Judgment pronounced through Video Conference. The appeal is disposed of with directions vide separate Judgment.
Pending interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM Appeal No.02/2020 (SZ), 29th September 2022. Mn.
Page 1 of 46 Item No.1:- Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
(Through Video Conference)
Appeal No. 02 of 2020 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF
EAS Sarma
14-40-4/1, Gokhale Road,
Maharanipeta,
Visakhapatnam - 530 002.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1) Union of India
Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change Through its Secretary Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh Road, Aligunj, New Delhi - 110 003.
2) State of Telangana Through its Chief Secretary D Block, 2nd Floor, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 022.
3) Telangana State Pollution Control Board Through the Member Secretary A-3, Paryavaran Bhavan, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 018.
4) M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) Through its Managing Director Kothagudam Collieries (PO), Bhadadri, Telangana - 507 101.
...Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s): Mr. Ritwick Dutta.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Me. Saraswathy for R1.
Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali for R2.
Mr. T. Sai Krishnan for R3.
Mr. A. Sanjeev Kumar, Spl. G.P. for R4.
Judgment Reserved on: 02nd September 2022.
Judgment Pronounced on: 29th September 2022.
Page 2 of 46
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published on the Internet - Yes.
Whether the Judgment is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter - Yes.
JUDGMENT Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member
1. The above appeal has been field by the appellant challenging the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted to the 4th respondent/ Singareni Collieries Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'SCCL') by the 1st respondent/Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as 'MoEF&CC') for their Kistaram Opencast Coal Mining Project of capacity 2 MTPA in an area of 435.68 Ha located in Kistaram Village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District of State of Telangana evidenced by Annexure - A1/Environmental Clearance vide Proceedings F.No.11015/212/2014-IA-II(M) dated 12.06.2019.
2. It is alleged in the appeal memorandum that the 4th respondent has applied for the Environmental Clearance (EC) for the impugned project of mining in a total mine lease area comprising of 435.68 Ha. of out of which forest land in 285.44 Ha. and 150.24 is a non-forest land. They applied for Environmental Clearance (EC) and the MoEF&CC issued ToR to the project on 23.11.2019 which lapsed on 22.11.2013 as the validity period was only four years. Subsequently, they again took up the project as the forest land diversion under process at the MoEF&CC, New Delhi. On the basis of the second application was filed, the grant of ToR was considered by the Expert Appraisal Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'EAC') in its 21st Meeting held on 18th - 19th September, 2014 and on that basis, the MoEF&CC had issued letter along with the ToR to the project proponent on 20.11.2014 and the EAC Minutes of the 21st Meeting held on 18th - 19th September, 2014 and the letter dated 20.11.2014 issued by the MoEF&CC granting ToR were produced as Annexure - A2 (Series). There are number of ToR conditions have not been complied with by the project proponent which the EAC has failed to consider. The FAC deliberated the project in their meeting Page 3 of 46 held on 20th - 21st October, 2014 and recommended that the decision on grant of approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of forest land was deferred till the EIA and EMP and proceedings of public hearing were considered by the EAC for the grant of Environmental Clearance (EC) to the project. The EAC was advised to specifically examine the impact of the project on Sathupally town while formulating their recommendation. Meanwhile, the State Government was also directed to furnish their comments on the following issues:-
―a) Impact of the project on Sathupally town along with measures proposed to be undertaken to mitigate these impacts; and
b) Justification for diversion of forest land for non-site specific activities such as, overburden dumps, service buildings and external dumps along with full details of alternatives examined.‖
3. Thereafter, on the basis of the ToR issued, the draft EIA report was prepared by the Project Proponent and the same was placed for public hearing. The public hearing on the proposed project was held on 19.11.2015 near Mandal Parishad Primary School, Jagannadhapuram Hamlet of Cherukupalli Grama Panchayat, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District of Telangana. After the public hearing, the final EIA Report was prepared and application was made for Environmental Clearance (EC) and the same was placed before the EAC for consideration. The project was appraised for grant of Environmental Clearance by the EAC in its 58th meeting on 23rd - 24th June, 2016 and they have deferred the project for following reasons:-
"58.7.3 During appraisal of the proposal, the Committee noted the environmental concerns in the area, especially air and water quality, and desired for more information for further consideration in respect of the following:
i. AAQ (predicted and baseline) at B-7 station, Gudipadu village is exceeding the permissible limit, and as such, mitigating measures are to be taken to bring the same below the standards.
ii. Water to be supplied to the villages needs to be treated in a system with aeration and filtration including fluoride control.
iii. For enhancing the ground water recharge, surface water bodies/ponds need to be augmented, particularly in the vicinity of villages, besides constructing check dams.
iv. External OB dump both in terms of area occupied and height requires optimization. The OB management plan has to be reworked, minimize the external OB dumping area presently planned and avoid forest areas for external dumping, increase the quantity of internal dump and reduce the external dumping from presently ten years to bare minimum.
v. Prediction of PM2.5 should also be done.
vi. Since the buffer area supports tropical dry deciduous forest and has Schedule 3 animal species like sambhar, wild boar and bear, it is expected that leopard may also exist. Therefore, the project proponent should prepare conservation action plan with the concerned forest authorities.Page 4 of 46
vii. The final void, presently to a volume of 130 ha, also needs to be reduced by filling external OBD, planned at mine closure of 90 m height.
viii. The transport of coal from in pit to mine surface is reported to be through dumpers. Whereas, during presentation, it was informed that input crushing and transport would be done by belt conveyor to mine surface into a hopper. This needs to be documented properly.
ix. Presently, the coal from the mine is being dispatched through Rudrapuram railway siding 50 km away. During presentation, it was informed that the arrangement of railway siding inside the mine premises is being done, which would be completed within 3 years. The same has been provided in the Environmental Clearance (EC) of JVR OCP-II, and needs to be expedited.
x. Reply to the issues raised by one of the NGOs and detailed Action Plan for public hearing issues and the budgetary allocations.
xi. CSR details of expenditure for the years 2006-07, 2009-10 and from 2012-13 onwards.
xii. A capital expenditure of Rs 100 lakh for the mine may be provided, as agreed to, for CSR activities till the operation of the mine.
xiii. The stage-I FC for diversion of 285.44 ha of forest land is to be expedited.
58.7.4 In view of the above observations, the proposal was deferred."
4. This was evidenced by Annexure - A3/Minutes of EAC Meeting held on 23rd -24th June 2016. Thereafter, the same was considered by the EAC again in its 4th Meeting held on 30th - 31st January, 2017 and on that day also, it was deferred for the following reasons:-
"4.15.4 While deliberations on the proposal, the EAC took note of the following:
(a) The observations of the FAC in its meeting held on 20-
21 October, 2014 [as at para 4.15.3 (xiii) above), and subsequent clarifications sought from the State Government, need to be clarified by the project proponent for its compatibility with the EIA/EMP reports and the public hearing. The Committee desired that the proposal may be considered by the FAC in parallel, and without any prejudice to the observations of the EAC.
(b) Source of Fluoride in the ground/surface water need to be identified/assessed to suitably address the observations of the EAC.
(c) Year wise expenditure incurred on CSR activities indicate no definite trend with no firm planning and the budget estimate accordingly.
4.15.5 The proposal was, therefore, deferred for want of information on the above lines.‖
5. This was evidenced by Annexure - A4/Minutes of the Meeting held on 30th - 31st January, 2017. Thereafter, the FAC in its meeting held on 20th - 21st October, 2014 considered the project and subsequent clarifications were sought from the State Government and also from the project proponent for its compatibility with the EIA/EMP reports and the public hearing. The Committee desired that the proposal may be considered by the FAC in parallel, and without any prejudice to the Page 5 of 46 observations of the EAC. The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC), in its meeting held on 25.01.2018 had inter-alia recommended that:
"The Regional Office has not recommended the project, as yet, even after carrying out the inspection of the site; hence, it is observed that:
(i) APCCF, Regional Office along with AIGFs concerned shall make a visit to the proposed land for diversion as well as land proposed for compensatory afforestation; and
(ii) the above mentioned group would also inspect the previous compliances of the diverted cases by the same user agency.
In pursuance of the above instructions, a site inspection was done by the Regional Office of MoEF&CC. During the inspection, the status of compliance of conditions in respect of forest lands earlier diverted were also inspected and it was found by the team that:
"11.1 Forest clearances Certain non-compliances noted during monitoring are --
(1) Safety zone maintenance not carried out in OCP-11 (Phase III) in Kandepuram Ext.-I. (2) Safety zone maintenance not carried out in OCP-1 in Ramagundem --- II.
(3) Subsidence study is not carried out regularly in Goleti-l underground mine block.
(4) Subsidence study is not carried out regularly in Shantikeri - extension underground mine block.
(5) Non-compliances from the side of forest department -
(a) The CA amount is not utilized fully. In fact, it is common observation in almost all the cases, which are followed up closely with forest department for effective utilization of CA amount.
(b) The deposition of Rs.35 crore in another account other than Ad-hoc CAMPA in FC related projects in irregular.
Environmental clearances Certain non-compliances noticed during monitoring are - (1) The units have consistently exceeded the production than the consented quantity and, thus, change in the scope of the project.
(2) Sewage treatment plants not being constructed in the townships.
(3) Public Liability Insurance not obtained in some units.
12. Recommendations of the Team Taking the overall requirement of the forest land, the proposal for diversion of 285.44 Ha. is recommended subject to the following conditions:
a) The Forest area 71.71 Ha. required for dumping should be rehabilitated and returned to the Forest Dept. within a maximum period of 10 years from its date of handing over to the User Agency.
b) As per Certificate under FRA, rights are recognized to 12 families involving 10.03 Ha. In addition to this, in the Non forest land identified for dumping, there is one village called Jagannadhapuram where about 120 houses exist, who are also to be rehabilitated. The Officials of SCCL have informed that they have already identified land for shifting the villagers and the District Administration is taking action to rehabilitate them as per the Rehabilitation Policy of the State Govt.
Hence, along with the rehabilitation of the villagers, the 12 families for whom rights under FRA are recognized are also to be rehabilitated before starting of mining operations in the area.
(c) The non-forest land identified for dump measures around 122 ha. may be handed over to forest department, once treated for future maintenance, so as to prevent land fragmentation there.
(d) The environmental conditions in and around Sathupalli town may be appraised by the E.C. Appraisal Committee separately."
Page 6 of 466. Thereafter, on 19.06.2018, the FAC had recommended the project with the following observations:-
"Recommendation of FAC on 19.06.2018:
After thorough deliberation and discussion with APCCF regional office Chennai and the user agency FAC recommended the proposal for diversion of 285.44 ha forest land under the provisions of FCA 1980 with General, standard and following specific conditions:
1. The Forest area 71.71 Ha. required for dumping should be rehabilitated and returned to the Forest Dept. within a maximum period of 10 years from its date of handing over to the User Agency.
2. As per Certificate under FRA, rights are recognized to 12 families involving 10.03 Ha. In addition to this, in the Non forest land identified for dumping, there is one village called Jagannadhapuram where about 120 houses exist, who are also to be rehabilitated. The Officials of SCCL have informed that they have already identified land for shifting the villagers and the District Administration is taking action to rehabilitate them as per the Rehabilitation Policy of the State Govt.
Hence, along with the rehabilitation of the villagers, the 12 families for whom rights under FRA are recognized are also to be rehabilitated before starting of mining operations in the area.
3.The non-forest land identified for dump measures around 122 ha. shall be handed over to forest department, once treated for future maintenance, so as to prevent land fragmentation there.
4. The environmental conditions in and around Sathupalli town may be appraised by the E.C. Appraisal Committee separately.
5. No rehabilitation shall be done on forest land.‖
7. The MoEF&CC conducted a site visit, on the basis of which, the project was recommended for grant of Stage-I Forest Clearance. The Forest area of 71.71 Ha. required for dumping was to be rehabilitated and returned to the Forest Department within a maximum period of 10 years from the date of its handing over but what has been not taken note of is that with the ash and mineral being dumped in the said 71.71 Ha. The whole area would be degenerated and would become a wasteland. Secondly, the committee failed to consider that a forest area of 285.88 Ha. to be diverted out of a total area of 435.68 Ha. It was mentioned that there were 12 families involved comprising of 10.03 Ha. who are covered under the Forest Rights Act. Moreover, the resolution of each of the Gram Sabha was necessary for consent under Forest Rights Act and mere certificate under Forest Rights Act, rights were not in terms of the mandate of the law. So, the recommendation by the FAC for grant of stage-I itself was without proper application of mind. The copy of the FAC minutes and Stage-l clearance granted were produced as Annexure - A5 and A6 respectively. The project proposal was again considered by the EAC in its meeting held on 13th - 14th December, 2018 where it was observed that the in- principle/Stage-l approval granted by the Ministry vide letter dated Page 7 of 46 11th September, 2018 for diversion of 285.44 ha of forest land, is inter-alia subject to the condition "The environmental conditions in and around Sathupalli town may be appraised by the Environmental Clearance (EC) Appraisal Committee separately. No information in compliance to the said observations was made available." and accordingly, the proposal was deferred, evidenced by Annexure - A7/Minutes of the Meeting of the EAC dated 13th - 14th December, 2018. On 24th January, 2019, the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) again appraised the project and on that day, it was observed that the in-principle/Stage-l approval granted by the Ministry vide letter dated 11th September, 2018 for diversion of 285.44 ha of forest land, is inter-alia subject to the condition that the environmental conditions in and around Sathupally town may be appraised by the Environmental Clearance (EC) Appraisal Committee separately. In compliance to the said observations, a report (prepared by Kakatiya University, Warangal) has been submitted on the study of impact of opencast mining project on Sathupally town, flora and fauna in the adjoining forest along with measures to be undertaken to mitigate the impacts and the consideration of the proposal was deferred with the following observations:-
"42.1.4 The EAC, in the first instance, observed that the report submitted by the project proponent was lacking for the requisite details in respect of impact of mining operations on air and water quality, ground water, stability of residential structures, source of livelihood for the locals of Sathupalli town, their dependency on the forest, flora and fauna, methodology for health survey, etc. Further, the report was found generic in nature and not addressing actual assessment and impact on environmental parameters in and around Sathupalli town. The Committee also observed that the said report was prepared by Kakatiya University in association with the project proponent themselves, which amounts to conflict of interest and thus not acceptable. The proposal was deferred for the needful on the above lines."
8. This was evidenced by copy of the minutes of the Meeting of the EAC dated 24th January, 2019 produced as Annexure - A8. In the meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee held on 24th - 25th April, 2019, the project was again considered by the EAC and in that meeting, they have recommended the project for issuance of Environmental Clearance (EC), evidenced by Annexure - A9/Minutes of the Meeting dated 24th - 25th April, 2019. The appellant had given the non- compliance of the ToR conditions while preparing the EIA Report in tabular column which reads as follows:-
Page 8 of 46 Page 9 of 469. The above aspects have not been considered by the EAC while recommending the project. The EIA study was based on information which is not only incomplete but based on concealment of data on various issues. In the entire report the consultant has not disclosed geographical coordinates for air monitoring stations unlike given for surface water, groundwater and noise monitoring stations. The consultant does not want to disclose exact location of air monitoring stations for evaluation. The wind rose diagram for the monitoring period clearly shows that dominant wind direction is from North East to South West direction, but the details for monitoring stations given on Page No. 38 clearly shows that only one stations has been established in the dominant down wind direction (South West) i.e. Kistaram (BA4) which is also very close to core area (1.1 km). Non presence of any monitoring stations beyond 1.1 km in down wind direction may result into non-capturing of SPM or RSPM (PM10 and PM2.5) concentration in the event of strong wind flow. Therefore, the GLC concentration value predicted is showing always low concentration than AAQ standard. Even the predicted GLC Page 10 of 46 concentration calculated for only monitoring station i.e. Kistaram is wrong. There was no analysis done for heavy metals in SPM and RSPM. The distance of Kistaram village in revised report i.e. Study on impact of Kistaram opencast coal mine in and around sathupally town of March 2019 is changed from 1.1 km to 0.993 km. Even in the revised report, the highest and lowest concentration of PM10 is shown as 80.0 and 70.0 respectively. According to the project proponent, "The incremental rise in PM2.5 concentration has also been predicted using AQIP modelling by considering maximum values of baseline PM2.5 concentration and the details are furnished in Annexure - I." The Annexure-1 to the EIA does not provide for the correct assessment of PM2.5 as no air modelling with respect to PM2.5 has been done. Moreover, even if the calculation of PM2.5 was also not in the public domain. Though there was an observation made by the EAC in their earlier meetings about these aspects, the same has not been reflected in the subsequent details provided but it was ultimately over looked by the EAC before granting the Environmental Clearance (EC). The public hearing was conducted on 19.11.2015 and major issues raised in the public hearing, according to the project proponent was compensation for project affected people, mitigation measure for pollution control, employment to the land losers, desiltation of tanks and R&R. Although 600 people have participated in the public hearing, only 16 persons have spoken about it. That shows that the people have not been provided with enough information and pros and cons of the information and that was the reason why the people who attended the meeting were not in a position to raise their concern about the specific issues. Sri Sandra Venkata Veeraiah, MLA, Sathupalli Constituency, Khammam District had raised an important question that "Jagannadapuram is a Tribal village which has formed 400 years ago. If these people are re- located to another place, their cultural values and tradition will be lost." In spite of this clear evidence, Section 3.3.8.19 of the EIA (Cultural and Aesthetic attributes) and Section 3.3.8.21 (Socio- Economic Assessment) makes no mention of these cultural resources. Moreover, Section 7.1 of the EIA (R&R Plan) assesses the impacts to PDF's and PAF in Jagannathapuram village as 84 and in Kistaram village PDF's and PAF's is 200 and 120 respectively on the basis of an R&R plan that involves mainly monetary compensation only, despite the well-documented inability of monetary compensation to alleviate Page 11 of 46 the adverse impacts caused to oustees of coal mining projects when the potentially affected persons testified about the areas cultural resources. The cash payments under the R&R plan will not remedy the losses of these cultural resources. The Public Hearing conducted was a sham one and it has not reflected the entire issues and the view of the public in respect of the project. There was non-application of mind on the part of the EAC while recommending the proposal. It failed to consider whether opening of prime forest area for coal mine would be at all required with the average plant load factor of India's power generation sector expected to be around 62% till Financial Year 2019. It is stated that the performance of discoms remains a concern. The prospects for the country's coal sector continue to drop along with the falling price of renewable energy. They ought not have allowed for the opening of a prime forest of the country specially which is more than half of the total lease area. Though the India being a party to the international conventions on Climate Change, instead of promoting more green cover, they were only trying to distort the existing forest cover by diverting more forest land for power generation and coal based thermal capacity has resulted in causing more pollution. There was detailed scrutiny on the issues which came up during public hearing which was participated by 600 persons and views of the 16 persons were recorded in the minutes and the number of issues raised were not addressed by the project proponent viz., the proposed project will pose pollution problems including depletion of groundwater level due to existing opencast mining activity, proposed project will result into air and water pollution in the area. This is an Opencast Mine and drilling, blasting resulting into huge impact on residents leading to widespread noise, smell and dust. Due to pollution from the existing JVROC-I Mining activities, surrounding villagers are facing lot of health problems, affected 300 people of above age of 50 years. They have not been properly considered by the EAC and nothing provided in respect of the same. One of the major issues that has not been addressed by the EAC in the proper perspective is the fact that the parallel proceedings of FAC has failed to address the issue of stage-1 Forest Clearance (FC) clearance being granted without settlement of individual and community forest rights. Rule 6 of the Forest Conservation (Rules), 2003 (amended up to August 2017) deals with certain aspects to be considered which includes settlement of the Page 12 of 46 forest right of the affected persons on account of the project and the procedure for getting resolution from the gram saba in this regard. The MoEF&CC had issued instructions to the States vide Memo dated 05-07-2013, evidenced by Annexure - 10 that the State should not only certify compliance with FRA but also provided evidence in the prescribed format. The MoEF&CC/FAC ought to have insisted on compliance with the same, which is not corroborated by the minutes of EAC & FAC. Under FRA, not only individual occupational rights are to be recognised but also community rights. Nothing was mentioned about the same in the minutes or in the EIA Report and the gram Sabha resolutions were not obtained strictly in accordance with the law and regulations. The EIA Report also did not say anything about the impact of the project on Tribal people and also the issues highlighted in the CAG Report on the State of diversion of forest land for non-forest purpose, especially for SCCL and the expressed that Forest Clearance (FC) was obtained by misleading assurances and compliances of the same were not being monitored properly, evidenced by Annexure - A11/ Relevant pages of the CAG Report on this aspect. The EAC also failed to consider that the site visit of the MoEF&CC revealed that there were a number of violations of Forest & Environment Clearance by nearby mines and there was all likelihood that there would be violation of Forest Clearance (FC) and Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions in this case also viz., "11.1 Forest clearances Certain non-compliances noted during monitoring are - (1) Safety zone maintenance not carried out in OCP-II (Phase III) in Kandepu ram Ext.-I. (2) Safety zone maintenance not carried out in OCP-1 in Ramagundem-II.
(3) Subsidence study is not carried out regularly in Goleti-I underground mine block.
(4) Subsidence study is not carried out regularly in Shantikeri - extension underground mine block.
(5) Non-compliances from the side of forest department -
(a) The CA amount is not utilized fully. In fact, it is common observation in almost all the cases, which are followed up closely with forest department for effective utilization of CA amount.
(b) The deposition of Rs.35 crore in another account other than Ad-hoc CAMPA in FC related projects in irregular.
Environmental clearances Certain non-compliances noticed during monitoring are (1) The units have consistently exceeded the production than the consented quantity and, thus, change in the scope of the project.
(2) Sewage treatment plants not being constructed in the townships.
(3) Public Liability Insurance not obtained in some units.‖ Page 13 of 46
10. It is further alleged in the appeal memorandum that the health issues has not been properly considered and no proper data has been collected about the impact on health issues in the nearby areas on account of the existing coal mines and what is the mitigation measure that the present project proponent has to take in respect of the same and also the impact of radiation on people that is likely to be generated from the coal mine. No proper study has been conducted on this aspect and IAEA has prescribed safety standards for this, evidenced by Annexure - A12.
11. So, according to the appellant, the MoEF&CC had not properly considered the feasibility of the project, location of the project, impact of diversion of more forest land, impact on forest rights of the tribal people, question of resettlement and rehabilitation of the project affected people etc. There was no proper application of mind also by either EAC or by MoEF&CC before recommending and granting the Environmental Clearance (EC).
12. The appellant also relied on the decisions reported in T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India & Ors. W.P. (Civil) No.202 of 1995, Themrei Tuithung & Ors. Vs. Union of India, Review Application No.46 of 2016 (EZ) & M.A. No.22 of 2016 (EZ) in Appeal No.04 of 2014 (EZ), Orissa Mining Corporation Limited Vs. MoEF&CC (2013) 6 SCC 476, Paryawaran Sanrakshan Sangarsh Samiti Lippa Vs. Union of India & Ors. Appeal No.28 of 2013, Ramesh Agarwal Vs. SEIAA, Chhattisgarh Appeal No.20 of 2011 of National Green Tribunal, Utkarsh Mandal Vs. Union of India 2009 X AD (Delhi) 365, Samarth Trust Vs. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No.9317 of 2009], Hanuman Laxman Aroskar Vs. Union of India Civil Appeal No.12251 of 2018 in support of his case.
13. According to the appellant, the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted is bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated above. So, the appellant filed this appeal seeking the following reliefs:-
―(a) Pass an order quashing the Environmental Clearance dated 12.06.2019 granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change to the project proponent.Page 14 of 46
(b) Direct that there should be a health impact assessment of the area surrounding the Kistaram Opencast Mine.
(c) Direct that an independent agency should monitor the air and water quality in the study area around Kistaram Opencast Mine except in the monsoon season.‖
14. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the appeal is not maintainable and none of the grounds alleged are sufficient to set aside the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted. They denied most of the allegations regarding the non-application of mind and improper appraisal of the project etc. made against the EAC and the issuing authority. They further contended that they have followed the procedure provided under the EIA Notification, 2006 and the SOP provided for appraising each project in its right perspective and they have considered all the environmental issues and only thereafter, the impugned Environmental Clearance (EC) was granted. The proposal of the project proponent for grant of Environmental Clearance (EC) to Kistaram Opencast Coal Mine project of capacity of 2 MTPA was deliberated by the EAC for Coal Mining Sector five times i.e. in its meeting held on 23rd - 24th June, 2016, 30th - 31st January, 2017, 13th - 14th December, 2018, 24th January, 2019 and 24th - 25 April, 2019. After taking cognizance of environmental concerns and the mitigation measures proposed, environmental clearance to Kistaram Opencast Coal Mining project was granted by the Ministry on 12 th June, 2019. The Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) in its 44 th meeting held on 24th - 25th April, 2019, after detailed deliberations on the proposed project and taking note of the clarification given by the project proponent to the satisfaction of EAC, recommended for grant of Environmental Clearance in an area of 435.68 Ha. subject to compliance of certain terms and conditions as environmental safeguards. Based on recommendations of the EAC, the said project was accorded environmental clearance by the Ministry on 12th June, 2019. So from the above facts that the allegation that there was no proper application of mind is not correct. The EAC had considered all the aspects and only after the satisfaction on the basis of the clarifications and further details given by the project proponent that the project was recommended. The Ministry vide letter dated 12 April, 2019, has accorded Stage II / In-principle approval in favor of M/s Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) for diversion of 285.44 ha of forest land for Kistaram Opencast Mining projects in Khammam Page 15 of 46 Division, Telangana, evidenced by Annexure - R1 produced along with the counter. The total mine lease area for the project is 435.68 ha, and includes 285.44 ha of forest land and 150.44 ha of non-forest land. On the basis of the compliance report furnished by the State Government of Telangana, the Ministry granted Stage II approval under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of 285.44 Ha. of forest land subject to compliance of certain terms and conditions as environmental safeguards. So, the allegation that the MoEF&CC has not considered the impact of the project on forest land while granting permission for Forest Clearance (FC) is not correct. The public hearing for the project was conducted on 19th November, 2015 near Mandal Parishad Primary School, Jagannadhapuram hamlet of Cherukupalli Gram Panchayat, Sathupalli (M), Khammam District, Telangana as per the provisions of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and amendments thereof. The issues raised by the public during public hearing were clarified by the project proponent and the same were reproduced as follows:-
Sl. Issues raised by the Clarifications given by the Project No. Public proponent i. Expressed concern that It has been clarified that compensation to the land losers have not the land losers is paid as per the been properly directions of the state govt. It was compensated during the further stated that compensation will be earlier land acquisition paid as per LARR Act, 2013 and all issues activities and demanded as regards present acquisition for compensation on par with JVR.OC-II project will be settled in the land losers in the discussion with the District State of Odisha where Administration.
Rs. 25 lakhs was paid as compensation per acre.
ii. Demanded that land I was clarified that as per LARR Act, losers covered under 2013, same compensation will be paid for ROFR, Govt. assigned Govt. assigned land, ROFR land land and those (Registered) and patta land possessing pattas should be compensated equally. iii. Pointed out that there are It has been stated that SCCL is taking all pollution problems the necessary steps to control including depletion of environmental pollution as per the rules, ground water levels due regulations and guidelines of MoEF & CC, to existing opencast GoI. Further it was added that mining activity and monitoring of pollution is being done demanded that proper through EPTRI, Hyderabad a Govt. lab. mitigation measures It has been clarified that depletion of should be taken. ground water levels due to mining is upto some distance only. Monitoring of ground water level is also being done. De-silting of local water tanks has been taken up. This improves augmentation of ground water levels. It was also informed that SCCL is establishing online air quality monitoring equipment to monitor the pollution level iv. Demanded SCCL to It was informed that SCCL has introduced provide employment to a new ancillary units scheme in the year the land losers. 2012 for the benefit of the unemployed Page 16 of 46 youth in the surrounding villages of SCCL and identified some items that are being used in the company. As such an advice was given to youth to register as a society to take up small scale industrial units in the vicinity of Sathupalli for manufacturing those items and the same may be purchased by SCCL. Further it was stated that as far as possible, the contract of hired vehicles will be given to the local project affected persons v. Demanded that the local It was advised to form a coal transport
coal transport contractors tippers association so that a unit rate be given priority while contract can be given including for supply awarding the coal of labour transport contracts vi. Requested for de-siltation It was assured that as requested de-
of tanks in Kistaram and silting of Tanks at Kistaram and
Jagannadhapuram Jagannadhapuram villages will be taken
Villages up.
vii. Requested to provide R & It was clarified that R & R site will be
R site at a location provided at a single location subject to
acceptable to most of the the availability of land and as per the
PDFs. willingness of the villager
15. So, the averments of the appellant that the public hearing is sham and not considered all the aspects and all of them were not aware of the contents of the EIA Report and pros and cons of the project so as to effectively represent their grievance in the public hearing is not correct. The EIA report was prepared in accordance with the TOR granted to SCCL by the Ministry and a breakup of the compliance of the condition of ToR has been given in the EIA report prepared for the Kistaram Opencast Mining projects in Khammam Division, Telangana. So, the averment that the EIA Report was not prepared in terms of the ToR are not correct. The details of land requirement have been provided in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study. The total land required for the project is 435.68 Ha, out of which forest land is 285.44 ha and the remaining 150.24 ha is non-
forest land. The Pre-Mining Land Use Breakup of the Project has been provided in the EIA study and the Land required for different activities in the project such as dumps, quarry, infrastructure, etc. were also provided in the EIA study and it was reproduced as follows:-
Sl. Description Forest Non- Total
No. Land Forest Land
Land
(Area in Ha)
1. Quarry including drain, bund, 200.72 27.30 228.02
safety zone around the
quarry etc.
2. External dump including
drains, toe wall etc., around 13.98 0.78 14.76
Page 17 of 46
the dumps 57.73 94.25 151.98
Topsoil
Hard OB dump
3. Service Buildings 4.36 0.00 4.36
4. Coal handling Plant & Coal 8.65 0.00 8.65
Stock yard
5. Safety Zone 27.91 27.91
Total 285.44 150.24 435.68
16. It is further contended that the ambient air quality monitoring in core and buffer zone has been carried out at ten locations for PM 10, PM 2.5, So2 and No2. The measurement method used for PM10 is Gravimetric (high volume sampler), PM2.5 is Gravimetric (Fine Dust Sampler), So2 is EPA modified west and Geake method and for Nox Arsenate modified Jacob - Hochheiser method. Further, as per the EIA Report the pollutant concentrations are compared with National Ambient Air Quality (NAAQ) standard as notified by the CPCB. All the values are found within the prescribed limits as per the National Ambient Air Quality Standards prescribed by CPCB. As per the EIA Report, the Micro Meteorological Study has been done on the basis of the following parameters; ―i) Wind Speed & Direction along with Wind rose diagram ii) Max. & Min. Temperatural) Relative Humidity iv) Rainfall v) Solar Radiation and vi) Cloud cover.‖ Sampling has been done as per the IMD specification. The predominant wind direction was from North East (NE) direction and Calm conditions prevailed for 51.41% during the season. The maximum wind speed recorded was 7.5 m/s. The maximum temperature recorded was found to be 36.80C, while the minimum temperature was 11.50C and the average temperature was 22.60C. The average relative humidity was found to be 67.3%. The total rainfall was found to be 0.90 mm. So, the averments that it was not properly done is not correct. Health Impact Assessment forms part of the EIA report for the said project. The EIA report clearly mentions availability of medical facilities in and around the mining area. As per the EIA report project proponent has also established ten Periodical Medical Examination (PME) centers for conducting Periodical Medical Examination of the employees. The centers are situated at Kothagudem, Manuguru, Yellandu, Godavarikhani, Sector-III colony (Godavarikhani), Bellampalli, Ramakrishnapur, Mandamarri, Srirampur and Bhupalpally. Every PME center is provided with the facility for chest radiographs, lung function tests, arrangement for classification of chest radiographs and facilities for Audiometry health check-ups, especially for lung functioning of Page 18 of 46 the workers exposed to dusty areas. As per the EIA report and as informed by the project proponent, no endangered or endemic flora was encountered during the study in and around the proposed Kistaram Opencast Mine in Khammam District, Telangana State there was no endangered, as per JUCN Redlist. The fauna listed consist of mostly 'common' and 'generalist' species and none of the species is threatened globally as per the IUCN Red List 2008. During the survey, it was noted that no schedule animals are breeding or hibernating in and around 10 km radius of the proposed mining area. A separate study has been conducted by Environment Protection, Training and Research Institute (EPTRI) on the impact of Kistaram Opencast Coal Mine on Environmental parameters in and around Sathupalli town. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of Kistaram Opencast Mine in and around Sathupalli town in terms of the following environmental parameters: ―i) Ambient Air Quality and Noise levels, ii) Water quality (surface & ground water),
iii) Ground water levels, iv) Stability of residential structures, v) Flora and Fauna, vi) Socio-economic status (Source of livelihood, dependency on Forest Produce & health).‖ EPTRI in its report has observed that the environmental monitoring data collected in and around the Sathupalli town shows that the air, noise, surface water, ground water of the region are well within the prescribed limits. The flora and fauna study indicates that there are no rare and threatened flora and fauna in the project site. Due to low forest produce available in the area, people residing in and around Sathupalli are not dependent on the forest produce for their livelihood instead they are mostly dependent on the government MNREGA scheme and daily labor works. So, the averment that the socio economic aspects have not been considered etc. are not correct. The authority has thoroughly considered all the aspects and only after getting necessary feedback on issues where the EAC wanted certain clarification that the EAC had recommended the project and the MoEF&CC has granted the Environmental Clearance (EC) and there is no illegality and impropriety in issuing the Environmental Clearance (EC) which requires the interference of the Tribunal. So, they prayed for accepting their contentions and dismissal of the appeal with leave for filing further counter, if any required.
Page 19 of 4617. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit denying most of the allegations made in respect of the public hearing conducted and the procedure adopted for granting Environmental Clearance (EC). The public hearing was conducted at the Regional Office of this respondent Board at Kothagudem on 19/11/2015 as per the request of the 4th respondent as they obtained TOR dated 20/11/2014 from the 1st respondent. The information regarding conduct of public hearing with date and venue along with the project details was published in the Telugu daily newspaper (local language) i.e. Eenadu and in the Hindu English newspaper on 19/10/2015 i.e. 30 days in advance by inviting objections, views, comments and suggestions from all persons including bonafide residents, environmental groups and other located at project site/sites of displacement/sites likely to be affected. Suggestions were invited from them. It was also widely publicized that interested persons can take part in the proceedings of the public hearing on the date and venue specified. Project details were also placed in surrounding panchayath offices of the villages and Government officials to access for public, the publications of notice regarding the public hearing was produced as Annexure-1 along with the counter. The public hearing was conducted in a free and fair manner and the averments and allegations contained in paragraphs 31 to 33 as regards the public hearing are totally false and incorrect. The public hearing was presided over by the Joint Collector, Khammam District. Opportunity was given to gathering for public hearing and minutes of the public hearing proceedings were prepared and submitted to the MoEF & CC on 20.11.2015, evidenced by Annexure-
2. The 4th respondent has conducted Draft EIA study in 10 Kms area around the project area in which Sathupalli (Vengalrao Nagar) is included. The 4th respondent unit had acquired total land of 435.68 HA (Forest Land - 285.44 Ha & Non Forest land - 150.24 Ha). They obtained clearance from Forest Department for forest land, purchased private lands and acquired Government land under non- forest land category for the project. Jagannadapuram village is falling in proposed coal mine project area, for which, the project authority is proposed to rehabilitate the village and they have acquired land in Cherukupalli village for implementation of Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R & R) package. No coal mining activity is carried in Jagannadapuram village area, but the Page 20 of 46 area is to be allocated for Over Burden (OB) dumping. The project authority proposed to meet their water requirement from mine discharge water and no fresh water is to be utilized. Proposed water consumption details are submitted as follows:
Sl. No. Purpose Quantity
1 Dust Suppression 3960 KLD
2 HEMM Washings 50 KLD
3 Fire fighting 50 KLD
4 Plantation 100 KLD
5 Domestic 40 KLD
Total 4200 KLD
18. The main source of water is mine discharge and expected quantity is 8000 KLD in which water consumption is 4200 KLD and balance/ excess water of 3800 KLD is proposed to be sent to settling ponds (earthen) and connected to storm water and garland drains finally joins into natural streams or tanks. The project proponent proposed to provide storm water drains and garland drains around the over burden dumping area and these drains are to be connected to natural streams / water tanks. The industry has to provide a tank (siltation ponds) in adequate number and appropriate size around the mine working, coal heaps and OB dumps to prevent runoff water and flow of sediments (coal ash along with soil) directly in to the drains and water bodies. The proposed waste water generation details are submitted as follows:
Sl. No. Source Quantity
1 HEMM Washings 50 KLD
2 Domestic 35 KLD
Total 85 KLD
19. The effluent generated from washing of HEMM is proposed to be treated in ETP consisting of collection tank, oil and grease trap, settling tanks and final treated effluent collection tank. The treated effluent is proposed to be used for plantation. The project authority has not proposed any STP except septic tanks for disposal of domestic sewage water. The project authority has proposed to construct STP in under construction employees colony. The source of air pollution from the proposed coal mine project area is drilling, blasting, coal crusher, transportation and handling of coal. The industry proposed to take following measures for dust control as submitted in the final EIA report:
Page 21 of 46―a) Wet drilling arrangements for controlling dust while drilling.
b) Cladding to the coal crusher and water sprinkling system for proposed coal crusher.
c) Water sprinklers at dump yards and coal loading and unloading points to reduce dust pollution
d) Mobile water tankers for water spraying on haul roads to control fugitive dust emissions.
e) Periodical maintenance of all diesel / petrol operated vehicles is to be carried to control emissions.‖
20. It is further contended that the 4th respondent proposed to adopt control blasting technique using delay detonators, nonels to reduce the fly rock, vibrations and noise to the surroundings. The details of the same have been furnished in Chapter No.10.5.4 of the final EIA report. The total solid waste generation from the proposed project is 129.58 Million m3 of overburden material (which includes 128.57 Million m3 of hard OB and 1.01 Million m3 of Top Soil) during entire life of the project. The over burden and top soil excavated from the quarry shall be dumped separately at pre determined place and top soil is preserved at identified place and utilized in spreading over external dumps as well as back filled areas as a part of reclamation. The industry has to provide retaining wall at the toe of the OB dumps within the mine to check runoff and siltation should be based on the rain fall data. The industry proposed to develop greenbelt in vacant area, avenue plantation along the roads and over burden area (dump area) periodically. The plantation of native species to be made between the toe of dump and adjacent field / habitation / water bodies in consultation with the local Forest Department as per the Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions. As per the EIA report and Environmental Clearance (EC), surface water bodies are existing in an extent of 10.65 Ha and the industry proposed to maintain the same as it is and also proposed to develop plantation around the water bodies. The industry proposed a coal handling plan (CHP) consisting of coal crusher towards road side i.e. Sathupalli to Khammam area. The representative of the industry informed that they provide CHP at a distance of about 400 meters from the road and proposed to develop plantation in between the CHP and road. The industry has to comply this proposal and also provide win breaking walls with iron sheets around the CHP. As per the EIA notification procedure, the public hearing date was fixed on 19.11.2015 and accordingly, the public hearing was conducted on that date under the supervision of the Joint Collector, Khammam District and the meeting was conducted after issuing wide publicity Page 22 of 46 through Notification in the press for the proposed public hearing in "Eenadu" and in "The Hindu" English News Paper dailies published on 19.10.2015. The 1st respondent had granted the Environmental Clearance with certain conditions which includes Consent to Establish and Operate to be obtained from the Pollution Control Board before it starts the operation. They issued the Consent for Establishment (CFE) on 20.07.2019 to the 4th respondent for the establishment of the Kistaram open cast coal mine with the following conditions:- ―a) The industry shall develop greenbelt in an area of 279.47 Ha at the time of mine closing. Greenbelt shall be developed in 3-tier plantation of width 7.5 metres all along the boundary of mining lease area to control air pollution in the surrounding village. b) The industry shall not carry any mining activity within 500 metres from the houses of Kistaram village. c) The industry shall not carry any activity of OB dumping within 500 metres from the boundary of the houses of the villages. d) The industry shall also develop thick greenbelt as submitted in the EMP, particularly on the side of the villages to act as buffer. e) The Consent for Operation (CFO) was issued by the Board on 18.10.2019 which is valid up to 30.06.2024.‖ So, they prayed for accepting their contentions and dismiss the appeal.
21. The 4th respondent filed counter contending that the appeal is not maintainable and none of the ground made are sufficient to set aside the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited (in short SCCL), the Respondent No.4 herein, is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 2 of Companies Act, 2013 jointly owned by the Government of Telangana and Government of India on 51%:49% equity basis, exclusively engaged in the work of exploration, excavation, extraction and winning of coal and they are currently operating 18 open cast and 29 underground mines in six (6) Districts of Telangana State with manpower around 56,282. They denied the allegation that the EIA Report was not properly prepared while conducting the EIA Study and most of the conditions in the ToR has not reflected in the EIA Report etc. All ToR conditions have been complied with and addressed in the EMP of Kistaram project from page no. xviii to xxiii which were produced as Annexure-1. They denied the allegation that no health study has been conducted in the area. In the EIA Report in para 3.3.8.18 at page 111, it has been mentioned on Health Issues that The Health Page 23 of 46 data revealed that large number of residents are affected by skin diseases, T.B and asthma apart from common diseases like common cough and cold, general weakness and fever and that was not correct. The health status of local people of Sathupalli village were collected in BLD data, during Dec 2014 to Feb 2015 by EPTRI. In the 42nd EAC meeting of MoEF & CC, GOI, held on 24.01.2019, made an observation that a scientific study may be conducted on "impact of Kistaram OCP in and around Sattupalli town". As per the recommendations of the committee study was conducted by EPTRI which is a QCI, NABL accredited organization, which includes the status of health of local people. The study report was appraised by the EAC in 44th meeting held on 24.04.2019. The health status was furnished at point 2.8.2 & 2.8.3 from Page No. 67 - 70 of study report on impact of Kistaram OCP in and around Sattupalli town. The allegation that Environmental Clearance (EC) for any project involving forest land is subject to the forest clearance and there has been no final forest clearance has been granted for the project and that was not correct. The forest land involved in the project is 285.44 ha. Approval under F(C) Act (Stage-II, Forest clearance) was obtained vide MOEF & CC, GOI letter No.F.No.8-55/2014 Forest Clearance (FC), dated 12.04.2019. The Government of Telangana has also issued order vide G.O. Ms. No.28 dated 20.05.2019. The MOEF & CC, GOI vide letter No F.No.11015/212/2014-IA-II (M), dated 12.06.2019 have issued Environment Clearance. The forest clearance was obtained earlier to the issuance of the Environmental Clearance (EC). As per the MoEF & CC S.O 1533 (E), during public hearing executive summary of the EIA / EMP has to be circulated to the public. Accordingly, the same was circulated in the meeting held on 19.11.2015 to the public. The Draft EIA / EMPs and executive summaries have been kept at the following places for ready reference.
―1. O/o the Collector and District magistrate office, Khammam
2. District Industries center
3. CEO, Zill Parishad Office, Khammam
4. Regional office, MoEF & CC, South eastern Zone, 1st & 2nd floor, HEPC Cathedral garden building, 34, road, Nunnambakam, Chennai
5. Telangana State Pollution Control Board, Head Office, ParyavaranBhavan, A-3, Industrial Estate, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad
6. Telangana State Pollution Control Board, Zonal Office, H.No.5- 3-1219 , Umanagar , Near country club , Begampet , Hyderabad .
7. Telangana State Environment, Forest, Science Technology department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
8. Telangana State Pollution Control board, Regional office, Kothagudem
9. Revenue divisional office, Khammami Page 24 of 46
10. Tehsildar Office, Sattupalli Mandal, Khammam Dist
11. Commissioner, Sattupalli Nagar Panchayat, Khammam Dt
12. Cram Panchayat office, Kistaram Village, Sattupalli Mandal , Khammam Dt
13. Gram Panchayat Office , CherukupalliVil , Sattupalli Mandal , Khammam District‖.
22. It is further contended that notice of Public Hearing was published on 19.10.2015 in English daily, Hindu and Telugu daily Enadu respectively. Study on impact of Kistaram OCP in and around conducted based on Sattupalli town was conducted on the basis of the recommendations of the EAC. The allegation that the Public Hearing conducted was sham and only to meeting the statutory requirement and it would not reflect the view of the people who attended the same as only 16 person had deliberated in the meeting and other could not due to non-availability of the details of the project and other relevant factors is not correct. The public meeting was conducted by the PCB under the chairmanship of the Joint Collector, Khammam district and 600 persons have attended the meeting and 16 persons have expressed their views. People were requested to give the written representations also, but no representation were received. The allegation that ambient air quality modeling was not properly done is not correct. The quality of air was collected through BLD generation prior to the commencement of project during Dec14 to Feb 2015 by EPTRI. Prediction of impact of particulate matter in air due to the operations of the project was done by using AERMOD software. Accordingly, the prediction was done for PM 2.5 also and same is furnished in Final EIA / EMP report (Table 4.5.1.4.3 of page No.139A & table No. 4.5.1.5.4 of page No.
140). The values were well within the limits. The allegation that the FAC had not properly assessed the project before granting the Forest Clearance (FC) is not clear. They have considered all the aspects and even waited for the ToR and preparation of EIA and EMP even for granting Stage - I with certain condition and only after compliance of the conditions, the same was granted later. Only after considering all the aspects that the FAC had granted the clearance for conversion of forest land to non-forest purpose that too on the basis of the observation made by the committee who inspected the area on 03.05.2018 and certain observations were made and the same was rectified and compliance report was sent vide Letter No.KGM/EST/F/22/562, dated 08.12.2018. Only after satisfaction, the Committee recommended for conversion of forest land for the Page 25 of 46 project. They denied the allegation of presence of Schedule-1 species enumerated under Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and these aspects were not properly considered. The fact that both the authorities were parallel conducting the enquires which is not proper etc are not correct. A wildlife mitigation plan was also prepared and an amount of Rs.2.43 crore was already deposited with the Forest Department for its implementation. The allegation that no proper resolution was passed by the gram panchayat in respect of Forest Rights Act and Rules made there under is not correct. On request of the SCCL, the District Collector, Khammam instructed the Tahsildar, Sattupalli to conduct Grama Sabhas in the Villages of Jagannadhapuram and Kistaram on 16.04.2012 and 18.04.2012. Accordingly, made resolutions for diversion of Forest land (285.44 Ha.) and submitted to RDO, Khammam. Then, RDO, Khammam conducted SDLC meeting on 07.06.2012 and made resolution and submitted to the PO, ITDA, Bhadrachalam together with Grama Sabha resolution. Further, the Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam has inspected the diverted Forest land (285.44 Ha.) and thereafter, interacted with the Villagers of Jagannadhapuram and ROFR patta holders and recommended to the District Collector, Khammam district for issuing No Objection Certificate (NoC) under FRA Act. Accordingly, the District Collector, Khammam has issued NOC (under FRA Act) after conducting DLC meeting and due procedure has been followed for issuing the NOC. The Final EIA was prepared in March, 2016 since the PDF and PAF in the areas of Jagannathapuram village and in Kistaram village would have increased many folds and so a fresh assessment / study of the PDF and PAF's was necessary is not correct and hence denied. The Socio Economic Survey (SES) was conducted by concerned Revenue Authorities while publishing Preliminary Notification on 01.02.2018 and identified 163 PDFs instead of 84 at Jagannadhapuram village, who are also PAFS. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalluru is appointed as R&R Officer and land acquisition was completed and R&R plan will be considered for all the 163 PDFs in accordance with RFCTLARR Telangana Amendment Act, 2017. Similarly for Kistaram Village also the land acquisition and R&R will be taken up as and when required and compensation will be paid as per the said Act to the PAFS recognized as per the survey conducted by revenue authorities. The District Collector, Khammam conducted R & R meeting with R & R Committee on 12.02.2018 and on Page 26 of 46 15.02.2018. Further, the Grama Sabha was conducted at Jagannadhapuram Village on 15.06.2019 and Joint Collector, Khammam conducted a meeting on 03.08.2019 regarding preparation of draft R & R plan and other amenities provided in the R & R center as per the RFCTLARR Act 2013. As per RFCTLARR Telangana Amendment Act, 2017, increased land compensation has been paid to owners of agricultural lands. So, all PDFs and PAF's are adequately compensated and will be rehabilitated and resettled as per the said Act. R & R Centers were identified at Cherukupalli village and all civic amenities etc. as specified in Schedule - III of RFCTLARR Act 2013 are being provided by SCCL. The allegation that the AAQ (Predicted and baseline) at 8-7 station, Gudipadu village is exceeding the permissible limit, and as such, mitigating measures are to be taken to bring the same below the standards is not correct. AAQ at 8- BA7 station, Gudipadu village is Within limits & as follows:
―PM10 - 92.73 µg / m³ ( 85 µg / m³ base level concentration + 7.73 ug / m³ predicted incremental value) standard is 100 µg / m³ PM2.5 - 50.15 µg / m³ (48.6 pg / m³ base level concentration + 1.15 µg / m³ predicted incremental value ) standard is 60 ug / m³.‖
23. It is further contended that they are supplying water to the villages need to be treated in a system with aeration and filtration including fluoride control. All parameters of Ground water are within the limits except at Cherukupalli Village (GW-2) for which water results indicate that fluoride concentration has exceeded the permissible limit.
Whenever this concentration exceeds the permissible limit, the RO membrane Technology based on de-fluoridation plants developed by Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (IICT), Hyderabad (CSIR Laboratory) will be installed for supply of safe drinking water from CSR activities which was reflected in EMP 3.3.3.1 at Page no.518 and 3.3.3.2 at Page no. 52 ). They have properly maintaining the water bodies and they have undertaken to maintain the same as well. The detailed project for this purpose has been mentioned in the EIA Report. Necessary provision has been made for controlling the OB dump as well. In initial stage of mining, the OB dumping in external dump is unavoidable till the sufficient void is created with safe distance from mining operations for dumping of internal dump. However, the internal dump will be started from third year onwards and will continue till the end of life of the mine. Accordingly, while preparing Mining Plan itself, the land was optimized and Page 27 of 46 minimum forest land required was recommended. With due satisfaction of the FAC, the diversion of forest land was recommended. The prediction of PM 2.5 is done and same is reported in Final EIA / EMP report (as per Table 4.5.1.4.3 of Page No.139A & Table No. 4.5.1.5.4 of page No. 140) and the values are well within the limits. As regards the conservation plan for protecting certain wildlife like Sambar, wild-boar and bear and expected movement of leopard, after considering the wildlife aspect only, Forest Department has recommended the proposal for diversion of forest land and a wildlife mitigation plan was also prepared and an amount of Rs2.43 Crores had already been deposited with the Forest Department for its implementation. As regards the management final void etc. the provisions have been made and that has been explained in the report and the void mines will be converted as water body to augment the nearby ground water bodies. The transport of coal from in-pit to mine surface is reported to be through dumpers, whereas during presentation, it was informed that in-pit crushing and transport would be done by belt conveyor to mine surface into hopper and this needs to be documented properly is the allegation made in the appeal memorandum. In the approved Mining Plan of Kistaram Project, it is clearly stated that coal will be transported by using 35T dumpers to receiving hopper. Extract of Mining Plan is as follows:
"Two grades of coal from inpit will be transported through 35T dumpers up to surface and will unload in receiving hopper of 500TPH feeder breaker. Coal is crushed to (-) 200mm size in these feeder breakers and will be transported by two separate 1x125 HP 1000 mm wide belt conveyors from hopper to pre-weigh bin truck loading bunkers.‖ The coal from the mine is being dispatched through Rudrampur railway siding 50 km away and during the presentation it was informed that the arrangement of Railway Siding inside the premises is being done, which would be completed within 3 years and the same has been provided in the Environmental Clearance (EC) of JVR OCP-II and as such, the contention contra is not correct and hence denied. As per the approved Mining Plan, transportation of coal from Kistaram OC project to CHP is by road mode only and accordingly, Environmental Clearance (EC) was obtained for road transport. However, after completion of railway line by South Central Railway transportation by rail mode will be taken up. Establishing railway line is in active stage. As regards the Page 28 of 46 allocation of budgetary provisions, Rs.105.88 Crore was allocated to meet the Rehabilitation and Resettlement package for Jagannathapuram village and following measures have been taken up under CSR:
―1. Vocational Training Programmes: different vocational courses like Tailoring & Embroidery, Computer hardware, DTP course, Electrician course, Motor driving, Paper bags and Fabric painting at an expenditure of Rs.4, 59,000.
2. Over Head Transmission (OHT) line was laid from Vengal Rao nagar substation to Kistaram drinking water well at a cost of Rs.15,00 Lakhs.
3. A metal road was laid from State highway to Kistaram village through Peddacheruvu at a cost of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs.
4. CC roads were laid in Sathupalli town at an expenditure of Rs. 90.00 Lakhs.
5. Repairs of School buildings in Kistaram village and Sathupalli town were taken up at an expenditure of Rs. 9.00 Lakhs.
6. Medical & Health initiatives: 11 Medical Camps were conducted covering the surrounding villages at an expenditure of Rs.40 lakhs. 1 Road 18 Kistaram Gram Panchayath for street lighting.
7. Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) bulbs were donated to
8. Eucalyptus clones were distributed free of cost to the villagers of Kistaram and Rajerla villages at a cost of Rs. 19,00,000.
9. Fruit bearing saplings were distributed free of cost to the villagers of Kistaram and Rajerla villages and residents of Sathupalli town at a cost of Rs. 6,50,000.
10. Environment awareness program was organized for the school children at Kistaram Village.
11. De silting of local tanks is being taken up.
12. Training / Coaching of dependents of land losers for Army recruitment.
13. Employment awareness program was held covering 180 persons.
14. Avenue plantation was taken up for a length of 5 km. at a cost of Rs. 15,00,000.‖
24. The details of the expenditure for the years 2006-07, 2009-10 and from 2012-13 onwards in the surrounding villages of JVR OC I, JVR OC II and Kistaram OCPs are as follows:Page 29 of 46
25. The Respondent Company has planned to incur about Rs 100.00 lakh towards CSR activities in the surrounding villages of Kistaram OCP.
After issuance of Stage - I Forest clearance, Stage - II Forest Clearance (FC) was obtained as per letter dated 12.04.2019. So, they have complied with all the formalities and as such, there is no illegality or irregularity in conducting the procedure for granting Environmental Clearance (EC) and they are rightly done. They prayed for accepting their contentions and dismissal of the appeal.
26. The appellant has filed detailed rejoinders to the counter filed by the respondents Nos.1, 3 & 4, wherein they have mentioned about the vagueness and insufficiency in the EIA Report and also relied on the relevant pages of the CAG Report and certain decisions on this aspect viz., Vimal Bhai and Anr Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2012 SCC Online NGT 77, Prafulla Samantara Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2014 SCC Online NGT 892 and they prayed for accepting their contentions raised in the appeal memorandum and set aside the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted.
27. The 4th respondent filed reply to the rejoinder submitted by the appellant, wherein they have given the details of the studies conducted etc. They also produced certain documents along with the reply in support of their case.
28. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents.
29. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that necessary procedure for granting the Forest Clearance (FC) and also Environmental Clearance (EC) have not been complied with. The environmental impact assessment study conducted was not proper and that did not reflect the real issues. Further, as regards the noise pollution and its impact are concerned, details given are incorrect, as it was only mentioned that based on the present methodology that is to be used, there is no possibility of any impact on the houses nearby. But in the Joint Committee report submitted in another matter viz., O.A. Nos.174 of 2020 (SZ) and 20 of 2021 (SZ), it was mentioned that there were cracks developed on account of the operation of the other mining projects undertaken by the project proponent and cracks have developed and they have suggested for Page 30 of 46 compensation to be payable and according to them, this could have happened due to previous blasting operations and that could not be ruled out. The health study has not been properly conducted and there was no proper mitigation plan provided for wildlife management etc.
30. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also argued that there was no proper application of mind and several times, the EAC has sought for certain aspects that itself shows that the study was not properly done. Thereafter, they have simply accepted the presentation without making any proper appraisal which was depreciated by the judicial forums in different cases. The settlement of forest right of the tribal people have not been properly considered and it cannot be met by payment of monetary compensation alone and no proper gram saba was conducted as required under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and rules framed there under. The public hearing was also not properly conducted. So, according to them, the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted is not proper and the same is liable to set aside and the MoEF&CC is directed to revisit the issue of the same.
31. The learned counsel appearing for the MoEF&CC argued that the fact that the EAC has considered the proposal on several occasions and sought for certain clarifications itself will go to show that there was proper application of mind and only after satisfaction that they have recommended the project. Further, the Environmental Clearance (EC) was granted by the MoEF&CC only after considering the recommendations and specific and general conditions have been imposed. So, they prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
32. The learned counsel appearing for the State Pollution Control Board argued that their role is only in respect of conducting the public hearing and forwarding the minutes along with the video taken and that has been properly done. Further, wide publicity was made regarding the public hearing as required under the EIA Notification, 2006 and the views of the public have been considered. They have later issued Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate with certain conditions taking into account the probable pollution that is likely to be caused.
Page 31 of 4633. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the project proponent/4th respondent argued that all the formalities were complied with and all necessary studies suggested by the EAC have been conducted and only after satisfaction that the EAC had recommended the project. Even before granting the Forest Clearance (FC), they were also awaiting the ToR and conduct of study for preparation of the EIA and EMP and it is only thereafter, the Stage - I Clearance was granted and on compliance with the conditions, Stage
- II Clearance was granted. They have not started their operation without getting Stage - II Clearance and Environmental Clearance (EC). They will take all necessary precautions to protect the environment as well as health of the people who are likely to be affected on account of the project.
34. We have considered the pleadings and also submissions (oral as well as written) made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the documents available on record.
35. The points that arose for consideration are:-
i. Whether the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted to the 4th respondent by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside for any of the reasons stated in the appeal memorandum or at the time of hearing?
ii. What are all the further directions (if any) to be issued to protect the environment and also health of the people in that area applying the principles of ‗Precautionary Principle' and ‗Sustainable Development'?
iii. Relief and costs.
POINTS:-
36. The above appeal has been filed challenging the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted to the 4th respondent by the 1st respondent for their Kistaram Opencast Coal Mining project of capacity of 2 MTPA of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited in the mine area of 435.68 Ha. located in Kistaram Village, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam District of State of Telangana.
Page 32 of 4637. The main grievance alleged by the appellant was that five ToR conditions have not been complied with, no health study conducted in the area and in respect of their fact that in the EIA Report in Para 3.3.3.1.8 at Page 111, it has been mentioned that the health data revealed that large number of residents are affected by skin diseases, TB, Asthma, apart from common diseases like common cough and cold and general weakness, but they have not conducted any further studies. Without getting the final Forest Clearance, the project was approved by the EAC and the issuing authority. The issue raised in the public hearing was not properly considered regarding the pollution aspects and groundwater depletion. The Ambient Air Quality data collected were not proper and no proper air modelling was done in respect of PM2.5. The EAC has not properly considered the impact of wild animals available in that area and without getting the final Forest Clearance, granting of Environmental Clearance (EC) is not correct. Further, the Forest Rights of the Tribal people have not been considered and there were some discrepancies in the project affected families in the EIA report and the Rehabilitation & Resettlement (R&R) Scheme has not been properly provided. Noise and sound pollution that is likely to be caused and its impact were not properly considered. Out of 600 people attended the public hearing, only 16 persons have participated in the active discussion. That shows that they were not aware of the project or necessary details were not given. The EAC has not properly appraised these aspects and earlier directions given by them were not properly considered and also observations made by this Tribunal in respect of other opencast coal mining carried out by the same project proponent and its impact on neighbouring villages on account of the vibration caused due to blasting and nothing was mentioned about the same in the reports.
38. The appellant had relied on the decision reported in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India W.P. (Civil) No.202 of 1995, Themrei Tuithung & Ors. Vs. Union of India, Review Application No.46 of 2016 (EZ) & M.A. No.22 of 2016 (EZ) in Appeal No.04 of 2014 (EZ), Orissa Mining Corporation Limited Vs. MoEF&CC (2013) 6 SCC 476, Utkarsh Mandal Vs. Union of India 2009 X AD (Delhi) 365, Samarth Trust Vs. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No.9317 of 2009], Hanuman Laxman Aroskar Vs. Union of India Civil Appeal Page 33 of 46 No.12251 of 2018, Paryawaran Sanrakshan Sangarsh Samiti Lippa Vs. Union of India & Ors. Appeal No.28 of 2013 and Ramesh Agarwal Vs. SEIAA, Chhattisgarh Appeal No.20 of 2011 of National Green Tribunal in support of his case.
39. On the other hand, the case of the project proponent and MoEF&CC was that all statutory requirements were carried out and proper EIA Report has been prepared and those things have been dealt with. The grievance of public in the public hearing has been properly addressed.
40. The appellant also relied on certain facts to show that the report submitted by the Kakatiya University, Warangal in association with the project proponent themselves amounts to conflict of interest and those not acceptable by the EAC which was reflected in the 42nd Meeting held on 24.01.2019. Subsequently, the study was conducted by the EPTRI though it is a registered society managed by the Board of Directors comprising largely of the senior officers of the Telangana Government, which has 51% equity control of the 4th respondent. So, the EIA Report prepared for this project is also not acceptable as they are also having some interest in the same.
41. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that all necessary things have been carried out. The Stage - II permission was also granted by the authorities vide Proceedings dated 20.05.2019 in respect of Forest Clearance.
42. In the decision reported in Orissa Mining Corporation Limited Vs. MoEF&CC & Ors. (2013) 6 SCC 476 while granting the Environmental Clearance and also the Forest Clearance, the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the procedure to be followed for the purpose of considering the question of forest rights, directed the authorities to revisit the question regarding the community right of the tribal people in that area and thereafter, take a final decision on the grant of Stage - II Clearance.
43. It may be mentioned here that in this case, no appeal has been filed against the Stage - II Clearance granted under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Further, the Forest Clearance itself was granted after considering the EIA Report and EMP prepared and Page 34 of 46 Stage - I permission was granted only thereafter and after compliance report was submitted, Stage - II recommendation was made and on that basis, the State of Telangana had accorded the Forest Clearance to the project proponent vide their Proceedings dated 20.05.2019, evidenced by Annexure - A6 produced along with the written submissions submitted by the 4th respondent.
44. It is thereafter that the Environmental Clearance (EC) was granted by the 1st respondent in this regard imposing several specific as well as general conditions. The fact that the FAC as well as EAC were simultaneously considered these aspects and the EAC had deferred the consideration of proposal for further clarification on several occasions viz., in the 58th Meeting held on 23rd - 24th June, 2016, 4th Meeting held on 30th - 31st January, 2017, 41st Meeting held on 13th - 14th December, 2018, 42nd Meeting held on 24.01.2019 and 44th Meeting held on 24th - 25th April, 2019 and only after satisfaction of the clarifications and further presentations made in the 44th Meeting, they have recommended the project as Agenda 41.8 which reads as follows:-
―Agenda No.41.8 Kistaram Opencast Coal Mining Project of 2 MTPA in ML area of 435.68 ha of M/s The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, located at District Khammam (Telangana) - For Environmental Clearance [IA/CMIN/TG/23509/2014; F. No. J-11015/212/214-IA-II(M)] 41.8.1 The proposal is for grant of environmental clearance to Kistaram Opencast Project of 2 MTPA capacity in mine lease area of 435.68 ha of M/s Singareni Collieries Company Limited located in village Kistaram, Tehsil Sathupalli, District Khammam (Telangana).
41.8.2 Details of the proposal, as ascertained from the proposal documents and as revealed from the discussions held during the meeting, are given as under:
(i) The project area is covered under Survey of India Topo Sheet No 65C/16 and is bounded by the geographical coordinates ranging from 17°13'14" to 17°13'57" N and longitudes 80°46'55‖and 80°47"28" E.
(ii) Coal linkage of the project is proposed for power generation use for various thermal plants.
(iii) No Joint venture.
(iv) Project does not fall in the Critically Polluted Area (CPA), where the MoEF&CC's vide its OM dated 13th January, 2010 has imposed moratorium on grant of environment clearance.
(v) Employment generation, Permanent-370 and Contractual-400 will be provided from the project.
(vi) The project is reported to be beneficial in terms of generation of employment, improvement in social infrastructure, etc.
(vii) Total mining lease area is 435.68 ha. Mining Plan (Including Progressive Mine Closure Plan) has been approved by the MoC on 21.03.2014.
(viii) The land usage pattern of the project is as follows:
Page 35 of 46(ix) Total geological reserve reported in the mine lease area is 24.05 MT with 21.61 MT mineable reserves. Out of total mineable reserve of 21.61 MT, 21.61 MT are available for extraction. Percent of extraction is 100%.
(x) 7 seams with thickness ranging from 0.29 m - 8.72 m are workable. Grade of coal is G7, G11, stripping ratio is 6 Cu.m. of OB per tonne of coal, while gradient is 1 in 3.9 to 1 in 12.
(xi) Method of mining operations envisages by Opencast method
(xii) Life of mine is 13 years.
(xiii) The project has one external OB dump in an area of 131.14 ha with 120 m height and 74.32 Mm of OB. Existing OB Dumps shall be re-handled and backfilled in 14th year. The OB from the current mining operations shall be backfilled from 3 year onwards. One internal OB dump in an area of 97.51 ha with 55.26 Mm of OB is envisaged in the project.
(xiv) Total quarry area is 228.02 ha out of which backfilling will be done in 89.95 ha while final mine void will be created in an area of 130.51 ha with a depth of 35 m. Backfilled quarry area of 89.95 ha shall be reclaimed with plantation. Final mine void will be converted into water body.
(XV) Transportation of coal has been proposed by dumpers in mine pit head, from surface to siding by belt conveyors and at sidings by trucks.
(xvi) Reclamation Plan in an area of 279.47 ha, comprising of 142.76 ha of external dump, 89.95 ha of internal dump and 12.91 ha of green belt. In addition to this, an area of 24.02 ha, included in the safety zone/rationalization area, has also been proposed for green belt development (xvii) 285.44 ha of forest land has been reported to be involved in the project. Approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of 285.44 ha of forest land for non-forestry purposes has been obtained vide MoEF&CC letter No. 8-55/2014-FC dated 11 September, 2018.
Page 36 of 46(xviii) No National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Eco-Sensitive Zones have been reported with 10 km boundary of the project.
(xix) The ground water level has been reported to be varying between 3.10 m to 11.40 m during pre-monsoon and between 2.00 m to 12.20 m during post-monsoon. Total water requirement for the project is 8000 KLD.
(xx) Approval of the Central Ground Water Authoritywas obtained on 17 August, 2015, (xxi) Public hearing for the project of 2.00 MTPA capacity in an area of 435.68 ha was conducted on 19.11.2015 near Mandal Parishad Primary School, Jagannadhapuram Village, Sathupalli Mandal. Major issues raised in the public hearing include proper compensation for land losers, mitigation measures for pollution, employment to land losers, de-siltation of tanks, proper R&R. Appropriate action to address the issues raised in the Public Hearing have already been proposed to be taken are as under:
a. Compensation to the land losers will be paid as per the LARR Act, 2013 and Govt. directions.
b. All pollution control measures will be taken up as per the guidelines issued from CPCB and MoEF&CC from time to time.
c. Assured that the de-silting of the tanks at Kistaram and Jagannadhapuram villages will be taken up. d. Clarified that R&R site will be provided at a single location subject to the availability and willingness of the villagers.
(xxii) Consent to Operate for the existing capacity has to be obtained from the State PCB. (xxiii) No court cases, violation cases are pending against the project of the PP.
(xxiv) The project does not involve violation of the EIA Notification, 2006 and amendment issued there under.
(XXV) The project involves project affected families. R&R of the PAPs will be done as per LARR Act, 2013 and as per the directions of the Govt.
(xxvi) Total cost of the project is Rs.24,229lakhs. Cost of production is Rs.1037.99 per tonne. CSR cost is 2% of average annual net profit calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 198 of the Act made during three immediately preceding financial years in pursuance of its CSR policy, R&R cost is Rs.19.525 crores. Environment Management Cost is Rs.1.42 crores.
41.8.3 The proposal was earlier considered by the EAC in its meeting held during 30-31 January, 2017, wherein the Committee desired that proposal to be submitted after receipt of Stage-l approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 in respect of forest land involved in the project.
41.8.4 During deliberations, the EAC noted the following:
The proposal is for grant of environmental clearance to Kistaram Opencast Coal Mining Project of capacity 2 MTPA in mine lease area of 435.68 ha of M/s Singareni Collieries Company Limited located in village Kistaram, Mandal Sathupalli, District Khammam (Telangana).
Project involves 285,44 ha of forest land. Stage-l forest clearance for diversions of the same for non-forestry use has been obtained vide MoEF&CC letter No.8-55/2014-FC dated 11th September, 2018.
Mining Plan for the project of 2 MTPA in mine lease area of 435.68 ha, including Progressive Mine Closure Plan, was approved by the Ministry of Coal vide their letter dated 21 March, 2014.
Public hearing for the project of 2 MTPA capacity in an area of 435.68 ha was conducted by the State Pollution Control Board on 19th November, 2015. Major issues raised in the public hearing included compensation for project affecter people, mitigation measures for pollution control, employment to land losers, de-siltation of tanks, R&R. The project proponent has proposed an action plan to comply with the commitments made in the public hearing and the same found to be satisfactory.
In response to the observations of the EAC in its meeting held on 30-31 January, 2017, the project proponent has submitted Stage-l forest clearance dated 11th September, 2018 for diversion of forest land of 285.44 ha. The detailed information in respect of assessment of fluoride, year wise expenditure incurred on CSR activities has also been submitted, which were found to be in order.
The in-principle/stage-l approval granted by the Ministry vide letter dated 11th September, 2018 for diversion of 285.44 ha of forest Page 37 of 46 land, is inter-alia subject to the condition 'The environmental conditions in and around Sathupalli town may be appraised by the EC Appraisal Committee separately. No information in compliance to the said observations was made available.
41.8.4 The EAC, after deliberations and in view of non- compliance of the condition stipulated in the stage-/ forest clearance dated 19th September, 2018, was not inclined to recommend the proposal for the present.
The proposal was, therefore, deferred for the needful on the above lines.
45. So, it cannot be said that the EAC had mechanically accepted the report and recommended the project. There is no dispute regarding the propositions laid down in the various decisions (cited supra) relied on the appellant and those things are not strictly applicable to the fact of this case.
46. As regards the question of public hearing is concerned, a public hearing was conducted and 600 persons have participated and mainly they were raising the question regarding the pollution, health study and employment etc. and compensation payable for rehabilitation of the project affected areas and these were answered by the project proponent and those things were considered by the EAC as well. It is also seen from the EIA report submitted by the project proponent that all these aspects were considered in detail.
47. As regards the impact of blasting relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on the basis of the Joint Committee report submitted in O.A. Nos.174 of 2020 (SZ) (Banothu Nandu Nayak Vs. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited & Ors.) and 20 of 2021 (SZ) (Oggu Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Union of India & Ors.), wherein the Joint Committee had observed that certain cracks occurred in the neighbouring houses in respect of JVROC-I (Expansion) project of the 4th respondent. But they have specifically mentioned that on account of the present blasting system adopted, there is no possibility of any cracks occurring and they also mentioned that this might be due to poor quality of construction and the condition which was prevailing in the mining activity during 2013- 14 etc. It was mentioned in the EIA Report regarding the methodology of blasting that is going to be adopted by them and there was no possibility of any vibration and damage being caused to the neighbouring villages. The methodology that has been adopted in the other mining units of the project proponent at present are as per the directions of the Explosives Department and Mining Department Page 38 of 46 and as such, the apprehension of the appellant that there is a possibility of vibration affecting the neighbouring houses and villages etc. have no foundation.
48. We have perused the Final EIA Report submitted, wherein they have considered the various aspects including the sound pollution, R&R facilities, answer to the R&R scheme, forest right activities and the resolution passed by the gram sabha and various studies conducted in Sathupally Town, Kistaram Village, Jaganathapuram, Cherukupalli Village and the anticipated impacts and mitigation measures of air quality and water quality etc. and they also mentioned about the nature of sources of water that they are likely to draw and they have mentioned that they have no intention to draw water in any of the water bodies and they will protect the water bodies etc. Further, the impact due to noise pollution and its management was dealt with in Para 10.5.3 of the final EIA report and the impact due to ground vibration and its management was noted in Para 10.5.4. The impact of socioeconomic environment and the mitigation programs were considered in Para 10.5.7, waste management were considered in Para 10.5.6, greenbelt improvement and wildlife management plan etc. were also considered and environment management plan was also considered in Para 10.6 and additional studies in respect of rehabilitation and resettlement in Para 10.8 and project benefits in Para 10.9 of the EIA Report. They also mentioned about various impact that is likely to be caused on account of the same. Furthermore, they also mentioned about the water quality and the steps taken by them for providing pure water in that area and also to deal with the presence of fluoride in Sathupally Mandal and methodology provided by them for mitigating the same as well.
49. As regards the dust pollution is concerned, they have specifically mentioned that till the railway line is completed in the neighbouring coal mines operated by them, they will be taking the same through road and they also provided necessary pollution control mechanism to rectify the same. The studies have been conducted on those aspects and that has been reflected in the report as well. All probable and possible pollution that is likely to be caused on account of their project and the combined impact study with respect to other similarly placed unit run by the same unit have been properly considered and Page 39 of 46 mitigation measures were also provided. They also provided the CSR amount spent and the proposed CSR for the project of the affected area and those things were considered by the EAC as well as the issuing authority before recommending and granting the Environmental Clearance (EC) to them.
50. A perusal of the EAC Minutes will go to show that there was application of mind and only after getting necessary clarifications and further details from the project proponent, they have recommended the project with certain specific recommendations which were accepted by the issuing authority while granting the Environmental Clearance (EC).
51. The question regarding the conflict of interest is concerned, it is an accredited agency and it is not only carrying out the activities of the 4th respondent but also the other projects and merely because it is a Government agency with Government officials, it cannot be said that unless specific conditions were projected to discredit the study conducted by them requiring any further studies, we don't think that it will be a ground for not accepting the report on the ground mentioned by the appellant. So, we don't find any reason to interfere with the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted for the project, as all probable aspects have been considered in the EIA Report and EMP and also by the authority which issued the Forest Clearance (FC) and compliance thereof have been assured and only thereafter, the final clearance has been granted. Merely because they have simultaneously done is not a ground for setting aside the Environmental Clearance (EC), as otherwise the forest land is involved, there will be a condition imposed by the issuing authority while issuing the Environmental Clearance (EC) that they can start the project only after obtaining necessary clearance from the Forest Department under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Both the FAC as well as EAC considered all the possible impacts and only thereafter, they have independently taken the decision regarding the issuance of the Forest Clearance (FC) and Environmental Clearance (EC). That shows the application of mind of both the authorities in granting the respective clearance. So, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no proper application of mind is also not correct.
Page 40 of 4652. As regards the Forest Rights are concerned, it is seen from the report submitted that necessary gram saba resolutions have been passed on this aspect and the nature of community rights as well as the forest rights were considered and the nature of employment and activities of the tribal who are residing there and the possibility of protecting their interest by shifting them to another place etc. properly considered in the proposed R&R Scheme in respect of the project affected persons. Ultimately, only on the basis of the studies, the actual number of the persons have been identified and their grievance were also redressed on the basis of the recommendations made by the various committees constituted under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 at different levels and only thereafter, the area has been decided to be handed over to the project proponent. It is also seen from the report submitted that in respect of R&R Scheme and the identification of the R&R Centre as required under the present Land Acquisition Act viz., RFCTLARR Act, 2013 which includes the provision for shifting of the persons and providing resettlement and relocation.
53. As regards the wildlife aspect is concerned, the Forest Department had recommended the proposal for diversion of forest land and wildlife mitigation plan was prepared on the basis of their recommendations and an amount of Rs.2.43 Crore has already been deposited by the project proponent for implementation of the wildlife mitigation plan and for preparing the plan, they have considered all the flora and fauna and wildlife that is likely to come across in that area. The impact of the project on Sathupally, Jaganathapuram, Kistaram were considered in detail while conducting the Environmental Assessment Study and mitigation provisions have been provided. Further, in the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted for JOC (Expansion) Project of the same unit, they have provided that the coal will have to be taken through the railway line and it is also seen from the various reports that the railway line in respect of that area is in progress and till then the project proponent was permitted to transport the coal by road providing necessary pollution control mechanism including covering of the vehicles with tarpaulin and continuous sprinkling of water in the loading and unloading places so as to avoid dust pollution. Further, inbuilt mechanism were also provided in the mining process itself so as to avoid dust pollution that is likely to emanate during mining operation and those aspects were specifically considered while imposing conditions under the heads air Page 41 of 46 quality monitoring and preservation and water quality monitoring and preservation, noise and vibration monitoring and preservation, land reclamation, mining plan, greenbelt, Corporate Environment Responsibility and other aspects and necessary conditions have been imposed on that aspect.
54. So under such circumstances, we feel that there is no merit in the appeal and we do not find any reason to set aside the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted to the 4th respondent unit for their Kistaram Opencast Coal Mining project, but applying the ‗Precautionary Principle', we direct the project proponent to carry out the following things:-
a. The project proponent is directed To take all precautionary methods to mitigate the possible dust pollution that is likely to be emanated during their operation, including transport of coal mined by providing all necessary pollution control mechanism which is likely to be imposed by the State Pollution Control Board from time to time.
To complete the railway line project for carrying the mined article in the other project area which was given as one of the conditions in the Environmental Clearance (EC) and on completion of the same, they are directed to transport the same through railway line provided in the neighbouring projects area of the same unit. Till then they are permitted to transport the coal to the extent permitted by road using trucks and conveyors by providing effective pollution control measures such as regular water/mist sprinkling/rain gun etc. and that should be carried out in critical areas prone to air pollution with higher values of PM2.5 and PM10 such as haul road, loading and unloading and transport points.
To monitor the Ambient Air Quality by providing necessary monitoring system at all directions so as to assess the Ambient Air Quality and when it exceeds, take appropriate steps to mitigate the same by providing necessary pollution control mechanism.Page 42 of 46
To install the monitoring station at the places considering the wind direction in consultation with the SPCB, so that apprehension of people can be addressed and any excess found, can be addressed immediately.
To strictly comply with the specific as well as general conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance (EC) and Forest Clearance (FC) granted.
To conduct periodical health survey in the project affected area and provide all necessary medical facilities to the project affected persons free of cost depending upon the nature of disease that is likely to be caused on account of the dust pollution in that area.
They should not violate any of the conditions imposed and they should not do any excess mining than the permission granted without obtaining further clearance or permission as required under the respective mining laws and environmental laws.
b. The State Pollution Control Board is directed to periodically monitor the activities of the 4th respondent in carrying out the mining operation and if there is any violation found, then they are directed to take appropriate action against them including imposition of environmental compensation for the violations apart from initiating prosecution and resorting to other coercive steps as provided under the respective statutes. c. The State Pollution Control Board is also directed to monitor the Ambient Air Quality and other possible pollution that is likely to be caused on account of the operation of the 4th respondent unit and if the pollution control mechanism provided are not sufficient, then they are directed to suggest further mitigation measures and if such measures are suggested, then the 4th respondent is directed to carry out the same in its letter and spirit.
d. The MoEF&CC through the Regional Office at Hyderabad is also directed to monitor the compliance of the Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions and if there is any violation found, then they are directed to take appropriate action against the 4 th respondent in accordance with law.Page 43 of 46
55. The points are answered accordingly.
56. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with the following directions:-
i. The prayer for setting aside the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted to the 4th respondent by the 1st respondent vide Proceedings F.No.11015/212/2014-IA-II(M) dated 12.06.2019 for their Kistharam Opencast Coal Mining project in Kistaram Village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District of State of Telangana is hereby rejected.
ii. The project proponent is directed To take all precautionary methods to mitigate the possible dust pollution that is likely to be emanated during their operation, including transport of coal mined by providing all necessary pollution control mechanism which is likely to be imposed by the State Pollution Control Board from time to time.
To complete the railway line project for carrying the mined article in the other project area which was given as one of the conditions in the Environmental Clearance (EC) and on completion of the same, they are directed to transport the same through railway line provided in the neighbouring projects area of the same unit. Till then they are permitted to transport the coal to the extent permitted by road using trucks and conveyors by providing effective pollution control measures such as regular water/mist sprinkling/rain gun etc. and that should be carried out in critical areas prone to air pollution with higher values of PM2.5 and PM10 such as haul road, loading and unloading and transport points.
To monitor the Ambient Air Quality by providing necessary monitoring system at all directions so as to assess the Ambient Air Quality and when it exceeds, take appropriate steps to mitigate the same by providing necessary pollution control mechanism.
Page 44 of 46 To install the monitoring station at the places considering the wind direction in consultation with the SPCB, so that apprehension of people can be addressed and any excess found, can be addressed immediately.
To strictly comply with the specific as well as general conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance (EC) and Forest Clearance (FC) granted.
To conduct periodical health survey in the project affected area and provide all necessary medical facilities to the project affected persons free of cost depending upon the nature of disease that is likely to be caused on account of the dust pollution in that area.
They should not violate any of the conditions imposed and they should not do any excess mining than the permission granted without obtaining further clearance or permission as required under the respective mining laws and environmental laws.
iii. The State Pollution Control Board is directed to periodically monitor the activities of the 4th respondent in carrying out the mining operation and if there is any violation found, then they are directed to take appropriate action against them including imposition of environmental compensation for the violations apart from initiating prosecution and resorting to other coercive steps as provided under the respective statutes.
iv. The State Pollution Control Board is also directed to monitor the Ambient Air Quality and other possible pollution that is likely to be caused on account of the operation of the 4th respondent unit and if the pollution control mechanism provided are not sufficient, then they are directed to suggest further mitigation measures and if such measures are suggested, then the 4th respondent is directed to carry out the same in its letter and spirit.
Page 45 of 46v. The MoEF&CC through the Regional Office at Hyderabad is also directed to monitor the compliance of the Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions and if there is any violation found, then they are directed to take appropriate action against the 4th respondent in accordance with law.
vi. Considering the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their respective cost in the appeal.
vii. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Chairman - SPCB, Director - Department of Mines and Geology, Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Hyderabad, Special Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Environment, Science & Technology and the Chief Secretary to Government, State of Telangana for their information and compliance of directions.
viii. The MoEF&CC is directed to take back the file (relating to the issuance of EC) produced before the Tribunal at the earliest.
57. With the above observations and directions, this Appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM Appeal No.02/2020 (SZ), 29th September 2022. Mn.
Page 46 of 46