National Green Tribunal
Vijesh Kumar V vs Moef on 28 September, 2022
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan, Satyagopal Korlapati
Item No. 07 Court No.1:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No.155 of 2020(SZ)
(Through video conference)
IN THE MATTER OF:
VIJEESH KUMAR,
Aged 34 years,
S/o. Vidhyadharan,
Shailaja Bhavan, Enthivila, Cheeranikkara P.O.,
Vembayam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 615 ...Applicant(s)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh Road,
New Delhi-110003 & Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Date of Judgment: 28.09.2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): M/s. P. B. Sahasaranaman
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Me. Saraswathy for R1.
Mr. Saravanan represented
Mrs. Vidhyalakshmi Vipin for R2.
Mr. Philip J. Vettickattu &
M/s. Sajitha George for R3.
Mr. G. Vignesh represented
Mr. E.K. Kumaresan for R4.
ORDER
Judgment pronounced through Video Conference. The original application is disposed of with directions vide separate Judgment. Pending interlocutory application, if any, shall stands disposed of.
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, J.M.
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, E.M.
O.A. No. 155/2020(SZ)
28th September 2022. AD
1
Item No.7 Court No.1:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No.155 of 2020(SZ)
(Through video conference)
IN THE MATTER OF:
VIJEESH KUMAR,
Aged 34 years,
S/o. Vidhyadharan,
Shailaja Bhavan, Enthivila, Cheeranikkara P.O., Vembayam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 615 ...Applicant(s) Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY Represented by its Secretary, Pallimukku-Kannammoola Rd, Overbridge, Velakudi, Thiruvananthapuram-695024
3. M/s COVENANT STONES PVT. LTD., Represented by its Mangaing Director, Katta, Cheeranikkara P.O, Vembayam, Thiruvananthapuram
4. THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY Pattom Palace PO, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram-695004.
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): M/s. P. B. Sahasaranaman
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith
2
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Me. Saraswathy for R1.
Mr. Saravanan represented
Mrs. Vidhyalakshmi Vipin for R2.
Mr. Philip J. Vettickattu &
M/s. Sajitha George for R3.
Mr. G. Vignesh represented
Mr. E.K. Kumaresan for R4.
Judgment Reserved on: 01st September 2022.
Judgment Pronounced on: 28th September 2022.
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.
JUDGEMENT Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member
1. The grievance in this application is regarding the operation of 3rd respondent quarry in violation of the EIA Notification 2006 and the mining laws.
2. The applicant is a resident and a tax payer of Vembayam Grama Panchayat in Thiruvananthapuram District, State of Kerala. He claimed that he had not filed any public interest litigation in respect this issue before this Tribunal or before the Hon'ble High Court.
3. His residence is within 500meters from the quarry site of the 3rd respondent, the adjacent plot. Most of the people who reside near the quarry are economically backward and some depend on to the quarrying operations for eking out their livelihood.
4. The residential buildings of Shaji, Maniyanpillai, Pichri and baby are situated within 200meters and that of Pradeep, Radha, Shaji, Lalithkumar and Ajayans are situated within 500meters from the quarry area.
5. The 3rd respondent is a company engaged in quarrying Granite Diamond Stone and Building Stone and selling the same throughout India. The 3 quarrying operations are carried out in the property having an extent of 8.9637 hectares comprised in Survey Nos., 29/2, 29/3 & 30/4 of Thekkada Village, Vembayam Grama Panchayat & comprised Survey Nos., 470, 472/4/1, 474/1,1/2, 472/5, 472/6, 469/4/3/4, 469/4/3/3, 469/4/2, 469/4/1/1, 469/4/1/2, 469/4/1/3 & 469/4 of Manickal village, Manickal Grama Panchayat Nedumangad Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram district.
6. These two quarries are situated in two different villages in Vembayam and Manikkal Grama Panchayat and the Google Earth images of the two sites taken on 28.02.2020 showing the nearby residential areas were produced along with the application as Annexure.A.1.
7. It can be seen from the Google Earth pictures that the quarry site is on the top of a hill and there are nearby residences and the crow flying distance is only 10 meters. They are the direct sufferers of the environmental damages caused by the illegal mining activities being carried out by the 3rd respondent against which no action was taken by the authorities.
8. In order to ascertain the quantity of excess mining and the damage suffered assessment by an expert body is required. But it was not being done in Kerala and the result was that frequent land sliding causing damages to the poor. There was no independent assessment of the quantity of mining done in any quarry. Some papers works were made and arbitrary figures fixed in the form of Mining Plan or Environment Management Plan or Environment Impact Assessment. The specialised authority used to accept it and pass orders for environmental clearance.
9. The applicant was closely monitoring the quarrying operations being carried out right from the beginning. The officers of the 3rd respondents were terrorizing the people of the area who are poor. The properties of several persons residing therein were encroached. Cracks were developed in several houses due to the excessive vibrations caused on account of the mining activities. One Sulochana whose house had developed crack on acconut of the excessive use of explosives for mining. She made a complaint to the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram on 20.09.2019.
But no action was taken. On 09.06.2011 a big portion of the quarry had 4 fallen and resulted in a loss of life of three persons namely Chandrakumar, Baby and Murukeshan who were working in the said quarry. Their bodies were recovered with the support of the fire Force Department.
10. The Geologist has found that quarrying operations were carried outside the mining area and based on the report dated 25.01.2020, it has been found that illegal excavation of 30385 metric tonnes of granite building stone was done outside the mining area and 41558.75 metric tonnes from the buffer zone. The royalty for mining alone comes to an amount of Rs. 52,04,950 (Fifty-two Lakh four thousand nine hundred and fifty) and that was realized by the Geology Department from the 3rd respondent. But no penal action was taken against the said company under any laws of the country. Cracks have been developed in many houses. The ecology of the hilly area was changed. The mining pits were not closed. Mining is done without following any of the conditions imposed by Environmental Clearance.
11. The applicant had produced some of the photographs of the quarrying pit and the surrounding houses which developed cracks as Annexure.A.2.
12. The Environment Clearance(EC) as required under Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 which is mandatory for mining/quarrying operations of minor minerals even if the mining area is less than 5 hectares as per the decision of the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar vs Union of India 2012 (4) SCC 629 and this judgement was rendered on 27.02.2012. The 3rd respondent following the same applied for securing Environmental clearance for their building stone quarrying in the said land on 25.03.2014. The 3rd respondent submitted a mining plan along with it and he was granted with Environmental Clearance by 2nd respondent by proceedings no. 237/SEIAA/KL/885/2014 dated 27.11.2014. for 5 years without any Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) . The dimension of the stone is 30,000 cubic meter and the building stone to be mined is 2,85,000 tonnes/annum as per the Environmental Clearance at the relevant time. A true copy of the said Environmental 5 Clearance granted to the 3rd respondent by the 2nd respondent dated 27.04.2014 was produced as Annexure.A.3.
13. The 3rd respondent had managed to obtain Environmental Clearance without the Environment Impact Assessment report and mining plan. The Environmental Clearance (EC) was issued on extraneous circumstances. While so the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 was issued which provided that person who are having the mining permit should submit mining plan within one year till 01.04.2016 which is an ingenious method resorted to facilitate the leaseholders to continue their operation without possessing a valid environmental clearance. The 3rd respondent had immediately produced a Mining Plan before the 2nd respondent which was certified by the Geologist on 29.04.2015.
14. The Plan contains a table showing the year wise production and development quantities from the year 2013-2018 as follows:
Unit: in CuM Unit: in MT
Year Dimension Stone Building Stone
ROM ROM Waste rock
1st Year 2013-14 9000 85,500 4,500
2nd Year 2014-15 25,000 2,37,500 12500
3rd Year 2015-16 30,000 2,85,000 15000
4th Year 2016-17 30,000 2,85,000 15,000
5th Year 2017-18 30,000 2,85,000 15,000
Total 1,24,000 11,78,000 62,000
15. The Environmental Clearance granted as per Annexure A.3 for five years expired on 26.11.2019. The 3rd respondent made an application for the issuance of Terms of Reference (ToR). This was placed before the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) in its 10th meeting held on 10th and 11th and they decided to issue ToR and the true copy of the minutes of the 14th meeting of SEAC, Kerala (relevant pages pertaining to the project) was produced as Annexure A.4.
16. In the mean time 2nd respondent extended the period of expiry by 6 months evidenced by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 10.12.2019 and that proceeding was produced as Annexure.A.5.
17. Along with the applications for renewal the project proponent has to submit a Mining Plan. The 3rd respondent instead of preparing a new changed the 6 first few pages of earlier mining plan and re-submitted the same. The said Mining Plan contains 53 pages description and other annexures. But it does not show the quantity of the quarrying operations done and the state of the environment.
18. The above irregularities in submitting a tailor-made Mining Plan without any details have been found out by the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) while considering the File No. 1422/ECI/2019/SEIAA. The SEAC in its meeting held on 11th and 12th February 2020 has found that the issues are pertinent and factual ascertained from the connected file and the matter was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent evidenced by Annexure A.6. Minutes of the SEAC of their 110th meeting held on 11th and 12th February, 2020.
19. The 2nd respondent noted in its meeting held on 21/24-06/2020 that they have sent a letter dated 07.03.2020 to the 4th respondent reiterating the fraud committed by the 3rd respondent in preparing the Mining Plan. The submission of the application for extension of Environmental Clearance and the 4th respondent via e-mail dated 18.06.2020, has reported that fraud has been committed in the Mining Plan and for further investigation, the matter has been reported to Police Vigilance Authority decided to wait for the final report from the Director of Mining and Geology for taking further decisions in this regard. In the meantime, the Authority has decided not to give further extension sought by the 3rd respondent. If the quarrying area is calculated using scientific technology like total station survey and satellite images it will show that much more quantity of minerals have been mined. The minutes of the 104th meeting of the 2nd respondent held on 22nd, 23rd & 24th June, 2020 in respect of 3rd respondent unit was produced as Annexure A.7. But in the meantime, the 2nd respondent has issued ToR in consideration of the application made by the 3rd respondent based on the recommendations made by SEAC, evidenced by Annexure.A.4.
20. The 3rd respondent used to carry illegally mined minerals without any passes, and they were transporting the same illegally. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nedumangad had seized four vehicles of 3rd respondent company on 24.02.2020 for transporting the minerals without transit permits, 7 using vehicles having registration numbers, KL-22-K-8901, Kl-21-U-0209 and KL-21-T-6350. On 05.03.2020 another two vehicles with registration numbers, KL-01-BX-4418 and KL-01-BG-5478 were also seized by the Tahasildar, Nedumangad. The 3rd respondent also transported multiple loads of granite without having proper transit permits.
21. The fact that Environmental Clearance expired on 26.11.2019 was suppressed and obtained further renewal for 6 months. The said EC lapsed on 26.05.2020 and the 3rd respondent had made renewal application and ToR issued.
22. The Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS) had conducted a study about the feasibility of the mining and the parameters of pollution in Manikkal Panchayat in the year 2012 and submitted the report to the Panchayat and the Government in which it was clearly states that no mining activates should be conducted in this Panchayat which will adversely affect the ecology of the Panchayat and the report so prepared by the said institution was produced as Annexure.A.8.
23. The report was suppressed and ignored by the authorities and has permitted the project proponent for illegal mining. Though Pollution Control Board was also having power under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 to launch prosecution against the violators, apart from similar provisions were made in Environment Protection Act, 1986, but, there was no proper delegation under Sec.23 of the Act empowering the States or its officers to launch prosecution which is very necessary. For at diligent prosecution, there must be proper authority to launch prosecution which is yet to be done.
24. Though there was provisions in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for launching prosecution for the violation of the rules by invoking the penal provision therein theoretically it was not being done and on account of the same the environmental crime is increasing.
825. The applicant made a representation to the 1st respondent pointing out the failure of the SEIAA officials in curtailing the illegal activities diligently on 30.07.2020 and the representation so sent was produced as Annexure.A.9.
26. Since, no action was taken on the basis of the representation and also no action was taken against the 3rd respondent for his illegal mining. The applicant has no other remedy expect to approach to this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs for issuing directions:
(i) To the 1st respondent to take immediate measures to assess the damages that have caused on account of the illegal quarrying operation being carried out by the 3rd respondent based on EC issued on
27.11.2014 and renewed on 10.12.2019 and to pass necessary orders under Sec.5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to recover the same from the 3rd respondents and its officers responsible and prosecute them in accordance with the law.
(ii) To the 1st respondent to pass necessary orders invoking its powers under Sec.5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 calling for the application made by the 3rd respondent for the issuance of environmental clearance and pass orders in accordance with law;
(iii) Pass an order directing the 1st respondent delegating the powers under Sec.23 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to the police officers or such officers which this Hon'ble Tribunal thinks fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case to prosecute persons who do illegal operations in gross violation of the Environmental Clearance granted to them;
(iv) Pass an order directing the respondents 2 and 4 to prosecute the officers who are responsible for submitting false or forged or illegal documents for obtaining and renewing environmental clearance on behalf of the 3rd respondent company.
(v) Direct the 1st respondent to initiate criminal prosecution against the officers responsible in the 3rd respondents institutions for violations of the provisions of the environmental legislation;
(vi) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice.
927. While having prima facie satisfied with the allegations made in the application and having satisfied that their arose a substantial question of environment which required the interference of this Tribunal, this Tribunal by order dated 19.08.2020 admitted the matter and appointed a joint committee comprising of a) a Senior Officer from the Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change(MoEF&CC), Bangalore, b) A Senior Office State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Kerala, c) A Senior Officer from the Director of Mining and Geology, Thiruvanthapuram, d)A Seinor Officer form National Centre for Earth Science Studies, Thiruvanthapuram, Kerala, and e) A Senior Scientist from Kerala State Pollution Control Board to inspect the quarry in question and submit a status as well as action taken report if there was any violation found including assessment of environment compensation.
28. The committee was also directed to go into the question regarding the excess quarry if any done and whether the earlier closure of plan has been complied with and whether the rehabilitation and reclamation has been carried out by the 3rd respondent, the extent of environmental degradation caused on account of unscientific method of quarrying said to have been carried out by the 3rd respondent, whether on account of the operation of the quarry against the provisions of the environment clearance and licenses granted, any damage has been caused to the neighbouring houses and to the ecology, whether the pollution control mechanism provided by the quarry operator was adequate and proper.
29. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Kerala was designated as the nodal agency for coordination and also providing necessary logistics for the purpose.
30. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit contending as follows:
They denied most of the allegations made in the application as they were made without conducting any proper enquiry and without producing proper evidence. They contended that the applicant had not stated about the actual topography of the area was at the time of mining lease was granted to the 3rd respondent. As a matter of record, the mining lease granted to the 3 rd respondent was not a virgin mine but a mine which had already been mined 10 by another person. It has to be first seen as to what was the actual topography of the area, what was the area mined by the earlier licensee and what was the area given to the respondent. Without ascertaining the said facts it would not be appropriate to fasten the liability on the 3rd respondent.
31. Apart from this, while the mining license was issued to the respondent, it was clearly stated under the Environment Clearance that there would be no damage on the environment or bio diversity as the mine was an existing one.
32. The Applicant had made numerous claims solely against the activities of the 3rd respondent without consideration of the fact that the quarry which was leased to the 3rd respondent was not a virgin quarry but a pre-existing quarry that had already been mined before. This fact was mentioned in both the Environment Clearance granted to them and also the report submitted by the joint committee wherein it was mentioned that quarrying activities in that area is being done since 2003 onwards. But the quarrying operation of the 3rd respondent started only in the year 2015.
33. The 3rd respondent had applied for a fresh quarrying lease to the Director of Geology and Mining, Kerala/4th respondent in 2011, the same was granted for a extent of 8.9367 Hectares of land comprised in Survey No. 29/2, 29/3 and 30/4 of Thekkada village, Nedumangad Taluk and comprised in Survey No. 470, 472/5/ 472/5, 474/1, 474/1-2, 472/4-1 and 474/1-2 of Manikkal village Nedumangad Taluk, Trivandrum District, Kerala, for mining granite building stones to be utilised for sale purposes. The mining lease was granted for a period of 12 years starting from 23.05.2012 to 22.05.2023.
34. He had applied for Environmental clearance to State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) on 25.04.2014 with respect to the lease area and received a clearance on 27.11.2014 vide proceedings No. 237/SEIAA/KL/885/2014, which was valid for five years. It was mentioned in the Environmental Clearance that the project of the 3rd respondent's is categorised as a B2 Category project as per the O.M.No. J-13012/12/2013- 1A-II (I), Ministry of Environment Forests dated 24.12.2013.
1135. A joint reading of the above said Office memorandum dated 24.12.2013, along with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. It will be seen that the project that falls under Category B2 do not require an Environment Impact Assessment report for receiving an Environmental Clearance.
36. So, the allegations made by the applicant that Environment Clearance was granted without getting any Environment Impact Assessment report is not correct.
37. The application is barred by limitations and a false period of limitations reckoning from 11.02.2020 was projected on the basis of the so called detection of fraud said to have committed by the 3rd respondent by SEIAA. In fact the issue raised by the applicant was in existence long prior to that from 2014 onwards. When the 3rd respondent had obtained Environmental Clearance in respect of this project and as such the application filed after six months and sixty days extended time provided under Sec.14(3) and the proviso of National Green Tribunal Act and as such is barred by the limitation. The distances mentioned are not correct.
38. There are no houses situated near the quarry. The allegations of the illegal mining said to have committed by the 3rd respondents also is not correct and denied. They had also denied the allegation that on account of the operation of the 3rd respondent unit certain cracks had developed to the nearby houses and their officials were threatening the people of the nearby houses etc., are false and denied.
39. They also denied the allegation that they have committed excess mining in the buffer zones and also trespassing to the nearby properties.
40. They had also denied the allegation that there was any damage caused environment on account of their activities.
41. The applicant had approached this Tribunal without verifying the actual fact or suppressing the material facts to suit his convenience. The authorities had forwarded the complaint to the police vigilance and an enquiry is pending. Even while the proceedings were pending before the police vigilance the 12 applicant had taken steps to declare the 3rd respondent guilty and projected them as criminal and they will have to be prosecuted for illegal mining and to pay damages. Further, a writ petition was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, as W.P.(C).No.10035 of 2020 pertaining to the mining done by the 3rd respondent, the Hon'ble High Court held in Paragraph 4 of the judgement that "it is only better in the fitness of things that the said authorities examine those complaints so as to take appropriate action in accordance with law and therefore it cannot be right and proper for this Court to enter into the merit of the controversy in any manner" so the reliefs claimed in this application is premature in nature. In view of the above judgement passed by the Hon'ble High court and certain proceedings are pending before the authorities. There was no violation committed by the 3rd respondent either under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Environment Protection Act, 1986 as alleged in the application.
42. The applicant is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the application and they prayed for dismissal of the application.
43. The 3rd respondent also filed an additional counter affidavit contending as follows:
The respondent had submitted their application for Environment Clearance with respect of the project area on 25.03.2014. At that point of time, the SEIAA was not insisting for any approved Mining Plan for filing an application for Environment Clearance since, the Government of Kerala had not notified the standards for preparing a mining plan and empowered any authority to approve a mining plan.
44. This respondent had filed the application for Environmental Clearance on 25.03.2014 with all necessary supporting documents insisted by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) at the relevant point of time. Either SEIAA or SEAC had asked for any approved mining plan as well.
45. Though the Ministry of Environment and Forest has issued Guidelines for filing application for Environmental Clearance for B2 projects on 24.12.2013, the necessary follow up steps for implementing the same were taken by 13 Government of Kerala only in the year 2015. The Government had empowered the competent authority to approve a mining plan on 12.01.2015.
46. By 06.02.2015, the Government had introduced Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 in supersession of its predecessor namely Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 and thereby, for the first time, in the State of Kerala, the Government had introduced the necessary Norms and Standards for preparing and approving a Mining Plan for Minor Minerals by way of Chapter VI of the Rules, 2015 and made it compulsory to have approved mining plan even for existing quarries.
47. By Rule 66 of the Kerala Mining Mineral Concession Rule, 2015, the State Government insisted for preparation for mining plan for existing quarry leaseholders. Thus requirement of mining plan as regards the minor minerals became mandatory only by 06.02.2015 and one year time was granted under the Rules for this purpose.
48. The respondent being a existing leaseholder who falls within the purview of the Rule 66 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, had prepared and submitted a Mining Plan through Registered Qualified Person (RQP) and got it approved by the competent authority appointed for the purpose of Chapter VI, within the time stipulated therein.
49. The Mining Plan prepared by them included Working Plan for the first 5 years, Tentative plan for the second 5 years, Conceptual plan which extent to 30 years Progressive Quarry Closure Plan etc., as required under the relevant rules.
50. The copy of the relevant pages containing Rule 66 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, the relevant pages of the approved mining plan submitted under the Rule 66 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 and approved by the authority was produced as Annexure R3(a).
1451. The said mining plan was approved by the competent authority on 29.04.2015 and it was valid till the expiry of the Quarrying Lease and Working plan for the first 5 years would expire only by 28.04.2020.
52. Annexure R3 (a) is the only Mining Plan which the 3rd respondent had prepared and got approved by a competent authority with respect to the quarrying project.
53. In spite of the fact that there was no insistence by the SEIAA for producing Mining Plan. The 3rd respondent had submitted the same along with the application for Environment clearance on 25.03.2014. Bearing the official seal and post dated approval i.e.29.04.2015.
54. The Enquiry of the Director, Mining and Geology, he had submitted that a complaint was filed in the name of one Sr. Sakkeer Hussain before SEIAA, alleging that one and the same mining plan was submitted for the purpose of original grant for Environmental Clearance as well as for the extension, by merely replacing the front pages. The SEIAA had forwarded the complaint to the Director, Mining & Geology and sought for a report. The SEIAA had not entered into any finding or conclusion that any malpractice or forgery has been committed.
55. The Mining and Geology Director forwarded the matter to the District Geologist, Tiruvandrum for enquiry and report. While the matter was pending before the District Geologist, a writ petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the writ petition was finally disposed off directing the Director, Mining and Geology to dispose of the matter evidenced by the judgement in R.P. No. 389/2020, dated 06.07.2020 evidenced by Annexure R3(b).
56. After concluding the enquiry by hearing all the parties are concerned, the Director, Mining and Geology had prepared and forwarded report to SEIAA. In the said report, it is clearly mentioned by the Director as follows:
"It is relevant to note that for Environment Clearance granted prior to 2015, approved mining plan is not necessitated and in such a circumstance, there is absolutely no requirement to place a forged/manipulated mining plan before SEIAA for granting EC. It is stated that the mining plan for the period 2015-16 to 2019-20, approved on 29-04- 2015 can only be treated as an official document. Forgery 15 comes when there is manipulation of official documents. There is no question that 2015-16 to 2019-20 mining plan is manipulated based on which E.C. was granted"
And the true copy of the report dated 16.06.2020 was produced as Annexure R3(c).
57. A perusal of the report of the Director will go to show that the allegations made by the applicant that there was fraud committed by the 3rd respondent in preparing the mining plan is not correct.
58. The respondent had submitted an application for extension of validity of Environmental Clearance on 28.06.2019 in view of the approaching expiry of the Environmental Clearance by 26.11.2019. He had submitted Annexure R3(a), along with the said extension application, since the validity of the same was not expired by then. The working plan which form part of the approved mining plan was also valid for 5 years and expiring only on 28.04.2020 and the application for extension was filed as early as 28.06.2019. The approved mining plan was valid for the entire duration of the quarry lease which is expiring on 22.05.2023. The true copy of the covering letter, dated 28.06.2019, which was filed along with the application for extension of Environmental Clearance submitted before to SEIAA was produced as Annexure R3(d).
59. The application was appraised by the SEAC and recommended to the SEIAA. Later the SEIAA had extended the validity for short period of 5 months only and the procedure adopted is legal and valid.
60. The respondent company was incorporated on 11.03.2011. One Sri. Sabu Joseph, S/o. K.I. Joseph, Villa No. 4, Palm Hill Villas, Pallimukku, Kallayam P.O., Kudappanakkannu, Thiruvananthapuram, was appointed as the first Managing Director of the company evidenced by the articles of association produced as Annexure R3(e). He was appointed for a period of five years and later he was appointed as Managing Director.
61. Sri. Sabu Joseph had managed to win the full confidence and trust of the Company and he was in direct charge and responsible for the day to day affairs of the company. The decision for filing application for various licenses, before various statutory authorities for mining concession were 16 taken under his supervision, involvement, knowledge, consent and active participation. In view of the trust and confidence, he had gained no one would interfere with the decisions and conducts of Sri. Sabu Joseph.
62. However, the said Sri. Sabu Joseph had his own devious intentions from the very inception of the Company. He submitted that though the Co0mpany had resolved to conduct quarrying operations in its name, Sri. Sabu Joseph managed to obtain the quarry lease executed in his personal name and also obtained various vital licenses in his personal name. He had cleverly concealed all these facts from the notice of the Company and other directors of the company. Such fraudulent conducts of Sri. Sabu Joseph were never suspected or discovered by the other members of the company, in view of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
63. The copy of the relevant pages of the application for quarrying lease dated 28.04.201 was produced as AnnexureR3(f).
64. The order sanctioning for quarrying lease by the Director, Mining and Geology dated 20.05.2011 was produced as Annexure R3(g). The relevant copy of the draft quarrying lease, dated 18.06.2017 issued from the office of Director, Mining and Geology Department for preparing quarrying lease deed was produced as Annexure R3(h). The true copy of the relevant pages of the quarrying lease deed executed between the competent authority and Sri. Sabu Joseph, dated 23.05.2011 in his personal capacity was produced as Annexure R3(i).
65. It is clear from the above documents the quarrying lease deed was executed fraudulently in the name of Sri. Sabu Joseph.
66. The true copy of the license issued by the local Self Government Institutions in the personal name of Sri. Sabu Joseph issued in the year 2011 to 2016 were produced as Annexure R3(j) to Annexure R3(j)(6).
67. The fraudulent conduct of Sri. Sabu Joseph were discovered only during 2016-2017 and gradually when the company approached a bank for loan. At that time, the relevant documents were sought for verification by the bank. Sr. Sabu Joseph, had tried to delay the processing. Ultimately when the documents reached the bank for verification, it was intimated that no loan can be sanctioned in the name of the company, since the quarrying lease and 17 other documents are standing in the name of Sri. Sabu Joseph and not in the name of the Company.
68. Extensive enquiries were conducted into the affairs of Sri. Sabu Joseph , as Managing Director, during the tenure starting from 2011 to 2017, and huge malpractices, which includes fraud, forgery, misappropriation, suppression of facts and siphoning of funds, loss of records etc., were discovered.
69. Later, a complaint was filed against Sri. Sabu Joseph before the police and an FIR were registered as crime No. 2592/2020 of Vattapara Police Station and the same is being under investigation.
70. Sri. Sabu Joseph, had resigned from the company evidenced by Annexure R3(k). Form D1R-12 letter downloaded from the official website of the Registrar of Companies and attested.
71. Ever Since such exist, Sri. Sabu Joseph, had taken earnest efforts to see that the quarrying operations of the Company are stopped and not resumed any further. In retaliation of the discovery of his fraudulent conducts and consequent exist from the Company, Sri. Sabu Joseph had been submitting objections and filing false complaints against the company, before various authorities including Mining and Geology Department, inter alia insisting not to issue any further movement permits, pass, renewal of license of various statutory authorities, etc., and true copy of the letter dated 17.07.2017 submitted by Sr. Sabu Joseph was produced as Annexure R3(l).
72. In view of the objections raised by Sri. Sabu Joseph, before various statutory authorities, the quarrying operations were obstructed and stopped since the last week of the July 2017 onwards.
73. The disputes led to litigations and still later Sri. Sabu Joseph voluntarily agreed to execute rectification deed with respect to the quarrying lease deed and effect change of name. Accordingly a rectification deed was executed on 06.02.0219.
74. The RMCU registration was renewed and the movement permit was issued for quarrying operations, only after the Rectification deed was executed as 18 already submitted quarrying operations were disrupted since the last week of July 2017 till 05.04.2019, in view of the objections and complaints filed by Sri. Sabu Joseph before various authorities expect for a period of hardly 5 months.
75. The Synopsis of the functioning of the company was detailed by the 3rd respondent as follows:
Events Date
(i) Incorporation of company 11.03.2011
(ii) Execution of quarrying lease 23.05.2011
(iii) Compounding of quarry lease with RMCU 27.03.2013
(iv) Exist of Sri. Sabu Joseph from the company 30.06.2017
(v) Stopping of quarrying operation in view of 01.08.2017
complaints from Sabu Joseph
(vi) Restarting of quarrying operation 01.11.2017
(vii) Stopping of quarrying operation in view of 01.04.2018
non-renewal of RMCU registration due to
objection on the part of Sabu Joseph
(viii) Execution of Rectification of deed 06.02.2019
(ix) Resumption of quarrying operation after 05.04.2019
the execution of rectification deed
(x) Stopping of quarrying operation 07.03.2020
76. Since most of the activities were done during the period of Sri. Sabu Joseph as the Managing Director. He is the necessary party to the proceedings, as he had caused huge monetary loss to the company and landed the company in legal complications. The applicant had no locus standi to file the application has he is residing 5 KM away from the quarry but he had falsely mentioned in the application that "his residence is situated 500 meters away from the quarry site".
77. The quarry of the 3rd respondent is located at a place locally known as "Katta", whereas the residence of the applicant is situated at a place locally known as "Enthivilla". The quarry is situated in Ward No. VII of Vembayam Grama Panchayat, but the applicant residence is situated in Ward No.VI of the same panchayat and the distance is more that 5 KM from the quarry.
19Though there were more quarry situated in between the residence of the applicant and quarry of the 3rd respondent he had selectively challenging the activities of the 3rd respondent alone. In spite of such long distance and presence of three more quarries in between that shows the intension on the part of the applicant in filing the application and he has no locus standi to file the application as well. This will go to show that he is only acting as a tool in the hands of the Former Managing Director of the company namely Sri. Sabu Joseph. The quantity of alleged excess mining made was also not correct. They have to pay an amount of more than Rs. 50 lakhs, on account of various illegal activities committed by Sri. Sabu Joseph who happen to be the Managing Director of the Company. But for the activities done by him in his personal capacity.
78. So the quantity is said to have been excessively mined or illegally transported said to be done by the 3rd respondent could not be possible for the reasons stated above.
79. So they prayed for accepting their contentions and dismiss the application.
80. The matter was taken up on 16.03.2021 and on that day this Tribunal considered the Joint Committee report of November 2020, e-filed on 17.12.2020 extracted in the Para (3) of the order which reads as follows:
Report of the Joint Committee as per the direction of the Hon'ble NGT south zone Case filed in Hon'ble NGT South Zone O.A no 155/2020 Shri Vijeesh Kumar Vs. U.O.I and others 1.0 Background The Covenant Stones Pvt Ltd is involved in the operation of a building stone quarry and dimension stone quarry in an area of 8.9637 Ha. in the Manikkal and Thekkada Villages of Nedumangad Taluk of Thiruvananthapuram district, Kerala (Fig 1 and 2). The first environmental clearance was issued by SEIAA to this quarry on 2014 vide environmental clearance No 237/SEIAA/ KL/ 885/2014 dated 27/11/2014 and it was expired in 2019. The SEIAA had given an extension of six months vide environmental clearance by SEIAA no 1422/EC1/2019/SEIAA dated 3.01.2020 from 2019 to 2020 (see Annexure 6 and &7) . Meanwhile the Tahsildar, Nedumangad Taluk issued a stop memo dated 7.3.2020 to M/s Covenant Stones Pvt. Ltd. for transporting quarried materials without valid documents. At present the environment clearance is not in force and all the quarrying operations are stopped. As per the statement of the Company representative the quarry is not in operation since 7 March 2020.
At the moment the extension period of the EC is over and the mining operations have come to a standstill. Further extension of the lease period is rejected by SEIAA. Now the company has applied for the approval of Terms of reference (TOR) for conducting an EIA study followed by public hearing which are pre requisites for Environmental Clearance (EC) for any mining projects having a real extent of 5 Ha or more. This application is now pending before SEIAA, Kerala.
Shri Vijeesh Kumar filed O.A. No 155/2020 before Hon'ble NGT South Zone alleging that lot of environmental damage has been done on account of violations committed by M/s Covenant Stones (P) Ltd,Vembayam , Thiruvananthapuram and the Proponent had manipulated mining plan submitted with application for EC for the subsequent periods.
20Vide order dated 19.08.2020 in OA No 155/2020 Hon'ble NGT South Zone has directed to appoint a Joint Committee consisting of officers from SEIAA, MoEF& CC , KSPCB, DMG and NCESS (Annexure 1 and 2) to ascertain the real state affairs and also the violation said to have been committed by M/s Covenant Stones in carrying out quarrying operations .
The members of the Joint Committee are Shri G. Sankar , Member, SEAC, Kerala and Scientist G (Retd), National Centre for Earth Science Studies, Thiruvananthapuram
2. Dr S. Prabhu , Scientist C, MoEF and CC, Bengaluru
3. Shri A. M.Harees, Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, District Office, Thiruvananthapuram
4. Dr A.Krishnakumar, Scientist D, National Centre for Earth Science Studies (NCESS), Thiruvananthapuram
5. Shri M. M.Vahab, Geologist, Directorate of Mining and Geology (DMG), Kerala SEIAA, Kerala coordinated the work as the nodal department. OINT COMMI2.0 Methodology The Hon'ble court had directed the Joint Committee to examine / carry out the following
1. Joint committee members have to inspect the quarry and submit a status report 2. Assessment of environment violation if any
3. Whether excess quarrying was carried out
4. Whether closure plan has been complied with
5. Whether rehabilitation and reclamation has been carried out
6. Whether environmental degradation caused on account of unscientific method of quarrying
7. Whether any damages to neighbouring houses due to quarrying and to the ecology
8. Whether pollution control measures provided by the operator was adequate or not The Committee met in the Office of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board on 28th October, 2020, observing all government protocols on COVID-19, to formulate the methodology of investigation to be carried out. The meeting also decided to carry out the site inspection on 2nd November 2020 from 9 am onwards. SEIAA was requested to officially inform M/s Covenant Stones Pvt Ltd regarding the site visit. The Committee also had carried out field studies in the area around the quarry on the same day to ascertain any damages to the neighbouring houses due to quarrying. It was also decided to meet at the Kerala State Pollution Control Board district office, Thiruvananthapuram after the field visit on November 2nd at 3 pm to discuss about the data collected and to identify the gaps if any. It was also decided that the existing reports and data available will be made use for the report. 3.0 Questions raised by the Hon'ble NGT Hon'ble NGT has raised the following aspects:
1. Assessment of environment violation if any
2. Whether excess quarrying was carried out
3. Whether closure plan has been complied with
4. Whether rehabilitation and reclamation has been carried out
5. Whether environmental degradation caused on account of unscientific method of quarrying 5 Chairman
6. Whether any damages to neighbouring houses due to quarrying and to the ecology
7. Whether pollution control measures provided by the operator was adequate or not 3.1 Field visit On 2 November, 2020 the Joint Committee carried out the site inspection with all the Government protocols on COVID-19 (Annexure 3a and 3b). All the Joint Committee members reached the site at 9 am itself. The representative of the management of the Covenant Stones Pvt Ltd, Shri Jijo Mathew was present at the time of visit (Fig.3). Shri. S.Mamallan, R.Q.P. of the company was also present at the site to explain the technical questions. The field studies were concluded at 1.30 pm. The technical teams from the respective organisations of the Joint Committee helped the members in carrying out the investigations.
The environmental clearance (EC) No 237/SEIAA/KL/885/2014 dated 27.11.2014, was issued to this quarry by SEIAA is with 5 (five) specific and 40 (forty) general conditions to be followed during the EC period of 5 (five years). The Joint Committee verified each of the conditions and verified its compliance by M/s Covenant Stones Pvt Ltd. On verifying the records it was observed that there were many complaints and court cases regarding the environmental issues raised by few local people. Revenue department had issued stop memo to this firm for not producing documents for the transportation of mined material.
The quarry was not functioning at the time of visit. On enquiry the Committee was informed that the operations of the quarry was stopped on 7 March 2020. Except Shri Jijo Mathew,, representative of the Company and Shri 21 Mamallan, RQP and the security personnel no other employees were seen at the time of visit. The crusher unit was also not functioning at the time of visit. The internal roads leading to the quarry and crusher unit is wide, black topped. One boundary pillar BP 20 is located in the main approach road (fig
4). The finding of the field investigation is described under different titles below.
3.2 Assessment of environment violation if any The environmental clearance issued in 27.11.2014 specifies 5 (five) specific and 40 (forty) general conditions (Annexure 6 and 7) to be followed during the EC period. The Joint Committee examined these conditions. The specific conditions imposed are on account of the peculiar topographic, geologic and other site specific socio environmental issues. In any mining activity the boundary pillars defining the lease area assume lot of importance. The exact position of a boundary pillar is given as geo coordinates (latitude / longitude) in the approved mine plan of the mining project. Since geo coordinates are known revisiting a boundary pillar is easy. So any violation regarding encroachment or buffer or garland canal etc is determined using the present position of boundary pillars in the site. The Boundary Pillars (BP) with geo coordinates followed in the approved mine plan is given in Table1, were physically checked where ever accessible in the field with hand held GPS and cross checked with GPS facility available with the smart phones. Remote sensing and GIS tools were adopted to check the BP positions with respect to the actual mined area. (Fig 5, Fig 7, Fig 8 and Fig 9) 7 Chairman PORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE O.A NO. 155/2020 Table 1 :Lease area of the area defined for quarrying is bounded by the following boundary pillars Boundary Geo coordinates Remarks Pillar No Lattittude Longitude BP 01 N8 o39' 03.5" E76o57' 07.7" No mining area .Verified correct debris mantle slope vegetated area BP 02 N8 o39' 01.4" E76o57' 07.1" Verified correct, No garland canal, No buffer BP 03 N8 o39' 01.0" E76o57' 07.9" Verified correct, No garland canal. No buffer BP 04 N8 o38' 58.2" E76o57' 07.0" No garland canal No Buffer BP 05 N8 o38' 57.8" E76o57' 08.4" No garland canal No Buffer BP 06 N8o38' 56.6" E76o57' 08.0" No garland canal , No Buffer BP 07 N8 o38' 55.0" E76o57' 07.1" Excess mining No garland canal No Buffer BP 08 N8 o38' 54.0" E76o57' 09.4" Excess mining No garland No Buffer BP 09 N8 o38' 53.3" E76o57' 11.3" No garland canal BP 10 N8 o38' 56.0" E76o57' 12.6" Encroachment to outside lease area. No buffer BP 11 N8 o38' 55.4" E76o57' 16.2" Excess mining, encroachment to outside lease area. No Buffer BP 12 N8 o38' 54.9" E76o57' 16.1" Encroachment to outside lease area, No buffer BP 13 N8 o38' 54.9" E76o57' 17.3" Vegetated area BP 14 N8 o38' 53.9" E76o57' 17.7" BP located in steep and bush area BP 15 N8 o38' 53.4" E76o57' 18.5" Verified mining seen side lease area. BP missing BP 16 N8 o38' 54.3" E76o57' 19.2" Verified No garland canal BP 17 N8 o38' 55.2" E76o57' 18.5" Verified No garland canal BP 18 N8 o38' 55.4" E76o57' 17.7" Verified , No garland canal , No Buffer BP 19 N8 o 38' 58.3" E76o57' 18.4" Near Canal. Verified BP 20 N8 o38' 58.5"
E76o57' 16.2" On the road. Not concreted Verified and found correct ORT OF THE JOOMMITTEO.A BP 21 N8 o39' 00.3" E76o57' 16.5"
Verified near magazine store .Fixed temporarily on the Metallic pole. Verified BP 22 N8 o39' 01.4" E76o57' 13.3" Fixed temporarily on the the road verified metallic pole. Verified BP 23 N8 o39' 04.2" E76o57' 14.3" Boundary pillar is not found- missing BP 24 N8 o39' 05.8" E76o57' 10.3" Two pillars seen. Metallic pole verified correct. Other one inside the lease area in the buffer area . (photo ) BP 25 N8 o39' 06.5" E76o57' 08.2" verified. No mining area vegetated. Debris mantle slope BP 26 N8 o39' 07.9" E76o57' 03.5" Steep slope..No mining area debris mantle slope. Vegetated area BP 27 N8 o39' 05.2" E76o57' 02.6" Steep slope No mining area debris mantle slope . Vegetated area 3.21Specific conditions 3.2101. "Western most debris mantled sloping area merging with the lower flat land is very steep quarrying must be avoided."
22Complied. The Fig. 6 indicates the actual ground condition of the boundary pillars which were given the approved mining plan. In the Specific condition the mining was prohibited in the debris mantle slope on the western side on the lease area. BP 25, 26, 27 and 1 cover this area. At the time of visit the area is fully vegetated and undisturbed10 Chairman EPORT OF TH 3.2102 Specific Condition 2 : A minimum buffer distance of 250m to be maintained from Thampuranpara in the north.
Complied . There is an aerial distance of appox. 270m from BP 25 to Thampuranpara. The distance was measured using tools available in Google earth. (Fig.8). BP 25 BP geo coordinates were verified on the field. So the distance criterion is maintained. At this spot encroached mining 11 Chairman HE JOINT COMMITTEE O.A NO. 155/2020 3.2103 Specific Condition 3 : Quarrying must be limited to Sy Nos 29/2,29/3 part and 30/4 part at Thekkada village & Sy nos 470.472/41, 474/1, 474/1-1, 474 ½, 472/5, 472/6, 469/4/3/4, 469/4/3/3, 469/4/2, 469/4/1/1, 469/4/1/2,469/4/1/3 and 469/4 at the Manickal village, Nedumangad taluk, Thiruvananthapuram district, Kerala. Not Complied. The Boundary Pillars with the geocordinates numbering BP1 to BP27 mentioned in the approved mine plan covers the lease area in the sy nos 470.472/41, 474/1, 474/1-1, 474 ½, 472/5, 472/6, 469/4/3/4, 469/4/3/3, 469/4/2, 469/4/1/1, 469/4/1/2,469/4/1/3 and 469/4 at the Manickal village, Nedumangad taluk, Thiruvananthapuram district, Kerala. Field verification and GIS interpretation (i.e. Superimposition of Geocordinates of BP in the Satellite image ) it is evident that mining has encroached into the areas beyond the sy.nos mentioned in the environmental clearance. Most affected areas are in the south and south-western areas. The Department of Mining and Geology (DMG) has carried out an extensive field based survey to find out excessive mining carried out by the Company. DMG have also confirmed that mining was encroached to outside lease area. O.A NO.
155/20203.2104 Specific condition 4 : Buffer distance of 15 m should be maintained from the NT COMMITTEE O.A NO. 155/2020 Taluk boundary.
Complied. Cross checked in the field as well as using GIS / satellite image. The Boundary points were plotted on the map ( Fig.12) shows that there is buffer maintained from the Taluk boundary. The position of the Boundary Pillars near the Taluk boundary is also verified in the field.
3.2105 Specific Condition 5 : Boundary pillars should not be tampered with.
Not complied. In this quarry boundary pillars are not maintained properly. Boundary Pillars define the exact boundary of the lease / permit area of quarry. In other words the mining/ quarrying activities should be limited inside the area covered by the boundary pillars. The buffer zone, the garland canal should be within this area. In an ideal case the boundary pillars should be concrete pillars or stone pillars of 4ft high, concreted to the base with yellow colour painted as background with black lettering showing the geo coordinates of the spot. Border pillars are all metallic and few are concreted. The values are fixed on a flex sheet pasted on it with yellow background and black letterings. Some boundary pillars are found loosely fixed on the ground (Fig 4, 13 and 14). The co ordinates of the Boundary pillars were located on a recent Google earth image which is freely down loadable. The Fig.5, 7, 8, 9,10 and 11.
Boundary pillars are not maintained properly. In couple of places it is either missing or dilapidated. This BP is located on an asphalted road leading to the site Another one is also found located in the middle of the road (BP 14 Both these BP are metallic and removable. This is not permissible for quarrying operations. Mining projects are long term projects and the BP should not degrade with time. Since BP are located in open, metallic poles will be subjected to rusting. So concrete pillars or stone pillars concreted to the base are envisaged in a mining project. At one locality two BP boundary pillars are seen There are two boundary pillars seen near BP 24 one stone pillar painted as BP24 and the other metallic one with BP24 sticker. The metallic pole is the correct one and the stone pillar with same number is found inside the lease area. This indicates the negligence of the management in maintaining the Boundary pillars (BP). BP 23 is found missing in the spot where it should have located as per the geo coordinates. Few BP are located in steep inaccessible location and 23 could not be verified physically. Their position was checked using GIS / satellite image (Google earth) 22 General Conditions:
3.2201: General Condition1 Rain Water Harvesting facility should be installed as per the prevailing provisions of KMBR/KPBR, unless otherwise specified.
Complied. It was noted that PA has made arrangement for collection of rainwater in two ponds. PA has informed that the water is used for sprinkling on haulage road for dust suppression and also for the plantation.
3.2202 General Condition 2 Environment Monitoring cell as agreed under the affidavit filed by the proponent should be formed and made functional.
Not Complied. PA has not produced any records in this regard. in the Compliance reports available it is mentioned that a EMC is functional headed by quarry Manager along with qualified Environmental consultant / engineers is being engaged for the effective implementation of pollution control measures. 3.2203 General Condition 3 Suitable avenue trees should be planted along either side of the tarred road and open parking areas, if any, including of approach road and internal roads.
Partly Complied. The joint committee observed that only very small number of avenue trees are within a quarry lease area. However, PA has informed that one thousand tree saplings are planted along road side.
3.2204 General Condition 4 Maximum possible solar energy generation and utilization shall be ensured as an essential part of the project.
Complied, PA has provided two solar streets lights. 3.2205 General Condition 5 Sprinklers shall be installed and used in the projectT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE O.A NO. 155/2020 site to contain dust emissions.
Complied.
3.2206 General Condition 6 Eco-restoration including t h e mine closure plan shall be done at the own cost of the project proponent. Not Complied.
3.2207 General Condition 7 At least 10 percent of the total area excavated pit should be retained as water storage areas and the remaining area should be reclaimed with stacked dumping and overburden and planted with indigenous plant species that are eco friendly Partly Complied. PA has retained old mining pit as a water storage area. However, plantation carried out only at very less area in overburden dump areas.
3.2208 General Condition 8 Corporate So c i al Responsibility (CSR) agreed upon by the proponent should be implemented Partly Complied. During the visit, PA has informed that CSR activities were carried out in surrounding villages, however, not submitted any supporting documents. The activities carried out are not as per activities listed in the proposal.
3.2209 General Condition 9 The lease area shall be fenced off with barbed wires to a minimum height of 4ft around, before starting of mine.
Partly Complied. Proper fencing of the lease area has not provided in all places.
3.2210 General Condition10 Warning alarms indicating the time of blasting (to be done at specific timings) has to be arranged as per stipulations of Explosive Department.
Complied.
3.2211 General Condition 11 Control measures on noise and vibration prescribed by KSPCB should be implemented. Not complied. PA has not submitted any supporting documents. 3.2212 General Condition 12 Quarrying activities should be limited to daytime as per KSPCB guidelines.
Complied. Signage erected at strategic points. 3.2213 General Condition 13 Blasting should be done in a controlled manner as specified by the regulations of Explosives Department or any other concerned agency.
Not Complied. PA has not submitted any supporting documents. Compliance report it is mentioned that Controlled blasting is followed as per the supervision of competent persons.
3.214 General Condition14 A licensed person should supervise/ control the blasting operations.
24Not Complied. PA has not submitted supporting documents. Compliance report it is mentioned that one first class manager, second class manger, foreman and two mates. 3.2215 General Condition 15 Access roads to the quarry shall be tarred to contain dust emissions that may arise during transportation of materials.
Complied. The main road is a tarred (black topped) road. The small roads branching from main road is not tarred Fig23 . The main access road in Quarry area. Fig.24 Untarred road leading to dimension stone quarry 3.2116 General condition 16 Overburden materials should be managed within the site and the old quarries, if any, should be reclaimed and restored.
Partly Complied 3.2217 General Condition 17 Height of benches should not exceed 5m and width should not be less than 5m.
Not complied. Height and width of benches not maintained (Fig25) as per EC conditions. All benches are mined out to extract more materials.
Fig. 25 5m x 5m benching method is not adopted here 3.2218 General Condition 18 Mats to reduce fly rock blast to a maximum of 10PPV should be provided.
Could not verify the compliance as the quarry was not in operation. 3.2219 General Condition 19 Maximum depth of mining form general ground level at site shall not exceed 10m 3.2120 General Condition 20 No mining operations should be carried out atplaces having a slope greater than45°.
Complied. No mining was carried out in the debris mantle slope. 3.2121 General Condition 21 Acoustic enclosures should have been provided to reduce sound amplifications in addition to the provisions of green belt and hollow brick envelop for crushers so that the noise level is kept within prescribed standards given CPCB/KSPCB. Not complied. Noise level monitoring report has not been submitted. 3.2222 General condition 22. The workers on the site should be provided with the required protective equipment such as ear muffs, helmet, etc Could not verify the compliance as the quarry was not in operation. 3.2223 General Condition23 Garland drains with clarifiers to be provided in the lower slopes around the core area to channelize storm water.
Not complied. There is one canal (Fig.27) going for a short distance without any silt traps near BP19. This drain is now being used as a duct for cables and it not maintained properly. The garland drain is being used to drain mine drainage. It should be located between the benches and the buffer. The rain water falling on the benches should drain through these garland canals and the silt should deposit in the silt traps provided in these canals before joining the common public drainage system. Such an arrangement is not adopted here. Fig. 27 The Garland canal is located near BP 19 .
3.2224 General Condition 24 The transportation of minerals should be done in covered trucks to contain dust emissions. Could not verify the compliance as the quarry was not in operation. 3.2225 General Condition 25 The proponent should plant trees at least-5times of the loss that has been occurred while clearing the land for the project.
Not Complied JOINT COMMITTEE O.A NO. 155/2020 3.2226 General Condition 26 Disposal of spent oil form diesel engines should be as specified under relevant Rules / Regulations. Complied and no spillage observed 3.2227 General Condition 27 Explosives should be stored in magazines in isolated place specified and approved by the Explosives Department.
Complied. A separate Magazine store room has been found. 3.2228 General Condition 28 A minimum buffer distance of100mfrom the boundary of the quarry to the nearest dwelling unit or other structures, not being any facility for mining shall be provided.
Compiled.
3.2229 General Condition 29 200m buffer distance should be maintained f r o m forest boundaries.
Complied. No forest boundaries within 200 m.
3.2230 General Condition 30. Consent from Kerala State Pollution Control Board under Water and Air Act(s) should be obtained before initiating activity.
25Complied. Obtained.
3.2231.General Condition 31 All other statutory clearances should be obtained, as applicable, by project proponents from the respective competent authorities including that for blasting and storage of explosives.
Complied. Obtained.
3.2232 General Condition 32 In the case of any change(s) in the scope of the project the project would require afresh appraisal by this Authority.
Company has submitted an application to SEIAA for extension of EC. Since the area is more than 5 Ha the Proponent was asked to submit TOR for EIA and public hearing for getting EC 3.2233 General Condition 33. The Authority reserves the right to add additional safeguard if found necessary, and to take action including revoking of the environment clearance under the provisions of the Environment(Protection) Act, 1989 to ensure effective implementation of the suggested safeguard measures in a time bound and satisfactory manner..A NO. 155/2020 Agreed by PA 3.2234 General Condition 34 The stipulation by statutory Authorities under different Acts and Notification should be complied with, including the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 , the Air (Prevention and control of Pollution) at 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Public Liability (Insure acne) Act, 1991 and EIA Notification, 2006. Agreed by PA 3.2235 General Condition 35 . The project proponent should advertise in at least two local newspapers widely circulated in the region, one of which (both the advertisement and the newspaper) shall be in the vernacular language informing that the project has been accorded Environmental Clearance and copies of clearance letters are available with the Department of Environmental and Climate Change, Govt. of Kerala and may also be seen on the website of the Authority at www.seiaakerala.org.in the advertisement should be made within 10 days from the date of receipt of the Clearance letter and a copy of the same signed in all Pages should be forwarded to the office of the Authority as confirmation Complied 3.2236 General Condition 36 A copy of the clearance letter shall be sent by the proponent to concerned Grama Panchayat / District Panchayat/ Municipality /Corporation/ Urban Local Body and also to the Local NGO, if any from whom suggestion / representations, if any were received while processing the proposal. The Environmental Clearance shall also be put on the website of the company by the proponent Partly complied.
3.2237 General Condition 37 The Proponent shall submit half yearly reports on the status of compliance of the stipulated EC conations including results of monitoring data (both in hard copies as well as be e-mail) and upload the status of compliance of the stipulated EC conditions, including results of monitored data on their website and shall update the same periodically. It shall simultaneously be sent to the respective Regional Office of MoEF, Govt. of India and also the Directorate of Environmental and Climate Change, Govt. of Kerala. 3.2238 General Condition 38 The details of Environmental Clearance should be prominently displayed in a metallic board of 3ft.x3 ft with green background and yellow letters of Times New Roman font of size of not less than 40.Signboard with extent of lease area and boundaries shall depicted at the entrance of the quarry, visible to the public 3.2239 General Condition 39 The proponent should p r o v i d e notarized affidavit (indicating the number a n d date of Environmental Clearance proceedings) that all the conditions stipulated i n t h e EC shall be scrupulously followed 3.2240 General condition 40 The above conditions shall prevail notwithstanding anything to the contrary, in consistent, or simplified, contained in another permit, license on consent given by any other authority for the same project Out of the 5 Specific conditions imposed while issuing EC the Company has complied only three. Two conditions are not complied. In the general conditions the Company have compliance only for 22conditions. 5 conditions were partly complied, 3 conditions were not got a clear answer due to non working of the quarry and 10 conditions are not complied at all. Except in the case of excess quarrying for which the mining and geology department has initiated action the other aspects no action has been found initiated so far.
263.3Whether any excess quarrying was carried out ? Yes. Excess quarrying was done at many places. EC condition for quarrying insists 7.5 meter buffer from the border pillar stone, then a garland canal to drain out quarry drainage then 5m x 5m bench mining/ quarrying for the building stone quarry's. This techniques should be followed in the dimension quarry as well. Here in the case of Covenant stones quarried the lease area up to the boundary pillar. The entire material were mined without leaving any space for buffer garland canal( Fig 30 and Fig 30a) . No benches are also seen. In this manner a huge quantity of material were mined out without observing any EC mining conditions such as Buffer zone , Garland canal and benching. Many places vertical and steep cutting of more than 16m were observed. In the south western area of the lease area , quarrying seems to have encroached to outside the lease area . This is confirmed by the BP positions.
To determine the exact quantity of the stones mined detailed ground surveys are needed. The Department of Mining and Geology, Thiruvananthapuram district office representative informed us they have conducted ground survey and the taluk surveyor and the geologists conducted site inspection on 15.06.2020. In the letter no 3455/DOT/ML/2019 dated15.09.2020 they have issued a demand notice to M/s Covenant Stones Pvt Ltd with the following details.(Annexure 4) " M/s Covenant Stones Pvt Ltd has mined excess quantity of building stones from and out side the lease area in Sy no 29/3, 29/2, 30/4 in Thekkada village and 470, 472/5, 472/6, 474/1, 474/1-2, 474/4-1, 474/1- 1 of Manikkal village and Sy no 30/5 out side the lease area. Quantity of stones extracted 9,52,978 MT
(i) Quantity of stones extracted from sy no 496/4 20,860 MT (ii) Quantity of stones extracted from sy no 30/5 403.75 MT ( it is delta separately since it is dimension stone and ii Already paid the penalty) Less (i) and (ii) from the quantity extracted 9,31,714 MT Action taken by the Department of Mining and Geology ( Vide demand notice No 3455/DOT/ML/2019 dated 15.09.2020 addressed to Sri Reghunadhan Kunjukrishnan, M/s Covenant Stones Pvt ltd, Katta, Cheeranikkara P O Vembayam, Thiruvannthapuram from Senior Geologist, Mining and Geology District ORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE Office , Kesavadasapuram) Penalty imposed by DMG Royalty 2,23,61,136 .00 (INR) Price 4,47,22,272.00 (INR) Fine 25,000.00 (INR) Total 6,71,08,430.00 (INR) The above calculation was made by the Department of Mining and Geology, Thiruvananthapuram district office for the excess mining carried out for the building stones quarry by M/s Covenant stones Pvt Ltd.The excess mining carried out in the Dimension stone quarry of M/s Covenant Stones Ltd is being done by the DMG , Thiruvananthapuram office. According to the DMG Geologist's report "The Dimension stone lease area was inspected on 06.11.2020 with the Taluk surveyor . it was observed that the lease holder had extracted Granite Dimension stone far in excess of the permitted quantity in the lease . In that case a show cause case notice had served to the lease holder on 12.11.2020 only on receipt of explanation proper legal steps will be initiated to release the loss sustained to the Government.
3.31 Environmental compensation An accepted method to prepare the scale of compensation for excess quarrying especially in the case of building stones and dimension stones is not developed so far. This Committee has examined the method for sand mining adopted by NGT. The Hon'ble NGT, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide order dated 05/04/2019 in OA No. 360/2015 (13 clubbed cases) related to illegal sand mining from riverbeds in different States, constituted a Committee comprising of representatives of MoEF &CC, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Indian Institute of Forest Management Bhopal, Institute of Economic Growth and Madras School of Economics and directed ".......to prepare a scale of compensation (for sand mining), after including the components mentioned in the order, which can then be adopted in whole of Country. The nodal agency for compliance and coordination is CPCB. The committee may also take professional services of an expert/institution in the matter if it so desires."
Accordingly, the committee prepared the final report on "Recommendations on scale of compensation to deal with the cases of illegal sand mining" dt 30/01/2020 submitted to the NGT.
The Committee report considered two approaches:
27• Approach 1: Direct Compensation based on the market value of extraction, adjusted for ecological damages. • Approach 2: Computing a Simplified NPV for ecological damages. Hon'ble NGT vide order dated 17/08/2020 observed that the direct compensation approach method is preferable and suggested a modification.
Direct Compensation (Violation with respect to Quantity/Production): The compensation to be charged is based on three distinct criteria:
. Exceedance Factor (EF):This criteria captures the extent of illegal mining that has taken place. It is introduced in order to bring in a notion of balance that the amount of penalty that is charged to any party is in proportion to the extent of illegal extraction of material at the first stage. Risk Factor (RF) :This criteria reflects the severity of the ecological damages at the field site in question. Since the project site is not located in forest area within a radius of 5 KM, the Committee considered moderate risk factor.
Severity Mild Moderate Significant Sever
e
Risk Level 1 2 3 4
Risk 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0
Factor
Discount 8% 7% 6% 5%
Deterrence Factor (DF): This criteria is an attempt to capture the fact that ecological damages tend to display non- linearity's and can increase in unexpected ways. Thus, the greater the extent of extraction (as reflected in the relative magnitude of the illegally extracted amount), the greater is the likelihood that this may have cumulative impact over time, which may not be observable at time of assessment (as reflected in the RF). Given that the scale should also have a deterrence effect, this criteria is introduced to proxy for these non-linear aspects till such time that more site specific data becomes available to carry out a comprehensive NPV.
Direct Compensation based on the market value of extraction, adjusted for ecological damages:
Permitted Total Excess Exceedance Compensation Quantity Extraction (in Extracti in Charge (in Rs.) (in MT or MT or m3) on Extraction:
m3) (in MT
or m3)
X Y Z=Y-X Z/X = D * (1+RF+DF)
Where D=Z *
Market Value of
material per MT
or m3
DF= 0.3 if Z/X=
0.11 to 0.40
DF =0.6 if Z/X=
0.41 to 0.70
DF=1if Z/X>=0.71
RF = 0.25, 0.50,
0.75, 1.00
Method suggested by Hon'ble NGT
If there is evidence of illegal mining (but no seizure) in a low risk zone, then the RLEF would be 0.4, the RCF would remain at 0.3, and an additional no seizure factor of 1.0 would be added with a total additive value of 1.7 and the total compensation amount: Ecological Damage (ED) = EQ x MP x (No seizure factor of 1.0 + Risk of Ecological Loss Factor + Restitution Cost factor).
This Committee made calculations based on this and felt that this approach is not COMMITTEE O.A NO. 155/2020 suitable because of different environmental conditions of fluvial and land environment for calculating compensation for building stone / dimension 28 stone quarry violations. Detailed technical studies are required to develop an acceptable method for calculating the environmental compensation. So in this report the environmental compensation could not be worked out. 3.4 Whether closure plan has been complied with Not complied. The Covenant Stones closure plan has not been complied. They have applied for an extension of the EC. This application is pending with SEIAA, Kerala. 3.5 Rehabilitation and reclamation has been carried out Not complied. Rehabilitation is the action of restoring a mined area that has been damaged due to mining to its former condition. Reclamation is the combined process by which adverse environmental effects of surface mining are minimized and mined lands are returned to a beneficial end use. End users may be open space, wildlife habitat, agriculture, or residential and commercial development. In Covenant stones quarry rehabilitation and reclamation has not done so far. The company has applied for extension of lease period. 3.6Environmental degradation caused on account of unscientific method of quarrying Quarrying whether it is scientifically done or unscientifically done, causes considerable irreversible changes in an area especially from the environmental point of view.
The land, water air, bio and socio environments needs careful handling while quarrying / mining to even minimise the impacts. Landform & land use changes could be analysed using time series satellite images. Google Earth has the collection of images from 2003 onwards. So this gives a provision to examine the changes happened due to mining in the leased area of M/s Covenant Stones Pvt Ltd. The BP co ordinates were super imposed on these images to detect the changes.
NFig. 31 to Fig. 38 indicates the changes that have happened to the lease area of the Covenant quarry from 2003 to 2020. Before starting full scale quarrying in 2015 , quarrying activity was noticed in 2003 itself (Fig. 31) . Fig 32, 33 and 34 indicates quarrying activity near BP 7 and 8
1. Land environment : Fig.31to 38 indicates that considerable topographic changes occurred in this area due to quarrying. Steep cutting measuring more than 16m. The mining has created lot of steep slopes there by increasing the scope of landslides and rock falls. Since in many places overburden has been removed and chances of debris flow has reduced. The rock is massive in many places. So rock fall chances are also less. Increased slope and lack of vegetation will increase the soil erosion. Since the top soil has been removed for mining water holding capacity of the soil is reduced and the overland flow has increased. Soil chemical analysis done by an external agency available in the compliance report also suggests that the values are within acceptable limit. The pH of soil is in the acidic range. Local survey conducted indicated that the Chairman local people who are dwelling at the bottom part of the hillocks (Thampuran Para and Thampuratty Para) and about less than 1 km air distance from the quarry feared that vibrations of quarrying may trigger landslips, enhance soil erosion or destabilize rock boulders on the slopes of the hillocks. Hydrologic environment: There is no major stream flowing close to this area. This site depends on rainwater and ground water for water needs. The major water body present in the area is the rain harvesting ponds inside the lease area. There are no streamlets present in the area. As per the PFR the level of water table in the open wells is about 15-20m depth during summer and 10-15m depth during monsoon from the general ground level. This level is maintained in the rainwater harvesting ponds also. Since the drainage from the working quarry site is flowing into the harvesting tank , it is also acting as a pollutant absorbent. No major drainage outlet is observed. Positive aspect is that the rain harvesting pond will be recharging nearby wells through the secondary fracture systems present in the bed rock. Inside the project area water quality measurements done by an external agency is available with the compliance reports. Except in the case of pH which is in the acidic range all other parameter is within the acceptable limit. In the vicinity of the quarry i.e., less than 200m ground water quality status was assessed. It was found that the parameters are found within permissible limits prescribed by Bureau of Indian Standards (2007) except for pH which is acidic in nature. In The compliance reports also pH values are in the acidic nature. But people in the vicinity of the quarry area said that the well water is unfit for drinking during rainy seasons due to high turbidity. During monsoon season, precipitation will enhance the sedimentation of suspended particulate matter (SPM) and dust particles emitted from rock processing into the waters of the surrounding areas. There are only two observational wells regularly monitored in this locality by the GWD. One in Koppam and the other in Thekkada. The observation taken monthly for 10 years is given in table 2 &3. The observation was made in an open well as well as in a bore well.
REPTable :2 Observation details of the State Ground water Department Observation well 29 Location : Koppam , Open well (air distance 2.6 km from the Quarry ) Taluk: L Nedum at angad it u d e
-
8o 3 8' 0 6 "
o Village: Longitude-76 Vembayam 56'04"
Location - Well type : Open Well
Koppam
date of time of Water
measureme measurement Level(mbgl
nt )
28/10/200 11:15:00 8.78
9
26/11/200 11:10:00 8.93
9
21/12/200 11:55:00 9.05
9
25/01/201 11:20:00 9.48
0
27/02/201 11:20:00 10.00
0
07/04/201 12:45:00 10.76
0
10/05/201 15:48:00 11.12
0
05/06/201 11:50:00 10.06
0
09/07/201 11:30:00 9.09
0
05/08/201 11:45:00 8.60
0
23/09/201 13:25:00 8.82
0
27/10/201 15:15:00 7.18
0
29/11/201 15:50:00 4.95
0
30/12/201 11:50:00 7.60
0
28/01/201 11:25:00 8.30
1
30
23/02/201 11:05:00 8.65
1
29/03/201 11:30:00 9.20
1
27/04/201 11:40:00 9.38
1
26/05/201 11:18:00 10.00
1
17/06/201 10:50:00 9.15
1
22/07/201 11:15:00 9.30
1
18/08/201 14:15:00 9.65
1
27/09/201 11:50:00 10.03
1
21/10/201 10:50:00 10.34
1
29/11/201 11:35:00 9.02
1
27/12/201 11:45:00 9.34
1
19/01/201 11:10:00 8.45
2
24/02/201 11:20:00 8.82
2
29/03/201 11:05:00 9.56
2
27/04/201 11:22:00 7.72
2
PORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE O.A NO. 155/2020
31/05/2012 11:34:00 9.58
29/06/2012 10:45:00 9.68
24/07/2012 11:00:00 9.70
22/08/2012 11:58:00 7.68
20/09/2012 10:45:00 9.15
21/10/2012 12:27:00 8.65
27/11/2012 11:30:00 8.42
28/12/2012 11:25:00 8.77
31/01/2013 15:20:00 9.41
25/02/2013 16:50:00 7.22
18/03/2013 11:48:00 10.73
18/04/2013 11:25:00 9.72
29/05/2013 12:05:00 9.80
31
22/06/2013 11:25:00 7.52
15/07/2013 12:35:00 7.40
21/08/2013 12:01:00 7.91
28/09/2013 11:33:00 7.20
29/10/2013 11:20:00 7.59
26/11/2013 11:55:00 6.77
23/12/2013 11:20:00 7.81
25/01/2014 11:45:00 8.65
29/01/2014 12:10:00 7.70
25/03/2014 11:55:00 7.53
23/04/2014 10:17:00 7.65
28/05/2014 11:48:00 9.05
30/06/2014 11:15:00 9.32
23/07/2014 11:36:00 9.03
29/08/2014 11:00:00 10.11
29/09/2014 10:55:00 8.35
25/10/2014 10:45:00 7.88
28/11/2014 11:55:00 8.67
23/12/2014 11:20:00 7.81
29/01/2015 11:10:00 9.00
25/02/2015 10:56:00 9.31
28/03/2015 11:18:00 9.75
24/04/2015 11:16:00 7.80
25/05/2015 10:55:00 9.26
26/06/2015 11:10:00 8.60
28/07/2015 11:23:00 8.38
20/08/2015 10:50:00 8.57
REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE O.A NO. 155/2020 25/09/2015 10:25:00 8.41 29/10/2015 11:10:00 8.23 26/11/2015 11:18:00 6.16 19/12/2015 11:15:00 7.79 32 25/01/2016 10:50:00 8.52 25/02/2016 11:00:00 8.97 23/03/2016 11:41:00 9.36 27/04/2016 10:15:00 9.79 26/05/2016 11:50:00 8.85 30/06/2016 11:00:00 7.91 27/07/2016 11:04:00 8.23 29/08/2016 11:04:00 8.45 20/09/2016 10:38:00 8.73 24/10/2016 10:52:00 9.65 21/11/2016 11:46:00 10.17 26/12/2016 11:00:00 10.78 17/01/2017 11:30:00 11.38 13/02/2017 11:23:00 11.58 07/03/2017 10:43:00 11.75 07/04/2017 12:20:00 05/05/2017 07/06/2017 10:33:00 11.90 07/07/2017 11:51:00 11.27 05/08/2017 10:50:00 11.17 15/09/2017 11:32:00 11.05 19/10/2017 11:05:00 9.28 08/11/2017 12:02:00 8.72 13/12/2017 11:30:00 7.58 08/01/2018 11:20:00 8.61 06/02/2018 11:30:00 8.87 09/03/2018 11:35:00 9.34 03/04/2018 11:25:00 10.06 07/05/2018 11:42:00 10.29 08/06/2018 12:22:00 9.65 03/07/2018 11:53:00 8.51 14/08/2018 11:24:00 6.27 33 05/09/2018 11:30:00 6.81 25/09/2018 11:55:00 7.87 15/10/2018 11:55:00 7.87 07/11/2018 11:31:00 7.62 10/12/2018 12:10:00 7.89 16/01/2019 11:48:00 8.50 05/02/2019 11:20:00 8.43 12/03/2019 11:44:00 8.76 01/04/2019 11:12:00 8.89 01/04/2019 11:50:00 8.64 07/05/2019 11:12:00 8.89 07/06/2019 11:24:00 8.09 05/07/2019 11:15:00 8.46 06/08/2019 11:42:00 8.67 04/09/2019 12:21:00 7.96 03/10/2019 10:56:00 7.18 05/11/2019 11:15:00 5.40 09/12/2019 11:55:00 6.53 07/01/2020 11:40:00 8.11 07/02/2020 11:18:00 8.47 01/03/2020 11:25:00 8.46 18/04/2020 10:58:00 9.28 08/05/2020 11:11:00 9.35 03/06/2020 11:25:00 7.25 02/07/2020 13:34:00 7.88 05/08/2020 12:05:00 7.30 03/09/2020 11:47:00 7.91 06/10/2020 11:55:00 7.10 T OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE O.A NO. 155/2020 Table :3 Observation details of the State Ground water Department Observation well Location : Tekkada near the quarry Bore well (air distance 1.5 km from quarry ) o Block: Latitude: 8 38'4"
Nedumangad o Village: Thekkada Longitude: 76 56'25"
34Location: Well Type _ Bore Well Thekkada date of time of Water Level mbgl Measurement measurement 28/10/2009 11:10:00 2.65 26/11/2009 11:00:00 1.64 21/12/2009 11:50:00 2.66 25/01/2010 11:15:00 2.96 27/02/2010 11:15:00 3.42 07/04/2010 12:45:00 3.66 10/05/2010 15:50:00 3.09 05/06/2010 11:45:00 1.92 09/07/2010 11:25:00 1.67 05/08/2010 12:35:00 1.80 24/09/2010 13:10:00 2.48 27/10/2010 15:20:00 1.57 29/11/2010 15:55:00 0.40 30/12/2010 11:45:00 2.15 23/02/2011 11:05:00 2.82 30/03/2011 11:30:00 2.94 27/04/2011 11:33:00 2.81 26/05/2011 11:13:00 3.15 17/06/2011 10:45:00 1.60 22/07/2011 11:15:00 2.15 18/08/2011 11:50:00 1.75 27/09/2011 11:45:00 2.98 21/10/2011 10:45:00 3.31 29/11/2011 11:15:00 1.12 27/12/2011 11:40:00 2.63 19/01/2012 11:00:00 2.21 24/02/2012 11:20:00 2.98 29/03/2012 11:00:00 3.44 27/04/2012 11:15:00 2.67 35 31/05/2012 11:30:00 2.88 29/06/2012 10:40:00 3.05 24/07/2012 10:50:00 3.45 22/08/2012 11:09:00 2.76 20/09/2012 10:40:00 2.46 21/10/2012 12:18:00 1.46 27/11/2012 11:10:00 2.43 28/12/2012 11:20:00 2.99 31/01/2013 15:30:00 3.42 28/02/2013 17:00:00 3.48 18/03/2013 11:48:00 3.58 18/04/2013 11:20:00 3.86 29/05/2013 11:59:00 3.89 22/06/2013 11:15:00 0.58 15/07/2013 12:25:00 0.90 21/08/2013 11:50:00 1.92 28/09/2013 11:28:00 1.70 29/10/2013 11:14:00 2.12 26/11/2013 11:45:00 1.68 23/12/2013 14:05:00 7.61 25/01/2014 11:20:00 3.45 29/01/2014 12:05:00 3.34 25/02/2014 13:00:00 3.45 25/03/2014 11:45:00 3.72 23/04/2014 10:10:00 3.50 28/05/2014 11:41:00 3.01 30/06/2014 11:08:00 3.04 23/07/2014 11:28:00 2.60 29/08/2014 10:54:00 0.88 29/09/2014 10:51:00 1.94 25/10/2014 10:40:00 1.12 36 28/11/2014 11:45:00 1.68 23/12/2014 11:15:00 2.64 29/01/2015 11:00:00 3.12 25/02/2015 10:15:00 3.24 28/03/2015 11:13:00 3.77 24/04/2015 11:10:00 3.20 25/05/2015 10:45:00 1.88 26/06/2015 11:01:00 1.32 28/07/2015 11:11:00 2.31 20/08/2015 10:37:00 2.65 25/09/2015 10:20:00 1.70 29/10/2015 11:00:00 1.55 26/11/2015 11:10:00 1.52 19/12/2015 11:07:00 1.38 25/01/2016 10:41:00 2.95 25/02/2016 10:50:00 3.27 23/03/2016 11:55:00 3.55 27/04/2016 10:12:00 3.85 26/05/2016 11:45:00 2.01 30/06/2016 10:54:00 1.65 27/07/2016 10:59:00 2.38 29/08/2016 10:57:00 3.09 20/09/2016 10:28:00 3.45 24/10/2016 10:48:00 3.65 21/11/2016 11:41:00 3.66 26/12/2016 10:50:00 4.06 17/01/2017 11:16:00 4.09 13/02/2017 11:17:00 4.71 07/03/2017 10:35:00 4.97 07/04/2017 10.74 05/05/2017 11:23:00 5.19 07/06/2017 10:27:00 1.83 37 07/07/2017 11:14:00 2.27 05/08/2017 10:45:00 3.17 15/09/2017 11:26:00 2.47 19/10/2017 11:01:00 1.55 08/11/2017 11:55:00 1.00 13/12/2017 11:20:00 1.88 08/01/2018 11:10:00 2.84 06/02/2018 11:18:00 3.24 08/03/2018 11:24:00 3.59 03/04/2018 11:16:00 4.15 07/05/2018 11:31:00 4.20 08/06/2018 12:15:00 1.80 08/07/2018 11:46:00 1.86 14/08/2018 11:19:00 0.84 03/09/2018 11:24:00 1.89 26/09/2018 11:45:00 2.68 15/10/2018 11:46:00 2.16 07/11/2018 11:25:00 1.42 10/12/2018 11:57:00 2.45 16/01/2019 11:41:00 3.18 05/02/2019 11:15:00 3.45 12/03/2019 11:30:00 3.79 01/04/2019 11:45:00 3.84 07/05/2019 11:02:00 4.36 07/06/2019 11:20:00 4.08 05/07/2019 11:05:00 3.29 06/08/2019 11:32:00 3.06 14/09/2019 1.96 03/10/2019 10:35:00 0.78 05/11/2019 11:05:00 1.01 09/12/2019 11:50:00 2.21 07/01/2020 11:30:00 2.87 38 07/02/2020 11:12:00 3.32 01/03/2020 11:18:00 3.67 18/04/2020 10:50:00 4.07 08/05/2020 11:00:00 3.31 03/06/2020 11:15:00 0.86 02/07/2020 11:25:00 1.27 05/08/2020 11:35:00 0.89 03/09/2020 11:41:00 1.97 06/10/2020 11:45:00 1.79
The two sets of data are not showing any significant changes during 2015-19 when the quarry was in operation. The impact in the immediate vicinity of the quarry is described in 3.15 .
Air environment and noise :
Prior to quarrying this area was used for agriculture based activities. Changing the land use from agri based activity to an industry which is included in red category as far as pollution is concerned, generates lot of problems related to pollution specifically air and notice. When the ITTEE O.A NO. 155/2020 pollution reduction measures are not followed the effect will be beyond any description. In this case buffer zone is not maintained. Even the area demarcated for buffer zone is mined. Buffer zone with suitable species are to maintained for reducing the air pollution in the neighbouring areas. This buffer will also reduce the noise pollution. Since the quarry was not functional since March 2020 the air quality was fine at the time of visit. The ambient air quality data shown in compliance reports of the previous year's shows that all parameters (PM10, PM 2.5, SO2 and NO2 ) are all within the prescribed standards. The feedback of the locals is given in the later portion(3.7 )of this report.
Biological environment: Changes in the Bio diversity: Before the start of the quarrying operations a biodiversity Assessment report was prepared by Metamorphosis NABT accredited EIA consultant for submission to SEIAA. The bio diversity part of the PF report is given as Annexure 5 . In the report it is mentioned that there are 20 varieties of plants, 5 types of mammals 4 types of reptiles , 8 types of birds and 5 different types of butterflies are located in the area. As the Google images reveal now only very little vegetation is remaining. Not even the buffer vegetation is maintained. The debris mantle slope which is prohibited from mining no other area has significant growth of vegetation, the area mostly is barren The Biodiversity report is concluding in the in PFR is like this Based on the observations and scale of quarry operations, the impact on the flora & fauna is assessed to be insignificant. However, it is proposed/suggested that the post mine closure should be systematic and scientific as per the Environmental Management Plan, considering ecology of the surrounding area.REPORT F 3.7 Any damages to neighbouring houses and to the ecology due to quarrying The baseline environmental status of the region had been studied in the adjacent human habited areas of the quarry. Field observations were conducted in the nearby settlements, housing colonies and made discussions based on different environmental attributes concerning water, land, air, socio-economics, health and the potential environmental implications due to quarrying activities and based on the field visit and compilation of collected information, this section of report is prepared.
Environmental issues and concerns Earth resources are considered as the capital for economic development. Expanding human requirements and economic developments impose immense pressure on our resource base and environmental setting. Lack of adequate studies on the various aspects of resource extraction and its impact on the environment is a major setback in proper planning and developments. Hence, the extraction and utilization of earth resources, especially, mining and quarrying are to be planned and executed in a careful manner and to be verified in every stages of operations for assessing the environmental conditions. Here, we include the present environmental conditions around the hard rock quarry obtained through the fieldwork. Fig.39 shows the location map of the quarry.39
During the field work, a survey had been conducted by interacting with the local people who are residing adjacent to the quarry area. There are serious apprehensions to the local people regarding the impacts of rock quarrying using massive explosives. People claimed that the high impulse noise is affecting the tranquillity of normal life. It is observed that the walls of some houses and wells in the area developed minor cracks (Fig 40 and
41). Massive explosions are causing high ground vibrations and that may be the reason for triggering cracks in the walls of houses and wells. People who are dwelling at the bottom part of the hillocks (Thampuran Para and Thampuratty Para) and about less than 1 km air distance from the quarry feared that such vibrations may trigger landslips, enhance soil erosion or destabilize rock boulders on the slopes of the hillocks. The various issues caused due to hard rock quarrying in different environmental components as collected from the field survey are summarized in Table 4. The details of the houses near the quarry, where the survey was conducted to understand the environmental issues area are shown in Table 4 Various issues caused due to hard rock quarrying in different environmental components.
Environmental Causative activities Type of effects in different Attributes environmental attributes Air quality Soil excavation, drilling, blasting, Dust emission, shattering of rock particulates, dust crushing, loading, transportation & deposition on canopy cover, inhalation of fine debris dumping particulates Noise level Soil excavation, drilling, blasting, Significant to extreme and continuous grinding crushing, loading, transportation & sound, discrete machinery noise, impulse noise of debris dumping high to moderate level and intermittent traffic noise Water Quality Soil excavation, Water resources: Increased runoff and turbidity quarrying, debris dumping in runoff water during rainy season Socio- Soil excavation, drilling, loading, Employment: Increased direct and Environments transportation, crushing, debris indirect employment opportunities to 200 dumping people residing in the adjacent areas of the Quarrying, transportation, manual quarry crushing, labour unions Income: Increased income to the quarry Blasting, crushing & and crusher operator, Enhanced income Transportation generating activities in nearby localities Tranquillity: Loss of calmness, prevalence of uneasiness O. 155/2020 Sl Coordinates Location/REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE Distance f O.A NO. Employm Remarks Home Name of the owner rom 155/2020Cont ent No quarry act (meters) 1 Nandanam, Ammuku 102 - Rubber Vibrations 8°39'5.34"N 76°57' Manickal tty tapping and 21.60"E intense noise while bla sting in the NE direc tion of quarry.
Runoff of muddy water from 40 the quarry to the road creat ed problems to the local people.
So, a wall was built by the quarry owners.
2 Shinto Kunjapp 180 - NREGS Since new 8°38'55.13"N 76°57' Bhavan, an Worker residents, 25.32"E Manickal not aware about the issues.
3 Krishna Saiju 108 7902739 Driver Dust
8°38'53.57"N 76°57' Bhavan, 573 emission
23.66"E Manickal and deposit
ion on
canopy cov
er,
inhalation
of fine
particles
resulted in
asthma.
Cracks and
leakage
were
observed in
the
house.
Modera
te level
of nois
e
pollutio
n.
4 8°38'49.96"N Sharon Seena 144 9947223 Housewif Cracks in
76°57'23.75"E Villa, 278 e the wall
Kattelkizhake of well
kara observed,
Quality issues
in
drinking water
5 8°38'49.93"N Madhavam, Geetha 161 - Housewif No problems,
76°57'24.31"E Kattelkizhake e Worker in
kara Quarry
REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE O.A NO. 155/2020 6 8°38'47.28" Thiruvonam, Ambili 275 - Sweeper No problems, N Manickal Worker in Quarry 76°57'27.01 "E 7 Kuraplankara Anoop 307 - Quarry No problems, 8°38'46.99" house, Manic worker Worker in Quarry N kal 76°57'28.10"
E 41
8 8°38'48.70" Kailas, Lathikumar 148 960510479 Social Noise and dust N Katta 3 activity issue/Quality 76°57'22.21 Vembayam GP issues in "E vice president' drinking s residence water sometimes.
9 8°38'40.20" Aanjalimootil, Lathika/Radha 198 - Quarry Cracks and
N Katta employe leakages obser
76°57'19.47 r ved
"E
10 Sreenilayam, katta Rajendran 194 759398140 Driver Excessive use of
8°38'39.48" 8 road by heavy
N vehicles
76°57'19.18" of quarry
E
11 AmbiliNivas, Omana 354 Weed Worker in Quarry
8°38'29.71" Manickal Cleaner
N
76°57'12.78"
E
12 8°38'30.70 Padheyam, Rahul 249 999586666 Tyre Noise and dust
"N Manickal 2 worker issue
76°57'7.08
"E
13 8°38'26.24" Lekshmi Bhavan, SheebaSugath 427 759205404 Blasting caused
N Thampuranpara an 8 throwing of
76°57'11.45 stones, fear of
"E landslips
14 Lathi Nivas, Purushothama 359 Driver Cracks were
8°39'14.33" Thampuranpara n observed in the
N house, fear of
76°56'59.85" landslips
E
15 Dwaraka, Sindhu 334 Housewi Cracks and
8°39'10.23" Thampuranpara fe leakage were
N observed in
76°56'57.71" the house,
E Quality
issues in
drinking water
Table 5Details of the houses surveyed to understand various environmental issues in the vicinity of the quarry Table 6 Chemical characteristics of Ground water samples Sa Krishna Nandana Sharon Kailas, Sreenilaya Drinkin Remarks:
mpl Bhavan, m, Villa, Katta m, Katta g Insitu analysis e Manickal Manickal Kattelkizha Water were carried Location kekara Specific out using ation Hydras (IS DS5 Coordin 8°38'53. 8°39'5.3 8°38'49.96" 8°38'48. 8°38'39.48" 10500 Multiparamet ates 57"N 4"N N 70" N N :2012) er Water 76°57'2 76°57'21 76°57'23.75 76°57'22. 76°57'19.18 Quality Sond 3.66"E .60"E "E 21" E "E e.
All the parameters were found pH 4.8 4.6 5.1 5.4 5.2 6.5-8.5 within BIS (2007) limit except pH EC 74.83 41.18 65.23 47.56 57.28 -
(µS/cm) 42 TDS 44.87 24.77 40.65 26.19 31.50 500 (mg/l) Salinity 26.55 18.83 22.43 19.89 21.17 - (ppm) Turb 0.19 1.84 0.25 0.71 1.42 5 idity (NTU)
pH: Measure of acidity/alkalinity. Here the samples exhibited acidic nature. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): represents the total concentration of any dissolved substances like minerals, salts, metals, cations or anions in water. Electrical Conductivity (EC): reflects the total content of salts or any charged particles in water, which is dependent on the geological conditions of weathering and other sources that may affect the concentrations of dissolved compounds. Salinity: the dissolved inorganic salt content of water especially Sodium and Chloride ions. Turbidity: Measure of cloudiness of water due to suspended organic and inorganic particles Report of the Joint Committee O.A no 155/2020 dated 19.8.2020 November 2020 Fig 40 Cracks developed in a nearby house Fig 41 Cracks observed in the well of an adjacent house In order to understand the general quality status of ground water in the area, insitu analysis was carried out in 5 selected well locations by using Hydras DS5 Multiparameter Water Quality Sonde. The results of the parameters analysed are shown in Table 5. The results showed that the parameters are found within permissible limits prescribed by Bureau of Indian Standards (2007) except for pH. But people in the vicinity of the quarry area said that the well water is unfit for drinking during rainy seasons due to high turbidity. During this season, precipitation will enhance the sedimentation of suspended particulate matter (SPM) and dust particles emitted from rock processing into the waters of the surrounding areas.
People residing in the immediate vicinity of the quarry were on the threat of severe dust pollution. The inhalation of dust as a result of shattering of rock particulates during rock processing caused severe respiratory illness like Asthma, Bronchitis, Cough etc. The dust and smoke emission from heavy trucks by transportation was also adversely affected the people. It is also observed that there are poor road conditions in and around the area due to heavy trucks movements. So, it is very essential that the roads near the quarry site have to be properly textured and periodically maintained to reduce the impacts due to dust pollution.
During the survey, we could realize that the quarry operations had direct and indirect roles in socio-economic development of the area. Approximately, 180 people were solely depending on the quarry for their livelihood. So, the need of the hour is to derive plans and management strategies for any type of quarrying activities by integrating environmental concerns and thereby protection of the environment.
Report of the Joint Committee O.A no 155/2020 dated 19.8.2020 November 2020 3.8Whether pollution control measures provided by the operator was adequate or not No adequate measures were adopted by the mine operators to control the pollution. 1. No Buffer zone maintained . Tall trees were absent. Even the buffer is non extant due to mining. Dust pollution and noise pollution no controls
2. Garland canal to direct the storm water was absent . Even the one existing does not have silt traps Overland flow is directed to the rain harvesting pond. So the silt collected is deposited into the rain harvesting pond. And it is not flowing outside.
4. No waste oil spillage noticed
5. Major roads are blacktopped where as branching roads are not given protection. 6. Acoustic enclosures should have been provided to reduce sound amplifications in addition to the provisions of green belt and hollow brick envelop for crushers so that the noise level is kept within prescribed standards given CPCB/KSPCB.
Report of the Joint Committee O.A no 155/2020 dated 19.8.2020 November 2020 4.00 Concluding remarks and suggestions This report prepared by the Joint Committee is based on available records and on the spot field observations made during a time when this quarry is not functioning. The satellite images from 2003 were examined and we have come to the conclusion that minor quarrying activities are seen from 2003 onwards.
43• Joint committee visited the site on November 2, 2020. Both the quarry and crusher unit were not working at the time of visit. • The JC members checked the EC conditions as well as the points raised by the Hon'ble NGT. It was noticed that two of the Special conditions such as quarrying outside the lease area and negligence in maintaining boundary pillars noticed. Few boundary pillars are found missing. • Out of the 5 Specific conditions imposed while issuing EC the Company has complied only three. Two conditions are not complied. In the general conditions the Company have compliance only for 22 conditions. 5 conditions were partly complied, 3 conditions were not got a clear answer due to non working of the quarry and 10 conditions are not complied at all. • Excess quarrying was observed at many places. Area demarcated for buffer and garland canal was also mined. Benching at 5m x 5m is also not observed. Google time series maps have indicated that at many places quarrying has encroached to adjacent area also. Department of mining and geology have calculated the excess mining quantity for building stone as well as dimension stone and issued notices to the Company. • Mine closure, mine rehabilitation and reclamation etc have not been done. Company has applied for environmental clearance in SEIAA for further extraction of building and dimension stones.
• Environmental degradation has happened in this area due to quarrying. Available analytical results of land, air and water shows not much degradation. But excess and unscientific mining has resulted in landform changes, loss of bio diversity.
• Environmental compensation was not calculated for excess mining. Though a method was not available for calculating the compensation, this Committee have attempted using the method adopted by NGT for another minor mineral (Sand) developed by an expert team but found that it is not suitable for building and dimension stone quarrying violations. • It is suggested that an expert committee should study in detail the methods suitable for calculating the environmental compensation for building stone and dimension stone quarrying violations.
Report of the Joint Committee O.A no 155/2020 dated 19.8.2020 November 2020 • Survey conducted in the areas around the quarry indicated that problems due to dust, vibrations movement of large trucks are the major problems. There are other quarries are also working in this locality. So the problem is cumulative. There are no major issues related to the quality of water except the acidic nature of water .
• Though the people who were working on the quarry for their livelihood are facing severe economic crisis after the closure of the quarry, the present field investigation revealed that that resource extraction through mining and quarrying activities took place here has accelerated the degradation of environmental conditions in various ways. So, formulation of an effective integrated management plan and cross checking of the same at every stage of quarrying operation is essential with the proper consultation of the geo- environmental experts in the concerned research areas. • It seems there are no effective follow up or checking of the compliance of the conditions imposed with environmental clearance. Concerned agencies should make sure that all conditions are complied with after getting their half yearly compliance reports.
• Any application for renewal of EC of this quarry should be based on a new mine plan with new EMP and EIA with public hearing.
81. Thereafter this Tribunal pass the following orders :
4. It is mentioned in the report that the environmental compensation on direct basis cannot be possible in Building Stone Quarry matters and as such they have not calculated environmental compensation, but confined to the penalty already imposed by the department for the excess mining done by the third respondent.
5. It may be mentioned here, that this Tribunal as well as the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of violation of environmental laws has come heavily on the authorities for not recovering environmental compensation applying the Polluters‟ Pay Principle. Further in Forest matters the Hon‟ble Apex Court has even gone to the extent of fixing the Net Present Value (NPV) of the trees cut to be calculated after assessing the ecological value that is likely to be obtained from the tree and that will have to be converted into money value while fixing the value of the tree for afforstation scheme.44
6.Further in this case excess mining was done by doing mining beyond the mining lease area. Thereby heavy loss has been caused to nature and the ecology and what will be the time taken for the purpose of recouping such loss are all the matters to be taken into account for fixing the environment compensation. This has been repeated by this Tribunal in several cases of similar nature and directed the authorities to calculate the environmental compensation on that basis.
7.Further, they can also ascertain the profit that had been earned or the market value at which the mined article is being sold that will give an indication as the real value of the article that has been mined in excess, which can be taken into account for the purpose of fixing to the compensation as well.
8.Further, the possibility of damage caused to the environment on account of unscientific mining will also have to be taken into consideration as it is likely to cause natural calamity when heavy rain comes, resulting in heavy landslides causing lot of expenditure for the Government to rehabilitate the persons who are likely to be affected on account of the same. There is a possibility of damage being caused to the existing plants trees and for protection of such that plants trees some precaution any measures will have to be taken. Those are all the matters to be considered by the committee while fixing the environmental compensation to be recovered.
9.Further, Mine Closure Plan has not been implemented and that is one of the violations of the environmental clearance granted for the purpose and for that also guidelines have been provided by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) as to how the environmental compensation has to be calculated. So the observation made by the committee that it is not possible to assess the environmental compensation in the case of Building Stone Quarry cannot be accepted. So they are directed to assess environmental compensation as directed by this Tribunal for the violation of conditions imposed including the excess mining and loss caused to environment, ecology and bio-diversity as mentioned above.
10. The third respondent wants to file counter to the application and also wants to produce certain documents as certain proceedings were pending before the Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala in respect of the same issue.
11. The other respondents are also directed to file their independent statements regarding the allegations made and the action taken from their side before the next hearing date. If they do not file the statement before the next hearing date then, they will have to pay heavy cost as fixed by this Tribunal for accepting the pleadings as even as per the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 the maximum time that is available is only two months and beyond that it is the discretion of this Tribunal with certain heavy cost being imposed.
12. The committee is also directed to file the further report assessing environmental compensation as directed by this tribunal considering the manner in which it has to be calculated as detailed in the earlier paragraph.
13. If the applicant wants to file any objection to the report, he is at liberty to file the same, before the next hearing date by serving copies to the other side.
14. The committee as well as the respondents are directed to file their report and the respective statements on or before 23.04.2021 by e-filing in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hard copies to be produced as per rules.
82. The Joint Committee has filed the further report dated Nil along with memo of the learned counsel dated 23.08.2021 e-filed on the same date, extracted in Para (2) of the order which reads as follows:
45"SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL COMPENSATION IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO 155 OF 2020 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI.
1. Background:
M/s Covenant Stones Pvt Ltd. is involved in the operation of a building stone quarry and dimension stone quarry in an area of 8.9637 Ha. in the Manikkal and Thekkada Villages of Nedumangad taluk of Thiruvananthapuram district Kerala. The first environmental clearance was issued by SEIAA to this quarry on 2014 vide environmental clearance No 237/SEIAA/ KL/ 885/2014 dated 27/11/2014 and it was expired in 2019. The SEIAA had given an extension of six months vide environmental clearance by SEIAA No 1422/EC1/2019/SEIAA dated 3.01.2020 from 2019 to 2020. Meanwhile the Tahsildar, Nedumangad taluk issued a stop memo dated 7.3.2020 to M/s Covenant Stones Pvt Ltd for transporting quarried material without valid documents. At present the environment clearance is not in force and all the quarrying operations are stopped. As per the statement of the Company representative the quarry is not in operation since 7th March 2020. At the moment the extension period of the EC is over and the mining operations have come to a standstill. Further extension of the lease period is rejected by SEIAA. Now the company has applied for the approval of Terms of reference (TOR) for conducting an EIA study followed by public hearing which are pre requisite for applying Environmental Clearance (EC) for any mining projects having a real extent of 5 Ha or more. This application is now pending before SEIAA, Kerala.
Shri Vijeesh Kumar filed OA No 155/2020 before Hon‟ble NGT South Zone alleging that lot of environmental damage has done on account of violations committed by M/s Covenant Stones (P) Ltd, Vembayam , Thiruvananthapuram and the Proponent had manipulated mining plan submitted with application for EC for the subsequent periods. Vide order dated 19.08.2020 in OA No 155/2020 Hon‟ble NGT South Zone has directed to appoint a Joint Committee consisting of officers from SEIAA- Kerala, MoEF & CC, KSPCB, DMG and NCESS to ascertain the real state affairs and also the violation said to have committed by M/s Covenant Stones in carrying out quarrying operations. Members of the Joint Committee were:
1. Shri G. Sankar, Member, SEAC, Kerala and Scientist G (Retd), National Centre forEarth Science Studies, Thiruvananthapuram
2. Dr S. Prabhu, Scientist C, MoEF and CC, Integrated Regional Office, Bengaluru
3. Shri A. M. Harees, Env. Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, DistrictOffice, Thiruvananthapuram.
4. Dr A. Krishnakumar, Scientist D, National Centre for Earth Science Studies (NCESS),Thiruvananthapuram
5. Shri M. M. Vahab, Geologist, Directorate of Mining and Geology (DMG), Kerala SEIAA, Kerala coordinated the work as the nodal department. This Committee submitted the report on 17.12.2020. The concluding remarks and suggestions of the Committee are given below.
This report prepared by the Joint Committee is based on available records and on the spot field observations made during a time when this quarry is not functioning. The satellite images from 2003 were examined and we have come to the conclusion that minor quarrying activities are seem 2003 onwards. Joint committee visited the site on November 2, 2020. Both the quarry and crusher unit were not working at the time of visit.
Important observations of the Joint Committee:
The JC members checked the EC conditions as well as the points raised by the Hon‟ble NGT. It was noticed that two of the Special conditions such as quarrying outside the lease area and negligence in maintaining 46 boundary pillars noticed. Few boundary pillarsare found missing. Out of the 5 Specific conditions imposed while issuing EC the Company has complied only three. Two conditions are not complied. In the general conditions the Company have compliance only for 22 conditions. 5 conditions were partly complied, 3 conditons were not got a clear answer due to non working of the quarry and 10 conditons are notcomplied at all. Excess quarrying was observed at many places. Area demarcated for buffer and garland canal was also mined. Benching at 5m x 5m is also not observed. Google time series maps have indicated that at many places quarrying has encroached to adjacent area also. Department of mining and geology have calculated the excess mining quantity for building stone as well as dimension stone and issued notices to the Company. Mine closure, mine rehabilitation and reclamation etc have not been done. Company has applied for environmental clearance in SEIAA for further extraction of building and dimension stones. Environmental degradation has happened in this area due to quarrying. Available analytical results of land, air and water show not much degradation. But excess and unscientific mining has resulted in landform changes, loss of bio diversity.
Compensation for building stone was calculated based on the figure given by the DMG. Regarding the calculation of dimension stones the DMG has not completed calculating the excess amount. So, the environmental compensation could not be calculated for dimension stones. Survey conducted in the areas around the quarry indicated that problems due to dust, vibrations movement of large trucks are the major problems. There are other quarries are also working in this locality. So, the problem is cumulative. There are no major issues related to the quality of water except the acidic nature of water.
Though the people who were working on the quarry for their livelihood are facing severe economic crisis after the closure of the quarry, the present field investigation revealed that that resource extraction through mining and quarrying activities took place here has accelerated the degradation of environmental conditions in various ways. So, formulation of an effective integrated management plan and cross checking of the same at every stage of quarrying operation is essential with the proper consultation of the geo- environmental experts in the concerned research areas.
It seems there are no effective follow up or checking of the compliance of the conditions imposed with environmental clearance. Concerned agencies should make sure that all conditions are complied with after getting their half yearly compliance reports.
Any application for renewal of EC of this quarry should be based on a new mine plan with new EMP and EIA with public hearing. As per order dated 16.03.2021, this Tribunal had considered the Joint Committee report dated Nil e-filed on 17.12.2020 and received on 08.01.2021 which was extracted in Para 3 of the order and then, passed the following order:-
"4. It is mentioned in the report that the environmental compensation on direct basis cannot be possible in Building Stone Quarry matters and as such they have not calculated environmental compensation but confined to the penalty already imposed by the department for the excess mining done by the third respondent.
5. It may be mentioned here that this Tribunal as well as the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of violation of environmental laws has come heavily on the authorities for not recovering environmental compensation applying the Polluters‟ Pay Principle. Further in Forest matters the Hon‟ble Apex Court has even gone to the extent of fixing the Net Present Value (NPV) of the trees cut to be calculated after assessing the ecological value that is likely to be obtained from the tree and that will have to be converted into money value while fixing the value of the tree for afforestation scheme.
6. Further in this case excess mining was done by doing mining beyond the mining lease area. Thereby heavy loss has been caused to nature and 47 the ecology and what will be the time taken for the purpose of recouping such loss are all the matters to be taken into account for fixing the environment compensation. This has been repeated by this Tribunal in several cases of similar nature and directed the authorities to calculate the environmental compensation on that basis.
7. Further, they can also ascertain the profit that had been earned or the market value at which the mined article is being sold that will give an indication as the real value of the article that has been mined in excess, which can be taken into account for the purpose of fixing to the compensation as well.
8. Further, the possibility of damage caused to the environment on account of unscientific mining will also have to be taken into consideration as it is likely to cause natural calamity when heavy rain comes, resulting in heavy landslides causing lot of expenditure for the Government to rehabilitate the persons who are likely to be affected on account of the same. There is a possibility of damage being caused to the existing plants trees and for protection of such that plants trees some precaution any measures will have to be taken. Those are all the matters to be considered by the committee while fixing the environmental compensation to be recovered.
9. Further, Mine Closure Plan has not been implemented and that is one of the violations of the environmental clearance granted for the purpose and for that also guidelines have been provided by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) as to how the environmental compensation has to be calculated. So the observation made by the committee that it is not possible to assess the environmental compensation in the case of Building Stone Quarry cannot be accepted. So they are directed to assess environmental compensation as directed by this Tribunal for the violation of conditions imposed including the excess mining and loss caused to environment, ecology and bio-diversity as mentioned above.
The committee members wanted some more time for submitting further report as directed by this Tribunal. The Hon‟ble NGT (SZ) has directed the committee to file a further report on or before 20.08.2021 by e-filing in the form of Searchable PDF/OCR Supportable PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hardcopies to be produced as per Rules. The Joint Committee met in Thiruvananthapuram on 29th July and 13th August 2021 to finalise the methodology and report. One of the members of the Joint Committee Shri M.M.Vahab of Department of Mining and Geology was retired on 28th February 2021. Since he was involved in the site inspection and data collection, he was requested to help the Committee in finalizingsupplementary report. The Committee examined the earlier work conducted in similar cases of environmental compensation. In the case of environmental compensation of excess quarrying in building stone and dimension stones there are no methods available. The methodology followed in Judgement of the Hon‟ble NGT (PB) dated 26.02.2020 in the OA No 360 of 2015 for the calculation of excess mining of river sand (Annexure - 1) was adopted here. However, there are methodologies available for the calculation of environmental compensation for violations in building stones quarrying. There are methodologies described in illegal granite stone quarrying and mining report in OA 508 of 2019 before the Hon‟ble NGT (SZ) filed by Kerala State Pollution Control Board (Annexure - 2) and laterite mining irregularities report in OA 14 of 2016 before the Hon‟ble NGT (SZ) filed by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (Annexure - 3) and. Laterite and granite building stone quarry environmental compensation methods are similar. The Committee decided to follow the method adopted in O.A No 508/2019 (with report dated 09.09.2020). O.A No 14 of 216 and O.A No 508 followed CPCB guidelines. The mineral extraction details were made available by the Department of Mining and Geology(Annexure - 4).
2. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPENSATION (EC):
VIOLATIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
CONDITIONS:
48
As per CPCB guidelines (Polluter Pays Principle), Environmental Compensation has been calculated using the following formula, subject to the condition that the general environmental compensation for a violation shall be a minimum of Rs 5000/- per day and a maximum of Rs 60,000/- per day.
Calculation of Environmental Compensation EC = PI x N x R x S x LF Where EC = is Environmental Compensation in Rupees Pollution Index (PI) Pollution Index of industrial sector = 80 (Quarry being a red category, which may be a minimum of 60 and maximum of 100. Average pollution index is taken as 80).
Number of days during which violation took place (N) N = Number of days during which violation took place. Calculation is detailed below:
From documents the company submitted to SEIAA for renewing the EC they have mentioned that "The company has obtained the quarry lease in the year 2011 and after the development of the site, the quarrying operations was started in the year 2013. There upon the EC was obtained on 27.11.2014 and mining plan approved on 29.04.2015. it is further submitted that the quarry has not been functioning since 07.03.2020 and the EC period expired on 25.05.2020 For calculating the total number of days for which polluting activities took place, here the day the EC was given i.e. 27.11.2014 to the day quarry was stopped by the Revenue authorities i.e.07.03.2020 was considered. No of days the available from 27.11.2014 to 07.03.2020 = 1943 days (Including Sundays, National holidays, State holidays totalling 297 days. So the no. days of working of quarry is 1646 days). Even though the no of working days may be 1624 in the case of calculating environmental degradations due to violations the total no of days is taken in account. The quarry was functioning since 2011 only the period under the EC (for which the unit functioned without observing the some of the specific and general conditions. ) given by SEIAA is considered.
This quarry was functioning with environmental Clearance from 27.11.2014 for a period of 5 years i.e 26.11.2019. Further SEIAA had given a six-month extension of the EC. The operations of the quarry were stopped following a stop memo issued on 7.3.,2020. So, the quarry was functioning since 27.11.2014 till 7.3.2020. For calculation of Environmental Compensation 1943 days were taken. Factor in Rupees for deriving the EC (R ) R= 250 (which may be a minimum of l00 and maximum of 500, (usually taken as 250) Calculation of Rupee factor (R Factor) As per CPCB guidelines R has to be in the range of 100 to 500 and usually taken as 250. The R factor shall be calculated based on the number of working days per year (no of violation (Na) category of activity (Cr) factor of Scale of the unit (Sr) R= 100 + 21.75 (Na x Cr x Sr).
The minimum value of R may be taken as 250.
Factor for No of violation (Na) It is number of working days for which violation is observed. Consider the Na factor as 1 upto 365 days, 2 for 365- 730 days, 3 for 730 - 1095 days and 3.5 for above 1095 days.
Na (Number of working days) factor Value
Up to 365 days 1.0
365 - 730 days 2.0
730 - 1095 days 3.0
More than 1095 days 3.5
Since the number of violation days are 1646 days more than 1095 the Na factor is 3.5 This Na value is applicable only for calculating R factor 49 Category Score (Cr) Category score (Cr) may be taken as 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 for Green.
Orange and Red respectively
Category Category Score (Cr)
Green 0.5
Orange 1.0
Red 1.5
Since the CPCB has classified Mining and related activities as Red category Cr is 1.5 in thiscase.
Scale factor (Sr) Scale factor (Sr) may be taken as 1.0, 2.5 & 3.5 for small (< 5 Crores), Medium (5-10 Crores)and Large (>10 Crores).
Scale Sr factor
Small Scale ( < Rs 5 Crores) 1.0
Medium Scale ( Rs 5-10 Crores) 2.0
Large Scale (>10 Crores ) 3.5
The Project cost of this project is Rs 25 crores. This project can be considered as a large scaleunit and the Sr factor is 3.5. R= 100 + 21.75 (Na x Cr x Sr) Rupee factor (R) = 100 + 21.75 (3.5 x 1.5 x 3.5) = 499.65. So, Rupee factor (R) is taken as 500.
S = Factor for scale of operation which could be based on small /medium/ large industry S=3.5 LF = location factor = 1 (Since population is less than one million). EC = PI x N x R x S x LF EC = 80 x 1943 x 500 x 3.5 x 1 = 2,72,02,000/- ( two crore seventy two lakh two thousandonly) i.e Rs 14,000 per day of violation. EXCESS MINING:
There is no separate formula/ method available for the calculation of environmental compensation for the excess stone quarry. It is noted that Hon‟ble NGT (PB) vide Judgement dated 26.02.2021 in OA 360 of 2015 approved the following method for calculation of EC forillegal sand mining. PV= ∑t 5 = 1 (Dx RF)/ (1+r) t, Where D is Market Value of Illegally mined Material and PV is Present Value of Foregone Ecological values (@5-8% discount rate and over 5 years).
Risk factor (RF) = 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00 as per the extent of severity of damage and ecologicalfragility of project.
Severity Mild Moderate Significant Severe
of
Impact
Risk level 1 2 3 4
Risk Factor 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Discount 8% 7% 6% 5%
Rate
Net Present Value (after netting out market value of illegally mined material) - i.e, Total Compensation to be levied, NPV= PV-D Based on the above the, EC is calculated.
CALCULATION Building stone:
The committee observed that Permitted Quantity of building stone is 9,75,675 MT (As per DGM report) and but total extraction is 19,27,653 MT. The Committee noted that PA has extracted excess building stone (Including buffer zone mining at Sy. No. 470 - 3570 m3) of 9,61,581 MT.50
RF is considered as 0.5 (Moderate). Market value of Rs 450 as per the DMG is considered.
Excess Quantity mined out = 9,61,581MTMarket value, D, = 450/- Rs= 9,61,581x 450= Rs 43,27,11,450/-
PV = [43,27,11,450x 0.5]/ (1+0.07)1 + [43,27,11,450x 0.5]/ (1+0.07)2 +[43,27,11,450x 0.5]/ (1+0.07)3 +[43,27,11,450x 0.5]/ (1+0.07)4+[43,27,11,450x 0.5]/ (1+0.07)5 =Rs 88,72,68,389 /-
NPV = PV-D=88,72,68,389 - 43,27,11,450= Rs 45,45,56,939/-
Dimension Stone:
The committee observed that DGM has not provided information like permitted quantity of dimension stone, total extraction and excess extraction. Therefore,the committee has not calculated.
Sl. No. Name of the Excess mined Environmental Penalty collected, Rs.
materials Quantity compensation
calculated based on
the above, Rs
1 2 3 4
1 Building 9,61,581 MT 45,45,56,939 6,71,08,430
Stone
2 Dimension - - -
Stone*
Sub Total 45,45,56,939 6,71,08,430
Total (3-4) Rs. 38,74,48,509/-
(Excess amount) (Rupees Thirty Eight Crore Seventy Four Lakh
Forty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Nine
only).
*Information provided by DMG insufficient
It can be seen from the above table that the Environmental Compensation worked out based on the Judgement of Hon‟ble NGT(PB) dated 26.02.2021 in OA 360 of 2015 is more than the penalty levied by DMG. The excess amount may be recovered from the Project Proponent.
3. CONCLUSION:
a. Environmental Compensation for violation of Environmental Clearance conditions as per "Polluter pays" principle by CPCB guidelines. EC = Rs. 2,72,02,000/- (Rupees two crore seventy two lakh two thousand only) i.e Rs 14,000/- per day of violation.
b. Environmental Compensation for Excess Mining: There is no separate formula/ method available for the calculation of environmental compensation for the excess stone quarrying. The Committee adopted the Hon‟ble NGT (PB) vide Judgement dated 26.02.2021 in OA 360 of 2015 approved method for calculation of EC for illegal sand mining. Environmental Compensation (EC) = Rs. 38,74,48,509/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Crore Seventy Four Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Nine only).
c. Total Environmental Compensation will be 38,74,48,509 + 2,72,02,000 = 41,46,50,509/- (Forty One Crore Forty Six Lakh Fifty Thousand Five Hundred Nine Only).
4. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
The excess amount of environmental compensation for excess mining be recovered from the Project Proponent and may be used for Eco restoration including the implementation of mine closure plan at Project area. The DMG office shall be strengthened with additional manpower & 51 advanced infrastructure facilities for strict vigilance on illegal mining activities. Audit on the quantity permitted, quantity mined out, rate of replenishment etc shall beconducted every year."
83. Thereafter the matter was adjourned for the purpose of completion of pleading and objections if any to the Joint Committee report.
84. The 3rd respondent filed objections to the Joint Committee report e-filed on 17.03.2021. He had mentioned that the quantum of excess mining was assessed only on the basis of the study conducted by the department of Mining and Geology and not from the independent survey that was conducted by the Joint committee on the directions of this Tribunal. The department of Mining and Geology had based on its finding, issued a demand notice dated 05.8.2020 to the 3rd respondent, directing it to remit an amount of Rs. 6,86,39,420/- (Rupees Six Crores Eighty Six Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty only) towards royalty, price and fine for allegedly excessive mining quantity of 952973 MT of rock, over and above the permitted quantity from the lease area. A revised demand notice dated 15.09.2020 was served on the 3rd respondent wherein the amount was corrected to Rs. 6, 71, 08,430/- (Rupees Six Crores Seventy One Lakhs Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty only) as royalty, price and fine for the revised quantity of 931714 MT of rock alleged to have been removed in excess from the lease area. Pursuant to receiving these notices, the respondent filed W.P. No. 28482 of 2020 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, challenging the demand notice sent by the Department of Mining and Geology. The Hon'ble High Court by order dated 07.01.2021, found the order of the Department of Mining and Geology dated 15.09.2020 to be prime facie illegal and directed the same to be treated as a provisional demand notice, pending the Writ Petition proceedings.
85. However, in complete disregard to the same, the Department of Mining and Geology passed an order dated 08.02.2021, without considering any of the objections raised by the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Secretary to Government, Industries (A) Department under Rule 98(1) of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. Since revenue recovery proceedings had been initiated against the respondent within the statutory period of appeal and pending consideration of the appeal, the 3rd respondent preferred W.P.(C).52
No. 4138 of 2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 17.02.2021 disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the authorities to dispose of the appeal within a period of 3 weeks from the receipt of the order copy and not to take any coercive actions against the 3rd respondent herein for recovery of the amounts until orders are passed in the appeal. Till date no orders have been passed by the Appellate authority in the appeal filed by the respondent and no coercive action should be taken against the respondent for recovery of the amount mentioned in the demand notice. Since the findings of the Joint Committee is based on the findings of Department of Mining and Geology which have been challenged and are pending for disposal, before the Statutory Authority the same cannot be held against the 3rd respondent by this Tribunal.
86. As per the study conducted by the Department of Mining and Geology, the allegation made against this respondent is that it had quarried in excess of the permitted quantity from the lease area. The allegation made did not state that the respondent had excavated from beyond the lease area. Hence, the entire issue of illegal excessive mining is sub-judice before a statutory authority and it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to dwell upon the same for the present, as any finding on that issue will be substantially affect the right of this respondent before the Appellate authority and if the Appellate Authority comes to a different conclusion, it would affect the order of this Tribunal as well.
87. The finding of the committee that there was no boundary pillars and some of the pillars were dilapidated, and in view of the finding excess mining was done by the 3rd respondent is not correct. Since the quarry was not functioning for more than 1 year some of the pillars could not be identified due to overgrowth of shrubs and it was not missing.
88. The allegation of noise pollution etc., are not correct as he had provided all necessary safeguard to avoid noise pollution and vibrations and most of the allegations made are not supported by any reason and since statutory proceedings are pending in respect of collection of penalty and royalty for excess mining, same need not be gone into by this Tribunal.
5389. The total compensation assessed is also excessive. So they prayed for ignoring the report of the Joint Committee.
90. The 3rd respondent also filed objections to the supplementary report where he had almost reiterated the contentions raised in the earlier objection and pendency of the proceedings before the statutory authorities.
91. The 3rd respondent also filed additional objection to the supplementary report of the Joint Committee, dated 15.02.2021, wherein they have reiterated the contentions already raised.
92. Further it was contended that the committee had failed to take note of the Standard Operating Procedure issued by Ministry of Environment, Forest and climate Change (Impact Assessment Division dated 07.03.2021) regarding the procedure to be followed in respect of violation and non- compliance cases. The committee ought to have considered that aspect and the various factors taken by the committee on the basis of Central Pollution Control Board formula is also not proper. The instances of non-compliances alleged are not correct. The appellate authority has passed an order in the appeal by order dated 29.07.2021 and found that further survey is required and thereby they have remitted the case to the Director of Mines and Geology for fresh consideration evidenced by Annexure 1 produced along with this objections.
93. Further there was no procedure for preparing any mining plan prior to 2015 when along this procedure was included by amendment rules namely Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 2015 whereby Rule 66 was included. Till then the procedure for preparing mining plan was not in existence and as per Rule 66, the authorities are permitted the existing quarry owners to submit the mining plan and accordingly the same was filed and approved and on that basis the closure activities have to be done within first five years of the grant of quarry.
94. The Government of Kerala as early as in 2008, decided appeals challenging levy and demand of penalty alleging excess excavation by quarry leaseholders, who were remitting royalty in terms of Schedule IV of 1967 Rules evidenced by Annexure 2 and Annexure 3 produced along with the same, need not further to be proceed with.
5495. A meeting was convened at the instance of Principal Secretary, Department of Industries on 24.09.2008 at Trivandrum and they have resolved not to demand royalty for excess quantity of granite building stone produced after subtracting the consolidated royalty paid by the crusher owners in advance for a year and the department should strictly adhere to the stipulation in Rule 48(P) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules in this case evidenced by Annexure 4 produced along with the objection and on that basis the Director of Mines and Geology had issued Annexure 5 order directing the District Geologist not to initiate any action against such leaseholders who opted to RMCU CRPS system.
96. The Hon'ble High court of Kerala in its judgement in George Antony vs. Geologist, dated 20.03.2017 reported in (2017(2) KLT 1093) wherein it was mentioned "We make it clear that since Ext. P10 confirms the regime post 2002 to be one where the petitioner could have extracted unlimited minor mineral by paying a CRPS, the Director of Mining & Geology cannot enter into any investigation post 2002 provided that the petitioner had obtained proper permits under the consolidated royalty for that period".
97. So the government is stopped from treating such excavation as illegal. The copy of the RMCU registration certificate issued by the competent authority with respective quarry of the respondent was produced as Annexure 6. So according to the 3rd respondent, compensation is not recoverable.
98. The Director of Mining and Geology (4th respondent) filed a report dated 05.05.2022 e-filed on 17.06.2022which reads as follows:
REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY (4TH RESPONDENT) BEFORE THE HONOURABLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL IN O.A. No. 155/2020 FILED BY Shri. VIJEESH KUMAR It is most humbly stated that M/s. Covenant Stones Pvt. Ltd. was granted two quarrying leases in the averred area. Quarrying Lease for extraction of Granite Building Stone was granted vide order‟ No. 98/2011 - 12/3499/M3/20 11 dated 20. 05. 2011 for an area or 5.7752 hectares in resurvey nos. 29/3, 29/2, 30/4 in Thekkada village and resurvey nos. 470, 472/4-1, 472/5, 472/6, 474/1, 474/1- 2, 474/1-1 in Manikkal village confined in Nedumangad taluk and the lease will be expiring on 24/06/2023 . J4ie second lease for the extraction of Granite Dimension Stone was granted for an area of 2.4270 hectares in resurvey nos.55
469/4-3-4, 4-3-3, 4-2, 4-1-1, 4-1 -2, 4-1-3 in Manikkal village vide order no. 373/2015-1 6/ 1723/M3/2015 dated 19. 08. 2015. The Quarrying Lease for Granite Dimension Stone had expired on 21. 08. 2020.In the order dated 19. 08. 2020 in O.A. No. 1
55/2020, the Honourable National Green Tribunal had appointed a Joint Committee comprising of a Senior Officer of Ministry of‟ Environment, Forests & Climate Change (Mo EF & CC), Bangalore, a Senior OfficC1„ from State Environment Impact. Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Kerala, a Senior Officer from the Directorate of Mining and Geology, Thiruvananthapuram, a Senior Officer from National Centre for Earth Science Studies, Thiruvananthapuram, and a Senior Scientist front Kerala State Pollution Control Board, to inspect the quarry and submit a status as well as action taken report it there is any violation found including assessment of environmental compensation. Accordingly a Senior Officer from the Directorate of' Mining and Geology was nominated as the Joint Committee member. He had visited the quarry of M/s. Covenant Stones Pvt. Ltd. on 02. 11. 2020 along with the Joint Committee and had submitted an inspection report. During the site inspection it was noticed that the lessee had done illegal mining from outside the permitted lease area. It may be noted that the lessee has been penalized before for violation of provisions of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession (KMMC) Rules, 2015. The compounding details pertaining to M/s. Covenant Stories Pvt. Ltd., Katta, Vembayam is given below:
1. An amount of Rs. 25000/- was realized for illicit extraction of 1250 MT of Granite Building Stone without any valid mineral concession, at the time inspection to grant of Quarrying Lease during 2011 .
2. An amount of Rs. 14,65,000/- was realized for illicit extraction of 20000MT of Granite Building Stone from the safety zone (buffer areal and outside the lease area as per inspection conducted on 05.05.2018
3. An amount of Rs. 86,907/- was realized on 28.07.2019 for illicit extraction of 995.708 MT of Granite Building Stone with respect to Dealers License issued to M/s. Covenant Stone.
4. An amount of Rs. 44,99,080/- was demanded for extracting 62140 MT in excess of the mining plan quantity during the financial year 2015-1 6 of this only Rs. 25,05,900 was remitted and the rest has to be realized vide revenue recovery.
5. Based on the report dated 25.0 I .2020 of the RQP, an amount of Rs. 52,04,950/- was realized from the lessee for illegal extraction of 30385 MT of Granite Building Stone from outside the lease area and 41555.75 MT from the safety zone (buffer area).
6. An amount of Rs. 6,71,99,420/- bus demanded for illicit extraction of 932978 MT of Granite Building Stone vide revised demand dated 15.09.2020. On non- remittance of the amount by the lessee, a requisition for revenue recovery was forwarded to the District Collector. Against this the company preferred an appeal petition before the Government and the appeal was disposed of vide GO (Rt) No. 788/202 l /ID dated 29.07.202 I directing the District Geologist, Tlñruvananthapuram, to issue proceedings afresh to M/s Covenant Stones after verifying whether there is any case to be pursued against the petitioner taking into account the contentions put forth by the appellant with respect to the rules, the sanctions issued for the extraction of mineral and the quantity of minor mineral extracted as per the record, after issuing a proper notice to the appellant. That process is under progress.
7. An amount of Rs. 21,72,040/- has been demanded for illicit extraction of 3570 MT of Granite Building Stone mined from the common boundary and 262.5 MT of Granite dimension Stone mined from the safety zone (buffer area) vide demand dated 31.08.2021 . The process for realizing the 56 amount is also progressing.
On 07.03.2020 SEIAA had requested this respondent to enquire about the allegations against M/s. Covenant Stones Pvt. Ltd. that the company had committed frauds/irregularities while submitting a modified mining plan at the time of seeking extension of environmenta1 clearance. The District Geologist, Thiruvananthapuram, submitted a detailed report in the matter and recommended that the case be handed over to police authorities as there was prime facie evidence of forgery and conspiracy. Thus a complaint was filed in Pettah Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram by this respondent based on the report of the Geologist, District Office, Thiruvananthapuram and the investigation is underway. A copy of the report dated 05.00.2019 of the Geologist, District Office, Thiruvananthapuram, is attached herewith as Annexure- 1.
It is stated that the quarry of M/s Covenant Stones Pvt. Ltd. is nonfunctional at present. On 07.03.2020, Tahsildar, Nedumangad, issued a stop memo to the said quarry when it was found that the lessee was illegally transporting granite and granite aggregates without valid mineral transit passes thereby violating the provisions of Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage & Transportation) Rules, 2015.
It is brought to the attention of the Honorable National Green Tribunal that the office of this respondent is not competent enough to assess the environmental damage caused by illegal mining activities of the lessee. At present, the mining activities are stopped in the averted area. Mining operations cannot be resumed in the quarry unless and until all sums due to the Government have been realized from the lessee.
99. The Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent filed memo on behalf of the 2nd respondent stating the following facts:
MEMO FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT The 2nd Respondent humbly submits as follows:
1. That the present Original Application is filed by the Applicant herein for the following relief:
i) To the 1st respondent to take immediate measures to assess the damages that have caused on account of the illegal quarrying operation being carried out by the 3rd respondent based on EC issued on 27.11.2014 and renewed on 10.12.2019 and to pass necessary orders under Section 5 of Environment (Protection) act, 1986 to recover the same form the 3rd respondent and its officers responsible and prosecute them in accordance with the law.
(ii) To the 1st respondent to pass necessary orders invoking its power under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 calling for the application made by the 3 rd respondent for the issuance of environmental clearance and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iii) Pass an order directing the 1st respondent delegating the powers under Section 23 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to the police officers or such other officers which this Hon‟ble Tribunal thinks fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case to prosecute persons who do illegal operations in gross violation of the Environmental Clearance granted to them.
(iv) Pass an order directing the respondents 2 and 4 to prosecute the officers who are responsible for submitting false or forget or illegal documents for obtaining and renewing environmental clearance on behalf of the 3rd respondent company.
(v) Direct the 1st respondent to initiate criminal prosecution against the officers responsible in the 3rd 57 respondents‟institutions for violations of the provisions of the environmental legislation.
(vi) Pass such further or orders as this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice"
2. That this Hon‟ble Tribunal in its order dated 19.08.2020 constituted a Joint Committee comprising of (1) a Senior Officer from the Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF& CC), (2) a Senior Officer from State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Kerala 3) a Senior Officer from the Director of Mining and Geology, Thiruvananthapuram, (4) a Senior Officer from National Centre for Earth Science Studies, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala and (5) a Senior Scientist from Kerala State Pollution Control Board; to inspect the quarry in question and submit a status as well as action taken report if there is any violation found including assessment of environment compensation. The Joint Committee was also directed to comply with various other directions and nominated SEIAA i.e., this Respondent as a nodal agency for coordination.
2. That in compliance of the above direction of this Hon‟ble Tribunal, the departments had nominated its members to be a part of the Joint Committee, which are as follows:
NAME OF THE SL..No. DESIGNATION DEPARTMENT OFFICER 1 Shri. G. Sankar Member SEAC, Kerala MoEF & CC, 2 Dr. S. Prabhu Scientist C Regional Officer, Bangalore Environmental 3 Shri. Harees KSPCB Engineer Directorate of 4 Shri. M.M. Vahab Geologist Mining and Geology 5 Dr.A. Krishnakumar Scientist D NCESS, Akkulam
4. That the above members of the Joint Committee filed a detailed report dated November 2020 based on a site inspection and the said report was considered by this Hon‟ble Tribunal in its order dated 16.03.2021 and directed the Joint Committee to assess the environmental compensation as per the methodology laid down in the said order dated 16.03.2021.
5.That in compliance of the above direction of this Hon‟ble Tribunal, the Joint Committee assessed the damage caused to the environment by the Project Proponent and also assessed the environmental compensation and filed its Supplementary Report dated August 2021.
6. That this Hon‟ble Tribunal in its order dated 24.08.2021 considered the above Supplementary Report of the Joint Committee and directed the parties to file their objection if any.
7. That the Project Proponent i.e., the 3rd Respondent herein filed objections to the Report and Supplementary Report of the Joint Committee, before this Hon‟ble Tribunal and the same were considered by this Hon‟ble Tribunal in its order dated 30.05.2022 and directed the Joint Committee to consider the objections of the 3rd Respondent, besides issuing various other directions to be complied with.
8. That the members nominated by SEIAA, KSPCB and Department of for various reasons such as superannuation and transfer, hence it is not Mining and Geology, are not in a position to be a part of the Joint Committee possible to comply with the further direction of this Hon‟ble Tribunal, before the next hearing date i.e., 20.07.2022.
9. That there is no wilful disobedience on the part of the Joint Committee in complying with the directions of this Hon‟ble Tribunal and the same is for the reasons stated supra.
10. That the members will be replaced in the Joint Committee by the concerned departments at the earliest and the direction 58 of this Hon‟ble Tribunal will be complied with in letter and spirit.
Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to record the above memo and grant further time till September 2022 to comply with the directions of this Hon‟ble Tribunal in the above Original Application and thus render justice.
100. The 3rd respondent had filed further objections to the report dated 17.03.2022 submitted by the Director of Mining and Geology which reads as follows:
OBJECTION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDNET TO THE REPORT DATED 17/3/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY/4TH RESPONDENT
1. I am the Director of M/s. Covenant Stones Pvt. Ltd., the 3rd respondent in the above original Application. The 4th respondent had filed a report before this Hon'ble Tribunal, which contains incorrect and misleading facts and therefore, it is become necessary to file this objection to the same.
2. The allegation that an amount of Rs.44,99,080/- was demanded for extracting 62140 MT in excess of the Mining Plan quantity during the financial year 2o1s - 2016 and out of the said total amount, only an amount of Rs.25,05,900 was remitted is incorrect. The report to that effect is submitted by not disclosing the true facts. It is submitted that the respondent herein was issued with a demand notice for Rs.44,99,080/-. True copy of the said demand notice dated 8-5-2020, is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(7).
3. Since this respondent could not gather such amount in a lump sum, this respondent requested for paying the same in instalments. The respondent herein was permitted to remit the said amount in 8 instalments. The respondent could remit an amount of Rs.25,05,900/- in 4 instalments and due to severe financial constraints, this respondent could not remit the remaining amount.
4. However, this respondent, approached the Hon'ble High court of Kerala, for instalment facility, by filing W.P.(c) No.6 106/2022 and the Hon'ble High court, vide Judgment dated 14-03-2022, permitted this respondent to remit the remaining amount with interest in 6 monthly instalments. True copy of the Judgment dated 14-3-2022 in W.P.(c) 5' No.6106/ 2022 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(8).
5. It is pertinent party to notice that, the Director Mining & Geology was a party to the said judgment. Still later, the respondent herein had remitted the amount in instalments strictly in accordance with the direction passed by the Hon'ble High Court.
6. As per the judgment, the 3d respondent is permitted to remit the remaining amounts with interest in 6 equal monthly instalments. The 3rd respondent remitted the 1 st instalment amount on 07/04/2022.
7. A true copy of the covering letter along with the challan showing the remittance of the 1st instalment amount of Rs.59
8,87,450/- on 7/4/2022 is produced herwith and marked as Annexure R3(9).
8. True copy of the covering letter along with the challan showing the remittance of the 2nde instalment amount of Rs. 3,74,922/- on 7/4/2022 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(10).
9. True copy of the covering letter dated 30-05-2022 along with the challan showing the remittance of the 3 rd instalment amount of Rs. 3,74,922/- on 28/5/2022 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3 (11).
10. True copy of the covering letter, dated 1-7-2022 along with the challan showing the remittance e of the 4 th instalment amount of Rs. 3,91,193/- on 1/7/2022 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(12).
11. True copy of the covering letter dated 21-07-2022 along with the challan showing the remittance of the 5 th instalment amount of Rs. 3,79,852/- on 21/7/2022 is produced herewith and marked as AnnexureR3(13).
12. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent had remitted s instalments till now and only one instalment is pending as per Judgement dated 14/13/2022 in WP@ No.6 106/2022.
13. The respondent could remit an amount of Rs.24,08,339/- in 5 instalments and for remitting the 6th /last instalment, this respondent had already applied for issuance of chellan and the same is pending. As per Annex.R3(8) Judgment, the 6th instalment falls due on 18- 9-2022.
14. It is submitted that averment in the report regarding the issuance of demand notice dated o7/09/2021 for a total amount of Rs. 21,72,040/- by way of royalty, price and fi.ne with respect to the alleged excavation of 3570 MT of GBS from the common boundary and 262.5MT of Granite dimension stone mined from the buffer zone is not correct.
15. It is submitted that, the demand notice is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable either in law or on facts. It was issued without affording any opportunity of being heard to the 3rd respondent. In such circumstances, issuance of demand notice is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, void ab initio and non-est in the eye of law.
16. Hence, the 3rd respondent had submitted petition before the District Geologist on 20/9/2021, Trivandrum to review and recall the order dated 7/9/ 2021 and for grant of an opportunity of hearing.
17 . True copy of the petition submitted by the 3 rd respondent before the District Geologist Mining & Geology Department, Trivandrum is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(14). No orders have been passed on the same, yet.
18. It is submitted that, the 3rd respondent had given a detailed explanation in the Additional Counter Affidavit filed with respect to the allegations raised against the company that the Company had committed fraud and irregularities while submitting a modified mining plan at the time of seeking extension of Environmental Clearance the same may be treated as part of this affidavit.
19. In view of the above and other contentions to be raised, it is submitted that the report submitted by the joint committee may be rejected.
60101. The Joint Committee had filed further report dated 25.08.2022 e-filed on 26.08.2022 which reads as follows:
61102. The 2nd respondent has filed a reply to the objections raised by the 3rd respondent to the Joint committee reports dated 30.08.2022 e-filed on 12.09.2022 which reads as follows:
REPLY TO THE OBJECTIONS RAISED ON THE REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTALCOMPENSATION IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO 155 OF 2020 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Objections 1 to 5
1. The 3d Respondent is a Private Limited Company that is engaged in quarrying and allied businesses and was incorporated on 11.03.2011.
2. The 3rd Respondent was granted a quarry lease by the Director of Geology and Mining for an extent of 8.937 Hectares of land comprised in Re Sy.No.29/2, 29/3 and 30/4 of Thekkada Village, Nedumangad Taluk and comprised in Re Sy.No. 470, 472/5, 472/6, 474/1, 474/1-2, 472/4-1 and 474/1-2 of Manikkal Village Nedumangad Taluk, Trivandrum District, Kerala.
It is submitted that the quarrying lease dated 23.05.2011 is valid for a period of 12 years i.e. upto 22.05.2023.
3. The State Environment Impact Authority, Kerala issued an Environmental Clearance with respect to the lease area vide proceedings No.237/SEIAA/ KL/885/2014 dated 27.11.2014 valid for a period of 5 years.
4. The 3rdRespondent submits the following objections to the Report of the Joint Committee filed in November 2020.
5. The findings of the Committee in Paras 3.2.101, 3.2.102, 3.2.104, 3.2201, 3.2204, 3.2205, 3.2208, 3.2210, 3.2212, 3.2215, 3.2120, 3.2226, 3.2227, 3.2228, 3.2229, 3.2230, 3.2231, 3.2235 need not be answered as the Committee has reported that this Respondent hascomplied with the above-mentioned conditions Reply Introduction and uncontested findings of the Joint Committee Objection 6 As regards to the findings of the Committee in para 3.2.103, it is humbly submitted that the finding has been based solely on the study that was conducted by the Department of Mining and Geology and not from the independent survey that was conducted by the Joint Committee on the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal. The Department of Mining and Geology had based on its finding, issued a demand notice dated 05.08.2020 to the 3rd Respondent, directing it to remit an amount of Rs.6,86,39,420/ (Rupees Six Crores Eighty Six Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty only) towards royalty, price and fine for allegedly excessively mining a quantity of 952973 MT of rock, over and above the permitted quantity from the lease area. A revised demand notice dated 15.09.2020 was served on the 3rd 62 Respondent wherein the amount was corrected to Rs.6,71,08,430/- (Rupees Six Crores Seventy One Lakhs Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty only) as royalty, price and fine for a revised quantity of 931714 MT of rock alleged to have been removed in excess from the lease area. Pursuant to receiving these notices, this Respondent filed W.P.No.28482 of 2020 before the Hon'ble Kerala High Court challenging the demand notice sent by the Department of Mining and Geology. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, vide its order dated 07.01.2021, found the order of the Department of Mining and Geology dated 15.09.2020 to be prima facie illegal and directed the same to be treated as a provisional demand notice, pending the Writ Petition proceedings. However, in complete disregard to the same, the Department of Mining and Geology passed an order dated 08.02.2021, without considering any of the objections raised by this Respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this Respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Secretary to Government, Industries (A) Department under Rule 98(1) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2015. Since revenue recovery proceedings had been initiated against this Respondent within the statutory period of appeal and pending consideration of the appeal, this Respondent preferred W.P.(C).NO.4138 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 17.02.2021 disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the authorities to dispose of the appeal within a period of 3 weeks from receipt of order copy and not to take any coercive actions against the Petitioner/ the 3rd Respondent herein for recovery of the amounts until orders are passed in the appeal. It is humbly submitted that till date no orders have been passed in the appeal filed by this Respondent and therefore, no coercive action should be taken against this Respondent for recovery of the amounts mentioned in the demand notice. Therefore, since the findings of the Joint Committee is based on the findings of Department of Mining and Geology which have been challenged and are pending for disposal, the same cannot be held against the 3rd Respondent.
Reply The non-compliance of the EC condition due to excessive mining carried out by the company was determined using the following three methods
1. Interpretation of the satellite imageries using Geographical Information System (GIS) and by superimposing the boundary pillar on the satellite imagery by the Joint Committee.
2. Direct verification of the position of boundary pillars and the actual mined area through Field verification by the Joint Committee
3. Interpretation of the data gathered from the detailed survey carried out by the Department of Mining and Geology, Kerala.
Therefore, the objection that the findings of the Joint Committee is solely based on the studyconducted by the Department of Mining & Geology is wrong and baseless.
It is true that the 3rd Respondent approached the Hon. High Court of Kerala questioning the demand notice dated 15.09.2020 of the Mining & Geology Department, Kerala to remit an amount of Rs.6,71,08,430/- (Rupees Six Crores Seventy-One Lakhs Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty only) as royalty, price and fine for the excess quantity of 931714 MT of rock that have been removed in excess from the lease area. It is also true that the 3rd Respondent filed appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority in the Industries Department of Government of Kerala following the directions of the Hon. High Court of Kerala. Complying with the orders in the Common Judgement of the Hon. High Court of Kerala dated 24.9.2021 in WP(C) 19213/2021 and WP(C) 19404/2021, the Appellate Authority in Industries Department, Govt. of Kerala vide order GO(Rt) No. 710/2022/ID dated 16.7.2022 directed the Director, Mining & 63 Geology Department to take necessary steps to reassess the alleged quarry with the help of revenue officials and to issue fresh demand notice. The Appellate Authority also made it clear that the appellant company is not exempted from further steps against them for realizing royalty in respect of the excessquantity of granite building stones quarried, if any.
Complying with the directions of Appellate Authority, the Director, Mining & Geology Department as on 16.8.2022 entrusted the District Geologist, Thiruvananthapuram, two Geologists of the Directorate of Mining & Geology Dept., a Surveyor from the Revenue Department (On deputation) and Taluk Surveyor, Nedumangad to conduct fresh assessment in the lease areas of granite building stone to identify the excess mining conducted by the company. The team commenced the field level survey on 20.8.2022 and submitted a report to the Director of Mining & Geology on 23.8.2022 on the granite building stone extracted in excess for which penalty has to be realized. Accordingly, it is estimated that the excess quantity extracted is 8,39,786 metric tonnes and the penalty for which is Rs.6,04,89,592/- (Rupees Six Crore Four Lakh Eighty-nine Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety-two only) and a fresh Demand Notice will be issued to the PA demanding the penalty for excess quantity of granite building stone extracted from that lease illegally. The Director, Mining and Geology Department also issued a Demand Notice No. 3445/DOT/ML/2019 dated 7.9.2021 to the company with respect to the granite dimension stone lease in which the excess quantity of granite dimension stone is identified as 262.5MT and granite building stone as 3570 MT for which the company is liable to remit Rs. 21,72,040/- as penalty. Based on the revised report dated 23.8.2022 on the excess quantity of granite building stone mined from the first lease and excess quantity of granite dimension stone and granite building stone mined from the second lease of the PA, the environmental compensation for excess mining of granite building stone as well as granite dimension stone is being worked out by the Joint Committee afresh as the Mining & Geology Department has revised the report in response to the orders of its Appellate Authority in compliance to the directions from the Hon. High Court of Kerala. While doing so, the Joint Committee may also be permitted to relook the Environmental Compensation estimated for violation of Environmental Clearance conditions as per "Polluter pays"
principle detailed in CPCB guidelines submitted to the Hon. Tribunal earlier, if it is required to be done consequent to the revised report of the Mining & Geology Department.
It is submitted that the objection of the Respondent 3 is temporary as the excess quantity extracted is now re-assessed as per the directions and the Joint Committee can re-assess the environmental compensation within a maximum of one month time, if permitted by the Hon. Tribunal.
Objection 7 It is submitted that as per the study conducted by the Department of Mining and Geology, the allegation made against this Respondent is that it had quarried in excess of the permitted quantity from the lease area. It is pertinent to note that the allegation made did not state that the Respondent had excavated from beyond the lease area. Hence, the entire issue of illegal/ excessive mining is sub-judice before a statutory authority and it would not be appropriate for this Hon'ble Tribunal to dwell upon the same for the present, as any finding on that issue will be substantially affect the 64 right of this Respondent before the Appellate authority. And if the Appellate authority comes to a contrary conclusion, it would affect the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
Reply It is very clear and evident from the data and photos given in the report that the 3rd Respondent had quarried in excess of the permitted quantity from the lease area. Based on extensive field level survey carried out twice by the Department of Mining and Geology (DMG), the DMG confirmed the encroachment of mining to areas outside the lease area and excessive mining by the PA. In compliance to the direction of the Hon. High Court of Kerala and direction of the Appellate Authority who acted based on the direction of the Hon. High Court, the Director of the Mining & Geology Department revised and forwarded a Report dated 23.8.2022 ascertaining the extend and volume of granite building stone extracted in excess by the 3rd Respondent in their lease area. Thus, it is a proven fact that the 3rd Respondent had quarried in excess of the permitted quantity from the lease areas and therefore, the objection raised by the 3rd Respondent is not true to the facts and hence not tenable.
Objection No 8 As regards to the finding in Para 3.2.105, it is humbly submitted that most of the boundary pillars are made of concrete. The few metallic pillars which are made of flex sheet and lettering were put up in accordance with the instructions of the Department of Mining and Geology, as the Geologist wanted to ease the viewing of boundary pillars in inaccessible areas. This is an instruction followed by almost all the quarries in Trivandrum for the past 3 years. The allegation that in couple of places the boundary pillars is missing or dilapidated is vague and incorrect. The Committee ought to have specified the details and particulars in which places the boundary pillars were missing and which boundary pillars were dilapidated. In the absence of the same, the said allegation cannot be sustained. As mentioned in the report itself, the boundary pillars were inaccessible due to overgrowth of shrubs as the quarry was not functioning for more than a year, not missing. It is also pertinent to note that the mining activities were not being carried on from 07.03.2020 and except for the security guard, all other workers do not turn up for the upkeep of the boundary pillars. It is further pertinent to note that the State of Kerala has seen heavy rains and floods during the past few years leading to the washing away of certain structures and the same could not be reconstructed due to the inaccessibility to the exact location. Further, it is not the case of the Committee that this Respondent has mined beyond the area of the alleged missing pillars.
Reply The findings in Para 3.2105 are regarding the non-compliance of the Specific Condition No. 5 which stated that the Boundary pillars should not be tampered with. The boundary pillars determine the boundary of the leased area for mining and hence it should be in accordance with the geo-referenced details given in the approved Mine Plan. In the report of the Joint Committee, the status of each of the boundary pillars are clearly brought out by visiting the boundary pillars and using remote sensing and GIS tools. The Table 1 clearly provided the status of each boundary pillar and the photographs, marked as Figure 5, 7, 8 and 9 and indicated the ground realities of the violation committed by the 3rd Respondent. Thus, it is clear and evident that the objection raised by the 3rd Respondent, quoting non- existent instruction and generalization, is vague and incorrect. Further, the objection of the 3rd respondent that "it is not the 65 case of the Committee that the 3rdRespondent has mined beyond the area of the alleged missing pillars" is clearly misleading as the Committee was ordered for ascertaining the real state of affairs and also the violation. Therefore, the 3rd Respondent, by raising this objection, tried to misrepresent facts and mislead the Hon. Tribunal.
rd Further, the Objection 8 of the 3 Respondent may also be considered as their admittance that the Project area is facing high erosion and landslide based on the statement given in the objection as "It is further pertinent to note that the State of Kerala has seen heavy rains and floods during the past few years leading to the washing away of certain structures and the same could not be reconstructed due to the inaccessibility to the exact location".
Objection 9 With respect to the findings in Para 3.2202, it is humbly submitted that the Committee has come to the conclusion that as no records were produced in that regard by the personal assistant. The Joint Committee erred in giving such a finding as a compliance report is submitted to the Environmental Clearance Committee every 6 months and the same is a part of the records with the statutory authorities.
Reply The findings in Para. 3.2202 is about the 2nd General Condition of the Environmental Clearance which states that "Environment Monitoring Cell (EMC) as agreed u n d e r the affidavit f i l e d by the proponent should be formed and made functional". The compliance of this condition is assessed based on the minutes of the meeting of the EMC conducted and action taken reports approved by the EMC. The statement of the 3rd Respondent in the Half- Yearly Compliance Report (HYCR) that the EC condition was compiled with can be verified only through the Minutes book and Action Taken Report Register. This was not produced by the 3rd Respondent during the visit of the Joint Committee to the site or even after that. Therefore, it is evident that the EMC was not functional and the statement in the HYCR was false. Therefore, the objection raised by the 3rd Respondent is to cover-up his falsehood and mislead the Hon. Tribunal.
Objection 10.
With respect to the findings in Para 3.2203, it is submitted it is a vague finding as the Committee has neither stated as to how many trees were to be planted and how many trees have been planted, without such any such factual finding, it is not open to the Committee to give a finding that the General Condition 3 has been partly complied with.
Reply The statement in Para 3.2203 is about the 3rd General Condition "Suitable Avenue trees should be planted along either side of the tarred road and open parking areas, if any, including of approach road and internal roads". It is submitted that the Joint Committee took note of the information provided by the PA and stated the compliance is partial because there are many gaps along the approach road and internal roads where planting of trees is possible as exemplified in photos given as Figure 13 and
20. The EC was granted giving liberty to the PA for planting the most suitable species and appropriate number of trees. The Joint Committee only meant that the faith and scientific liberty given to the PA was not fulfilled. This being the fact, the objection of the 3rd Respondent is not at all with good intention and is an effort to divert from the serious violations that he has committed.
66Objection 11 With respect to the findings in Para 3.2206, it is wrong for the Joint Committee to have given a finding that General Condition 6 was not complied with. A progressive mining closure plan was submitted and the same was approved by Department of Mining And Geology on 29.04.2015, and same was submitted to the State Environment Impact Authority, Kerala. It is pertinent to note that the lease period still subsists and the Application for renewal of Environmental Clearance is still pending before the statutory authority.
Reply The statement in Para 3.2206 is about the 6th General Condition "Eco-restoration including the mine closure plan shall be done at the own cost of the project proponent". It is known to the PA that the mine closure activities are also part of mining activity. Often the mining activity stops with the lease period without fulfilling the eco restoration processes which is not permissible. Eco-restoration of the mine is considered as a concurrent activity and it need not wait till the completion of the lease period. The mine closure activity also should continuously follow the mining activity and hence wherever the mining activity gets completed, the mine closure activity is also implemented in that portion of the mine under development. Thereby, the eco- restoration almost gets completed as and when the mining gets completed and spatial and temporal extent of the adverse impacts minimizes progressively. It is obvious that the PA, though got a progressive mine closure plan approved by Department of Mining and Geology on 29.04.2015 itself, failed to consider its implementation at all stating that the lease period still subsists and the Application for renewal of Environmental Clearance is still pending before the statutory authority. This shows the lack of environmental responsibility of the PA and the reluctance to comply with the EC conditions. Therefore, the 3rd Respondent, by raising this objection, is trying to evade his responsibility and environmental commitment.
Objection 12 As regards to the findings in Para 3.2207, it is submitted that sufficient plantation of indigenous plant species that are eco- friendly have been carried out in compliance of the condition. Further, the said finding is a vague statement without any details whatsoever.
Reply The statement in Para 3.2207 is about the 7 th General Condition, "At least 10 percent of the total area, excavated pit should be retained as water storage areas and the remaining area should be reclaimed with stacked dumbing and overburden and planted with indigenous plant species that are eco-friendly". As evident from the Fig. 18 photograph, the old mine pit is retained as rain harvesting pit and the overburden dump is covered with naturally grown bush vegetation. This being the fact, the objection of the 3rd Respondent is baseless.
Objection 13 With respect to the findings in Para 3.2208, it is humbly submitted that the Committee has come to the conclusion as no records were produced in that regard by the personal assistant. The Joint Committee erred in giving such a finding as a compliance report is submitted to the Environmental Clearance Committee every 6 months and the same is a part of the records with the statutory authorities. Further, the said finding has been arrived at on the basis that no supporting documents were produced before the Committee. When no documents were produced before the Committee, it is not known 67 as to how the Committee has given a finding that the activities carried out are not as per the activities listed in the proposal.
Reply The statement in Para 3.2208 is about the 8thGeneral Condition, "Corporate So c i a l Responsibility (CSR) agreed upon by the proponent should be implemented as per the commitments made". The finding of the Committee that the activities carried out are not as per activities listed in the proposal is based on the submission of the PA and the data available with the SEIAA including Half Yearly Compliance Report. Even though the Joint Committee carried out the site inspection after giving advance notice to the 3rd Respondent, he failed to produce any valid documental evidence regarding the implementation of CSR proposal. This being the fact, the 3rd Respondent is misleading the Hon. Tribunal by raising such an objection.
Objection 14 With respect to the findings in Para 3.2209, the Committee has not specifically stated which area has not been fenced. The entire lease area has been fenced at all places. Hence, the finding of the Joint Committee without any specific details should be ignored by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
Reply The statement in Para 3.2209 is about the 9 th General Condition, "The lease area shall be fenced off with barbed wires to a minimum height of 4ft around, before starting of mine". The photographs given as Fig. 19 and 20 provides adequate proof that the entire lease area is not fenced off. The fencing was not there connecting boundary pillars BP 7, BP8, BP10, BP11 and BP15 where quarrying extended beyond the stipulated boundary pillars as evident from the photograph given in Fig. 5. The boundary pillar BP15 itself was missing. Even after giving specification for the fence, the 3rd Respondent failed to implement the same in total. This being the ground truth, the 3rd Respondent is trying to evade from one of his basic commitments while getting the Mine Plan approved and Environmental Clearance obtainedby raising this objection.
Objection 15 With regards to the findings in Para 3.2211, it is submitted that the following measures have been taken by the 3rd Respondent:
Reply The statement in Para 3.2211 is about the 11 th General Condition, "Control measures on noise and vibration prescribed by KSPCB should be implemented". At the time of site visit, the mine was not working but the PA failed to produce any documental evidence or instruments to prove that they were using noise and vibration control measures when the mine was working. Further, statement of objections of the 3 rd Respondent provides a tone of assurance about the various measures that the PA will be adopting. From these, it is very obvious that the stipulated condition is not complied with and the objection raised is baseless.
Objection 16 With regards to the findings in 3.2213, it is submitted that the Committee has come to the conclusion as no records were produced in that regard by the personal assistant. The Joint Committee erred in giving such a finding as a compliance report is submitted to the Environmental Clearance Committee every 6 months and the same is a part of the records with the statutory authorities. The blasting carried on in the mining area is nonal blasting as 68 per the instructions of the Department of Mining and Geology and under the supervision of competent persons.
Reply The statement in Para 3.2213 is about the 13th General Condition, " Blasting should be done in a controlled manner as specified by the regulations of Explosives Department or any other concerned agency". The Joint Committee found that the condition is not complied by the PA as he failed to produce any supporting documents. Even in the Half Yearly Compliance Report, the PA made a statement that he complied with the condition but without providing any substantiative document. Therefore, the objection raised by the 3rd Respondent is without any factual base.
Objection 17 With regards to the findings in 3.2214, it is submitted that the blasting operations carried out in the mine are done under the supervision of competent persons i.e. one first class manager, second class manager, foreman and two mates. A compliance report in this regard with all records including copies of licenses and employment details is submitted to the EC committee every 6 months. The said fact has also been accepted in this report and therefore theallegation made in the report cannot be sustained.
Reply The statement in Para 3.214 is about the 14 th General Condition, "A licensed person should supervise/ control the blasting operations". Though the PA claimed that he engaged one first class manager, second class manger, foreman and two mates in the Half Yearly Compliance Report, no documents supportive of this act is produced at the time of site visit or afterwards. Therefore, the objection is not supported with facts and baseless and hence not tenable.
Objection 18 With regards to the findings in 3.2216, it is humbly submitted that it is a vague statement to state that the condition has been partly complied, without delving into what aspects have been complied with and what have not been complied with. It is not the case of the Joint Committee that the overburden materials have been stored in a place other than the leased area.
Reply The statement in Para 3.2116 is about the 16 th General condition, "Overburden materials should be managed within the site and the old quarries, if any, should be reclaimed and restored". The PA is committed to comply with the management of overburden, the quantity of which is stated in the approved Mine Plan. During the site visit, it was observed that the total overburden generated is neither properly managed with adequate protective measures for further use nor used for reclamation or restoration and the site photographs provide the evidence. Therefore, the objection raised by the Respondent is only to hide his act of inadequate compliance.
Objection 19 With regards to the findings in Para 3.2217, it is humbly submitted the finding is contradictory as it mentions that the condition of the height of benches not exceeding 5m and width not being lesser than 5m of the benches have not been complied with in accordance with the conditions 69 stipulated by the EC while at the same time mentioning that all the benches have been removed. This finding is therefore incorrect and not sustainable.
Reply The statement in Para 3.2217 is about the 17th General Condition, " Height of benches should not exceed 5m and width should not be less than 5m". The objection is not valid as the stipulated benches are not maintained while mining as evident from the photograph shown as Fig. 25 and also the photographs given as Fig 17, 19, 25, 26, 30 and 30a. By not maintaining the stipulated benches, the PA got into the illegal act of over extraction which is also evident from the steep scarp like slopes of more than 20m height observed during the site inspection. The act of the 3rd Respondent is not only the violation of the EC condition but also an act leading to potential accident situations in the site. Therefore, the objection is to mislead the Hon. Tribunal.
Objection 20 As regards to the findings in Para 3.2218, it is submitted that the said condition no.18 has been strictly complied with during the operation of the mine.
Reply The statement in Para 3.2218 is about 18 th General Condition, "Mats to reduce fly rock blast to a maximum of 10 PPV should be provided". The Joint Committee did not report any non- compliance with respect to this condition as it could not be verified as the quarry was not in operation. Thus, there is no reason for any objection.
Objection 21 With respect to the findings in Para 3.2219, it is submitted that there is no mention of the measurements or study conducted by the committee to arrive at the conclusion. Hence, the Committee should not have determined the same. It is also pertinent to note that the quarry was not a virgin quarry and has been mined even prior by some other persons. It is also not the case of the Joint Committee or anyone that this was the exact topography that was handed over to this Respondent and based upon which to come to a conclusion that the Respondent has mined an excessive depth.
Reply th The statement in Para 3.2219 is about 19 General Condition, "Maximum depth of mining form general ground level at site shall not exceed 10m". The PA did not comply with this condition as evident from the photograph given as Fig. 26. The Committee adopted ground- based study as well as data from remotely sensed images and also examined the time series Google earth images from 2003 to 2020 (given as a series of 8 photographs marked Fig. 31 to Fig. 38) to determine the progress of mining and ground conditions rd from time to time. Therefore, the argument of the 3 Respondent that the Joint Committee or anyone could not have ascertained the exact topography rd the land that was handed over to the 3 Respondent for mining is either ignorance or a deliberate act for misleading the Hon. Tribunal. The excessive depth of mining beyond the permissible level and also without providing benches is clearly evident from the photographs in Fig. 30, which shows the steep mined out scarp and lack of provision of benches. Thus, the objection rd of the 3 Respondent is against facts and not justifiable.
Objection 22 With respect to the findings in Para 3.2121, it is humbly submitted a compliance report in this regard with all records, inclusive of license copies 70 and employment details are regularly submitted to the EC committee every 6 months.
Reply The statement in Para 3.2121 is about the 21st General Condition, "Acoustic enclosures should have been provided to reduce sound amplifications in addition to the provisions of green belt and hollow brick envelop for crushers so that the noise level is kept within prescribed standards given CPCB/KSPCB". The PA failed to produce the noise level monitoring reports during the site visit or afterwards and hence reported the non-compliance. Therefore, the objection raised by the 3rd Respondent is not factual.
Objection 23 With respect to the findings in Para 3.2222, it is humbly submitted that the condition has been strictly complied with during the operation of the mine.
Reply The statement in Para 3.2222 is about the 22nd General Condition, "The workers on the site should be provided with the required protective equipment such as ear muffs, helmet, etc". The Joint Committee has not reported non-compliance with regard to this and hence there is no ground for any objection.
Objection 24 As regards the finding in Para 3.2223, it is submitted that the findings of the Committee are as vague as possible and confusing. The Committee has reported on one hand that a drain is being used as duct for cables and is not maintained properly while on the other hand given the finding that the drain is being used to drain mine drainage. It is submitted that a garland drain with clarifiers were maintained to channelize storm water. As the mining operations were stopped on 07.03.2020 and no workers turned up for work since then, the said garland drains were not maintained and hence, they were in a state as reported by the Joint Committee. Hence, the Hon'ble Tribunal may ignore the same.
Reply The statement in Para 3.2223 is about the 23rd General Condition, " Garland drains withclarifiers to be provided in the lower slopes around the core area to channelize storm water". The Committee reported non- compliance as the garland canal is not provided in most parts of the mine area. As shown in the photograph given in Fig. 27, there is one canal laid for a shortdistance without any silt traps near the boundary pillar, BP19. This drain is now being used as cable duct and is not maintained properly. The very purpose of the garland drain in a mine isto drain the overland flow in a mine and therefore, it should be located between the benches and also in the buffer zone. The rain water falling on the benches and buffer zone should getdrained through these garland canals and the silt should get deposited in the silt traps provided in these canals before joining the common natural drain. This is to ensureappropriate drainage of the mine area as well as to avoid pollution of the common water bodyof the locality. Having failed in doing such a scientific drainage arrangement, the 3rdRespondent is raising vogue objections to confuse and mislead the Hon. Tribunal.
Objection 25 As regards to the finding in Para 3.2224, it is submitted that this Respondent has strictlycomplied with the conditions in accordance with law.
71Reply The statement in Para 3.2224 is about the 24th General Condition, " The transportation of minerals should be done in covered trucks to contain dust emissions". The Joint Committee has not reported non-compliance with regard to this and hence the objection is notrelevant.
Objections 26 As regards to the finding in Para 3.2225, it is humbly submitted that the mine that was leased to the Respondent was not a virgin mine and was pre- existing mine. Hence, there arises no question of any loss of plantation that had occurred for replacing it with 5 times of the loss. The said aspect has been clearly mentioned in the Environmental Clearance certificate dated 27.11.2014.
Reply The statement in Para 3.2225 is about the 25th General Condition, " The proponent should plant trees at least 5 times of the loss that has been occurred while clearing the land for the project". The Committee ascertained non-compliance of this conditions based on the findings of the study conducted by the PA, prior to the commencement of mining activity in the area and also based on the time-series remotely sensed images from 2003 to 2020 (8 photographs given as Fig. 31 to Fig. 38) and inference obtained during the site visit. The bio diversity plan submitted by the PA based on a study conducted prior to the mining activity provided the data on the flora and fauna of the area leased for mining. The time-series Google earth images from 2003 to 2020 shows the greenery and vegetation existed in the mine lease area prior to the commencement of the mining and as to how it was lost as the mining activity progressed. This Committee adopted ground-based study for assessing the present scenario with respect to the destruction of vegetative cover. The non- compliance has been reported based on clear-cut data and the objection of the 3rd Respondent is a deliberate attempt to escape from the responsibility.
Objection 27 With respect to the findings in Paras 3.2232, 3.2233 and 3.2234, no responses are required.
Reply The Joint Committee has not reported non-compliance with regard to this condition andhence the objection is not relevant.
Objection 28 With respect to the findings in Para 3.2236, it is humbly submitted that the same is a vague statement stating that the condition has been partly complied with, without specifying as to which authority the Respondent had failed to send the clearance letter to and what compliance is pending. The said finding therefore cannot be accepted.
Reply The statement in Para 3.2236 is about the 36th General Condition, " A copy of the clearance letter shall be sent by the proponent to concerned Grama Panchayat/ District Panchayat/ Municipality/ Corporation/ Urban Local Body and also to the Local NGO, if any from whom suggestions/ representations, if any, were received while processing the proposal. The Environmental Clearance shall also be put on the website of the company by the proponent". The Joint Committee reported the partial compliance of the condition based on the limited details available with the SEIAA. The PA failed to provide any relevant 72 proof regarding communication of the environmental clearance letter to various agencies and also uploading of the EC in the website of the Company. This being the fact, the objection of the 3rd Respondent is only to mislead the Hon. Tribunal.
Objection 29 With respect to the findings in Paras 3.2237, 3.2238, 3.2239 and 3.2240,. no responses are required.
Reply The Joint Committee has not reported non-compliance with regard to these conditions andhence the objection is not relevant.
Objection 30 As regards to the finding in Para 3.3, it is submitted that in order to determine whether any excess quarrying has been carried out and to know the quantity of such excess quarrying, it is necessary that detailed ground surveys are conducted. However, it appears that the Committee has arrived at its findings by placing reliance on the on the study conducted by the Department of Mining and Geology instead of conducting an independent ground survey. The Department of Mining and Geology had based on its finding, issued a demand notice dated 05.08.2020 to the 3rd Respondent, directing it to remit an amount of Rs.6,86,39,420/- (Rupees Six Crores Eighty Six Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty only) towards royalty, price and fine for allegedly excessively mining a quantity of 952973 MT of rock, over and above the permitted quantity from the lease area. A revised demand notice dated 15.09.2020 was served on the 3rd Respondent wherein the amount was corrected to Rs.6,71,08,430/- (Rupees Six Crores Seventy One Lakhs Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty only) as royalty, price and fine for a revised quantity of 931714 MT of rock alleged to have been removed in excess from the lease area. Pursuant to receiving these notices, this Respondent filed W.P.No.28482 of 2020 before the Hon'ble Kerala High Court challenging the demand notice sent by the Department of Mining and Geology. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, vide its order dated 07.01.2021, found the order of the Department of Mining and Geology dated 15.09.2020 to be prima facie illegal and directed the same to be treated as a provisional demand notice, pending the Writ Petition proceedings. However, in complete disregard to the same, the Department of Mining and Geology passed an order dated 08.02.2021, without considering any of the objections raised by this Respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this Respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Secretary to Government, Industries (A) Department under Rule 98(1) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2015. Since revenue recovery proceedings had been initiated against this Respondent within the statutory period of appeal and pending consideration of the appeal, this Respondent preferred W.P.(C).NO.4138 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 17.02.2021 disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the authorities to dispose of the appeal within a period of 3 weeks from receipt of order copy and not to take any coercive actions against the Petitioner/ the 3rd Respondent herein for recover of the amounts until orders are passed in the appeal. It is humbly submitted that till date no orders have been passed in the appeal filed by this Respondent and therefore, no coercive action should be taken against this Respondent for recovery of the amounts mentioned in the demand notice. Therefore, since the findings of the Joint Committee is based on the findings of Department of Mining and Geology which have been challenged and are pending for disposal, the same cannot be held against the 3rd Respondent. Moreover, it is humbly submitted that the allegation in the study by the Department of Mining and Geology is that the Respondent-3 had quarried in excess of the permitted quantity from the lease area. However, it is pertinent to note that 73 there is no allegation to the effect that the 3rd Respondent had excavated from beyond the lease area. It is submitted that the 3rd Respondent having a quarry lease is also a holder of a Registered Metal Crusher Unit wherein it is liable to pay royalties in accordance with the Consolidated Royalty Payment System, at the rates specified under Schedule IV instead of Schedule I of the 1967 Rules. Accordingly, this Respondent had been paying the royalties in accordance with the Consolidated Royalty Payment System since 2013. The distinguishing feature of Consolidated Royalty Payment System is that in the said system, royalty is calculated not on the basis of actual quantity of excavation but on the basis of the size of the jaw crusher unit. Therefore, the idea of computation of royalty on the basis of actual quantity mined is totally alien to the scheme of Consolidated Royally Payment System as provided for under Rule 48P r/w Schedule IV of the Rules 1967 and its corresponding provisions under Rules 2015. In the scenario where there is no question of measuring the excavation done on the basis of actual quantity excavated under Consolidated Royally Payment System, the allegations of excess quarrying or quarrying beyond permitted quantity is paradoxical/ ant ethical to the very scheme of Consolidated Royalty Payment System. Under such circumstances, the very allegation of excavation of excess quantity is irrational, baseless and unsustainable as the said scheme in itself does not contemplate the same. Moreover, it is submitted that the entire issue of illegal/ excessive mining is sub-judice before a statutory authority and it would not be appropriate for this Hon'ble Tribunal to dwell upon the same for the present, as any finding on that issue will be substantially affect the right of this Respondent before the Appellate authority. And if the Appellate authority comes to a contrary conclusion, it would affect the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
Reply The Para 3.3 is about the question "Whether any excess quarrying was carried out ?". Prima facie, the examination of time series Google images from 2003 to 2020 and the site inspection indicates that mining has taken place beyond the Boundary pillars and hence beyond the boundary of the mine lease area. When geo referenced boundary pillar locations super imposed with the Google images it is evident that mining has taken place till recently (as indicated by bright areas without vegetation) beyond the area bounded by these pillars as evident from the 8 photographs given as Fig. 31 to Fig. 38. The exact quantity of minerals mined was obtained from the data provided by the Directorate of Mining and Geology, Kerala which is now challenged by the 3rd Respondent.
It is true that the 3rd Respondent approached the Hon. High Court of Kerala questioning the demand notice dated 15.09.2020 of the Mining & Geology Department, Govt. of Kerala to remit an amount of Rs.6,71,08,430/- (Rupees Six Crores Seventy-One Lakhs Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty only) as royalty, price and fine for the excess quantity of 931714 MT of rock that have been removed in excess from the lease area. It is also true that the 3rd Respondent filed appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority in the Industries Department of Government of Kerala following the directions of the Hon. High Court. Complying with the orders in the Common Judgement dated 24.9.2021 in WP(C) 19213/2021 and WP(C) 19404/2021, the Appellate Authority in Industries Department, Govt. of Kerala vide order GO(Rt) No. 710/2022/ID dated 16.7.2022 directed the Director, Mining & Geology Department to take necessary steps to reassess the alleged quarry with the help of revenue officials and to issue fresh demand notice. The Appellate Authority also made it clear that the appellant company is not exempted from further steps against them for 74 realizing royalty in respect of the excess quantity of granite building stones quarried, if any.
Complying with the directions of Appellate Authority, the Director, Mining & Geology Department as on 16.8.2022 entrusted the District Geologist, Thiruvananthapuram, two Geologists of the Directorate of Mining & Geology Dept., a Surveyor from the Revenue Department (On deputation) and Taluk Surveyor Nedumangad to conduct fresh assessment in the lease areas of granite building stone to identify the excess mining conducted by the company. The team commenced the field level survey on 20.8.2022 and submitted a report to the Director of Mining & Geology on 23.8.2022 on the granite building stone extracted in excess for which penalty has to be realized. Accordingly, it is estimated that the excess quantity extracted is 8,39,786 metric tonnes and the penalty for which is Rs.6,04,89,592/- (Rupees Six Crore Four Lakh Eighty-nine Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety-two only) and a fresh Demand Notice will be issued to the PA demanding the penalty for excess quantity of granite building stone extracted from that lease illegally. The Director, Mining and Geology Department also issued a Demand Notice No. 3445/DOT/ML/2019 dated 7.9.2021 to the company with respect to the granite dimension stone lease in which the excess quantity of granite dimension stone is identified as 262.5MT and granite building stone as 3570 MT for which the company is liable to remit Rs. 21,72,040/- as penalty. Therefore, the objection of the Respondent 3 is not tenable as the excess quantity extracted and penalty for illegal extraction are now re-assessed as per the directions of the Appellate Authority dated 16.7.2022.
Objection 31 With respect to the findings in Para 3.31, no response is required as the Report of the Committee itself states that environmental compensation could not be worked out due to various factors.
Reply The Para 3.31 is about the Environmental Compensation. The objection of the 3rd Respondent is wrong and with ill-intention to mislead the Hon. Tribunal. The Joint Committees estimated the Environmental Compensation for the violation of the environmental clearance conditions as well as for excess extraction of building construction stones except the dimension stones and submitted the Supplementary Report to the Hon. NGT. The Committee adopted the method described in O.A No 508/2019 that followed CPCB guidelines for estimating the environmental compensation for violation of environmental clearance conditions. This worked out to be Rs.2,72,02,000/- (Rupees two crore seventy-two lakh and two thousand only). The Environmental Compensation for excess extraction of building stone is estimated based on the method approved for the calculation of environmental compensation for illegal sand mining in the Judgement dated 26.2.2021 in OA 360 of 2015 of the Hon. NGT (PB). This was worked out to be Rs. 38, 74,48,509/- (Rupees thirty-eight crore seventy-four lakh forty- eight thousand and five hundred and nine only) based on the earlier demand notice issued to the PA by the Mining & Geology Department. However, in compliance to the direction of the Appellate Authority in response to the orders of the Hon. High Court of Kerala, the Director of Mining & Geology Department has reassessed the excess quantity of granite building stone illegally extracted by the 3rd Respondent and the penalty due thereupon. The Director, Mining and Geology Department also issued a Demand Notice No. 3445/DOT/ML/2019 dated 75 7.9.2021 to the company with respect to the granite dimension stone lease. Based on the revised report dated 23.8.2022 on the excess quantity of granite building stone mined from the first lease and excess quantity of granite dimension stone and granite building stone mined from the second lease of the PA, the environmental compensation for excess mining of granite building stone as well as granite dimension stone is being worked out by the Joint Committee afresh as the Mining & Geology Department has revised the report in response to the orders of its Appellate Authority in compliance to the directions from the Hon. High Court of Kerala. This being the fact, the objection raised by the 3rd Respondent that compensation could not be worked out by the Joint Committee is not factual.
Objection 32 As regards to the finding in Para 3.4, it is submitted that a progressive mining closure plan was submitted and the same was approved by Department of Mining and Geology on 29.04.2015, and same was submitted to the State Environment Impact Authority, Kerala. It is pertinent to note that the lease period still subsists and the Application for renewal of Environmental Clearance is still pending before the statutory authority.
Reply The Para 3.4 is about the question "Whether closure plan has been complied with". The Joint Committee reported non- compliance of the condition as there is no progress achieved as far as implementation of the closure plan is concerned. This was stated in the reply to Objection 11.
It is known to the PA that the mine closure activities are also part of mining activity. Often the mining activity stops with the lease period without fulfilling the eco restoration processes. Therefore, eco-restoration need not wait till the completion of lease period and the closure activity should continuously follow the mining activity wherever the mining activity gets completed in portions of the mine under development. Thereby, the eco- restoration almost gets completed as and when the mining gets completed and spatial and temporal extent of the adverse impacts minimizes progressively. It is obvious that the PA, though got a progressive mine closure plan approved by Department of Mining and Geology on 29.04.2015 itself, failed to consider its implementation, at all, stating that the lease period still subsists and the Application for renewal of Environmental Clearance is still pending before the statutory authority. It shows the lack of environmental responsibility of the PA. Therefore, the 3rd Respondent, by raising this objection, is trying to evade his responsibility.
Objection 33 With respect to the findings in Para 3.5, it is submitted that the Respondent has applied for an extension of lease period and also renewal of Environmental Clearance which is pending before the statutory authorities. The issue of rehabilitation and reclamation can be resorted to only after the closure of the mines and hence the findings that the same have not been complied with are without any basis. The findings are therefore untenable.
The Para 3.5 is about the statement "Rehabilitaion and reclamation has been carried out". The PA failed to comply with rehabilitation, which is to restore the mined area that has been damaged due to mining to its former condition. The PA also failed in reclamation, which is the combined process by which adverse environmental effects of surface mining are minimized and mined lands are returned to a beneficial end use. End uses may be open space, wildlife habitat, agriculture, or residential 76 and commercial development etc.Mine rehabilitation and reclamation is also a part of mining activity, it should be carried out before the termination of the lease period. As replied to the objection 32, the PA failed to execute the environmental responsibility and therefore, the 3rd Respondent, by raising this objection,is trying to evade his responsibility.
Objection 34 As regards to the findings in Para 3.6, it is humbly submitted that even according to the Report, there was quarrying as early as from the year 2003, much before the lease was granted in favour of this Respondent. Further, the findings need not be responded to as the Joint Committee has specifically found that there is an insignificant impact on the flora and fauna and has suggested a systematic and scientific environmental management plan, post mine-closure.
Reply The Para 3.6 is about the statement "Environmental degradation caused on account of unscientifc method of quarrying". The Joint Committee reporteleborated the irreversible changes of the landscape and terrain consequent to the mining. The significant changes to the the nature of landuse, landcover and terrain characteristics is evident from the time-series satellite data demonstrated through 8 photographs shown in Fig. 31 to 38. The unscientific mining without providing benches of appropriate width and height resulted in steep-cutting measuring more than 16m and steep slopes, increasing the possibility of landslides and rockfalls. Though the chances of adverse impacts due to landslides, soil erosion and rockfall are minimized by removing overburden and top soil and due to the massiveness rock, the water holding capacity of the terrain is reduced and the overland flow increased. It may also be noted that the 3rdRespondent has commented in Objection No 8 that massive soil erosion occurred during floods which has led to dislocation of boundary pillars. The quarrying activity is considered as red category there is apprehension and psychological impacts among the population, who fear that vibrations of quarrying may trigger landslips, enhance soil erosion or destabilize rock boulders on the slopes of the hillocks and damage the built structures including dwellings. The unscientific mining carried out by the PA by encroaching into the buffer zone enhances the adverse impacts due to increased noise level and air pollutants causing apprehension about the increased disease burden. Had the buffer zone been retained and green belt developed, it would have resulted in significant reduction in the adverse impacts due to the red category intervention. The mining resulted in the removal of greenery existed in the area and the hesitation of the PA regarding the rehabilitation and reclamation further enhanced the adverse impacts. As a result, the land is now converted into a barren area. Though the biodiversity report predicted that the impact on the flora & fauna will be insignificant, the unscientific activity enhanced the adverse impact on the flora and fauna due to the unscientific interventions of the 3rd Respondent. The 3rd Respondent also attempted to mislead the Hon. Tribunal by misquoting the predictive statement in the biodiversity report as that of the Joint Committee.
Objection 35 As regards to the findings in Para 3.7, it is submitted that the Committee had arrived at the conclusion that the impact of the quarrying operations on the environment and ecology was insignificant and within the permissible limits. A field survey of the nearby houses was conducted by the Committee and 77 the details of the same have been enumerated in Table 5. The Report concludes that the results of the parameters analysed showed that the parameters as prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standards (2007) were well within the permissible limits except for PH Minor cracks found in very few of the neighbouring houses, although the same could be due to numerous external factors such as the quality and age of the houses constructed. The same cannot be solely attributed to the mining activities of the 3rd Respondent. With respect to the concerns of dust pollution and vibrations due to the movement of large trucks, it is submitted that are there are several other quarries operating in the vicinity, the liability of the same cannot be fastened only on the 3rd Respondent. Moreover, the Committee has mentioned compliance with respect to the roads near the quarry having been properly blacktopped and maintained regularly to reduce the dust pollution. In the report, the Committee has acknowledged the socio-economic benefit of the mine being operated and has been rightly observed that approximately 180 persons in the locality were dependent on the operations of the quarry in order to sustain their livelihood and that such the need of the hour was not to close the quarry but to ensure that strategies adopted in carrying on quarrying activities integrated the environmental concerns that had been raised. It is pertinent to note that what was leased to this Respondent was not a virgin quarry but a pre- existing quarry. As stated supra, this Respondent cannot be held solely liable.
Reply The Para 3.7 is about the question, "Any damages to neighbouring houses and to the ecology due to quarrying" to which the Joint Committee has conducted elaborate assessment and reported the various issues caused due to hard rock quarrying in different environmental components (Table 4) and the apprehensions of the 15 households living in the neighbourhood (Table 5). Nowhere in the report, the Joint committee mentioned that the quarrying operations on the environment and ecology of the area are insignificant and within the permissible limits and hence that statement is groundless. The chemical data of groundwater has been generated by the collection and analysis of the groundwater samples from the adjoining available houses and during that time the quarry was not functional. Though the basic four parameters were under desirable levels, one of the significant water quality parameters, the hydrogen ion potential (pH) does not fall within the standard range as per the BIS specifications and were shown acidic behaviour. Had the quarry been functional, the samples would have got tested for various other water quality parameters for assessing the exact quality indices on pollution/contamination due to heavy and trace metals in water besides the cations and anions. The report also highlighted the impacts due to vibration consequent to the blasting for quarrying, enhanced dust emission, increased noise level etc. The objection of the 3rd Respondent by misquoting the findings in the report is to mislead the Hon. Tribunal.
Objection36 As regards to the findings in Para 3.8, it is submitted as follows:
1. For clause 1 regarding buffer zones, the same is contrary to the findings in Para 3.2104, 3.2228 and 3.2229 wherein there are specific findings that sufficient buffer zones have been complied with.
2. As regards to clause 2 pertaining to garland canals, the objections in para 24 may be treated as objection to this finding.
3. As regards to clauses 3 and 4, the findings are in favour of the Respondent.
4. As regards to clause 5 relating to the finding in Para 3.2215 and the same has been complied with.78
5. As regards to clause 6 relating to noise pollution, the objections in para 22 may be treated as objection to this finding.
Reply The Para 3.8 is about the question, "Whether pollution control measures provided by the operator was adequate or not". The Clause 1 regarding the buffer zone is about the stipulated condition of maintaining a buffer zone of 7.5m all around the mine which should be vegetated to function as a green belt that could minimise various adverse impacts of mining, especially dust dispersion control, noise attenuation, ecologic habitat development etc. The 3rd Respondent misunderstood this buffer zone as the (i) stipulated buffer distance to be maintained with Taluk boundary as dealt in Para 3.2104, (ii) stipulated buffer distance of 100m to be maintained with the nearest dwelling unit or other structures from the boundary of the quarry as dealt in Para 3.2228 and (iii) stipulated 200m buffer distance to be maintained with forest boundaries as dealt in Para 3.2229. With regard to the objections on other clauses, they are all replied appropriately at the respective paragraphs and explained as to how the 3rd Respondent attempted to violate the environmental clearance conditions. Therefore, it is evident that the 3rd Respondent is attempting to mislead the Hon. Tribunal by misquoting the portions of the report, some of them probably out of ignorance.
Objection 37 As regards to the findings in Para 4, it is humbly submitted that the concluding remarks and suggestions that have been provided are completely untenable. The Joint Committee had visited the quarry site at a time when it had not been in operation for a long period and as such several aspects could not be verified, leading to the various findings that were arrived at by them to be based on assumptions and presumptions. Moreover, the findings stated in the report have not been based on the independent survey that was conducted by the Joint Committee as per the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal, but have been made by placing reliance on hearsay and studies conducted by external agencies which are already under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala/statutory authorities. The report of the Joint Committee, not being an independent report as directed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, is therefore liable to be rejected. Several adverse findings have been put forth solely on the allegation that the Personal Assistant has not produced any records in this regard, despite of the fact that compliance reports with all records are submitted to the EC committee every 6 months. Yet, the same has neither been considered nor has an opportunity of hearing been given to the 3rd Respondent to submit their explanation along with the necessary documents. It is observed that many of the findings are also vague and non-speaking allegations, bereft of details, reasons or specifications and as such, these allegations cannot be accepted. No measurements or study has been conducted by the Committee to arrive at the conclusion. The Joint Committee has not conducted any scientific study but rather has arrived at its conclusions by placing reliance on several assumptions, presumptions, hearsay etc. The entire conclusion arrived at by the Joint Committee is wholly contrary to the findings in Para 3.6 and 3.7, wherein the Joint Committee has conclusively found that the quarrying operations had no significant impact of any of the parameters that have been discussed in the same. In fact with respect to the hydrologic environment, the Committee had held that the drainage from the working quarry that was flowing into the rainwater harvesting tank served as a pollutant absorbant and that the rain harvesting pond was recharging nearby wells through the secondary fracture systems in the bedrock. With regards to the biological environment, it has been observed in the Report that the impact of the quarrying operations on the flora and fauna is 79 assessed to be insignificant. As for the ground water quality, it has been observed that the parameters were found to be well within permissible limits prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standards. The positive impact of the socio-economic development of the people living in the vicinity of the quarry was also acknowledged. The Report expressly mentions that there is the need to develop strategies to better manage the quarrying operations and protect the environment. It does not in any manner suggest that there is aneed to close operations of the mine.
Reply In order to protect the environment, the quarrying operations have to be regulated to achieve sustainability. The Committee conducted the study prepared the report based on standard procedures adopted for such type of scientific appraisal. The pertinent data and field evidences are gathered and interpreted following scientific norms and through pooling the expertise of the Joint Committee consisting of multi-disciplinary experts. The impacts due to the quarrying activity could be short- term or long-term and reversible or irreversible. Some of the short- term and reversible impacts may have got mitigated as time passed by. But the most serious and significant impact remain for long and some of them may be irreversible even on a long- term basis. The study captured all such impacts and arrived at the violations and illegal extraction carried out by the 3rd Respondent. The deranged land and topography is one of the evidence of the ruthless and unscientific quarrying operations that destroyed the terrain and various environmental attributes of the location. This being the fact, the objection of the 3rd Respondent is vogue, misleading, unsubstantiated and with ill- intention to evade from the environmental responsibilities and obligations.
Objection 38 For the foregoing reasons, these findings are able to be rejected as being self-contradictory, without proper inspection and supported by materials.
Reply The Joint Committee prepared the report with utmost objectivity making use of quantitative and qualitative data gathered during the site visit, time-series satellite imageries of the location, records provided by the PA, though limited, details available with the Mining & Geology Department, Kerala State Pollution Control board and State Environmental Appraisal Committee (SEIAA), Kerala. All the findings are validated and substantiated with facts. The illegal extraction of the granite building stone beyond the permitted quantity has also been re-assessed and found that the 3rd Respondent has extracted in excess. As stated in the orders of the Appellate Authority of the Mining & Geology Department, a police case has been filed against M/s. Covenant Stones alleging that the Company had submitted a forged mining plan/scheme of mining before the SEIAA for obtaining EC extension which may be construed as evidence of ill-intention of the 3rd Respondent. In this background, the objections of the 3rd Respondent are against facts and is an in vain attempt to mislead the Hon. Tribunal. Hence, all the objections raised by the 3rd Respondent may be rejected.
80103. The 2nd respondent also filed a final supplementary report of the Joint Committee dated 31.08.2022 e-filed 20.09.2022 which reads as follows:
81 82 83 84104. Heard the Learned Counsel for the applicant and respondents. The Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant argued that the matter that is pending before the statutory authorities are different from the matter that is pending before this Tribunal. The applicant has not filed any application under the violation case and as such the SOP relied on by the 3rd respondent is not applicable to the proceedings.
105. Further the directions issued by the Government exonerating the quarry owners who had paid royalty under the compounding scheme was not accepted by the Kerala High Court in Binoy Kumar vs. State of Kerala and connected cases reported in (2019(2) KLT 227).
106. So the mining authorities are perfectly justified in calculating the excess mining. Further they are only concerned about the penalty provided under the rules and by virtue of Common Cause Vs. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 499, the compensation will have to be assessed on the real value of the article mined in excess of the permission granted and this will be in addition to the royalty and penalty provided under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. So it is only an attempt on the part of the applicant and the 3rd respondent to delay the payment and nothing more.
107. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing for the State Department submitted that proceedings have been initiated against the 3 rd respondent for excess mining and on the intervention of the by giving direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the matter has been disposed of and subsequently further orders had been passed by the mining department which has not been challenged so far. They have correctly calculated the excess mining after conducting proper survey.
108. The Learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent argued that in view of the fact that in respect of excess mining, proceedings are pending before the statutory authorities, the same cannot be gone into by this Tribunal. Further, most of the violations noted by the committee were not 85 really violations. In view of the Rule 66 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 the amount of compensation assessed is also excessive and the Tribunal may be pleased to leave the same to the authorities to considering the same by itself.
109. Considered the pleadings Joint Committee reports objections filed by the parties and further replies submitted by the authorities and written submission submitted by them.
110. The points that arose for consideration are:
a. Whether the 3rd respondent had committed any violation of Environmental laws and done excess mining? b. If so what is the quantum of compensation payable by him?
c. Whether the question of assessing compensation has to be relegated to the statutory authorities or this can be done by this Tribunal itself?
d. What is the nature of directions (if any) to be issued in order to protect Environment applying the pollutor pay principle and precautionary principles?
e. Reliefs and costs.
Points:
111. The averment in the application was that 3rd respondent was conducting illegal mining and certain irregularities and fraud has been committed in obtaining the Environmental Clearance using a manipulated Mining Plan etc.,
112. Further, he had done the mining in an excessive manner and on account of the unscientific manner in which the mining was carried out, huge loss has been caused and environment degradation has caused in that area.
113. The case of the 3rd respondent was that they had not committed any violation the manner and which the committee approached the issue is not proper. There are parallel proceedings pending before the statutory authorities in respect of excess mining and that need not be gone into by this Tribunal.
86114. The applicant has produced the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Binoy Kumar vs. State of Kerala (Writ Appeal No. 338/2019 and connected cases) reported in (2019(2) KLT 227) wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala observed that we are of the view that mere payment of a consolidated royalty by the appellate will not detract from the fact of unauthorised extraction to the extend it is in excess of the permitted quantity specified in the grant. The appellate's have been admittedly resorted to extraction over and above the quantity permitted in the grants issued to them and as such have necessarily to bear the legal consequences that would result from such unauthorised extractions both under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 as also under the Land Conservancy Act (Kerala), 1957.
115. So the submission made by the Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, in view of the fact that the persons who are carrying on mining on the basis of consolidated payment scheme, once the royalty has been paid, there is no necessity to pay any further amount for excess mining is without any substance, in view of the dictum lay down in Binoy Kumar case cited supra.
116. In order to ascertain the violations alleged against the 3rd respondent, this Tribunal had appointed a Joint Committee and the Joint Committee has filed several reports which were already extracted above which will go to show that there was certain violation committed by the 3 rd respondent.
117. Further, the Joint Committee had also filed final supplementary report and reply to the objections filed by the 3rd respondent answering each issue raised by them in the objections and concluded that the finding of the Joint Committee was done on proper evaluation.
118. It is true that the mining department had initiated proceedings against the 3rd respondent for excess mining and that was challenged by the 3 rd respondent before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the Writ Petitions referred to by them in their counter statements and additional objections whereby the Hon'ble High Court without going to the merits of the case only directed the District Geologist to treat the demand notice issued as 87 show cause notice and after hearing the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is also seen from the documents produced by the 3rd respondent themselves that the geologist after conducting proper enquiry came to the conclusion that a 3rd respondent had extracted more than the permission granted and originally assessed the penalty, royalty payable to certain amount which was challenged by the appellate before the appellate authority and the appellate authority had remitted the matter to the District Geologist for further consideration.
119. Further the geologist had passed some orders which were referred to the counter statement and the report submitted by the mining department. The 3rd respondent filed further Writ Petitions referred to in the counter statement before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala directed the 3rd respondent herein to prefer the appeal within a particular time and till then further proceedings regarding a recovery on the basis of the orders passed by the District Geologist was directed to be kept in abeyance. Thereafter the 3rd respondent again filed an appeal before the statutory authority and the statutory authority had remitted the matter to the authorities again for further consideration by their order in G. O. R.T. No. 710/2022/ID dated 16.07.2022 disposed the appeal as follows:
"Hence, considering the arguments of the appellate, the appellate authority disposed of the appeal petition by directing the District Geologist to issue proceedings a fresh to the appellate after verifying whether there is any case to be pursued against the petitioner taking into account the contentions put forth by the appellate with respect to the rules the sanctions issued for extraction of minerals and quantity of minor minerals extracted as per the records. This didn't mean that the appellate company was exempted from further steps against them for realization of royalty in respect of excess quantity of granite building stone quarry if any".
120. So it is also seen from the final report submitted by the Joint Committee that the District Geologist after remand came to the conclusion that there was excess mining done by the 3rd respondent and they have fixed the amount payable as Rs. 6,04,89,592 (Six Crores Four Lakhs Eighty Nine 88 Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Two) for illegal extraction of Rs. 8,39,786 (Eight Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Seven Eighty Six) metric tonnes of granite building stones.
121. It is true that appellate has a right to file an appeal against the same. But in view of the successive findings of the mining department, there was excess mining done by the 3rd respondent during the period of the lease have been established.
122. Further the Joint Committee was also perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that there are violations and applying the Central Pollution Control Board formula, Joint Committee is perfectly justified in arising the environment compensation and the fact that the vehicles that have been used by the 3rd respondent company were seized for unauthorized transport on several occasions will also go to show that they have committed violations of the permissions granted on several occasions.
123. Even in Common Cause Vs. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 499, the Apex Court has held that mere recovery of royalty and penalty and value of minerals as per the Government rate will not be sufficient to assess the actual compensation and the market value of the mineral which has been extracted over and above the permission granted has to be realised from the violator applying the polluted pay principle and this will be over and above the penalty and royalty collected by the authorities under the respective mining statutes.
124. So under such circumstances, except the question of royalty etc., to be payable under the mining laws for the excess mining which will have to be assessed by the statutory authority, all other aspects of environmental compensation for violation and excess mining can be considered by this Tribunal and that can be directed to be paid by the 3rd respondent.
125. The SOP that was relied on by the 3rd respondent issued by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF& CC) dated 06.07.2021 is not applicable to the 3rd respondent as such now, as he had not filed any application before the authority as a violation case and all the issues are pending before the Tribunal and as such that will not preclude the Tribunal 89 from assessing the compensation for the violation committed by the 3 rd respondent. So that contention is rejected.
126. There was no case for the 3rd respondent that though Sri. Sabu Joseph, their earlier Managing Director had obtained the quarry license in his personal name and committed some mischief will not exempt the 3rd respondent company to pay the compensation for violation as they have no case that the amount realised by the Managing Director by conducting quarry operation during this period has not been accounted in the company's account and the company has not obtained any benefit on account of the same. But their case was that he had misappropriated with the amount and certain criminal proceedings were pending. It is an internal matter between the erstwhile Managing Director and the 3rd respondent company and that will not preclude the company for payment of compensation for the violations committed.
127. As regards the manipulation of mining plan etc., are concerned there are other proceedings pending and as such we are not going into those aspects.
128. The compensation for violation of Environment Clearance conditions was assumed at Rs. 20,72, 2000 (Two Crores Seventy Two Lakhs Two Thousand) and assessed the environmental compensation for excess mining adopting the principles laid down by National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench in O. A. No. 360/2015 as Rs. 38, 74, 48,509 (Thirty Eight Crores Seventy Four Lakhs Forty Eighty Thousand Five Hundred Nine) and the total compensation was arrived at Rs. 41,46,50,509(Forty one Crores Forty Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Five Hundred and Nine).
129. The Principal Bench in O.A.No. 360/2015 dated 15.01.2021 in National Green Tribunal, Bar Association vs. Virender Singh (State of Gujarat) and other connected matters issued certain guidelines as to how the quantum of compensation has to be fixed after analysing the various factors including the present value of foregone ecological values on account of the excess mining and they approved the approach to made by the Joint Committee for calculating the compensation applying the polluted pay principle produced along with the brief argument notes submitted by the Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant which reads as follows:
90Approach 2 is demonstrated by following formula:
"Till such time as data and information for a comprehensive NPV is worked out in a site specific manner to account for all (or atleast the major) ecological damages, a simplified NPV, proxied on the market value of the illegally extracted amount may be computed. In this case the NPV approach would imply that the total benefits from the activity of sand mining (as represented by the market value of the extracted amount) be deducted from the total ecological costs imposed by the activity. In the absence of data on benefits and costs separately, we recommend a modification of the formula as shown below: Total Benefits(B) = Market Value of illegal extraction : D (refer Table 1) Total Ecological Costs = Market Value Adjusted for risk factor: D *RF (refer Table1).
For present purposes, it is assumed that the Benefits would accrue only in the first year (in which the extraction of the illegally mined material takes place), while the ecological costs would continue to be felt over a period of time. NPV is to be calculated for a period of 5 years on the net value, Σ (C-B), at a discount rate ranging from 8%-5%, varying in inverse with the risk factor. Thus, where the highest risk factor (say 1) is applicable, the discount rate applicable would be the lowest (say 5% in this case)."
Final recommendation is as follows:
"Thus, it is recommended that the annual net present value (NPV) of the amount arrived at after taking the difference between the costs and the benefits through the use of the above approach, maybe calculated for a period of 5 years at a discount rate of 5% for mining which is in a severe ecological damage risk zone. The rationale for levying this NPV is based on expert opinion that reversal and/or restoration of the ecological damages is usually not possible within a short period of time and rarely is it feasible to achieve 100% restoration, even if the sand deposition in the river basin is restored through flooding in subsequent years. The negative externalities of the mining activity are therefore to be accounted for in this manner. Ideally, the worth of all such damages, including costs of those which can be restored should be charged. However, till data on site-
specific assessments becomes available, this approach may be 12 adopted in the interim. In situations where the risk categorization charged. However, till data on site-specific assessments becomes available, this approach may be adopted in the interim. In situations where the risk categorisation is unavailable or pending calculation, the following Discount Rates may be considered:
Severity Mild Moderate Significant Severe
Risk Level 1 2 3 4
Risk factor 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0
Discount 8% 7% 6% 5%
Annexure-A appended to the report gives the calculation as follows:
"Compensation Charge (Scenario II - explicit accounting of NPV) Market Value of Illegally Mined Material (D) 5000*400 = 2000000/-
Annual Value of Foregone Ecological Values D*RF = 2000000/- Present Value of Foregone Ecological Values (@ 5% discount rate and over 5 years) PV = ∑5t=1 (D+RT/(1+r)t = ∑(2000000)/ (1+0.05)1 + (2000000)/ (1+0.05)2 + (2000000)/ (1+0.05)3 + (2000000)/ (1+0.05)4+ (2000000)/ (1+0.05)5 91 = Rs. 86,58,953/-
Net Present Value (after netting out market value of illegally mined material) -i.e., Total Compensation to be levied = NPV=PV-D = Rs. 66,58,953/-
Compensation Charge in above case:
Approach 1 (no explicit Approach 2 (explicit accounting accounting of NPV) of NPV) D*(1+RF+DF) @5% discount rate and over 5 years Rs. 46,00,000/- Rs. 66,58,953/-
The Tribunal directed undertaking of scenario analysis, as suggested on behalf of the applicant and to furnish a further report accordingly. Further report dated 12.10.2020 has been filed by the CPCB reiterating its earlier report. We propose to approve approach-2 in the report. Apart from the above, a report dated 15.01.2021 has been filed by the Oversight Committee for the State of UP3 to which reference will be made later.
130. The Tribunal also considered the adverse impact of unscientific and unregulated sand mining in this matter and several directions have been issued to be followed by the authorities in respect of seizure of vehicles which were involved in illegal transport of illegally mined articles.
131. So under such circumstances, we feel that the compensation assessed by the Joint Committee can be accepted and that can be directed to be payable by the 3rd respondent within a period of nine months in equal monthly instalments and any amount that has been assessed by the mining department on the basis of the statutory proceedings pending, that much amount which has been realised can be deducted by the authorities while proceedings against the 3rd respondent for recovery of the environmental compensation as fixed by this Tribunal towards this amount.
132. So under such circumstances, we feel that the application can be disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The contentions of the 3rd respondent that they are not liable for environmental compensation as they have not committed any violation and this Tribunal is not entitled to assess compensation when statutory proceedings are pending before the authorities in respect of quantity of excess mining and in view of the SOP issued by the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) for consideration of violation cases in 2021, this Tribunal cannot proceed with the question and that will have to be decided by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) are rejected.92
(ii) The Tribunal accept the environmental compensation Rs. 41, 46, 50,509 (Forty One Crores Forty Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Five Hundred and Nine) assessed by the Joint Committee payable by the 3rd respondent and we direct the 3rd respondent to pay the amount in nine equal monthly instalments and any amount assessed by the statutory authorities before whom proceedings are pending and paid by the 3rd respondent shall be given credit to the compensation assessed by this Tribunal and the 3rd respondent is liable to pay only the balance amount towards the environmental compensation within the time directed by this Tribunal.
(iii) If the amount is not paid within the time specified by this Tribunal then the mining department is directed to recover the amount from the 3 rd respondent in accordance with law and utilize the amount for implementing the recommendations made by the Joint Committee in its report dated 23.08.2021 e-filed on the same date and the mining department is also directed to implement the final recommendations made by the Joint Committee in the same report for strengthening the supervision of illegal mining activities in the State and also for conducting audit on the quantity permitted, quantity mined out, rate of replenishment etc., to be conducted every year before granting any further lease or renewal of the lease in the State.
133. The points are answered accordingly.
134. In the result the application is allowed in part and disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The contentions of the 3rd respondent that they are not liable for environmental compensation as they have not committed any violation and this Tribunal is not entitled to assess compensation when statutory proceedings are pending before the authorities in respect of quantity of excess mining and in view of the SOP issued by the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) for consideration of violation cases in 2021, this Tribunal cannot proceed with the question and that will have to be decided by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) are rejected.
(ii) The Tribunal accept the environmental compensation Rs. 41, 46, 50,509 (Forty One Crores Forty Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Five Hundred and Nine) 93 assessed by the Joint Committee payable by the 3rd respondent and we direct the 3rd respondent to pay the amount in nine equal monthly instalments and any amount assessed by the statutory authorities before whom proceedings are pending and paid by the 3rd respondent shall be given credit to the compensation assessed by this Tribunal and the 3rd respondent is liable to pay only the balance amount towards the environmental compensation within the time directed by this Tribunal.
(iii) If the amount is not paid within the time specified by this Tribunal then the mining department is directed to recover the amount from the 3 rd respondent in accordance with law and utilize the amount for implementing the recommendations made by the Joint Committee in its report dated 23.08.2021 e-filed on the same date and the mining department is also directed to implement the final recommendations made by the Joint Committee in the same report for strengthening the supervision of illegal mining activities in the State and also for conducting audit on the quantity permitted, quantity mined out, rate of replenishment etc., to be conducted every year before granting any further lease or renewal of the lease in the State.
(iv) Considering the circumstances, parties are directed to bear the respective cause in the application.
(v) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Kerala) , Director of Mines and Geology, State of Kerala, the Chief Secretary, State of Kerala, concerned Secretary for Mining and Industries for their information and complying with the directions.
135. With the above observations and directions the application is disposed of.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, J.M. Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, E.M. O.A. No. 155/2020(SZ) 28th September 2022. AD 94