National Green Tribunal
Devidas Khatri vs Union Of India on 29 November, 2024
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 203/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. DEVIDAS KHATRI
239, Laxmi Nagar,
Behind Mangori Walon ki Bagichi
Brahmpuri,
Jaipur - 302002
...Applicant
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through its Secretary,
MoEF&CC, 3rd Floor,
Prithvi Wing, Indra Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003
2. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Through District Magistrate,
Ghaziabad, Government of Uttar Pradesh
3. CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Through its Member Secretary,
Parivesh Bhawan,
CBD cum Office Complex,
East Arjun Nagar, Delhi-110032
4. UTTAR PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Through its Member Secretary,
Building No. TC-12V,
Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226010
1
5. DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINING, UTTAR PRADESH
Through Principal Secretary,
Geology and Mines,
Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Khanij Bhawan,
27/8, Rajaram, Mohan Roy Marg,
Lucknow-226001
6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR
Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh
Dwarikapuri, Old Katra,
Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh-211012
7. MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
Through Principal Secretary,
1st Floor, Lal Bahadur Shastri Bhawan,
Uttar Pradesh Secretariat,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226027
8. M/S CHAWLA SILICA SAND TRADING COMPANY
Village-Lakhnauti, Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj
Office at A1, Enkanki Kunj,
Prayagraj-211001
R/o Jiwan Niwas, 42-S.C. Basu Road,
District Prayagraj-211033
9. M/S CHAWLA SILICA SAND TRADING COMPANY
Village-Janwa, Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj
Office at A1, Enkanki Kunj,
District- Prayagraj-211001
10. SMT. AMITA GUPTA & SHRI ABHILESH KUMAR GUPTA
R/o - 43/1, SP Marg,
Civil Lines,
District-Prayagraj
11. RAJIV KUMAR CHAWLA
S/o Late Surendra Kumar Chawla
11, Church Lane,
Allahabad-212108
12. SMT. NIRMAL RANI CHAWLA
11, Church Lane,
Opposite Children Hospital,
2
Allahabad-212108
13. ASHOK KUMAR BAJPAI
S/o D.N. Bajpai,
R/o 109, Parerhat, Rambagh,
Prayagraj-211002
14. ABHINANDAN TIWARI
S/o Krishna Bihari Tiwari
R/o 18A/11, House no. 77,
Muir Road, Prayagraj-211002
15. HARIHAR PRASAD GUPTA
S/o Late Hazari Lal Gupta,
R/o Ward no. 7,
Motiyan Tola, Shankargarh,
Allahabad-212108
16. OM LAXMI INDUSTRIES
Prop. Chandra Prakash Kesarwani
R/o 242/91, Muir Road,
Ashok Nagar,
District-Allahabad
17. RISHI CHAWLA
S/o Ramesh Chandra Chawla
R/o 87, Darbhanga Colony,
District-Prayagraj
18. SMT. VIJAY LAXMI KESARWANI
W/o Late Om Prakash Gupta
R/o 170/1-A, Newada Ashok Nagar,
Allahabad-211002
19. M/S HARIMANDIR MINERAL TRADERS
116, Sohbatia Bagh,
Allahabad-211006
20. BADRIPRASAD AMARNATH
R/o Shankargarh, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
3
21. R VARSHNEYA
14/2 Lauthar Road,
District-Allahabad
22. M/S INDRAJEET KAUR
Village-Derabassi, Tehsil Bara,
District-Prayagraj
23. S.P. KESARWANI
86 Mahajani Tola, Allahabad
24. PRADEEP KUMAR
R/o 359/18, Nirmal Nagar
Keedganj, Allahabad
25. JAI SHRI TRADING COMPANY
Through its partner Ashok Kumar Agrawal,
R/o 177, Meerganj
District-Allahabad
26. MAHENDRA BHARTI
S/o Keshav Bharti,
Pura Baldu, Bara,
District-Allahabad
27. M/S RAMA SILICA SAND TRADING
R/o 359/18, Nirmal Nagar,
Keedganj, District- Allahabad
28. BHULLI MAHRAJ & SONS
Prop. Rameshwar Dutt Awasthi
R/o 39, MIG Plot, ADA Colony,
Preetam Nagar,
Allahabad-211011
29. LAXMI MINING CORPORATION
Laxmi Bhawan, Shankargarh,
District-Allahabad
30. SMT. RANI RAJENDRA KUMARI BA
Rajmahal Shankargarh, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Allahabad
4
31. HARIMANDIR MINERAL TRADERS
Village-Derabassi, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
32. HARIMANDIR MINERAL TRADERS
Village-Bhaisahi, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
33. CHAWLA SILICA SAND TRADING COMPANY
Village-Shivrajpur, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
34. CHAWLA SILICA SAND TRADING CO. (CRUSHING & WASHING)
Village-Lakhanauti, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
35. CHAWLA SILICA SAND TRADING COMPANY
Village-Garha, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
36. QUALITY MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Village-Kaitha, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
37. QUALITY MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Garwa, Sheorajpur,
District-Prayagraj
38. KRISHNA ENTERPRISES
Ledar, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
39. MODI MINERAL UDYOG
P.O. Shankargarh,
Allahabad-212108
Registered Office- Manohar Hotel,
Pannilal Chowk, Satna (MP)
40. SINGH CONTRACTOR AND SUPPLIER
Village-Ledar, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
5
41. M/S SHRI GIRDHARI LAL CHAWLA & SONS
Through its prop. Rishi Chawla
Village-Benipur, P.O.-Shankargrah,
District-Prayagraj
42. HARSH MINERALS
Village-Kachari, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
43. BARAWHITE STONE HEIGHTS PVT. LTD.
Parvejabad, District-Prayagraj
44. MANGLORE MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED
Village-Aswan, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
45. KRISHNA MINERALS
Village-Benipur, District-Prayagraj
46. ASHOK KUMAR BAJPAI
Pura Baldu, Bargarhi, Shivrajpur,
District-Prayagraj
47. BABA VIGHNESHWAR MINERALS (NARAYAN ENTERPRISES)
Bargarhi, Shivrajpur,
District-Prayagraj
48. M/S. SHRI GIRDHARI LAL CHAWLA & SONS
Through its prop. Rishi Chawla
Village-Kaitha, Lakhanpur, P.O.-Shankargrah,
District-Prayagraj
49. GURU DAYAL SINGH & CO. (SILICA)
Village-Kaitha, Shankargrah, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
50. VANDANA SINGH (STONE/SILICA WASHING PLANT)
Village-Bankipur, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
51. SILICA KHANIJ UDYOG
6
Through Prop. Vishal Chawla
Village-Kaitha, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
52. SILICA KHANIJ UDYOG
Through Prop. Vishal Chawla
Village-Shivrajpur, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
53. SILICA KHANIJ UDYOG
Prop. Vishal Chawla
Village- Lakhanpur, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
54. NEW TRIVENI MINERALS
Village-Lakhanpur, Tehsil-Bara,
District- Prayagraj
55. ADISHWARA CONSTRUCTION & MINERALS CO.
Parvejabad, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
56. PRAYAG QUALITY SAND
Pratappur, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
57. ABHIJAAT SINGH ASSOCIATED
Village-Golahiya, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
58. ANUPAM ENTERPRISES
Garha Katra, Shankargarh, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
59. SHREE BHAGWAN DASS INDUSTRIES
Shivrajpur, Tehsil- Bara,
District-Prayagraj
60. UJJWAL TRADING CO.
Bargari, Tehsil- Bara,
District-Allahabad
7
61. GUPTA ENTERPRISES
Shivrajpur, Shankargarg,
District-Prayagraj
62. JAI SHREE TRADING COMPANY
Village-Kaitha, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
63. JAI SHREE TRADING COMPANY
Ramna, Bargari,
District Prayagraj
64. NARAYAN DUTT TIWARI (SILICA WASHING PLANT)
Benipur, Shankargrah,
District-Prayagraj
65. GLASS AND FOUNDARY SAND
Village-Bargadi, Tehsil-Bara,
District- Prayagraj
66. OM LUXMI MINERALS
Village-Kachari, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
67. OM LAXMI INDUSTRIES
Village-Kachari, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
68. ASHA DEVI (SILICA WASHING PLANT)
Vilalge-Kaitha, Shivrajpur,
District-Prayagraj
69. KR Minerals
Bargari, Bihariya, Shankargrah,
District-Prayagraj
70. SBS ENTERPRISES
Village-Lakhnauti, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
71. SITA DEVI (SILICA WASHING PLANT)
8
Ledar, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
72. LAXMI MINERAL MANUFACTURER AND TRADERS
Garha Katra, Shankargrah,
District-Prayagraj
73. BADRI PRASAD AMAR NATH
Shivrajpur, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
74. QUALITY MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Ledar, Tehsil-Bara,
District-Prayagraj
...Respondent(s)
COUNSELS FOR APPLICANT:
Mr. Rohit Kumar Tuteja, Advocate
COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT(S):
Mr. Arvind Varma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Kumar and Ms.
Smidhi Sharma, Advocates for R-13
Mr. Rahul Sripat, Senior Advocate (through VC) with Mr. Anchit Sripat,
Mr. Saurabh Patel, Advocates for R-19 and 44
Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Mr. Paban K. Sharma, Mr. Anchit Sripat and Mr. Pranab
Kumar Nayak, Advocates for R-8, 9, 33 to 35
Mr. Pradeep Shukla, Advocate for R-10
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocates for R-11, 12 and 14
Mr. Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for R-15, 20, 25, 28 and 29
Ms. Stuti Rai and Mr. Bidhan Chandra Rai, Advocates for R-17, 41, 48, 51
to 53
Mr. Manu Vardhan, Advocate for R-18 (through VC)
Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocates for UPPCB (through VC)
Mr. Raj Kumar, Ms. Neetu Singh, Ms. Anamika Singh, Mr. Sumit
Choudhary, Mr. Ankit Choudhary and Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocates for
CPCB (through VC)
Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocate for Mining Department, State of UP (through
VC)
Ms. Priyanka Swami and Ms. Simran Sehgal, Advocates for SEIAA UP
9
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
RESERVED ON: APRIL 29, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON: NOVEMBER 29, 2024
SYNOPSIS
Documents Para No. Page No.
Facts in Brief 2-6 15-19
Committee's Report dated 13.12.2021 (First Report) 7-15 20-30
Tribunal's Order dated 01.02.2022 16 30-32
Joint Committee headed by Divisional Commissioner's 17-41 32-76
Report dated 17.05.2022 (Second Report) filed in Tribunal
on 18.05.2022
Tribunal's Order dated 01.08.2022 42-45 76-78
Interim Report dated 03.02.2023 filed on behalf of Third 46-49 78-90
Committee by Dr. A.K. Gupta, Scientist 'E', MoEF&CC,
Regional Office, (Central Region) in Tribunal on
04.02.2023
Joint Committee's Report dated 23.02.2023 (Third Report) 50-58 90-105
Tribunal's Order dated 10.07.2023 59-60 105-106
Action Taken Report dated 07.08.2023 (at page 273) filed 61-64 106-107
by RO, UPPCB, Prayagraj on 08.08.2023
Tribunal's Order dated 01.09.2023 65-68 107-108
Joint Committee Report dated 17.01.2024 (Fourth Report) 69-88 108-148
Tribunal's Order dated 19.01.2024 89 148
Compliance Report dated 11.03.2024 filed by Regional 90 148-149
Officer, UPPCB
Compliance Report dated 12.03.2024 filed by Regional 91-94 149-151
Officer, UPPCB, Prayagraj
ARGUMENTS 95-98 151-152
ISSUES 99-104 152-154
FINDINGS ON MERITS 105 154
10
Documents Para No. Page No.
Scrutiny of Reports in the light of Observations made by 106-157 154-173
Tribunal in Various Orders and Objections taken by
Proponents
Methodology for Computation of Environmental 158-226 173-209
Compensation
Respondent 8-M/s. Chawla Silica Sand Trading 227-298 209-244
Company, Village-Lakhnauti, Tehsil Bara, District
Prayagraj
• Reply dated 02.11.2023 filed on 24.02.2024 filed 239-265 218-233
by respondent 8
• Additional objection/reply dated 14.03.2024 filed 266-276 233-238
by respondent 8 to Report dated 17.01.2024
Respondent 9-M/s. Chawla Silica Sand Trading 296-324 244-265
Company, Village-Janwa, Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj
• Objections dated 02.11.2023 filed by respondent 9 303-314 253-260
on 15.02.2024 to Report dated 23.02.2023
• Objections dated 14.03.2024 filed as additional 315-317 260-262
objection/reply by respondent 9 filed on
15.03.2024
Respondent 10-Smt. Amita Gupta W/o Dwarika Prasad 325-353 266-288
Gupta and Abhikesh Kumar Gupta, S/o Dwarika Prasad
Gupta and Respondent 39-Modi Minerals Udyog, P.O.
Shankargarh, District-Allahabad
• Reply dated 31.08.2023 filed on 01.09.2023 by 332-344 272-283
M/s. Modi Minerals Udyog i.e., respondent 39
through its Proprietor Smt. Amita Gupta
Respondent 11-Rajiv Kumar Chawla, S/o Late Surender 354-394 288-308
Kumar Chawla, 11, Church Lane, Allahabad
• Objection dated 18.01.2024 filed vide e-mail dated 358-371 293-300
11.03.2024 to Joint Committee Report dated
23.02.2023 by respondent 11 i.e., Rajiv Kumar
Chawla
• Additional Reply vide e-mail dated 17.03.2024 filed 372-374 300-301
by respondent 11 to Report dated 17.01.2024
Respondent 12-Smt. Nirmal Rani Chawla, W/o Late 395-421 309-323
Yogendra Chawla R/o 11 Church Lane, Prayagraj and
Respondent 54-New Triveni Minerals, village-Lakhanpur,
Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj
11
Documents Para No. Page No.
• Objections dated 18.01.2024 filed by Respondent 402-410 315-319
12 vide e-mail dated 11.03.2024 to Joint
Committee Report dated 23.02.2023
• Additional Reply dated March 2024 submitted by 411-412 319-320
Respondent 12 vide e-mail dated 17.03.2024
Respondents 13 and 46-Ashok Kumar Bajpai, S/o D.N. 422-448 323-343
Bajpai, R/o 109, Parerhat, Rambagh, Prayagraj
• Objections dated 17.01.2024 filed by respondent 432-435 331-337
13 (Shri Ashok Kumar Bajpai) to Joint Committee
Report dated 23.02.2023
Respondent 14-Abhinandan Tiwari S/o Krishna Bihari 449-461 343-455
Tiwari, R/o 18A/11, House no. 77, Muir Road, Prayagraj
and Respondent 45-Krishna Minerals
• Objections dated 17.01.2024 by Abhinandan 456-458 351-353
Tiwari i.e., respondent 14 to Joint Committee
Report dated 23.02.2023
Respondent 15-Harihar Prasad Gupta, Shankargrah, 462-469 355-359
Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj
• Objections/Reply dated 12.04.2024 filed by 463 354
respondent 15
Respondent 16-Om Laxmi Industries, Prop. Chandra 470-475 359-362
Prakash Kesarwani, R/o 242/91, Muir Road, Ashok
Nagar, Allahabad
• Objections/Reply dated 19.03.2024 filed by 471-472 360-361
respondent 16
Respondent 17-Rishi Chawla, 87, Darbhanga Colony, 476-482 363-367
Allahabad
• Reply dated 30.03.2024 by respondent 17 filed on 477 363-364
26.04.2024
Respondent 18-Smt. Vijay Laxmi Kesarwani, W/o Late 483-487 367-369
Om Prakash Gupta, 170/1-A, Newada Ashok Nagar,
Allahabad
• Written statement/objection/response dated 484 367
30.03.2024 by respondent 18 filed on 27.04.2024
Respondent 19-M/s Harimandir Mineral Traders, 488-500 369-377
Sohabatiya Bagh, Allahabad
12
Documents Para No. Page No.
• Response dated 09.04.2024 filed by respondent 19 489-491 370-373
on 26.04.2024
Respondents 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 501-509 377-381
and 32
• Response dated 12.04.2024 filed by respondent 20 504 379-380
(Badri Prasad Amarnath) on 25.04.2024
• Response dated 12.04.2024 filed by respondent 25 505 380
(Jai Shri Trading Company) on 20.04.2024
• Response dated 12.04.2024 filed by respondent 28 506 380
(Bhulli Mahraj & Sons) on 22.04.2024
• Response dated 12.04.2024 filed by respondent 29 507 381
(Laxmi Mining Corporation) on 22.04.2024
Respondent 30-Smt. Rani Rajendra Kumari Ba, Rajmahal 510-511 381-382
Shankargarh, Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj
Respondent 33-Chawla Silica Sand Trading Co., 512 382
Shivrajpur, Tehsil-Bara, Prayagraj; Respondent 34-
Chawla Silica Sand Trading Co. (Crushing & Washing),
Lakhanauti, Bara, Prayagraj; Respondent 35-Chawla
Silica Sand Trading Co., Garha, Tehsil-Bara, Prayagraj;
Respondent 36-Quality Minerals Development
Corporation, Kaitha, Tehsil-Bara, Prayagraj; Respondent
37-Quality Minerals Development Corporation, Garwa,
Sheorajpur, Prayagraj
Respondent 38-Krishna Enterprises, Ledar, Tehsil-Bara, 513 383
District-Prayagraj
Respondent 40-Singh Contractor and Supplier, Ledar, 514-515 383-384
Tehsil-Bara, Prayagraj; Respondent 42-Harsh Minerals,
Kachari, Bara, Prayagraj; and Respondent 43-Barawhite
Stone Heights Pvt. Ltd., Parvejabad, Prayagraj
Respondent 41 - M/s. Girdhari Lal Chawla & Sons, 516-520 384-385
Benipur, Shankargrah, Prayagraj and Respondent 48 -
Girdhari Lal Chawla & Sons, Kaitha, Lakhanpur,
Shankargrah, Prayagraj
• Response/Reply dated 30.03.2024 filed by 517-518 384-385
respondents 41 and 48 on 02.04.2024
Respondent 44 - Manglore Minerals Private Limited, 521-528 386-389
Aswan, Bara, Prayagraj
13
Documents Para No. Page No.
• Response/Reply dated 09.04.2024 filed by 522-524 386-388
respondents 44 on 26.04.2024
Respondent 47-Baba Vighneshwar Minerals (Narayan 529-530 389
Enterprises), Bargarhi, Shivrajpur, Prayagraj
Respondent 49-Guru Dayal Singh & Co. (Silica), Kaitha, 531-532 390
Shankargrah, Bara, Prayagraj
Respondent 50-Vandana Singh (Stone/Silica Washing 533-534 390-391
Plant), Bankipur, Bara, Prayagraj
Respondent 51-Silica Khanij Udyog, Kaitha, Bara, 535-538 391-392
Prayagraj
• Response/Reply dated 15.03.2024 filed by 536 391
respondent 51 on 18.03.2024
Respondent 52-Silica Khanij Udyog Kaitha, Shivrajpur, 539-543 392-393
Bara, Prayagraj and Respondent 53-Silica Khanij Udyog,
Lakhanpur, Bara, Prayagraj
• Response/Reply dated 30.03.2024 filed by 540-541 392-393
respondents 52 on 02.04.2024
Respondents 55, 60, 63, 65, 66, 67 544-545 393-394
Respondent 56-Prayag Quality Sand, Pratappur, Bara, 546-547 394-395
Prayagraj; Respondent 57-Abhijaat Singh Associated,
Golahiya, Bara, Prayagraj; and Respondent 68-Asha Devi
(Silica Washing Plant), Kaitha, Shivrajpur, Prayagraj
Respondent 58-Anupam Enterprises, Village-Garha 548-549 395
Katra, Shankargarh, Bara, Prayagraj; Respondent 62-Jai
Shree Trading Company, Village-Kaitha, Bara, Prayagraj;
and Respondent 74-Quality Minerals Development
Corporation, Village-Ledar, Bara, Prayagraj
Respondent 59-Shree Bhagwan Dass Industries, 550-551 395-396
Shivrajpur, Bara, prayagraj and Respondent 64-Narayan
Dutt Tiwari (Silica Washing Plant), Benipur,
Shankargrah, Prayagraj
Respondent 61-Gupta Enterprises, Shivrajpur, 552-553 396-397
Shankargarg, Prayagraj
Respondent 69-KR Minerals, Village- Bargari, Bihariya, 554-555 397
Shankargrah, Prayagraj and Respondent 70-SBS
Enterprises, Village-Lakhnauti, Bara, Prayagraj
14
Documents Para No. Page No.
Respondent 71-Sita Devi (Silica Washing Plant), Village- 556-557 397-398
Ledar, Bara, Prayagraj
Respondent 72-Laxmi Mineral Manufacturer and 558-559 398
Traders, Village-Garha Katra, Shankargrah, Prayagraj
Respondent 73-Badri Prasad Amar Nath, Village- 560-561 398-399
Shivrajpur, Bara, Prayagraj
Need for Guidelines by CPCB 562-564 399-400
Provision for Medical Facilities to take care of Silicosis 565 400-401
Summary of Directions 566-568 401-405
JUDGMENT
BY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Devi Das Khatri has initiated present proceedings by filing Original Application (hereinafter referred to as 'OA') under Sections 14 and 15 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'NGT Act 2010') complaining about mining activities of Silica Sand in the area located in Block Shankargarh and nearby areas like Pervaizabad, Lalapur, Bankipur, Janwa, Dhara etc. of District Prayagraj, State of Uttar Pradesh, in an illegal manner and in utter violation of environmental and other laws. The substantial questions relating to environment arising due to implementation of Enactments Scheduled under NGT Act 2010, as formulated by applicant are, as under:
"1) Whether the Respondents are under an obligation to protect and improve the quality of the environment and prevent illegal, unsustainable and unscientific extraction of silica sand, in accordance with the laws and regulations laid down in the acts specified in Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010?
(2) Whether proper safeguards/steps have been undertaken by the 15 concerned authorities to control and prevent illegal and unsustainable mining of silica sand operating in the area without having any permission?
(3) Whether an effective monitoring mechanism has been put in place to check illegal, unabated and uncontrolled mining activity of Silica Sand in the area?
(4) Whether any illegal mining activity by the mining mafias could be allowed without undertaking any cumulative impact assessment study and carrying capacity study in the concerned region?
2. Brief facts as disclosed in OA, giving rise to the present dispute are that huge illegal mining activities of Silica Sand are going on without requisite Statutory permissions/clearance/No Objection Certificate (hereinafter referred to as 'NOC') from concerned Statutory Regulators and Authorities and without observing proper extraction mechanism, endangering people's health to various diseases like Silicosis etc. in Block Shankargarh and nearby areas like Pervaizabad, Lalapur, Bankipur, Janwa, Dhara etc. of District Prayagraj, State of Uttar Pradesh.
3. It is said that Shankargarh is largely a non-fertile area and rich in mineral resources, especially Silica sand. Several industries require Silica sand for their industrial activities where it constitutes raw material. Extraction of Silica sand and, thereafter, its washing by installing washing units are the activities which have cropped up in the area. Silica sand is a good repository of ground water. Ground water percolates through the deposit of Silica sand and thereby enrich underground water level. Shankargarh Block is a drought prone region, hence, recharge potential is intrinsically connected to the preservation of Silica sand. Due to indiscriminate mining of Silica sand deposits and uncontrolled, 16 unsupervised and unmonitored extraction of ground water at Silica sand washing plants, the natural aquifers of the region, which are singular source of drinking water in the region, are getting depleted at an exponential rate. Number of photographs have been placed on record as annexure-1 to show large scale Silica sand mining and extraction of ground water in the area concerned.
4. Applicant has further said that on enquiry, he has come to know that washing plants are being run without obtaining any requisite NOC from Competent Authority i.e., Central Ground Water Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'CGWA') for extraction of ground water. Applicant made representation to Principal Secretary and various concerned authorities namely Regional Officer, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as 'RO, UPPCB, Prayagraj'), Chairman, CGWA; Regional Director, Central Government Water Board, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'RD, CGWB, Lucknow') and District Magistrate, Prayagraj, bringing to their notice rampant illegal mining activities and extraction of ground water through borewells in Shankargarh Block, District Prayagraj by more than 500 illegal mining activities of Silica sand and about 100 and more washing plant industries. Despite complaints and representations, no preventive, remedial or other action was taken by any of the concerned authorities. Applicant thereafter was compelled to send a legal notice dated 22.12.2020 to Union of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as 'MoEF&CC'); State of UP through Chief Secretary; Central Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'CPCB'); Uttar Pradesh Pollution 17 Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'UPPCB'); Department of Geology and Mining through Principal Secretary; District Collector, Prayagraj; Medical Health and Family Welfare Department through Principal secretary and Director General of Mines Safety, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as 'DGMS'). None of the respondents except DGMS responded to the said notice. However, DGMS vide reply dated 04.03.2021 stated that the subject matter of complaint does not come within the purview of Mines Act, 1952 and, therefore, it has nothing to do with the matter.
5. Relying on certain orders of this Tribunal including order dated 20.07.2015 passed in OA 9/2014, Safal Bharat Guru Parampara vs. State of Punjab & Others; dated 15.04.2015 passed in MA No. 241, 12, 13 and 74 of 2015 in Appeal No. 1/2015, Taurus International (Projects) Pvt. Ltd vs. Delhi Pollution Control Committee and dated 10.12.2015 in OA 317/2014, Krishan Kant Singh vs. Triveni Engg. Industries Ltd. & Others, expressing its views on the importance of maintenance of ground water level and for checking illegal extraction thereof, present OA has been filed with prayers to issue directions to respondents to stop illegal mining activities of Silica sand in the areas located in Shankargarh Block and nearby areas like Pervaizabad, Lalapur, Bankipur, Janwa, Dhara etc. of District Prayagraj, State of UP with immediate effect; constitute a High Level Committee to investigate in the matter with regard to illegal mining activities and washing plants operating in the area; direct closer of such plants which are running without requisite permissions; impose heavy penalty and environmental compensation on the violators under the principles of 'Polluter Pays'; direct 18 respondents authorities to issue a detailed Guideline to arrest spread of diseases like Silicosis amongst the labourers involved in the illegal mining of Silica sand and take action for restitution for the damage caused to the environment at the cost of violators by issuing direction under Section 15 of NGT Act, 2010.
Tribunal's Order dated 19.08.2021:
6. Tribunal considered the grievance of applicant on 19.08.2021. It observed that earlier also issue of illegal sand mining in District Prayagraj was considered in OA 670/2018, Atul Singh Chauhan vs. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change & Others and OA 186/2019, Jagriti Sansthan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others wherein certain directions were issued and pursuant thereto, MoEF issued Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines which must be complied with under the monitoring of State authorities. However, for verification of the facts in the present case, a Joint Committee was constituted comprising CPCB, UPPCB, State of Environment Impact Assessment Authority, State of UP (hereinafter referred to as 'SEIAA UP') and District Magistrate, Prayagraj.
CPCB and UPPCB were made nodal authorities for compliance. Authorities were permitted to nominate responsible officers of appropriate higher ranks so that a credible action be taken and report is furnished to Tribunal. Committee was directed to meet within 15 days, undertake site visits, interact with stakeholders and take remedial action in exercise of its Statutory powers, following due process of law. Committee was also authorised to take assistance from any other authorities/individuals. Tribunal also directed that in case, any violations are found existing, such 19 violator(s) may be informed about the present proceedings for their response. An action taken Report was required to be filed by the said Committee within three months.
Committee's Report dated 13.12.2021 (First Report) (p/40 of paper book):
7. Vide letter dated 13.12.2021, RO, UPPCB, Prayagraj submitted before Tribunal Joint Committee's Report pursuant to Tribunal's order dated 19.08.2021. Report shows that the following officials comprised Joint Committee to submit report:
"1. Harsh Dev Pandey, ADM(E), District Prayagraj (Representative of DM, Prayagraj)
2. Dr. Ajai Mishra, Representative of SEIAA UP
3. J.P. Meena, Scientist-D, CPCB, Regional Directorate, Lucknow Representative of CPCB (Nodal Agency)
4. R. K. Singh, R.O. UPPCB, Regional Officer, Prayagraj Representative of UPPCB (Nodal Agency)"
8. The above constitution of Committee who has actually submitted First Report is not as per the order dated 19.08.2021 passed by Tribunal in as much as District Magistrate, Prayagraj was made member of Joint Committee and not any Additional District Magistrate. District Magistrate, Prayagraj was also not authorized to nominate anybody on his behalf to become member of the Committee.
9. When a Committee is constituted by Tribunal, it is not open to any member of the Committee to nominate any other authority or person on his behalf unless such power or authority is conferred by Tribunal which in the present case, was not given to District Magistrate, Prayagraj. 20
10. Report also shows that District Magistrate, Prayagraj has not even perused the Report and signed it. He had delegated virtually his entire authority to ADM(E) acting beyond his authority and thereby, vitiating the constitution of the Committee who has submitted First Report dated 13.12.2021.
11. The said Committee visited the site of mining activities located at Shankargarh Block, District Prayagraj on 25th to 27th November, 2021. The observations recorded by said Committee in the report are as under:
"1. The mining area of the Shankargarh block is enriched in silica sand. The raw sands being washed at various levels for benefaction of silica sand and about 80% of silica sand is being recovered from the raw sand after washing process. This silica sand is enriched in silica content (about 98%). The area lies in sub basin of river Yamuna, however for washing of silica sand and used fresh water is entirely drawn from ground water sources.
2. The Committee visited the sand washing units and mining sites of the same unit situated at Shankargarh block, Tehsil Bara District Prayagraj during November 25-27, 2021.
3. During visit committee observed that small scale mining area as well as number of very small-scale washing units exist at these areas. However, in some washing units there was no representative present at the time of visit for clarification.
4. During visit, committee observed that use of water in these types of units is mainly for washing operation of silica sand at various stages. There is no scientifically organized treatment for waste water generated from washing operations. Currently waste water is mostly stored in unlined (Kaccha) pit or ponds in the premises of respective units. As reported, the wastewater is being re-circulated for washing operation.
5. The committee observed that the oversized materials and sand mud were stored unscientifically in the unit premise that may cause the fugitive emission. As reported by the 21 washing unit representatives, such material is used for filling of low-lying areas but the records of the same were not maintained.
6. The silica sand washing units have not installed any flow measuring device at the abstraction of the tube wells/wells.
7. These sand washing units have not made any demarcation in their premise along with display board at the main gate to identify the units as well as other relevant information.
8. The committee observed that these units have not developed adequate green belt within the premises.
9. The Committee observed that the approach roads were not maintained hence, the fugitive emission generation during movement of the vehicle cannot be ruled out.
10. The Committee observed that the leaseholders have not made proper demarcation of geo coordinates in their lease area. During visit, Committee found pucca pillars at the mining sites but most of these mines site pillars have not mentioned Geo-Coordinate along with depth of the mines.
11. During visit ponding of water in the mining area were observed which was informed that it is because of heavy rain this year during rainy season. No benching has been made in the mining areas as per Uttar Pradesh Department of Mining and Geology Guideline.
12. The committee has observed that the several abandoned mining pits located at the Shankgarh block degraded the surfaces and created the surface undulation making the topography rugged.
13. During visit, the project proponents have not installed weigh Bridge at the mining site to quantify mined out material.
14. The committee has noticed that all lease holders have submitted EIA report to UPSIEAA.
15. The committee noticed that the Project proponents (PPs) have not provided the details of the various heads of Expenditure 22 under the Corporate Environmental Responsibility (CER) plan.
16. On the day of visit, the Committee noted that the project proponents (PPs) have not made any dust control measures to take-care of dust generated during transport of the mined mineral through kachha approach Roads.
17. As per EC specific conditions, it is required that four Ambient Air Quality stations should be established in the core zone as well as in the buffer zone for monitoring PM10, PM2.5, SO2 & NOx. Location of the station should be decided based on the Meteorological Data, Topographical features and Environmentally & Ecologically targets and frequency of the monitoring should be undertaken in consultation with the State Pollution Control Boards. But during visit, no monitoring reports were provided by these PPs.
18. All the lease holders have submitted Flora & Fauna Study report to UPSEIAA.
19. During visit, Committee observed that top soil of the mining areas were not stored temporarily at the earmarked place for land reclamation/ restoration of the same as per the guidelines.
20. Committee observed that most of the project proponents have not put-up display board at the mining sites.
21. During visit, the committee observed that lease holders have not installed CCTV camera at entry and exit point of the mining area.
22. Committee observed that the over burden of hard rock slab material after excavation of the silica sand have been dumped in improper manner in the mining areas.
23. Committee observed that washing units operators have not maintained proper health records of the engaged workers at site. Representative informed that regular health check-up of engaged workers is done by health department but at the time of visit no appropriate documents were shown.
24. During visit committee observed that project proponents have not developed adequate green belt or fencing of the 23 abandoned mining area as per EC conditions.
25. No any other mining activities were found except at mining lease area during visit of Shankargrah Block.
26. During visit committee observed that, project proponent has not established common facility i.e. drinking water, toilets, safety equipment and first aid as per the mining law."
12. Committee has separately referred to the action taken by different authorities i.e., UPPCB and District Mining Department. The action taken by UPPCB as reported by Committee in para 27 and 28 reads as under:
"27. As per information provided by UPPCB Regional Office, Prayagraj presently 35 out of total 83 Silica Sand Washing units were found operational in Shankargarh Block (Lalapur, Bankipur, Janwa, Dhara, Kaitha, Lakhnauti and Pratapur area). These units have obtained valid consent to Operate under the Water Act and Air Act from UPPCB (Details of the units are enclosed as Annexure-1). NOC from CGWA have been provided.
28. In compliance of earlier NGT order O.A No 186/2019 (1.A 655/2019) UPPCB has stopped operation of 54 illegal Silica Sand washing units in the area and also imposed environmental compensation of Rs 7.25 Lac on each unit. During visit, committee also observed these 54 illegal Silica Sand washing units were found closed but occasional operation of these unit cannot be ruled out as per evidence found during their random observation."
13. The actions taken by District Mining Authorities of Prayagraj have been mentioned by Joint Committee in para 29 to 36, as under:
"29. As per report provided by the District Mining Department, Prayagraj (U.P) there are presently 07 silica sand Mining lease in operation in the Shankargarh Block, Tehsil, Bara District Prayagraj.
30. In view of non-compliance by M/s Chawla Silica Sand 24 Trading Company damage recovery fine has been imposed against the industry as per UP Mining Law 1963.
31. As reported by District Mining Department all Mining lease areas have been demarcated with geo coordinate and geo fencing for effective termination of illegal Mining activity as mentioned earlier.
32. As reported, in compliance of the Hon'ble NGT Order dated 28.02.2020 and vide order dated 30/01/2020 by Directorate of Mining and Geology, total environmental compensation amount recovered till date is 1 crore 70 lakh and revenue recovery till date is 18 lakh 49 thousand.
33. As reported by District Mining Officer, Mining Department has constituted task forces at District and Tehsil level for periodic visit of the mining area in their Jurisdiction.
34. The District Administration, Uttar Pradesh has now made it mandatory to put mine tags (M-tag) on vehicles registered for transportation of minerals.
35. As reported the State Government has a strict vigilance on silica sand mining and transportation in their jurisdiction.
36. As per information provided by District Mining Department, 07 FIR's have been lodged and legal action have been taken against the persons involved in illegal mining at Shankargarh Block."
14. Committee, thereafter, also made its own recommendations which read as under:
"1. All the relevant Regulations and Guidelines shall be followed strictly in granting mining lease, carry out the mining activity and monitoring there off.
2. The UPPCB shall ensure compliance of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Regulations of Central Ground Water Authority in all sand mining lease and sand washing units should be ensured by State Groundwater Board if water is abstracted from groundwater.25
3. The UPPCB shall ensure issuance of Consent to operate of Silica Sand washing units at Shankargarh Block Area having prior agreement of Mining lease or possession of self-mine lease holders.
4. Mining has to be as per EIA Notification, 2006, MOEF Notification dated 15.01.2016 and Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016.
5. The Mining Department shall develop app-based surveillance system for effective monitoring mechanism for prevention of illegal Mining.
6. The district local administration shall ensure that no such units shall be operated in the area without having valid consent from UPPCB and valid permission from CGWA/UP State Ground Water Board for the abstraction of ground water.
7. The District Mining Department shall regularly inspect the mining sites, the encroachment and depth of mining and also, ensure compliance of EC conditions.
8. District Magistrates and Superintendents of Police have to seize all mining equipment's and vehicles in case of illegal mining.
9. The mining operation should be restricted to above the ground water table and it should not intersect the ground water table as per the EC condition/condition of mining lease.
10. The project proponents shall plan and execute suitable rain water harvesting on long term basis in consultation with UP Ground Water Board.
11. The Silica sand washing units shall plan for prevention & control of fugitive dust at stage of handling (including loading, unloading, transportation as well as processing stage and drying of the sand).
12. The Silica washing units shall make requisite wastewater treatment mechanism to ensure the optimum use of same.
13. The Silica sand washing units shall construct the lined pond/ Pucca pits for the storage of washing effluents for 26 the recirculation in the washing operation.
14. The Silica sand washing units shall ensure disposal of oversized materials and sand mud in scientific manner.
15. The Silica sand washing units shall make logbook of energy meter, water consumption, raw materials and finished products and engaged manpower.
16. The Silica sand washing units shall construct boundary wall around the premise and develop green belt of local species as per guidelines in consultation of the District Forest Officer (DFO).
17. The Silica sand washing units shall arrange for display board for identification of the unit at the entrance, along with the environmental display board.
18. The silica sand washing units operator/Lease holder shall carryout periodical health check-up of the engaged employee and the record of the same must be maintained.
19. The over burden (OB) of hard rock slab material shall be stored at earmarked site and ensure its disposal in accordance with approved mining plan.
20. The Project Proponents shall implement suitable conservative measures to augment ground water resources in the area in consultation with Regional Director, UP Ground Water Board.
21. Audit on the quantity permitted, quantity mined out shall be conducted every year by the concerned department.
22. Primary survey of flora and fauna shall be carried out and data shall be submitted to the RO, PCB and SEIAA within six months.
23. Corporate Environmental Responsibility (CER) plan should be prepared by the project proponent and the details of the various heads of Expenditure to be submitted as per the guidelines provided in the recent CER notification number 22-65/2017-IA.III dated 01/05/2018.
24. The mining Department shall instruct to all lease holders to maintain, mandatory Geo- coordinates pillars properly.27
25. The project Proponents should ensure that periodical site photographs should be annexed along with the compliance report.
26. The transport route from mining site to the stock yard and to main road shall be improved and water sprinkling shall be carried out to control the dust generated from the movement of the vehicles."
15. Committee has given list of "Silica Sand Washing Units" in annexure-1 to the Report comprising 35 such washing plants with the details of their plants' capacity and consent validity. The said details are as under:
S. Application Name Industry Address Plant Consent No. Capacity Validity
1. CHAWLA SILICA SHIVRAJPUR, BARA, 3500 31-03-2024 SAND TRADING CO. PRAYAGRAJ Ton/Month
2. CHAWLA SILICA LAKHNAUTI, BARA, 4000 31-07-2024 SAND TRADING CO. PRAYAGRAJ Ton/Month (CRUSHING & WASHING)
3. QUALITY KAITHA, BARA, 15 Ton/Day 31-03-2023 MINERALS PRAYAGRAJ DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
4. QUALITY GARWA, 15 Ton/Day 31-03-2022 MINERALS SHEORAJPUR, DEVELOPMENT PRAYAGRAJ CORPORATION
5. NAVEEN SILICA KAITHA, BARA, 15 Ton/Day 31-03-2023 SAND PRAYAGRAJ
6. MODI MINERAL BIHARIYA, BARA, 700 31-07-2023 UDYOG PRAYAGRAJ Ton/Month
7. NARAYAN DUTT BENIPUR, 15 Ton/Day 31-03-2023 TIWARI (SILICA SHANKARGRAH, WASHING PLANT) PRAYAGRAJ
8. SRI GIRDHARI LAL BENIPUR, 15 Ton/Day 31-03-2023 CHAWLA & SONS SHANKARGRAH, PRAYAGRAJ 28
9. HARSH MINERALS KACHARI BARA 15 Ton/Day 31-03-2023 PRAYAGRAJ
10. BARAWHITE PARVEJABAD, 15 Ton/Day 31-03-2023 STONE HEIGHTS PRAYAGRAJ PVT LTD
11. AGRAWALS MINES CHIRRI BARA, 50 Ton/Day 31-07-2023 AND MINERALS. PRAYAGRAJ (CRUSHING & WASHING)
12. KRISHNA BENIPUR, 1000 31-07-2023 MINERALS PRAYAGRAJ Ton/Month
13. ASHOK KUMAR BARGARHI, 100 Ton/Day 31-07-2022 BAJPAI SHIVRAJPUR, PRAYAGRAJ
14. NARAYAN BARGARHI, 100 Ton/Day 31-03-2024 ENTERPRISES SHIVRAJPUR, PRAYAGRAJ
15. SRI GIRDHARI LAL KAITHA, 1800 31-03-2024 CHAWLA & SONS LAKHANPUR, Ton/Month SHANKARGRAH, PRAYAGRAJ
16. M/s GURU DAYAL KAITHA, 1000 31-03-2024 SINGH & CO. SHANKARGRAH, Ton/Month (SILICA) BARA, PRAYAGRAJ
17. VANDANA SINGH BANKIPUR, BARA, 25 Ton/Day 31-03-2024 (STONE/SILICA PRAYAGRAJ WASHING PLANT)
18. SILICA KHANIJ KAITHA, BARA, 1500 31-03-2024 UDYOG PRAYAGRAJ Ton/Month
19. SILICA KHANIZ KAITHA, 1500 31-03-2024 UDYOG SHIVRAJPUR, BARA, Ton/Month PRAYAGRAJ
20. SILICA KHANIZ LAKHANPUR, BARA, 1500 31-03-2024 UDYOG PRAYAGRAJ Ton/Month
21. NEW TRIVENI LAKHANPUR, BARA, 1500 31-03-2024 MINERALS PRAYAGRAJ Ton/Month
22. ADISHWARA PARVEJABAD, BARA, 25 Ton/Day 31-03-2024 CONSTRUCTION & PRAYAGRAJ MINERALS CO.
23. PRAYAG QUALITY PARVEJABAD, BARA, 40 Ton/Day 31-03-2024 SAND PRAYAGRAJ 29
24. MA JAGADAMBA & BIHARIYA, BARA, 1000 31-03-2023 CO. PRAYAGRAJ Ton/Month
25. ANUPAM GARHA KATRA 1000 31-03-2023 ENTERPRISES SHANKARGARH Ton/Month BARA PRAYAGRAJ
26. JAI SHREE PRATAPPUR, BARA, 15 Ton/Day 31-03-2023 TRADING PRAYAGRAJ COMPANY ALLAHABAD
27. SHREE BHAGWAN SHIVRAJPUR, BARA, 15 Ton/Day 31-03-2023 DASS INDUSTRUES PRAYAGRAJ ALLAHABAD
28. GUPTA SHIVRAJPUR, 20 Ton/Day 31-03-2023 ENTERPRISES SHANKARGARG, PRAYAGRAJ
29. JAI SHREE KAITHA, BARA, 15 Ton/Day 31-03-2023 TRADING PRAYAGRAJ COMPANY
30. JAI SHREE RAMNA, BARGARI, 1500 31-03-2024 TRADING PRAYAGRAJ Ton/Month COMPANY
31. ALLAHABAD SAND BARDARI, BARA, 3000 31-03-2024 PRAYAGRAJ Ton/Month
32. GLASS AND BARGARI, BARA, 25Ton/Day 31-03-2024 FOUNDARY SAND PRAYAGRAJ
33. OM LUXMI KACHARI, BARA, 50 Ton/Day 31-03-2023 MINERALS PRAYAGRAJ
34. OM LAXMI KACHARI, BARA, 45 Ton/Day 31-03-2022 INDUSTRIES PRAYAGRAJ
35. ASHA DEVI (SILICA KAITHA, 25 Ton/Day 31-03-2023 WASHING PLANT) SHIVRAJPUR, PRAYAGRAJ Tribunal's Order dated 01.02.2022:
16. Joint Committee's Report dated 13.12.2021 (First Report) was considered during proceedings on 01.02.2022. From the Report, it was evident that large scale deficiencies were found in mining and washing plants' activities. Tribunal took note of the failure of project proponents 30 regarding unscientific treatment of waste water, absence of flow meters, absence of demarcation, absence of proper approach roads, failure to control fugitive emissions, unscientific storage of overburden, absence of record about expenditure under CER plans, absence of health record, absence of monitoring stations, absence of display boards and CCTV cameras, absence of adequate green belts. Tribunal said that remedial action was hardly adequate to ensure compliance and to protect environment and public health. Tribunal also noted that it was not clear whether any requisite Environmental Clearance (hereinafter referred to as 'EC') has been granted for mining and whether Environment Impact Assessment Reports which are said to have been submitted, were duly appraised. Tribunal also found that there was no proper assessment of compensation, corresponding to the damage caused to the environment and public health. Applicant pointed out that there were more than 500 Silica sand washing units but Report mentioned only about 54 and annexure-1 to the Report contains details of only 35 washing plants. It was felt that there is need to take remedial action for ensuring compliance of environmental norms by stopping hazardous activities till compliance. CCTV cameras, monitoring stations, green belts and all other safeguards were required to be established/installed. Thus, for taking remedial action, in the light of Joint Committee's Report dated 13.12.2021 and the observations made by Tribunal in the order dated 01.02.2022, another Joint Committee comprising Divisional Commissioner, Prayagraj as Chairman; Chief Conservator of Forest, Allahabad; nominees of CPCB, UPPCB, SEIAA UP and Secretary, Agriculture (an expert in soil conservation) was constituted to ensure that all washing units/mining 31 leases conduct their activities in accordance with Statutory procedures and environmental norms and compensation is assessed and recovered for the past violations. Committee was directed to visit the site within two months and after coordinated remedial action, furnish a Report, keeping in mind the earlier Joint Committee Report as well as observations made therein.
Joint Committee headed by Divisional Commissioner's Report dated 17.05.2022 (Second Report) filed in Tribunal on 18.05.2022:
17. Pursuant to order dated 01.02.2022, Report dated 17.05.2022 (p/52 of paper book) was submitted through RO, UPPCB, Prayagraj.
18. The Second Report showed that first meeting of Joint Committee was held on 15.03.2022 and second meeting on 11.04.2022.
19. In the first meeting, Commissioner, Prayagraj, Chairman of the Joint Committee directed Chief Conservator of Forest, Prayagraj and Deputy Director, Agriculture to find out solution regarding afforestation in existing mining area, washing units as well as abandoned mining areas of Shankagarh Block according to geographical conditions so as to foster ecological condition of the area. He also directed Mining Department to remain vigilant and take strict action against illegal mining activities.
20. Pursuant to first meeting dated 15.03.2022 of Joint Committee, Mining Department and Regional Office, UPPCB submitted a compliance Report to the Committee.32
21. The Compliance Report showed that weigh bridges and CCTV cameras were installed in all seven running mines and geo coordinates with proper demarcation were also completed.
22. Regional Officer, UPPCB informed Chairman of the Committee that as per the conditions of CTO of 41 existing and running washing units, water meters were installed on the inlet source of water; kachha pits were being replaced by pucca pits and logbook for water meter, raw material, finished products and man power have been started to maintain.
23. Commissioner, Prayagraj directed Mining Officer, Revenue Department, Agriculture Department and Forest Department to constitute a joint team to survey complete area of Shankargarh for restoration of abandoned mines with forestation.
24. Under the order of Commissioner, Prayagraj, the District Magistrate, Prayagraj constituted a 05 members Committee vide order dated 22.04.2022 headed by SDM, Bara, Prayagraj for preparing work plan in the area of Shankargarh block for forestation of ongoing and abandoned mining leases along with silica washing units. The Committee constituted by District Magistrate was required to complete work in next 03 months.
25. The Second Report also showed that Commissioner, Prayagraj along with officers of the Committee visited the site on 12.05.2022 and inspected mines as well as washing plants. The report further said that after random site visit, Commissioner, Prayagraj constituted 04 Committees for verifying each washing plant and mine and prepare check 33 list for inspection by the said Committee which was directed to check each and every point as per directions issued by Tribunal and submit report in check list form within two days after site visit.
26. 04 Committees constituted by Commissioner, Prayagraj surveyed the area of Shankargarh block and found only seven running mines and 41 established silica sand washing units. Reports and photographs of 04 Committees' survey have been appended as annexure 9 to the Second Report.
27. Check list has been placed on record by Joint Committee as annexure 8 and reports by 04 Committees have been filed collectively as annexure 9 to the said Report.
28. We have gone through the said documents and find that annexures 8 and 9 are collectively marked.
29. At page 103 is a letter no. 374/khanan dated 14.05.2022 and signed by two officers namely Mithilesh Kumar Pandey, District Mines Officer, Prayagraj and Harshdev Pandey, Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Prayagraj. Both the officers have signed on 13.05.2022.
30. The letter dated 14.05.2022 (p/103) (inspection made on 13.05.2022) shows that the said two officers inspected 03 mining areas and 11 washing plants on 13.05.2022 and submitted their status as per check list.
31. Copies of the check list of 14 proponents i.e., 03 mining areas and 11 washing plants have also been examined by us and we find that the 34 entries thereof vary though total number of items in all the check lists are same i.e., 13. Further, 04 check lists are blank which pertain to washing plants of SBS Enterprises, Om Laxmi Mineral, MA Jagdamba and Company and Om Laxmi Industries.
32. In all 04 washing plants, inspection was made on 13.05.2022 and note put in the check lists in respect to above 04 washing plants reads as under:
S. Name of washing Note placed on check Page no. of No. plant list paper book
1. SBS Enterprises New plant construction 116 is going on. No work.
No any person present at site.
2. Om Laxmi Mineral During visit at site gate 117 was closed. No work carried out on site.
3. MA Jagdamba and During inspection - No 118
Company work is going on. Plant
was closed.
4. Om Laxmi Industries During visit at site, main 119
gate was closed. No
work carried out on
site.
33. In respect of 03 Mining Leases of Rajeev Kumar Chawla, area 3.59 hectares (page/105), Abhinandan Tiwari, area 14.37 hectares (page/106), M/s Modi Mineral Udyog (Proprietor Smt. Amita Gupta) area 19.73 hectares (page/107), check lists provide information as under:
"Checklist for Mining Area - Udagi Tarhar Area-3.59 Hec.35
L/o Shri Rajeev Kr. Chawla Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Presence of pillars ✓ - -
2. Geo-Co-ordinates on pillars ✓ - Mentioned as Pillars
3. Approach Road Status ✓ - Morrum Road
4. Fugitive Emission - ✓ Not Applicable
5. Storage of overburden/Top - - No overburden in Soil Management Status Area
6. Display Board ✓ - Mentioned all Lease details
7. CCTV Camera ✓ - -
8. Green Belt/Plantation ✓ - Improvement required
9. Weigh Bridge ✓ - Exit Route
10. Benching In Mining Area - - Not required at this Depth Up to 3 metres of Pit time. Depth <3m
11. Transportation-Dust - - Work is not going Suppression Measures on Lease Holder (Water Sprinkling) representation confirm that, they use water tanker
12. Common Facilities Toilets ✓ - Temporary Drinking Water ✓ - -
First Aid Box ✓ - -
Safety Equipments ✓ - -
13. Record Maintenance ✓ - Register
Available
Note:- Above Inspection Carried out on 13/05/22."
"Checklist for Mining Area - Janwa Area-14.57 Hectare L/o Shri Abhinandan Tiwari Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks 36 No. Yes No
1. Presence of pillars ✓ - -
2. Geo-Co-ordinates on pillars ✓ - Mentioned as Pillars
3. Approach Road Status ✓ - Pucca Road
4. Fugitive Emission - ✓ Not Applicable
5. Storage of overburden/Top ✓ - Improvement Soil Management Status Required
6. Display Board ✓ - On Lease Site
7. CCTV Camera ✓ - Nearby Weigh Bridge
8. Green Belt/Plantation ✓ - Inadequate
9. Weigh Bridge ✓ - Exit Route of Mines
10. Benching In Mining Area - - Depth is not more Depth Up to 3 metres of Pit than 3 mtrs. as of now Bench not required.
11. Transportation-Dust - - Road is pucca Suppression Measures because of this not (Water Sprinkling) dust raise
12. Common Facilities Toilets ✓ - Temporary Drinking Water ✓ - Available First Aid Box ✓ - -
Safety Equipments ✓ - Work is not going
on
13. Record Maintenance ✓ - Register
Available
Note:- Above Inspection Carried out on 13-05-2022."
"Checklist for Mining Area - Janwa Area-19.73 Hectare L/o M/s Modi Mineral Udyog, Prop Smt. Amita Gupta Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Presence of pillars ✓ - -
2. Geo-Co-ordinates on pillars ✓ - Mentioned as Pillars
3. Approach Road Status ✓ - Pucca Road 37
4. Fugitive Emission - ✓ Not Applicable
5. Storage of overburden/Top - - Not overburden at Soil Management Status site
6. Display Board ✓ - On Site
7. CCTV Camera ✓ - On site/weigh bride both
8. Green Belt/Plantation ✓ - Inadequate improvement required
9. Weigh Bridge ✓ - Exit Route
10. Benching In Mining Area - - Mining depth is not Depth Up to 3 metres of Pit more than 3 mtr
11. Transportation-Dust - - Road is pucca Suppression Measures (Water Sprinkling)
12. Common Facilities Toilets ✓ - Temporary Drinking Water ✓ - Available First Aid Box ✓ - Available Safety Equipments ✓ - -
13. Record Maintenance ✓ - Register Available Note:- Above Inspection Carried out on 13/05/2022."
34. For 08 Washing Plants namely, Chawla Silica Sand Trading Co. (Crushing and Washing), Lakhnauti; Chawla Silica Sand Trading, Shivrajpur; Modi Mineral Udyog, Bihariya; Harsh Minerals, Kachari; Prayag Quality Sand, Pratappur; Jai Shree Trading Company, Pratappur; Laxmi Minerals Manufactures Traders, Garha Katra and Quality Minerals Development of Corporation, Garwa, Shivrajpur, check lists (pages 108 to 115 of paper book) provide information as under:
"Checklist for Washing Plants -Area Lakhnauti W/N Chawla Silica Sand Trading Co. (Crushing and Washing) Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force 38 Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation ✓ - -
2. Line/Unlined Water Storage Tanks ✓ - -
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit (Kutcha- ✓ - -
Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water Sprinkler ✓ - -
System
5. Log Book maintenance ✓ - Register Energy available Water Raw Material Finished Products Manpower
6. Boundary Wall ✓ - -
7. Green Belt or Boundary ✓ - -
8. Display Board ✓ - Mentioned on Board
9. Periodic Health Check-up ✓ - -
10. UPPCB Consent ✓ - Done by CHC
11. UP State Ground water ✓ - -
Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance ✓ - -
13. Any other - - N/A Note:- Above Inspection Carried out on 13/05/22."
"Checklist for Washing Plants -Area Shivrajpur W/N Chawla Silica Sand Trading Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation ✓ - -
2. Line/Unlined Water Storage ✓ - -
Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit ✓ - As per (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge) designed
4. Dust Management/Water ✓ - Improvement Sprinkler System required 39
5. Log Book maintenance Energy ✓ - -
Water ✓ - -
Raw Material ✓ - -
Finished Products ✓ - -
Manpower - -
✓
6. Boundary Wall ✓ - In front site
not complete
7. Green Belt or Boundary ✓ - Some
improvement
require
8. Display Board ✓ - Details
Mentioned
9. Periodic Health Check-up ✓ - -
10. UPPCB Consent ✓ - -
11. UP State Ground water ✓ - -
Board/CGWA (If more than 10
KLD)
12. Record Maintenance ✓ - All register
available
13. Any other - - N/A
Note:- Above site Inspection Carried out on 13/05/22."
"Checklist for Washing Plants -Area Bihariya W/N Modi Mineral Udyog Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation ✓ - -
2. Line/Unlined Water Storage Tanks ✓ - -
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit (Kutcha- ✓ - Kutcha Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water Sprinkler ✓ - -
System
5. Log Book maintenance Energy ✓ - -
Water ✓ - -
Raw Material ✓ - -
Finished Products ✓ - -
40
Manpower ✓ - -
6. Boundary Wall ✓
7. Green Belt or Boundary ✓
8. Display Board ✓
9. Periodic Health Check-up - - Done by
CHC
10. UPPCB Consent ✓ - -
11. UP State Ground water ✓ - -
Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance ✓ - -
13. Any other - - N/A
"Checklist for Washing Plants -Area Kachari W/N - Harsh Minerals Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation ✓ - -
2. Line/Unlined Water Storage Tanks ✓ - -
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit (Kutcha- ✓ - -
Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water Sprinkler - - No work is System going on
5. Log Book maintenance Energy ✓ - -
Water ✓ - -
Raw Material ✓ - -
Finished Products ✓ - -
Manpower - -
✓
6. Boundary Wall ✓ - Front
area is
not
covered
7. Green Belt or Boundary ✓ -
8. Display Board ✓
9. Periodic Health Check-up - - Done by
CHC
10. UPPCB Consent ✓ - -
11. UP State Ground water ✓ - -
41
Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance ✓ - -
13. Any other - - -
"Checklist for Washing Plants -Area Pratappur W/N - Prayag Quality Sand Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation ✓ - -
2. Line/Unlined Water Storage Tanks ✓ - Unlined
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit (Kutcha- ✓ - Kutcha Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water Sprinkler ✓ - -
System
5. Log Book maintenance Energy ✓ - -
Water ✓ - -
Raw Material ✓ - -
Finished Products ✓ - -
Manpower - -
✓
6. Boundary Wall ✓ - -
7. Green Belt or Boundary ✓ - -
8. Display Board ✓ -
9. Periodic Health Check-up ✓ - -
10. UPPCB Consent ✓ - -
11. UP State Ground water ✓ - -
Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance ✓ - -
13. Any other - - -
"Checklist for Washing Plants -Area Pratappur W/N - Jai Shree Trading Company Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No 42
1. Flow meter Installation - - N/A-No boring
2. Line/Unlined Water Storage Tanks ✓ - -
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit (Kutcha- ✓ - -
Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water Sprinkler ✓ - -
System
5. Log Book maintenance Energy ✓ -
Water ✓ -
Raw Material ✓ -
Finished Products ✓ -
Manpower -
✓
6. Boundary Wall ✓ - Sheet
Boundary
7. Green Belt or Boundary ✓ - -
8. Display Board ✓ -
9. Periodic Health Check-up ✓ - Done by
CHC
10. UPPCB Consent ✓ -
11. UP State Ground water - - Not
Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD) required
12. Record Maintenance ✓ - -
13. Any other - - -
"Checklist for Washing Plants -Area Garha Katra W/N - Laxmi Minerals Manufactures Traders Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation ✓ - -
2. Line/Unlined Water Storage - - Construction Tanks is going on
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit - - -
(Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water - - -
Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance Energy - -43
Water - - No work
Raw Material - - started
Finished Products - -
Manpower - -
6. Boundary Wall ✓ - Partial open
in back side
7. Green Belt or Boundary ✓ - Improvement
required
8. Display Board ✓ - -
9. Periodic Health Check-up - - Done by CHC
10. UPPCB Consent ✓ - -
11. UP State Ground water ✓ - -
Board/CGWA (If more than 10
KLD)
12. Record Maintenance - - -
13. Any other - - -
Note:- Inspection Carried out on 13/05/22."
"Checklist for Washing Plants -Area Garwa, Shivrajpur W/N - Quality Minerals Development of Corporation Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation ✓ - -
2. Line/Unlined Water ✓ - -
Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting ✓ - Kutcha Temporary Pit (Kutcha-
Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust ✓ - Temporary Arrangement Management/Water Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance Energy - - Electrically, Water ✓ - Register Raw Material ✓ - -do-
Finished Products ✓ - -do-
44
Manpower ✓ - -do-
6. Boundary Wall ✓ - Half pucca boundary
and rest is covered
with green clothes.
7. Green Belt or Boundary ✓ - Improvement required
8. Display Board ✓ - Not proper (small in
size)
9. Periodic Health Check- - - Mentioned by engaged
up employee but evidence
not available
10. UPPCB Consent ✓ - -
11. UP State Ground water - - Applied
Board/CGWA (If more
than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance ✓ - Register available
13. Any other - - Improvement needed
in approach Road
Note:- Above Inspection Carried out on 13/05/22."
35. Another Report dated 13.05.2022 is part of annexure 8 and 9, at page 120, signed by Shri Ramesh Chander, Forest Conservator of Forest/Incharge Divisional Director, Social Forestry Department, Prayagraj. Check lists of 09 places submitted by Shri Ramesh Chander vide letter dated 13.05.2022 in respect of Washing Plants relating to Gurudayal Singh & Co. (Silica), Jai Shree Trading Company, Girdharilal Chawla & Sons, Sita Devi (Silica Washing Plant), Quality Mineral Development Corporation, Asha Devi (Silica Washing Co.), Silica Khanij Udyog, Silica Khanij Udyog, Naveen Silica Sand and for 02 mining areas i.e., M/s Chawla Silica Sand Trading Company (Lakhnauti) and Smt. Nirmal Rani (Sonauri, Bikapur Chatahra, Gurehta) provide informations as under:
45
(I) Gurudayal Singh & Co. (Silica) (p/121):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation Yes
2. Line/Unlined Water Storage Yes Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit No (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water Yes Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance Energy Water Raw Material No Finished Products Manpower
6. Boundary Wall No सामने बनी है
7. Green Belt or Boundary No
8. Display Board Yes
9. Periodic Health Check-up No कोई जिम्मेदार व्यजति मौिूद नह ीं था
10. UPPCB Consent No
11. UP State Ground water No Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance No
13. Any other (II) Jai Shree Trading Company (page/122):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force 46 Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation Yes
2. Line/Unlined Water Storage Yes Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit Yes (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water No Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance Energy Water Raw Material No Finished Products Manpower
6. Boundary Wall Yes
7. Green Belt or Boundary Yes आधे भाग में है
8. Display Board No
9. Periodic Health Check-up No
10. UPPCB Consent Yes
11. UP State Ground water No Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance No
13. Any other (III) Shri Girdharilal Chawla & Sons (page/123):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation Yes
2. Line/Unlined Water Yes Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit _ No (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water Yes 47 Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance Energy Water Raw Material No Finished Products Manpower
6. Boundary Wall Yes
7. Green Belt or Boundary Yes आधे भाग में है
8. Display Board No
9. Periodic Health Check-up No
10. UPPCB Consent Yes
11. UP State Ground water Yes Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance Yes 01.03.2022 से उपलब्ध
13. Any other (IV) Sita Devi (Silica Washing Plant) (page/124):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation No
2. Line/Unlined Water Storage No Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit No (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water No Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance Energy Water No Raw Material Finished Products Manpower
6. Boundary Wall No 48
7. Green Belt or Boundary No
8. Display Board No
9. Periodic Health Check-up No
10. UPPCB Consent No
11. UP State Ground water No Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance No
13. Any other निरीक्षण के समय प्लांट बांद पलयल गयल स्थानीय व्यजतियों से पूछने पर बिाया गया की प्लांट कई महीिो से बांद है (V) Quality Mineral Development Corporation (page/125):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation Yes
2. Line/Unlined Water Storage Yes Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit No (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water Yes Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance Yes Energy Water Raw Material Finished Products Manpower
6. Boundary Wall No 49
7. Green Belt or Boundary No
8. Display Board No
9. Periodic Health Check-up No
10. UPPCB Consent Yes
11. UP State Ground water 10 KLD से कम Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance Yes
13. Any other (VI) Asha Devi (Silica Washing Co.) (page/126):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation No
2. Line/Unlined Water Storage No Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit No (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water No Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance No Energy Water Raw Material Finished Products Manpower
6. Boundary Wall No
7. Green Belt or Boundary No
8. Display Board No
9. Periodic Health Check-up No
10. UPPCB Consent - -
प्लांट बांद थल मौके पर कोई व्यक्ति उपक्तिथ िहीां मम्ल
11. UP State Ground water - -50
Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance - -
13. Any other (VII) Silica Khanij Udyog (page/127):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation Yes
2. Line/Unlined Water Storage Yes Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit Yes (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water No Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance No Energy Water Raw Material Finished Products Manpower
6. Boundary Wall Yes
7. Green Belt or Boundary No
8. Display Board No
9. Periodic Health Check-up No
10. UPPCB Consent Yes
11. UP State Ground water Yes Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance No
13. Any other (VIII) Silica Khanij Udyog (page/128):
"Checklist for Washing Plants 51 Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation No
2. Line/Unlined Water Storage Yes Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit No (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water No Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance No Energy Water Raw Material Finished Products Manpower
6. Boundary Wall No
7. Green Belt or Boundary No
8. Display Board No
9. Periodic Health Check-up No
10. UPPCB Consent Yes
11. UP State Ground water - - 10 KLD से कम Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance No
13. Any other (IX) Naveen Silica Sand (page/129):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation Yes
2. Line/Unlined Water Storage No Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit Yes (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water Yes 52 Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance Energy Water No Raw Material Finished Products Manpower
6. Boundary Wall Yes
7. Green Belt or Boundary Yes
8. Display Board No
9. Periodic Health Check-up No
10. UPPCB Consent Yes
11. UP State Ground water No 10 KLD से Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD) कम
12. Record Maintenance No
13. Any other (X) M/s Chawla Silica Sand Trading Company (Lakhnauti) (page/130):
"Checklist for Mining Area Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Presence of pillars Yes
2. Geo-Co-ordinates on pillars Yes
3. Approach Road Status Yes
4. Fugitive Emission No N/A
5. Storage of overburden/Top Yes Soil Management Status
6. Display Board Yes
7. CCTV Camera Yes
8. Green Belt/Plantation Yes
9. Weigh Bridge Yes
10. Benching In Mining Area Yes Depth Up to 3 metres of Pit
11. Transportation-Dust Yes Suppression Measures (Water Sprinkling) 53
12. Common Facilities Toilets Yes Drinking Water First Aid Box Safety Equipments
13. Record Maintenance Yes (XI) Smt. Nirmal Rani (Sonauri, Bikapur Chatahra, Gurehta) (page/131):
"Checklist for Mining Area Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No Yes No .
1. Presence of pillars Yes -
2. Geo-Co-ordinates on pillars Yes -
3. Approach Road Status Yes
4. Fugitive Emission - - N/A
5. Storage of overburden/Top No Soil Management Status
6. Display Board Yes -
7. CCTV Camera Yes -
8. Green Belt/Plantation No
9. Weigh Bridge Yes -
10 Benching In Mining Area Yes -
. Depth Up to 3 metres of Pit
11 Transportation-Dust Yes -
. Suppression Measures
(Water Sprinkling)
12 Common Facilities
. Toilets Yes -
Drinking Water
First Aid Box
Safety Equipments
13 Record Maintenance Yes -
.
54
36. The third check list was submitted by Sh. Pushp Raj Singh, Additional Commissioner (Administration), Prayagraj on behalf of two members Committee comprising Jai Prakash, Joint Director, Geology and Mining and himself vide letter dated 14.05.2022 in respect of one silica sand mining and 09 washing plants.
37. The mining area pertains to Ashok Kumar Bajpeyee, Village-
Purabuldu, Prayagraj and check list (page/93) reads as under:
"1- Shree Ashok Kumar Bajpeyee S/o Late D.N.Bajpeyee (Res.109, Parerahat Rambag), Lease Area- Teh- Bara, Vill- Purabuldu, Prayagraj:
"Checklist for Mining Area Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Presence of pillars Yes - -
2. Geo-Co-ordinates on Yes - -
pillars
3. Approach Road Status Yes - Temporary
4. Fugitive Emission Yes - Not proper Arrangement for fugitive emission.
5. Storage of Yes - -
overburden/Top Soil
Management Status
6. Display Board Yes - -
7. CCTV Camera - No CCTV camera installed
at stone crushing plant.
About 845 meter far from
lease area near main
road.
8. Green Belt/Plantation Yes - 25 plants and tree seen
9. Weigh Bridge Yes - Outside of the mining
area about 845 meter
near main road
10. Benching In Mining Area Yes - In mining area less than
Depth Up to 3 metres of 3 meter pits seen
55
Pit
11. Transportation-Dust - No Water sprinker not seen
Suppression Measures in the lease area
(Water Sprinkling)
12. Common Facilities- -
Toilets - No
Drinking Water - - Temporary arrangement
by Labours
First Aid Box - No Not seen in Spot
Safety Equipments - - Not seen in Spot
13. Record Maintenance - -
ां प्लांट क्तथि है।
नोट:- 1. मलइनिांग ्ीज एररयल में मसम्कल सैंड वलम ग ीं करने में
2. उपजस्थि प्रतितनधध द्वारा अवगि कराया गया कक सससलका वास ग प्राकृतिक िल प्रयोग ककया िािा है। िोकक उनकी ल ि एररया के अन्िगगि जस्थि है।
3. अस्थाई वाटर फ्लो मीटर पजम्पींग सेट के साथ लगा हुआ दे खा गया।
4. ल ि एररया में मिदरू ों की रहने की स्थायी व्यवस्था नह ीं की गयी"
38. Check lists of 09 Washing Plants of M/s Krishna Minerals, Benipur; Girdhari Lal Chawla & Sons, Benipur; Narayan Datt Tiwari (Silica washing plant) Benipur; New Triveni Minerals, Lakhanpur; Silica Khanij Udyog, Lakhanpur; Adhishwar Construction and Mineral Co., Parvejabad; Vandana Singh (Stone Silica Washing Plant), Bankipur; Jai Shree Trading Co., Bargari; and Bara White Stone Heights Pvt. Ltd., Parvejabad (at pages 94 to 102 of paper book) provide following informations:
(I) M/s Krishna Minerals, Benipur, Shankargarh, Prayagraj (p/94):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation Yes - In open area 56
2. Line/Unlined Water Yes - -
Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit Yes - -
(Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water Yes - Partially Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance Yes - Computrised Log book.
Not certified.
Energy Yes By Generator.
Water Yes Borewell.
Raw Material Yes
Finished Products Yes
Manpower Yes Registered not properly
maintain.
6. Boundary Wall Yes - -
7. Green Belt or Boundary Yes - -
8. Display Board Yes - -
9. Periodic Health Check-up - No -
10. UPPCB Consent Yes - -
11. UP State Ground water Yes - -
Board/CGWA (If more
than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance Yes - Not properly maintain.
13. Any other - - -
नोट- ीं प्लान्ट पेट्रोल पम्प बाउन्री से सटा हुआ है। दोनों की बाउण्ड्री एक ह है।
1-वास ग
ीं प्लान्ट प्रयागराि-बाींदा रोड से सटा हुआ है।"
2-वास ग (II) Shri Girdhari Lal Chawla & Sons, Benipur, Shankargarh, Prayagraj (p/95):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation Yes - In open area. No security major
2. Line/Unlined Water Yes - -
Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit Yes - -57
(Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water - No -
Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance Yes - Not certified. Temporary Energy Yes - By Generator Water Yes - Borewell Raw Material Yes -
Finished Products Yes -
Manpower - No Registered not maintain
6. Boundary Wall - No
7. Green Belt or Boundary Yes - Few Plant-1 Mango Tree, 2
Sheesam Tree
8. Display Board - No -
9. Periodic Health Check-up - No -
10. UPPCB Consent Yes - -
11. UP State Ground water Yes - -
Board/CGWA (If more
than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance Yes - Not properly maintain and
temporary
13. Any other - -
(III) Narayan Datt Tiwari (Silica Washing Plant) Benipur,
Shankargarh, Prayagraj (p/96):
"Checklist for Washing Plants
Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation Yes - Not properly maintain.
2. Line/Unlined Water - No -
Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit - No -
(Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water - No -
Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance Yes - Not properly maintain.
Energy Yes - Electricity and Generator
58
Water Yes - Borewell
Raw Material Yes -
Finished Products Yes -
Manpower - No Not any Record seen
6. Boundary Wall Yes - Not Proper
7. Green Belt or Boundary Yes - Few Plant-1 Mango Tree, 1
Mahua, 2 Uke Liptis, 1
Pipal
8. Display Board - No -
9. Periodic Health Check-up - No -
10. UPPCB Consent Yes - -
11. UP State Ground water - - Not seen
Board/CGWA (If more
than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance Yes - Not properly maintain and
temporary
13. Any other - - -
नोट- ीं प्लान्ट स वरािपुर माकेट और बस्िी के मध्य सड़क के ककनारें जस्थि
1-वास ग
है।
2-मौके पर उपजस्थि प्रतितनधध द्वारा अवगि कराया गया कक यह प्लाींट नया ववकससि ककया िा रहा है।
3-पजचिम िरफ हाईटें न िार व टावर जस्थि है।"
(IV) New Triveni Minerals, Lakhanpur, Bara, Prayagraj (p/97):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation Yes - Not properly maintain.
2. Line/Unlined Water Yes - -
Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit - No -
(Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water - No -
Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance Yes - Not properly maintain.59
Energy Yes - Generator
Water Yes - Borewell
Raw Material Yes -
Finished Products Yes -
Manpower - No Not any Record seen
6. Boundary Wall Yes - Not Proper
7. Green Belt or Boundary Yes - 15 Plant and Tree Seen
8. Display Board - No -
9. Periodic Health Check-up - No -
10. UPPCB Consent Yes - -
11. UP State Ground water - - Not seen
Board/CGWA (If more
than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance - No -
13. Any other - - -
(V) Silica Khanij Udyog, Lakhanpur, Bara, Prayagraj (p/98):
"Checklist for Washing Plants
Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation Yes - Not properly maintain.
2. Line/Unlined Water Yes - -
Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit Yes - Temporary Arrangement (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water - No -
Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance - No -
Energy Yes - Generator
Water Yes - Borewell
Raw Material Yes -
Finished Products Yes -
Manpower Yes - 6 persons but no report
maintain.
6. Boundary Wall - No -
7. Green Belt or Boundary Yes - 3 Plant and Tree Seen
8. Display Board - No -
9. Periodic Health Check-up - No -
60
10. UPPCB Consent Yes - -
11. UP State Ground water Yes -
Board/CGWA (If more
than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance - No -
13. Any other - - -
(VI) Adhishwar Construction and Mineral Co., Parvejabad, Bara,
Prayagraj (p/99):
"Checklist for Washing Plants
Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation - No -
2. Line/Unlined Water Yes - Natural Water Storage Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit - No Temporary Arrangement (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water - No -
Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance - No -
Energy Yes - Generator
Water Yes - Natural Water Storage/Pit
Raw Material Yes -
Finished Products Yes -
Manpower - No No any information.
6. Boundary Wall - No -
7. Green Belt or Boundary Yes - 3 Plant and Tree Seen
8. Display Board - No -
9. Periodic Health Check-up - No -
10. UPPCB Consent Yes - -
11. UP State Ground water - No
Board/CGWA (If more
than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance - No -
13. Any other - - -
61
(VII) Vandana Singh (Stone Silica Washing Plant), Bankipur, Bara, Prayagraj (p/100):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation - No -
2. Line/Unlined Water - No Dry Water Pit Seen Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit - No Temporary Arrangement (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water - No -
Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance - No -
Energy Yes - Generator
Water Yes - Hand Pump
Raw Material - No
Finished Products - No
Manpower - No No any information.
6. Boundary Wall Yes - Temporary
7. Green Belt or Boundary - No -
8. Display Board - No -
9. Periodic Health Check-up - No -
10. UPPCB Consent Yes - -
11. UP State Ground water - No
Board/CGWA (If more
than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance - No -
13. Any other - - -
(VIII) Jai Shree Trading Co., Bargari, Prayagraj (p/101):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation - No -62
2. Line/Unlined Water - No Dry Water Pit Seen.
Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit - No Temporary Arrangement (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water - No -
Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance - No -
Energy Yes - Generator
Water - No
Raw Material Yes -
Finished Products - No
Manpower - No No any information
6. Boundary Wall Yes - -
7. Green Belt or Boundary Yes - 3 Plant and Tree Seen
8. Display Board - No -
9. Periodic Health Check-up - No -
10. UPPCB Consent Yes - -
11. UP State Ground water - No
Board/CGWA (If more
than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance - No -
13. Any other - - -
(IX) Bara White Stone Heights Pvt. Ltd., Parvejabad, Prayagraj
(p/102):
"Checklist for Washing Plants
Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation - No -
2. Line/Unlined Water - No Dry Water Pit Seen.
Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit - No Temporary Arrangement (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water - No -
Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance - No -
Energy Yes - Generator
63
Water - No
Raw Material Yes -
Finished Products - No
Manpower - No No any information
6. Boundary Wall - No -
7. Green Belt or Boundary - No -
8. Display Board - No -
9. Periodic Health Check-up - No -
10. UPPCB Consent Yes - -
11. UP State Ground water - No
Board/CGWA (If more
than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance - No -
13. Any other - - -
39. Fourth Report of two members' Committee comprising Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Bara and Regional Officer, UPPCB has been submitted by Regional Officer, UPPCB vide letter dated 13.05.2022 (page/132 of paper book) in respect of one Mining Lease of Chawla Silica Sand Trading Co., New Janwa, and 10 Washing Plants namely, Anupam Enterprises Garha Katra; Bhagwan Das Industries, Shivrajpur; Allahabad Sand, Bargarhi; Ashok Kumar Bajpeyee, Bargadhi; Narayan Enterprises (Baba Vigneshwer Minerals), Baragadhi; K.R. Minerals, Bihariya; Agrawal Mines and Minerals, Ramna; Gupta Enterprises, Ghond, Garha, Katra;
Badri Prasad Amar Nath, Shivrajpur; and Glass and Foundry Sand, Bargadhi. These check lists read as under:
(I) Chawla Silica Sand Trading Co., New Janwa (p/133):
"Checklist for Mining area Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No 64
1. Presence of pillars ✓
2. Geo-Co-ordinates on pillars ✓
3. Approach Road Status ✓
4. Fugitive Emission ✓
5. Storage of overburden/Top ✓ No defined Soil Management Status dismantled place for top soil storage
6. Display Board ✓
7. CCTV Camera ✓
8. Green Belt/Plantation ✓ Approx 75 plants
9. Weigh Bridge ✓
10. Benching In Mining Area ✓ N.A. Depth Up to 3 metres of Pit
11. Transportation-Dust ✓ Suppression Measures (Water Sprinkling)
12. Common Facilities Toilets ✓ Drinking Water First Aid Box Safety Equipments
13. Record Maintenance ✓ Form A, J, K Attendance Register available but not upto date. Stock/dispatch manually maintained. Not computerized."
(II) Anupam Enterprises Garha, Katra (p/134):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation ✓ Functionality could not be checked because of no electricity
2. Line/Unlined Water ✓ Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit ✓ (Kutcha-Groundwater 65 recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water ✓ Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance No proper Energy maintenance of Water ✓ ✓ records Raw Material ✓ Finished Products ✓ Manpower
6. Boundary Wall ✓
7. Green Belt or Boundary ✓ Approx. 35 plants/ trees
8. Display Board ✓
9. Periodic Health Check-up
10. UPPCB Consent ✓
11. UP State Ground water ✓ Expired on Board/CGWA (If more than 30/09/21.
10 KLD) More than 10 KLD
extraction since
18/04/22
according to
manual records.
12. Record Maintenance ✓
13. Any other
(III) Shri Bhagwan Das Industries, Shivrajpur (p/135):
"Checklist for Washing Plants
Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation ✓
2. Line/Unlined Water ✓ Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit ✓ (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water ✓ Sprinkler System 66
5. Log Book maintenance No proper Energy ✓ maintenance of Water records Raw Material Finished Products Manpower
6. Boundary Wall ✓ Incomplete
7. Green Belt or Boundary ✓ Approx. 60 trees
8. Display Board ✓
9. Periodic Health Check-up
10. UPPCB Consent ✓
11. UP State Ground water ✓ Less than 10 KLD Board/CGWA (If more than required for 10 KLD) washing.
12. Record Maintenance ✓
13. Any other -
(IV) Allahabad Sand, Bargarhi, Prayagraj (p/136):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation ✓ No Log Book
2. Line/Unlined Water ✓ Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit ✓ (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water ✓ Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance No record Energy ✓ available. No Water storage Raw Material permission.
Finished Products Manpower
6. Boundary Wall ✓
7. Green Belt or Boundary ✓ Approx. 100 trees 67
8. Display Board ✓
9. Periodic Health Check-up ✓
10. UPPCB Consent ✓
11. UP State Ground water ✓ Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance ✓
13. Any other -
(V) Ashok Kumar Bajpayee, Bargadhi (p/137):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation ✓ Natural Source
2. Line/Unlined Water ✓ Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit ✓ (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water ✓ Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance No proper Energy maintenance of Water log books Raw Material Finished Products Manpower
6. Boundary Wall ✓
7. Green Belt or Boundary ✓ Approx. >500 trees in entire mining area
8. Display Board ✓ Inside mining area
9. Periodic Health Check-up ✓ As confirmed by labor on site
10. UPPCB Consent ✓
11. UP State Ground water ✓ Natural Source Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD) 68
12. Record Maintenance ✓
13. Any other (VI) Narayan Enterprises (Baba Vigneshwer Minerals), Bargadhi, Prayagraj (p/138):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation ✓
2. Line/Unlined Water ✓ Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit ✓ (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water ✓ Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance No record Energy available on plant Water site Raw Material Finished Products Manpower
6. Boundary Wall ✓ Incomplete
7. Green Belt or Boundary ✓ Approx. 40 trees
8. Display Board ✓
9. Periodic Health Check-up ✓
10. UPPCB Consent ✓
11. UP State Ground water ✓ Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance ✓
13. Any other -
The plant is not found operational, but water consumption found more than 5KLD to less than 10KLD."69
(VII) K.R. Minerals, Bihariya Shankargarh (p/139):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation ✓
2. Line/Unlined Water ✓ Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit ✓ (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water ✓ Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance ✓ No proper Energy maintenance of Water log books Raw Material Finished Products Manpower
6. Boundary Wall ✓ Incomplete
7. Green Belt or Boundary ✓ Total more than 70 trees
8. Display Board ✓
9. Periodic Health Check-up ✓
10. UPPCB Consent ✓
11. UP State Ground water ✓ Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance ✓
13. Any other New unit. Operation not yet started."
(VIII) Agrawal Mines and Minerals, Ramna (p/140):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force 70 Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation ✓
2. Line/Unlined Water ✓ Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit ✓ (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water ✓ Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance No log books Energy maintained Water Raw Material Finished Products Manpower
6. Boundary Wall ✓ Incomplete
7. Green Belt or Boundary ✓ Approx. 100 trees
8. Display Board ✓
9. Periodic Health Check-up ✓
10. UPPCB Consent ✓
11. UP State Ground water - Not required Board/CGWA (If more than natural source 10 KLD) (pit)
12. Record Maintenance ✓
13. Any other -
(IX) Gupta Enterprises, Ghond, Garha, Katra, Prayagraj (p/141):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation ✓ -
2. Line/Unlined Water ✓ Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit ✓ (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water ✓ 71 Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance Energy ✓ Water Raw Material Finished Products Manpower
6. Boundary Wall ✓
7. Green Belt or Boundary ✓ More than 500 trees
8. Display Board ✓
9. Periodic Health Check-up ✓ As per labor on site
10. UPPCB Consent ✓
11. UP State Ground water Applied Uses less than 10 Board/CGWA (If more than KLD 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance ✓
13. Any other (X) Badri Prasad Amar Nath, Shivrajpur, Prayagraj (p/142):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation ✓
2. Line/Unlined Water ✓ Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit ✓ (Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water ✓ Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance Energy ✓ Water ✓ Raw Material Finished Products ✓ Manpower ✓
6. Boundary Wall ✓ Incomplete 72
7. Green Belt or Boundary ✓ Total approx. 50 trees
8. Display Board ✓
9. Periodic Health Check-up ✓ As confirmed by labor
10. UPPCB Consent ✓
11. UP State Ground water Applied less than Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance ✓
13. Any other (XI) Glass and Foundry Sand Bargadhi, Prayagraj (p/143):
"Checklist for Washing Plants Visit of Distt/Tehsil Level Task Force Sl. Check Points Availability Remarks No. Yes No
1. Flow meter Installation - - -
2. Line/Unlined Water - - -
Storage Tanks
3. Rain water Harvesting Pit - - -
(Kutcha-Groundwater recharge)
4. Dust Management/Water - - -
Sprinkler System
5. Log Book maintenance - - -
Energy Water Raw Material Finished Products Manpower
6. Boundary Wall - - -
7. Green Belt or Boundary - - -
8. Display Board - - -
9. Periodic Health Check-up - - -
10. UPPCB Consent - - -
11. UP State Ground water - - -
Board/CGWA (If more than 10 KLD)
12. Record Maintenance - - -
13. Any other - - -73
Plant closed due to its own reasons. Inspection could not be conducted."
40. Joint Committee's Second Report has further mentioned that there were 07 operational Silica sand mines and 41 operational Silica washing plants. Following directions were issued by Joint Committee in respect of mining leases and washing plants:
S. Details of Committees finding Directions issued N. Area Summarised 1 07 1. In all the lease area 1. Mining Officer has Running Weigh Bridge, CCTV, issued directions to all Silica Display Board, the lease holders to Mining Environment Clearance, follow the Mining Plan Lease Area Common Facility & for plantation yearly Maintenance of records, as well as unit specific Pillars with coordinates, action plan for Approach Road, Present afforestation prepared Benching Status in mining by committee headed area were found as per by SDM, Bara, directions Prayagraj. (Annexure No. 10)
2. Green Belt/Plantation, needs to be improved.
2 1. Water Flow Meter R.O. UPPCB Prayagraj
installation, Rain Water has :-
Harvesting, Record (i) issued directions for
Keeping, UPPCB Consent, completion of unlined
Display Board, CGWA storage tank in 15
Consent for above 10 KLD days.
Water use were found as
per direction issued. (ii) issued directions to all
the washing units to
2. 02 Units need to convert follow the plantation
water storage tank from as per Consent order
unlined to lined storage as well as unit specific
tank & 05 units were action plan
found to be under afforestation for
construction. prepared by
74
committee headed by
3. Out of 41 silica SDM, Bara, Prayagraj.
washing units 06 units
were closed by UPPCB (iii) Direction issued to for non compliance and convert temporary 02 units were closed boundary wall to due to their own permanent boundary reasons. wall structure in next 03 months.
4. More plantations is required in existing Green (iv) to prepare a monthly Belt area of the units. register for periodic health check- ups.
5. The temporary boundary (Annexure No. 11) wall to be replaced by permanent boundary walls.
6. Maintenance of the records of Health Check up as during the visit it was found that Health check up were done but records were not maintained.
41. Joint Committee also made certain recommendations as under:
"Committee Recommendations
1. In all the silica mining leases area should be demarcated for yearly plantation with signage as per mining plan.
2. Installed weigh bridge at the mining site should be fully integrated with centralised command centre situated in Directorate of Geology & Mining like the weigh bridges installed at washing units of said leases are integrated with centralised command centre situated in Directorate of Geology & Mining.
3. R.O., UPPCB in consultation with UP Ground Water Department explore the possibility of minimising ground water use by increasing sedimentation tanks of the washing units in a 75 scientific manner, to develop a eco-friendly model for silica washing units within a period of 03 months.
4. The committee formed by District Magistrate Prayagraj by his order dated 22.04.2022 including Revenue Department, Forest Department, R.O., UPPCB, Agriculture, Mining Department to prepare a working plan for the eco-restoration of the abandoned Mines. The committee in next 06 months shall prepare a work plan for eco-restoration of the abandoned mines of Shankargrah area of Prayagraj. Annexed as Annexure. no. 5."
Tribunal's Order dated 01.08.2022:
42. The above Report dated 17.05.2022 was considered by Tribunal on 01.08.2022. Tribunal after going through various record as also Joint Committee Report, photographs and inspection Reports appended thereto, found that Joint Committee Report did not match with the particular of the inspection Report where several deficiencies were noticed; no proper record of mined material was kept nor physical verification of the sites was carried out at the site; all sites were claimed to have been inspected in a single day and observations were based on hearsay information, which were not physically verified; it was presumed that there were installed weighing machines, CCTV, pillars, etc. and there existed green belts, display boards, ECs and consents; no compensation was assessed for the violations found and mentioned in the Joint Committee's Report dated 13.12.2021.
43. Tribunal expressed its displeasure by observing that much was expected from Committee of such senior functionaries but they have failed to perform and submitted an inadequate Report. Tribunal directed that its dissatisfaction with regard to inadequate Report by such senior 76 functionaries should be conveyed to the concerned through Chief Secretary, UP.
44. Having said so, Tribunal found that further exercise was required to verify current status of compliance of environmental norms and making violators accountable for the past violations. It accordingly constituted a fresh (Third) Committee and issued certain directions in para 7 of the order dated 01.08.2022, which read as under:
"7. In view of above, further exercise is required to verify current status of compliance of environmental norms and making violators accountable for the past violations, following due process. We direct concerned statutory authorities to proceed further in the matter as per law. Further, we constitute a fresh five-member Committee to be headed by Regional Director, MoEF&CC with Regional Director, CPCB, Member Secretary, State PCB, District Magistrate, Prayagraj and nominee of Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), Government of India as members. The State PCB and Regional Director, MoEF&CC will jointly act as nodal agency for coordination. The Committee may meet within one month. It will be open to the Committee to co-opt any other individual/institution. The Committee may undertake visit to the site and except for such visit, conduct proceedings physically or online. The Committee may verify the compliance status of the entire area in question in a holistic manner as well as in respect of each of the lease holder and washing units and complete its work preferably within three months, by preparing an appropriate inspection strategy in its first meeting or as soon as possible. The inspections have to be factual, illustrating scientific methodology adopted for mining, ground water usage with due permissions, restoration of mined areas, overall compliance with CTO conditions extent of damages observed in terms of water and air and other associated aspects of environmental management. The local Administration may extend logistic facilities and cooperation including, security. In case violations are found, the Committee may also assess the compensation in respect of each of the violating unit. The State PCB and applicant may put all the units found to be prima facie causing any violation to notice of these proceedings so that they may file their response before this Tribunal before the next date by e-mail at judicial- [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR 77 Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF. The Committee may file its report within four months by e-mail and simultaneously upload the same on the website of the State PCB so that the concerned units may access the same for filing their response. If any other documents are required by the project proponents (PP) for filing their response, the State PCB may place them on its website so that such documents can also be accessed by the PPs."
45. The above directions show that earlier Joint Committee of High level functionaries did not perform their duty properly, therefore, Tribunal constituted a new Committee (in substance Third Committee) comprising Regional Director, MoEF&CC with Regional Director, CPCB, Member Secretary, UPPCB, District Magistrate, Prayagraj and nominee of Indian Bureau of Mines, Government of India.
Interim Report dated 03.02.2023 filed on behalf of Third Committee by Dr. A.K. Gupta, Scientist 'E', MoEF&CC, Regional Office, (Central Region) in Tribunal on 04.02.2023 (at page 158 of paper book):
46. Though Tribunal constituted 05 members Joint Committee with the specific designations, except the representative of Indian Bureau of Mines, Government of India who had to nominate its representative, but the Joint Committee which actually carried out Tribunal's order dated 01.08.2022, on its own, changed its composition and following constituted Joint Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'Altered Joint Committee') to submit Report dated 03.02.2023:
"a. Dr. A.K. Gupta, Scientist-E, Integrated Regional Office (CZ), MoEFF&CC, Lucknow b. Shri Pukhraj Nenival, Regional Controller of Mines, IBM, Jabalpur c. Shri Rajendra D. Patil, Scientist-D, CPCB RD-Lucknow d. Shri Harsh Dev Pandey, ADM-Prayagraj e. Shri R.K. Singh, Regional Officer, UPPCB, Prayagraj 78 f. Shri P.K. Rai, District Mining Officer, Parayagraj."
47. As mentioned in the report, above Altered Joint Committee conducted inspection of the site on 01.09.2022 - 02.09.2022 and 16.11.2022 - 18.11.2022. Its observations on Silica sand mining activities and Silica sand washing plants are as under:
"5. Major observation of the committee on Silica sand mining 5.1 As per information collected from the District Mining officer, Parayagraj, and Regional Office, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control (UPPCB), Parayagraj during the meeting/inspection of the site, till the date a total of 25 mining leases have been granted for silica sand mining in the District Prayagraj that covers around 16604.092- hectare land with a total sanction production capacity is 14,10,509 TPA (calculation based on only 12 mines). Out of 25 leases, 18 leases have already expired, and only 07 leases with an area of 136.81 hectares (5, 86,160 TPA) are active as of now. The status of the active leases and their statutory permissions viz. mining plan, environmental Clearance (EC), consent to operate (CTO), and lease-wise compliances, etc are tabulated below:
SN Name of the lease Area Sanction Attached (hectare) production as capacity Annexure 1 M/s Chawla Silica 16.75 1,50,000 TPA B Sand Trading Company 2 M/s Chawla Silica 5.49 26,160 TPA C Sand Trading Company 3 Smt. Amita Gupta & 17.75 25,000 TPA D Shri Abhilesh Kumar Gupta 4 Shri Rajiv Kumar 3.59 Not E Chawla mentioned* 5 Smt. Nirmal Rani 48.86 60000 TPA F Chawla 6 Shri Ashok Kumar 29.80 3,00,000TPA G Bajpai 7 Shri Abhinandan 14.57 25,000 TPA H 79 Tiwari Total lease area 136.81 5,86,160.00 TPA * Not mentioned in EC and CTO 5.2 As per information provided by the state mining department, Prayagraj, only 07 valid leaseholders are reported for silica sand mining in district Parayagraj with a total mining capacity area around 6,00,000 TPA (actual 5,86,160 TPA). Out of 07 mines, 02 mines do not have a valid CTO from the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) at the time of inspection of the committee.
Thereafter, these 02 mines also obtained the CTO from UPPCB. Whereas, as per information provided by Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) in district Prayagraj 42 Silica sand washing plants have valid CTO, having a total capacity is around 50,000 TPA.
5.3 It has been observed that most of the lease holders are undertaking mining operations out of their granted lease area.
5.4 Majority of mines extracted/ sell more than one mineral (Silica sand, sandstone, Gitti) and pay a royalty of only one mineral having less royalty which has been resulting in the significant loss of government royalty during the mining and washing of the silica sand mineral & gitti boulder in Tehsil-Bara district Parayagraj.
5.5 During discussion with local administration committee observed that the mining in area in question started way back before the time of Independence. As the mining started by Rani Kumari Ba, in way back to 1940s and 50s have been continued till 2013. During mining various pit was created which is still found in the area in question, and known as abandoned mine.
5.6 Some corner of the area in question is facing illegal mining, volume of mining is not measurable, as. The intensity of illegal mining may be assumed that the committee found wires of detonators in illegal mining site, which is used for blasting.
5.7 An ample number of illegal storage sites (loose & packed both) were observed. Additionally, local administration are 80 issuing the storage licence as per U.P. mineral storage & transportation rules, 2018, as informed, 27 storage licence has been issued so far.
5.8 Number of abandoned mining (including expired lease) pit spread all over the area in question. Out of all some pit mining activity has been observed.
5.9 Excessive production of minerals has been observed in the majority of leases, in comparison to their annual capacity mentioned in their respective Environmental Clearance.
5.10 Almost all leaseholders are not complying with the term and conditions stipulated in their Environmental Clearance, mining plan, and consent to operate. 5.11 Almost all leaseholders have neither developed safety zone/ plantations nor undertaken systematic mining in a scientific manner as per approved mining plans etc. 5.12 A few washing plant has been operated very close to the reservoir part of Garhwa fort (A protected monument under the Archaeological Survey of India), which need to be protected. 5.13 Various deep pits have been created by leaseholders during un-systematic mining, filled with rainwater left abandoned; need to be fenced for minimizing any accidents, etc. 5.14 Few consent to operate (CTO) of silica sand mining has been issued for sand/morrum mining instead of silica sand, which need to be consonance with mining plane/Environmental Clearance.
5.15 Most of the consent to operate (CTO) has been issued by UPPCB without mentioning the production capacity of minerals.
5.16 Some of the leaseholders are operating the washing plants within their lease area, which is not permitted in Environmental clearance. The same has also not been mentioned in the consent issued to such units by UPPCB. 5.17 Some of the lease holders are operating dryers for drying 81 washed silica sand in their lease area, which is neither permitted in Environmental clearance nor consent to operate (CTO).
5.18 Some of erecting boundary pillars are found after the DGPS Survey.
5.19 Deviation is found in the mentioned production proposals Vs actual annual production Achieved in almost all the mines. 5.20 Some of the mines have excavation in consonance with the production raised from the granted lease area 5.21 The actual excavation made from the granted lease areas was ascertained and which is matching for last year's production only; whereas mines are granted almost 40-50 years ago. It needs to be tallied with the total production raised from the area since the beginning. The same could not be ascertained in absence of requisite information.
5.22 Qualified technical persons are not employed in these mines for proper working.
5.23 No systematic exploration is done in the area resulting in haphazard/rat hole mining.
6. Major observation of the committee Silica sand washing plant 6.1 As per information provided by Regional Officer, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Boards (UPPCB), presently total 42 consent to operate has been granted for silica sand washing plant in Lalapur, Bankipur, Janwa, Dhara, Kaitha, Lakhnauti and Pratappur area of the Shankargarh Block, tehsil Bara, district Prayagraj. Detailed of washing plant and CTO number its validity and production capacity is tabulated:
Annexed as Annexure I. 6.2 As per information provided by District Mining officer, only 07 mining lease of silica sand mining have been granted in the district Prayagraj with total capacity of the mining is 5,86, 160 TPA (48,846 Tonn per month), whereas, total 42 washing plant has been granted CTO which total capacity is 49,375 Tonn per month.
6.3 The request was made to UPPCB to ask the washing units to 82 ensure their operations during the visit of committee. However, only a few washing plants were found operational during the two visits of the committee. Similarly, no concerned persons were available at the site of these washing units to explain about working mechanism, material balance, wastewater management, and compliance in accordance with the statutory requirements.
6.4 Due to which, committee felt difficulty in assessing the actual working mechanism and wastewater management through these washing plants. However, committee drawn the following conclusions (in general) based on the observed status.
6.5 It has been observed that the subject mentioned in CTO granted to washing plant is not specific, in majority of cases subject of CTO are screening, crushing stone, washing of sand and silica sand.
6.6 It has been observed that the majority of washing plant having two or three washing units in same premise, out of all various washing plant are under running condition, whereas, they have obtained consent to operate (CTO) for only one washing plant.
6.7 The borewell is the primarily source of the water supply in these washing units. The UPPCB informed that the consent was issued to these units only after ensuring availability of the NOC from CGWA/CGWB for groundwater withdrawal.
6.8 Gravity settling pits/concrete tanks are the only wastewater treatment units provided by these washing units. These settling pits are constructed below the ground surface and mostly found filled with the mud.
6.9 The mechanical sludge removal system is not provided in these settling pits. The settled sludge is removed manually through the Pocland Machine during which the possibility of damage to these settling tanks cannot be ruled out.
6.10 The removed sludge is dried in open areas and used for filling of the low-lying areas.
6.11 It is informed that the treated wastewater is reused in the 83 process and no treated wastewater is discharged outside the premises of these washing units. However, the committee observed the bypass arrangement which allow them to pollute surrounding environment.
6.12 It has been observed that the majority of washing plant is not having proper water recycling system in the washing plant. It is required to formulate guidelines for water recycling system for silica sand project and executed for conservation of the ground water. Besides, it is also required to fix the responsibility of the concern department for their compliance.
Ground water abstraction permission and its compliance need to be verified by the concern department for conservation of the water.
6.13 It has been observed that mineral stock in some washing plant area is much higher than the mineral excavated from their own lease, which shows irregular mining in the area in question. Similarly, these washing units didn't obtain permission for the storage of the minerals from mining department. And the storage guideline to control the fugitive emission was not strictly followed. 6.14 It has been observed that the majority of the washing plant unit are using plastic bag for storage/selling of silica sand using their brand name etc. For the purpose of using plastic bags by the producers & manufacturers it is required to take permission under Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in Plastic Waste Management Rule, 2016. As such no EPR Authorisation has been obtained by these units. 6.15 Washing plant of M/s Allahabad Sand, Garhwa operated resin coated silica plant without valid Consent to operate (CTO) and, hazardous waste authorization for hazardous chemicals generated during operation as well as PESO (Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO)) for storage of significant quantity of LDO.
6.16 In addition to the permitted washing units, the structures were found at many locations which indicates about the existence of illegal washing units. Such washing units are mostly placed at the remote locations inside the forest areas. 6.17 The inventory about the mine from which they have received the material was not maintained/provided to 84 the committee.
6.18 The approach road to these units is not maintained properly. And as the minerals are transported only through the road transport the substantial contribution of the road dust can be expected during operation of these units. Similarly, the internal roads can also be another source of the non-point air pollution in this area."
48. The above Committee also mentioned the facts relating to action taken by local administration, mining and environmental compensation as under:
"7. Action taken by local administration, Mining
7. 1 Total 6 FIR lodged till date against illegal mining the area in question, out of 6, 5 FIR logged by local administration during/after Hon'ble NGT Committee inspection, (List annexed as Annexure J) 7.2 Around 1527.2 Cubic meter silica sand seized during/after inspection of the Hon'ble NGT committee at 5 different places (List annexed as Annexure K)."
49. The Committee made its own recommendations which are 37 in total and read as under:
"9. Committee Recommendation 9 .1 Storage of silica sand should only be allowed to leaseholders, or to a person who wants a license for processing along with storage and wants to work like an ancillary to a lease, as per the prevailing rules.
9.2 Most of the places where illegal mining operations were found, the land is belonging to forest/ gram sabha/ expired lease. All land should be identified as belonging to forest or gram sabha and a signboard should be placed displaying rakba or khasra number/ area & ownership of land for controlling illegal silica sand mining in tehsil Bara district Parayagaraj.85
9.3 The washing plant located near the reservoir part of Garhwa fort (A protected monument under the Archaeological Survey of India) should be treated in accordance with the law.
9.4 For controlling illegal sand mining, local administration will have to identify and closure the illegal washing plant/ structure/ crusher I conveyor belt with immediate effect.
9.5 The committee observed a number of silica sand storage areas lying all around the area in question, local administration is in the process to give licenses to them for the storage of silica sand. The condition for having weighbridges and a PTZ camera with 30 days of the recording should be considered while issuing such licenses.
9.6 It has been observed that the permission of the dryer, crusher (Chakki), screening, washing, etc are not properly mentioned in the consent to operate (CTO) issued by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB). In view of the above it is of utmost importance to review all consent to operate (CTO) granted to the mining lease and washing plant within three months.
9.7 It is required to formulate the guidelines for washing plant land area (based on their capacity) to avoid overstocking the silica sand.
9.8 It is required to ban the use of mobile crushers (Chakki) in the silica sands industry to control the illegal handling and processing of the silica sand in the area in question.
9.9 It is required to setup Weight Bridge on all washing plant for verification of the incoming and outgoing mineral. 9.10 Capacity Building of the State DG M is required for approval of mining plan documents and subsequently its monitoring. 9.11 The rate of financial assurance needs to be enhanced for undertaking reclamation & rehabilitation activities against the area put to use for mining & allied activities per hectare, state mining department may strictly comply the mine closure programme.
86 9.12 State Govt. may take effective use of "Mining Surveillance System" in collaboration with BISAG-N [Bhaskaracharya National Institute for Space Application and Geo- informatics] to monitor incidences of Unauthorized mining by making use of space technology and superimposing mining lease area on satellite imagery which detects illegal mining within 500 meters radius of granted mineral concession and generates triggers.
9.13 A necessary exercise needs to be done for dividing the entire area into suitable blocks and put for auction after detailed exploration to fetch additional revenue in form of a bid premium. There may be a centralized system for marketing Silica sand.
9.14 The district administration and UPPCB can be asked to run a drive against the illegal washing units. They can be asked to conduct a drone survey to identify such units which are located in remote areas.
9.15 District administration can be asked to make stringent provisions for checking-up illegal mining, storage & transportation of minerals by constituting task forces in more frequency.
9.16 The DGM office and Regional Office of UPPCB shall be strengthened with additional manpower & advanced infrastructure facilities for strict vigilance on illegal mining activities and subsequent silica sand washing plant. 9.17 The washing units can be asked to install separate electromagnetic flow meters to measure water withdrawal, waste water generated, treated and recycled. These electromagnetic flow meters can be connected with the centralized server for monitoring purpose. 9.18 The washing units should have pucca/ cemented two stage settling tank with at least two standby pucca/ cemented pits for drying of the sand etc. 9.19 Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) may involve R&D institution likes., IIT-Kanpur, MNIT-Prayagraj, IIT-BHU for the designing of the pucca/ cemented two stage settling tank with at least two standby pucca/ cemented pits for drying of the sand.
87
9. 20 The amount collected on environmental compensation for excess mining be recovered from the concerned leaseholder and silica sand washing unit owner, operated without obtaining valid CTO or installed more than one washing plant without obtaining permission from UPPCB may be used for further R&D on various concern issues likes., designing of the water efficient washing plant/settling pond etc from reputes Institutes likes., IIT, CSIR-NEERI, IITR etc 9.21 Audit on the quantity permitted, quantity mined out, to use specific silica sand washing plant etc shall be conducted every year.
9.22 DGM and UPPCB, must meet frequently to resolve issue related with silica sands mining and washing plant by taking monthly/ quarterly /half yearly meeting.
9.23 Incorporating Star Rating Provision for minor minerals will help in Quality mining.
9.24 Mechanism for end-to-end tracking of mineral from mines to end users' needs to be devised.
9.25 Provision of a Group Vocational training center may be made for training/refresher training of HEMM operators as well as mine officials.
9.26 The committee is in opined to close illegal pits in the periphery of forest land by filling of fly ash/bottom ash available with existing thermal plant in district Parayagarj in light of the fly ash notification. And regarding other old pit/illegal pit, the mining department/revenue department may be asked to assess the feasibility of the further mineral extraction potential, based on which these pits may either be lease out or restoration activity may be carried out as mentioned above. 9.27 In case of illegal custody of the lease area by the previous leaseholder, the stringent action as per law need to be taken by concern department.
9.28 In case of washing plant, State pollution control board (UPPCB) can be asked to accord consent to operate (CTO) only after no objection certificate issued by mining 88 department only, such practice may certainly control the illegal mining and washery.
9.29 State Forest rules cannot permit to State mining department to grant the lease within 100 meters of the forest land, most of the illegal mining area in question has been found near the forest land.
9.30 In case of washing plant, State pollution control board (UPPCB) may accord consent to operate (CTO) only after no objection certificate issued by mining department only, such practice may certainly control the illegal mining and washery. 9.31 Earlier committee on same matter reported that the 83- washing unit existed in Shankargarh block, it has been informed by the UPPCB, that out of 83 only 35 washing unit have been legalise and remaining have been removed/ dismantle. In addition, UPPCB has granted permission for 7 new washing unit. During the visit the committee 13 washing plant which were closed earlier restarted their operation without any permission, which have been again remove/ dismantle by the UPPCB after visit of the committee.
9.32 Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) closed 13 illegal washing plant in year 2022 Tehsil Bara District Parayagraj, list of washing plant annexed as annexure- M. 9.33 Out of 7 silica sand mining leases, two mining (M/s Modi mineral, Ashok Bajpayee) has been found in operation without valid CTO, which has been granted CTO after the committee inspection, 9.34 M/s Prayag Quality Sand, having washing plant CTO for crushing of giiti /boulder instead of that they are washing silica sand.
9.35 Deposits of Silica Sand, Stone (Gitti & Boulder) & ordinary Sand have been reported in various parts of the district. Glass Sands deposits are found in Shankargarh & Lohgara (Tehsil Bara) & Building stone (kaimur Sandstone) is found in the southern parts of the district (Meja & Korao tahsil) & extracted either by blasting or by splitting the chief quarries.
899.36 Type of Mining in Allahabad is small-scale cluster type of mining, which was developed naturally in the course of decades of operation. In almost all cases, mining uses open pit or dredging mining methods with standard mining equipment. Opencast mining involves digging of pits and hillside excavation and is responsible especially for large-scale devastation of soils. Surface mining of silica is associated with the removal of vegetative cover combined with the stripping of topsoil, overburden and spoil materials. With such mines, the land surface over a considerable area is destroyed, and what is left behind may be unstable land, causing landslides, erosion, siltation, and polluted water. It disrupts ecosystems, scars the landscape, and destroys microbial communities resulting in degradation of forests. Such land is generally useless after the mining ends and may continue to cause environmental problems stretched beyond after the mine has been closed. These disturbances to the natural contour of the topography have repercussions, not only for those communities in the immediate vicinity but also for those inhabitants living in adjacent areas.
9.37 The local people rely mainly on the mining and exploitation of natural resources to develop their household economy. Mining in the area is providing employment directly or indirectly to people of the surrounding villages and their main occupation was mine labour in silica mines and in silica washing plants. Employment from mining was available throughout the year except in the rainy season when it is not conducive to mine due to the filling up of mining pits and shafts with water. Farming was an alternative source of income and bare subsistence."
Joint Committee's Report dated 23.02.2023 (Third Report) (at page 206 of paper book):
50. Thereafter, above Joint Committee who submitted interim Report dated 03.02.2023, submitted final Report dated 23.02.2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'Third Report'), stating that the site was inspected during 01.09.2022 - 02.09.2022 and 16.11.2022 - 18.11.2022.90
51. The major observations in respect to Silica sand mining given in the Third Report are as under:
"5. Major observation of the committee on Silica sand mining 5.1 As per information collected from the District Mining officer, Parayagraj, and Regional Office, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control (UPPCB), Parayagraj during the meeting/inspection of the site, till the date a total of 25 mining leases have been granted for silica sand mining in the District Prayagarj that covers around 16604.092-hectare land with a total sanction production capacity of 14,10,509 TPA (calculation based on only 12 mines). Out of 25 leases, 18 leases have already expired, and only 07 leases with an area of 136.81 hectares (5,86,160 TPA) are active as of now. The status of the active leases and their statutory permissions viz. mining plan, environmental Clearance (EC), consent to operate (CTO), and lease-wise compliances, etc are tabulated below:
S Name of the lease Area Sanction Details
N (hectare) production Attached
capacity as
Annexure
1. M/s Chawla 16.75 1,50,000 B
Silica Sand TPA
Trading Company
2. M/s Chawla 5.49 26,160 TPA C
Silica Sand
Trading Company
3. Smt. Arnita Gupta 17.75 25,000 TPA D
& Shri Abhilesh
Kumar Gupta
4. Shri Rajiv Kumar 3.59 Not E
Chawla mentioned*
5. Smt. Nirmal Rani 48.86 60,000 TPA F
Chawla
6. Shri Ashok Kumar 29.80 3,00,000TPA G
Bajpai
7. Shri Abhinandan 14.57 25,000 TPA H
Tiwari
Total lease area 136.81 5,86, 160 TPA
* Not mentioned in EC and CTO
5.2 Out of abovementioned 07 mines, 02 mines do not have a 91 valid CTO from the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) at the time of inspection of the committee. Thereafter, these 02 mines have also obtained the CTO from UPPCB.
5.3 Similarly, as per the information provided by Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) in district Prayagraj 42 Silica sand washing plants have valid CTO, having a total capacity is around 50,000 TP/month.
5.4 It has been observed that most of the lease holders are undertaking mining operations out of their granted lease area. The mining department can be asked to conduct the GPS enabled drone survey to verify the illegal extraction carried out by these leaseholders and can be asked to impose the applicable environmental compensation (EC) in accordance with the guideline endorsed by Hon'ble NGT.
5.5 Excessive production of minerals has also been observed, in comparison to their annual capacity mentioned in their respective Environmental Clearance.
5.6 Similarly, almost all leaseholders are not complying with the term and conditions stipulated in their Environmental Clearance, mining plan, and consent to operate. Some of the major non-compliances are as indicated below 5.6.1 Almost all leaseholders have neither developed safety zone/ plantations nor undertaken systematic mining in a scientific manner as per approved mining plans etc. 5.6.2 Some of the leaseholders are operating the washing plants within their lease area, which is not permitted in Environmental clearance. The same has also not been mentioned in the consent issued to such units by UPPCB.
5.6.3 Deviation is found in the mentioned production proposals Vs actual annual production Achieved in almost all the mines.
5.6.4 Some of the lease holders are operating dryers for drying washed silica sand in their lease area, which 92 is neither permitted in Environmental clearance nor consents to operate (CTO).
5.6.5 Some of erecting boundary pillars are found after the DG PS Survey.
5.6.6 Some of the mines have excavation in consonance with the production raised from the granted lease area.
5.6.7 Qualified technical persons are not employed in these mines for proper working.
5.6.8 Out of 7 silica sand mining leases, two mining (M/s Modi mineral, Ashok Bajpayee) has been found in operation without valid CTO, which has been granted CTO after the committee inspection.
5. 7 Few consents to operate (CTO) of silica sand mining have been issued for sand/morrum mining instead of silica sand, which need to be consonance with mining plane/Environmental Clearance. Similarly, most of the consent to operate (CTO) has been issued by UPPCB without mentioning the production capacity of minerals.
5.8 Though the mines have permission for the extraction of only one mineral, the majority of them are extracting and selling more than one mineral (Silica sand, sandstone, Gitti, etc.) and paying a royalty for only one mineral. Which is been resulting in the significant loss of government royalty during the mining and washing of the silica sand mineral & gitti boulder in Tehsil-Bara district Parayagraj.
5.9 The actual excavation made from the granted lease areas was ascertained and which is matching for last year's production only; whereas mines are granted almost 40-50 years ago. It needs to be tallied with the total production raised from the area since the beginning. The same could not be ascertained in absence of requisite information.
5.10 During discussion with local administration committee observed that the mining in area in question started way back even before the time of Independence. As the mining started by Rani Kumari Ba, in way back to 1940s and 50s have been continue till 2013. During the period various mining pits have been created which is still exists in the said area, and known as 93 abandoned mine.
5.11 Illegal mining/ abandoned mine pits are spread throughout the area. These pits are concentrated in numbers mostly at the remote locations in corner of the area in question. Considering the huge density of the illegal mine pits the extent of the extraction is not measurable. Even the committee found wires of detonators used for blasting at some of the illegal mining sites which clearly indicates the intensity of illegal mining in the area. The committee also observed that the mining activity in some of the pits.
5.12 State Forest rules cannot permit to State mining department to grant the lease within 100 meters of the forest land, most of the illegal mining area in question has been found near the forest land.
5.13 An ample number of illegal storage sites (loose & packed both) were observed during the visits. After the first visit of the committee, the local administration started issuing the storage license as per U. P. mineral storage & transportation rules, 2018 to address and legalize these storages. And as informed to the committee, 27 storage licenses have been issued so far.
5.14 Various deep pits have been created by leaseholders during un- systematic mining, filled with rainwater left abandoned; need to be fenced for minimizing any accidents, etc. 5.15 No systematic exploration is done in the area resulting in haphazard/rat hole mining.
5.16 The local people rely mainly on the mining and exploitation of natural resources to develop their household economy. Mining in the area is providing employment directly or indirectly to people of the surrounding villages and their main occupation is mine labour in silica mines and in silica washing plants. Employment from mining is available throughout the year except in the rainy season when it is not conducive to mine due to the filling up of mining pits and shafts with water. Farming was an alternative source of income and bare subsistence.
5.17 Deposits of Silica Sand, Stone (Gitti & Boulder) & ordinary Sand have been reported in various parts of the district. Glass Sands deposits are found in Shankargarh & Lohgara (Tehsil Bara) & Building stone (kaimur Sandstone) is found in the southern 94 parts of the district (Meja & Korao tahsil) & extracted either by blasting or by splitting the chief quarries.
5.18 Type of Mining in the area is small-scale cluster type of mining, which was developed naturally in the course of decades of operation. In almost all cases, mining uses open pit or dredging mining methods with standard mining equipment. Opencast mining involves digging of pits and hillside excavation and is responsible especially for large-scale devastation of soils. Surface mining of silica is associated with the removal of vegetative cover combined with the stripping of topsoil, overburden and spoil materials. With such mines, the land surface over a considerable area is destroyed, and what is left behind may be unstable land, causing landslides, erosion, siltation, and polluted water. It disrupts ecosystems, scars the landscape, and destroys microbial communities resulting in degradation of forests. Such land is generally useless after the mining ends and may continue to cause environmental problems stretched beyond after the mine has been closed. These disturbances to the natural contour of the topography have repercussions, not only for those communities in the immediate vicinity but also for those inhabitants living in adjacent areas."
52. In respect of Silica sand washing plants, observations of Altered Joint Committee are contained in para 6 of the Third Report, as under:
"6. Major observation of the committee Silica sand washing plant 6.1 As per information provided by Regional Officer, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Boards (UPPCB), presently total 42 consent to operate has been granted for silica sand washing plant in Lalapur, Bankipur, Janwa, Dhara, Kaitha, Lakhnauti and Pratappur area of the Shankargarh Block, tehsil Bara, district Prayagraj. Detailed of washing plant and CTO number its validity and production capacity is tabulated: Annexed as Annexure I. 6.2 The request was made to UPPCB to ask the washing units to ensure their operations during the visit of committee. However, only a few washing plants were found operational during the two visits of the committee. Similarly, no concerned persons were available at the site of these 95 washing units to explain about working mechanism, material balance, wastewater management, and compliance in accordance with the statutory requirements.
6.3 Due to which, the committee felt difficulty in assessing the actual working mechanism and wastewater management through these washing plants. However, committee drawn the following conclusions (in general) based on the observed status.
6.4 Earlier committee on same matter reported that the 83- washing unit existed in Shankargarh block, it has been informed by the UPPCB, that out of 83 only 35 washing unit have been legalise and remaining have been removed/dismantle. In addition, UPPCB has granted permission for 7 new washing unit. During the visit the committee 13 washing plant which were closed earlier restarted their operation without any permission, which have been again remove/ dismantle by the UPPCB after visit of the committee.
6.5 The subject mentioned in CTO granted to washing plant is not specific, in majority of cases subject of CTO are screening, crushing stone, washing of sand and silica sand. Similarly, the majority of washing plant having two or three washing units in same premise, out of all various washing plant are under running condition, whereas, they have obtained consent to operate (CTO) for only one washing plant.
6.6 The borewell is the primarily source of the water supply in these washing units. The UPPCB informed that the consent was issued to these units only after ensuring availability of the NOC from CGWA/CGWB for groundwater withdrawal.
6.7 Gravity settling pits/concrete tanks are the only wastewater treatment system provided by these washing units. These settling pits are constructed below the ground surface and mostly found filled with the mud.
6.8 The mechanical sludge removal system is not provided in these settling pits. The settled sludge is removed manually through the Pockland Machine during which the possibility of damage to these settling tanks cannot be ruled out.96
6.9 The removed sludge is dried in open areas and used for filling of the low-lying areas.
6.10 It is informed that the treated wastewater is reused in the process and no treated wastewater is discharged outside the premises of these washing units. However, the committee observed the bypass arrangement in some of the washing units which allow them to pollute surrounding environment.
6.11 It has been observed that the majority of washing plant is not having proper water recycling system in the washing plant. It is required to formulate guidelines for water recycling system for silica sand project and executed for conservation of the ground water. Besides, it is also required to fix the responsibility of the concern department for their compliance. Ground water abstraction permission and its compliance need to be verified by the concern department for conservation of the water.
6.12 It has been observed that mineral stock in some washing plant area is much higher than the mineral excavated from their own lease, which shows irregular mining in the area in question. Similarly, these washing units didn't obtain permission for the storage of the minerals from mining department. And the storage guideline to control the fugitive emission was not strictly followed.
6.13 It has been observed that the majority of the washing plant unit are using plastic bag for storage/selling of silica sand using their brand name etc. For the purpose of using plastic bags by the producers & manufacturers it is required to take permission under Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in Plastic Waste Management Rule, 2016. As such no EPR Authorisation has been obtained by these units.
6.14 Washing plant of M/s Allahabad Sand, Garhwa operated resin coated silica plant without valid Consent to operate (CTO) and, hazardous waste authorization for hazardous chemicals generated during operation as well as PESO (Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO)) for storage of significant quantity of LDO, 6.15 In addition to the permitted washing units, the structures 97 were found at many locations which indicates about the existence of illegal the washing units. Such washing units are mostly placed at the remote locations inside the forest areas.
6.16 The inventory about the mine from which they have received the material was not maintained/provided to the committee.
6.17 The approach road to these units is not maintained properly.
And as the minerals are transported only through the road transport the substantial contribution of the road dust can be expected during operation of these units. Similarly, the internal roads can also be another source of the non-point air pollution in this area.
6.18 A few washings plant has been operated very close to the reservoir part of Garhwa fort (A protected monument under the Archaeological Survey of India), which need to be protected.
6.19 Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) closed 13 illegal washing plant in year 2022 Tehsil Bara District Parayagraj, list of washing plant annexed as annexure-M. 6.20 M/s Prayag Quality Sand, having washing plant CTO for crushing of giiti /boulder instead of that they are washing silica sand."
53. Action taken by local administration (Mining), mentioned in para 7 reads as under:
"7. Action taken by local administration, Mining
7. 1 Total of 6 FIR logged to date against illegal mining in the area in question, out of which 5 FIR have been lodged by local administration during/after the Hon'ble NGT Committee inspection. (List annexed as Annexure J) 7.2 Around 1527.2 Cubic meters of silica sand has been seized during/after inspection of the Hon'ble NGT committee at 5 different places. (List annexed as Annexure K)."98
54. Altered Joint Committee also recommended environmental compensation for excessive mining/operation of the mining leases without valid CTO/mining plan and the said recommendation made in para 8 of the Report reads as under:
"8. Environmental compensation (EC) for excessive mining/operated without valid CTO/ mining plan 8.1 It has been observed that the various mines doing excessive mining against the production capacity mentioned in their Environmental Clearance/mining plan/ consent, whereas some are operated without valid Consents from UPPCB. And hence, committee is in opinion to impose Environmental compensation (EC).
8. 2 The production carried out without statutory permission is been considered illegal extraction whereas in the case of the leases having all statutory permission the excess quantity has been considered for the assessment of the environmental compensation. The details are as tabulated and attached at Annexure L."
55. Third Report is appended with annexure-L, showing method of computation of environmental compensation by Approach-II and gives its methodology as under:
"Calculation of Environmental Compensation by Approach - II
1. Total Benefits (B) = Market Value of illegal extraction: D a. Where D = Z × Market Value of-the-material-per-MT-or-m3 b. And Z = Excess/illegal Extraction c. Considered market value of the material as RS. 675/- per m3 based on the emm11 provided by the DMO
2. Total Ecological Costs (C) = Market Value adjusted for risk factor:
D * RF 99 a. Significant number of illegal mining pits are observed in the area in question.
b. The area is located in close proximity of the forest land c. Protected Monuments under ASI is located in the area.
d. Hence, considering collective impact on river water quality and ecology, the Risk Factor (RF) is considered in the category of Severe.
e. Therefore, considered RF=1
g. Net Present Value (after netting out market value of
illegally mined material)
h. Therefore, Total Compensation to be levied NPV=PV - D"
56. The computation of environmental compensation has been given in detail in the form of a chart as under:
Present Value (PV) @ 5% under Severe severity Unit Name Qnty. Qnty. Market Annual Year 01 Year 02 Year 3 Year 04 Year 05 Total (PV) Net Present For For Value Value Value Env. Env. of of (NPV) (Rs.) Comp Com Illegall Foreg (Ton) p y one (m3) mined Ecolog (Ton/ materi iacl 1.5) al @ Values Rs.67 (Rs.) 5/m3 R.F =1 Ton m3 D D * R.F D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ PV- D 1.05 1.1025 1.157625 1.215506 1.276281 25 5625 Lease B: 43,595 29,06 1,96,1 1,96,1 1,86,83, 1,77,93, 1,69,46,5 1,61,39,5 1,53, 8,49,34,59 6,53,16,841 Chawla 3 7,750 7,750 571 878 50 71 71,020 1 Lakhnauti Silica Sand Mine Lease C: 38,599 25,73 1, 1, 1,65,42, 1,57,54, 1,50,04,4 1,42,89,9 1,36,09,4 7,52,01,06 5,78,31,512 Chawla, 3 73,69, 73,69, 429 694 70 72 97 2 Janwa Silica 550 550 Sand Mine Lease D: 72,447 48,29 3,26,0 3,26,0 3,10,48, 2,95, 2,81,62,0 2,68,21,0 2,55,43,8 14,11,45,9 10,85,44,76 Smt. Arnita 8 1,150 1,150 714 70,204 99 47 54 18 8 Gupta & Shri 100 Abhilesh Kumar bhilesh Kumar Gupta Lease E: Shri 10,391 6,927 46,75, 46,75, 44,53,2 42,41,2 40,39,26 38,46,91 36,63,72 2,02,44,41 1,55,68,466 Rajiv Kumar 950 950 86 24 1 6 9 6 Chawla Lease F: 22,098 14,73 99,44, 99,44, 94,70,5 90,19,5 85,90,08 81,81,03 77,91,46 4,30,52,74 3,31,08,649 Smt. Nirmal 2 100 100 71 92 7 6 3 9 Rani Chawla Lease G: 7,54,2 5,02, 33,94, 33,94, 32,32,3 30,78,4 29,31,87, 27,92,26, 26,59,30, 1,46,94,31 1,13,00,30, Shri Ashok 26 817 01, 01, 9, 714 7,347 949 619 113 ,742 042 Kumar 700 700 Bajpai:
Lease H: Shri 10,175 6,783 45,78, 45,78, 43,60,7 41,53,0 39,55,29 37,66,94 35,87,57 1,98,23,59 1,52,44,841 Abhinandan 750 750 14 61 6 9 0 1 Tiwar 1,42,56,45, 120
57. The computation of quantity of mineral for the purpose of environmental compensation was shown in details separately in respect of 07 functional mining leases i.e.,
(i) Lease B: M/s Chawla Silica Sand Trading Company, Lakhnauti Silica Sand Mine (at page 254),
(ii) Lease C: M/s Chawla Silica Sand Trading Company, Janwa Silica Sand Mine (at page 255),
(iii) Lease D: Smt. Arnita Gupta & Shri Abhilesh Kumar Gupta (at page 256)
(iv) Lease E: Shri Rajiv Kumar Chawla (at page 257),
(v) Lease F: Smt. Nirmal Rani Chawla (at page 258),
(vi) Lease G: Shri Ashok Kumar Bajpai (at page 259), and
(vii) Lease H: Shri Abhinandan Tiwari (at page 260), which we shall refer in detail later when considering individual case on merits.
101
58. Altered Joint Committee also made its recommendations and other recommendations in para 9 of Third Report as under:
"9. Committee Recommendation: The issue specific recommendations of the committee is as given Regarding illegal mining Activities
9. 1 Most of the places where illegal mining operations were found, the land is belonging to forest/ gram sabha/ expired lease. All land should be identified as belonging to forest or gram sabha and a signboard should be placed displaying rakba or khasra number/ area & ownership of land for controlling illegal silica sand mining in tehsil Bara district Parayagaraj.
9.2 For controlling illegal sand mining, local administration will have to identify and closure the illegal washing plant/structure/crusher/conveyor belt with immediate effect.
9.3 State Govt. may take effective use of "Mining Surveillance System" in collaboration with BISAG-N [Bhaskaracharya National Institute for Space Application and Geo-informatics] to monitor incidences of Unauthorized mining by making use of space technology and superimposing mining lease area on satellite imagery which detects illegal mining within 500 meters radius of granted mineral concession and generates triggers.
9.4 A necessary exercise needs to be done for dividing the entire area into suitable blocks and put for auction after detailed exploration to fetch additional revenue in form of a bid premium. There may be a centralized system for marketing Silica sand.
9.5 District administration can be asked to make stringent provisions for checking-up illegal mining, storage & transportation of minerals by constituting task forces in more frequency. They can be asked to conduct a drone survey to identify illegal mining activities located in the remote areas.
9.6 The rate of financial assurance needs to be enhanced for undertaking reclamation & rehabilitation activities against 102 the area put to use for mining & allied activities per hectare, state mining department may strictly comply the mind closure programme.
9.7 The committee is in opined to close illegal pits in the periphery of forest land by filling of fly ash/bottom ash available with exiting thermal plant in district Parayagarj in light of the fly ash notification. And regarding other old pit/illegal pit, the mining department/revenue department may be asked to assess the feasibility of the further mineral extraction potential, based on which these pits may either be lease out or restoration activity may be carried out as mentioned above.
9.8 In case of illegal custody of the lease area by the previous leaseholder, the stringent action as per law need to be taken by concern department.
9.9 The illegal use of explosives for blasting in illegal mining is the case of illegal handling of explosives and should be punished/penalized under the concerned prevailing rules.
Regarding existing mining activities 9.10 Audit on the quantity permitted, quantity mined out, to use specific silica sand washing plant etc shall be conducted every year.
9.11 Incorporating Star Rating Provision for minor minerals will help in Quality mining.
9.12 Mechanism for end-to-end tracking of mineral from mines to end users' needs to be devised.
9.13 Provision of a Group Vocational training centre may be made for training/ refresher training of HEMM operators as well as mining officials.
9.14 Capacity Building of the State DGM is required for approval of mining plan documents and subsequently its monitoring.
9.15 Storage of silica sand should only be allowed to leaseholders, or to a person who wants a license for processing along with storage and wants to work like an ancillary to a lease, as per the prevailing rules.103
9.16 The condition for having weighbridges and a PTZ camera with 30 days of the recording should be considered while issuing licenses for storage of the silica sand.
Regarding washing units 9.17 The washing units can be asked to install separate electromagnetic flow meters to measure water withdrawal, waste water generated, treated and recycled. These electromagnetic flow meters can be connected with the centralized server for monitoring purpose.
9.18 The washing units should have pucca/cemented two stage settling tank with at least two standby pucca /cemented pits for drying of the sand etc. 9.19 Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) may involve R&D institution likes, IIT Kanpur, MNIT-Prayagraj, IIT-BHU for the designing of the pucca/cemented two stage settling tank with at least two standby pucca/cemented pits for drying of the sand.
9.20 It is also required to formulate the guidelines for washing plant land area (based on their capacity) to avoid overstocking the silica sand.
9.21 The permission of the dryer, crusher (Chakki), screening, washing, etc are not properly mentioned in the consent to operate (CTO) issued by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB). In view of the above it is of utmost importance to review all consent to operate (CTO) granted to the mining lease and washing plant within three months.
9.22 In case of washing plant, State pollution control board (UPPCB) can be asked to accord consent to operate (CTO) only after no objection certificate issued by mining department only, such practice may certainly control the illegal mining and washery.
9.23 In case of washing plant, State pollution control board (UPPCB) may accord consent to operate (CTO) only after no objection certificate issued by mining department only, such practice may certainly control the illegal mining and washery.104
9.24 The washing plant located near the reservoir part of Garhwa fort (A protected monument under the Archaeological Survey of India) should be treated in accordance with the law. 9.25 It is required to ban the use of mobile crushers (Chakki) in the silica sands industry to control the illegal handling and processing of the silica sand in the area in question. 9.26 It is required to setup Weight Bridge on all washing plant for verification of the incoming and outgoing mineral. 9.27 The district administration and UPPCB can be asked to run a regular drive against the illegal washing units. They can be asked to conduct a drone survey to identify such units which are located in remote areas.
Other recommendations 9.28 DGM and UPPCB, must meet frequently to resolve issue related with silica sands mining and washing plant by taking monthly/quarterly/half yearly meeting.
9.29 The DGM office and Regional Office of UPPCB shall be strengthened with additional manpower & advanced infrastructure facilities for strict vigilance on illegal mining activities and subsequent silica sand washing plant. 9.30 The amount collected on environmental compensation for excess mining be recovered from the concerned leaseholder and silica sand washing unit owner, operated without obtaining valid CTO or installed more than one washing plant without obtaining permission from UPPCB may be used for further R&D on various concern issues likes., designing of the water efficient washing plant/settling pond etc from reputes Institutes likes., IIT, CSIR-NEERI, IITR etc." Tribunal's Order dated 10.07.2023:
59. Third Report dated 23.02.2023 was considered on 10.07.2023.
Tribunal found that Third Report has said that there were 07 active mining leases out of 25 mining leases granted (18 leases had already expired) and 105 42 Silica Sand washing plants. Various violations indicated in Report were summarized in para 1 of the order dated 10.07.2023:
"i. Most of the lease holders are undertaking mining operations out of their granted lease area.
ii. Excessive production of minerals has been observed in comparison to their annual capacity against Environmental Clearance.
iii. All lease holders are not complying with EC, mining plan and consent to operate.
iv. Sand washing plants do not have well specified/prescribed conditions in CTO and no Effluent Treatment Plants (ETPs) and mode of disposal prescribed."
60. Tribunal observed that Third Report does not elaborate on restoration of mined areas, over all compliance with CTO conditions, extent of damages observed and other aspects. Hence, UPPCB was directed to file further Report on the observations, identify all violators and action taken for past violations and restoration of the area. Action Taken Report dated 07.08.2023 (at page 273) filed by RO, UPPCB, Prayagraj on 08.08.2023:
61. In compliance of Tribunal's order dated 10.07.2023, RO, UPPCB, Prayagraj submitted an Action Taken Report dated 07.08.2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'ATR dated 07.08.2023'), stating that earlier there were total 83 Silica sand washing plants operating in Shankargarh. Most Silica sand washing plants. 31 washing plants out of these 83 were not having proper CTE/CTO from UPPCB, hence these illegal Silica sand washing plants were closed by UPPCB besides imposing environmental compensation of Rs.7,25,000/- on each plant. 106
62. Presently, only 42 Silica sand washing plants are operating in Shankargarh after obtaining valid CTO from UPPCB. Silica sand washing plants are very small units in which Silica sand washing is done through 3-4 pits filled with water and this water is re-cycled after treatment through settling. All units are having ETP consisting of Settling Tank/Sedimentation Tanks. This treated water is recycled back in the process of Silica sand washing.
63. Report also said that presently, there are 07 mining lease holders in Shankargarh, having valid CTO from UPPCB.
64. Report further refers to Joint Committee's Report already submitted alongwith observations and recommendation for imposing environmental compensation for the period, mining activities were carried out without having valid consent from UPPCB.
Tribunal's Order dated 01.09.2023:
65. When matter was taken up by Tribunal on 01.09.2023, an objection was raised on behalf of some of the mining lease holders i.e., M/s. Chawla Silica Trading Company and M/s. MMU who were represented through their Counsels that Third Report dated 23.02.2023 has not been submitted by Joint Committee which was constituted by Tribunal but comprised the members and officers who were other than those appointed by Tribunal. Further when there were 25 leases out of which 18 had expired, details of those 18 leases were not given as to whether during the period they operated, compliance of environmental norms was observed or 107 not. In respect of Silica Sand washing plants, no specific details of the violation etc. or compliance of the conditions of consent etc. were given.
66. In the circumstances, Tribunal directed Joint Committee, which was constituted vide order dated 01.08.2022, to submit fresh Report in terms of the directions and observations already made.
67. Report was not submitted on the next date i.e., 06.11.2023 by the said Joint Committee. However, Tribunal found that as per Third Report dated 23.02.2023, 07 lease holders were found to have violated environmental laws and norms, therefore, Tribunal found it appropriate to implead the said 07 mining lease holders as respondents 08 to 14 and issued notices to them except M/s. Chawla Silica Trading Company, impleaded as respondents 8 and 9, since they were already represented through Counsel.
68. As requested by Learned Counsel appearing for UPPCB, Joint Committee was given further time to submit its Report. Joint Committee Report dated 17.01.2024 (Fourth Report) (at page 908 of paper book):
69. Pursuant to Tribunal's order dated 06.11.2023, Joint Committee through RO, UPPCB, Prayagraj submitted its Report dated 17.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'Fourth Report'). Report included observations in respect of 18 expired mining leases and 42 functional Silica sand washing plants.108
70. For the first time, Report was received i.e., Fourth Report prepared by the Committee constituted by this Tribunal and it is signed by the following:
i. Dr. Vivek Saxena, Deputy Director General, Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Lucknow ii. Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Member Secretary, UPPCB, Lucknow iii. Dr. Devendra Kumar Soni, Regional Director, CPCB, Lucknow iv. Navneet Singh Chahal, District Magistrate, Prayagraj v. Pukhraj Nenival, Regional Controller of Mines IBM, Jabalpur.
71. The Fourth Report submitted by Joint Committee constituted by Tribunal vide order dated 01.08.2022 shows that it held a virtual meeting on 26.09.2023 and 12.10.2023 in physical mode at Circuit House, Prayagraj.
72. The site visit was undertaken by Joint Committee for 17 expired mining leases during 12.10.2023 and 13.10.2023. Mining lease of one was not conducted since it is spread over 46 villages and the matter was sub-
judice pending for renewal of mining lease.
73. Committee during its meeting dated 12.10.2023 directed District Mines Officer and Regional Officer, UPPCB, Prayagraj to furnish related information i.e., list of mining leases till date, expired mining leases, active leases, their mining plan, KML files, Environmental Clearance, CTO, production for last five years etc. Regional Officer, UPPCB was asked to provide updated information about 42 washing plants in regard to CTE, 109 CTO and NOC from CGWA, ROM supply agreement with mining lease holders, details of banned washing plants, details of legal action, details of penalty levied during last 05 years, year wise quantity details of ROM purchased and final product for last 05 years and valid storage license.
74. The Report has categorically said that despite repeated requests, details of penalty levied during last 05 years, year wise quantity details of ROM purchased and final produce for last 05 years were not provided.
75. Report has been submitted by Joint Committee on the basis of observations made during site visit on 17 expired mining leases and the available information.
76. This Report, therefore, shows that Joint Committee had a site inspection only in respect of expired 17 mining leases. In respect of others, report is based on information collected from District Mining Officer and other authorities.
77. The details of 18 expired mining leases are as under:
"Silica Sand Mines in District Prayagraj S. Name of Name of Gata Area Lease Periods Geo-Coordinates No. Applicant & Area No. Adress 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 to 7 xxx...............................xxx....................................xxx 09-02-1993 A 25016'3.62"N 81034'14.03"E Shri Harihar to B 25016'4.93"N 81034'18.61"E Prasad Gupta 1.27 Ha.
08-02-1998
8. Niwasi - Bhaishahi 1/1 (3.15 09-02-1998 C 25°16'1.04"N 81°34'18.72"E Shankargarh Acre) to Prayagraj 08-02-2018 D 25016'0.10"N 81034'15.87"E
9. Sarva Shri Om Kachar A 25°15'26.19"N 81°35'11.50"E 110 Laxmi i 145, 146, B 25°15'20.58"N 81°35'27.47"E Industries, 86 147, 148, C 25°15'18.65"N 81°35'26.74"E Mahjani Tola 309 to D 25°15'18.65"N 81°35'23.91"E 08-08-2001 Allahabad 318, 501, 9.397 Ha E 25°15'15.35"N 81°35'21.70"E to 403, 404, (20.75 Acre) F 25°15'15.62"N 81°35'16.15"E 07-08-2021 405, 402, G 25°15'18.42"N 81°35'17.50"E 408, 143, H 25°15'22.50"N 81°35'9.27"E 144 Shri Rishi 13, 15, 18, A 250 17' 34.46" 810 N 40' 16.62" E Chawla S/o Shri 137, 160, 14-01-1990 B 250 17' 31.39" 810 N 40' 21.49" E Ramesh Chandra 168, 169, to C 250 17' 29.19" 810 N 40' 20.51" E Chawla 172, 173, 13-01-2000 D 250 17' 18.95" 810 N 40' 31.76" E
10. Aswa 20.59 Ha Niwasi 87 174, 190, 14-01-2000 E 250 17' 16.87" 810 N 40' 31.11" E Darbhanga 191, 198, to Colony 199, 200, 13-01-2020 Allahabad 212 10 to 13, A 25°15'39.63"N 81°34'46.45"E 101, B 25°15'39.29"N 81°34'51.08"E 102, C 25°15'37.98"N 81°34'51.50"E Smt. Vijay Laxmi 122, 126 6.06 Ha 28-7-2001 D 25°15'38.09"N 81°34'52.47"E Kesharwani 86
11. Kachari to 131, (15.00 to E 25°15'27.86"N 81°34'53.69"E Mahjani Tola 167, Acre) 27-7-2021 F 25°15'31.18"N 81°34'46.24"E Prayagra 568, 570, 571, 572 A. 250 18' 37.95" 810 40' 26.51" E N B. 250 18' 36.14" 810 40' 26.52" E N C. 250 18' 34.79" 810 40' 31.99" E N D. 250 18' 30.87" 810 40' 35.75" E N E. 250 18' 29.92" 810 40' 41.01" E N 736, 737, F. 250 18' 25.32" 810 40' 38.76" E 738, 746 N 15-12-89 to 764, G. 250 18' 24.48" 810 40' 40.83" E M/s Harimandir to 767, 785, N Mineral Traders, Chathera 14-12-99
12. 787 to 104.206 Ha. H. 250 18' 20.32" 810 40' 38.91" E Sohabatiyabag, Gurhetha 15-12-1999 871, 873 N Allahabad to Bhaag to I. 250 18' 21.10" 810 40' 36.53" E 14-12-2019 888, 893, N 894, 895 J. 250 18' 19.37" 810 40' 35.30" E N K. 250 18' 20.73" 810 40' 32.92" E N L. 250 18' 16.81" 810 40' 31.56" E N M. 25°18'7.90"N 81°40'27.80"E N. 25°18'8.73"N 81°40'25.14"E O. 25°17'50.57"N 81°40'16.03"E P. 25°17'58.96"N 81°39'51.32"E 111 Q. 25°18'27.92"N 81°40'2.94"E R. 25°18'26.16"N 81°40'9.07"E S. 25°18'30.63"N 81°40'14.36"E T. 25°18'29.36"N 81°40'17.66"E Shri Badriprasad A 25°15'3.97"N 81°33'36.12"E Amarnath 10-8-73 B 25°15'6.06"N 81°33'44.22"E
13. Niwasi- Lakhnauti - 18.00 Ha to C 25°14'51.51"N 81°33'41.85"E Shankargarh 09-8-93 D 25°14'52.25"N 81°33'38.79"E Bara, Allahabad A. 25°13'17.73" N 81°31'32.24" E B. 25°13'16.66" N 81°31'46.89" E C. 25°13'14.98" N 81°31'46.38" E 11, 12, 13, 14, D. 25°13'3.91" N 81°31'55.03" E 17, 18, E. 25°13'3.01" N 81°31'46.23" E 19, 20, F. 25°13'1.51" N 81°31'46.46" E 21, 22, G. 25°13'1.60" N 81°31'44.03" E J R Varhneya 23, 24, 39.25 Ha. 30-12-1990 to
14. 14/2 Lauthar Janwa H. 25°12'57.78" N 81°31'44.23" E 25, 26, (97.00 Acre) 29-12-2000 Road, Allahabad I. 25°12'57.86" N 81°31'47.04" E 27, 28, 29, 36, J. 25°12'54.03" N 81°31'47.93" E 40, 41, K. 25°12'55.97" N 81°31'57.17" E 42, 43 & L. 25°12'51.71" N 81°31'57.44" E 319 M 25°12'48.80" N 81°31'38.33" E N. 25°12'56.52" N 81°31'36.13" E O. 25°12'56.13" N 81°31'34.56" E A. 25°17'17.35" N 81°35'6.23" E B. 25°17'17.64" N 81°35'14.81" E C. 25°17'20.37" N 81°35'16.07" E D. 25°17'23.00" N 81°35'14.31" E E. 25°17'24.55" N 81°35'16.33" E F. 25°17'19.56" N 81°35'23.39" E 15-10-79 G. 25°17'16.55" N 81°35'22.14" E M/s Indrajeet Dera
15. 333 61.02 Ha to Kaur Baari H. 25°17'2.51" N 81°35'22.14" E 14-10-1989 I. 25°16'54.93" N 81°35'13.70" E J. 25°16'52.30" N 81°35'18.10" E K. 25°16'48.48" N 81°35'20.98" E L. 25°16'57.48" N 81°35'6.96" E M 25°17'9.20" N 81°35'10.73" E N. 25°17'15.47" N 81°35'5.74" E A. 25°15'35.39" N 81°34'56.52" E B. 25°15'34.53" N 81°34'59.99" E C. 25°15'36.16" N 81°35'0.71" E S P Kesharwani 28.93 Ha 24-8-93 D. 25°15'34.04" N 81°35'7.55" E
16. 86 Mahjani Tola, Kachari - (71.5 to E. 25°15'33.03" N 81°35'7.01" E Allahabad Acre) 23-8-2003 F. 25°15'32.67" N 81°35'8.78" E G. 25°15'32.94" N 81°35'10.02" E H. 25°15'27.46" N 81°35'21.98" E 112 I. 25°15'30.64" N 81°35'24.88" E J. 25°15'28.72" N 81°35'31.31" E K. 25°15'23.74" N 81°35'30.85" E L. 25°15'23.27" N 81°35'37.30" E M 25°15'15.45" N 81°35'37.10" E N. 25°15'14.81" N 81°35'25.32" E O. 25°15'20.59" N 81°35'27.46" E P. 25°15'26.21" N 81°35'11.49" E Q. 25°15'19.59" N 81°35'7.49" E R. 25°15'25.67" N 81°34'57.36" E Shri Pradeep 28-10-78 A 25°13'44.52"N 81°37'30.60"E Kumar to B 25°13'43.45"N 81°37'34.77"
Niwasi - 359/18 27-10-88 C 25°13'36.07"N 81°37'33.51"E
17. Madanpur 430 6.619Ha Niraml Nagar 28-10-88 D Keedganj to 25°13'37.35"N 81°37'29.22"E Allahabad 27-10-98 A. 25°15'29.71"N 81°34'6.71"E B. 25°15'25.04"N 81°34'4.88"E C. 25°15'27.99"N 81°33'49.99"E 264, 265, D. 25°15'24.97"N 81°33'49.01"E Jai Shri Trading 271, 258, E. 25°15'22.69"N 81°33'55.42"E Company Shri 245, 254, F. 25°15'15.98"N 81°33'53.18"E 29-11-80 Ashok Kumar 257, 260,
18. Bhaishahi 51.17Ha to G. 25°15'12.61"N 81°33'59.61"E Aggarwal 261, 262, 28-11-2000 H. 25°15'10.37"N 81°33'58.71"E Niwasi Meerganj 259, 258, Allahabad 218, 219, I. 25°15'12.08"N 81°33'37.36"E 220 J. 25°15'31.31"N 81°33'30.85"E K. 25°15'33.38"N 81°33'37.83"E L. 25°15'38.19"N 81°33'49.38"E M 25°15'31.39"N 81°33'49.42"E A. 25°17'41.14"N 81°40'19.43"E B. 25°17'49.01"N 81°40'14.00"E C. 25°17'50.52"N 81°40'16.09"E D. 25°17'50.67"N 81°40'19.27"E E. 25°17'56.91"N 81°40'26.16"E Mahendra F. 25°17'59.02"N 81°40'29.25"E Bharti S/o 6-3-1991 G. 25°17'58.86"N 81°40'38.45"E
19. Keshav Bharti, Aswa - 1.22 Ha to H. 25°18'1.40"N 81°40'43.81"E Pura Baldu, 5-3-2001 Bara, Allahabad I. 25°17'59.27"N 81°40'51.13"E J. 25°17'55.37"N 81°40'53.10"E K. 25°17'46.02"N 81°40'53.77"E L. 25°17'53.40"N 81°40'37.97"E M. 25°17'40.38"N 81°40'26.14"E N. 25°17'36.78"N 81°40'24.49"E M/s Rama Silica 27-2-75 A. 25°13'0.99"N 81°31'14.57"E
20. Sand Trading Janwa - 20.17 Ha to B. 25°12'59.28"N 81°31'28.10"E Niwasi - 359/18 26-2-95 C. 25°12'55.83"N 81°31'21.81"E 113 Nirmal Nagar, D. 25°12'52.36"N 81°31'28.00"E Keedganj, E. 25°12'50.57"N 81°31'27.43"E Allahabad F. 25°12'52.39"N 81°31'22.61"E G. 25°12'36.08"N 81°31'13.01"E H. 25°12'43.28"N 81°31'7.53"E Shri Bhulli 16-6-79 A 25°11'50.08"N 81°32'13.38"E Maharaj & Sons to B 25°11'27.87"N 81°32'10.25"E Pro. Shri R D 15-6-89 C 25°11'35.68"N 81°31'48.49"E
21. Janwa - 47.06 Ha Awasthi Niwasi- 16-6-89 D 25°11'44.31"N 81°31'42.18"E Shankargarh to E 25°11'50.09"N 81°31'46.24"E Allahabad 15-6-99 A. 25°17'2.09"N 81°39'58.75"E B. 25°16'59.09"N 81°40'5.12"E Shri Laxmi C. 25°16'50.47"N 81°40'6.41"E Mining Corporation 10-5-1974 D. 25°16'44.83"N 81°39'56.04"E
22. Adress- Laxmi Dhara - 26.03 Ha to E. 25°16'36.15"N 81°39'49.28"E Bhawan, Po- 09-5-1994 F. 25°16'37.74"N 81°39'46.77"E Shankargarh, G. 25°16'45.30"N 81°39'51.07"E Allahabad H. 25°16'50.01"N 81°39'41.30"E I. 25°16'57.54"N 81°39'49.48"E Vill- Shankargarh, Talapaar, Kapaari, Barui, Khansemra, Beyonara, Raipatna, Matrawar, Gorkha, Gheyodora, Chak Smt. Rani Araji Gadhwa, Gadha, Lakhanpur, Rajendra Kaitha, Shivrajpur, Osha, Atari Kapsan, Kumari Ba Tah.- Bara Charihari, Gobra Sangram, Pagwar, Rajmahal Approx. 16.04.1947
23. including 46 - Majhiyaari Badeliya, Gobra Dewar, Shankargarh 16000 Ha to forever Villages Bardaiyaa, Bhonari, Lohgara, District Gadhamaar, Chandra, Lalai, Baisa, Allahabad Tah.-
Laungkhurd, Baghela, Panduwa,
Bara
Parvejabad Alia Burahi, Bashara,
Tarhaar, Lalapur, Maduri, Pratappur, Surwal 6-7-1972 A 25°16'39.87"N 81°35'7.79"E Harimandir to B 25°16'39.88"N 81°35'17.27"E Mineral Traders 5-7-1989 C 25°16'39.05"N 81°35'21.40"E
24. Derabari 333 19.5 Ha.
Sohbatiyabag, 6-7-1989 D 25°16'31.59"N 81°35'19.74"E Allahabad to E 25°16'32.58"N 81°35'7.97"E 5-7-1999 Harimandir A 25°16'1.01"N 81°34'18.73"E Mineral 16-6-1988 B 25°16'1.71"N 81°34'31.80"E Bhaisah
25. Traders ½ 17.60Ha to C 25°15'56.92"N 81°34'33.08"E i Sohbatiyabag, 15-6-1998 D 25°15'49.05"N 81°34'20.71"E Allahabad
78. Annexure-B to the Report contains details of 18 expired mining leases and in respect of most of the information, the relevant columns show that no information has been given due to want of availability of 114 record in the office. Information supplied in respect of 18 expired mining leases by Joint Committee, in brief, furnishes following information:
(A) Harihar Prasad Gupta, R/o Shankargarh, Allahabad i.e., Respondent 15 (p/920):
S.N. Details
(a) Gata No. 1/1
(b) Lease area 1.27 hectares (3.15 acres)
(c) Village Bhaisahi, Tehsil Bara,
District-Prayagraj
(d) Period of lease 09.02.1993 to 08.02.1998 and
09.02.1998 to 08.02.2018
(e) Latest Mining Plan Mining Plan dated 17.12.2009
Document
(f) Date of EC 08.10.2013
(g) CTE and CTO Not available
(h) Production and dispatches 2017-18 (8050 MT)
for 05 years period before
lease expiry or last 05 years
(B) Om Luxmi Industries i.e., Respondent 16 (p/921):
S.N. Details
(a) Gata No. 145, 146, 147, 148, 309 to
318, 561, 403, 404, 405, 402,
408, 143 and 144
(b) Lease area 8.397 hectares (20.75 acres)
(c) Village Kachari, Tehsil Bara,
District-Prayagraj
(d) Period of lease 08.08.2001 to 07.08.2021
(e) Latest Mining Plan Mining Plan dated 02.11.2017
Document
(f) Date of EC Held inapplicable
(g) CTE and CTO Related to UPPCB
115
(h) Production and dispatches
for 05 years period before 2017-18 6000.00 MT
lease expiry or last 05 years 2018-19 7263.00 MT
2019-20 5595.00 MT
2020-21 22409.00 MT
2021-22 Nil
(C) Rishi Chawla S/o Ramesh Chander Chawla, R/o 87, Darbhanga Colony, District-Prayagraj i.e., Respondent 17 (p/922):
S.N. Details
(a) Gata No. 13, 15, 18, 137, 160, 168, 169,
172, 173, 174, 190, 191, 198,
199, 200 and 212
(b) Lease area 20.59 hectares
(c) Village Aswan, Tehsil Bara,
District-Prayagraj
(d) Period of lease 14.01.1990 to 13.01.2000 and
14.01.2000 to 13.01.2020
(e) Latest Mining Plan Mining Plan dated 18.01.2017
Document
(f) Date of EC 30.09.2013
(g) CTE and CTO Not available
(h) Production and dispatches
for 05 years period before 2017-18 3502 MT
lease expiry or last 05 years 2018-19 27212 MT
2019-20 27175 MT
(D) Smt. Vijay Laxmi Kesarwani, 86, Mahajani Tola, District-
Allahabad i.e., Respondent 18 (p/923):
S.N. Details
(a) Gata No. 10 to 13, 101, 102, 122, 126 to
131, 167, 598, 570, 571 and
572
(b) Lease area 6.06 hectares
(c) Village Kachari, Tehsil Bara,
District-Prayagraj
(d) Period of lease 28.07.2001 to 27.07.2021
116
(e) Latest Mining Plan • First Mining Plan dated
Document 02.11.2017
• Second Mining Plan dated
18.06.2021
(f) Date of EC Held inapplicable
(g) CTE and CTO Related to UPPCB
(h) Production and dispatches
for 05 years period before 2016-17 Nil
lease expiry or last 05 years 2017-18 Nil
2018-19 Nil
2019-20 1051.00 MT
2020-21 77861.00 MT
(E) M/s. Harimandir Mineral Traders, Sohbatia Bagh, Allahabad i.e., Respondent 19 (p/924):
S.N. Details
(a) Gata No. 736, 737, 738, 746 to 764, 767,
785, 787 to 871, 873 (part) to 888,
893, 894 and 895
(b) Lease area 104.206 hectares
(c) Village Chhtehra Gurehata, Tehsil Bara,
District-Prayagraj
(d) Period of lease 15.12.1989 to 14.12.1999 and
renewal 15.12.1999 to 14.12.2019
(e) Latest Mining Plan Mining Plan dated 26.11.2015
Document
(f) Date of EC 29.07.2015
(g) CTE and CTO 02.04.2020
(h) Production and
dispatches for 05 years Year Production Dispatches
period before lease expiry 2015- - -
or last 05 years 16
2016- 18360.00 1340.205
17 MT
2017- 90430.00 40058.265
18 MT
2018- 220735.00 56822.040
19 MT
2019- 169570.00 50121.100
20 MT
117
(F) Badri Prasad Amarnath, R/o Shankargarh, Tehsil-Bara,
Allahabad i.e., Respondent 20 (p/925):
S.N. Details
(a) Arazi No. 2
(b) Lease area 18.00 hectares
(c) Village Lakhnauti, Tehsil Bara,
District-Prayagraj
(d) Period of lease 10.08.1973 to 09.08.1993
(e) Latest Mining Plan Not traceable in office
Document
(f) Date of EC Not available
(g) CTE and CTO Not available
(h) Production and Not available
dispatches for 05 years
period before lease
expiry or last 05 years
(G) J.R. Varshney, 14/2, Lauthar Road, Allahabad i.e., Respondent 21 (p/926):
S.N. Details
(a) Gata No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 36,
40, 41, 42, 43 and 319
(b) Lease area 39.25 hectares
(c) Village Janwa, Tehsil Bara,
District-Prayagraj
(d) Period of lease 30.12.1990 to 29.12.2000
(e) Latest Mining Plan 13.08.2016
Document
(f) Date of EC Nil
(g) CTE and CTO Not available
(h) Production and Not available
dispatches for 05 years
period before lease
expiry or last 05 years
118
(H) M/s Inderjeet Kaur i.e., Respondent 22 (p/927):
S.N. Details
(a) Gata No. 333
(b) Lease area 61.02 hectares
(c) Village Derabassi, Tehsil Bara,
District-Prayagraj
(d) Period of lease 15.10.1979 to 14.10.1989
(e) Latest Mining Plan Not available
Document
(f) Date of EC Not available
(g) CTE and CTO Not available
(h) Production and dispatches Not available
for 05 years period before
lease expiry or last 05 years
(I) S.P. Kesarwani, 86 Mehjani Tola, Allahabad i.e., Respondent 23 (p/928):
S.N. Details
(a) Gata No. 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118,
119, 120, 129, 134, 135, 136,
140 to 144, 152, 156, 157, 293
to 297, 303, 305 to 310, 317,
319 to 323, 325, 328, 329, 380,
396, 398, 561, 558 to 560, 562
and 563
(b) Lease area 28.93 hectares (71.5 acres)
(c) Village Kachari, Tehsil Bara,
District-Prayagraj
(d) Period of lease 24.08.1993 to 23.08.2003
(e) Latest Mining Plan Not available
Document
(f) Date of EC Not available
(g) CTE and CTO Not available
(h) Production and dispatches Not available
for 05 years period before
lease expiry or last 05 years
119
(J) Pradeep Kumar R/o 359/18, Nirmal Nagar, Keedganj, Allahabad i.e., Respondent 24 (p/929):
S.N. Details
(a) Gata No. 430
(b) Lease area 6.619 hectares
(c) Village Madanpur, Tehsil Bara,
District-Prayagraj
(d) Period of lease 28.10.1978 to 27.10.1988
(e) Latest Mining Plan Mining Plan dated 19.05.1997
Document
(f) Date of EC Nil
(g) CTE and CTO Not available
(h) Production and dispatches Not available
for 05 years period before
lease expiry or last 05 years
(K) Jai Shri Trading Co., Ashok Kumar Agarwal, R/o Meerganj, Allahabad i.e., Respondent 25 (p/930):
S.N. Details
(a) Gata No. 264, 265, 271, 245, 254, 257,
260, 261, 262, 259, 258, 218,
219 and 220
(b) Lease area 51.17 hectares
(c) Village Bhaisahi, Tehsil Bara,
District-Prayagraj
(d) Period of lease 29.11.1980 to 28.11.2000
(e) Latest Mining Plan Not traceable in office
Document
(f) Date of EC Nil
(g) CTE and CTO Not available
(h) Production and dispatches Not available
for 05 years period before
lease expiry or last 05 years
120
(L) Mahender Bharti S/o Keshav Bharti, R/o Pura Baldu, Tehsil-
Bara, Allahabad i.e., Respondent 26 (p/931):
S.N. Details
(a) Gata No. 1 to 7, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,
56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 66, 102, 115,
116 and 117
(b) Lease area 36.54 hectares
(c) Village Aswan, Tehsil Bara,
District-Prayagraj
(d) Period of lease 06.03.1991 to 05.03.2001
(e) Latest Mining Plan Not available
Document
(f) Date of EC 30.09.2013
(g) CTE and CTO Not available
(h) Production and dispatches Not available
for 05 years period before
lease expiry or last 05 years
(M) M/s Rama Silica Sand Trading, R/o 359/18, Nirmal Nagar, Keedganj, Allahabad i.e., Respondent 27 (p/932):
S.N. Details
(a) Gata No. 111, 112, 113, 289, 290, 300
(b) Lease area 20.17 hectares
(c) Village Janwa, Tehsil Bara,
District-Prayagraj
(d) Period of lease 27.02.1975 to 26.02.1995
(e) Latest Mining Plan Mining Plan dated 18.04.1995
Document
(f) Date of EC Not available
(g) CTE and CTO Not available
(h) Production and dispatches Not available
for 05 years period before
lease expiry or last 05 years
121
(N) Bhulli Mehraj & Sons i.e., Respondent 28 (p/933):
S.N. Details
(a) Gata No. 766, 732, 731, 741, 783, 764,
763, 762, 761, 760, 745, 746,
744, 747, 748, 749, 750, 751,
752, 753, 756, 755, 758, 757,
765, 781, 783, 780, 903, 902,
790, 905, 906, 901, 907, 900,
874, 875, 876, 793, 792, 794,
788, 787, 777, 776, 771, 774,
775, 798 and 799
(b) Lease area 47.06 hectares
(c) Village Janwa, Tehsil Bara,
District-Prayagraj
(d) Period of lease 16.06.1989 to 15.06.1999
(e) Latest Mining Plan Not available
Document
(f) Date of EC Not available
(g) CTE and CTO Not available
(h) Production and dispatches Not available
for 05 years period before
lease expiry or last 05 years
(O) Laxmi Mining Corporation, Laxmi Bhawan, Shankargarh,
Allahabad i.e., Respondent 29 (p/934):
S.N. Details (a) Gata No. 136 (b) Lease area 26.03 hectares (c) Village Dhara, Tehsil Bara, District-Prayagraj (d) Period of lease 10.05.1974 to 09.05.1994 (e) Latest Mining Plan Not available Document (f) Date of EC Not available (g) CTE and CTO Not available (h) Production and dispatches Not available for 05 years period before lease expiry or last 05 years 122
(P) Harimandir Mineral Traders i.e., Respondent 31 (p/936):
S.N. Details
(a) Gata No. 333
(b) Lease area 19.50 hectares
(c) Village Derabassi, Tehsil Bara,
District-Prayagraj
(d) Period of lease 06.07.1972 to 05.07.1989 and
06.07.1989 to 05.07.1999
(e) Latest Mining Plan Not available
Document
(f) Date of EC Not available
(g) CTE and CTO Not available
(h) Production and dispatches Not available
for 05 years period before
lease expiry or last 05 years
(Q) Harimandir Mineral Traders i.e., Respondent 32 (p/937):
S.N. Details
(a) Gata No. 1/2
(b) Lease area 17.60 acres
(c) Village Bhaisahi, Tehsil Bara, District-
Prayagraj
(d) Period of lease 16.06.1988 to 15.06.1998
(e) Latest Mining Plan Not available
Document
(f) Date of EC Not available
(g) CTE and CTO Not available
(h) Production and dispatches Not available
for 05 years period before
lease expiry or last 05 years
(R) Rani Rajender Kumari 'Ba': In respect to 18th lease of Rani Rajender Kumari 'Ba', the following information has been in the Report:
"श्रीमती रानी राजेन्द्र कुमारी 'बा' राजमहल शंकरगढ़, जनपद इलाहाबाद, 123 जनपद प्रयागराज के तहसील बारा स्थित 46 ग्राम-शंकरगढ़, तालापार, कपारी, बरूई, खानसेमरा, बेयोनरा, रायपटना, मातरवर, गोरखा, घेयोडोरा, चक अराजी गढवा, गाढा, बेनीपुर, लखनपुर, कैथा, शशवराजपुर, ओसा, अतरी कपसन, चरीहारी, गोबरा संग्राम, पगवार, मशियारी बहे शलया, गोबरा हेवार, बरहै या, भोनरी, लोहगरा, गधामार, चन्द्रा, ललई, पैसा, लग ं खुदद, बघेला, पण्डु आ, परवेजाबाद अशलया बुरही, बसहरा तरहार, लालापुर, मदु री, प्रतापपुर, सुरवल का शवस्तृत शववरण शनम्नवत् है :-
1. महाराव राजा कमलाकर शसंह इस्टे ट, शंकरगढ़, परगना बारा, जनपद इलाहाबाद द्वारा शदनां क 16.04.1947 को परगना बारा स्थित 46 ग्रामों में स्टॉन ब्लास्ट, कंकड़, मोरम व सैण्ड के शलए Perpetual Lease श्रीमती रानी राजेन्द्र कुमारी 'बा' के पक्ष में शलखा गया था।
2. जमींनदारी शवनाश एवं भूशम व्यविा अशधशनयम की धारा-108 (1) में अंशकत प्राशवधानों के अन्तगदत महाराव राजा कमलाकर शसंह द्वारा रानी श्रीमती राजेन्द्र कुमारी 'बा' के पक्ष में शलखे गये Perpetual Lease को उ०प्र० शासन द्वारा शदनां क 27.04.1959 को पूवद शतों के अनुसार पट्टाशवलेख शनस्पाशदत शकया गया है ।
3. पट्टाशवलेख की शतों के अनुसार वाशषदक रायल्टी 4000/- रू० शनधाद ररत की गयी है जो दो बराबर शकस्तों में 01 जून तथा 01 शदसम्बर को दे य होगी। उक्त पट्टे के 50 वषद पूणद होने के पश्चात् रायल्टी में 10 प्रशतशत वृस्थि शकये जाने का प्राशवधान शकया गया है ।
4. पट्टाशवलेख की शतों के अनुसार रायल्टी जमा न करने के कारण शदनां क 01.01.1952 से 26.06.1968 तक की रायल्टी का आगणन 9,40,235.00 रु० शकया गया एवं उक्त धनराशश को जमा करने हे तु श्रीमती 'बा' को नोशटस दी गयी। उक्त नोशटस द्वारा इनके खनन पररवहन पर भी रोक लगा शदया गया था शजससे क्षुब्ध होकर श्रीमती 'बा' द्वारा शसशवल न्यायालय में वाद संख्या-107/1969 दास्थखल शकया गया शजसमें मा० शसशवल न्यायालय द्वारा शदनांक 02.07.1979 को आदे श पाररत करके खनन पररवहन में शकसी भी प्रकार का अवरोध उत्पन्न न शकये जाने का आदे श पाररत शकया गया और उक्त धनराशश की वसूली पर रोक लगा दी गयी।
5. मा० न्यायालय के उक्त आदे श शदनां क 02.07.1979 के शवरूि उ०प्र० शासन के शनदे श पर उ०प्र० सरकार की ओर से माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद के समक्ष अपील संख्या 481/1979 दास्थखल शकया गया है जो अभी भी शवचाराधीन है।
6. मा० न्यायालय के उक्त आदे श शदनां क 02.07.1979 के अनुपालन में श्रीमती रानी राजेन्द्र कुमारी 'बा' द्वारा खनन पट्टा क्षेत्र में खनन / पररवहन का कायद कराया जा रहा था तथा रायल्टी के मद में 4000/- वाशषदक जमा शकया जा रहा था।
7. श्रीमती रानी राजेन्द्र कुमारी बा द्वारा 46 ग्राम में से 07 ग्राम क्रमशः 1. शवहररया, 2.
परवेजाबाद 3. शधवगेड़ा 4. घोघर 5. मंदरू 6. गाढ़ा 7. प्रतापपुर में 839.72 हे क्टेयर खनन पट्टा क्षेत्र के Modification हेतु दी गयी सहमशत के आधार पर शजलाशधकारी महोदय द्वारा शासन को कई पत्र भेजे गये हैं । शासन स्तर से भी खनन पट्टा शनयंत्रक, नागपुर एवं सशचव, खान मंत्रालय भारत सरकार, नई शदल्ली को पत्र भेजा गया है शकन्तु Modification होने के सम्बन्ध में अभी तक कोई सूचना प्राप्त नहीं हुई है । 124
8. शसशवल शमस ररट याशचका संख्या-9416 (एम०/ बी०) / 2010 एवं ररट याशचका संख्या- 10025 (एम०/ बी०) / 2010 में पाररत मा० उच्च न्यायालय के आदे श शदनां क 29.04.2011 द्वारा भारत सरकार की अशधसूचना शदनां क 14.09.2006 के अनुसार समस्त खनन पट्टा क्षेत्रों के शलए पयाद वरण क्लीयरे न्स अशनवायद कर शदया गया है। वषद 2011 में खनन पट्टा बन्द हो गया है ।"
English Translation by Tribunal:
"Smt. Rani Rajendra Kumari 'Ba' Rajmahal Shankargarh, District Allahabad, The detailed description of 46 villages located in Tehsil Bara of District Prayagraj - Shankargarh, Talapar, Kapari, Barui, Khansemra, Bayonra, Raipatna, Matarwar, Gorkha, Gheyodora, Chak Arazi Gadhwa, Gadha, Benipur, Lakhanpur, Kaitha, Shivrajpur, Osa, Atri Kapasan, Charihari, Gobra Sangram, Pagwar, Majhiyari Bahelia, Gobra Hewar, Barhaiya, Bhonri, Lohgara, Gadhamar, Chandra, Lalai, Paisa, Longkhurd, Baghela, Pandua, Parvezabad, Aliya Burhi, Bashara Tarhar, Lalapur, Maduri, Pratappur, Surwal is given below:-
1. Maharaja Raja Kamalakar Singh Estate, Shankargarh, Pargana Bara, District Allahabad had written a Perpetual Lease in favour of Smt. Rani Rajendra Kumari 'Ba' for stone blast, pebbles, morrum and sand in 46 villages situated in Pargana Bara on 16.04.1947.
2. Under the provisions of Section-108(1) of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the Perpetual Lease written by Maharaja Raja Kamalakar Singh in favour of Rani Smt. Rajendra Kumari 'Ba' has been executed as a lease deed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 27.04.1959 as per the earlier conditions.
3. As per the conditions of the lease deed, annual royalty of Rs. 4000/- has been fixed which will be payable in two equal installments on 01 June and 01 December. A provision has been made to increase the royalty by 10 percent after completion of 50 years of the said lease.
4. Due to non-payment of royalty as per the terms of the lease deed, royalty from 01.01.1952 to 26.06.1968 was assessed at Rs. 9,40,235.00 and notice was issued to Mrs. 'Ba' to deposit the said amount. Her mining transportation was also stopped 125 by the said notice, due to which Mrs. 'Ba', being agitated, filed suit number-107/1969 in the civil court, in which the Hon'ble Civil Court passed an order on 02.07.1979 ordering not to create any kind of obstruction in mining transportation and banned the recovery of the said amount.
5. Against the above order of the Hon'ble Court dated 02.07.1979, on the instructions of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Appeal No. 481/1979 has been filed before the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad on behalf of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, which is still pending.
6. In compliance of the above order of the Hon'ble Court dated 02.07.1979, mining/transportation work was being done in the mining lease area by Smt. Rani Rajendra Kumari 'Ba' and Rs.4000/- was being deposited annually as royalty.
7. On the basis of consent given by Smt. Rani Rajendra Kumari Ba for modification of 839.72 hectare mining lease area in 07 out of 46 villages namely 1. Vihariya, 2. Parvezabad, 3. Dhivgera, 4. Ghoghar, 5. Mandru, 6. Garha, 7. Pratappur, several letters have been sent to the government by the District Magistrate. Letters have also been sent from the government level to the Mining Lease Controller, Nagpur and Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Government of India, New Delhi, but no information has been received yet regarding modification.
8. As per the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 29.04.2011 passed in Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 9416 (M/B) / 2010 and Writ Petition No. 10025 (M/B) / 2010, environmental clearance has been made mandatory for all mining lease areas as per the Government of India notification dated 14.09.2006. The mining lease was closed in the year 2011."
79. The Fourth Report further gives information of 07 active leases in annexure-C (p/938) as under:
(A) M/s Chawla Silica Sand Trading Company, Pa. Shri Darshan Lal Chawla & Ors. R/o - S C Basu Road, Prayagraj:
• Gata No. - 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 25, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 55, 56, 57, 96, 305, 306, 307 and 309 126 • Lease area - 5.49 hectares • Village - Janwa • Period of lease - 09.09.2014 to 08.09.2034 (B) M/s Chawla Silica Sand Trading Company, Pa. Shri Darshan Lal Chawla & Ors. Niwasi- S C Basu Road, Prayagraj:• Gata No. - 2
• Lease area - 16.75 hectares
• Village - Lakhnauti
• Period of lease - 30.01.2015 to 29.01.2045
(C) Smt. Nirmal Rani W/o Late Yogendra Chawla Niwasi - 11 Churh Lane, Prayagraj:• Gata No. - 2
• Lease area - 48.86 hectares
• Village - Sonoauri Baakipur Chathara Ghurhetha
• Period of lease - 28.11.2008 to 27.11.2028
(D) Shri Abhinandan Tiwari S/o Shri K B Tiwari Niwasi- 18A/11 Dwarikapuri Colony, Prayagraj:
• Gata No. - 485, 489, 496, 502, 508, 1053,1065, 1072, 1088, 1089, 1101,1102 and 1134 • Lease area - 14.57 hectares • Village - Janwa • Period of lease - 12.09.2013 to 11.09.2033 (E) M/s Modi Minerals Udhyog, Pro. Smt. Amita Gupta W/o Shri Dwarika Prasad Gupta, R/o - 43/1 SP Marg, Civil Lines, Prayagraj:
• Gata No. - 84, 87, 100, 101, 105, 110,120, 135 and 143 127 • Lease area - 17.75 hectares • Village - Janwa • Period of lease - 24.05.2013 to 23.05.2033 (F) Shri Ashok Kumar Vajpaye S/o D N Vajpaye, R/o - 109 Parerhot, Rambag, Prayagraj:
• Gata No. - 630 Bhaag, 631Bhaag, 633 Bhaag to 638 Bhaag, 639, 640, 641 Bhaag, 642Bhaag, 643, 644 Bhaag • Lease area - 29.80 hectares • Village - Pura Baldu • Period of lease - 23.02.2012 to 22.02.2032 (G) Shri Rajeev Kumar Chawla S/o Late Surendra Kumar Chawla Niwasi - 11 Church Lane, Prayagraj:
• Gata No. - 377mi
• Lease area - 3.59 hectares
• Village - Pura Baldu
• Period of lease - 26.11.2011 to 25.11.2031
80. Joint Committee has further recorded its observations in respect of some of the mining leases in annexure-C at page 940 to 948 which were categorised as expired/closed mining leases, as under:
(A) Shri Harihar Prasad Gupta, Niwasi-Shankargarh, Prayagraj, Area-Bhaisahi:
"Observations:
1.1 Large scale illegal mining (Lat. 25.265796, Long 81.571873) by using explosive (detonator wire were seen in the site) was found in the lead area by the joint committee. Drill on the rocks also seen during visit to the lease area inside the rocks. The Lease agreement with the Government has been 128 expired on 07.01.2021.
1.2. During visit to the mine area, no workers seen but evidence of the fresh mining activities observe i.e., various kind of tools were kept covered with the sand. Photographs are self-
exclamatory.
1.3. Requested Local administration to take legal action against illegal mine at the earliest possible. (Photograph. 1-3)"
(B) Om Laxmi Industries, 86 Mahjani Tola Allahabad, Area-Aswa:
"Observations:
1.4 During visit it was found that the washing unit was not in operation however, signs of mining (small scale) activities observed. The Lease agreement with the Government has been expired on 07.08.2021. (Photograph 4-7) 1.5. Huge quantity of the silica sand was found stored within premises.
1.6. No representative of the unit was found during visit to the lease area.
1.7. It was informed by mining officer that the ROM is procured from other leases on agreement basis. Agreement copy is required for verification."
(C) Rishi Chawla S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Chawla Niwasi 87 Darbhanga Colony Allahabad and Smt. Vijay Laxmi Kesharwani 86 Mahjani Tola Prayagraj, Area- Aswa:
"Observations:
1.1 During visit no mining activities (Lati. 25.255905, Longi. 81.580561) found in the designated lease area on 27.07.2021 by the Joint Committee. The Lease agreement with the Government has been expired on 27.07.2021.
(Photograph 8-10)"
(D) M/s Harimandir Mineral Traders, Sohabatiyabag, Allahabad, Area- Chathera Gurhetha:
"Observations:
"1.1 Onsite hydraulic excavator found and material handling activities was observed. (Photograph 11-14) 129 1.2. The Lease agreement with the Government has been expired on 14.12.2019.
1.3 As per information approx. 3 lakh tons of seized material was lifted by successful bidders (M/s Manglore Minerals). Related documents are required for verification.
(E) Shri Badriprasad Amarnath Niwasi- Shankargarh Bara, Allahabad, Area- Lakhnauti:
"Observations:
"1.1 No mining activities found and The Lease agreement with the Government has been expired on 09.08.1993. (Photograph 15-16) 1.2. No significant degradation of environmental conditions observed.
(F) J R Varhneya 14/2 Lauthar Road, Allahabad, Area-Janwa:
"Observations:
1.1 No mining activities found and The Lease agreement with the Government has been expired on 29.12.2000. (Photograph 17-18)"
(G) M/s Indrajeet Kaur, Area-Derabaari:
"Observations:
1.1 Mining activities observed at 3-4 places in the lease area.
(Photograph 19-22), whereas, the Lease agreement with the Government has been expired on 14.10.2009.
1.2. It was recommended to take legal action against the culprit." (H) S P Kesharwani 86 Mahjani Tola, Allahabad, Area- Kachari:
"Observations:
1.1 M/s S. P. Kesarwani lease area is situated with in the premises of M/s Vijay Laxmi. (Photograph 11-12) 1.2. Mining activities in the lease area of M/s S.P. Kesarwani was also not observed."130
(I) Pradeep Kumar, R/o 359/18 Nirmal Nagar, Keedganj Allahabad, Area- Madanpur:
"Observations:
"1.1 No mining activities found in the lease area and the Lease agreement with the Government has been expired on 27.10.1998 (Photograph)"
(J) Jai Shri Trading Company, Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, R/o Meerganj Allahabad, Area- Bhaishahi:
"Observations:
1.1. No mining activities found in the lease area and the Lease agreement with the Government has been expired on 28.11.2000 (Photograph)"
(K) Mahendra Bharti S/o Keshav Bharti, Pura Baldu, Bara, Allahabad, Area-Aswa:
"Observations:
1.1. No mining activities found in the lease area and the Lease agreement with the Government has been expired on 05.03.2001 (Photograph-)"
(L) M/s Rama Silica Sand Trading, R/o 359/18 Nirmal Nagar, Keedganj, Allahabad, Area-Janwa:
"Observations:
1.1 No mining activities found in the lease area and the Lease agreement with the Government has been expired on 26.02.1995 (Photograph-)"
(M) Shri Bhulli Maharaj & Sons Pro. Shri R D Awasthi Niwasi-
Shankargarh Allahabad, Area-Janwa:
"Observations:
1.1 No mining activities found in the lease area and the Lease agreement with the Government has been expired on 15.06.1999 (Photograph-)"131
(N) Shri Laxmi Mining Corporation, Address- Laxmi Bhawan, Po-
Shankargarh, Allahabad, Area-Dhara:
"Observations:
1.1 No mining activities found in the lease area and the Lease agreement with the Government has been expired on 09.05.1994 (Photograph-) 1.2. Part of the lease area has been developed as habitation in village area. Detail may be had from the mining officer of the area concern."
(O) Smt. Rani Rajendra Kumari Ba Rajmahal Shankargarh District Allahabad Tehsil- Bara, Area- Teh-Bara including 46 villages:
"Observations:
1.1 Detail information will be provided by the mining officer.
(Photograph-)"
(P) Harimandir Mineral Traders Sohbatiyabag, Allahabad, Area-
Derabari:
"Observations:
1.1 No mining activities found in the lease area and the Lease agreement with the Government has been expired on 05.07.1999. (Photgraph-)"
(Q) Harimandir Mineral Traders Sohbatiyabag, Allahabad, Area-
Bhaisahi:
"Observations:
1.1 No mining activities found in the lease area and in the Lease area 15.06.1998. (Photgraph-)"
81. The details of silica sand mining areas of 12 mining leases including the active mining lease and closed mining leases have been given at annexure-D at page 949 as under:
जनपद-प्रयागराज में सिसलका िैण्ड के खनन क्षेत्रं की अद्यतन स्थिसत 132 क्र० पररहारधारक का शववरण पररहार क्षेत्र का शववरण ई०सी० की मात्रा सं० (शम०टन) नाम क्षेत्रफल एकड़ पररहार समास्थप्त का में शदनां क 1 2 3 4 5
1. मे० चावला शसशलका सैण्ड टर े शडं ग 5.49 हे ० 08.09.2034 26,160 कम्पनी पा० श्री दशदन लाल चावला व अन्य शन०-42 एस०सी बासु रोड, प्रयागराज
2. मे० चावला शसशलका सैण्ड टर े शडं ग 16.75 हे० 29.01.2045 1,50,000 कम्पनी पा० श्री दशदन लाल चावला व अन्य शन०-42 एस०सी बासु रोड, प्रयागराज
3. श्रीमती शनमदल रानी पत्नी स्व० योगेन्द्र 43.86 हे० 27.11.2028 60,000 चावला शन०-11 चचद लेन, प्रयागराज
4. श्री अशभनन्दन शतवारी पुत्र श्री के०बी० 14.57 हे० 11.09.2033 25,000 शतवारी शन०- 18ए/11 द्वाररकापुरी कालोनी, प्रयागराज
5. मे० मोदी शमनरल्स उद्योग प्रो० श्रीमती 17.75 हे० 23.05.2033 18,750 अशनता गुप्ता पत्नी श्री द्वाररका प्रसाद गुप्ता शन०-43/1 एस०पी० मागद शसशवल लाइन्स, प्रयागराज
6. श्री अशोक कुमार बाजपेयी पुत्र स्व० 29.80 हे० 22.02.2032 3,00,000 डी०एन० बाजपेयी शन०-109 पारे रहाट, रामबाग, जनपद प्रयागराज
7. श्री राजीव कुमार चावला पुत्र स्व० 3.59 हे ० 25.11.2031 60,000 सुरेन्द्र कुमार चावला शन०-11 चचद लेन, प्रयागराज
8. श्री हररहर प्रसाद गुप्ता शन०- 1.27 हे ० 08.02.2018 15,000 शंकरगढ़, इलाहाबाद (खनन पट्टा (3.15 एकड़) समाप्त) 133
9. सवद श्री ओम लक्ष्मी इण्डस्टर ीज, 86 8.397 हे० 07.08.2021 उ०प्र० शासन द्वारा महजनी टोला, इलाहाबाद (खनन पट्टा शासनादे श संख्या-
(20.75 एकड़) समाप्त) 6209/86-2011- 127/11 शदनां क 01.07.2011 स्पष्ट शनदे श शदये गये है शक जो पट्टे अशधसूचना शदनां क 14.09.2006 में प्रभाशवत उपरान्त नये पट्टों पर पयाद वरण स्वच्छता प्रमाण पत्र की आवश्यकता होगी।
शदनां क 14.09.2006 के पूवद स्वीकृत खनन पट्टे शजनकी अवशध अभी समात नहीं हुई है , वे पट्टों में खनन संशक्रयायें यधावत चलती रहे गी।
(37425 शम०टन)
10. श्रीमती शवजय लक्ष्मी केसरवानी 86 15.00 एकड़ 27.07.2021 उ०प्र० शासन द्वारा महजनी टोला, प्रयागराज (खनन पट्टा शासनादे श संख्या-
समाप्त) 6209/86-2011-
127/11 शदनां क
01.07.2011 स्पष्ट
शनदे श शदये गये है
शक जो पत्ते
अशधसूचना शदनां क
14.09.2006 में
प्रभाशवत उपरान्त
नये पट्टों पर
पयाद वरण स्वच्छता
प्रमाण पत्र की
आवश्यकता होगी।
शदनां क
14.09.2006 के पूवद
स्वीकृत खनन पत्ते
शजनकी अवशध सभी
समाप्त नहीं हुई है ,
134
वे पट्टों में खनन
संशक्रयायें यथावत
चलती रहे गी।
(90,000 शम0 टन)
11. श्री ऋशष चावला पुत्र श्री रमेश चन्द्र 20.59 हे० 13.01.2020 27.281
चावला शन०-87 दरभंगा कालोनी,
इलाहाबाद (खनन पट्टा समाप्त)
12. हररमस्थन्दर शमनरल टर े डसद 104.206 हे ० 14.12.202019 6,00,000
सोहबशतयाबाग़, इलाहाबाद (खनन
पट्टा समाप्त)
English translation by Tribunal:
"Updated status of Silica Sand mining areas in District-Prayagraj Sr. Details of the remitter Description of the Quantity of EC (MT) No. containment zone Name Area in Date of acres expiry of remission 1 2 3 4 5
1. M/s Chawla Silica Sand 5.49 08.09.2034 26,160 Trading Company Prop. Shri Hectares Darshan Lal Chawla and others R/o 42 SC Basu Road, Prayagraj
2. M/s Chawla Silica Sand 16.75 29.01.2045 1,50,000 Trading Company Prop. Shri Hectares Darshan Lal Chawla and others R/o 42 SC Basu Road, Prayagraj
3. Smt. Nirmal Rani W/o Late 43.86 27.11.2028 60,000 Yogender Chawla R/o 11, Hectares Church Lane, Prayagraj
4. Shri Abhinandan Tiwari S.o 14.57 11.09.2033 25,000 Shri K.B. Tiwari R/o 18A/11, Hectares 135 Dwarikapuri Colony, Prayagraj
5. M/s Modi Minerals Industry 17.75 23.05.2033 18,750 Prop. Smt. Anita Gupta W/o Hectares Sh. Dwarika Prasad Gupta R/o 43/1 S.P. Marg. Civil Lines, Prayagraj
6. Shri Ashok Kumar Bajpai S/o 29.80 22.02.2032 3,00,000 Late D.N. Bajpai R/o 109 Hectares Parerahat, Rambagh, Distt.
Prayagraj
7. Shri Rajeev Kumar Chawla S/o 3.59 25.11.2031 60,000 Late Surender Kumar Chawla Hectares R/o 11, Church Lane, Prayagraj
8. Shri Harihar Prasad Gupta R/o 1.27 08.02.2018 15,000 Shankargarh, Allahabad श्री Hectares हररहर प्रसाद गुप्ता शन०- शंकरगढ़, (3.15 Acres) इलाहाबाद (mining lease expired)
9. Sarv Shri Om Laxmi Industries, 8.397 07.08.2021 The Uttar Pradesh 86 Mahajani Tola, Allahabad Hectares Government has issued (mining lease expired) clear instructions vide (20.75 Order no. 6209/86-2011- Acres) 127/11 dated 01.07.2011 that new leases affected by the notification dated 14.09.2006 will require environmental clearance certificate. Mining operations will continue as usual in those leases whose term has not expired yet. (37425 MT)
10. Smt. Vijay Laxmi Kesarwani 86 15.00 Acres 27.07.2021 The Uttar Pradesh Mahjani Tola, Prayagraj Government has issued (Mining Lease Expired) clear instructions vide Order No. 6209/86-2011- 127/11 dated 01.07.2011 that new leases affected 136 by the notification dated 14.09.2006 will require environmental clearance certificate. Mining operations will continue as usual in those leases whose validity has not expired for mining leases approved before 14.09.2006. (90,000 MT)
11. Shri Rishi Chawla S/o Shri 20.59 13.01.2020 27.281 Ramesh Chander Chawla R/o Hectares 87, Darbhanda Colony, Allahabad (Mining Lease Expired)
12. Harimandir Mineral Traders 104.206 14.12.202019 6,00,000 Sohbatiyabagh, Allahabad Hectares (Mining Lease Expired)
82. The above document which has been filed as annexure-D also contains a note as part of annexure-D at page 950 which has been prepared by Mining Inspector, Prayagraj on 16.01.2024 and reads as under:
"नोट-
1. असभलेखों के अनुसार वर्ग 2017-18 में िनपद प्रयागराि में सससलका सैण्ड्ड के उत्पादन की क्षमिा कुल-14,09,616 सम०टन थी।
2. वर्ग 2018-19 में 13,94,616 सम०टन, वर्ग 2019-20 में 7,64,335 सम०टन, वर्ग 2020-21 में 6,39,910 सम०टन
3. वर्ग 2020-21 के बाद िनपद प्रयागराि में सससलका सैण्ड्ड के उत्पादन की क्षमिा कुल-6,39,910"
83. Details of 42 washing units is under:
137
S. Name of the Plant Bhandaran Consent Status Water CGWA/SGWA Not No. proponent and Capacity Validity of Meter NOC STATUS Operational site address and Borewell Status respondent no.
1 Chawla Silica 3500 Mines 31-03-28 Borewell Digital Water NOC Grant
Sand Trading Co. Ton/Month Holder Flow Meter
Shivrajpur, Bara, &
Prayagraj, R-33 Piezometer
Installed
2 Chawla Silica 4000 Mines 31-07-24 Borewell Digital Water NOC Grant
Sand Trading Co. Ton/Month Holder Flow Meter
(Crushing & &
Washing) Piezometer
Lakhnauti, Bara, Installed
Prayagraj, R-34
3 Chawla Silica 1750 Mines 31-03-28 Borewell Digital Water NOC Grant
Sand Trading Co. Ton/Month Holder Flow Meter
Garha, Bara, &
Prayagraj, R-35 Piezometer
Installed
4 Quality Minerals 15 Mines 31-03-25 Borewell Water Flow NOC Grant
Development Ton/Day Holder Meter
Corporation Installed
Kaitha, Bara,
Prayagraj, R-36
5 Quality Minerals 15 Mines 31-03-25 Borewell Water Flow NOC Grant
Development Ton/Day Holder Meter
Corporation Installed
Garwa,
Sheorajpur,
Prayagraj, R-37
6 Krishna 15 Mines 31-03-26 Borewell Water Flow
Enterprises, Ton/Day Holder Meter
Ledar, Bara, Installed
Prayagraj, R-38
7 Modi Mineral 1000 Mines 31-03-27 Borewell Water Flow Noc Grant
Udyog Ton/Month Holder Meter
Bihariya,Bara, Installed
Prayagraj, R-39
8 Singh Contractor 20 _ 31-03-25 Borewell No
And Supplier Ton/Day
Ledar, Bara,
Prayagraj, R-40
9 Sri Girdhari Lal 15 Mines 31-03-26 Borewell Water Flow
Chawla & Sons Ton/Day Holder Meter
Benipur, Installed
Shankargrah,
Prayagraj, R-41
10 Harsh Minerals 15 _ 31-03-26 Borewell No
Kachari Bara Ton/Day
Prayagraj, R-42
138
11 Barawhite Stone 15 _ 31-03-25 No No
Heights Pvt Ltd Ton/Day Borewell
Parvejabad,
Prayagraj, R-43
12 Manglore Minerals 2000 Mines 31-07-26 Borewell Water Flow NOC Grant
Private Limted Ton/Day Holder Meter
Aswan, Bara, Installed
Prayagraj, R-44
13 Krishna Minerals 1000 Mines 31-07-28 Borewell Water Flow NOC Grant
Benipur, Ton/Month Holder Meter
Prayagraj, R-45 Installed
14 Ashok Kumar 100 Mines 31-07-27 Borewell No NOC Grant
Bajpai Ton/Day Holder
Pure Baldu,
Bargarhi,
Shivrajpur,
Prayagraj, R-46
15 Baba 100 Sita Ram 31-03-24 Borewell Water Flow NOC Grant Closed
Vighneshwar Ton/Month Agarwal Meter
Minerls (Narayan Mines Installed
Enterprises)
Bargarhi,
Shivrajpur,
Prayagraj, R-47
16 Sri Girdhari Lal 1800 Mines 31-03-24 Borewell Water Flow NOC Grant
Chawla & Sons Ton/Month Holder Meter
Kaitha, Lakhanpur Installed
Shankargrah,
Prayagraj, R-48
17 Guru Dayal Singh 900 31-03-26 Borewell Water Flow Applied
& Co. (Silica) Ton/Month Meter
Kaitha, Installed
Shankargrah,
Bara, Prayagraj,
R-49
18 Vandana Singh 25 Nirmal Rani 31-03-24 Borewell No Closed
(Stone/Silica Ton/Day Chawla
Washing Plant)
Bankipur, Bara,
Prayagraj, R-50
19 Silica Khanij 1500 Mines 31-03-24 Borewell Water Flow NOC Grant
Udyog Ton/Month Holder Meter
Kaitha, Bara, Installed
Prayagraj, R-51
20 Silica Khanij 1500 Mines 31-03-24 Borewell Water Flow
Udyog Ton/Month Holder Meter
Kaitha, Shivrajpur, Installed
Bara, Prayagraj,
R-52
21 Silica Khanij 1500 Mines 31-03-24 Borewell Water Flow
Udyog Ton/Month Holder Meter
Lakhanpur, Bara, Installed
139
Prayagraj, R-53
22 New Triveni 1500 Mines 31-03-24 Borewell Water Flow NOC Grant
Minerals Ton/Month Holder Meter
Lakhanpur, Bara, Installed
Prayagraj, R-54
23 Adishwara 25 31-03-24 No No
Construction & Ton/Day Borewell
Minerals Co.
Parvejabad, Bara,
Prayagraj, R-55
24 Prayag Quality 40 Mines 31-03-24 Borewell No
Sand Ton/Day Holder
Pratappur, Bara,
Prayagraj, R-56
25 Abhijaat Singh 40 Rajeev 31-03-23 Borewell No
Associated Ton/Day Kumar
Golahiya, Bara, Chawla
Prayagraj, R-57
26 Anupam 1000 31-03-26 Borewell Water Flow NOC Grant
Enterprises Ton/Month Meter
Garha Katra Installed
Shankargarh Bara
Prayagraj, R-58
27 Shree Bhagwan 15 Amita 31-03-23 Borewell Water Flow
Dass Industrues Ton/Day Gupta Meter
Shivrajpur, Bara, Mines Installed
Prayagraj
Allahabad, R-59
28 Ujjwal Trading Co. 25 Sita Ram 31-03-26 No No
Bargari, Bara, Ton/Day Agarwal Borewell
Prayagraj Mines
Allahabad, R-60
29 Gupta Enterprises 20 Abhinandan 31-03-25 Borewell Water Flow Applied
Shivrajpur, Ton/Day Silica Meter
Shankargarg, Installed
Prayagraj, R-61
30 Jai Shree Trading 15 Sita Ram 31-03-26 Borewell Water Flow NOC Grant
Company Ton/Day Agarwal Meter
Kaitha, Bara, Mines Installed
Prayagraj, R-62
31 Jai Shree Trading 1500 Sita Ram 31-03-24 No No
Company Ton/Month Agarwal Borewell
Ramna, Bargari, Mines
Prayagraj, R-63
32 Narayan Dutt 15 Abhinandan 31-03-26 Borewell Water Flow
Tiwari (Silica Ton/Day Silica Meter
Washing Plant) Installed
Benipur,
Shankargrah,
Prayagraj, R-64
140
33 Glass And 25 Ashok 31-03-24 No No
Foundary Sand Ton/Day Kumar Borewell
Bargari, Bara, Bajapai
Prayagraj, R-65
34 Om Luxmi 50 31-03-26 No No
Minerals Ton/Day Borewell
Kachari, Bara,
Prayagraj, R-66
35 Om Laxmi 45 31-03-26 No No
Industries Ton/Day Borewell
Kachari, Bara,
Prayagraj, R-67
36 Asha Devi (Silica 25 31-03-23 Borewell No Closed
Washing Plant) Ton/Day
Kaitha, Shivrajpur,
Prayagraj, R-68
37 Kr Minerals 20 Chawla 31-03-25 Borewell NOC Grant
Bargari, Bihariya, Ton/Day Silica Sand
Shankargrah,
Prayagraj, Bargari,
Bihariya,
Shankargrah,
Prayagraj, R-69
38 S B S Enterprises 40 Chawla 31-03-25 Borewell NOC Grant Closed
Lakhnauti, Bara, Ton/Day Silica Sand
Prayagraj, R-70
39 Sita Devi (Silica 10 31-03-25 Borewell No Closed
Washing Plant) Ton/Day
Ledar, Bara,
Prayagraj, R-71
40 Laxmi Mineral 25 31-03-25 Borewell Water Flow Closed
Manufacturer And Ton/Day Meter
Traders Installed
Garha Katra,
Shankargrah,
Prayagraj, R-72
41 Badri Prasad Amar 12.5 Navneet 31-03-25 Borewell Water Flow Applied
Nath Ton/Day Agarwal Meter
Shivrajpur, Bara, Installed
Prayagraj, R-73
42 Quality Minerals 1000 Mines 31-03-26 Borewell Water Flow NOC Grant
Development Ton/Month Holder Meter
Corporation Installed
Ledar, Bara,
Prayagraj, R-74
84. Details of 42 washing plants are given in annexure-E at page 951 of the paper book. Fourth Report said that rated capacity of 42 washing plants is 588300 TPA. On an average, as per information, the washing 141 plant operates for 08 months only (excluding 04 months of rainy season).
The annual capacity for washing plants for finished silica sand production is given in annexure-E in the form of a chart which is same as we have already quoted above in respect of 42 Silica Sand Washing Plants, hence, not repeating.
85. Tribunal found it appropriate to implead all the above mining lease holders and washing units' owners as parties. Accordingly, 18 expired mining leases holders were impleaded as respondents 15 to 32 and Silica sand washing units' proponents were impleaded as respondents 33 to 74.
86. The observations of Joint Committee in respect of Silica sand mining lease holders are contained in para 6 of Fourth Report which read as under:
"6. Observation of the committee on Silica Sand Mining (SSM) 6.1 The details of 18 expired mining leases are furnished as Annexure-B. Detailed observations in respect of 18 no. of expired leases (Sr. no. 08 to 25) made during field visit in the list of 25 leases including 07 active mining leases (Sr. no. 01 to
07) is annexed as Annexure-C. 6.2 Eighteenth number of mining lease covering 46 no. of villages -
In respect of the perpetual mining lease of Maharao Raja Kamlakar Singh Estate on 16.04.1947 granted in favour of Smt. Rani Rajendra Kumari Ba for minerals Stone Ballast, Kankar, Morrum & Sand covering 46 no. of village of Bara tehsil of Prayagraj district. During discussions with the local administration, it was observed that the mining in area in question started way back even before the time of independence. As the mining started by Rani Kumari Ba, in way back to 1940s and 50s have been continued till 2013. During the period, various mining pits were created which still exists in the said area and known as abandoned mine. At present matter is pending in court for renewal of mining lease. Entire lease could not be visited by the Joint 142 Committee due to its large extent comprising of 46 villages in Bara tehsil.
6.3 As per information collected from the District Mining officer, Prayagraj, during the meeting/inspection of the site, till date total 25 no. of mining leases have been granted for silica sand mining in the District Prayagraj that covers around 16604.092- hectare land with total production capacity of 14,09,66 TPA (Operational 12 no. of mines as on 01.04.2018). Out of 25 leases, 18 mining leases have already been expired, and only 07 leases with an area of 136.31 hectares (6,39,910 TPA) were found active as on 12.10.2023. Updated status of the active mining leases with their annual production capacity are tabulated at table-1.
Table-1
S. Name of the Lease Area (hectare) Sanction
No. Annual
production
capacity
(Tonnes)
1. M/s Chawla Silica 16.75 1,50,000
Sand Trading
Company
2. M/s Chawla Silica 5.49 26,160
Sand Trading
Company
3. Smt. Amita Gupta & 17.75 18,750
Shri Abhilesh Kumar
Gupta
4. Shri Rajiv Kumar 3.59 60,000
Chawla
5. Smt. Nirmal Rani 48.86 60,000
Chawla
6. Shri Ashok Kumar 29.80 3,00,000
Bajpai
7. Shri Abhinandan 14.57 25,000
Tiwari
Total Active Lease Area 136.81 6,39,910 TPA
6.4 Production of mineral silica sand raised during last 05 years is 143 tabulated at table-2. The average production raised during last 05 years is to the tune of 3,50,000 TPA, based on the Information provided by District Mining Officer, Prayagraj. The production capacity as per the environment clearance of the mining leases is annexed as annexure-D. Table-2 Name of Mine 2018- 2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- Remark 2019 20 21 22 23 s Janwa 24900 24910 23700 19750 15373 Active (Abhinadan) Janwa (Amita 19424 16225 5061 12970 18025 Active Gupta) PureBaldu 82700 79277 54810 86940 17135 Active (Ashok B) 0 New Janwa 23973 24441 21018 24951 26160 Active (Darshan) Lakhnauti 36376 45798 47481 47353 10088 Active 0 Uthagitahar 2209 9701 2463 5049 16292 Active Bankipur 21544 12111 15496 23961 26178 Active Kachari 7263 5595 22409 0 0 Expire (Omlaxmi) d Aswa 27212 27175 0 0 0 Expire d Kachari 0 1051 77861 0 0 Expire (Vijaylaxmi) d Gurehatha(Ha 22073 169570 0 0 0 Expire rimandir) 5 d 466336 415854 270299 220974 374258 6.5 Rated capacity of 42 no. of washing plants is 5,88,300 TPA. As per the available information, on an average, these washing plants are being operated for eight months (due to 04 months of rainy season) only. The annual capacity of washing plants for finished silica sand production is annexed as Annexure-E. Considering active operational period of these plants, rated capacity of finished silica sand total expected production to the tune of 3,92,000 TPA. Considering the recovery of silica sand as 80% of ROM, then approximately 5.0 Lakh TPA of Silica Sand ROM is required for attaining the rated capacity of washing plants. It is not feasible to run any plant at its rated capacity; moreover, none of the washing plant were found operated at 144 their rated capacity during field visits. Further, as informed by UPPCB, there is no provision of filing periodic returns about the receipt of ROM & despatches of final product by the washing units, thus the information could not be validated for ascertaining the irregularities, if any. 6.6 It is also observed that Mining lease holders are not complying in totality with the proposals as envisaged in the approved mining plan. Apart from the information submitted earlier by the Joint Committee, some of the major non-
compliances are as indicated below:
6.6.1 Neither green belt is developed in safety zone nor systematic mining is undertaken in a scientific manner as per approved mining plans.
6.6.2 Deviation is found w.r.t. the approved production proposals Vs actual annual production achieved in most of the mines and location also.
6.6.3 Qualified technical persons i.e. mining engineers & Geologists were not found deployed in these mines for ensuring systematic & scientific working.
6.7 Consents to operate (CTO) for certain silica sand mining issued for sand/morrum mining instead of silica sand, which need to be in consonance with mining plan/ Environmental Clearance. Similarly, most of CTOs have been issued by UPPCB without mentioning the production capacity of minerals.
6.8 The abandoned mine pits are spread throughout the area.
These pits are concentrated mostly at the remote locations in corner of the area in question. Considering the number of the abandoned mine pits, the extent of the extraction is not measurable. Moreover, these pits were found restricted to shallow depth which doesn't pose any threat to the environment in general.
6.9 The committee found detonator wires used for blasting at two number of expired mining leases area. Looking to the intensity of illegal mining at the site, FIR have been lodged for both sites. (Copy of the FIRs annexed as annexure-F).
6.10 Various deep pits which have been created by leaseholders 145 during un-systematic mining, filled with rainwater left abandoned; need to be addressed suitably for avoiding any kind of accidents.
6.11 The local people rely mainly on the mining and exploitation of natural resources to develop their household economy. Mining in the area is providing employment directly or indirectly to people of the surrounding villages, their main occupation is mine labouror in silica mines and in silica washing plants. Employment from mining is available throughout the year except in the rainy season when it is not conducive to mine due to water logging of mining pits. Farming is an alternative source of income and bare subsistence.
6.12 Type of Mining in the area is small-scale cluster type, which was developed naturally in the course of decades of operation. In most of the cases, opencast mining methods is being practiced with standard mining equipment viz, hydraulic excavators & tippers. Opencast mining involves digging of pit and hillside excavation. Mining silica sand is associated with the removal of soil cover combined with the stripping of topsoil, overburden and spoil materials."
87. In respect of 42 Silica sand washing plants, observations are contained in para 7 as under:
"7. Compliance status of the 42-silica sand washing plant 7.1 As per information provided by Regional Officer, UPPCB, presently total 42 Comment to Operate has been granted for Silica Sand Washing plants in Lalapur, Bankipur, Janwa, Dhara, Kaitha, Lakhnauti and Pratappur area of the Shankargarh Block, tehsil Bara, district Prayagraj. Detail of washing plants, CTO with its validity and production capacity is annexed. (Please refer Annexure E).
7.2 Few washing plants were found operational during the two visits (total 05 Days) of the committee. Concerned persons were not available at these washing units to explain about working mechanism, material balance, wastewater management, and compliance in accordance with the statutory requirements. However, committee has drawn the following observations based on the site visit. These observations are in addition to the earlier submitted report:146
7.2.1 The CTO granted to washing plants are required to be reviewed as the conditions laid down in the existing CTO issued are not specific to unit.
7.2.2 Multiple washing plants were found operating in one premise whereas CTO has been obtained for only one unit.
7.2.3 The wastewater treatment system-Gravity settling pits/concrete tanks were found operational. It was felt that to improve the treatment efficiency, mechanical sludge removal system required to be deployed which was not found in place.
7.2.4 The spillage of treated/untreated wastewater observed surrounding of these washing plants, which is not desired. Majority of washing plant were not having proper water recycling system required for conservation of the ground water.
7.3 During the visit to the washing plants, the committee felt that the storage of mineral stock in some of the washing plants area were found more than the permitted stocks. This fact could not be verified as there is no provision of filing periodic returns about the receipt of ROM & despatches of final product by the washing units to the UPPCB.
7.4 Approach Road leading to these washing units were not found in order. Preventive measures for minimising air pollution were not found in place within the washing plant premise.
8. Action taken by local administration/Mining Dept.- Total of 10 FIR logged to date against illegal mining in the area in question, out of which 02 FIR have been lodged by local administration during/after the Hon'ble NGT Committee Inspection on 13.10.2023. (Please refer Annexure F)
9. Environmental compensation for excessive mining/operated without valid CTO/mining plan-It was observed that active mining leases have raised annual production during last 05 years in the range of 50-60% of their approved annual capacity 147
88. With respect to action taken by Local Administration/mining Department, Joint Committee said that total 10 numbers of FIRs were lodged against illegal mining in the area out of which 02 Reports were lodged during or after Joint Committee's inspection on 13.10.2023. However, none of these FIRs implicate 07 functional mines and 42 washing plants.
Tribunal's Order dated 19.01.2024:
89. Report dated 17.01.2024 was considered by Tribunal on 19.01.2024 and noticing that various violations were found therein, notices were issued to all the newly impleaded respondents, giving them opportunity to file their responses.
Compliance Report dated 11.03.2024 filed by Regional Officer, UPPCB (p/1386):
90. Pursuant to order dated 19.01.2024, Regional Officer, UPPCB, Prayagraj submitted a compliance Report dated 11.03.2024, stating that 42 notices were sent to 42 washing plants in Shankargarh area on 21.02.2024 for submission of complete compliance Report. 05 notices were issued to closed mines for compliance on 22.02.2024. 35 washing plants have submitted compliance Reports pursuant to notices issued to them. Inspection was carried out in respect of washing plants operating on 04th and 5th March, 2024 when 35 plants were found compliant. 07 were found totally shut down and no production activity was observed in those units. In respect of 05 defunct mines leases, Report said that reply was received from the said lease holders and recommendation against 02 defaulting 148 mining leases was made to UPPCB Head Quarter, Lucknow for imposition of environmental compensation.
Compliance Report dated 12.03.2024 filed by Regional Officer, UPPCB, Prayagraj (p/1394):
91. It appears that in the above Report dated 11.03.2024, there was some mistake and, therefore, on the very next date i.e., 12.03.2024, another Report was submitted by Regional Officer, UPPCB, Prayagraj wherein information with regard to recommendations made for imposition for environmental compensation was corrected and the corrected information given in the form of a chart, is as under:
S. Respondent Name of Unit Amount of Remark No No. Environmental Compensation (Rs.) 1 15 M/s Harihar Nil Consent to operate Prasad Gupta, not obtained.
Bhaisahi, Mining has not been
Bara, done after issuing
Prayagraj Environmental
Compensation
guideline dated
08.02.2019 by
CPCB.
2 17 M/s Rishi 1460000.00 Consent to operate
Chawla, not obtained
Aswan, Bara,
Prayagraj
3 19 M/s Hari Nil Consent to operate
Mandir Mineral granted. Mining has
Trader, been done only for
Chattahra, granted consent
Bara, period.
Prayagraj
4 16 M/s Sarvshri Nil Environmental
149
Om Laxmi Clearance not
Industry, obtained because of
Kachari, Bara, old mining lease
Prayagraj granted before EIA
Guideline dated
14.09.2006 hence
Environmental
compensation not
imposed.
5 18 M/s Smt. Vijay Nil Environmental
Laxmi Clearance not
Kesarwani, obtained because of
Kechari, Bara, old mining lease
Prayagraj granted before EIA
Guideline dated
14.09.2006 hence
Environmental
compensation not
imposed.
92. Notices were issued to all the respondents and opportunity was granted to file response but only a few of the respondents-proponents i.e., mining lease holders and washing plants have responded by filing their objections/responses/replies/additional replies/additional objections and these respondents are 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 28, 29,41, 44, 48, 51, 65 and 67.
93. In other words, respondents no. 10, 21 to 24, 26, 27, 30 to 40, 42,43, 45 to 47, 49, 50, 52 to 64, 66, 68 to 74 have not responded at all.
Therefore, we are proceeding in respect of them on the basis of record available with us.
94. Since we propose to consider the issue of compliance of environmental laws and norms by individual respondents, hence we shall 150 deal with the pleadings of the concerned parties in respect of such compliance/non-compliance or the explanation as the case may be while considering their individual cases on merits in the later part of the judgment.
ARGUMENTS:
95. OA has been heard finally with the consent of all parties. Respective Counsels appearing for some of the proponents who have argued at length. On behalf of UPPCB, reply has been given and other official respondents who are represented through Counsels have adopted and followed the findings of Joint Committee' Reports.
96. In substance, the endeavour on the part of Learned Counsel for applicant is that violation on the part of proponents have been enumerated in details in various Joint Committee Reports and on the basis thereof, appropriate action must be taken against the violating units/proponents by imposing environmental compensation, initiation of criminal prosecution and other remedial action.
97. Learned Counsel appearing for official respondents and Statutory Regulators have supported the contentions advanced by Learned Counsel appearing for applicant and relied on the reports submitted by Joint Committees. They have contended that appropriate actions as per the recommendations of Joint Committee must be taken by this Tribunal or be allowed to be taken by Statutory Regulators.
98. On the contrary, Learned Counsel appearing for various proponents have contended that there are no violations on their part; all the laws have 151 been complied with; requisite permissions have been obtained, and in any case, environmental compensation as computed or recommended by Joint Committee is patently erroneous, exaggerated and based on incorrect principles and factors, therefore, it should not be accepted. They have argued that firstly, since there is no violation on the part of proponents, no action is required to be taken against them and in any case, if Tribunal finds any violation, the same must be taken into account based on relevant considerations and not in the manner as suggested by Joint Committee. ISSUES:
99. In the present case, applicant himself has formulated four issues which we have referred and quoted in the earlier part of this judgment.
100. First question formulated by applicant is whether respondents are under an obligation to protect and improve quality of environment and prevent illegal, unsustainable and unscientific extraction of silica sand in accordance with Statues specified in Schedule I of NGT Act, 2010. This question need not to detain us since it cannot be doubted that it is responsibility of every individual to protect environment and act for improvement of its quality. Even Constitution has made provisions vide Article 48A of Part IV-Directive Principles of State Policy that a State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forest and wild life of the country. Article 51A of Part IV-A Clause (g) provides that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve natural environment including forest, lakes, river and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. Therefore, protection and improvement of environment is not only part of directive principles of State policy but a 152 Fundamental duty conferred upon every citizen of the county. It is also a corresponding right to be observed and discharged by everyone since Article 21 confers fundamental right of protection of life and liberty and it has been held that hygienic environment, clean air, clean water and clean environment is a part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
101. Questions II and III formulated by the applicant are whether the concerned authorities have taken effective steps to prevent illegal sand mining and whether effective monitoring mechanism has been provided but these issues pre-supposes that there is violation of environmental laws during mining activities which cannot be presumed unless a factual finding is recorded against the proponents on this aspect. These two questions, therefore, cannot be answered in abstract without considering the basic issue whether there is any illegal mining or not.
102. The fourth issue also pre-supposes the factum of illegal mining and this also cannot be answered and formulated in abstract.
103. Issues II, III and IV formulated by applicant, in our view, require re- construction and have to be examined in the light of the facts and material brought before us as also the submissions advanced by the Learned Counsels appearing for the parties during the course of the arguments.
104. In the light of the above discussion, as also considering the rival submissions advanced by Learned Counsels appearing for the parties, we find that following substantial questions relating to environment have arisen which require adjudication by this Tribunal: 153
(I) Whether there is any violation of environmental laws/norms on the part of respondents 8 to 74 in operation of mining activities/Silica sand washing plants?
(II) In case, question I is answered in affirmative, what appropriate action/order is required to be passed in respect of proponents, individually or jointly, as the case may be?
FINDINGS ON MERITS:
105. Since both the questions are over-lapping and interconnected, we propose to deal with the same jointly but by taking into consideration individual cases of the proponents, after discussing the observations of Joint Committees made in respect of each of the proponents, the defence taken by concerned proponents and other informations, as available on record.
Scrutiny of Reports in the light of Observations made by Tribunal in Various Orders and Objections taken by Proponents:
106. The above facts show that though inspections were to be made by Joint Committees constituted by this Tribunal and it was incumbent upon such Joint Committees to collect relevant information but instead Committees authorized other authorities to go for inspection. They are field officers who are normally entrusted with the duties of compliance of environmental laws. Field officers' earlier report (First Report) was not found satisfactory by this Tribunal yet instead of collecting relevant information, high officials of Joint Committee failed to discharge their burden and did not act in accordance with the confidence deposed by this Tribunal in the said Committees. Higher authorities constituted Junior 154 officers' sub-committees to collect factual information and, on that basis, Reports have been submitted.
107. The First Report which we have on record is dated 13.12.2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'First Report') which has given its observations in respect of silica sand washing units as also mining sites located at Shankargarh block, District Prayagraj. It made inspection on 25th - 27th November, 2021 and interacted with stakeholders on 28.11.2021 at the office of Additional District Magistrate, Prayagraj.
108. In the First Report, various observations have been made in respect of mining leases but there is no reference to any mining lease and therefore, it is difficult to discern as to which mining lease or all the active mining leases are covered by those observations.
109. First Report has made several observations summarily but lacks specification and identification of particular mining lease holder or washing plant, as the case may be. Very vague and general allegations have been made. First Report has mixed the observations in respect of washing plants and mining lease holders instead of discussing the same separately.
110. The general observations in First report are that the mining area of Shankargarh block is enriched in silica sand; raw sands is washed at various levels for benefaction of silica sand; about 80% of silica sand is recovered from raw sand after washing process; silica sand is enriched in silica content upto 98% and area lies in sub basin of River Yamuna. 155
111. Joint Committee visited some sand washing plants and mining sites during 25th to 27th November, 2021. It is said that mining area is small as well as washing units are also small scale units operating in the area. The water used in the washing plants is abstracted from ground water. The Committee made observations that:
(i) No scientifically organized treatment for waste water generated from washing operations.
(ii) Currently waste water is mostly stored in unlined pit or ponds.
(iii) Waste water is recirculated for washing operations.
(iv) Over-sized material and sand mud were stored unscientifically in the unit premises which may cause fugitive emission.
(v) Though washing unit's representatives claimed that material used for filling of low-lying areas but the records of the same were not maintained.
(vi) No flow measuring device were installed at the abstraction of the bore wells.
(vii) No demarcation of the premises of washing units.
(viii) Display at the main gate to identify the unit was also absent.
(ix) Adequate green belt was not developed.
(x) Approached roads were not maintained.
112. All the above observations are general, do not throw any light on concerned violator so that these observations may be used by Tribunal to take action against such violator.
156
113. Moreover, we find that paras (i) to (vii) of observations relate to washing units without mentioning whether those observations are applicable to all washing units or some identified units. In fact, washing units have not been specified at all. Paras (viii) and (ix) say that the units have not developed adequate green belt and roads are not maintained. In the context of earlier paragraphs, the same observations also appear to be in respect of washing units.
114. Then from para (x) we find general observations in respect of mining lease holders and in brief these observations are:
a. Lease holders have not made proper demarcation of geo-
coordinates in their lease are.
b. Committee found pillars at mining sites but most site pillars did not mention geo-coordinates along with depth of the mines.
c. Ponding of water in mining area was observed.
d. No benching has been made in mining areas as per department of Mining and Geology, UP Guidelines.
e. Several mining pits degraded the surfaces and created surface undulation making topography rugged.
f. Weight bridges were not installed at the mining site to quantify mined mineral.
g. Proponents did not provide details of expenditure under various heads towards Corporate Environmental Responsibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as 'CER Plan').157
h. Proponents have not taken dust control measures to take care of dust generated during transportation of mineral through kacha road.
i. As per EC conditions, 04 ambient air quantity stations were to be established in Core Zone as well as in Buffer Zone for monitoring PM10, PM2.5, SO2 and NOX.
j. No monitoring reports were provided by proponents.
k. Top soil of mining areas was not stored temporarily at the earmarked place for land reclamation and restoration as per Guidelines.
l. Most proponents did not put up display board at mining sites.
m. CCTV cameras were not installed by mining lease holders at entry and exit point of mining area.
n. Over-burdened of hard rock slab material after excavation of silica sand was dumped in improper manner in mining area.
o. Adequate green belt was not developed.
p. Fencing of abandoned mining area as per EC conditions not done.
q. Common facilities like drinking water, toilets, safety equipments and first aid as per mining laws were not established/provided.
115. In the above observations, it is not mentioned as to which proponent has not followed all or any of these observations; most of the observations are in respect of the conditions of mining laws which are not enforceable by this Tribunal and there is no identification of individual proponent with 158 respect to the violations hence it is difficult to pin point liability of any individual proponent with the alleged violations stated in First Report.
116. In our view, this is a very defective and casual report submitted by Joint Committee showing perfunctory discharge of the duties which does not render any help to Tribunal in adjudication of relevant issues raised in this matter.
117. In respect of respondent 8 i.e., M/s. Chawla Silica Sand Trading Company, it has been stated in First report that for non-compliance, damage recovery fine was imposed on proponent as per UP Mining Law 1963. What was the violation, whether it damaged environment also, nothing is said to clear this aspect hence we find ourselves handicapped to apply this fact against respondent 8 for any purpose.
118. Annexure-1 to the Report contains a list of 35 washing plants which included two plants of respondent 8 at village Lakhnauti and Shivrajpur, Tehsil Bara, District Prayagraj and their details given in the Report are as under:
S.No. Application Industry Plant Consent Name Address Capacity Validity
1. CHAWLA SILICA SHIVRAJPUR, 3500 31-03-2024 SAND TRADING BARA, Ton/Month CO. PRAYAGRAJ
2. CHAWLA SILICA LAKHNAUTI, 4000 31-07-2024 SAND TRADING BARA, Ton/Month CO. (CRUSHING & PRAYAGRAJ WASHING)
119. The above observations do not show as to in what respect the fine was imposed on respect 8 and whether it reflects upon violation of environmental laws in any manner and further for what period the same 159 relates. The report is very sketchy, observations are very unspecific, general and causal.
120. First Report was considered on 01.02.2022 and Tribunal observed that mining of silica sand as well as washing plants are involved in environmentally hazards activities, having adverse health impact. The Committee Report shows large scale deficiencies in conducing mining and washing operations, storage and transportation. Failure of project proponents include unscientific treatment of waste water, absence of flow meters, absence of demarcation, absence of proper approach roads, failure to control fugitive emissions, unscientific storage of overburden, absence of record about expenditure under CER plans, absence of health record, absence of monitoring stations, absence of display boards and CCTV cameras, absence of adequate green belts. Tribunal however found that remedial action was not adequate to ensure compliance and to protect environment and public health and it was also not clear whether EC has been granted for mining and whether EIA Reports which are said to have been submitted were duly appraised. There was also no proper assessment of compensation, corresponding to damage caused to environment and public health. Tribunal also observed that as per applicant, there were more than 500 silica sand washing units but report mentions only 54 and, therefore, remedial action for ensuring compliance of environmental norms by stopping hazardous activity till compliance was necessary. These observations refer to violations noticed in the report but no specified and identified action was possible due to lack of case specified violations. 160
121. Consequently, Joint Committee was re-constituted to ensure that all washing units/mining leases conduct their activities in accordance with statutory procedures and environmental norms and compensation is assessed and recovered for the past violations. Tribunal directed re- constituted Committee to undertake visit to the sites within two months and after coordinated remedial action, furnish a report, keeping in mind earlier report as well as observations made in the order.
122. Pursuant to this order dated 01.02.2022, a compliance Report dated 17.05.2022 i.e., Second Report was filed by Regional Officer, UPPCB, Prayagraj on behalf of reconstituted Joint Committee.
123. Second Report though submitted vide letter dated 23.02.2023, signed by Dr. A.K. Gupta, Additional Director/Scientist-E, Integrated Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Lucknow but pages of the report are signed by 02 officers i.e., Dr. A.K. Gupta and Rajendra D. Patil, Scientist-D, CPCB who have put the date as 23.02.2023 under their signatures. Other members have signed report, without putting any date, and that too on 02 different sheets. On a single sheet, which contains 'Other recommendations', only Pukhraj Nenival, Regional Controller of Mines, IBM, Jabalpur has signed without putting any date and on third sheet at page 217, Harsh Dev Pandey, ADM(E), Prayagraj and R.K. Singh, Regional Officer, UPPCB, Prayagraj have signed.
124. It is also interesting to note that at page 215, report contains signatures of Dr. A.K. Gupta, Scientist-E, Integrated Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Lucknow and Rajendra D. Patil, Scientist-D, CPCB and printed 161 date in the column is 19.02.2023; at page 216 report is signed only by Pukhraj Nenival, Regional Controller of Mines, IBM, Jabalpur and printed date is 19.02.2023 and at page 217, which is signed by 02 persons namely, Harsh Dev Pandey, ADM(E), Prayagraj and R.K. Singh, Regional Officer, UPPCB, Prayagraj, the printed date is 17.02.2023.
125. The facts discussed above show that even before preparation of second report, it has been signed by the officers of MoEF&CC and CPCB, signatures of 02 persons i.e., ADM(E) and Regional Officer, UPPCB were obtained by preparing a sheet on 17.02.2023 separately and they did not have any occasion to go through the report at all. These facts make this report suspicious and incredible.
126. This Report contains annexure-2 which is an inspection Report dated 25.03.2022 submitted by a team comprising of District Mines Officer, Prayagraj; Mines Officer, Prayagraj, Joint Director/Officer Incharge, Regional Office, Prayagraj and Senior Draftsman, Regional Office, Prayagraj. They were all concerned with the mining leases. Tribunal did not depose confidence in these officers and they were not members of Joint Committee.
127. There is another Report filed as annexure-4 to the Second Report which is also by the Committee comprising Additional District Magistrate, (Administration) Prayagraj and various officers of Mining Department of Prayagraj. They were also not made members of Committee by Tribunal. This annexure 4 also contain general observations regarding mining activities in 07 areas as per the mining plan. Mining Department, 162 therefore, took precaution to make observations regarding compliance of mining plan without considering relevant details and other factual information.
128. Second Report has said that in all 07 mining leases, weight bridges and CCTV cameras were established and even geo-coordinates with proper demarcation was completed. Thus, on the one hand First report in general observe various violations, on the other hand second report says all compliant.
129. Second Report broadly shows general observations with respect to mining lease holders that all were found compliant in as much as weigh bridges, CCTV cameras in all seven running mining leases were installed and no substantial violation was found.
130. Second report did not refer to closed/expired mining leases which were 18 in number.
131. Similarly, in respect of washing plants report refers to 41 washing plants and said that water meters were installed on the inlet source of water, kacha pits were replaced by pucca pits and log books for water meter, raw material, finished products and man power was maintained. Here also all compliance was reported.
132. It is again a very sketchy report and did not deal as to whether the requisite EC, CTE, CTO and NOC from concerned authorities for mining or extraction of ground water etc. were taken by respective mining lease holders and washing plants.
163
133. Second Report was also castigated by Tribunal in its order dated 01.08.2022 observing that report does not deal with inspection reports where deficiencies were noticed. There is no proper record of mined mineral nor in respect of physical verification of the sites. All the sites were claimed to have been inspected on one day and observations were founded on heresay information. In other words, information was not crossed checked or verified. Tribunal observed that much more was expected from Joint Committee comprising senior functionaries but unfortunately, they failed to discharge their duties effectively. Tribunal recorded its dissatisfaction with such inadequate report i.e., Second Report submitted by Joint Committee.
134. It is in this backdrop that Tribunal constituted a Third Committee of 5 members headed by Regional Director, MoEF&CC which submitted its report i.e., Third Report.
135. Third Report has recorded its major observations which we have reproduced above. It says that out of 07 operating mines, 02 did not have valid CTO at the time of inspection. Unfortunately, names of these units have not been mentioned in the Report and one would continue to guess about identify of such violating units.
136. In respect of washing plants, report said that 42 such plants have valid CTOs. The report said that most lease holders are undertaking mining operations which suggest that some are not but here again the identity and specifications are lacking.
164
137. In para 5.6 of the Report, it is said that almost all lease holders are not complying with the terms and conditions stipulated in EC, Mining Plan, CTO. When Joint Committee uses the word 'almost all lease holders' which one is left out and which one is included is left to guess. No identification in this regard has been provided by Joint Committee in the report. The report reads by using the words 'almost all lease holders' or 'some of the lease holders' or 'almost all the mines' and use of these phrases render the entire report unreliable and improbable to act upon due to lack of identification and specifications and specific facts of violation vis-a-vis concerned proponents.
138. In para 5.6.8, it is said that M/s Modi mineral and Ashok Bajpayee were operating mining leases without CTO but CTO has been granted after Committee's inspection. For what period CTO was not available and when it was obtained, for what period mining activities carried out without CTO, nothing has been said.
139. Most of the observations are in respect of mining lease conditions but lack identification or specification.
140. The most serious issue which has arisen from Third report is about computation of environmental compensation which has been computed and recommended in respect of respondents 8 to 14.
141. It is said that quantity of Silica Sand taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of environmental compensation is wholly arbitrary and excessive and computation is founded on assumed market value of Silica Sand/minor mineral which is not based on any material on 165 record and it is not the environmental compensation, but in fact, the net present value of mineral. Environmental compensation cannot be more than 10% of the sale price as laid down by Supreme Court in Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & Others (2014) 6 SCC 590.
142. It is said that instead of computation of environmental compensation upto 10% of sale price of the mineral, the same in an illegal manner has been computed at sale price which is contrary to law laid down by Supreme Court in Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & Others (supra) and that shows total non-application of mind on the part of Joint Committee in making recommendation in Third Report towards environmental compensation. It is further contended that in respect of all the above proponents i.e., respondents 8 to 14, total compensation has been computed by multiplying one year amount for five years on increased factor at 5% under severity which is wholly illegal as no such procedure has been prescribed even in the Guidelines laid by CPCB or anywhere else and Joint Committee in its own whims has applied its own method of computation which has no basis. There was no occasion for computation of market value as environmental compensation for 05 years.
143. Information given by Joint Committee in respect of respondents 8 to 14 towards environmental clearance and consent shows that the same were obtained on the following dates:
Sl. Respondent no. and Date of EC Date of Consent No. name
1. Respondent 8, M/s. 12.12.2014 13.11.2022 Chawla Silica Sand 166 Trading Company, Lakhnauti
2. Respondent 9, M/s. 12.10.2013 13.11.2022 w.e.f.
Chawla Silica Sand 01.01.2023
Trading Company,
Janwa
3. Respondent 10, Smt. 11.11.2014/ 12.09.2022
Amita Gupta 17.12.2021
4. Respondent 11, Rajiv 06.06.2016 29.03.2020 w.e.f.
Kumar Chawla 01.01.2020
5. Respondent 12, Smt. 08.07.2014 15.01.2023 w.e.f.
Nirmal Rani Chawal 01.01.2023
6. Respondent 13, Sh. 05.08.2015 14.09.2022
Ashok Kumar Bajpai
7. Respondent 14, Sh. 12.10.2013 26.03.2021 w.e.f.
Abhinandan Tiwari 01.01.2021
144. It is pointed out that Third Committee has taken uniform period in all seven cases irrespective of difference in individual cases. The amount of production of silica sand in tonnes and cubic meters has been considered without discussing the period to which the said production relates and also, what was the basis of arriving at such quantity of production.
145. Our attention was drawn to annexure-D of Fourth Committee's Report showing production by 07 current operating mines for the period of 2018-19 to 2022-23 and it is submitted that the production taken into account by Joint Committee in Third Report does not tally with any year's production of the above mining holders. This shows that it has been taken arbitrarily in Third report.
146. It is further said that Third Report was submitted on 23.02.2023 and at that time, sale price of the mineral was taken as 675/m3 based on 167 EMM-11 but computation for environmental compensation is for the last 4-5 years and for past period, the current price of 2023 could not have been applied and this vitiates the very basis of the computation of environmental compensation by Joint Committee in Third Report.
147. It is urged that at the best if for any period or more than one year, environmental compensation is to be computed, if there is any violation with regard to EC, consent etc., the production disclosed by concerned proponents in their replies/objections should be taken and in any case, it cannot be other than that what has been found and mentioned by Joint Committee in its Fourth Report (annexure-D table 2) and the rate should be of that year. The Joint Committee in Third Report has suggested/recommended environmental compensation at exorbitant and arbitrarily level. The respondents tried to demonstrate fallacy on the part of Joint Committee stating that even if quantity and rate/sale price disclosed by Joint Committee in Third Report is taken to be correct, in the light of Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & Others (supra), environmental compensation even then would be much lower if computed at 10% of the sale price as also on 5% of the sale price and the following chart was placed before us:
Sl. Respondent Quantity Environmental At 10% of At 5% of No no. and Name in cubic compensation sale price sale price meter at sale price as per Joint Committee 1 Respondent 8, 29063 1,96,17,750 19,61,752.5 9,80,876.2 M/s. Chawla 0 5 Silica Sand Trading Company, Lakhnauti 2 Respondent 9, 25733 1,73,69,550 17,36,955 8,68,477.5 168 M/s. Chawla Silica Sand Trading Company, Janwa 3 Respondent 48298 3,26,01,150 32,60,115 16,30,057.
10, Smt. Amita 5 Gupta 4 Respondent 6927 46,75,950 4,67,595 2,33,797.5 11, Rajiv Kumar Chawla 5 Respondent 14732 99,44,100 9,94,410 4,97,205 12, Smt. Nirmal Rani Chawal 6 Respondent 502817 33,94,01,700 3,39,40,170 1,69,70,08 13, Sh. Ashok 5 Kumar Bajpai 7 Respondent 6783 45,78,750 4,57,875 2,28,937.5 14, Sh. Abhinandan Tiwari
148. In respect of computation of environmental compensation by Joint Committee, we find that in Third Report, it has computed net present value which cannot be equated with environmental compensation. Market value or net present value may be a relevant factor to compute environmental compensation which can be some part of net present value but are not same. In the Third Report, Joint Committee has arbitrarily computed net present value firstly on total alleged excess/illegal production of 05 years and then again, by computing separately for 05 years, the market value of collective 05 years and thereby, has arrived at exaggerated astronomical figures. This approach of Joint Committee has to be seriously deprecated and castigated as it unnecessarily put extraordinary pressure on the proponent in respect of something which is otherwise impermissible in law and create an impression that the authorities held proponents liable for 169 heavy amount of environmental compensation though as a matter of fact, the actual correct amount is much smaller.
149. We find the submissions of proponents on the method of computation of environmental compensation to be of substance and it deserves to be upheld. The approach of Joint Committee in Third Report shows self-contained inaccuracy, contradiction, vagueness and lack of factual background for assuming certain informations with regard to the quantity of mineral, rate etc. for computation of environmental compensation. However, on this aspect, we propose to deal in further detail when the individual proponent's matter would be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
150. Third Report was considered by Tribunal on 10.07.2023. Again, it was not satisfied with the said report. On the one hand, Report said that most lease holders are not undertaking mining operations beyond the lease area, undergone excessive production and not complying with EC conditions, mining plan and CTO but did not give details thereof. In the circumstances, Tribunal directed UPPCB to submit report on the observations made, identify violators and take action for past violations and restoration of the area and submit report. This resulted in the Fourth Report.
151. Fourth Report broadly stated that it is adding some of the major non-compliances on the part of mining lease holders in not complying in totality, the proposals envisaged in approved mining plan, and the information submitted by earlier Joint Committee Report.170
152. In Fourth Report, para 6.6, it is said that mining lease holders are not complying in totality with the proposals as envisaged in the approved mining plan. Apart from the information submitted earlier by Joint Committee, some major non-compliances indicated are as under:
a. Green belt was not developed in safety zones.
b. No systematic mining was undertaken in a scientific manner as per approved mining plan.
c. Deviation is found with respect of approved production proposals vis-a-vis actual annual production achieved in most of the mines and location also.
d. Qualified technical persons were not deployed for ensuring systematic and scientific work.
e. CTO were issued in some cases for sand/morrum mining instead of Silica Sand.
f. Most of the CTOs were issued by UPPCB without mentioning the production capacity of minerals.
g. Abandoned mine pits were spread throughout the area.
h. Wires blasting at two number of expired mining leases were found hence FIR were lodged for both sites. Copies of FIR are annexure-
F and have been filed against unknown persons.
i. Various deep pits created due to un-systematic mining were filled with rain water left abandoned.
153. With respect to washing plants, Fourth Report said that:
(i) CTO granted by UPPCB were defective in as much as the conditions laid down were not specific to unit.171
(ii) Multiple washing plants were found operating in one premise though CTO was obtained for only one unit.
(iii) Mechanical sludge removal system was not deployed.
(iv) Spillage of treated/untreated waste water in surrounding area was found.
(v) Most majority of washing plants were not having proper water recycling system.
(vi) Some washing plants mineral stock was found beyond the permitted stocks.
154. Here also, the observations are general without specification.
155. In the above backdrop, we find that this is one case where we have four Reports for consideration and at various hierarchy the reports have been submitted since Joint Committees were re-constituted repeatedly yet Tribunal has to record its dis-satisfaction in the manner Committee's Reports have come which lack details, specifications and identification etc.
156. In fact, various authorities constituting the Joint Committees have not discharged their functions appropriately. In a very casual manner, reports have been submitted. Instead of helping Tribunal in adjudication of the issue raised in this Original Application, these reports have put in heavy burden on Tribunal to find out the violations, if any, identify the violator and thereafter proceed in accordance with law in exercise of its statutory function by application of principle of 'polluter pays', 'precautionary principle' and 'sustainable development' etc. 172
157. On other aspects, we may consider the issues when discussing individual proponents i.e., mining lease holders and washing plants but on one aspect we may make observations hereat so as to lay down the criteria on which we propose to proceed further i.e., computation of environmental compensation wherever required. Methodology for Computation of Environmental Compensation:
158. The question of assessment of environmental compensation includes the principles/factors/aspects, necessary to be considered for computing/assessing/determining environmental compensation. Besides judicial precedents, we find little assistance from Statute. Section 15 of NGT Act, 2010 talks of relief of compensation and restitution. It confers wide powers on this Tribunal to grant relief by awarding compensation for the loss suffered by individual(s) and/or for damage caused to environment. Section 15 reads as under:
"15. Relief, compensation and restitution-(1) The Tribunal may, by an order, provide-
a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I (including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance);
b) for restitution of property damaged;
c) for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit.
(2) The relief and Compensation and restitution of property and environment referred to in clauses (a), (6) and (c) of sub-section of (1) shall be in addition to the relief paid or payable under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).
(3) No application for grant of any compensation or relief or 173 restitution of property or environment under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the' applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.
(4) The Tribunal may, having regard to the damage to public health, property and environment, divide the compensation or relief payable under separate heads specified in Schedule II so as to provide compensation or relief to the claimants and for restitution of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fit.
(5) Every claimant of the compensation or relief under this Act shall intimate to the Tribunal about the application filed to, or, as the case may, be, compensation or relief received from, any other Court or authority.
159. Sub-section 1 of Section 15 enables Tribunal to make an order providing relief and compensation to (i) the victims of pollution, (ii) other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I.
160. Tribunal is also conferred power to pass an order providing relief for restitution of property damaged. Section 15(1)(c) enables Tribunal to pass an order providing relief for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as Tribunal may think fit. Section 15 sub-section 4 says that Tribunal may divide compensation or relief payable under separate heads specified in Schedules II, having regard to the damage to public health, property and environment so as to provide compensation or relief, (i) to the 174 claimants and (ii) for restitution of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fit.
161. Schedule II of NGT Act, 2010 gives a list of heads under which compensation or relief for damage may be granted. It has 14 heads in total out of which items (a) to (f), (l), (m) and (n) relate to loss, damage etc. sustained to the person or individual or their property. Items (i) to (k) relate to harm, damage, destruction etc. of environment or environmental system including soil, air, water, land, and eco-system. Items (i) to (k) of Schedule II of NGT Act, 2010 are as under:
"(i) Claims on account of any harm, damage or destruction to the fauna including milch and draught animals and aquatic fauna;
(j) Claims on account of any harm, damage or destruction to flora including aquatic flora, crops, vegetables, trees and orchards;
(k) Claims including cost of restoration on account of any harm or damage to environment including pollution of soil, air, water, land and eco-systems;"
162. Items (g) and (h) relate to expense and cost incurred by State in providing relief to affected person; and loss caused in connection with activity causing damage.
163. The damage to environment covers a very wide variety of nature as is evident from definition of 'Environment' under Section 2(c) which is inclusive and says; 'environment includes water, air, and land and the interrelationship, which exists among and between water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property'.
175
164. Even Rules framed under NGT Act, 2010 are silent on this aspect. Issue of determination of environmental compensation is significant in the sense that it should be proportionate to or bears a reasonable nexus with the environmental damage and its remediation/restoration. Similarly in case of compensation to be determined for a victim, it needs to co-relate to injury caused or damage suffered by such person as also cost incurred for treatment/remediation. Computation of environmental compensation may involve some degree of subjectivity but broadly it must be based on objective considerations as it saddles financial liability upon the violator.
165. Taking into consideration multifarious situations relating to violation of environmental laws vis-a-vis different proponents, nature of cases involving violation of environmental laws can be categorized as under:
(i) Where Project/Activities are carried out without obtaining requisite statutory permissions/consents/clearances/NOC etc., affecting environment and ecology. For example, Environmental Clearance under Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006; Consent under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981; Authorisation under Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and other Rules; NOC for extraction and use of ground water, wherever applicable, and similar requirements under other statutes.
(ii) Where proponents have violated conditions imposed under statutory Permissions, Consents, Clearances, NOC etc. affecting environment and ecology.176
(iii) Where Proponents have carried out their activities causing damage to environment and ecology by not following standards/norms regarding cleanliness/pollution of air, water etc.
166. The above categories are further sub-divided, i.e., where the polluters/violators are corporate bodies/organizations/associations and group of the people, in contradistinction, to individuals; and another category, the individuals themselves responsible for such pollution.
167. Further category among above classification is, where, besides pollution of environment, proponents/violators action also affect the community at large regarding its source of livelihood, health etc.
168. The next relevant aspect is, whether damage to environment is irreversible, permanent or is capable of wholly or partial restoration/remediation/rejuvenation.
169. Determination/computation/assessment of environmental restoration/remediation/rejuvenation should also take care of damage caused to the environment, to the community, if any, and should also be preventive, deterrent and to some extent, must have an element of "being punitive". The idea is not only for restoration/remediation or to mitigate damage/loss to environment, but also to discourage people/proponents from indulging in the activities or carrying out their affairs in such a manner so as to cause damage/loss to environment. 177
170. To impose appropriate 'environmental compensation' for causing harm to environment, besides other relevant factors as pointed out, one has to understand the kind and nature of 'Harmness cost'. This includes risk assessment. The concept of risk assessment will include human- health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has provided a guideline to understand harm caused to environment as well as people. For the purpose of human- health risk assessment, it comprised of three broad steps, namely, planning and problem formulation; effects and exposure assessment and risk categorization. The first part involves participation of stakeholders and others to get input; in the second aspect health effect of hazardous substances as well as likelihood and level of exposure to the pollutant are examined and the third step involves integration of effects and exposure assessment to determine risk.
171. Similarly, ecological risk assessment is an approach to determine risk of environmental harm by human activities. Here also we can find answer following three major steps, i.e., problem codification; analysis of exposure and risk characterization. First part encompasses identification of risk and what needs to be protected. Second step insists upon crystallization of factors that are exposed, degree to exposure and further comprised of two components, i.e., risk assessment and risk description.
172. In totality, problem is multi-fold and multi-angular. Solution is not straight but involves various shades and nuances and vary from case to case. Even Internationally, there is no thumb-rule to make assessment of damage and loss caused to environment due to activities carried out 178 individually or collectively by the people, and for remediation/restoration. Different considerations are applicable and have been applied. As the term suggest, compensation means a return for loss or damage sustained. Therefore, it must always be just and not based on a whim or capricious.
173. In India, where commercial activities were carried out without obtaining statutory permissions/consents/clearance/NOC, Courts have determined, in some matters, compensation by fixing certain percentage of cost of project. In some cases, volume of business transactions, turnover, magnitude of establishment of proponent have also been considered as guiding factors to determine environmental compensation. In some cases, a lump sum amount has been imposed.
174. In an article, 'the cost of pollution-Environmental Economics' by Linas Cekanavicius, 2011, it has been suggested, where commercial activities have been carried out without consent etc., and pollution standards have been violated, Total Pollution Cost (hereinafter referred to as 'TPC') can be applied. It combines the cost of abatement of environmental pollution and cost of pollution induced environmental damage. The formula comes to TPC(z)=AC(z)+ED(z), where z denotes the pollution level. Further, clean- up cost/remediation cost of pollution estimated to be incurred by authorities can also be used to determine environmental compensation.
175. When there is collective violation, sometimes the issue arose about apportionment of cost. Where more than one violator is indulged, apportionment may not be equal since user's respective capacity to produce waste, contribution of different categories to overall costs etc. 179 would be relevant. The element of economic benefit to company resulting from violation is also an important aspect to be considered, otherwise observations of Supreme Court that the amount of environmental compensation must be deterrent, will become obliterated. Article 14 of the Constitution says that unequal cannot be treated equally, and this principle must also be given due consideration and be taken care.
176. Determination/assessment/computation of environmental compensation cannot be arbitrary. It must be founded on some objective and intelligible considerations and criteria. Simultaneously, Supreme Court also said that its calculations must be based on a principle which is simple and can be applied easily. In other words, it can be said that wherever Court finds it appropriate, expert's assessment can be sought but sometimes experts also go by their own convictions and belief and fail to take into account judicial precedents which have advanced cause of environment by applying the principles of 'Sustainable Development', 'Precautionary Approach' and 'Polluter Pays', etc. In such circumstances, it is the ultimate responsibility of Court's to assess and compute environmental compensation, rationally.
177. Clean-up cost or TPC, may be a relevant factor to evaluate damage, but in the diverse conditions as available in this Country, no single factor or formula may serve the purpose. Determination should be a quantitative estimation; the amount must be deterrent to polluter/violator and though there is some element of subjectivity but broadly assessment/computation must be founded on objective considerations. Appropriate compensation must be determined to cover not only the aspect of violation of law on the 180 part of polluter/violator but also damage to the environment, its remediation/restoration, loss to the community at large and other relevant factors like deterrence, element of penalty etc.
178. This Tribunal vide order dated 31.08.2018 passed in OA 593/2017, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti and another vs. Union of India and others observed that "CPCB may also assess and recover compensation for damage to the environment and said fund may be kept in a separate account and utilized in terms of an action plan for protection of the environment".
179. Pursuant thereto, CPCB published a Report on 15.07.2019 suggesting methodology for assessment of environmental compensation which may be levied or imposed upon industrial establishments who are guilty of violation of environmental laws and have caused damage/degradation/loss to environment.
180. CPCB Guidelines: CPCB has suggested in a report methodology for assessment of environmental compensation which may be levied or imposed upon industrial establishments who are guilty of violation of environmental laws and have caused damage/degradation/loss to environment. It does not encompass individuals, statutory institutions and Government etc. Report is titled as "Report of the CPCB In-house Committee on Methodology for Assessing Environmental compensation and Action Plan to Utilize the Fund" which was finalized in the meeting held on 27.03.2019. It shortlisted the incidents requiring an occasion for 181 determining environmental compensation. Six such incidents, shortlisted, are:
"Cases considered for levying Environmental Compensation (EC):
a) Discharges in violation of consent conditions, mainly prescribed standards/consent limits.
b) Not complying with the directions issued, such as direction for closure due to non-installation of OCEMS, non-adherence to the action plans submitted etc.
c) Intentional avoidance of data submission or data manipulation by tampering the Online Continuous Emission / Effluent Monitoring systems.
d) Accidental discharges lasting for short durations resulting into damage to the environment.
e) Intentional discharges to the environment -- land, water and air resulting into acute injury or damage to the environment.
f) Injection of treated/partially treated/ untreated effluents to ground water."
181. For the instances at item (a), (b) and (c), report says that 'Pollution Index' (hereinafter referred to as 'PI') would be used as a basis to levy environmental compensation. CPCB had already published Guidelines categorizing industries into Red, Orange, Green and White, based on the concept of PI. The PI is arrived after considering quantity and quality of emissions/effluents generated, types of hazardous waste generated and consumption of resources. PI of an industrial sector is a numerical number in the range of 0 to 100 and is represented as follows:
PI=f (Water Pollution Score, Air Pollution Score and HW Generation Score).
182. Since range of PI is 0 to 100, increase in value of PI denotes increasing degree of pollution hazard from industrial sector. Accordingly, report says, for determining environmental compensation in respect of cases covered by item (a), (b) and (c), it will apply following formula: 182
"EC = PI × N × R × S × LF Where, EC is Environmental Compensation in Rs. PI = Pollution Index of industrial sector N = Number of days of violation took place R = A factor in Rupees (₹) for EC S = Factor for scale of operation LF = Location factor"
183. The formula incorporates anticipated severity of environmental pollution in terms of PI, duration of violation in terms of number of days, scale of operation in terms of micro and small/medium/large industry and location in terms of proximity to the large habitations. A note is also given under the aforesaid formula and it reads as under:
"Note:
a. The industrial sectors have been categorized into Red, Orange and Green, based on their Pollution Index in the range of 60 to 100, 41 to 59 and 21 to 40, respectively. It was suggested that the average pollution index of 80, 50 and 30 may be taken for calculating the Environmental Compensation for Red, Orange and Green categories of industries, respectively. b. N, number of days for which violation took place is the period between the day of violation observed/due date of direction's compliance and the day of compliance verified by CPCB/SPCB/PCC.
c. R is a factor in Rupees, which may be a minimum of 100 and maximum of 500. It is suggested to consider R as 250, as the Environmental Compensation in cases of violation. d. S could be based on small/medium/large industry categorization, which may be 0.5 for micro or small, 1.0 for medium and 1.5 for large units.
e. LF, could be based on population of the city/town and location of the industrial unit. For the industrial unit located within municipal boundary or up to 10 km distance from the municipal boundary of the city/town, following factors (LF) may be used:
Table No. 1.1: Location Factor Values
183
S. No Population* Location Factor#
(million) (LF)
1 1 to <5 1.25
2 5 to <10 1.5
3 10 and above 2.0
*Population of the city/town as per the latest Census of India #LF will be 1.0 in case unit is located >10km from municipal boundary LF is presumed as 1 for city/town having population less than one million.
For notified Ecologically Sensitive areas, for beginning, LF may be assumed as 2.0. However, for critically Polluted Areas, LF may be explored in future.
f. In any case, minimum Environmental Compensation shall be ₹ 5000/day.
g. In order to include deterrent effect for repeated violations, EC may be increased on exponential basis, i.e. by 2 times on 1st repetition, 4 times on 2nd repetition and 8 times on further repetitions.
h. If the operations of the industry are inevitable and violator continues its operations beyond 3 months then for deterrent compensation, EC may be increased by 2, 4 and 8 times for 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarter, respectively. Even if the operations are inevitable beyond 12 months, violator will not be allowed to operate.
i. Besides EC, industry may be prosecuted or closure directions may be issued, whenever required. A sample calculation for Environmental Compensation (without deterrent factor) is given at Table No. 1.2. It can be noticed that for all instances, EC for Red, Orange, and Green category of industries varies from 3,750 to 60,000 ₹/day.
Table No. 1.2: A sample calculation for Environmental Compensation Industrial Red Orange Green Category Pollution Index 60-100 41-59 21-40 (PI) Average PI 80 50 30 184 R-Factor 250 S-Factor 0.5-1.5 L-Factor 1.00-2.00 Environmental 10,000-60,000 6,250-37,500 5,000-22,500 Compensation (₹/day)
184. We find that R which is a factor in Rupees (₹) is taken to be 100 minimum and 500 maximum. It has suggested that R value be taken as average i.e. Rs.250/-. On what basis this minimum and maximum has been determined and why average is suggested, beyond any comprehension. We do not find any material in the above report which may throw light for taking value of R as above. Similarly, for determining value of S i.e. Factor for Scale of Operation from 0.5 to 1.5, we find no Guidelines as to on what basis, it has been determined and only on the size of the industry, divided in small, medium and large, the said factor has been prescribed. The note further says that minimum environmental compensation would be Rs.5000/- per day. From table 1.2, we find that in the highest case i.e., large industry, depending on the level of PI, maximum environmental compensation would be Rs.60,000/- per day and minimum Rs.10,000/- per day. The above determination excludes the actual loss to the environment and cost of remediation including damage to flora-fauna and human beings. Moreover, classification of industries for industrial policy, or for some licensing purpose, banking purpose etc. would be wholly irrelevant for environment. A small industry may be capable of causing much more pollution than medium or even large industry. For 185 example, pollution caused by a brick kiln using coal as fuel may be much more than many medium category industries.
185. In respect of items (d), (e) and (f), report says that for determining environmental compensation, one has to consider the matters in two parts, one for providing immediate relief and another long term relief, such as remediation. In such cases, detailed investigations are required from Expert Institutions or Organizations, based on which environmental compensation will be decided. Second part of report is with regard to utilization of environmental compensation fund. For this purpose, report says that CPCB will finalize a scheme for utilization of fund for protection of environment. Certain schemes identified by CPCB for utilization of the said fund are mentioned in para 1.4.1, as under:
"a. Industrial Inspections for compliance verification b. Installation of Continuous water quality monitoring stations/Continuous ambient air quality monitoring stations for strengthening of existing monitoring network c. Preparation of Comprehensive Industry Documents on Industrial Sectors/clean technology d. Investigations of environmental damages, preparation of DPRs e. Remediation of contaminated sites f. Infrastructure augmentation of Urban Local Bodies (ULBs)/capacity building of SPCBs/PCCs."
186. All the above, except item (e), relate to establishment/infrastructure for monitoring/prevention of pollution which in fact is the statutory duty and function of officials of State PCB and CPCB. It appears that CPCB has attempted to utilize environment fund to meet expenses which is the responsibility of Government.
186
187. Chapter II of report deals with determination of environment compensation for violations of Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) in NCR. Here a fixed amount of environmental compensation has been recommended in table 2.1, as under:
"Table No. 2.1: Environmental Compensation to be levied on all violations of Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) in Delhi-NCR.
Activity State Of Air Quality Environmental
Compensation
Industrial Severe +/Emergency Rs 1.0 Crore
Emissions
Severe Rs 50 Lakh
Very Poor Rs 25 Lakh
Moderate to Poor Rs 10 Lakh
Vapour Recovery System (VRS) at Outlets of Oil Companies i. Not installed Target Date Rs 1.0 Crore ii. Non-functional Very poor to Severe + Rs 50.0 Lakh Moderate to Poor Rs 25.0 Lakh Construction sites Severe +/Emergency Rs 1.0 Crore (Offending plot more than 20,000 Sq.m.) Severe Rs 50 Lakh Very Poor Rs 25 Lakh Moderate to Poor Rs 10 Lakh Solid waste/ Very poor to Severe + Rs 25.0 Lakh garbage dumping in Industrial Estates Moderate to Poo Rs 10.0 Lakh Failure to water sprinkling on unpaved roads
a) Hot-spots Very poor to Severe + Rs 25.0 Lakh
b) Other than Hot- Very poor to Severe + Rs 10.0 Lakh "
spots
188. Chapter III considers determination of environmental compensation where a proponent has discharged pollutants in water bodies or failed to 187 prevent discharge of pollutants in water bodies and also failed to implement Waste Management Rules. Laying down Guidelines for determination of environmental compensation in this category, report has referred to Tribunal's order dated 06.12.2018 in OA No. 125/2017 and MA No. 1337/2018, Court on its own motion vs. State of Karnataka, stating as under:
"Since failure of preventing the pollutants being discharged in water bodies (including lakes) and failure to implement solid and other waste management rules are too frequent and widespread, the CPCB must lay down specific guidelines to deal with the same, throughout India, including the scale of compensation to be recovered from different individuals/authorities, in addition to or as alternative to prosecution. The scale may have slabs, depending on extent of pollution caused, economic viability, etc. Deterrent effect for repeated wrongs may also be provided."
189. It is suggested that determination of environmental compensation in this category would have two components, (i) Cost saved/benefits achieved by the concerned individual/authority by not having proper waste/sewage managing system; and (ii) Cost to the environment (environmental externality) due to untreated/partially treated waste/sewage because insufficient capacity of waste/sewage management facility. It further says that Cost saved/benefits achieved would also include interest on capital cost of waste/sewage management facility, daily operation and maintenance (O & M) cost associated with the facility. The determination of environmental compensation, therefore, is suggested, applying following formula:
"Therefore, generalized formula for Environmental Compensation may be described as:
EC= Capital Cost Factor × Marginal Average Capital Cost for 188 Establishment of Waste or Sewage Management or Treatment Facility × (Waste or Sewage Management or Treatment Capacity Gap) + O&M Cost Factor × Marginal Average O&M Cost × (Waste or Sewage Management or Treatment Capacity Gap) × No. of Days for which facility was not available + Environmental Externality"
190. Environmental externality has been placed in two categories (i) untreated/partially treated sewage discharge and (ii) improper municipal solid waste management and detailed in table 3.1 and 3.2, as under:
"Table No. 3.1: Environmental externality for untreated/partially treated sewage discharge Sewage Marginal Cost of Minimum and Maximum Treatment Environmental value of Environmental Capacity Externality (Rs. per Externality recommended Gap (MLD) MLD/day) by the Committee (Lacs Rs.
Per Day)
Up to 200 75 Min. 0.05, Max. 0.10
201-500 85 Min. 0.25, Max. 0.35
501 and 90 Min. 0.60, Max. 0.80
above
Table No. 3.2: Environmental externality for improper municipal solid waste management Municipal Marginal Cost of Minimum and Maximum Solid Waste Environmental value of Environmental Management Externality (Rs. per Externality recommended Capacity ton per day) by the Committee (Lacs Gap (TPD) Rs. Per Day) Up to 200 15 Min. 0.01, Max. 0.05 201-500 30 Min. 0.10, Max. 0.15 501-1000 35 Min. 0.25, Max. 0.3 1001-2000 40 Min. 0.50, Max. 0.60 Above 2000 Max. 0.80 "
191. CPCB has further recommend a fixed cap for minimum and maximum cost for capital and O & M component for environmental compensation in table 3.3 and 3.4, as under:
189
"Table No. 3.3: Minimum and Maximum EC to be levied for untreated/partially treated sewage discharge Class of the City/Town Mega-City Million-plus Class-I City City/Town and others Minimum and Maximum Min. 2000 Min. 1000 Min. 100 values of EC (Total Capital Max. 20000 Max. 10000 Max. 1000 Cost Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs.) Minimum and Maximum Min. 2 Min. 1 Min. 0.5 values of EC (O&M Cost Max. 20 Max. 10 Max. 5 Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs./day) Table No. 3.4: Minimum and Maximum EC to be levied for improper municipal solid waste management Class of the City/Town Mega-City Million-plus Class-I City City/Town and others Minimum and Maximum Min. 1000 Min. 500 Min. 100 values of EC (Capital Cost Max. 10000 Max. 5000 Max. 1000 Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs.) Minimum and Maximum Min. 1.0 Min. 0.5 Min. 0.1 values of EC (O&M Cost Max. 10.0 Max. 5.0 Max. 1.0 Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs./day) "
192. Para 3.3 deals with the method of determining environmental compensation for damage/untreated/partially treated sewage by concerned individual/authority. Under this head, CPCB has considered that for population above 1 lakh, requirement of water supply, would be minimum 150 to 200 lpcd and 85% whereof would result in sewage generation. It takes capital cost for 1 MLD STP ranges from 0.63 crores to 3 crores and O & M cost around Rs. 30,000 per month. Consequently, it suggested to assume capital cost for STPs as Rs. 1.75 crores/MLD 190 (marginal average cost). Expected cost for conveyance system is assumed as Rs.5.55 Crore/MLD and annual O&M as 10% of combined capital coast. Based on the above assumptions, Committee has recommended/suggested environmental compensation, to be levied on urban local bodies, by applying formula and here CPCB has suggested two formulas and any of them may be adopted.
"EC= Capital Cost Factor × [Marginal Average Capital Cost for Treatment Facility × (Total Generation-Installed Capacity) + Marginal Average Capital Cost for Conveyance Facility × (Total Generation -Operational Capacity)] + O&M Cost Factor x Marginal Average O&M Cost × (Total Generation- Operational Capacity) × No. of Days for which facility was not available + Environmental Externality × No. of Days for which facility was not available Alternatively;
EC (Lacs Rs.) = [17.5(Total Sewage Generation - Installed Treatment Capacity) + 55.5(Total Sewage Generation- Operational Capacity)] + 0.2(Sewage Generation-Operational Capacity) × N + Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality × (Total Sewage Generation-Operational Capacity) × N Where; N= Number of days from the date of direction of CPCB/SPCB/PCC till the required capacity systems are provided by the concerned authority Quantity of Sewage is in MLD"
193. Para 3.4 deals with the method of environmental compensation to be levied on concerned individual/authority for improper solid waste management, chargeable from urban local body based on the following formula:
"EC = Capital Cost Factor x Marginal Average Cost for Waste Management × (Per day waste generation-Per day waste disposed as per the Rules) + O&M Cost Factor × Marginal Average O&M Cost × (Per day waste generation-Per day 191 waste disposed as per the Rules) × Number of days violation took place + Environmental Externality × N Where;
Waste Quantity in tons per day (TPD) N= Number of days from the date of direction of CPCB/SPCB/PCC till the required capacity systems are provided by the concerned authority Simplifying;
EC (Lacs Rs.) = 2.4(Waste Generation - Waste Disposed as per the Rules) +0.02 (Waste Generation - Waste Disposed as per the Rules) × N + Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality × (Waste Generation-Waste Disposed as per the Rules) × N"
194. Here also certain assumed figures have been taken by CPCB. Report says that municipal solid waste generation is approximately 1.5 lakh MT/day in India as per MoHUA Report-2016. As per principles of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and PWM Rules, 2016, total cost of municipal solid waste management in city/town includes cost for door-to- door collection, cost of segregation at source, cost for transportation in segregated manner, cost for processing of municipal solid waste and disposal through facility like composting bio-methanation, recycling, co- processing in cement kilns etc. It is estimated that total cost of processing and treatment of municipal solid waste for a city of population of 1 lakh and generating approximately 50 tons/day of municipal solid waste is Rs. 15.5 Crores which includes capital cost (one time) and Operational and Management cost for one year. Expenditure for subsequent years would be only 3.5 Crores/annum. For arriving per day waste generation, CPCB has referred to a survey conducted by Environment Protection Training Research Institute (EPTRI) which estimated that solid waste generated in 192 small, medium and large cities and towns is about 0.1 kg (Class-III), 0.3- 0.4 kg (Class-II) and 0.5 kg (Class-I) per capita per day respectively. The committee opined that 0.6 kg/day, 0.5 kg/day and 0.4 kg/day per capita waste generation may be assumed for mega-cities, million-plus UAs/towns and Class-I UA/Towns respectively for calculation of environmental compensation purposes.
195. Sample calculation of environmental compensation to be levied for improper management of municipal solid waste has been provided in table 3.6 which read as under:
"Table No. 3.6: Sample calculation for EC to be levied for improper management of Municipal Solid Waste City Delhi Agra Gurugram Ambala Population (2011) 1,63,49,831 17,60,285 8,76,969 5,00,774 Class Mega-City Million-plus Class-I Town Class-I Town City Waste Generation (kg. per 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 person per day) Waste Generation (TPD) 9809.90 880.14 350.79 200.31 Waste Disposal as per 2452.47 220.04 87.70 50.08 Rules (TPD) (assumed as 25% of waste generation for sample calculation) Waste Management 7357.42 660.11 263.09 150.23 Capacity Gap (TPD) Calculated EC (capital cost 17657.82 1584.26 631.42 360.56 component) in Lacs. Rs.
Minimum and Maximum Min. 1000 Min. 500 Min. 100 Min. 100
values of EC (Capital Cost Max. 10000
Component) recommended Max. 5000 Max. 1000 Max. 1000
by the Committee (Lacs
Rs.)
Final EC (capital cost 10000.00 1584.26 631.42 360.56
component) in Lacs. Rs.
Calculated EC (O&M 147.15 13.20 5.26 3.00
193
Component) in Lacs.
Rs./Day
Minimum and Maximum Min. 1.0 Max. Min. 0.5 Min. 0.1 Min. 0.1
values of EC (O&M Cost 10.0
Component) recommended Max. 5.0 Max. 1.0 Max. 1.0
by the Committee (Lacs
Rs./Day)
Final EC (O&M 10.00 5.00 1.00 1.00
Component) in Lacs.
Rs./Day
Calculated Environmental 2.58 0.18 0.03 0.02
Externality (Lacs Rs. Per
Day)
Minimum and Maximum Max. 0.80 Min. 0.25 Max. Min. 0.01 Min. 0.01
value of Environmental 0.35
Externality recommended Max. 0.05 Max. 0.05
by the Committee (Lacs Rs.
per day)
Final Environmental 0.80 0.25 0.03 0.02 "
Externality (Lacs Rs. per
day)
196. Chapter IV deals with determination/computation of environmental compensation in case of "illegal extraction of ground water" and for this purpose report has referred to Tribunal's order dated 03.01.2019 passed in OA No. 327/2018, Shailesh Singh vs. Central Ground Water Board & Ors. The relevant extract of the order quoted in para 4.1 of the report is as under:
"CPCB may constitute a mechanism to deal with individual cases of violation of norms, as existed prior to Notification of 12/12/2018, to determine the environment compensation to be recovered or other coercive measures to be taken, including prosecution, for past illegal extraction of ground water, as per law."
197. Here, broadly, determination of environmental compensation refers to two major aspects i.e. illegal extraction of water as one aspect and illegal use of ground water as second aspect. For determination of environmental 194 compensation for illegal extraction of ground water, formula suggested by Committee is:
"ECGW =Water Consumption per Day x No. of Days x Environmental Compensation Rate for illegal extraction of ground water (ECRGW) Where water Consumption is in m3/day and ECRGW in Rs./m3 Yield of the pump varies based on the capacity/power of pump, water head etc. For reference purpose, yield of the pump may be assumed as given in Annexure-VI.
Time duration will be the period from which pump is operated illegally.
In case of illegal extraction of ground water, quantity of discharge as per the meter reading or as calculated with assumptions of yield and time may be used for calculation of ECGW."
198. Depending on the category of the area for the purpose of ground water i.e. safe, semi-critical, critical and over-exploited and also the purpose for which ground water is used, determination of environmental compensation for illegal use of ground water, has been suggested differently for different purpose/use i.e. for drinking and domestic use; for packaged drinking water units/for mining infrastructure and dewatering projects and for industrial units. Hence all these aspects are separately given in paragraph 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3 and 4.6.4 as under:
"4.6.1 ECRGW for Drinking and Domestic use:
Drinking and Domestic use means uses of ground water in households, institutional activity, hospitals, commercial complexes, townships etc. Sl. Area Category Water Consumption (m3 /day) No <2 2 to <5 5 to <25 25 & above Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGW) in Rs./m3 1 Safe 4 6 8 10 2 Semi Critical 12 14 16 20 195
3. Critical 22 24 26 30 4 Over-Exploited 32 34 36 40 Minimum ECGW=Rs 10,000/- (for households) and Rs. 50,000 (for institutional activity, commercial complexes, townships etc.) 4.6.2 ECRGW for Packaged drinking water units:
Sl. Area Category Water Consumption (m3 /day) No ˂200 200 to 1000 to 5000 & ˂1000 ˂5000 above Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGW) in Rs./m3 1 Safe 12 18 24 30 2 Semi Critical 24 36 48 60
3. Critical 36 48 66 90 4 Over-Exploited 48 72 96 120 Minimum ECGW=Rs 1,00,000/-
4.6.3 ECRGW for Mining, Infrastructure and Dewatering Projects:
Sl. Area Category Water Consumption (m3 /day) No ˂200 200 to 1000 to 5000 & ˂1000 ˂5000 above Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGW) in Rs./m3 1 Safe 15 21 30 40 2 Semi Critical 30 45 60 75
3. Critical 45 60 85 115 4 Over-Exploited 60 90 120 150 Minimum ECGW=Rs 1,00,000/ 4.6.4 ECRGW for Industrial Units:
Sl. Area Category Water Consumption (m3 /day) No ˂200 200 to 1000 to 5000 & ˂1000 ˂5000 above Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGW) in Rs./m3 1 Safe 20 30 40 50 2 Semi Critical 40 60 80 100
3. Critical 60 80 110 150 4 Over-Exploited 80 120 160 200 Minimum ECGW=Rs 1,00,000/- "196
199. It is also recommended that minimum environmental compensation for illegal extraction of ground water would be Rs. 10,000/- if it is for domestic purposes, but in other matters, it would be Rs. 50,000/-.
200. These recommendations by CPCB have not been given in the form of a binding statutory provision. Even otherwise, we find that these are only broad suggestions, ignore several relevant aspects which have to be considered while determining environment compensation in a given case therefore, cannot be taken as readymade application to all situations for determining of environment compensation. Moreover, on some aspects there is no suggestion, but it is deferred.
201. We also find that some crucial relevant aspects requiring application of 'Polluter Pays', have not been considered in the above suggestions. CPCB has failed to consider that the purpose of determination/computation/assessment of environmental compensation and levy thereof, involve various factors like (i) cost of damage to environment, (ii) cost needed for restoration/remediation of damage caused to environment, (iii) element of deterrent/provincial, (iv) liability arising for violation of statuary mandatory law relating to environment namely requirement of consent, EC and NOC etc. It is not mere cost of item or subject but computation of something which situation has arisen by an act of PPs due to violation of environmental law causing damage to environment. The loss and its remedy involve complex of components.
202. Nature is precious. The elements of nature like air, water, light and soil in materialistic manner may not be priced appropriately and 197 adequately. Most of the time, whenever price is determined, it may be extremely low or highly exorbitant meaning thereby disproportionate. Still, since some of the assets of nature are marketable, on that basis price may be determined but when such elements are damaged or degraded, restoration thereof, in effect is priceless. Many a times, it may be almost impracticable and improbable to recover and remediate damaged environment to its position as it was. Moreover, its cost might be very high. It also cannot be doubted that once there is a pollution or damage to environment, it would affect adversely not only the environment but also inhabitants and all biological organisms. Damage is there, only degree may differ whether to the environment or to the inhabitants and other organisms. To find out simultaneously degree of damage and to ascertain the same in many cases may not be possible or practicable. For example, a polluted air causes respiratory diseases but the people do not get infected and starts reflection of the disease immediately but it takes some time. The time taken in reflection of injury on the person or body also differs from person to person depending upon his immunity and other health conditions. In some cases, damage to environment i.e., air pollution may be fatal to a person who already has respiratory problem. For some a minor inconvenience, minor injury to others, and some may not suffer to the extent of showing symptoms of any diseases at all. When we talk of environmental compensation for causing degradation to environment and for its restoration or remediation, it is not a formal or casual or symbolic amount which is required to be levied upon the violator. It is substantive and adequate amount which must be levied for restoration of environment. CPCB in determining values of fixed quotients and rupees etc., has been 198 very lenient as if only symbolically violator is to be held liable and it must pay a petty amount.
203. Statutory Regulators must realize that the amount is needed for remediation and restoration of damaged environment; enough to be deterrent, to provide adequate compensation where inhabitants are affected adversely and where violator has proceeded in violation of Environmental Laws relating to consents, clearances, permissions etc., to penalize him for such violation to prove to be a deterrent to him and others. Unfortunately, the above guidelines laid down by CPCB have not considered all these aspects and it appears that the same have been prepared in a very casual and formal manner.
204. In respect of computation of compensation for illegal extraction of ground water, CPCB has referred to Tribunal's order in Court on its own motion vs. State of Karnataka (supra) directing it to lay down guidelines to deal with the scale of compensation but has failed to consider that Tribunal has also observed that its scale may have slabs depending on extent of pollution caused, economic viability etc. and deterrent effect.
205. Statutory Regulators have also failed to consider that environmental compensation is not a kind of fee which may result in profiteering to violators and after adjusting a nominal amount of environmental compensation, a violator may find it profitable to continue with such violations. The objective of environmental compensation is that not only the loss and damage already caused, is made to recover and restore but also in future, the said violator may not repeat the kind of violation already 199 committed and others also have a fear of not doing the same else similar liability may be enforced upon them. Unless amount of compensation is more than maximum permissible profit arising from violation, the purpose of environmental compensation would always stand defeated.
206. Loss caused to surroundings of the environment, may also include flora-fauna and human beings. It is in this backdrop that in various matters when the issues were considered by Courts and Tribunal and found necessary to impose environmental compensation upon Proponent/Violator of environmental laws, they have followed different mechanisms. Sometimes, Committee's reports confirming violations have been referred but for quantum of compensation, directions have been issued in different ways. In some cases, CPCB guidelines have been applied while in many other, project cost has been made basis.
207. CPCB Guidelines have taken care of industries and municipal bodies. Its application in all cases irrespective of other relevant consideration may prove to be disastrous. Individuals, charitable, social or religious bodies, public sector and government establishments etc., may, in given circumstances justify a different approach. Further, there may be cases attracting aggravating factors or mitigating factors, for example in national emergency some activity got performed violating environmental norms or a proponent is resilient to any advice to adhere law to protect environment and so on. In fact, quantum of EC should have nexus with State's efforts for protection and preservation of environment and control of pollution. Compensation regime must be a deterrent to violators and incentivize eco-friendly proponents. No one should get 200 profited by violating environmental laws and community should also not suffer for violation of environmental norms by defaulting proponents. There is no reason, if beside the aspects noticed above, the computation process also incorporates the elements of inflation, quality of life, and economic prosperity.
208. In the context of "violation of disposal of Bio-Medical Waste" and "Non-compliance of Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016" and determination of environmental compensation for such violations, Tribunal in OA No. 710/2017, Shailesh Singh vs. Sheela Hospital & Trauma Centre, Shahjahanpur & Others and other connected matters, vide order dated 15.07.2019, accepted report of CPCB, and said:
"10. The compensation regime suggested by the CPCB may be adopted. It will be open to the State PCBs/PCCs to adopt a higher scale of compensation, having regard to the problems faced in such States/UTs.
11. It is made clear that if even after two months the States/UTs are found to be non-compliant, the compensation will be liable to be recovered from the said States/UTs at the rate of Rs. 1 Crore per month till the non-compliance continues."
209. The above recommendations i.e. in para 10, Tribunal said "compensation regime suggested by the CPCB may be adopted. It will be open to the State PCBs/PCCs to adopt a higher scale of compensation, having regard to the problems faced in such States/UTs". It further says that if State Governments and UTs still remain non-complying for two months, compensation will be recovered at the rate of Rs. One Crore per month till non-compliance continues. 201
210. In respect of solid waste, sewage effluent, ground water extraction etc., Tribunal in OA No. 593/2017, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti and another vs. Union of India and others, vide order dated 28.08.2019 has said in para 16, that as regards environmental compensation regime fixed vide CPCB guidelines for industrial units, GRAP, solid waste, sewage and ground water is accepted as an interim measure. Tribunal further observed that recovery of compensation on 'Polluter Pays' principle is a part of enforcement strategy but not a substitute for compliance. It directed all States/UTs to enforce compensation regime latest w.e.f. 01.04.2020 and made it clear that it is not condoning any past violations. Tribunal directed to enforce recovery of compensation from 01.04.2020 from the defaulting local bodies failing which the concerned States/UTs themselves must pay the requisite amount of compensation.
211. In the matter of illegal mining causing damage to environment, methodology for determining environmental compensation was examined in OA no. 360/2015, National Green Tribunal Bar Association vs. Virender Singh (State of Gujarat) and other connected matters decided on 26.02.2021. Here a report was submitted by CPCB on 30.01.2020, placing on record recommendations made by Committee comprising:
i.) Dr Purnamita Dasgupta, Professor, IEG, Delhi, ii.) Dr K.S. Kavi Kumar, Professor, MSE, Chennai, iii.) Dr. Yogesh Dubey, Associate Professor, IIFM, Bhopal, iv.) Shri Sundeep, Director, MoEF&CC, Delhi and v.) Shri A. Sudhakar, Additional Director, CPCB, Delhi 202
212. Report was considered by Tribunal vide order dated 17.08.2020. Report said:
"8. The Committee considered two approaches:
(I) Approach 1: Direct Compensation based on the market value of extraction, adjusted for ecological damages. (II) Approach 2: Computing a Simplified NPV for ecological damages.
9. In the first approach, the criteria adopted is:
• Exceedance Factor (EF).
• Risk Factor (RF).
• Deterrence Factor (DF).
10. Approach 1 is demonstrated by Table 1 as follows: Table No. 01: Approach 1
Permitted Total Excess Exceedance Compensation Quantity Extraction Extraction in Charge (in MT or (in MT or (in MT or Extraction: (in Rs.) m3) m3) m3 ) X Y Z=Y-X Z/X D* (1+RF+DF) Where D=Z x Market Value of the 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 = 1 if Z/X >= 0.71 RF = 0.25, 0.50.
0.75, 1.00 (as per table 2)
11. Approach 2 is demonstrated by following formula:
"Total Benefits (B)=Market Value of illegal extraction: D(refer Table 1) Total Ecological Costs (C) = Market Value adjusted for risk factor: D * RF (refer Table 1)."203
12. 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 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% Rate
213. Here, in both the approaches, element of illegality committed by PP in carrying on mining was not considered at all. For example, if EC and/or consent is not obtained. Similarly, cost of remediation/restoration was also not taken into consideration.
214. In both the approaches noted above, it has also to be considered that the Committee recommended determination of annual net present value which would be relevant for determination of environmental 204 compensation but the said net present value by itself cannot be treated or equated with environmental compensation. The market value or the total sale price of the product by itself may not be charged as environmental compensation particularly in the matter of extraction of mineral in violation of environmental laws since it will be contrary to the law laid down by Supreme Court in Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 6 SCC 590.
215. In some cases, compensation has been awarded by Tribunal on lump sum basis without referring to any methodology. For example:
(i) In OA No. 183/2013, Ajay Kumar Negi vs. Union of India, Rs.5 Crores was imposed;
(ii) In Original Application no. 15(THC) of 2016, Naim Shariff vs. M/s Das Offshore, Rs.25 Crores was imposed;
and
(iii) Hazira Macchimar Samiti vs. Union of India, Rs.25 Crores was imposed.
216. In Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & Others (supra), Supreme Court relied on Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Others, (2013) 8 SCC 209 and held that 10% of the sale price of iron ore during e-auction should be taken as compensation. To arrive at the above view, Court observed that this was an appropriate compensation given that mining could not be completely stopped due to its contribution towards employment and revenue generation for the State. Further, Court directed to create a Special Purpose Vehicle, i.e., "Goan 205 Iron Ore Permanent Fund" for depositing above directed compensation and utilization of above fund for remediation of damage to environment.
217. In Goel Ganga Developers vs Union of India and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 257, Tribunal imposed Rs.195 Crores compensation since construction project was executed without EC. Supreme Court made it Rs.100 Crores or 10% of project cost whichever is higher. Supreme Court also upheld Rs.5 Crores imposed by Tribunal vide order dated 27.09.2016. Thus, total amount exceeded even 10% of project cost. In para 64 of the judgment, Supreme Court observed as under:
"...we are definitely of the view that the project proponent who has violated law with impunity cannot be allowed to go scot-free. This Court has in a number of case awarded 5% of the project cost as damages. This is the general law..."
218. Supreme court further said that though general rule is to award 5% of the project cost as damages but in a case where special circumstances exit, higher compensation should be awarded. Court observed that damages should be higher keeping in view the totally intransigent and unapologetic behaviour of the project proponent.
219. In Mantri Techzone Private Limited vs. Forward Foundation & Others, (2019) 18 SCC 494, Supreme Court affirmed imposition of environmental compensation by Tribunal, considering cost of the project, where there was violation regarding EC/consent and proponent proceeded with construction activities violating provisions relating to EC/Consent. Tribunal determined environmental compensation at 5% and 3% of project cost of two builders. 5% of project cost was imposed where project 206 proponent had raised illegal constructions while 3% was imposed where actual construction activity was not undertaken by project proponent and only preparatory steps were taken including excavation and deposition of huge earth by creating a hillock. Besides, Tribunal also directed for demolition and removal of debris from natural drain at the cost of project proponent.
220. On the issue of assessment of compensation for damage to environment in the matter of illegal mining, recently Supreme Court in Bajri Lease LOI holders Welfare Society vs. State of Rajasthan and others, SLP (Civil) No. 10584 of 2019 (order dated 11.11.2021) has said that compensation/penalty to be paid by those indulging in illegal sand mining cannot be restricted to be value of illegally mined minerals. The cost of restoration of environment as well as the cost of ecological services should be part of compensation. 'Polluter Pays' principle as interpreted by this Court means that absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate victims of pollution but also cost of restoring environmental degradation. Remediation of damaged environment is part of the process of "sustainable development" and as such the polluter is liable to pay the cost the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.
221. Recently, in respect of pollution of River Yamuna due to violations caused by Nagar Nigam, Agra and Nagar Nigam, Mathura-Vrindavan in OA 840/2022, Sanjay Kulshresthra vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. and OA 773/2022, Rajesh Pareek vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. passed on 24.04.2024, this Tribunal has computed 207 environmental compensation by applying the rate of compensation at Rs. 0.01 per MLD since that was a case of discharge of untreated sewage in River Yamuna.
222. In the present case, we are of the view that law laid down in Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & Others (supra) most aptly apply in this case. In respect of mining leases, environmental compensation shall be upto 10% of the sale price of the mineral. Since sale price has been mentioned in Third Report based on EMM-11 as 675/m3 which relates to 2022-23, we are of the view that for the previous five years, this price may be reduced on an average basis of 5% per annum so as to take care of rise in price every year and inflation rate. Therefore, for five years prior to 2023, we shall take into account sale price as under:
Year Sale Price
2022-23 Rs.675/m3
2021-22 Rs. 641.25/m3
2020-21 Rs.609.19/m3
2019-20 Rs.578.73/m3
2018-19 Rs.549.79/m3
2017-18 Rs.522.30/m3
2016-17 Rs.496.18/m3
223. As noticed above, in Goel Ganga Developers vs Union of India and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 257, Supreme Court said that unless stringent violations have been committed, ordinarily 5% should be taken for the purpose of environmental compensation. In the present case, we 208 find that neither the conduct of the project proponents is intransigent nor unapologetic nor several violations of serious nature exit, therefore, in our view, the environmental compensation may be imposed at a lesser percentage of the sale price so that neither it may become an stringent penalty affecting the nature of environmental compensation nor the project proponents have the impression that no appropriate action would be taken even if they violate environmental laws on one or the other aspect or to some extent.
224. We are of the view that in case, there is any violation of non- obtaining EC and CTO and other violations, the computation shall be at 5%; where CTO has not been obtained and some additional violations are there, environmental compensation shall be computed at 3%; and where only CTO has not been obtained, it shall be 2.5% for every year when the violation has continued.
225. In respect of the washing plants, if plant has operated without CTO or any other violation, a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- per annum may be levied as environmental compensation.
226. The above computation we shall follow and discuss in individual proponent's case while computing environmental compensation wherever applicable.
Respondent 8-M/s. Chawla Silica Sand Trading Company, Village Lakhnauti, Tehsil Bara, District Prayagraj:
227. In the Report dated 17.05.2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'Second Report'), an inspection Report dated 25.03.2022 has been appended as 209 annexure 2 and therein, the Committee has recorded observations in respect of mining activities of respondent 8 as under:
ग्राम लखनौटी/मे० चावला 1. सनरीक्षण के दौरान खनन क्षेत्र में िभी िीमा स्तम्भ सिसलका िैण्ड ट्रेंसडग कंम्पनी िंरसक्षत पाये गये तथा िभी िीमा स्तम्भ पर भ-ू पा० श्री दर्शन लाल चावला व सनदेर्ाक ं असं कत सकया हुआ पाया गया।
2. स्वीकृ त खनन क्षेत्र में खनन के उपरान्त हुए अन्य गड्ढा/सपट में जल भराव होना नहीं पाया गया। खनन क्षेत्र की गहराई असिकांर् स्थानों पर औितन 1-3 मीटर की पायी गयी, जो अभी अपने न्यनू तम स्तर पर है सजिमें बेंच बत्ताने की आवश्यकता नहीं है।
3. स्वीकृ त खनन क्षेत्र के सनकाि/प्रवेर् मागश पर िमशकांटा स्थासपत पाया गया। िमशकांटा पर जााँच के िमय सनकािी की गयी उपखसनज की मात्रा का लेखा-जोखा का रसजस्टर उपलब्ि पाया गया।
4. खनन क्षेत्र में खनन के िमय सनकाले गये टॉप स्वायल व्यवसस्थत पाया गया।
5. खनन क्षेत्र में तीन स्थानों पर सडस््ले बोडश स्थासपत पाया गया, सजिमें खनन पट्टा िम्बन्िीं िभी सववरण उपलब्ि थे।
6. स्वीकृ त खनन क्षेत्र के प्रवेर्/सनकािी मागश के पाि िी०िी०टी०वी० कै मरा स्थासपत व िच ं ासलत होना पाया गया।
7. खनन क्षेत्र में ओवर बडशन हाडश रॉक को व्यवसस्थत रूप िे भण्डाररत सकया जाना पाया गया।
8. पट्टेिारक द्वारा पौिा रोपण सकया गया है सजिका सववरण मौके पर वर्शवार सडस््ले में भी सकया गया है, जहााँ 2017 िे अब तक सकये गये पौिा रोपण का सववरण है।
English Translation by Tribunal:
Village 1. During inspection, all the boundary Lakhnauti/M/s pillars in the mining area were Chawla Silica Sand found to be preserved and all the Trading Company Pt. boundary pillars were found to Shri Darshan Lal have geo-coordinates marked on Chawla and others them.210
2. In the approved mining area, no water was found in the pit created after mining. The depth of the mining area was found to be 1-3 meters on an average at most places, which is at its minimum level right now, due to which there is no need to make bench marks.
3. Weighbridge was found installed at the entry/exit route of the approved mining area. At the time of checking at the weighbridge, the register containing the account of the quantity of sub-mineral extracted was available.
4. The top soil extracted at the time of mining in the mining area was found to be in order.
5. Display boards were found installed at three places in the mining area, in which all the details related to the mining lease were available.
6. CCTV camera was found installed and operational near the entry/exit route of the approved mining area.
7. Overburden hard rock was found to be stored systematically in the mining area.
8. Tree plantation has been done by the leaseholder, the details of which have also been displayed year-wise on the spot, where details of the plantation done from 2017 till date are available.
228. The above report shows all compliant on the part of respondent 8. However, the report does not give any information whether requisite clearance and consent were obtained by proponent. 211
229. As per Joint Committee's interim Report dated 03.02.2023, proponent got EC dated 12.12.2014 and permitted capacity of mining was 50,000 Tonnes per Annum (hereinafter referred to as 'TPA'); lease period is 30.01.2015 to 29.01.2045; date of opening of mine is 02.02.2016; CTO was issued on 13.11.2022 and there is a corrigendum dated 13.01.2023. As per CTO, silica sand mining capacity permitted is 1,50,000 TPA. Within the lease area, there is no washing plant.
230. The observations of Joint Committee in respect of the above proponent i.e., respondent 8 are as under:
"Observation based on mining plane • DGPS survey of Mining lease area is not done. • Boundary pillars are not erected properly. • Production, Development, Dumping, Plantation, Reclamation & rehabilitation works are not done as per the proposals of approved mining plan document. The mining operations are not being carried out in scientific & systematic manner. There is absolutely no relevance in approved proposals and actual working.
• Mine has raised production many folds of its proposals.
• Mine is in operation for last 03 years without valid mining plan documents • Reserve /resources are enhanced many fold without undertaking exploration activities Observations based on Environmental Clearance • It has been found that the first EC of the above lease was granted by Ministry vide letter no. J-11015/116/2011. IA. II (M) dated 12.12.2014 for 50,000 TPA silica sands production.
• PAs obtained another EC from SEIAA UP for same lease area with production capacity of 1,50,000 TPA vide EC letter EC22B001 UP186696 dated 01.04.2022.
212 • It was expansion of production from 50,000 ΤΡΑ to 1, 50,000 TPA project and to be considered as expansion project. • However, SEIAA/SEAC-UP appraised this project without due diligence under EIA notification 2006 and its subsequent amendment and grant environmental clearance under fresh category.
• It is also important to note here that the in mining plane the proposed excavation of the mineral is 150000 during 2017-18 and 2019-20 and EC for 50,000 TPA silica sands production only.
• Over production has also been noticed during 2020-21. • As per record, PAs are not submitting six monthly compliance report to the concerned authority, • It has been observed that the none of mine workers wearing personal protective equipment's (PPEs) likes, safety shoes, helmets mask etc on site, • It has been observed that the miner has neither established nor conducting monitoring of the RSPM, SPM, SO2, NOx parameters at site, • It has been observed that the miner is neither established nor conducting monitoring of the ground water level and its quality parameters at site, • miner is not given safety training to the employee, • miner does not have OB waste management, • miner does not store top soil at site, • miner has developed significant green belt only on both side of entrance, • the 7.5-meter safety zone plantation has not been done throughout the boundary lease, • the PAs are also doing mining by using JCB etc., • peripheral fencing of the excavated area has not been done so far.
Observation as per CTO • project is having dryer plant in lease area, which is not mentioned in the given CTO, • Production capacity mentioned in latest CTO and in Environmental Clearance not matching (CTO Specific Condition no. 2).
Observation based on Satellite images on various interval 213 • Google earth image shows that the lease holder done mining outside of the lease in 2017."
231. Joint Committee also said that a dryer plant was found in the lease area though it was not mentioned in CTO. Further, production capacity as per CTO was inconsistent with the capacity permitted vide EC. Based on satellite images, Joint Committee observed that Google Earth images show that lease holder has done mining outside the lease area in 2017.
232. As per final Report dated 23.02.2023, Joint Committee has submitted its observations in respect of respondent 8 in annexure-B to the report. Findings are repetition of what was observed in interim report and observations are also similar hence we are not repeating. We may however mention that in respect of washing plants, it is said that respondent 8 is operating 03 washing plants and details given at page 243 of the paper book in respect to the above 03 washing plants are as under:
S Name of Capacity of Consent to Operate under Water and Validity of N owner washing Air Act Consent plant
1. M/S. Washed 116901/UPPCB/Allahabad 09/02/2021 Chawla Silica Sand (UPPCBRO)/CTO/air/ALLAHABAD/2021 to Silica Sand 3500 31/03/2024 Trading Ton/Month Company 116899/UPPCB/Allahabad 09/02/2021 (UPPCBRO)/CTO/water/ALLAHABAD/ to 2021 31/03/2024
2. M/S. Crushing 135787/UPPCB/Allahabad(UPPCBRO)/ 26/09/2021 Chawla And Washing CTO/ air/ALLAHABAD/2021 to Silica Sand of Silica (04 31/07/2024 Trading Charahi)-214
Company 4000
Ton/Month. 135785/UPPCB/Allahabad(UPPCBRO)/ 26/09/2021
CTO/ water/ALLAHABAD/2021 to
31/07/2024
3. M/S. Screening & 150715/UPPCB/Allahabad(UPPCBRO)/ 14/02/2022
Chawla Washing of CTO/ air/PRAYAGRAJ/2022 to
Silica Sand Silica- 1500 31/03/2025
Trading Ton/Month.
Company
116897/UPPCB/Allahabad(UPPCBRO)/ 14/02/2022 CTO/ Water/PRAYAGRAJ/2022 to 31/03/2025
233. Final Report also mentions details of 05 FIRs in respect of illegal mining in village Charhari, Bihariya, Gadhewa, Ghondh and Bhaisahi (annexure: K at page 251 of paper book). The FIRs however do not show involvement of any active lease holder including respondent 8. Report also gives details of ceased silica sand which was illegally mined after inspection of Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal and details of such ceased silica sand are given as under:
"Quantum of silica sand sized during/after inspection of the Hon'ble NGT committee S.N. Date Tehsil Location Quantity (Cubic Meter)
01. 25/11/2022 Bara Gadhwa se Hanuman 368.4 Mandir aproch road
02. 23/11/2022 Bara Bargari KR Minerals 331.6 ke bagal me Boundary ke andar
03. 23/11/2022 Bara Lakhnauti Prathmik 474 Schook ke pass 215
04. 18/11/2022 Bara Bargari ke arazi no 374 549
05. 18/11/2022 Bara Narayan Dutt Tiwari 279.2 Silica washing Plant Total 1527.2
234. Since these FIRs have nothing to do with any of these 07 active mining leases including respondent 8 and, therefore, reference of FIRs is irrelevant so far as respondent 8 is concerned. Moreover, even seized silica sand is not shown to have any connection of respondent 8 or any other active lease holder hence its reference is also irrelevant so far as respondent 8 is concerned.
235. Joint Committee in Third Report has also given details of methodology of computation of environmental compensation at page 525 of the paper book which we have already noticed above.
236. It has compiled information for calculation of environmental compensation in respect of respondent 8 at page 254 of paper book as under:
"Compiled information for Calculation of Environmental Compensation
1) Name of Mine Lease B: M/s Chawla Silica Sand Trading Company, Lakhnauti Silica Sand Mine
2) Validity
a) Consent 1. From 11.02.2018 to 31.12.2019
2. From 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2022
3. From 01.01.2023 to 31.12.2027
b) EC Grant Date 12.12.2014# 01.04.2022##
c) Mine Plan From 2018-19 to 2022-23
3) Permitted Capacity
a) Consent 1,50,000 TPA (Silica Sand)
b) EC 50,000 TPA#
c) Mine Plan 1,50,000 TPA (2019-20)
4) Production Details 216 Year Permitted Actual Excess Illegal Qnty.
Quantity production quantity Production Fro
(Tons) (Tons) Env.
Comp.
(Tons)
2017-18 50,000 32208 -- 26840* 26840
2018-19 50,000 42140 -- 0 0
2019-20 50,000 47495 -- 0 0
2020-21 50,000 66755 16755 -- 16755
2021-22 50,000 32607 -- 00 --
Total 16755 26840 43595
*Average production for 10 Months calculated on the basis of CTO obtained dated.
237. The above chart shows some inconsistent data. In 2017-18, permitted quantity of mining was 50000 tonnes while actual production was only 32208 tonnes hence how it can be said that there was any illegal mining. We find it difficult to accept the further data that illegal production is 26840 tonnes for which no relevant information has been given. The above chart shows that the only excessive mining was in 2021 and that is to the extent of 16755 tonnes.
238. Environmental compensation has been computed and mentioned in the form of a chart at page 253 of paper book, assessing a total environmental compensation of Rs. 6,53,16,841/- and details given in the form of chart for the last 05 years is reproduced as under:
Present Value (PV) @ 5% under Severe severity Unit Name Qnty. Qnty. Market Annual Year 01 Year 02 Year 3 Year 04 Year 05 Total (PV) Net Present For For Value Value Value Env. Env. of of (NPV) (Rs.) Comp Com Illegally Foreg (Ton) p mined one (m3) materi Ecolog (Ton/ al @ iacl 1.5) Rs.675/ Values m3 (Rs.) R.F =1 Ton m3 D D * R.F D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ PV- D 1.05 1.1025 1.157625 1.215506 1.276281 217 25 5625 Lease B: 43,595 29,06 1,96,1 1,96,1 1,86,83, 1,77,93, 1,69,46,5 1,61,39,5 1,53, 8,49,34,59 6,53,16,841 Chawla 3 7,750 7,750 571 878 50 71 71,020 1 Lakhnauti Silica Sand Mine Reply dated 02.11.2023 filed on 24.02.2024 filed by respondent 8:
239. Respondent 8 has submitted reply dated 02.11.2023 filed on 24.02.2024 which is on record at page 1025. It is stated therein that Department of Geology and Mining, UP, Lucknow vide order dated 27.07.2010 granted mining lease of Lakhnauti Silica Sand Deposit to respondent 8 for 30 years over an area of 16.75 hectares in Arazi no. 2, village Lakhnauti, Tehsil Bara, District Prayagraj. Respondent 8 applied for grant of mining plan under Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MCD Rules 1988') to the Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as 'CMIBM'). Vide letter dated 01.04.2021, CMIBM approved mining plan of the above mining lease. Under the head, 'Geological Survey', the said letter declares that there are 05 pits in the area and 02 nallahs passing from South-East to North-West boundary of the mining lease area wherein silica sand is exposed up to 06 meters. Project proponent/respondent 8 applied for grant of EC vide letter dated 15.04.2011 to Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Latitude and Longitude of the site as per proposal submitted by proponent are 25°14'38.1" N to 25°15'4" N and 81°33'28.1" E to 81°33'41.5" E.
240. EC was granted by MoEF&CC vide letter dated 12.12.2014. A perusal thereof shows that mining lease project fell in the category 'A' and is located near inter-state boundary of UP and Madhya Pradesh. EC 218 allowed mining operations manually by using hand tools like crowbars, spades, chisels and hammers. It permits deployment of excavator cum loader in case of shortage of labour and to meet increased demand. The proposed and permitted production was 50,000 TPA. EC condition no. 1 clearly says that proponent shall obtain CTE and CTO from UPPCB and effectively implement all the conditions stipulated therein. We are omitting other conditions at this stage and may refer the same as and when reference is necessary at any later stage.
241. Lease deed was executed on 30.01.2015 for a period of 30 years. Consent under Section 21/22 of Air Act 1981 was granted by UPPCB to project proponent vide letter dated 26.03.2015. However, condition no. 18 of the said CTO dated 26.03.2015 at page 1084 shows that consent was granted under Section 21 for washing plant.
242. Another consent under Section 25/26 of Water Act 1974 was granted by UPPCB vide letter dated 26.03.2015 for the period from 01.02.2015 to 31.12.2015 and copy of the said letter at page 1090 shows that it was also issued for washing plant.
243. It is also said that subsequently vide letter dated 12.04.2016, CTO was granted for two years i.e., from 16.03.2016 to 31.12.2017. Here also, it was clearly mentioned that consent was for washing plant. Respondent 8 in para 7 of the reply himself has admitted that in consent dated 26.03.2015 and 12.04.2016, process/project was mentioned as washing plant not mining of silica sand. However, he claims that it was a mistake since proponent had applied for grant of CTO 219 for mining of silica sand. It is claimed that by letter dated 22.02.2023, correction/corrigendum was made in CTOs of 2015 and 2016 declaring that instead of washing plant, it should be read as silica sand mining. Copy of the corrigendum dated 22.02.2023 is at page 1103 of the paper book.
244. Letter dated 22.02.2023 shows that the same was issued acting upon proponent's application/representation dated 21.02.2023 seeking corrigendum to CTOs issued for the years 2015 and 2016 under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981.
245. Proponent has further said that CTO was further issued on 07.05.2018 under Air Act, 1981 and Water Act, 1974 valid for period for 11.02.2018 to 31.12.2019. Copies of the said CTOs are at pages 1104 and 1107 respectively. The said CTOs were for mining of silica sand and quantity approved was 50000 TPA. Both CTOs clearly said that proponent shall comply with the conditions laid down in EC dated 12.12.2014 and submit compliance Report to UPPCB. Proponent was allowed discharge of 4 KLD effluent vide CTO dated 07.05.2018 issued under Water Act, 1974. Further CTO under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 were issued on 29.03.2020 which are at page 1110 and 1113 respectively valid for the period from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2022. Here the quantity of effluent permitted by CTO dated 29.03.2020 under Water Act, 1974 was reduced to 1 KLD. However, quantity of silica sand allowed to be mined remained consistent i.e., 50000 TPA by open cast and manual mining in 16.75 hectares leased area at village-Lakhnauti, Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj. CTO also required proponent to continue to comply with the conditions 220 mentioned in EC dated 12.12.2014 and submit compliance Report with UPPCB.
246. Proponent submitted a modified mining plan to Director, Geology and Mining Directorate, UP, Lucknow and vide letter dated 18.12.2018 (page 1116 of paper book), the said mining plan was approved by Director under Rule 34(4) of Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'UPMMC Rules 1963'). The plan approved production of silica sand for 05 years i.e., 2018-19 to 2022-23 as under:
Sl.No. Mining Area Quantity of silica sand approved 1 2018-19 58240 2 2019-20 60074 3 2020-21 60192 4 2021-22 60288 5 2022-23 60360
247. In the copy of approval letter dated 18.12.2018, mining year of 2021- 22 has been printed as 2011-22 but Learned Counsel appearing for parties informed during course of arguments that it was a mistake and it was actually mining year 2021-22 as is also evident from the context and other mining years mentioned in the said letter. The conditions of approval are mentioned in para 1(f) as under:
"1. बेंच की ऊँचाई अशधकतम 03 मी0 एवं बेंच की च ड़ाई, ऊँचाई से कम से कम दो गुनी होनी चाशहए।
2. खनन कायद ऊपर से नीचे की ओर बेंच बनाते हुए शकया जायेगा।
3. फेस का ढलान 60 शडग्री से अशधक न हो और कहीं पर भी अंडर कशटं ग न हो।
4. खनन कायद मानव श्रम व मशीनी शवशध से शकया जाये ।
5. खनन भट्टा िल पर फस्टद एड बॉक्स व स्टर े चर रखे जायेंगे।
6. श्रशमकों के शलए श्रशमक शवश्राम गृह उनके पीने के पानी की समुशचत व्यविा की जायेगी।221
7. खनन क्षेत्र से मुख्य मागद तक जाने वाले पहुँच मागद कच्चे मागद पर शनयशमत रूप से जल का शिड़काव शकया जायेगा, ताशक वाहनों के आवागमन से उत्पन्न धूल को उड़ने से रोका जा सके।
8. खनन में शसशलका से उत्पन्न होने वाली बीमारी की सम्भावना के दृशष्टगत प्रत्येक ि: माह में श्रशमकों की शचशकत्सीय जांच का प्राशवधान रखा जाना चाशहये तथा आवश्यकतानुसार शचशकत्सा सुशवधा उपलब्ध करायी जाय।
9. खनन कायद से शनकाले गए मलवे खास कर टॉप स्वायल को व्यवस्थित रूप से एकशत्रत कर रखा जायेगा।
10. पयादवरण स्वच्छता के संबंध में भारत सरकार / राज्य सरकार द्वारा समय-समय पर जारी शदशाशनदे शों एवं माननीय न्यायालय के आदे शों का अनुपालन पट्टाधारक द्वारा शकया जायेगा।"
English Translation by Tribunal-
"1. The height of the bench should be maximum 03 meters and the width of the bench should be at least twice the height.
2. Mining work will be done by making benches from top to bottom.
3. The slope of the face should not be more than 60 degrees and there should be no under cutting anywhere.
4. Mining work should be done by human labour and mechanical method.
5. First aid box and stretcher will be kept at the mining kiln site.
6. Proper arrangement of workers' rest house and drinking water will be made.
7. Water will be sprinkled regularly on road connecting mining area to the main road, so that the dust generated by the movement of vehicles can be prevented.
8. Provision of medical examination of workers should be made after every six months in view of the possibility of disease caused by silica in mining and medical facilities should be provided as per the requirement.
9. The debris removed from the mining work, especially top soil, will be collected and kept systematically.
10. The lessee will comply with the guidelines issued from time to time by the Government of India / State Government and the orders of the Hon'ble Court regarding environmental cleanliness."
248. For enhancing quantity of mining of silica sand, proponent applied for EC vide application dated 16.12.2019, 11.02.2020, 08.10.2021 and 12.11.2021 and EC was granted vide letter dated 01.04.2022 (annexure 222 R6 at page 1118 of paper book) which shows that at Arazi No. 2, Village- Lakhnuati, Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj, area 16.75 hectares, proponent was allowed production of silica sand to the extent of 1,50,000 TPA i.e., 500 Tonnes per day for 300 days of working in a year. Proponent was required to plant 3350 trees i.e., 1000 trees per hectare.
249. Proponent further applied for consolidated CTO and authorisation under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 which was granted by UPPCB vide letter dated 13.11.2022 for the period from 13.11.2022 to 25.11.2022 for production of 15000 TPA of silica sand in a year. Discharge of effluent was permitted to the extent of 01 KLD. Consolidated CTO vide specific condition no. 2 clearly provides that proponent shall comply with EC conditions dated 12.12.2014. Later on, a corrigendum letter dated 13.01.2023 was issued stating that in CTO dated 13.11.2022, quantity was wrongly mentioned as 15000 instead of 150000 and validity period should be read as 01.01.2023 to 31.12.2027. Proponent in para 12 of the objections has further said that it complied with the conditions of EC during excavation of silica sand, planted approximately 8000 trees in village Lakhnauti at the site and surroundings and sent six monthly compliance reports dated 02.08.2018 (page/1136), 10.01.2019 (page/1138), 30.07.2019 (page/1140), 04.12.2019 (page/1143), 07.08.2020 (page/1146), 22.01.2021 (page/1148), 13.08.2021 (page/1150), 27.12.2021 (page/1151), 15.06.2022 (page/1152) and 24.01.2023 (page/1153).
250. From the above documents, we find that the alleged six monthly compliance report dated 02.08.2018 relates to mining area in Village- 223 Janwa, Tehsil-Bara, District-Allahabad and in reference to EC dated 12.10.2013. This document is not in respect of the lease in question with which we are concerned in respect of respondent 8.
251. Letter dated 24.01.2023 (page/1153) is a six-monthly report of the period from July 2022 to December 2022 and refers to EC dated 01.04.2022.
252. Further we find that new EC was granted to proponent on 01.04.2022 (annexures R6 at page 1118 of paper book) but the letter dated 30.07.2019 at page 1140 refers to EC dated 02.03.2019 though there is nothing on record to show that any such EC was granted to this proponent i.e., respondent 8 in respect of the silica sand mining at Village-Lakhnauti (area 16.75 hectares).
253. Further, in the six monthly reports dated 04.12.2019 and onwards, proponent has referred to first EC dated 12.12.2014 with a further statement that it was granted EC for expansion of project vide SEIAA UP's letter dated 02.03.2019 but the same was revoked later on and, therefore, it submitted six monthly report in terms of earlier EC dated 12.12.2014. During the course of the arguments, this discrepancy could not be explained as to how and why EC dated 02.03.2019 has been referred to but there is nothing on record to show that any EC was granted to this proponent i.e., respondent 8.
254. Proponent spent Rs.13,09,285/- during financial year 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 towards Corporate Social Responsibility. 224
255. On the aspect of washing plants, respondent 8 has replied that it had established three washing plants at Villages-Lakhnauti, Ghara and Shivrajpur Garwa, Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj. CTO was granted by UPPCB separately for the above three plants under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 vide letters dated 15.11.2016 and the details are as under:
Sl. Area of the Letter Date Relevant Validity Period Page No plant no. Statute no.
. under
which
CTO was
issued
1 (Crushing 401124 15.11.2016 Water Act Upto 1181
and 1974 31.12.2018
washing)
Village-
Lakhnauti
2 (Crushing 401125 15.11.2016 Air Act Upto 1185
and 1981 31.12.2018
washing)
Village-
Lakhnauti
3 Village- 92003 28.05.2020 Water Act 28.05.2020 to 1191
Ghara 1974 31.03.2021
4 Village- 92001 28.05.2020 Air Act 14.02.2022 to 1194
Ghara 1981 31.03.2025
5 Village- 116897 14.02.2022 Water Act 14.02.2022 to 1197
Ghara 1974 31.03.2025
6 Village- 150715 14.02.2022 Air Act 14.02.2022 to 1200
Ghara 1981 31.03.2025
7 Shivrajpur 5103 12.01.2018 Air Act 12.01.2018 to 1202
1981 31.12.2020
8 Shivrajpur 5118 12.01.2018 Water Act 12.01.2018 to 1205
1974 31.12.2020
225
9 Shivrajpur 116899 09.02.2021 Water Act 09.02.2021 to 1208
1974 31.03.2024
256. Proponent has also stated that for extraction of ground water in three washing units, Competent Authority under UP Ground Water (Management and Regulation) Act, 2019 issued NOC to respondent 8 for the period from 09.06.2020 to 08.06.2027. Proponent is complying with all the conditions of EC and consent and conducting mining operations in accordance with terms and conditions of approved mining plan/requisite EC/valid CTO. It has made full disclosure to the mining authorities and submitted six monthly Reports to the concerned authorities. There is no water discharge at Lakhnauti silica sand deposit and there is no surface water source such as river, stream etc. in the mining area. Water requirement for mining is extremely low since it is required only for drinking purposes, plantation and sprinkling of roads for suppression of dust, generated due to transport activities and manual mining. There is no waste water generation during mining operations in the lease area. Rain water stored in the pits is utilized for dust suppression and watering plant. However, water stored in the pits is also used by the farmers for agriculture purpose.
257. There is no noise pollution due to mining operations since no drilling and blasting is involved. The only source of noise pollution is movement of vehicles, which causes very negligible level of pollution and that too, within permissible limit. No encroachment outside the lease area has been found by Director, Geology and Mining. Being satisfied with compliance of 226 conditions of EC, expansion of the project was allowed from 50000 TPA to 150000 TPA.
258. Objecting to the final Report submitted by Joint Committee, it is said that it is founded on unsubstantiated and contradictory facts without support of any evidence. Proponent has given summary of compliances in para 18 as under:
Mining Plan A mining plan dated 01.04.2012 was Annexure R 1 approved with the annual capacity of 50000 ΤΡΑ.
The modified mining plan dated 18.12.2018 Annexure R 6 approved with the annual capacity of 150000 ΤΡΑ.
EC EC dated 12.12.2014 granted with the Annexure R 2 annual capacity of 50000 MT.
EC dated 01.04.2022 granted with the Annexure R 7 annual capacity for 150000 TPA Lease Deed Lease Deed was executed on 30.01.2015 for Para 5 30 years.
CTO CTO dated 26.03.2015 for 50000 TPA, which Annexure R 3 was valid from 26.03.2015 to 31.12.2015 CTO dated 12.04.2016 for 50000 TPA, which Annexure R 3 was valid from 16.03.2016 to 31.12.2017 A corrigendum dated 22.02.2023 was issued Annexure R 4 for the CTO dated 26.03.2015 & 12.04.2016 CTO dated 07.05.2018 for 50000 TPA, which Annexure R 5 was valid from 11.02.2018 to 31.12.2019 CTO dated 29.03.2020 for 50000 TPA, which Annexure R 5 was valid from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2022 CTO dated 13.11.2022 for 15000 TPA for five Annexure R 8 years Six monthly compliances Six monthly/Annual compliances Annexure R 9 & 10 CSR CSR compliances Para 13 227 Invoices for Safety Gadgets for Workers Annexure 14 Authorization letters for appointment of Annexure R 13 Second-Class Manager, Mine Foreman and Mining Mate
259. Giving reference to various Reports of Joint Committee, it is said that first Joint Committee comprising CPCB, UPPCB, SEIAA UP and District Magistrate, Prayagraj conducted spot inspection on 25th - 27th November, 2021 and submitted Report dated 13.12.2021. Tribunal constituted second Joint Committee comprising Divisional Commissioner, Prayagraj, Chief Conservator of Forest, Allahabad and nominee of CPCB, UPPCB, SEIAA UP and Secretary, Agriculture. Second Joint Committee submitted Report on 17.05.2022. Tribunal on 01.08.2022 observed that sites were inspected in a single day and observations are based on heresay information. Tribunal also noticed several deficiencies in the Report dated 17.05.2022, hence constituted a third Joint Committee comprising Regional Director, MoEF&CC, Regional Director, CPCB, Member Secretary, UPPCB, District Magistrate, Prayagraj and nominee of Indian Bureau of Mines, Government of India. This Committee submitted Report on 23.02.2023. Report dated 23.02.2023 shows that members, constituting the Committee, themselves did not visit the site and all the members have not put their signatures on the final Report. This report is also based on heresay and unsubstantiated information. It is not as per the directions of Tribunal and, therefore, hit by doctrine of coram non judice.
260. Moreover, the nature of dispute involved required presence of the stakeholders at the time of inspection on the site but no information of 228 inspection was given to project proponent. Moreover, it was not even a party in OA initially. Proponent was called at a later stage, when third Joint Committee reached the site. However, no document was required to produce by proponent by Joint Committee and it submitted its Report on its own imaginations without having any verification of facts from record.
261. Illegal manner of functioning of Joint Committee who submitted second report has been commented by this Tribunal in its order dated 01.08.2022. Third Report was not prepared by the officers of third Joint Committee constituted vide order dated 01.08.2022. Third Joint Committee further assessed environmental compensation, ignoring the fact that proponent has approved mining plan, requisite EC and valid CTO and alleged excess production in the financial year 2020-21 is nothing but reflection of wrong approach on the part of Joint Committee in respect of production by mistakenly taking financial year instead of lease year. Transit passes were issued on the basis of annual capacity in the lease year and not financial year. Transit passes which are not against produced silica sand in the same year, cannot be carried forward to the subsequent lease years for set off against production of such years. Thus, the very foundation for resuming excess production by third Joint Committee on the part of proponent is misleading.
262. Proponent has also given reply to various paragraphs of final report particularly para 5 and its sub-paras. Briefly, it is said that project proponent has abided by with the terms, conditions and legal norms prescribed for silica sand mining. No washing plant was actually found within lease area and the factum about prior plant found in the lease area 229 is not of any consequence since neither Joint Committee has found that any washing plant was operated nor that it has a fixed dryer plant within the lease area. Lease area is surrounded by mining leases of other people and if there is any mining carried out in such area, proponent i.e., respondent 8 cannot be held responsible for such mining particularly when he has not been found to be operated in an area outside the leases area. Proponent has planted approximately 8000 trees at the mining site and its surrounding which has been duly acknowledged by Joint Committee.
263. On the question of environmental compensation suggested by Joint Committee, it is said that the initial mining plan came into effect from the date of production i.e., March 2015 and continued its operation when subsequent modified mining plan was approved on 18.12.2018. There was no gap between two mining plans and initially EC issued for 50000 TPA of silica sand was subsequently modified and extended to 150000 TPA. CTO was issued to proponent from time to time and there is no period of mining without approved mining plan, requisite EC and valid CTO. Transit passes were issued on the basis of lease area hence production has to be computed on lease year basis and not financial year. The recommendation of environmental compensation by Joint Committee has been denied. In respect of the mining plan also, it is said that silica sand is a minor mineral vide Notification dated 10.02.2015 and proponent has an approved mining plan for carrying out mining activities. It is incorrect that boundary pillars were not erected properly in as much as boundary pillars, marking stones and flags have been posted by project proponent as per GPS coordinates 230 given in the mining plan. This is verified from the map and first and second Report of Joint Committee. Proponent has never exceeded its production than the approved quantity and the allegations that mining has been operated for last year without valid mining plan document is contrary to record since the modified mining plan was approved on 18.12.2018 for the period of five years. The Report is vague and unsubstantiated. Observations of Joint Committee that six monthly reports are not being submitted, is also contrary to record and shows that without verifying facts from record, the observations have been made in the Report. With regard to the safety equipment and training also, the observations are incorrect as the safety gadgets have been purchased regularly and project proponent has been awarded first prize by Regional Director, Mines Safety Varanasi for strictly observing safety protocol during mining activities.
264. Observations of Joint Committee based on Satellite images have been seriously challenged stating that it cannot be used as a tool to show that proponent was engaged in illegal mining outside the leased area when the entire surrounding area is comprised of the mining leases and it is not clear as to who has undertaken mining in such areas. Satellite imaginary may show mining in the surrounding areas but throws no light as to who has done it and in absence of any material, proponent cannot be said to have undertaken any mining in the area outside the leased area. It is further stated that soil in Shankargarh and surrounding areas is a mixture of hard rock and silica sand stones. Agricultural land in the region is limited and majority population is engaged for earning its livelihood on mining activities. Extraction of stones, boulder, ballast, kankar, morum, 231 silica sand, patiya etc. is carried out throughout the year and except silica sand, other minerals are used for domestic purposes. Silica sand is used only for industrial purpose. Boulders are used by local people for raising walls of their houses instead of brick kiln. Patiya is locally used for stone slab. Boulder is also used for boundary wall which is popularly known as 'khakhari'. Similarly, morum is used in pathways to the local dwelling units. Mining labourers basically belong to forest-dwelling community who heavily rely on minor mineral for their survival and consumption of minor minerals other than silica sand by Kol community is unavoidable and comprehensive. There has been no excess of production made without any statutory clearance, permission, NOC etc. and the findings in respect of excess production in financial year 2017-18 and 2020-21 are incorrect. Annual approved quantity and actual production has been mentioned in the form of a chart in para 74 as under:
Lease year Annual Production/ Cumulative Capacity dispatches Production (MT) 30.01.2017 - 29.01.2018 50000 21505.6 30.01.2018 - 29.01.2019 50000 36376.5 57882.1 30.01.2019 - 29.01.2020 50000 45798.0 103680.1 30.01.2020 - 29.01.2021 50000 47481.0 151161.1 30.01.2021 - 29.01.2022 50000 47353.5 198514.6 Grand Total 250000 198514.6
265. Computation of environmental compensation as suggested by Joint Committee to the extent of Rs.6,53,16,841/- has been seriously disputed by respondent 8 and it is said that besides others, it is also illegal since there is no finding of damage caused to environment which is a condition precedent for imposing environmental compensation in view of the law laid 232 down by Supreme Court in Deepak Nitrate Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 6 SCC 402.
Additional objection/reply dated 14.03.2024 filed by respondent 8 (page/1597) to Report dated 17.01.2024:
266. Respondent 8 in general has denied the contents of the Report dated 17.01.2024 and reiterated its reply dated 02.11.2023 in response to the Report dated 23.02.2023. It is said that Joint Committee in the Report dated 17.01.2024 has reiterated earlier Report dated 23.02.2023 in a vague manner to record its findings that mining lease holders are not complying in totality with the approved mining Plan. On the contrary, proponent has developed green belt in safety zone and undertaking mining as per approved mining Plan; deployed qualified technical persons in the mining to ensure systematic and scientific mining of silica sand; routinely delivered half-yearly compliance Reports to Regional Office, UPPCB and MoEF&CC, and annual compliance Reports were also delivered.
267. In the report dated 23.02.2023, Joint Committee has observed that during 2021, proponent extracted 66755 MT silica sand in Lakhnauti Mine and the allegation of excess production of silica scan is conjectural since in the Report dated 17.01.2024, production of silica sand during last five years by the proponent has been shows as under:
Name of 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 Mine Lakhnauti 36376 45798 47481 47353 100880*
268. It is also said that during 2022-23, sanctioned annual capacity of Lakhnauti Mines was increased from 50000 to 150000. It is thus stated 233 that the proposed compensation for alleged excess production for silica sand is wholly unreasonable, conjectural and deserves to be rejected. Further in the earlier Report dated 23.02.2023, Joint Committee observed that there was illegal production of silica sand of 26840 MT in Lakhnauti Mines during 2017-18. Joint Committee treated CTO dated 12.04.2016 and 17.05.2018 as CTO obtained for washing plant instead of mining of silica sand. Committee did not verify the requisition for CTO and prepared report hurriedly. Later, UPPCB vide letter dated 22.02.2023 corrected CTO dated 12.04.2016 and 07.05.2018 since proponent had applied CTO for mining and, therefore, it cannot be said that mining was carried out in 2017-18 illegally and without CTO. In the Report dated 17.01.2024, no otherwise observations have been made by Joint Committee on this aspect hence the proposed environmental compensation for alleged illegal production for silica sand during 2017-18 is liable to be rejected.
269. Further allegations of Joint Committee in the report dated 17.01.2024 that mining lease holders are not complying in totality with the proposals as per approved are without any merit since while considering Modified Mining Plan, Director, Geology and Mining, Lucknow has not notified any violation by proponent. While considering extension of EC, Expert Appraisal Committee found that Lakhnauti Mines had been running sustainably with compliance of environmental norms and adequate environmental safeguards. Mining lease site of proponent is surrounded by expired mining leases and alleged deep pits were not found in the mining area of proponent.
234
270. So far as washing plants are concerned, proponent is a law abiding entity and has never indulged in illegal activities in operating washing plants. It applied separately for CTO under Section 25 of Water Act, 1974 and Section 21 of Air Act, 1981 to UPPCB for its three washing plants.
271. With regard to washing plants situated at village Lakhnauti, UPPCB issued CTO dated 15.11.2016 (p/1613) for crushing and washing of 4000 to 4200 TPM silica sand which was valid for the period from 15.11.2016 to 31.12.2018. By communication dated 01.04.2019 (p/1616), CTO was extended which remained valid from 01.04.2019 to 31.07.2021. Again, CTO was extended by letter dated 26.09.2021 (p/1622) valid from 26.09.2021 to 31.07.2024. Lastly, CTO dated 08.01.2024 (p/1627) was issued for enhanced capacity of 12000 TPM of 12500 MT/month for washing and crushing silica sand and washing plant situated at Lakhnauti village valid from period from 04.01.2024 to 31.07.2028. For extraction of ground water, project proponent applied for NOC to UP Ground Water Department (hereinafter referred to as 'UPGWD') under the provisions of UP Ground Water Management and Regulation Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'UPGWMR Act, 2019') on 12.04.2022. UPGWD issued authorisation/NOC for the period from 09.06.2022 to 08.06.2027, copy whereof has been placed on record ate page 1636. Further, proponent applied on 06.12.2023 for registration of already drilled borewell under Section 10 of UPGWMR Act, 2019. UPGWD issued Registration Certificate under Form1(B), copy whereof is placed on record at page 1638.
272. With regard to washing plant at Shivrajpur village, UPPCB issued CTO dated 12.01.2018 (at page 1642) for washing of 3000 TPM silica sand 235 valid from 12.01.2018 to 31.12.2020. Thereafter, for enhanced capacity of 3500 tonnes per month, UPPCB issued CTO dated 09.02.2021 (at page 1648). UPGWD issued two NOCs for extraction of ground water installing borewells at Shivrajpur villages and the same were valid for the period of 09.06.2022 to 08.06.2027 (at page 1654) and 27.11.2021 to 26.11.2026 (at page 1657). Two drilled borewells for washing plants at Shivrajpur were registered under UPGWMR Act, 2019 vide certificates issued by UPGWD which are at page 1660 and 1664.
273. Third washing plant is at village Ghara (Kaitha). In this regard, UPPCB issued CTO dated 12.01.2018 (at page 1669) for washing of 2000 TPA silica sand valid from 12.01.2018 to 31.12.2020. Thereafter, CTO dated 28.05.2020 (at page 1674) was issued valid for the period from 28.05.2020 to 31.03.2021. Vide communication dated 15.06.2020 (at page 1680), the validity period of CTO was extended by Regional Officer, UPPCB from 31.03.2021 to 30.03.2022. Further, CTO dated 14.02.2022 (at page 1681) was issued valid from 14.02.2022 to 31.03.2025 and lastly, CTO dated 01.07.2023 (at page 1687) was issued for screening of 1750 MT per month at washing plant situated at Village Ghara valid for 30.06.2023 to 30.03.2028. UPGWD issued NOC (at page 1692) valid from 09.06.2022 to 08.06.2027 for extraction of ground water through tubewells/borewells at village Ghara, Tehsil-Bara, Prayagraj. Two drilled borewells for washing plants situated at Ghara were registered by UPGWD vide Form 1(B) issued on 09.06.2022 (at page 1695) and pursuant to application dated 05.12.2023 (at page 1699). He also said that in the fifth row, serial no. 37 and 38, annexure-E to the Joint Committee Report, name of project 236 proponent has been wrongly mentioned as he has no concern with the washing plants shown at serial no. 37 and 38. Project proponent has complied with the requisite requirements of statutory consents/clearance etc. in respect of EC, CTO, NOC for extraction of ground water, submission of periodic reports and compliance of conditions of EC and consent.
274. The above facts show that initially EC dated 12.12.2014 was granted for mining of 50000 TPA of silica sand and lease deed was renewed on 30.01.2015 for a period of 30 years. Respondent 8 has claimed that consent under Section 25/26 of Water Act, 1974 was granted by UPPCB vide letter dated 26.03.2015 but we find that it was not for carrying out mining activities but for washing plant. This consent was valid upto 31.12.2015. The next CTO was granted vide letter dated 12.04.2016 and it was valid up to 31.12.2017 but again it was for washing plant. Though respondent 8 has claimed that it was a mistake but could not dispute that during the validity period of consent, there was no change in the contents thereof and the consent outlived its utility with the expiry for the period for which it was granted.
275. We may also notice hereat that neither under MMRD Act, 1957, there is any definition of 'lease year' or 'financial year' or 'year' nor any provision has been referred to by respondent 8 for creating any distinction between 'financial year' and 'lease year'. In fact, we find that in Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'MCD Rules 2017'), the term 'year' has been defined in Rule 3(za) and reads as under:
237
3. Definitions. - (1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, -
(za) "year" means the twelve months period beginning from the first day of April and ending on the thirty-first day of March of the following year."
276. No otherwise contrary provision has been shown by Learned Counsel appearing for respondent 8 to support his submission of drawing distinction between financial year and lease year. In fact, the rules referred to above talks of 'financial year' and not calendar year. There is no recognition of the term 'lease year' and no definition has been provided under any Statute and at least, none has been placed before us. In the circumstances, we go by the facts disclosed by the authorities concerned with reference to the 'financial year'.
277. The benefit of subsequent corrigendum dated 22.03.2023, in our view, cannot be allowed to respondent 8 since there is no such authority or provision wherein after several years and that too when a document is not operating, for such a non est document, a corrigendum can be issued. Subsequent CTO dated 07.05.2018 valid upto 31.12.2019 was clearly for mining of silica sand with quantity of 50000 TPA. CTO dated 07.05.2018 commenced from 11.12.2018. Though there is no provision for issuing CTO with back date and it has to operate from the date it is issued but even if it is taken to be valid for the period mentioned therein, we are clearly of the view that mining activities conducted by respondent 8 prior to 11.02.2018 were without any valid CTO. Third Report at page 254 shows that in 2021 against the sanctioned/permitted quantity of 50000 TPA the actual production of 66755 MT i.e., there was excess quantity of mining to 238 the extent of 16755 MT. Respondent 8 has not disputed this finding as such in its reply dated 22.11.2023 but suggested that the above production has been taken mistakenly on the basis of financial year and not lease year which argument we have already rejected. However, we find that from 2017-18 to 2021-22, Third Committee Report at page 254 of the paper book has given actual production on financial year basis but in respect to other years, there is no dispute by respondent 8 and if he intends to take advantage of quantity in respect of other years on the basis of financial year of earlier period, he cannot plead an exception for the year 2020-21. In any case, it was open to respondent 8 to show its own production as per the lease year but we find that in para 74 of the reply, respondent 8 himself has given its production on financial year basis and not the alleged lease year basis. We are therefore, of the view that report with regard to excess production in the year 2020-21 deserves to be accepted and respondent 8 is liable to pay environmental compensation for the same.
278. Third Committee has recommended environmental compensation of Rs.6,53,16,841/- for 05 years but we could not understand as to how and in what manner 05 years environmental compensation is validly leviable against respondent 8 without showing violation of environmental laws in all 05 years and that too which are those 05 years which have been taken by Joint Committee even it is not clear. Further, the calculation of present value has been made by Joint Committee by showing the quantity as 43595 MT but in which year this was the production/extraction of mineral by respondent 8 is also not clear and no such year has been earmarked. 239 In our view, manner in which computation has been suggested by Joint Committee in its Third Report is wholly vague, and just arbitrary, lack substance and cannot be accepted as such.
279. The observations, we have made hereinabove we are clearly of the view that if within 05 years period from the date preceding the date of filing of present OA, there is any environmental violation for such period environmental compensation can be computed and leviable against project proponent concerned and this would be justified by Tribunal in exercise of its powers under Section 15 read with 20 of NGT Act, 2010.
280. Since OA was presented before Tribunal on 09.08.2021, the period of limitation of 05 years under Section 15(3) for the purpose of computation of environmental compensation will relate back to 03.08.2016 and any violation of prior period, we do not propose to take into account.
281. As we have already said that respondent 8 carried out mining activities, till it was granted CTO dated 07.05.2018 which was given for the period 11.02.2018 to 31.12.2019, without any valid CTO. Therefore, respondent 8 period of mining activities without valid CTO comes to 10.08.2016 to 10.02.2018.
282. In annexure-D table 2, the production of various units has been shown commencing from 2018-19 and onwards. Thus, it does not cover the period which in our view is relevant for computation of environmental compensation. In absence of any other material, we find it justified to take the figure disclosed by respondent 8 himself in para 74 of its reply dated 240 02.11.2023 filed on 24.02.2024 wherein between the period from 30.01.2017 to 29.01.2018, it has shown its production as 21505.6 MT. If the above production is taken for 365 days, the daily production comes to 58.91 MT/day (21505.6 MT ÷ 365 days).
283. The production from 10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017 (234 days), therefore, would come to 13784.94 MT (234 days × 58.91 MT) i.e., 8615.58 m3. Similarly, for the period from 01.04.2017 to 10.02.2018 (316 days), extraction of mineral is computed for 316 days which comes to 18615.56 MT (316 days × 58.91 MT) i.e., 11634.72 m3.
284. Further, in 2020-21, there is an excess extraction of silica sand and this quantity of 16755 MT is also liable to account for environmental compensation.
285. In the absence of any other specific violation pointed out in respect of respondent 8, we are of the view that environmental compensation since is leviable for not obtaining CTO, it has to be 2.5% of the sale price. Thus, environmental compensation is computed as under:
(A) For 2016-17 (10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017 i.e., 234 days):
Quantity - 8615.58 m3 Sale Price - Rs.496.18/m3 Environmental Compensation = 8615.58 m3 × Rs.496.18/m3 × 2.5% which comes to Rs.1,06,871.96.
(B) For 2017-18 (01.04.2017 to 10.02.2018 i.e., 316 days):
Quantity - 11634.72 m3 241 Sale Price - Rs.522.30/m3 Environmental Compensation = 11634.72 m3 × Rs. 522.30/m3 × 2.5% which comes to Rs.1,51,920.35.
(C) For 2020-21:
Quantity (Excess Production) - 16755 MT i.e., 10471.87 m3 Sale Price - Rs.609.19/m3 Environmental Compensation = 10471.87 m3 × Rs. 609.19/m3 × 2.5% which comes to Rs.1,59,483.96.
286. Thus, total environmental compensation for the above-mentioned periods would come to (Rs.1,06,871.96+Rs.1,51,920.35+Rs.1,59,483.96) Rs.4,18,276.27 (Rs.4,18,276/- round off) which respondent 8 is liable to pay.
287. With regard to washing plants, it is admitted position that raw silica sand unless washed is not marketable. Respondent 8 had 03 washing plants at villages -Lakhanpur, Ghara and Shivrajpur. It is said that washing plant at Lakhnauti obtained CTO on 15.11.2016 while first CTO was issued to washing plant at Shivrajpur on 12.01.2018 and washing plant at Ghara got on 28.05.2020.
288. It is suggested that washing plant at Lakhnauti having obtained CTO in 2016 and become functional, it cannot be said that the other washing plants run by proponent were without any valid CTO since they might have been operated at later point of time i.e., after getting CTO. 242
289. We find that admittedly there is no other source of water for carrying out washing activities in washing plants except borewell installed therein and in respect to the borewells, the record which has been placed before us shows that NOCs were issued by UPGWD for the first time as under:
Details of Plant Date of NOC Validity Period Lakhnauti Washing Plant 2022 09.06.2022 to 08.06.2027 Shivrajpur Washing Plant (A) Borewell I 2021 27.11.2021 to 26.11.2026 (B) Borewell II 2022 09.06.2022 to 08.06.2027 Ghara Washing Plant 2022 09.06.2022 to 08.06.2027
290. For all the 03 washing plants mentioned above, we do not find that they were having NOC from CGWA for extraction of ground water for the earlier period. Thus, it is evident that ground water was extracted unauthorisedly and illegally.
291. In the circumstances, from 2017-18 to 2021-22 for 05 years, environmental compensation is to be computed at the rate of Rs.50,000/- for Lakhnauti Washing Plant and the amount would be Rs.2,50,000/-.
292. For Shivrajpur Washing Plant Borewell-I, environmental compensation for the period from 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 would come to Rs.1,50,000/- and Shivrajpur Washing Plant Borewell-II, environmental compensation for the period from 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020- 21 and 2021-22 would come to Rs.2,00,000/-.
243
293. For village Ghara, for one-year, environmental compensation comes to Rs.50,000/- per annum.
294. Thus for 03 washing plants at villages-Lakhanpur, Dhara and Shivrajpur, environmental compensation comes to Rs.6,50,000/- (Rs.2,50,000/-+Rs. 1,50,000/-+Rs.2,00,000/-+Rs.50,000/-).
295. Thus, total environmental compensation comes to Rs.10,68,276/- (Rs.4,18,276/- for mining + Rs.6,50,000/- for washing plants) which is payable by respondent 8.
Respondent 9-M/s. Chawla Silica Sand Trading Company, Village Janwa:
296. In the Joint Committee Report dated 17.05.2022, observations made in respect of respondent 9 are as under:
क्रम पट्टा क्षेत्र एवं स्थलीय ननरीक्षण के दौरान सझ ु ाव/कनमयों अभ्यनु ि सं० पट्टाधारक का के सापेक्ष पायी गयी नस्थनि नाम 1 ग्राम जनवा/मे० 1. सनरीक्षण के दौरान खनन क्षेत्र में िभी िीमा पट्टेिारक को िमशकांटा चावला स्तम्भ िंरसक्षत पाये गये तथा िभी िीमा पर उपखसनज की सिसलका िैण्ड स्तम्भ पर भ-ू सनदेर्ाक ं असं कत सकया हुआ सनकािी की गयी मात्रा ट्रेसडग कम्पनी पाया गया। के लेखा-जोखा का पा० श्री दर्शन रसजस्टर रखने हेतु
2. स्वीकृ त खनन क्षेत्र में खनन के उपरान्त हुए लाल चावला सनदेसर्त सकया गया।
गड्ढा/सपट में वर्ाश, ऋतु का जल भराव व अन्य पाया गया। उक्त जल का उपयोग वहााँ लगाये गये पौिों को सिसं चत सकये जाने में पाया गया। खनन क्षेत्र की गहराई असिकांर् स्थानों पर औितन 1-3 मीटर की पायी गयी, जो अभी अपने न्यनू तम 244 स्तर पर है सजिमें बेंच बनाने की आवश्यकता नहीं है।
3. स्वीकृ त खनन क्षेत्र के सनकाि / प्रवेर् मागश पर घमशकांटा स्थासपत पाया गया। िमशकांटा पर जााँच के िमय सनकािी की गयी उपखसनज की मात्रा का लेखा-जोखा का रसजस्टर उपलब्ि नहीं कराया गया।
4. खनन क्षेत्र में खनन के िमय सनकाले गये टॉप स्वायल व्यवसस्थत पाया गया तथा कुछ क्षेत्र में ररक्लेमेर्न/ररस्टोरे र्न का कायश सकया जाना पाया गया।
5. खनन क्षेत्र में दो स्थानों पर सडस््ले बोडश स्थासपत पाया गया, सजिमें खनन पट्टा िम्बन्िी िभी सववरण उपलब्ि थे।
6. स्वीकृ त खनन क्षेत्र के प्रवेर् / सनकािी मागश के पाि िी०िी०टी०वी० कै मरा स्थासपत व िंचासलत होना पाया गया।
7. खनन क्षेत्र में ओवर बडशन हाडश रॉक नहीं देखा गया।
English Translation by Tribunal:
Sr. Lease area Status of Remarks
No. and name of suggestions/deficiencies
the lease found during field
holder inspection
1 Village 1. During the inspection, all The lessee was
Janwa/M/s the boundary pillars in directed to
Chawla Silica the mining area were maintain a
Sand Trading found to be preserved register of
Company and geo-coordinates accounts of
Partner Shri were found inscribed on sub-mineral
Darshan Lal extracted at the
245
Chawla and all the boundary pillars. weighing
others machine.
2. In the approved mining
area, the pit/pit created
after mining was found
to be filled with
rainwater during the
season. The said water
was found to be used for
irrigating the plants
planted there. The depth
of the mining area was
found to be 1-3 meters on
an average at most
places, which is at its
minimum level right
now, due to which there
is no need to make
benches.
3. Weighbridge was found
installed at the
exit/entry of the
approved mining area.
At the time of checking
at the weighbridge, the
register containing the
account of the sub-
mineral extracted was
not made available.
4. In the mining area, the
top soil removed during
mining was found to be
in proper condition and
reclamation/restoration
work was found to be
going on in some areas.
5. Display boards were
found installed at two
places in the mining
area, in which all details
related to the mining
lease were available.
246
6. CCTV cameras were
found installed and
operational near the
entry/exit route of the
approved mining area.
7. No overburden hard rock
was observed in the
mining area.
297. Further information relating to issue of Form E-MM 11 in the preceding 05 months i.e., October 2021 to February 2022 is given as under:
पट्टाधारक का नाम माह कुल प्रेवर्ि
अतटूबर नवींबर ददसींबर िनवर फरवर मात्रा
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
मे० चावला सिसलका 3000 5000 4300 2511 3800 18611
िैण्ड ट्रेसडग कम्पनी
पा० श्री दर्शन लाल
चावला व अन्य
English translation by Tribunal:
Name of Month Total
the October November December January February dispatched
Lessee Quantity
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M/s 3000 5000 4300 2511 3800 18611
Chawla
Silica
Sand
Trading
Company
Prop. Shri
Darshan
Lal
247
Chawla
and
others
298. Details of annual production capacity of respondent 9 mentioned in the said Report at page 78 read as under:
क्र सीं पररहरधारक का पयागवरण स्विछिा पट्टा वर्ग 2021-22 वववरण/ नाम प्रमाण पत्र में स्वीकृि में तनकासी की गयी मात्रा (घनमीटर में मात्रा घनमीटर में प्रतिवर्ग) 1 2 3 4 1 मे० चावला सिसलका 17,440 घ० मी० 02 पट्टा वर्ग में िैण्ड ट्रेसडग कम्पनी पा० स्वीकृि मात्रा -
श्री दर्शन लाल चावला 34,880 घ० मी० में
व अन्य सन० -42, बािु सापेक्ष-25,768 घ०
रोड प्रयागराज (ग्राम- मी० मात्रा की तनकासी
जनवा) श्री दर्शन लाल की गयी है , िो
चावला व अन्य अनुमन्य मात्रा से कम
है
English translation by Tribunal:
Sr. Details/ Name of the Quantity Quantity withdrawn in
No. Concession Holder approved in lease year 2021-22 in
Environmental cubic meters
Cleanliness
Certificate (in
cubic meters
per year)
1 2 3 4
1 M/s Chawla Silica 17,440 cubic In the 02 lease years,
Sand Trading meters out of the approved
Company Prop. Shri quantity of 34,880
Darshan Lal Chawla cubic meters, only
248
and others R/o - 42, 25,768 cubic meters
Bas Road, Prayagraj have been extracted,
(Vill-Janwa) Shri which is less than the
Darshan Lal Chawla permissible quantity.
and others
299. In the Report dated 03.02.2023, the area and production of respondent 9 has been mentioned as 5.49 hectares and sanctioned production capacity as 26160 TPA. Observations made in the inspection are given in annexure C to the Report at page 174 which is as under:
(i) It is said that EC was granted on 12.10.2013 and mining capacity as per EC was 26160 TPA. Lease area spread in three blocks and 5.49 hectares. Lease period was upto 08.09.2034 after 20 years renewal. CTO was granted by UPPCB under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 on 13.11.2022 valid from 01.01.2023 to 31.12.2027. As per CTO, mining capacity of silica sand was mentioned as 17000 TPA. Within lease area, there was no washing plant and mining plant was approved vide letter dated 18.12.2018 for the period of 2018-19 to 2022-23 under Rule 34 of UPMMC Rules 1963. Details of the proposed quantity of minor minerals and achieved since 2014-15 to 2022-23 is given as under:
Year Proposal (Tons) Achieved (Tons)
2014-15 20150 Nil
2015-16 20968 14906
2016-17 24672 23703
2017-18 21264 19135
249
2018-19 58240 19924
2019-20 60074 24415
2020-21 60192 41389
2021-22 60288 8353
2022-23 60360
Total
300. The observations made, based on mining plan, EC, CTO and Satellite images of various intervals, in the final Report dated 23.02.2023, i.e., Third report, are as under:
C Lease Mining M/s Chawla Silica Sand Trading Company:
site Janwa Silica Sand Mine xxx...................................................xxx.............................................xxx XI Observation • DGPS survey of Mining lease area is not done.
based on Boundary pillars are not erected properly. mining plan • The Scheme of Mining is approved on 18.
12.2018 with surface plan dated 15.04.2014;
example of carelessness while preparing of document & subsequent approval. In all other plates, name of the lessee is not properly mentioned.
• Block-1 of the mining lease is not matching on ground, which seems to be illegal mining.
• Production, Development, Dumping, Plantation, Reclamation & rehabilitation works are not done as per the proposals of approved mining plan document.
• The mining operations are not being carried out in scientific & systematic manner.
• There is absolutely no relevance in approved proposals and actual working. Excavation is 250 not in consonance with the 48 years of mining lease period.
• Reserve /resources are enhanced many fold without undertaking exploration activities XII. Observation • Over production has been found during 2016-
based on 17 to 2020-21,
Environmental
Clearance • Project operated the mines without valid
consent to operate during committee visit, • As per record, PAs are not submitting six monthly compliance report to the concern authority, • It has been observed that the none of mine workers wearing personal protective equipment's (PPEs) likes, safety shoes, helmets mask etc on site, • It has been observed that the miner is neither established nor conducting monitoring of the RSPM, SPM, SO2 , NOx parameters at site, • It has been observed that the miner is neither established nor conducting monitoring of the ground water level and its quality parameters at site, • It has been observed that the miner is not given safety training to the employee, • It has been observed that the miner does not have OB waste management, • It has been observed that miner does not stored top soil at site, • It has been observed that the miner developed significant green belt only both side of entrance, 251 • It has been observed that the 7. 5 meter safety zone planation has not been done throughout the boundary lease, • It has been observed that the P As are using various machine including JCB etc., • It has been found that the peripheral fencing of the excavated area has not been done so far, XIII. Observation • Over production has been found during 2016-
based on 17 to 2020-21,
Consent to
Operate • Project operated the mines without valid
consent to operate during committee visit.
XIV. Observation • Above sanctioned lease has been divided in to
based no three block.
Satellite
images on • Satellite images depicted that the no mining
various activity noticed in block III.
interval
• However, significant mining has been noticed only block I and II.
• Mining outside the lease area has also been evident in block I and II.
301. In the final Report dated 23.02.2023 i.e., Third report, Joint Committee has also recommended environmental compensation in respect of respondent 9 on the basis of the following information:
1) Name of Mine Lease C: M/s Chawla Silica Sand Trading Company, Janwa Silica Sand Mine
2) Validity
a) Consent 1. From 16.03.2016 to 31.12.2017*
2. From 11.02.2018 to 31.12.2019 #
3. From 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2022 ##
4. From 01.01.2023 to 31.12.2027 252
b) EC Grant Date 12.10.2013
c) Mine Plan From 2018-19 to 2022-23
3) Permitted Capacity
a) Consent 17000 # TPA (Silica Sand) 26160 ## TPA
b) EC 26160 TPA
c) Mine Plan 60360 TPA (as per 2022-23 Mine Plan)
4) Production Details Year Permitted Actual Excess Illegal Qnty.
Quantity production quantity Production For (Tons) (Tons) Env.
Comp.
(Tons)
2017- -- 19135 -- 19135 19135
18
2018- 17000 19924 2,924 2924
19
2019- 17000 # 24415 1311** 1311
20 26160 ##
2020- 26160 41389 15229 -- 15229
21
2021- 26160 8353 -- --
22
Total 19464 19135 38599
• *Consent issued for Washing Plant only (From 16.03.2016 to 31.12.2017)
• **Average production for 09 Months calculated on the basis of CTO obtained dated.
302. On the basis of above information, environmental compensation has been computed as under:
Present Value (PV) @ 5% under Severe severity Unit Name Qnty. Qnty. Market Annual Year 01 Year 02 Year 3 Year 04 Year 05 Total (PV) Net Present For For Value Value Value Env. Env. of of (NPV) (Rs.) Comp Com Illegall Foreg (Ton) p y one (m3) mined Ecolog (Ton/ materi iacl 1.5) al @ Values Rs.67 (Rs.) 5/m3 R.F =1 Ton m3 D D * R.F D*RF/1. D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ PV- D 05 1.1025 1.157625 1.215506 1.276281 25 5625 Lease C: 38,599 25,73 1, 1, 1,65,42, 1,57,54, 1,50,04,4 1,42,89,9 1,36,09,4 7,52,01,06 5,78,31,512 Chawla, 3 73,69, 73,69, 429 694 70 72 97 2 Janwa Silica 550 550 Sand Mine 253 Objections dated 02.11.2023 filed by respondent 9 on 15.02.2024 to Report dated 23.02.2023 (p/1851):
303. The said objections have been filed to Joint Committee Third Report dated 23.02.2023.
304. It is said that proponent is carrying on mining lease of silica sand at village Janwa and it is duly registered as Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise as defined under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006. Mining lease was granted to M/s. Silica Sand Trading Company over an area of 31.09 hectares in village Janwa, Tehsil Bara, District Allahabad on 09.09.1974 for a period of 20 years. Before expiry of the lease period, it was transferred to respondent 9 on 01.10.1983 for the unexpired period. After expiry of mining lease, renewal was applied and vide renewal order dated 26.07.1996, the lease was renewed for the period of 20 years from 09.09.1994 to 08.09.2014. Later, Directorate of Geology and Mining, out of 31.09 hectares of mining lease, demarcated 25.60 hectares as forest land and consequently on 07.02.2008 revised lease was executed for an area of 5.49 hectares for unexpired period. Proponent applied for second renewal and it was renewed vide order dated 19.12.2014 (annexure R-I at page 1896) for the period of 20 years i.e., 09.09.2014 to 08.09.2034 on an area of 5.47 hectares. Making correction of lease, lease deed was executed in respect of area 5.49 hectares in 03 blocks after excluding forest area. The details of the blocks are as under:
Sl. No. Block No. Area
1. I 2.43 hectares
2. II 1.44 hectares
254
3. III 1.62 hectares
305. Lease area of proponent is surrounded by other mining leases in as much as Block II and III is surrounded by mining lease area of Rama Silica Trading Company and J.R. Varshney while Block I, lease area is surrounded by mining lease area of the old mining lease of proponent. Proponent submitted Modified Mining Plan to Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Jabalpur for approval of Mining Plan of Janwa Silica Sand deposit over an area of 5.49 hectares. Vide letter dated 19.07.2012, Modified Mining Plan was approved. Approved mining plan showed that all pits were in Block no. I and II. Later on, vide letter dated 18.12.2018, mining plan was approved by Directorate, Geology and Mining for a period of 05 years i.e., 2018-19 to 2022-23 on an area of 5.49 hectares in village Janwa, permitting annual mining of silica sand as under:
Sl. No. Year Quantity
1. 2018-19 58240 Tones
2. 2019-20 60074 Tones
3. 2020-21 60192 Tones
4. 2021-22 60288 Tones
5. 2022-23 60360 Tones
306. For grant of prior EC, proponent applied under EIA 2006 vide application dated 21.02.2011. EC was granted vide letter dated 12.10.2013 (annexure R-3 at page 1899) by SEIAA UP for extraction of 26160 TPA silica sand from mining lease area 2.30 hectares. Proponent 255 applied for grant of CTO under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981. UPPCB vide letter dated 26.03.2015 granted CTO for the mining lease of Janwa Silica Sand valid from the period of 04.02.2015 to 31.12.2015. Copy of CTO dated 26.03.2015 (page 1907/1908) under Air Act 1981 shows that it was for washing plant and not for mining lease. Similarly, copy of CTO dated 26.03.2015 (page 1913/14) under Water Act, 1974 shows that the same was for washing plant. Similarly, CTO dated 12.04.2016 (page 1919) under Water Act, 1974 shows that it was for washing plant. CTO dated 12.04.2016 (page 1925) under Air Act, 1981 also shows that it was for washing plant.
307. In para 9 of objection, respondent 9 has stated that in CTO dated 26.03.2015 and 12.04.2016, instead of "mining of silica sand", "washing plant" was wrongly mentioned and hence, a corrigendum was issued on 22.02.2023 (annexure R-5 at page 1927), correcting the above CTOs from washing plant to silica sand mining. Later following CTOs were issued for silica sand mining:
Sl. Date Page Period Relevant
No. Provision
1. 07.05.2018 1928 11.02.2018 to Section
31.12.2019 21/22 of Air
Act 1981
2. 07.05.2018 1931 11.02.2018 to Section
31.12.2019 25/26 of
Water Act
1974
3 02.04.2020 1935 01.01.2020 to Section
31.12.2022 21/22 of Air
Act 1981
256
4. Section 25/26 of 1938 01.01.2020 to Section
Water Act 1974 31.12.2022 25/26 of
Water Act
1974
308. In the above CTOs dated 07.05.2018 and 02.04.2020, the production capacity of silica sand mining was 17000 TPA. Chief Environmental Officer (Circle-2), UPPCB issued a corrigendum dated 09.02.2023, making correction in CTO dated 02.04.2020, directing to read approved quantity as '26160 TPA' instead of '17000 TPA'. Consolidated CTO vide order dated 13.11.2022 (p/1942) was issued under Section 21 of Air Act 1981 and Section 25 of Water Act 1974 for the period of 01.01.2023 to 31.12.2027 but therein also, the approved quantity of silica sand was mentioned as 17000 TPA. Again, a corrigendum dated 13.01.2023 was issued making correction in CTO dated 13.11.2022 for reading quantity of silica sand as 26160 TPA instead of 17000 TPA. Proponent has also submitted that corrigendum has to be treated as a correction and relates back to the original order and in this regard, reliance is placed on Allahabad High Court's judgment in Polyplex Corporation N. Limited vs. Union of India, (2014) SCC OnLine All 5211.
309. Proponent has carried out mining of silica sand in accordance with terms and conditions of mining plan/EC/CTO, prepared six monthly reports and filed with SEIAA UP and UPPCB from time to time. It has also carried out plantation which has been acknowledged by Joint Committee. Half yearly Reports complying the conditions of EC submitted with covering letters dated 02.08.2018, 30.07.2019, 04.12.2019, 07.08.2020, 257 22.01.2021, 13.08.2021, 27.12.2021, 15.06.2022 and 24.01.2023 are collectively filed as annexure R-12.
310. Proponent has also filed a copy of Environmental Statement (Form- V) at page 1970 submitted to Regional Office, UPPCB, Prayagraj as annexure R-13 at page 1970. The details of mine plan towards Corporate Social Responsibility in the years 2019-2023 have also been given as under:
Sl.No. Financial Year Amount Spent Towards CSR
1. 01.04.2019-31.03.2020 3,14,362
2. 01.04.2020-31.03.2021 2,85,248
3. 01.04.2021-31.03.2022 3,38,205
4. 01.04.2022-31.03.2023 3,10,430 Total Amount 12,48,245
311. There is no water discharge at mining site and also no natural surface of water resources like river, stream etc. Water requirement for mining activities is extremely low since it is required only for drinking purposes and plantation and sprinkling of roads for suppression of dust generated due to transport activities and manual mining. There is no noise pollution as no drilling or blasting activity is being carried out and noise pollution is possible due to running of vehicles which contribute very negligible level of noise and is within permissible limit.
312. Raising objections to Joint Committee Report, it is said that three Reports have been submitted i.e., dated 13.12.2021, 17.05.2022 and 23.02.2023 but all the reports are erroneous and either inspection has not 258 been made properly or by the Committees comprised of the members who are not nominated by Tribunal and, therefore, Reports have been submitted by Committees comprising unauthorized members and none of three Reports are reliable in any manner. It is said that this aspect was noticed by Tribunal in its order dated 01.09.2023 and it directed Joint Committee to submit a fresh Report in terms of order dated 01.08.2022.
313. Giving parawise reply to various facts stated in Report, it is said that the observations are conjectural, without verification of record and unreliable. No excessive mining has been carried out by proponent and it has confined to the approved limit i.e., 26160 TPA. Observations with regard to boundary pillars are not correct since boundary pillars marking stones are properly erected as per GPS coordinates given in the approved mining plan and no illegal mining has been carried out by proponent. The mining area of proponent is surrounded by other mining leases or the past leases and, therefore, mining conducted therein, cannot be attributed to proponent. The allegations of the excessive mining has been denied by giving year wise production in para 54 at page 1879 of the objections as under:
Lease Year EC Production as per Lease Year 09.09.2016-08.09.2017 26160 14559.810 09.09.2017-08.09.2018 26160 24070.170 09.09.2018-08.09.2019 26160 23973.000 09.09.2019-08.09.2020 26160 24441.000 09.09.2021-08.09.2022 26160 21018.000 259
314. The Statutory permissions/Clearances/NOCs/Consents have been duly obtained and, in this regard, there is no violation. The conditions of EC and consents etc. have been duly complied with and the allegations of contributing air pollution on the part of proponent is also not correct. Over-burdened waste has been managed as per mining plan and heavy machines like JCB have been used only for loading purpose while actual mining has been carried out manually. EC permitted mining as Opencast Semi-mechanised and this condition has been complied with. Peripheral fencing has been done in consonance with the extent of the mining carried out by proponent and in this regard, certain photographs have been placed on record. The discrepancy in respect to approved quantity of silica sand mentioned in CTO has already been explained and there is no violation on the part of proponent in this this regard. It is true that initially lease was granted over an area of 31.09 hectares but subsequently, specifically the forest land was demarcated and excluded from the permitted lease area and that has been reduced to 5.49 hectares which has been abided by the proponent. The allegations of mining outside the lease area are without any basis. Environmental compensation suggested has also been challenged on the ground that there is no violation which may justify imposition of environmental compensation as computed and suggested by Joint Committee.
Objections dated 14.03.2024 (P/1586) filed as additional objection/reply by respondent 9 filed on 15.03.2024:
315. In the objections, respondent 9 stated that the sanctioned production capacity of Janwa Mines was 26160 TPA and actual production 260 in the last 05 years i.e., 2018-19 to 2022-23 has been within the permissible limit as under:
Name 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 of Mine Janwa 23973 24441 21018 24951 26160
316. Respondent 9 has stated that in the Third Report dated 23.02.2023, Joint Committee has wrongfully mentioned that production of silica sand was in excess to the permitted capacity in the years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. It is said that the said information is based on no material whatsoever and is purely conjectural. Joint Committee also treated CTO dated 12.04.2016 for washing plant though UPPCB vide letter dated 22.02.2023 clarified that there was a mistake and CTO was for mining of silica sand and there was no illegal mining during 2017-18. Similarly, in CTO dated 17.05.2018, UPPCB inadvertently mentioned 17000 TPA instead of 26160 TPA and for that purpose, a Corrigendum was issued on 16.03.2023 whereby 17000 Ton/year was corrected as 26160 Ton/year, hence there was no illegal mining in 2018-19. It is for this reason Joint Committee in Fourth Report dated 17.01.2024 did not make any recommendation regarding alleged illegal production of silica sand. Proponent is complying with all the environmental norms and environmental safeguards. Plantation has been carried out along with boundary of Janwa Mines pertaining to safety zone, green belt has been developed and systematic mining in scientific manner is being carried as per approved mining plan. Qualified and technical persons have been deployed.
261
317. Reference is made to the reply dated 02.11.2023 i.e., reply of respondent 9 also but as a matter of fact, we find that in reply dated 02.11.2023, there is no specific difference or objection taken by respondent 9 and the facts are basically confined to respondent 8 i.e., Lakhnauti Mines of M/s. Chawla Silica Sand Trading Company.
318. From the facts discussed above, in respect of respondent 9, it is evident that EC for mining was granted on 12.10.2013 with sanctioned production of 26160 TPA. EC at page 1899 shows that lease area mentioned therein is 2.3 hectares while in the Third Report at page 225, it is mentioned that the lease area spread in 03 blocks and 5.49 hectares. No change in EC has been shown. In absence of any change therein it was not open to respondent 9 to carry on mining activities in an area beyond 2.30 hectares.
319. It is pointed out to us with reference to the objections dated 02.11.2023 filed by respondent 9 on 15.02.2024 that initially mining lease was granted to M/s Silica Sand Trading Company over an area of 31.09 hectares on 09.09.1974 which was transferred to respondent 9 on 01.10.1993 for unexpired period. Later on, the lease was renewed from 09.09.1994 to 08.09.2014 but Director of Geology and Mining demarcated 25.60 hectares as forest land. Consequently, on 07.02.2008, revised lease was executed for an area 5.49 hectares for the unexpired period. Again, renewal was applied which was allowed vide order dated 19.12.2014 for the period of 09.09.2024 to 08.09.2034. This is all about the lease deed and area mentioned therein but so far as EC is concerned, it was granted on 12.10.2013 and though the lease area in the lease deed was 5.49 262 hectares yet in the EC, the area of mining operation was allowed as 2.30 hectares.
320. In the Third Report, excess mining has been mentioned in respect of the year 2018-19 to 2020-21 based on the quantity permitted under CTOs dated 07.05.2018 and 02.04.2020 and not on the basis of the area of operation. There is no separate information in respect of quantity of mining i.e., in the area outside the mining area permitted under EC hence, we find it appropriate to accept the facts and figures disclosed in Third Report with respect of the quantity of excess/illegal extraction of mineral. For the year 2017-18, admittedly there was no CTO hence for the said period, quantity mentioned in Third Report is accepted to the extraction of mineral without any valid CTO. Since violation is not only on mere CTO but also for carrying out mining operations beyond the area permitted in EC, we are of the view that in the present case, environmental compensation should be computed at 3% of the sale price and thus for the period 2017-18 to 2020-21, it is computed as under:
(A) For 2016-17 (12.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 i.e., 353 days): Considering extraction of mineral in 2017-18 as the basis, we intend to determine production in the above period. As per record, production in 2017-18 is 19135 TPA which comes to 19135 TPA ÷365 days=52.42 tonnes per day).
The production for 353 days in 2016-17 would come to 18505 Tonnes (52.42 tonnes × 353 days). Environmental compensation is computed as under:
Quantity - 18505 MT i.e., 11565.62 m3 Sale Price - Rs.496.18/m3 263 Environmental Compensation = 11565.62 m3 × Rs. 496.18/m3 × 3% which comes to Rs.1,72,158.87.
(B) For 2017-18:
Quantity - 19135 MT i.e., 11959.37 m3 Sale Price - Rs.522.30/m3 Environmental Compensation = 11959.37 m3 × Rs.522.30/m3 × 3% which comes to Rs.1,87,391.36.
(C) For 2018-19:
Quantity - 2924 MT i.e., 1827.5 m3 Sale Price - Rs.549.79/m3 Environmental Compensation = 1827.5 m3 × Rs.549.79/m3 × 3% which comes to Rs.30,142.23.
(D) For 2019-20:
Quantity- 1311 MT i.e., 819.375 m3 Sale Price - Rs.578.73/m3 Environmental Compensation = 819.375 m3 × Rs.578.73/m3 × 3% which comes to Rs.14,225.90.
(E) For 2020-21:
Quantity- 15229 MT i.e., 9518.125 m3 Sale Price - Rs.609.19/m3 Environmental Compensation = 9518.125 m3 × Rs.609.19/m3 × 3% which comes to Rs.1,73,950.39.264
321. Thus, total environmental compensation for the above-mentioned periods would come to (Rs.1,72,158.87+ Rs.1,87,391.36+ Rs.30,142.23+ Rs.14,225.90+ Rs.1,73,950.39) Rs.5,77,868.75 i.e., Rs.5,77,869/- (round off) which respondent 9 is liable to may towards mining activities.
322. We also find that CTO was issued to respondent 9 on 12.04.2016 but that was for washing plant. It is suggested that subsequently a corrigendum was issued on 22.02.2023 but we find that once the CTO has already outlived its utility and has becomes non-est, no provision authorised Regional Officer, UPPCB to issue such kind of letter which has retrospective effect and no benefit can be extended to respondent 9.
323. Learned Counsel for respondent 9 has also sought to argue issue of excess production by trying to create a distinction between lease year and financial year but this aspect we have already considered in respect to respondent 8 and for the reasons mentioned therein, the same is rejected in this case also.
324. Here also, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the amount of environmental compensation suggested by Joint committee in Third Report in as much as for computation of present value for 05 years neither any reason has been given nor which period have been included are clearly mentioned. Quantity of environmental compensation has been taken as 38599 MT but we find that this was total quantity for the period of 2017- 18 to 2021-22 which could not have been taken to be a single quantity for one year and thereafter the same quantity is multiplied for 05 years. The approach and the manner in which computation has been suggested by 265 Joint committee is Third Report is clearly arbitrary and illegal and has no legal basis hence the same is not accepted and it is for this reason we have computed environmental compensation on the basis of our own findings. Respondent 10-Smt. Amita Gupta W/o Dwarika Prasad Gupta and Abhikesh Kumar Gupta, S/o Dwarika Prasad Gupta and Respondent 39-Modi Minerals Udyog P.O. Shankargarh, Allahabad:
325. The above respondents were carrying out silica sand mining activities through their industrial unit namely M/s. Modi Minerals Udyog i.e., MMU.
326. In the Report dated 17.05.2022, Joint Committee recorded following observations in the respect of respondent 10:
5 ग्राम-जनवा/मे० मोदी 1. शनरीक्षण के द रान खनन क्षेत्र में सभी सीमा स्तम्भ शमनरल्स उद्योग प्रो० संरशक्षत पाये गये तथा सभी सीमा स्तम्भ पर भू-शनदे शां क श्रीमती अशमता गुप्ता अंशकत शकया हुआ पाया गया।
पत्नी श्री द्वाररका प्रसाद गुप्ता 2. स्वीकृत खनन क्षेत्र में खनन के उपरान्त हुए गढ्ों में जल भराव होना नहीं पाया गया।
3. स्वीकृत खनन क्षेत्र के शनकास/प्रवेश मागद पर धमदकांटा िाशपत पाया गया। धमदकां टा पर जाँ च के समय शनकासी की गयी उपखशनज की मात्रा का लेखा-जोखा का रशजस्टर उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया।
4. खनन क्षेत्र में शडस्प्ले बोडद िाशपत पाया गया, शजसमें खनन पट्टा सम्बन्धी सभी शववरण उपलब्ध थे।
5. स्वीकृत खनन क्षेत्र के प्रवेश/शनकासी मागद के पास सी०सी०टी०वी० कैमरा िाशपत शकया गया।
6. खनन क्षेत्र के कुि शहस्सा में जाँच के समय, लाशटं ग का कायद शकया जाना दे खा गया। पट्टे धारक द्वारा इस सम्बन्ध में अवगत कराया गया शक स्वीकृत पट्टा क्षेत्र, जो शनजी कास्तकारों की जमीन में ही स्वीकृत की गयी थी, उन्ीं कुि कास्तकारों द्वारा कोई कम्पनी को लाशटं ग शकये 266 जाने हे तु शवक्रय कर दी गयी है । उक्त के सम्बन्ध में पट्टाधारक द्वारा मा० उच्च न्यायालय में ररट योशजत की गयी है , जो न्यायालय में शवचाराधीन है ।
English Translation by Tribunal:
5 Village- 2. During inspection, all the boundary Janwa/M/s. pillars in the mining area were found Modi Minerals to be preserved and geo-coordinates Industry Prop. were found marked on all the Mrs. Amita boundary pillars.
Gupta wife of Mr. Dwarika 3. Water was not found in the pits Prasad Gupta created after mining in the approved mining area.
4. Weighbridge was found installed on the entry/exit road of the approved mining area. At the time of inspection at the weighbridge, the accounts register of sub-mineral extracted was not made available.
5. A display board was found installed in the mining area, in which all the details related to the mining lease were available.
6. A CCTV camera was installed near the entry/exit route of the approved mining area.
7. During inspection in some part of the mining area, plotting work was seen to be going on. In this regard, the leaseholder informed that the approved lease area, which was approved in the land of private farmers, has been sold by some of the same farmers to a company for plotting. In this regard, a writ has been filed by the leaseholder in the Hon'ble 267 High Court, which is pending in the Court.
327. In the Report dated 03.02.2023, mining area of respondent 10 was mentioned as 17.75 hectares and sanctioned production capacity as 25000 TPA.
328. We are taking observations of Joint Committee as contained in the Third Report i.e., dated 23.02.2023 in respect of respondent 10 which are at page 228/229 of the Report. It is said that EC was initially granted on 11.11.2014 but later on transferred vide letter dated 17.12.2021 to proponent. The approved quantity of silica sand as per EC was 25000 TPA and the mining lease area was 17.75 hectares. Lease period after second renewal would expire on 24.05.2033. Mine was opened on 02.02.2016. CTO was issued by UPPCB under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 on 12.09.2022 for the period of 12.09.2022 to 31.12.2022. As per CTO, the approved quantity of sand and morrum was 12500 TPA. As per modified mining plan approved by letter dated 10.06.2021 for the period of 2021- 22 to 2023-24, the proposed and achieved production was under:
Year Proposal (Tons) Achieved (Tons)
2015-16 --- 13581
2016-17 --- 19885
2017-18 --- 18767
2018-19 --- 19424
2019-20 Nil 16225
2020-21 Nil 5061
268
2021-22 25000 12970
2022-23 25000
329. Thereafter, Joint Committee has given its observations based on Mining Plan, EC, CTO and satellite images of various intervals, as under:
D Lease Mining Smt. Amita Gupta & Shri Abhilesh Kumar site Gupta Janwa Silica Sand Mine xxx...................................................xxx.............................................xxx Observation • DGPS survey of Mining lease area is not done. based on Boundary pillars are not erected properly.
mining plan
• Production, Development, Dumping,
Plantation, Reclamation & rehabilitation works are not done as per the proposals of approved mining plan document. The mining operations are not being carried out in scientific & systematic manner. There is absolutely no relevance in approved proposals and actual working. Excavation is not in consonance with the 49 years of mining lease period.
Observation • It has been found that the peripheral fencing
based on of the excavated area has not been done so
Environmental far,
Clearance
• It has been found that the peripheral fencing
of the excavated area has not been done so far, • It has been observed that the none of mine workers wearing personal protective equipment's (PPEs) likes, safety shoes, helmets mask etc on site, 269 • It has been observed that the miner is neither established nor conducting monitoring of the RSPM, SPM, SO2, NOx parameters at site, • It has been observed that the miner is neither established nor conducting monitoring of the ground water level and its quality parameters at site, • It has been observed that the miner is not given safety training to the employee, • It has been observed that the miner does not have OB waste management, • It has been observed that miner does not stored top soil at site, • It has been observed that the 7.5 meter safety zone planation has not been done throughout the boundary lease, • It has been observed that the PAs are using JCB etc. Observation • It is important to note here that the above lease based on is for silica sand, whereas, the CTO has been Consent to granted for the sand and morrum, Operate • Operated mining without valid CTO during 2016 to 2022, Observation • Satellite image clearly depicted that the lease based no conduction nonsignificant mining during 2017 Satellite to 2019, images on various • Significant mining has been observed during interval after 2019, • Mining outside of the lease has also been observed, 270 • No green belt has been developed,
330. Joint Committee has recommended computation of environmental compensation against respondents 10 on the basis of following information (page/256):
1) Name of Mine Lease D: Smt. Amita Gupta & Shri Abhilesh Kumar Gupta
2) Validity
a) Consent From 12.09.2022 to 31.12.2022
b) EC Grant Date 17.12.2021
c) Mine Plan From 2021-22 to 2023-24
3) Permitted Capacity
a) Consent 12500 TPA (Sand & Morrum)
b) EC 25000
c) Mine Plan 25000
4) Production Details Year Permitted Actual Excess Illegal Qnty.
Quantity production quantity Production For
(Tons) (Tons) Env.
Comp.
(Ton)
2017- 12500 18767 6267 18767 18767
18
2018- 12500 19424 6924 19424 19424
19
2019- 12500 16225 3725 16225 16225
20
2020- 12500 5061 0 5061 5061
21
2021- 12500 12970 470 12970 12970
22
Total 17,386 72,447 72447
331. The Joint Committee has computed and assessed environmental compensation on the above information, in the Third report, as under:
Present Value (PV) @ 5% under Severe severity Unit Name Qnty. Qnty. Market Annual Year 01 Year 02 Year 3 Year 04 Year 05 Total (PV) Net Present For For Value Value Value Env. Env. of of (NPV) (Rs.) Comp Com Illegall Foreg (Ton) p y one (m3) mined Ecolog (Ton/ materi iacl 1.5) al @ Values Rs.67 (Rs.) 271 5/m3 R.F =1 Ton m3 D D * R.F D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ PV- D 1.05 1.1025 1.157625 1.215506 1.276281 25 5625 Lease D: 72,447 48,298 3,26,0 3,26,0 3,10,48, 2,95, 2,81,62,0 2,68,21,0 2,55,43,8 14,11,45,9 10,85,44,76 Smt. Arnita 1,150 1,150 714 70,204 99 47 54 18 8 Gupta & Shri Abhilesh Kumar bhilesh Kumar Gupta Reply dated 31.08.2023 filed on 01.09.2023 (p/275) by M/s. Modi Minerals Udyog (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. MMU') i.e., respondent 39 through its Proprietor Smt. Amita Gupta:
332. It is said that reply is confined to raising of objections to action taken Report dated 23.02.2023 filed by Joint Committee.
333. M/s. MMU (respondent 39) has said that it is operating mining lease of Silica sand as also washing plants which constitute a single business though site of mining lease and washing units are located at a distance of 3 kms. It is due to restriction that washing unit cannot be located near mining area. Proponent possessed Environmental Clearance (hereinafter referred to as 'EC') and CTO for the whole business and there was no bifurcation into the business of mining and washing units for the purpose of CTO. Raw Silica, which is extracted through mining, is not sold into market without washing. Proponent has annexed a copy of EC dated 11.11.2014 as annexure R-1 at page 296 which shows that State Level Impact Assessment Authority, State of UP (hereinafter referred to as 'SEIAA UP') has issued EC dated 11.11.2014 in the name of Kanhaiya Lal, C/o Dwarika Prasad Gupta, 43/1, S.P. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, UP.
EC was granted for Janwa Silica Sand Mine at 84-87, 100, 101, 105-110, 272 120, 121, 123-134, 143, Village-Janwa, Tehsil-Bara, District-Allahabad, UP.
334. The proposal was considered by State Expert Appraisal Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'SEAC') in its meeting dated 12.09.2014 and its recommendations were considered by SEIAA UP in the meeting held on 15.10.2014, where it decided to grant EC for collection of 25,000 TPA Silica sand from proposed 17.75 hectares land subject to general and specific conditions mentioned in EC which we may refer at a later stage as and when the same is required. Specific condition no. 5 also categorically says that washing of silica sand shall not be permitted under the said EC.
335. Specific condition no. 2 also says that project proponent shall obtain CTE from UPPCB and effectively implement all the conditions stipulated therein. The said condition is reproduced as under:
"2. The project proponent shall obtain Consent to Establish from the U.P State Pollution Control Board and effectively implement all the conditions stipulated therein."
336. The other conditions, we may refer at the later stage as and when the same is found necessary.
337. Mining lease dated 25.05.1973 was granted over an area of 20.71 hectare in favour of Kanhaiya Lal for a period of 20 years. The lease was renewed on 25.05.1993 in favour of Kanhaiya Lal over an area of 17.75 hectare again for a period of 20 Years. Since the period was going to expire on 24.05.2013, the lessee applied for renewal before expiry i.e., on 18.06.2012 over an area of 17.75 hectare. The matter of lease renewal was pending when EC was issued on 11.11.2014.
273
338. Moreover, Clause 5 of EC dated 11.11.2014 very clearly mention that washing of silica sand shall not be treated a part of project proposal submitted for EC. The above clause is reproduced as under:
"5. Washing of silica sand shall not be treated a part of project proposal submitted for Environmental clearance."
339. EC was transferred in the name of Smt. Amita Gupta W/o Shri Dwarika Prasad Gupta and Abhishek Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Dwarika Prasad Gupta vide SEIAA UP's order dated 17.12.2021 for a period of 05 years and approved extraction quantity was 12500 m3. The EC transfer order dated 17.12.2021 is on record at page 302 of the paper book.
340. Proponent possessed CTO in the name of M/s. MMU for Silica sand washing plants and did not apply for CTO for mining lease under the impression that mining and washing unit constitute single business, hence separate CTO was not required though there was no occasion for such impression in view of specific condition no 5 of EC. Later on, proponent applied for CTO for mining and CTO for mining was issued on 12.09.2022, copy whereof has been placed on record as annexure R-3 at page 333 which shows that a consolidated CTO and Authorisation under Section 25 of Water Act 1974 and Section 21 of Air Act 1981 was issued in the name of Smt. Amita Gupta and Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gupta for Silica mining lease located at Janwa, Bara, Prayagraj valid for the period from 12.09.2022 to 31.12.2026. The product details, quantity and unit are given in the form of chart as under:
S No. Product Quantity Unit
1 Sand/morrum in Cu 12500 Cubic Meters/year
274
meter/Year
341. It is argued on behalf of proponent that the act of non-obtaining separate CTO for mining at the best can be treated to be an irregularity and not illegality. In our view the submission is patently incorrect. Prior CTO is a statutory requirement under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 before operation of mining activities. Absence of CTO is a serious violation on the part of proponent who carried out mining activities without CTO. It resulted in illegal mining rendering Proponent to pay environmental compensation for such illegal mining besides other punitive/preventive action.
342. In respect to various observations made in Joint Committee Report, relating to mining plant, EC, CTO, Satellite images, separate reply has been given in the form of charts, as under:
Observation based on Mining Plan DGPS survey of mining lease DGPS survey is completed and area is not done. Boundary boundary pillars have been pillars are not erected corrected.
properly.
Production, Development, It is submitted that the deponent Dumping, Plantation, has started the mining operations Reclamation & rehabilitation from the 01.07.2015 by the works are not done as per transfer deed from Sh. Kanhaiya the proposals of approved Lal and is submitting mining plan mining plan document. The from 2015 onwards and therefore mining operations are not cannot explain the excavation being carried out in scientific plan for the past 49 years but it is & systematic manner. There submitted that since the lease is absolutely no relevance in area is a rocky land and many approved proposals and times big rocks comes in the area actual working. Excavation of approved mining plan which is not in consonance with the needs to be shifted, therefore 275 49 years of mining lease minor variations from approved period. mining plan may have taken place.
Observation based on Environmental Clearance It has been found that the Peripheral fencing of the whole peripheral fencing of the area has been done and the excavated Environmental photographs of the same are Clearance area has not been annexed as Annexure R-4. done so far.
It has been observed that the It is submitted that the area where none of mine workers the mining is done is very hot and wearing personal protective dry place due to which wearing of equipment's (PPEs) likes, helmets etc on site becomes very safety shoes, helmets mask difficult.
etc on site, It has been observed that the It is submitted that deponent is miner is neither established submitting his returns in every six nor conducting monitoring of months in which all parameters the RSPM, SPM, SO2, NOx with regard air pollution are duly parameters at site. submitted. Report submitted by the deponent dated ..... in which RSPM, SPM, S02, NOx are measured and found within permissible limits is submitted with this affidavit as Annexure R-
5.It has been observed that the It is submitted that the deponent miner is neither established has obtained the separate nor conducting monitoring of permission for abstraction of the ground water level and ground water from the Ground its quality parameters at Water Department, Ministry of Jal site, Shakti, Government of UP under section 10(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Ground Water Management and Regulation Act. True Copy of the Certificate of Registration of user for abstraction of water is annexed as Annexure R-6.
Deponent further states that the 276 water used in the washing plant is used in very scientific manner where the same water is utilised many times. A magnetic flow meter is installed at the washing site. A detailed water flow and utilisation diagram is annexed for ready reference as Annexure R-7.
It has been observed that the Regular safety training is miner is not given safety conducted in the mining lease training to the employee, area, Photographs of the same are Annexed herewith as Annexure R-
8.It has been observed that the OB waste that comes out during miner does not have OB mining is utilised for filling of the waste management. vacant pits in the area.
It has been observed that It is submitted that the top soil is miner does not store top soil collected and is stored at a at site, separate place and is utilised to level the field once the mining is complete. Photograph of the site where the top soil is placed is annexed as Annexure R-9.
It has been observed that the It is submitted that the whole area 7.5-meter safety zone where the mining is conducted is planation has not been done very dry area and is also rocky throughout the boundary terrain. Plantation are done in lease, every rainy season but the plants die out due to scorching heat and rocky terrain. Photographs of plantation done at the mining site and the bills for the purchase of plants is annexed as Annexure R-
10.It has been observed that the PAs are using JCB etc. Observation based on Consent to Operate 277 It is important to note here It is submitted that CTO is always that the above lease is for taken under the Head "Sand and silica sand, whereas, the Morrum" as there is no separate CTO has been granted for head in the online website of the sand and morrum minemitra for silica sand but the Para 1 under specific conditions headings clearly states that "1.
This consent is valid for production of Silica/Morrum -
12500 Cu Meter/year by opencast and semi mechanised mining in 17.75 hectare leased area at Bhukhand No. 84-87, 100, 101, 105-110, 120, 121, 123-134, 143 Village Janwa Tehsil-Bara, tehsil-
Prayagraj"
Therefore, it is incorrectly interpreted that the CTO has been granted for the sand and morrum only.
True copy of the CTO dated 12.09.2022 is Annexed as Annexure R-2.
Operated mining without It is submitted that the CTO has valid CTO during 2016 to been taken in the name of Modi 2022 Minerals Udyog, and the same is available with the deponent.
Deponent's whole business is in the name of Modi Minerals Udyog (Prop Amt Amita Gupta). Deponent does business from two places, one where mining is done and another where the raw silica extracted is washed. Both are located at a distance of three Kms due to restriction that washing plant cannot be located near mining area. Deponent is in possession of CTO for M/S Modi Minerals Udyog which is valid from April 2015 to July 2023. True 278 copy of the CTO granted vide letter No.1803/Parya/SEAC/967/201 1/TA(M) dated 11.11.2014 is annexed as Annexure R-11.
During the visit of the inspection team as formed under the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal, told deponent that a separate CTO is required for the mining lease.
Requirement of separate CTO one for mining lease and another for washing area was never informed to deponent despite filing of regular returns in EC Compliance with MOEF and UPPCB, Moreover it is also not viable for taking different CTO for the same business since all the miners involved in the silica mining do both the work of mining as well washing the raw silica and both cannot be taken as different business.
Clause 24 of the Specific Conditions of deponents EC No. 180/Parya/SEAC/967/2011/TA (M) dated 11.11.2014 states that "Consent to operate shall be obtained from the UP-Pollution Control Board, prior to the start of enhanced production from the mine"
Thus clause 24 clearly states that CTO for mining would be taken only when there is enhanced production from the permitted level in the mining. Since deponent production has never gone beyond the EC quantity, he never applied for a separate CTO for the mining lease. True copy of the EC No. dated conduction 279 180/Parya/SEAC/967/2011/TA (M) 11.11.2014 is annexed as Annexure R-1.
It is further submitted that as soon the Joint committee informed that a separate CTO is required for the mining lease, he immediately applied for the same and now is in possession of CTO both for the washing area and the mining lease as required by the Joint Committee. True Copy of the CTO for the mining lease area is annexed as Annexure R-2 (Mentioned above) Observations with regard Satellite images on various intervals Satellite image clearly It is submitted that the whole land depicted that the lease in which the mining is being conducted non-significant conducted is a private land in the mining during 2017 to 2019 hands of the different land owners. Land owners often capture their land and start selling the land by dividing it into smaller housing plots against which the deponent has made several complaints to the concerned authorities but due to no action by the said authorities in spite of several complaints, non-
significant mining was done during 2017-19. Copy of the complaints done by the deponent are annexed as Annexure R-12.
Significant mining has been That in continuation with the observed during after 2019 above-mentioned reply wherein it was stated the reason for non-
significant mining, it is submitted that since the dependent has been 280 in possession of all the land in the area he started the mining as per the permitted quantity after 2019.
Mining outside of the lease It is submitted that the whole area has also been observed where the mining is being conducted is the private land in the hands of the private land owners, moreover illegal mining is also very rampant in the area which is putting huge pressure to those miners who are doing mining after spending significant amount in taking proper clearances. These illegal miners are mining at less cost and makes business unviable for those mining in a legal way. Mining outside the lease area of the deponent has been done by these illegal miners.
No green belt has been It is submitted that the whole area developed where the mining is conducted is very dry area and is also rocky terrain. Plantation are done in every rainy season but the plants die out due to scorching heat and rocky terrain. Photographs of plantation done at the mining site and the bills for the purchase of plants is annexed.
343. M/s. MMU (respondent 39) has raised objection on computation of environmental compensation stating that Joint Committee has wrongly treated permitted mining capacity of 12500 m3 per year as 12500 tonnes per year. It has stated that for conversion of 12500 m3 into tonnes, it has to be multiplied by 1.5 which would come to 18750 tonnes in the case of 281 M/s. MMU (respondent 39). It is further said that initially lease for 25000 tonnes per annum was granted vide letter dated 11.11.2014 issued in the name of Sh. Kanhaiya Lal. The said lease was valid from 01.04.2017 to 12.09.2022. Thereafter, it was transferred in the name of Smt. Amita Gupta and the permitted quantity was reduced to 12,500 m3. Joint Committee has wrongly considered 12500 m3 for commutation of environmental compensation for the whole period instead of computing permitted capacity of 25000 tonnes per year from 2015-2021 and 12,500 m3 i.e., 18750 tonnes per year from 2022 and onwards. Proponent has not taken any excessive mining and production during any period. As said by proponent, current calculation of production from 2017-2018 to 2021- 2022 would be as under:
Year Permitted Actual Excess Illegal Qnty. For Quantity Production Quantity Production Env.
(Tons per (Tons) Comp.
annum) (Ton)
2017-18 25000 18767 0 0 0
2018-19 25000 19424 0 0 0
2019-20 25000 19424 0 0 0
2020-21 25000 5061 0 0 0
2021-22 18750 12970 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0
344. Proponent has already paid fine for non-submission of mining plan during COVID-19 period. Mining of Silica sand is a very low value and high labour-intensive business, providing employment to large number of labourers in the area who have no other source of income. Proponent is consistently discharging its social responsibility under Corporate Social Responsibility by organizing free health check-up camps in the area, distributing health care kits, winter clothing like blankets etc. It has spent 282 huge funds for purchase of plants and making the area greener. It is also educating nearby villagers and workers about sustainable use of water and other natural resources by organizing regular camps. There is rampant illegal mining and action should be taken against such violators for causing damage to environment and not against the proponents who are conducting mining taking all due requisite permissions etc.
345. The facts referred to hereinabove show that mining lease was granted over an area of 20.71 hectares on 25.05.1973 in favour of Kanhaiya Lal for a period of 20 years. After expiry of the lease period, it was renewed on 25.05.1993 in favour of Kanhaiya Lal over an area of 17.75 hectares for a period of 20 years. Again, application for renewal was submitted on 18.06.2012 since lease was going to expire on 24.05.2013 over an area of 17.75 hectares. It is not clear from the record as to when lease was renewed but what transpired from record is that EC was granted on 11.11.2014 which was also in the name of Kanhaiya Lal. Clause 5 of EC clearly mentions that washing of silica sand shall not part of project proposal submitted for EC. EC allowed extraction of 25000 TPA silica sand from mining area of 17.75 hectares which was subject to several general and specific conditions mentioned therein.
346. Further, Joint Committee Report at page 228-229 shows that period of lease would expire on 24.05.2033 which suggest that second renewal of mining lease was granted though its exact date is not on record.
347. Be that as it may, it is also evident from record that EC was transferred in the name of Amita Gupta w/o Dwarka Prasad Gupta and 283 Abhilesh Kumar Gupta s/o Dwarka Prasad Gupta vide SEIAA UP's order dated 17.12.2021 for a period of 05 years with the production capacity of 12500 m3. The EC transfer order is at page 302 which shows that mining lease was transferred from Kanhaiya Lal to respondent 10 vide mining lease dated 01.07.2015.
348. In para 3 of reply dated 31.08.2023, the above proponents have said that there was CTO in the name of M/s MMU which is a unit involved in washing of silica sand, therefore, no separate CTO was applied for mining lease. It is only when Joint Committee's inspection team visited the site and asked for CTO for mining lease, proponent came to know that separate CTO is required and thus, applied for separate CTO which was issued on 12.09.2022.
349. It is thus evident that the mining activities were carried out before 12.09.2022 by proponents without having any valid CTO for mining activities and thus, there was a clear violation of the provisions of Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981. For the period prior to 12 September 2022, therefore, proponent is liable to pay environmental compensation for carrying out mining activities without any valid CTO under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981. The suggestions, that proponents were not aware of requirement of separate CTO, is clearly belied from EC dated 11.11.2014 wherein clause 5 of specific conditions clearly said that washing of silica sand shall not be permitted under the said EC. Further, requirement of consent also clearly mentioned in clause 2 of specific conditions of EC. We have already rejected this submission above.284
350. For the purpose of computation of environmental compensation, we find that Joint Committee in Third Report has recommended environmental compensation of Rs.10,85,44,768/- taking quantum of mineral as 72447 MT which is said to be an excess or illegal production by the above proponents during the period of 2017-18 to 2021-22 as is evident from page 256 of Third Report of Joint Committee. A clear error which has come in the said report is that the sanctioned production has been taken as 12500 TPA though EC at page 302 clearly shows that it was 12500 m3 and if converted into tonnes, it comes to 20000 TPA. Therefore, assumption on the part of Joint Committee that the permitted quantity was only 12500 TPA is clearly erroneous. In fact, what we find from record is that EC dated 11.11.2014 initially granted in the name of Kanahiya Lal permitted extraction of mineral to the extent of 25000 TPA and this quantity was reduced while permitting transfer of EC in favour of respondent 10 by transfer order of EC dated 17.12.2021. Therefore, prior to 17.12.2021 as per EC, the permitted quantity of extraction of sand was 25000 TPA i.e., 15625 cubic meters and, therefore, the chart prepared under the heading 'Production Details' by taking permitted quantity as 12500 TPA for the period of 2017-18 to 2021-22 in entirety, is not correct and cannot be accepted as such.
351. Further, we do not find any rational to club 05 year's production or the alleged excess of illegal production which has been taken together as 01 year's production for the purpose of computation of environmental compensation. Joint Committee has again blundered by taking the same five years quantity again for next 05 years to arrive at a hypothetical 285 amount of environmental compensation. It is highly excessive in nature, nothing but a bizarre and shows a total non-application of mind on the part of Joint Committee in recommendation of environmental compensation. The computation by Joint Committee is clearly erroneous and has to be discarded.
352. There is nothing on record to show that besides CTO, there was any other violation on the part of proponents in the period prior to 17.12.2021 when transferred EC was issued and 12.09.2022 when CTO was issued with regard to quantity of mineral extracted. The production details given between 2017-18 to 2021-22 in the chart are not disputed by the proponent in its reply as is evident from page 291 and, therefore, we go by the actual production shown at page 295 by proponent themselves for the above period. Since mining was carried put without CTO prior to 12.09.2022, and violation has continued even before 2017-18 i.e., 10.08.2016 and onwards, in our view, environmental compensation is to be computed at 2.5% of the sale price of mineral, as under:
(A) For 2016-17 (10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017 i.e., 234 days): Production of 2016-17 has been mentioned at page 228 as 19885 MT. Daily production would come to 54.47 MT/day (19885 MT ÷ 365 days). The production from 10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017 for 234 days, therefore, would come to 12745.98 MT (54.47 MT/day × 234 days) i.e., 7933.23 m3. Thus, environmental compensation would be:
Quantity - 7933.23 m3 Sale Price - Rs.496.18/m3 286 Environmental Compensation = 7933.23 m3 × Rs.496.18/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.98,407.75.
(B) For 2017-18: The production of 2017-18 has been disclosed as 18767 MT i.e., 11739.37 m3, thus, environmental compensation is computed as under:
Quantity - 11739.37 m3 Sale Price - Rs.522.30/m3 Environmental Compensation = 11739.37 m3 × Rs. 522.30/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.1,53,286.82.
(C) For 2018-19: Production of 2018-19 has been mentioned as 19424 MT i.e., 12140 m3. Thus, environmental compensation is computed as under:
Quantity - 12140 m3 Sale Price - Rs.549.79/m3 Environmental Compensation = 12140 m3 × Rs. 549.79/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.1,66,861.26.
(D) For 2019-20: Production of 2019-20 has been mentioned as 19424 MT i.e., 12140 m3. Thus, environmental compensation is computed as under:
Quantity - 12140 m3 Sale Price - Rs.578.73/m3 Environmental Compensation = 12140 m3 × Rs.578.73/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.1,75,644.55.287
(E) For 2020-21: Production of 2020-21 has been mentioned as 5061 MT i.e., 3163.12 m3. Thus, environmental compensation is computed as under:
Quantity - 3163.12 m3 Sale Price - Rs.609.19/m3 Environmental Compensation = 3163.12 m3 × Rs.609.19/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.48,173.52.
(F) For 2021-22: Production of 2021-22 has been mentioned as 12970 MT i.e., 8106.25 m3. Thus, environmental compensation is computed as under:
Quantity - 8106.25 m3 Sale Price - Rs.641.25/m3 Environmental Compensation = 8106.25 m3 × Rs.641.25/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.1,29,953.32.
353. Thus, total environmental compensation would come to (Rs.
98,407.75+Rs.1,53,286.82+Rs.1,66,861.26+Rs.1,75,644.55+Rs.48,173.5 2+Rs.1,29,953.32) Rs.7,72,327.22 i.e., Rs.7,72,327/- (round off) which is payable by respondent 10.
Respondent 11-Rajiv Kumar Chawla, S/o Late Surendra Kumar Chawla, 11 Church Lane, Allahabad:
354. As per Report dated 17.05.2022 of Joint Committee, observations in respect of Rajiv Kumar Chawla (respondent 11) are as under:
7 ग्राम- उठगी तरहार 1. शनरीक्षण के द रान खनन क्षेत्र में सभी सीमा स्तम्भ / श्री राजीव कुमार संरशक्षत पाये गये तथा सभी सीमा स्तम्भ पर भू-शनदे शां क चावला अंशकत शकया हुआ पाया गया।288
2. स्वीकृत खनन क्षेत्र में खनन के उपरान्त हुए एक गड्ढा / शपट में जल भराव होना नहीं पाया गया। खनन क्षेत्र का अशधकां श शहस्सों में अभी खनन नहीं हो रहा है ।
3. स्वीकृत खनन क्षेत्र के शनकास/प्रवेश मागद पर धमदकांटा िापना का कायद हो रहा है ।
4. खनन क्षेत्र में शडस्प्ले बोडद िाशपत पाया गया, शजसमें खनन पट्टा सम्बन्धी सभी शववरण उपलब्ध थे।
5. स्वीकृत खनन क्षेत्र के प्रवेश/शनकासी मागद के पास सी०सी०टी०वी० कैमरा िाशपत शकया गया था, जो क्षशतग्रस्त था।
6. पट्टे धारक द्वारा खनन क्षेत्र में प धा रोपण शकया गया है।
English Translation by Tribunal:
5 Village-Uthgi 2. During inspection, all the boundary Tarhar / Shri pillars in the mining area were Rajeev Kumar found to be preserved and geo-
Chawla coordinates were found marked on all the boundary pillars.
3. Water was not found filled in a pit created after mining in the approved mining area. Mining is not going on in most parts of the mining area.
4. Weighbridge installation work is going on at the entry/exit road of the approved mining area.
5. A display board was found installed in the mining area, in which all the details related to the mining lease were available.
289
6. A CCTV camera was installed near the entry/exit road of the approved mining area, which was damaged.
7. The leaseholder has planted trees in the mining area.
355. Interim Report dated 03.02.2023 at page 180 gives details and observations of Rajiv Kumar Chawla but we are taking the same from the final Report dated 23.02.2023, giving details at page 231/232. It is said that EC was granted to Rajiv Kumar Chawla on 06.06.2016 at the mining site of Uthagi Tarhar Silica Sand Mine for an area of 3.59 hectares; the lease would expire on 24.05.2033; and CTO was granted on 29.03.2020 valid from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2024. The observations made on the basis of mining plan, EC, CTO and Satellite images, are as under:
E Lease Mining Shri Rajiv Kumar Chawla Uthagi Tarhar site Silica Sand Mine xxx.............................................xxx...............................................xxx XI. Observation • DGPS survey of Mining lease area is not done.
based on Boundary pillars are not erected properly.
mining plan
• Production, Development, Dumping,
Plantation, Reclamation & rehabilitation works are not done as per the proposals of approved mining plan document. The mining operations are not being carried out in scientific & systematic manner. The total excavation can be predicted after survey. However, excavation is not in consonance with the 49 years of mining lease period Observation • Over production has been found during 2022-
based on 23.
Environmental
290
Clearance • It has been found that the peripheral fencing
of the excavated area has not been done so far, • It has been found that the peripheral fencing of the excavated area has not been done so far, • It has been observed that the none of mine workers wearing personal protective equipment's (PPEs) likes, safety shoes, helmets mask etc on site, • It has been observed that the miner is neither established nor conducting monitoring of the RSPM, SPM, SO2, NOx parameters at site, • It has been observed that the miner is neither established nor conducting monitoring of the ground water level and its quality parameters at site, • It has been observed that the miner is not given safety training to the employee, • It has been observed that the miner does not have OB waste management, • It has been observed that miner does not stored top soil at site, • It has been observed that the 7. 5 meter safety zone planation has not been done throughout the boundary lease.
Observation • Production capacity is not mentioned in CTO,
based on
Consent to
Operate
Observation • Satellite image clearly depicted that the lease
based no conduction non-significant mining during 2017
Satellite to 2022,
images on
various
291
interval • Mining outside of the lease has also been
observed,
• No green belt has been developed,
356. Joint Committee has also recommended computation of
environmental compensation against respondent 11 on the following information:
1) Name of Mine Lease E: Shri Rajiv Kumar Chawla
2) Validity
a) Consent 1. From 30.04.2018 to 31.12.2019
2. From 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2024
b) EC Grant Date 06.06.2016
c) Mine Plan From 2021-22 to 2025-26
3) Permitted Capacity
a) Consent Not mentioned in CTO
b) EC First year: 52,235 Tons, Second Year: 52,800 Tons, Third Year: 59,981 Tons, Fourth Year: 60,000 Tons, Fifth Year: 60,000 Tons
c) Mine Plan 60000
4) Production Details Year Permitted Actual Excess Illegal Qnty.
Quantity production quantity Production For (Tons) (Tons) Env.
Comp.
(Ton)
2017- -- 10391 -- 10391 10391
18
2018- -- 2208 -- -- --
19
2019- -- 5706 -- -- --
20
2020- -- 2462.9 -- -- --
21
2021- -- 5049 -- -- --
22
Total 10391 10391
292
357. It has computed and suggested environmental compensation on the basis of the above information as under:
Present Value (PV) @ 5% under Severe severity Unit Name Qnty. Qnty. Market Annual Year 01 Year 02 Year 3 Year 04 Year 05 Total (PV) Net Present For For Value Value Value Env. Env. of of (NPV) (Rs.) Comp Com Illegall Foreg (Ton) p y one (m3) mined Ecolog (Ton/ materi iacl 1.5) al @ Values Rs.67 (Rs.) 5/m3 R.F =1 Ton m3 D D * R.F D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ PV- D 1.05 1.1025 1.157625 1.215506 1.276281 25 5625 Lease E: Shri 10,391 6,927 46,75, 46,75, 44,53,2 42,41,2 40,39,26 38,46,91 36,63,72 2,02,44,41 1,55,68,466 Rajiv Kumar 950 950 86 24 1 6 9 6 Chawla Objection dated 18.01.2024 filed vide e-mail dated 11.03.2024 (p/1255) to Joint Committee Report dated 23.02.2023 by respondent 11 i.e., Rajiv Kumar Chawla, Uthagi Tarhar Silica Sand Mine:
358. It is said that he (respondent 11) is lease holder of 3.59 hectares (8.89 acres) of land at plot no. 377M, Village Udhagi Tarhar, Tehsil Bara, District Prayagraj for mining of silica sand. Preliminary objection has been raised to the report on the ground that Tribunal constituted a Committee by order dated 17.05.2022 but Report has not been submitted by the members who constituted Joint Committee as per Tribunal's order and report has been submitted by much junior officials, hence it is not a valid Report. Though Joint Committee claims that it conducted field visits on 01.09.2022, 02.09.2022 and from 16.11.2022 to 18.11.2022 but no information was given to the proponent and he had no knowledge about such site visit by Joint Committee. There is no violation on the part of proponent in compliance of requisite conditions. 293
359. The lease was earlier in the name of Surender Kumar Chawla, father of proponent. It was renewed pursuant to renewal application dated 08.04.2010 in the name of proponent's father but he expired on 25.11.2011 and, thereafter, vide Government order dated 08.07.2014 (annexure R-1 at page 1288), lease was transferred in the name of Rajiv Kumar Chawla w.e.f. 26.11.2011. Proponent applied for grant of EC vide application dated 14.08.2013. Proposal was considered by SEAC and Terms of Reference was issued vide letter dated 12.10.2013 by Secretary, SEAC. Later, proponent submitted letters dated 23.03.2014 and 27.05.2014 claiming exemption from requirement of prior EC since total lease area was less than 5 hectares and it was agreed upon by SEIAA UP in its meeting dated 06.06.2014, where it made the following recommendations:
"The Committer noted that the matter relates to mining of silica sand which is major mineral on the basis of their proposed use in glass and ceramic industry. As per EIA notification dated 14.09.2006, as amended, major minerals less than 05 ha mining lease area are not covered under the notification for the purpose of environmental clearance. The committee directed to inform the project proponent in this regard and to close the file."
360. The said recommendation of SEAC UP was considered by SEIAA UP in its meeting dated 11.06.2014 and it decided as under:
"The SEIAA agreed with the recommendation of the SEAC as the mater relates to mining of the silica sand which is major mineral on the basis of their proposed use in glass and ceramic industry. As per EIA notification dated 14.09.2006, as amended, major minerals less than 05 ha mining lease area are not covered under the notification for the purpose of environmental clearance, therefore the project proponent to be informed in this regard and the file is to be closed."294
361. The above decision was communicated to the proponent by Secretary SEAC vide letter dated 08.07.2014 (page 1290) and that is how, proponent was informed that he is exempted from the requirement of prior EC under EIA 2006.
362. Mining plan was approved by Competent Authority on 13.05.2016 (annexure R-3 at page 1292/1294) for a period of 05 years. After expiry of the above period of approval, further approval has been granted by Directorate, Geology and Mines vide letter dated 08.01.2022 (annexure R- 4 at page 1296).
363. Later on, proponent obtained prior EC from District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'DEIAA Allahabad') vide letter dated 06.06.2016 (annexure R-5 at page 1299). Proponent also obtained requisite permissions and consents under Air Act 1981 for its mining operations and CTO dated 29.03.2020 is valid upto 21.12.2024. Details of CTOs placed on record by respondent 11, are as under:
Sl. No. Date of CTO Page Validity period issued under Section 21/22 of Air Act 1981
1. 20.05.2018 1303 30.04.2018 to 31.12.2019
2. 29.03.2020 1306 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2024
364. Proponent claimed that he has paid late fees to cover the period of 2014 to 2018 and for 2018-2019 but it is evident from record that no CTO was granted and at least none is on record to show that prior to the 295 period of 30.04.2018, proponent possessed valid CTO under Air Act, 1981. There is no provision shown to us that for the period of default, any late fee is payable to claim consent from retrospective date. Even otherwise, no such CTO with retrospective date has been issued. Further record shows that no CTO was obtained by proponent under Water Act, 1974 though general condition no. 3 of EC dated 06.06.2016 contemplated that proponent shall obtain CTO under Air Act, 1981 and Water Act, 1974.
365. Proponent has further stated that there has never been any complaint about violation of emission standards due to mining operations on the part of the proponent and all necessary steps to keep emissions standards within limit were taken, like sprinkling of water, covering of mined minerals, plantation to keep soil bind etc.
366. It is also said that ex-post facto for grant of EC is permissible in view of law laid down by Supreme Court's judgments dated 25.03.2022 passed in M/s. Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dastak NGO, Civil Appeal No. 4795/2021, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 362 and dated 09.12.2021 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 7576-7577 of 2021, Electrosteel Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2023) 6 SCC 615 and dated 22.09.2022 passed in D. Swamy vs. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Civil Appeal No. 3132 of 2018. No illegal mining has been carried out by proponent and allegations of illegal production in the year 2017-18 are incorrect. Absence of CTO is a mere irregularity since proponent has duly applied and made payment for grant of CTE and moreso, there has not been any emission above the standard quantity. Proponent has not conducted any mining outside the 296 lease area and the allegations against all lease holders are identical and in repetition. Committee had never demarcated alleged illegal mining site nor recoded statement of villagers during enquiry. There is no report of the department of Mines and Geology or Forest to indicate any illegal mining beyond the leased area by deponent. The allegations of excess mining are general in nature and incorrect since proponent has carried out mining only as per terms and conditions as approved in EC. In fact, proponent has achieved less production than the proposed in every year as per the mining plan. The allegations of excess production in 2022-23 is incorrect since mining plan approved on 08.01.2022 permitted 60000 MTA and there is no excess production than the said quantity. Plantation has been carried out as per the terms and conditions of statutory permissions. Deponent is not running any washing plant and dryer in the lease area; pillars have been erected; technically qualified persons have been employed; and all mitigations measures for protection of environment have been observed.
367. Further requirement of DGPS or Differential Global Positioning System is not applicable in as much as neither it was a condition of EC or mining plan nor it was necessary for minor minerals since DGPS survey is mandatory for major minerals only and silica sand is a minor mineral. Therefore, there is no violation as suggested by Joint Committee. All the requirements regarding storage of top soil, over-burdened waste etc. are being observed. There is no condition of monitoring of ground water level or its quality in the EC. CTO is for silica sand and not for sand or morrum and permitted mineral has been extracted by proponent. There are lot of 297 abandoned mining pits in the area in respect where to conditions of those pits cannot be attributed to proponent.
368. With regard to details of lease deed, it is said that a lease in perpetuity was granted to Rani Rajender Kumari Ba which recited that Pushpraj Kripa Patra Maharao Raja Kamlakar Singh, Bara Estate was ex- landlord and has leased out vide registered deed dated 25.07.1947, land of 46 villages for quarries of stones, ballasts, kankar, morrum and sand described in schedule A. The said deed was ordered for recognition vide UP Government's order dated 15.12.1956 in terms of Section 108(1) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 to the lessee. The above perpetual lease also contained a clause of enhancement of annual royalty at the end of every fifty years from the date of execution of lease to the extent of 10%.
369. On the strength of the said perpetual lease mining activity for various minerals was carried on by local villagers and others on contract basis with Rani Rajendra Kumari Ba without any EC. In 2013, Allahabad High Court held perpetual lease deed of 1959 in favour of Smt. Rani Rajendra Kumari Ba as illegal and not valid under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, under which she was allowed an absolute, uncontrolled and unrestricted right of mining in perpetuity without any restriction so as to virtually conferring upon her ownership right thereupon except to the extent of payment of royalty to the Government. For more than 50 years, large scale unmonitored, uncontrolled and unscientific mining of various minerals was done under the authority of Rani Rajendra Kumari Ba which created mining pits in 298 the entire region. Rani Rajendra Kumari Ba never obtained any EC on ground of being perpetual lessee. It was only on interference by High Court illegal mining by Rani Rajendra Kamari Ba was stopped in 2013. Thereafter, there started unorganised mining by local people who were engaged since generation in mining since 1940s-50s. The locals and unorganised persons resorted to illegal mining of various minerals including silica sand without obtaining lease and without compliance of any statutory norms.
370. Presently, there are only 07 lease holders including proponent- respondent 11 who are engaged in valid and legal silica sand mining. Illegal mining by local people and others is making lawful lease holders to become easy prey since the locals and other unorganized people are not identifiable or traceable. Thus, observations pertaining to illegal pits and mines are not attributable to the proponent. He is submitting six monthly Compliance Reports to the concerned authority. Proponent is carrying out mining activity strictly in accordance with law and for the activities of others, he cannot be held responsible.
371. Challenging the computation of environmental compensation, proponent has also disputed the market value of silica sand taken by Joint Committee to be Rs.675/- per cubic meter claiming that there is no proof to substantiate the said market value and it is purely on assumptions. It is necessary to record a finding of damage to environment so as to impose environmental compensation in view of the law laid down in Deepak Nitrite Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 6 SCC 402. Joint Committee in computing environmental compensation has also not given any credit to 299 the cost/expenses incurred by dependent for mining activities, CSR, CER, royalty, taxes paid etc. Since the expenses cannot be taken to be part of price of minerals, the same has to be deducted. The compensation determined is three times more than the value. Large number of people are employed in the mining activities and recommendation of huge amount of environmental compensation would lead to closure of the business causing large scale unemployment and other loss to the society. Additional Reply vide e-mail dated 17.03.2024 filed by respondent 11 to Report dated 17.01.2024 (P/1736):
372. It is stated that in the Report dated 17.01.2024, Joint Committee has reiterated the earlier Report dated 23.02.2023 where against detailed objections have already been filed. Joint Committee has not brought any material to substantiate the allegations against the proponent. Proponent has developed green belt in safety zone and mining is being undertaken in a scientific manner as per approved mining plan. Production of silica sand in the last 05 years is given in para 5 of additional reply as under:
Name of 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 Mine Uthagitahar 2209 9701 2463 5049 16292
373. Observations in the report are that mining lease holders are not complying the totality with the proposals as per approved mining plan are vague in as much as no such violation has been reported or specified and the observations are vague and conjectural. Rest of the averments are virtually repetitive stating that in all aspects proponent is complying with conditions of EC, CTO and environmental laws and there is no violation. 300
374. Certain documents have been filed to show that qualified people have been employed and safety equipment have been purchased, etc.
375. In respect of respondent 11, the facts referred above show that the lease in question i.e., at plot no. 377M, area 3.59 hectares, Village-Uthagi Tarhar, Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj was in the name of Surender Kumar Chawla, father of the present proponent Rajiv Kumar Chawla i.e., respondent 11. Proponent's father Surender Kumar Chawla expired on 25.11.2011. In para 5.1.1, it is claimed by respondent 11 that vide Government's Order dated 05.11.2014, lease was transferred in his name w.e.f. 26.11.2011, (copy of the Government Order has been placed on record as annexure R-1) but we find that annexure R-1 at page 1288 is not in respect of the transfer of lease in favour of proponent Rajiv Kumar Chawla but it is relating to renewal of lease in favour of Smt. Nirmal Rani Chawla w/o Late Yogender Lal Chalwa in respect of large number of arazi nos. comprising a total area of 48.035 hectares in villages Sonauri and Bankipur, Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj. Therefore, the document placed on record by the proponent has nothing to do to support his claim of transfer of lease in his favour.
376. Be that as it may, for the purpose of the present case, we proceed on the basis that lease was transferred in the name of proponent and he came to be a valid lease holder after expiry of his father from 25.11.2011.
377. It appears that respondent 11 submitted application dated 14.08.2013 for grant of prior EC for mining activities but thereafter, it submitted letters dated 23.03.2014 and 27.05.2014 claiming that since 301 lease area is less than 05 hectares, therefore, it is exempted from obtaining prior EC. SEIAA UP agreed with the said request and proponent's file was closed in view of the decision taken in SEIAA UP's 126th meeting held on 11.06.2014 and communicated vide letter dated 08.07.2014.
378. Later on, it appears that the error in the view taken by SEIAA UP was realized being contrary to Supreme Court's judgment in Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 4 SCC 629, therefore, respondent 11 applied for grant of prior EC on 18.04.2016 before DEIAA Allahabad which has assumed jurisdiction in view of Environment Impact Assessment Amendment Notification dated 15.01.2016 and 20.01.2016 and EC was granted vide letter dated 06.06.2016 issued by Member Secretary, DEIAA Allahabad and it is at page 1299 of the report.
379. We, therefore, find that for the period, we are considering the matter for the period which is within limitation of Tribunal, in the present matter, it cannot be said that respondent 11 had conducted mining activities without valid EC since it was issued on 06.06.2016 as per the relevant statutory provisions applicable at that time.
380. Respondent 11, however, did not have any CTO under Air Act 1981 in 2016-17 and 2017-18. First CTO under Air Act 1981, issued to respondent 11, which is on record at page 1303, is dated 20.05.2018 which is valid for the period from 30.04.2018 to 31.12.2019. Thereafter, CTO was renewed after its validity period by letter dated 29.03.2020 which is valid from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2024. Proponent thus has carried our mining activities in 2016-17 and 2017-18 without any valid CTO under 302 Aie Act 1981. Moreover, it did not possess any CTO under Water Act 1974 at all.
381. Thus, by application of principle of 'Polluter Pays', it is liable to pay environmental compensation for the entire period. Since except CTO, there is no other violation pointed out in the report, therefore, compensation has to be computed at the rate of 2.5% of sale price.
382. Production of 2016-17 is not on record but production of 2017-18 as 10391 Tonnes is evident from Third Report of Joint Committee at page
231. In the absence of any other material, we find it appropriate to have average of actual production for 2017-18 applicable to 2016-17 and environmental compensation thus is computed as under:
(A) For 2016-17 (10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017 i.e., 234 days): For 2016-17, average production be taken as 10391 tonnes, thus, the daily production would come to 28.46 tonnes/day (10391 tonnes ÷ 365 days).
The production from 10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017 for 234 days, therefore, would come to 6659.64 tonnes (28.46 MT/day × 234 days) i.e., 4162.27 m3.
Quantity - 4162.27 m3 Sale Price - Rs.496.18/m3 Environmental Compensation = 4162.27 m3 × Rs.496.18/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.51,630.87.
(B) For 2017-18: Production of 2020-21 has been mentioned as 10391 MT i.e., 6494.37 m3. Thus, environmental compensation is computed as under:
303
Quantity - 6494.37 m3 Sale Price - Rs.522.30/m3 Environmental Compensation = 6494.37 m3 × Rs. 522.30/m3 × 2.5% which comes to Rs.84800.23.
(C) For 2018-19:
Quantity - 2208 Tonnes i.e., 1380 m3 Sale Price - Rs.549.79/m3 Environmental Compensation = 1380 m3 × Rs. 549.79/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.18,967.75.
(D) For 2019-20:
Quantity -5706 Tonnes i.e., 3566.25 m3 Sale Price - Rs.578.73/m3 Environmental Compensation = 3566.25 m3 × Rs.578.73/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.51,597.39.
(E) For 2020-21:
Quantity - 2462.9 tonnes i.e., 1539.31 m3 Sale Price - Rs.609.19/m3 Environmental Compensation = 1539.31m3 × Rs.609.19/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.23,443.30.
(F) For 2021-22:
Quantity - 5049 tonnes i.e., 3155.62 m3 Sale Price - Rs.641.25/m3 Environmental Compensation = 3155.62 m3 × Rs.641.25/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.50,588.53.304
(G) For 2022-23:
The production of 2022-23 is not mentioned. Hence, production of 2021- 22 is taken for this period also.
Quantity - 5049 tonnes i.e., 3155.62 m3 Sale Price - Rs.675/m3 Environmental Compensation = 3155.62 m3 × Rs.675/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.53,251.08.
383. Thus, total environmental compensation for mining activities would come to (Rs. 51631.87+ Rs. 84800.23 + Rs.18,967.75+ Rs.51,597.39+ Rs. 23,443.30+Rs. 50589.53+ Rs. 53251.08) Rs. 3,34,279.15/- i.e., Rs.3,34,279/- (round off), which is payable by respondent 11 towards mining activities in violation of environmental laws.
384. Joint Committee in its Third Report has recommended environmental compensation of Rs. 1,55,68,466/- by taking the total production of 10391 MT for the purpose of such computation which is effectively for the period of 05 years from 2017-18 to 2021-22. Again, the same error has been committed by calculating the same amount for 05 years. We fail to understand as to how cumulative 05 year's production can be taken as a single annual production for computation of environmental compensation and again can be multiplied by 05 years and that too, at the rate of Rs.675/m3 which was the rate found in 2022-23. Thus, the above recommendation is ex-facie perverse, arbitrary and cannot be accepted.
305
385. However, in the present case, we find that respondent 11 has got EC from DEIAA Allahabad issued on 06.06.2016 pursuant to amendment notification dated 15.01.2016 whereby EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 was amended. The said amendment notification was not approved by this Tribunal vide judgment dated 13.09.2018 in OA 186/2016, Satendra Pandey vs. MoEF&CC and Tribunal directed MoEF&CC to re-consider the above provisions to bring it in consonance and accord with the directions of Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2012) 4 SCC
629.
386. In compliance of Tribunal's judgment dated 13.09.2018 in Satendra Pandey (supra), MoEF&CC issued Office Memorandum dated 12.12.2018 communicating the judgment to all the Statutory Regulators across the country and take action accordingly. In OA 474/2019, Surendra Singh vs. MoEF&CC & Ors., Tribunal vide judgment dated 14.08.2019 suspended mining activities till fresh EC is granted after appraisal by concerned SEIAA.
387. In the meantime, SEIAA UP and SEAC UP in a meeting held on 05.02.2019 decided that all mining cases of minor mineral having 0 to 5 hectares will be appraised by SEIAA UP for EC. The concerned project proponents were required to apply to SEIAA UP in Form I to process the application for grant of prior EC.
388. MoEF&CC issued an OM dated 15.12.2021 directing that in view of Tribunal's judgement in Satendra Pandey vs. MoEF&CC (supra), henceforth for all category B2 projects (other than those covered in 306 Schedule 8 of EIA 2006), the project proponent shall apply in Form 2 on Parivesh Portal along with requisite documents.
389. MoEF&CC in compliance of Tribunal's judgment in Satendra Pandey (supra) vide notification dated 20.04.2022 made amendment in EIA 2006 delegating power to grant EC to concerned SEIAA in respect of all minor minerals mining projects irrespective of mining lease area.
390. MoEF&CC further issued Office Memorandum dated 28.04.2023 clarifying that all valid ECs issued by DEIAA between 15.01.2016 to 13.09.2018 shall be appraised through SEAC/SEIAA.
391. It appears that still several ECs granted by DEIAA were not appraised by concerned SEIAA, hence, MoEF&CC issued Office Memorandum dated 28.04.2023 stating that EC granted from 15.01.2016 to 13.09.2018 will continue to be valid for one year so that in the meantime, fresh ECs may be granted by concerned SEIAA after appraisal. A clarification dated 03.11.2023 was issued by MoEF&CC that ECs granted by DEIAA which are valid as on date shall continue to be valid for one year from the date of issue of OM dated 28.04.2023 unless validity of EC granted by DEIAA has lapsed prior to 28.04.2024 or until SEIAA has invalidated EC granted by DEIAA after carrying out re-appraisal whichever is earlier. Vide OM dated 15.03.2024, MoEF&CC extended validity period of EC granted by DEIAA by six months i.e., 27.10.2024.
392. Later on, MoEF&CC issued OM dated 07.05.2024 prohibiting continuance of mining all over India under mining leases executed on the basis of ECs granted by DEIAA after 13.09.2018 with the exception in 307 respect of cases where ECs granted by DEIAA for such mining leases have been re-appraised and found valid by SEIAA or fresh ECs have been granted by SEIAA.
393. All these notifications and OMs etc. were considered by Tribunal vide judgment dated 08.08.2024 passed in OA 142/2022, Jayant Kumar vs. MoEF&CC & Ors. and it has held in para 142 of the judgment as under:
"142. Therefore, a reasonable view need to be taken in this matter. To meet the ends of justice and also to implement the environmental laws and applying the Precautionary Principle and Sustainable Development, we are of the view that mining leases continuing pursuant to ECs granted by DEIAAs upto 11.12.2018, must be appraised/re-appraised by concerned SEIAAs within three months from this judgment. Thereafter, if no decision is taken in favour of mining lease holders or no appraisal is made, the mining by lease holders who have been granted ECs by DEIAA shall not be allowed to operate. Further in all those cases where ECs have been granted by DEIAAs on and after 12.12.2018, such mining leases shall not be allowed to operate forthwith since such ECs are illegal. In such cases appraisal has to be made by concerned SEIAA and ECs are to be granted in accordance with the provisions of EIA 2006 as amended from time to time."
394. In view of the above discussions, EC granted by DEIAA cannot be availed to be justified on the basis of EC granted by DEIAA on and after 08.11.2024 i.e., after expiry of three months period of the judgment in Jayant Kumar vs. MoEF&CC (supra). Accordingly, we direct that respondent 11 shall not be allowed to continue mining operations for extraction of silica sand unless it is granted a fresh EC by SEIAA UP after appraisal of the project of respondent 11. District Magistrate, Prayagraj and Police Commissioner, Prayagraj and UPPCB shall take all necessary steps to ensure compliance of this directions. 308 Respondent 12 - Smt. Nirmal Rani Chawla, W/o Late Yogendra Chawla Niwasi - 11 Church Lane, Prayagraj (area- Sonauri Bikapur Chatahra, Gurehta) and Respondent 54 - M/s New Triveni Minerals, village- Lakhanpur, Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj
395. Individual observations in Second Report in respect of respondent 12 are at page 62 which show that at the time of inspection, it was found that weigh bridge was in the process of establishment and CCTV camera was installed but found damaged. The observations made in respect of respondent 12 in Second Report read as under:
3 ग्राम-िोनौरी, बांकीपरु , छतहरा 1. सनरीक्षण के दौरान पट्टेधारक को धर्मकाांटा घरु े हठा / श्रीमती सनमशल रानी पत्नी खनन क्षेत्र में िभी िीमा स्थापपत पकये जाने तथा स्व0 योगेन्र चावला सी०सी०टी०वी० कै र्रा स्तम्भ िंरसक्षत पाये गये तत्काल सचां ापलत पकये तथा िभी िीमा स्तम्भ जाने के पनर्देश पर्दये गये।
पर भ-ू सनदेर्ांक अंसकत सकया हुआ पाया गया।
2. स्वीकृ त खनन क्षेत्र में खनन के उपरान्त हुए गढ्ढा/सपट में जल भराव होना नहीं पाया गया।
खनन क्षेत्र का असिकार् ं सहस्िों में अभी खनन नहीं हो रहा है।
3. स्वीकृ त खनन क्षेत्र के सनकाि/प्रवेर् मागश पर िमशकांटा स्थापना का कायश हो रहा है।
4. खनन क्षेत्र में सडस््ले बोडश स्थासपत पाया गया, सजिमें खनन पट्टा िम्बन्िी िभी सववरण 309 उपलब्ि थे।
5. स्वीकृ त खनन क्षेत्र के प्रवेर् / सनकािी मागश के पाि िी०िी०टी०वी० कै मरा स्थासपत सकया गया था, जो क्षसतग्रस्त पाया गया।
6. पट्टेिारक द्वारा खनन क्षेत्र में पौिा रोपण सकया गया है।
English Translation by Tribunal:
3 Vill-Sonauri, 1. During The lessee was Bankipur, Chhathara inspection, all the directed to Ghurehtha / Mrs. boundary pillars install the Nirmal Rani W/o late in the mining weighing Yogendra Chawla area were found machine and to be preserved operate the and geo- CCTV camera coordinates were immediately.
found marked on all the boundary pillars.
2. No water was found in the pits/holes created after mining in the approved mining area. Mining is not going on in most parts of the mining area right now.
3. The work of setting up weighing 310 machines is going on at the entry/exit road of the approved mining area.
4. A display board was found installed in the mining area, in which all the details related to the mining lease were available.
5. A CCTV camera was installed near the entry/exit route of the approved mining area, which was found damaged.
6. The leaseholder has planted trees in the mining area.
396. In the Third Report, the individual facts with regard to respondent 12 have been given in the form of a chart, as under:
F Lease Smt. Nirmal Rani Chawla
Mining site Bankipur & Chhathra Silica Sand Mine
xxx...................................................xxx.............................................xxx xi. Observation • DGPS survey of Mining lease area is not done.
based on Boundary pillars are not erected properly.
mining plan
• Production, Development, Dumping,
Plantation, Reclamation & rehabilitation works are not done as per the proposals of 311 approved mining plan document. The mining operations are not being carried out in scientific & systematic manner. There is absolutely no relevance in approved proposals and actual working. Excavation is not in consonance with the 43 years of mining lease period.
• Reserve/resources are enhanced many fold without under taking exploration activities.
xii. Observation • It has been found that the peripheral fencing
based on of the excavated area has not been done so
Environmental far,
Clearance
• It has been observed that the none of mine workers wearing personal protective equipment's (PPEs) likes, safety shoes, helmets mask etc on site, • It has been observed that the miner is neither established nor conducting monitoring of the RSPM, SPM, SO2, NOx parameters at site, • It has been observed that the miner is neither established nor conducting monitoring of the ground water level and its quality parameters at site, • It has been observed that the miner is not given safety training to the employee, • It has been observed that the miner does not have OB waste management, • It has been observed that miner does not stored top soil at site, • It has been observed that the 7.5 meter safety zone planation has not been done throughout the boundary lease, • It has been observed that the PAs are using JCB etc. 312 xiii. Observation • No specific observation observed based on Consent to Operate xiv. Observation • Satellite image clearly depicted that the no based no significant mining activity noticed in lease Satellite area during 2017 to 2022, which is evidenced images on from the production data, various interval • No green belt has been developed,
397. In the light of violations noted above, Joint Committee recommended computation of environmental compensation in respect of respondent 12 giving following information:
1) Name of Mine Lease F: Smt. Nirmal Rani Chawla
2) Validity
a) Consent 1. From 30.04.2018 to 31.12.2019
2. From 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2022
3. From 01.01.2023 to 31.12.2027
b) EC Grant Date 08.07.2014
c) Mine Plan 2018-19 to 2022-23
3) Permitted Capacity
a) Consent 60,000 TPA {Silica Sand)
b) EC 60000
c) Mine Plan 60000
4) Production Details Year Permitted Actual Excess Illegal Qnty.
Quantity production quantity Production For (Tons) (Tons) Env.
Comp.
(Ton)
2017- 60,000 22098 -- 22098 22098
18
2018- 60,000 25286 -- 0 0
19
2019- 60,000 12111 -- 0 0
20
2020- 60,000 15496 -- -- --
21
2021- 60,000 23961 -- -- --
22
Total 22098 22098
313
398. In view of the above information, environmental compensation has been computed and suggested by Joint Committee in the Third Report as under:
Present Value (PV) @ 5% under Severe severity Unit Name Qnty. Qnty. Market Annual Year 01 Year 02 Year 3 Year 04 Year 05 Total (PV) Net Present For For Value Value Value Env. Env. of of (NPV) (Rs.) Comp Com Illegall Foreg (Ton) p y one (m3) mined Ecolog (Ton/ materi iacl 1.5) al @ Values Rs.67 (Rs.) 5/m3 R.F =1 Ton m3 D D * R.F D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ PV- D 1.05 1.1025 1.157625 1.215506 1.276281 25 5625 Lease E: Shri 22,098 14,73 99,44, 99,44, 94,70,5 90,19,5 85,90,08 81,81,03 77,91,46 4,30,52,74 3,31,08,649 Rajiv Kumar 2 100 100 71 92 7 6 3 9 Chawla
399. In the Fourth Report, details of respondent 12 are given at page 939 (annexure-C) as under:
S. Name of Name of Gata Area Lease Periods Geo-Coordinates No. Applicant & Area No. Adress 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 xxx...............................xxx....................................xxx A 25° 17' 58.4" 81°39' 51.6"
B 25° 17'51.6" 81°40' 12.5"
C 25° 17' 50.66" 81°40′ 12.30"
D 25° 17 50.72" 81°40' 11.49"
1, 12,13,14,
Smt. Nirmal Rani E 25° 17'48.1" 81°40′ 12.0"
Sonauri 26, 31, 33,
W/o Late
and 35, 49, 62, 28-11-2008
Yogendra F 25° 17' 38.1" 81° 40' 17.9"
3. Bankipur, 65, 66, 67, 48.86 Ha. to
Chawla Niwasi -
Chatehra 77, 245, 27-11-2008
11 Churh Lane, G 25° 17' 27.19" 81°40' 11.77"
Gurehata, 246, 247,
Prayagraj
253, 256,
263 H 25° 17' 25.5" 81° 40'8.0"
I 25° 17' 29.9" 81°39'59.9"
J 25° 17' 37.6" 81° 39' 57.2"
K 25° 17' 39.4" 81° 38' 53.4"
314
L 25° 17' 51.3" 81° 39' 55.8"
M 25° 17' 54.5" 81° 39' 50.1"
400. The production of silica sand in the last 05 years is given in table 2 in respect of respondent 12 as under:
Table-2 Name of 2018- 2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- Remarks Mine 2019 20 21 22 23 Bankipur 21544 12111 15496 23961 26178 Active
401. In annexure-D of Fourth Report, it is said that the current status of mining lease of respondent 12 is that it can operate till 27.11.2028 with the production capacity of 60000 MT and lease area is 48.86 hectares.
Objections dated 18.01.2024 filed by respondent 12 vide e-mail dated 11.03.2024 to Joint Committee Report dated 23.02.2023 (p/1315):
402. A preliminary objection with regard to constitution of Joint Committee who has submitted report has been raised. It is said that the Committee was not the one which was constituted by Tribunal and the report is neither reliable nor valid.
403. On merits, it is said that proponent-respondent 12 operated silica sand mine under the renewed lease granted for 20 years. For second renewal, it submitted application on 11.09.2013 which was accepted by letter dated 08.07.2014 for renewal of mining lease for 20 years from 28.11.2008. The renewal lease deed was executed on 11.08.2014.
Proponent was granted EC by SEIAA UP on 08.07.2014 for carrying out mining activities at Arazi No. 01, 12 to 24, 26 to 31, 33, 35 to 49, 62, 65, 315 66, 67 and 77 at village Sonauri and Bankipur, Tehsil Bara, District Prayagraj and Arazi no. 245, 246, 247, 253, 256 to 23 at village Chatehra Gurehata, Tehsil Bara, District Prayagraj on an area of 48.86 hectares.
404. Copy of EC dated 08.07.2014 at page 1348 shows that the production capacity allowed was 60000 TPA. Clause no. 8 says that mining will be carried out by bench formation and height and width of the benches is also mentioned as under:
"8- Mining will be carried out by bench formation of benches. The height and width of bench in mineral will be 2.25 m and 3 m respectively. The slope of pit will be kept 45 °."
405. Clause no. 9 talks of scrapping and storing of top soil and reads as under:
"9- Topsoil is scrapped and stored separately to be used for plantation or reclamation after back filling."
406. Mining plan refers in EC along with progressive mining closure plan is that which was approved by IBM vide letter dated 18.04.2011.
407. The above proposed conditions were considered to grant EC with certain general and specific conditions whereof condition no. 9 with regard to top soil was mentioned as one of the specific conditions. For disposal of over-burden, specific condition no. 10 said that it shall be disposed of at the earmarked site in accordance with approved mining plan. It is also said that CTO shall be obtained from UPPCB prior to start of enhanced production of mines. Mining plan in villages Sonauri and Bankipur, and Chatehra Gurehata on an area of 48.86 hectares was approved by 316 concerned authority i.e., Director, Geology and Mining, UP, Lucknow on 24.07.2015. Later on, a fresh mining plan was approved by the concerned authority on 10.01.2020. Proponent obtained CTO under Air Act, 1981 and Water Act, 1974 on 20.05.2018 which was for the period from 30.04.2018 to 31.12.2019. CTO was renewed on 29.03.2020 for the period from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2022. Then, a Consolidated Consent under Air Act, 1981 and Water Act, 1974 was issued on 15.01.2023 for the period from 01.01.2023 to 31.12.2027. Proponent has carried out mining activities in compliance of environmental laws and no complaint has ever been made against him for violation of any environmental law. Report referring to the mining conducted in 2017-18 as illegal is incorrect and absence of CTO is a mere irregularity and not illegality. The quantity of alleged illegal mined mineral is also incorrect. Plantation has been carried out around the mining area but due to area being rocky and sandy, most plants did not survive. Requirement of Differential Global Positioning System is applicable for major minerals and not Silica sand which is a minor mineral. Proponent has further said that it carried out peripheral fencing of excavated area; provided protective gears to workers for their safety and also safety training; the monitoring of emission has been carried out regularly and six monthly reports were sent to UPPCB; mining activities were kept under ground water level; top soil was stored at designated area; over-burdened waste was also placed at the designated site; no use of heavy machines like JCB; depth of mines kept as per EC conditions; JCB was used only for loading of mined mineral and not mining; no mining was conducted outside the lease area; CTO has been issued for Silica Sand mining; and, there is no extraction or sale of more 317 than one mineral. Proponent is not concerned in respect of alleged unscientific mining in other or abandoned areas and no deep pit has been made by unscientific mining by the deponent. Unorganised illegal mining conducted in the lease area of 46 villages of Rani Rajender Kumar Ba has nothing to do with the proponent.
408. Proponent has further said that it is operating a washing plant under the title 'M/s. New Triveni Minerals Lakhanpur, Tehsil Bara, District- Prayagraj' for silica sand washing. Production capacity of washing plant is 1500 tonnes per month and the same is being operated in due compliance of respective Statutes pertaining to environment. CTO obtained for washing plant is valid for the period of 26.03.2021 to 31.03.2024. No specific non-compliance has been found in respect to the said washing plant.
409. Referring to the FIRs, it is said that the same have nothing to do with the proponent and no report has been lodged against the proponent with regard to alleged illegal mining.
410. Disputing environmental compensation recommended in the Third Report, proponent has said that there was no illegal mining in 2017-18 and the rate applied by Joint Committee i.e., Rs.675/m3 is also highly imaginative and three and half times of the actual market value. There is no evidence to support the market value/market rate applied by Joint Committee for computation of environmental compensation; no damage to environment has been found hence environmental compensation cannot be imposed in view the law laid down in Deepak Nitrite Ltd. vs. State of 318 Gujarat, (2004) 6 SCC 402; Joint Committee has not given any consideration to the expenses incurred by proponent in mining activities, payment of royalty taxes etc. while computing environmental compensation at the market rate of Rs.675/m3 and compensation determined is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Washing plant of proponent is outside the mining lease and for extraction of ground water, NOC was issued by UPGWD valid for the period from 08.06.2022 to 07.06.2027 which is on record ate page 1381. The document shows that the date of construction/sinking of well is 01.12.2019 and date of energisation has not been mentioned. The application for grant of NOC was submitted on 10.04.2022.
Additional Reply dated March 2024 submitted by respondent 12 vide e-mail dated 17.03.2024 (p/1710):
411. Additional reply is in respect of Joint Committee Report dated 17.01.2024 i.e., Fourth Report. It is said that observations made in Joint Committee Report are vague in as much as on the one hand it has reiterated the earlier report dated 23.02.2023 and proceeded to make vague observations in respect of mining lease holders that they are not complying in totality with proposals as envisaged in Approved Mining Plan and on the other hand no specific instance of violations have been pointed out. Proponent has developed green belt in safety zone and mining is being carried out in a scientific manner as per approved mining plan. Technical persons have been deployed to ensure systematic and scientific mining of silica. Last 05 years production from 2018-19 to 2022-23 has been given by proponent in its mining lease at village Bankipur as under:319
Mine 2018-2019 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 Bankipur 21544 12111 15496 23961 26178
412. It is said that the proposed compensation deserves to be rejected.
Earlier objections filed by proponent is reiterated. It is also said that lease area of proponent is surrounded by expired mining leases and therefore, whatever has transpired in those leases cannot be applied or taken note for forming an opinion or recording observations against the proponent. In respect of washing plant, it is said that CTO was issued on 26.03.2021 valid for the period from 26.03.2021 to 31.03.2024 for washing of 1500 tonnes per month silica sand. Washing plant of proponent is at serial no. 22, annexure-E to the Fourth Report.
413. The facts noticed above show that initially respondent 12 had a mining lease in different Arazi nos. at village Sonauri, Bankipur and Chhathara Ghurehtha, Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj with total lease area 48.86 hectares for a period of 20 years which expired in 2008. Thereafter, vide lease deed dated 11.08.2014 lease was renewed for further 20 years w.e.f. 28.11.2008. Respondent 12 obtained EC from SEIAA UP on 08.07.2014 for carrying out mining activities in mining area of 48.86 hectares spread in villages Sonauri, Bankipur and Chhathara Ghurehtha. The production capacity allowed to respondent 12 was 60000 TPA i.e., 37500 cubic meters. The mining plan was already approved by IBM vide letter dated 18.04.2011. However, CTO for mining activities was obtained by respondent 12 only on 20.05.2018 which was for the period from 30.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 and renewed vide letter dated 29.03.2020 for the period from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2022 and then a consolidated CTO 320 was issued on 15.01.2023 valid for the period from 01.01.2023 to 31.12.2027. There is no denial on the part of respondent 12 that it had carried out mining activities prior to 30.04.2018 and therefore, we are clearly of the view that it has carried out mining activities without any CTO in the period 2016-17 (10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017), 2017-18 and 2018-19 (01.04.2018 to 29.04.2018).
414. It is also evident from record and also admission of respondent that green belt has not been maintained and plantation has not been carried out hence, conditions of EC have also been violated. With regard to use of heavy machines, it is said that JCB was used not for mining but for loading of mined mineral. However, it is not supported by any material and once use of JCB machines is admitted, we find no justification but to draw an inference that in this regard also, conditions of EC have been violated. In view thereof, since besides absence of CTO, there are other violations also, therefore, environmental compensation is payable by respondent 12 at the rate of 3% of the sale price.
415. With regard to washing plant also, we find that CTO was available to respondent 12/54 from 26.03.2021 and extraction for ground water was validated by issuing NOC by UP Ground Water Authority only on 08.06.2022, therefore, even extraction of ground water in the period from 2016-17 to 2021-22 was without valid consent/permission and liable for application of principle of 'Polluter Pays' and for this purpose, the proponents are liable to pay environmental compensation.
416. We accordingly, compute environmental compensation as under: 321
For Mining Activities:
(A) 2016-17 (10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017 i.e., 234 days):
417. The production of the period prior to 2016-17 is not on record. We therefore, find it appropriate to compute environmental compensation by taking the production in the succeeding year since permitted production remains the same i.e., 60000 TPA.
418. Production of 2017-18 has been mentioned as 21544 MT. Thus, the daily production would come to 59.02 MT/day (21544 MT ÷ 365 days). The production from 10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017 for 234 days, therefore, would come to 13810.68 MT (59.02 MT × 234 days).
Quantity - 13810.68 MT i.e., 8631.67 m3 Sale Price - Rs.496.18/m3 Environmental Compensation = 8631.67 m3 × Rs.496.18/m3 × 3% = Rs.1,28,485.86.
(B) For 2017-18:
Quantity - 21544 MT i.e., 13465 m3 Sale Price - Rs.522.30/m3 Environmental Compensation = 13465 m3/day × Rs. 522.30/m3 × 3% = Rs.2,10,983.08.
(C) For 2018-19 (01.04.2018 to 29.04.2018 i.e., for 29 days):
Production of 2018-19 has also been mentioned as 21544 MT. Thus, daily production would come to 59.02 MT/day (21544 MT ÷ 365 days). The production from 01.04.2018 to 29.04.2018 (29 days), therefore, would come to 1711.58 MT (59.02 MT × 29 days).322
Quantity - 1711.58 MT i.e., 1069.73 m3 Sale Price - Rs.549.79/m3 Environmental Compensation = 1069.73 m3 × Rs. 549.79/m3 × 3% = Rs.17,643.80.
419. Thus, for mining operations, respondent 12/54 is liable to pay environmental compensation of (Rs.1,28,485.86+ Rs.2,10,983.08+ Rs.17,643.80) Rs. 3,57,112.74 i.e., Rs. 3,57,112/- For Washing Plants of Respondent 54/12:
420. There was no CTO and NOC for extraction of ground water. Therefore, compensation is computable at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per annum as already held. For 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, and 2021-22 respondent 54/12 is liable to pay Rs. 3 lakhs as environmental compensation.
421. Therefore, total environmental compensation of Rs.6,57,112/- (Rs.3,57,112 + Rs.3,00,000) is to be paid by Respondent 54/12. Respondents 13 and 46 - Ashok Kumar Bajpai, S/o D.N. Bajpai:
422. In the first Joint Committee Report dated 13.12.2021, various observations have been made as already said in respect to mining leases but there is no reference to any mining lease in particular with regard to alleged violations, hence it is difficult to discern as to what violations, if any, can be said to have been committed by respondent 13.
423. In the Second Report dated 17.05.2022, it is said that average depth in the mining area was found one to three meters hence benching is not 323 required; other observations were in favour of proponent i.e., respondent 13 and did not show any violations. The observations made in Report are reproduced as under:
6 ग्राम- 1. सनरीक्षण के दौरान खनन क्षेत्र में िभी िीमा स्तम्भ िरं सक्षत परू ाबल्द/ू श्री पाये गये तथा िभी िीमा स्तम्भ पर भ-ू सनदेर्ांक अंसकत अर्ोक कुमार सकया हुआ पाया गया।
बाजपेयी
2. स्वीकृ त खनन क्षेत्र में खनन के उपरान्त हुए गड्ढा/सपट में जल भराव नहीं पाया गया। खनन क्षेत्र की गहराई असिकांर् स्थानों पर औितन 1-3 मीटर की पायी गयी, जो अभी अपने न्यनू तम स्तर पर है सजिमें बेंच बनाने की आवश्यकता नहीं है।
3. स्वीकृ त खनन क्षेत्र के सनकाि / प्रवेर् मागश पर िमशकांटा स्थासपत पाया गया। िमशकांटा पर जााँच के िमय सनकािी की गयी उपखसनज की मात्रा का लेखा-जोखा का रसजस्टर मौजदू होना पाया गया।
4. खनन क्षेत्र में खनन के िमय सनकाले गये टॉप स्वायल व्यवसस्थत पाया गया तथा कुछ क्षेत्र में ररक्लेमेर्न / ररस्टोरे र्न का कायश सकया जाना पाया गया।
5. खनन क्षेत्र में दो स्थानों पर सडस््ले बोडश स्थासपत पाया गया, सजिमें खनन पट्टा िम्बन्िी िभी सववरण उपलब्ि थे।
6. स्वीकृ त खनन क्षेत्र के प्रवेर्/सनकािी मागश के पाि िी०िी०टी०वी० कै मरा स्थासपत व िच ं ासलत होना पाया गया।
7. पट्टािारक द्वारा खनन क्षेत्र में पौिा रोपण सकया जाना पाया गया है।
English Translation by Tribunal:
6 Vill-Purabaldu / 1. During inspection, all the Shri Ashok Kumar boundary pillars in the mining 324 Bajpai area were found to be preserved and geo-coordinates were found marked on all the boundary pillars.
2. No water was found in the pit/hole created after mining in the approved mining area. The depth of the mining area was found to be 1-3 meters on an average at most places, which is still at its minimum level, due to which there is no need to make benches.
3. Weighbridge was found installed at the exit/entry of the approved mining area. At the time of checking at the weighbridge, the register of accounting of the quantity of sub-mineral extracted was found to be present.
4. The top soil removed during mining was found to be in proper condition in the mining area and reclamation/restoration work was found to be carried out in some areas.
5. Display boards were found installed at two places in the mining area, in which all the details related to the mining lease were available.
6. CCTV cameras were found to be installed and operational near the entry/exit route of the approved mining area.
7. The leaseholder has planted trees in the mining area.325
424. Details of quantity of mineral transported, based on form MM-11, in the months October 2021 to February 2022, in respect of respondent 13, is given as under:
पट्टाधारक का नाम माह कुल प्रेवर्ि
अतटूबर नवींबर ददसींबर िनवर फरवर मात्रा
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
श्री अर्ोक कुमार 10500 9000 8500 5500 9500 43000
बाजपेयी
425. In the Third Report, it is said that the total mining areas of respondent 13 is 29.80 hectares and sanctioned production capacity is 3 lakhs TPA. The observations in respect of mining plan, EC, CTO and Satellite images of various intervals are at page 237, as under:
G Lease Shri Ashok Kumar Bajpai:
Mining site PuraBaldu Silica Sand Mine
xxx...................................................xxx.............................................xxx xi Observation • DGPS survey of Mining lease area is not done.
based on Boundary pillars are not erected properly.
mining plan
• Production, Development, Dumping,
Plantation, Reclamation & rehabilitation works are not done as per the proposals of approved mining plan document. The mining operations are not being carried out in scientific & systematic manner. There is absolutely no relevance in approved proposals and actual working. Excavation is not in consonance with the 43 years of mining lease period.
326 • Reserve /resources are enhanced many fold without undertaking exploration activities xii Observation • It has been found that the lease setup washing based on plant within the lease area, which is not Environmental permitted as per EC specific condition no. 1 Clearance and 11.
• It has been found that the peripheral fencing of the excavated area has not been done so far, • It has been observed that the none of mine workers wearing personal protective equipment's (PPEs) likes, safety shoes, helmets mask etc on site, • It has been observed that the miner is neither established nor conducting monitoring of the RSPM, SPM, SO2, NOx parameters at site, • It has been observed that the miner is neither established nor conducting monitoring of the ground water level and its quality parameters at site, • It has been observed that the miner is not given safety training to the employee, • It has been observed that the miner does not have OB waste management, • It has been observed that miner does not stored top soil at site, • It has been observed that the 7.5 meter safety zone planation has not been done throughout the boundary lease, • It has been observed that the PAs are using JCB etc. 327 xiii. Observation • It is important to note here that the above lease based on CTO is for silica sand, whereas, the CTO has been granted for the sand and morrum, • Operated mining without valid CTO during 2016 to 2022, xiv. Observation • Satellite image clearly depicted that the lease based no conducted - significant mining during 2016 to Satellite 2019, images on various • Washing plant is also evidenced in above interval lease image of 2022, • Significant mining has been observed during after 2019, • Significant mining has been observed outside of the lease area, • No green belt has been developed
426. The Report also mentions the quantity of production since 2015- 2016 till 2020-2021 as under:
Year Proposal Achieved Deviation Remarks (Tons) (Tons) (%) 2015-16 300000 5836 -98% Data are procured 2016-17 300000 45393 -85% from approved 2017-18 300000 214642 -28% Scheme of mining 2018-19 300000 259950 -13% approved vide 2019-20 300000 182314 -39% letter no.
2020-21 0 97320 NA 2021/6/9/69995
Dtd.14.06.2021.
2021-22 300000 Production data
2022-23 300000 are yet to be
provided By OMO
Office
328
427. Report also shows that the lease validity period after second renewal is up to 22.02.2032. CTO was granted under Air Act, 1981 and Water Act, 1974 on 14.09.2022 valid from 14.09.2022 to 31.12.2023.
428. In the light of the violations noted above, Joint Committee recommended computation of environmental compensation in respect of respondent 13 giving following information:
1) Name of Mine Lease G: Shri Ashok Kumar Bajpai
2) Validity
a) Consent From 14.09.2022 to 31.12.2023
b) EC Grant Date 05.08.2015
c) Mine Plan From 2021-22 to 2024-25
3) Permitted Capacity
a) Consent 3,00,000 TPA (for sand/morrum)
b) EC 300000
c) Mine Plan 300000
4) Production Details Year Permitted Actual Excess Illegal Qnty.
Quantity production quantity Production For Env.
(Tons) (Tons) Comp.
(Ton)
2017- 300000 214642 -- 214642 214642
18
2018- 300000 259950 -- 259950 259950
19
2019- 300000 182314 -- 182314 182314
20
2020- 300000 97320 -- 97320 97320
21
2021- 300000 --
22
Total 75,4226 75,4226
429. Environmental compensation in the light of above information has been computed/suggested by Joint Committee in Third Report as under:
Present Value (PV) @ 5% under Severe severity Unit Name Qnty. Qnty. Market Annual Year 01 Year 02 Year 3 Year 04 Year 05 Total (PV) Net Present For For Value Value Value Env. Env. of of (NPV) (Rs.) Comp Com Illegall Foreg (Ton) p y one 329 (m3) mined Ecolog (Ton/ materi iacl 1.5) al @ Values Rs.67 (Rs.) 5/m3 R.F =1 Ton m3 D D * R.F D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ PV- D 1.05 1.1025 1.157625 1.215506 1.276281 25 5625 Lease G: 7,54,2 5,02, 33,94, 33,94, 32,32,3 30,78,4 29,31,87, 27,92,26, 26,59,30, 1,46,94,31 1,13,00,30, Shri Ashok 26 817 01, 01, 9, 714 7,347 949 619 113 ,742 042 Kumar 700 700 Bajpai:
430. In the Fourth Report dated 17.01.2024, details of respondent 13 are given at page 940 (annexure-C) as under:
"Silica Sand Mines in District Prayagraj S. Name of Name of Gata No. Area Lease Periods Geo-Coordinates No. Applicant & Area Adress 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Shri Ashok Pura Baldu 630 29.80 Ha 23.02.2012 A 25014'40.9"81035'27.6"
B 25014'37.3" 81035'50.0"
Kumar Bhaag, to
C 25014'35.2" 81035'50.0"
Vajpaye S/o D 631 22.02.2032
D 25014'32.4" 81035'35.8"
N Vajpaye Bhaag, E 25014'20.4" 81035'33.3"
Viwasi-109 633 Bhaag F 25 14'14.1"
0
81035'24.3"
Parerhot, to 638 G 25014'21.4" 81035'14.7"
Rambag, Bhaag,
Prayagraj 639, 640,
641
Bhaag,
642
Bhaag,
643, 644
Bhaag
431. Production of Silica Sand in the last five years, given in table-2 (at page 912) in respect of respondent 13, is as under:
Table-2 Name of Mine 2018- 2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- Remarks 2019 20 21 22 23 PureBaldu 82700 79277 54810 86940 171350 Active (Ashok B) 330 Objections dated 17.01.2024 filed by respondent 13 (Shri Ashok Kumar Bajpai) to Joint Committee Report dated 23.02.2023:
432. A preliminary objection has been raised with regard to composition of members of the Committee who actually submitted Report dated 23.02.2023, stating that it comprised the officials much lower in the rank than those who were appointed by Tribunal, therefore, said Report cannot be treated to be a valid Report. It is further said that no specific date and time is mentioned when inspection of mines and washing plants of respondent 13 was conducted and no prior information of visit was given to enable him to remain present at the time of inspection. Proponent denied of any inspection carried out of his mines or washing plants by the members of Joint Committee. Further, it is said that observations of Joint Committee are general and lack specific details. Report does not say that respondent 13 is operating in violation of any statutory provision and the general observations are denied. Respondent 13 is conducting its mining activities strictly in the area leased out. Washing plant is situated outside mining area. Reliance is placed on the earlier Report dated 17.05.2022 by Joint Committee of Divisional Commissioner, Allahabad, where, in respect of respondent 13, Report said as under:
"i At the time of inspection all the boundary pillars were found to be in position in the mining area and on all the pillars the geo cordinates were found mentioned.
ii. No water logging found in the pits created pursuant to mining.
iii. The depth of the mining pits was found at most of the places to be between 1-3 meters hence there was no need of any creating benches.
iv. On the entry and exit point of the sanctioned mining area the weighing bridge was found installed. At the time of inspection 331 it was found that the register entering the details of the quantity exited was maintained.
v. It was found that the top soil removed during the mining process from the mining area was stored systematically and in some area the work of restoration and reclaimation was being done.
vi. In the mining area at two places display board was found installed wherein all the details pertaining to mining lease was given.
vii. Plantation was found done in the mining area and the CCTV was found installed at the entry and exit of the sanctioned mining area."
433. Requirement of Differential Global Positioning System (hereinafter referred to as 'DGPS') was not a condition specified in EC hence its absence cannot be taken to a violation of conditions of EC. The boundary pillars were erected jointly by the representatives of proponent and surveyor of department and plantation has also been carried out in the area. It is said that since the area is dry and rocky, mostly plants do not survive still as far as possible project proponent has got the plantation done. Proponent has CTO for Silica sand mining lease valid upto 31.12.2026. Since there was no enhancement of production hence no fresh EC was obtained in view of specific condition no. 32 of EC. When proponent came to know that CTO for mining as well as washing plant has to be obtained separately, it applied by submitting requisite fee on 03.09.2022 and a post-facto CTO has been issued vide letter dated 14.09.2022 by UPPCB which is valid upto 31.12.2026. Joint Committee's observation that CTO was obtained after inspection is incorrect since it was already granted on 14.09.2022. Proponent has placed on record copy 332 of EC dated 05.08.2015 as annexure R-3 at page 1000 of the paper book which shows that for a period of 20 years, mining lease on a leased area of 29.80 hectares was granted for a period of 20 years i.e., from 23.02.1972 to 22.02.1992. Lease was renewed for a further period of 20 years from 23.02.1992 to 22.02.2012 and further renewal was granted for a period of 20 years i.e., from 23.02.2012 to 22.02.2032. EC proposal was recommended by SEAC UP vide recommendation dated 02.06.2015 which was considered by SEIAA UP in the meeting dated 09.07.2015 and they decided to grant EC which was issued on 05.08.2015. Specific condition no. 11 clearly says that washing of Silica sand shall not be permitted under the said EC and no washing is to be done at the site. Specific condition no. 8 also requires project proponent to obtain CTE from UPPCB and effectively implement all the conditions stipulated therein. EC also says that all the conditions shall be enforced inter-alia under the provisions of Water Act 1974, Air Act 1981, EP Act 1986 and Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 along with the amendments and rules made thereunder. Copy of CTO has also been placed as annexure R-5 at page 1006 of the paper book which is dated 14.09.2022, issued as a Consolidated CTO and Authorization under Section 25 of Water Act, 1974 and Section 21 of Air Act, 1981 for the period from 14.09.2022 to 31.12.2026. The details of the products are given in para 1 of CTO as under:
S No. Product Quantity Unit
1 Sand/morrum in 300000 Metric Tonnes/Year
MT/Year
434. Specific condition no. 5 of CTO says that the unit shall not withdraw ground water for any industrial activity without obtaining necessary 333 permission from CGWA. Reliance is placed on Supreme Court's judgment dated 09.12.2021 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 7576-7577 of 2021, Electrosteel Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2023) 6 SCC 615, dated 25.03.2022 passed in M/s. Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dastak NGO, Civil Appeal No. 4795/2021, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 362 and dated 22.09.2022 passed in D. Swamy vs. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Civil Appeal No. 3132 of 2018, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1278 on the issue that ex-post facto clearance or approval can be granted and there is nothing under EP Act, 1986 which prohibits grant of ex-post facto approval. Joint Committee's observation that CTO is for sand/morrum, is misleading in as much as a complete reading of CTO clearly shows that it is for mining of Silica sand as is evident from specific condition no. 1. Proponent has not kept any record of several decades earlier with regard to production as there was no requirement in law for such maintenance of particulars. Moreover, most of the time, there was no mining activities at the mining lease area of proponent. With regard to safety measures, it is said that the proponent has supplied safety gears and equipment to the workers in mines and the observations otherwise are incorrect. All the workers are well trained in their job of Silica sand mining. The mining was conducted within the prescribed parameters and depth. Over burden has been managed and removed properly and bald allegations made by Joint Committee are denied. Proponent has provided a separate designated space for storage of top soil and the same is used to restore the pits after mining. Otherwise observations are incorrect. Proponent is conducting operations strictly in accordance with statutory provisions and there is no violation. Proponent is engaged in organized and systematic mining, 334 invested huge amount of funds, generated large scale employment to local people, paying huge revenue to Government and there is no illegality on its part. There is some unorganized mining by some local people who are engaged in such activities for the last several decades on mere approval from Rani Kumari Ba who has a very huge mining area under her authority.
435. In respect of washing plants also, proponent has Consolidated CTO dated 08.07.2022 valid up to 31.03.2027. Proponent is operating two washing plants; one at Pure Baldu and another at Bargarhi for which separate CTOs have been issued on 08.07.2022 (annexure R-7 at page 1013 and annexure R-8 at page 1018 of the paper book). The washing plants are located outside the mining area and proponent is using natural source of water. There is no extraction of ground water by proponent. Since there was no illegality committed by proponent, no FIR was lodged against him nor any mined Silica sand has ever been ceased. It is in respect of some local violators with which proponent has no concern. The objection on the computation of environmental compensation has been raised in detail in para 35 which we find it appropriate to reproduce as under:
"(i) The joint committee has made an assessment for environment damage based on a mechanical formula only considering that mining is illegal for the reason of absence of CTO. The committee has failed to consider that by letter dated 28.03.2023 the RO, UPPCB himself informed the project proponent that the Board has approved his application for CTO with fee for commencement and renewal for 13 years. Hence, a post facto CTO has been allowed to the project proponent. Thus, there is no illegal production by him. (preceeding paragraphs of the reply are reiterated).335
(ii) It is also not out of place to submit that the quantity of mined material as shown in the chart in column 'x' is not admitted by the Answering Respondent- Project Proponent. The data for the mining was not obtained by the committee from the Answering Respondent- Project Proponent and no source of data has been stated, as mining plan does not provide the actual mining data but provides for approved mining limit.
(iii) Further, the calculation by the joint committee is mechanical only.
The committee has not come up with any evidence or any substance in its report showing any actual environmental damage. Merely, failure of the project proponent to have CTO does not ipso facto means damage to the environment. Unless such damage is done and compensation is determination no strait jacket formula can be applied to impose EC upon the project proponent.
(iv) In case of Deepak Nitrite Ltd. v. State of Gujarat reported in 2004 (6) SCC 402 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "There has to be a finding that there has been degradation of environment or any damage caused to any of the victims by the activities of industrial units and then certainly damages have to be paid. Court remanded the matter to High Court to examine the aspect of damage to environment and/the people, as the case may be, and thereafter, to decide appropriate compensation to be awarded."
(v) However, in subsequent decision in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2004) 12 SCC 118 this Court considered the aforesaid judgement in case of Deepak Nitrite and held that the decision in the Deepak Nitrite cannot be said to have laid down a proposition that in the absence of actual damage to environment by the offending activities, payment for repair on the application of 'polluter pays' principle cannot be ordered.
(vi) Therefore, natural corollary that flows is that in absence of any actual damage to the environment an environment compensation equal to the repair of the damage cannot be levied.
(vii) Even by no stretch of imagination the formula applied by the joint committee is acceptable. The total market value of the alleged illegally mined mineral is itself calculated by the joint committee to be Rs. 33.94 cr. On the said market value the expenses for mining, CSR, CER, royalty, taxes etc. is also paid by the project proponent thus leaving with him hardly some 336 percentage of revenue. But the joint committee determined compensation for a sum of Rs. 113 cr. which is almost 3.5 times the market value of the alleged illegally mined mineral. Even the market value determined at Rs. 675/m3 is not admitted. This itself shows the mechanical approach of the joint committee in recommending the EC.
(viii) Project Proponent is engaged in activity of wherein it has directly and indirectly employed a sufficient number of skilled and unskilled labours. Project proponent is also paying a huge amount of royalty to the government for the mined silica sand. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO has held against shutting done a commercial unit employing large no. of workers, only for the reason of ex post facto environmental approvals/ consents/ clearance. Though in present case the EC was present but imposing of penalty as recommended by the representative of the CPCB due to non- availability of valid CTO would force the answering Respondent to shut down the entire project causing huge loss of employment, income and revenue to the state and all the stake holders. (IX) It may not be out of place to submit that the joint committee again failed to appreciate that the menace of illegal mining is not from the lease holders who are engaged in organised mining activity. The EC determination against the Project Proponent shows that he is being held responsible for an irregularity of absence of a document, i.e. CTO and an EC of 3.5 times of the market value of mined mineral is recommended. However, in the Annexure K the joint committee itself mentioned illegal mineral seizure of 1527.2 m3. The illegal miners of that mineral were not imposed any such compensation as they were not found tough they did not even have any mining lease, EC, CTO etc. but they loose only the mined mineral of 1527.2 m3 as against the Project proponent who are recommended for EC of 3.5 times the market value of mineral only for an irregularity. Hence, the EC determined by the joint committee is clearly arbitrary and illegal."
436. From the facts discussed above, it is evident that respondent 13 was granted mining lease for the period of 20 years from 23.02.1972 to 22.02.1992 on leased area of 29.80 hectares at various arazi comprising Purabaldu silica sand mining at village Janwa, Tehsil Bara, District- 337 Prayagraj. The first renewal/lease was granted for the period up to 22.02.2012 and further renewal has been granted for 20 years up to 22.02.2032. Proponent obtained EC vide letter dated 05.08.2015 issued by SEIAA UP permitting 3 lacs MT/annum extraction of silica sand. The specific condition no. 11 made it clear that EC was not for washing of silica sand and in the mining area, no washing shall be allowed.
437. Proponent was required to obtained consent from UPPCB as per specific condition no. 8. Record show that consent was obtained by proponent only on 14.09.2022 vide annexure 5 (page/1006) for carrying out mining activities of silica sand.
438. It has been pleaded on behalf of proponent that CTO may relate back in as much as ex-post-facto approval can also be granted and for this purpose, reliance is placed on Supreme Court's judgment in Electrosteel Ltd. vs. Union of India (supra), M/s Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dastak NGO (supra) and D. Swamy vs. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (supra).
439. In our view, the judgments have no application to the issue in question since it is not a case where CTO has been granted retrospectively and, therefore, for the period on and after the grant of CTO, the activities may not be invalidated for want of CTO but for prior period when there was no CTO, the activities carried out by proponent were invalid and contrary to law. In view thereof, we are clearly of the view that mining activities carried out by proponent till CTO was granted on 14.09.2022 338 were not valid and proponent is liable to pay environmental compensation by application of principle of 'Polluter Pays' for past violations.
440. It has been pleaded that mere presence of CTO does not mean damage to environment but the submission ignores the fact that whenever the natural condition of an area is disturbed by extraction of mineral, it is bound to change the ecology and environment and causes damage to the natural environment. The mining activities per se changes natural assets and ecology, therefore, do constitute damage to environment. In case of silica sand, even the question of replenishment does not arise hence there is damage to environment by taking away natural assets in the form of mineral which cannot be replenished. These activities within the bound of law, subject to compliance of various environmental laws are allowed keeping in view the principle of 'sustainable development'.
441. Since no other violations have been pointed out in the reports, in view of the discussions made above in respect to other proponents, environmental compensation is liable to be computed at the rate of 2.5% of the sale price.
442. We may also notice at this stage that computation of environmental compensation by Joint Committee in its Third Report is ex-facie arbitrary and there is glaring errors therein in much as for 05 years i.e., 2017-18 to 2021-22, it has been observed that there was a total illegal production of 754226 MT of silica sand and thereafter, the entire production has been taken to compute environmental compensation of one year by multiplying it with the sale price of Rs. 675/m3 which was rate found in 2023 by Joint 339 Committee in its Third Report. Again, the same quantity of 05 years has been multiplied for 05 years and thereafter, highly excessive net present value has been computed which is not based on any valid principle applicable for computation of environmental compensation and clearly illegal and erroneous hence cannot be accepted.
443. If we compute environmental compensation commencing from 10.08.2016 to 13.09.2022 when CTO was issued, the production shown in Third Committee Report during the period from 2017-18 to 2021-22 would have served the requisite information but here also, we find that the figures of actual production shown in Third Report do not tally with 05 year's production given in the Fourth Report at page 912 which are for the period of 2018-19 to 2022-23 and the corresponding period figures production given in Third Report are clearly different.
444. Learned Counsel for UPPCB has pointed out that Fourth Report has verified the figures on the basis of e-form 11 issued to proponent and therefore we find it justified to rely on the figures of production mentioned in the Fourth Report at page 912 for the period 2018-19 to 2022-23 and for the earlier period 2017-18 and 2016-17, we find it appropriate to compute the actual production taking average of the production of 2018-
19.
445. Thus, computation of environmental compensation would be as under:
(A) 2016-17 (10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017 i.e., for 234 days): Production of 2018-19 is mentioned as 82700 MT i.e., 51687 m3, the daily production 340 would come to 141.60 m3/day (51687 m3 ÷ 365 days). The production from 10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017 (234 days), therefore, would come to 33134.4 m3 (141.60 m3/day × 234 days).
Quantity - 33134.4 m3 Sale Price - Rs.496.18/m3 Environmental Compensation = 33134.4 m3 × Rs. 496.18/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.4,11,015.66.
(B) For 2017-18:
Quantity - 82700 MT i.e., 51687 m3 Sale Price - Rs.522.30/m3 Environmental Compensation = 51687 m3/day × Rs. 522.30/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.6,74,909.
(C) For 2018-19:
Quantity - 82700 MT i.e., 51687 m3 Sale Price - Rs.549.79/m3 Environmental Compensation = 51687 m3 × Rs. 549.79/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.7,10,424.89.
(D) For 2019-20: Production of 2019-20 is mentioned as 79277 MT i.e., 49548.12 m3. Thus, environmental compensation is computed as under:
Quantity - 49548.12 m3 Sale Price - Rs.578.73/m3 Environmental Compensation = 49548.12 m3 × Rs.578.73/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.7,16,874.58.341
(E) For 2020-21: Production of 2020-21 is mentioned as 54810 MT i.e., 34256.25 m3. Thus, environmental compensation is computed as under:
Quantity - 34256.25 m3 Sale Price - Rs.609.19/m3 Environmental Compensation = 34256.25 m3 × Rs.609.19/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.5,21,714.12.
(F) For 2021-22: Production of 2021-22 is mentioned as 86940 MT i.e., 54337.5 m3. Thus, environmental compensation is computed as under:
Quantity - 54337.5 m3 Sale Price - Rs.641.25/m3 Environmental Compensation = 54337.5 m3 × Rs.641.25/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.871098.04.
(G) For 2022-23 (01.04.2022 to 13.09.2022 i.e., 166 days): The production of 2022-23 is mentioned as 171350 MT i.e., 107093.75 m3, hence daily production would come to 293.40 m3/day (107093.75 m3 ÷ 365 days). The production from 01.04.2022 to 13.09.2022 (166 days), therefore, would come to 48704.4 m3 (293.40 m3/day × 166 days). Thus, environmental compensation is computed as under:
Quantity - 48704.4 m3 Sale Price - Rs.675/m3 Environmental Compensation = 48704.4 m3 × Rs.675/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.8,21,886.75.
446. Thus, total environmental compensation for mining activities would come to (Rs.4,11,015.66+ Rs.6,74,909+ Rs.7,10,424.89+ Rs.7,16,874.58+ 342 Rs.5,21,714.12+ Rs.8,71,098.04+ Rs.8,21,886.75) Rs.47,27,923.04 i.e., Rs.47,27,923/- (round off).
447. Respondent 13 has also placed on record that it is operating two washing plants for which CTO was obtained on 08.07.2022. Consequently, there is no consent operating prior to the above period for operating washing plants and therefore, environmental compensation by application of principle of 'Polluter Pays' is also applicable in respect of washing plants. In respect of the washing plants, since plant has operated without CTO, Rs. 50,000/- per annum shall be taken as environmental compensation. Thus, compensation for two washing plants for full five years would come to Rs. 5 lacs.
448. Thus, total environmental compensation would come to Rs.52,27,923/- (Rs.47,27,923 + Rs.5,00,000) which is payable by respondent 13.
Respondent 14 (Abhinandan Tiwari) and Respondent 45 (Krishna Minerals):
449. In the First Report, there are only general observations and nothing specific has been said with respect to respondent 14. In the Second Report dated 17.05.2022, some findings summarised by Joint Committee and directions issued to respondent 14 are as under:
4 ग्राम-जनवा/श्री असभनन्दन 1.सनररक्षण के दौरान खनन क्षेत्र में िभी पट्टेिारक को िमशकांटा सतवारी पत्रु श्री के ०बी० िीमा स्तम्भ िंरसक्षत पाये गये तथा िभी पर उपखसनज की सतवारी िीमा स्तम्भ पर भ-ू सनदेर्ांक अंसकत सनकािी की गयी मात्रा के सकया हुआ पाया गया। लेखा-जोखा का रसजस्टर रखने हेतु सनदेसर्त सकया
2. स्वीकृ त खनन क्षेत्र में खनन के 343 उपरान्त हुए गड्ढों में जल भराव होना गया। नहीं पाया गया।
3. स्वीकृ त खनन क्षेत्र के सनकाि / प्रवेर् मागश पर िमशकांटा स्थासपत पाया गया।
िमशकांटा पर जााँच के िमय सनकािी की गयी उपखसनज की मात्रा का लेखा-
जोखा का रसजस्टर उपलब्ि नहीं कराया गया।
4. खनन क्षेत्र में सडस््ले बोडश स्थासपत पाया गया, सजिमें खनन पट्टा िम्बन्िी िभी सववरण उपलब्ि थे।
5. स्वीकृ त खनन क्षेत्र के प्रवेर् / सनकािी मागश के पाि िी०िी०टी०वी० कै मरा स्थासपत सकया गया था, जो क्षसतग्रस्त पाया गया।
6. खनन क्षेत्र के कुछ सहस्िा में स्थायी घरों का सनमाशण होना पाया गया, जहााँ जााँच के िमय लोगों का सनवाि सकया जाना देखा गया। िाथ ही खनन क्षेत्र के कुछ सहस्िों में कृ सर् कायश सकया जाना देखा गया। पट्टेिारक द्वारा इि िम्बन्ि में अवगत कराया गया सक स्वीकृ त पट्टा क्षेत्र के कुछ सहस्िों का भसू मिरी पट्टा तहिील स्तर िे जारी सकया गया है।
खनन क्षेत्र में िरु क्षा के दृसिगत ऐिी सस्थसत नहीं होनी चासहए। उक्त के िम्बन्ि में िम्बसन्ित उपसजलासिकारी िे आख्या प्राप्त सकया जाना िमीचीन होगा।
English Translation by Tribunal:
4 Vill-Janwa / Shri 1. During inspection, all The lessee was Abhinandan the boundary pillars in directed to 344 Tiwari S/o Shri the mining area were maintain a K.B. Tiwari found to be preserved register of and geo-coordinates were accounts of the found marked on all the quantity of sub-
boundary pillars. mineral
extracted at the
2. No water was found in weighing
the pits/holes created machine.
after mining in the
approved mining area.
3. Weighbridge was
found installed at the
entry/exit route of the
approved mining area. At
the time of checking at the
weighbridge, the register
of accounting of the
quantity of sub-mineral
extracted was not made
available.
4. A display board was
found installed in the
mining area, in which all
the details related to the
mining lease were
available.
5. A CCTV camera was
installed near the
entry/exit route of the
approved mining area,
which was found
damaged.
6. Permanent houses
were found to have been
constructed in some parts
of the mining area, where
people were seen
residing at the time of
investigation. Also,
agricultural work was
345
seen being done in some
parts of the mining area.
The leaseholder informed
in this regard that
Bhumidhari Patta of
some parts of the
approved lease area has
been issued from the
tehsil level. Such a
situation should not occur
in the mining area from
the point of view of
security. It would be
appropriate to obtain a
report from the concerned
sub-district magistrate in
this regard.
450. The Committee found that register maintaining transport of mineral was not made available to the Committee and CCTV camera though installed but found damaged. Production of Silica Sand from mining and washing based on Form MM-11 during the period of October 2021 to February 2022 in respect of respondent 14 was reported at page 65 as under:
पट्टाधारक का नाम माह कुल प्रेवर्ि
अतटूबर नवींबर ददसींबर िनवर फरवर मात्रा
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
श्री असभनंदन सतवारी 1500 1000 1500 1000 1100 6100
पत्रु श्री के . बी. सतवारी
English Translation by Tribunal:
Name of the Month Total
Lessee October November December January February dispatched
Quantity
346
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Shri 1500 1000 1500 1000 1100 6100
Abhinandan
Tiwari S/o
Shri K.B.
Tiwari
451. In the Third Report dated 23.02.2023, in annexure-H, the observations on mining plan, EC and Satellite image on various intervals are recorded, as under:
H Lease Shri Abhinandan Tiwari
Mining site Janwa Silica Sand Mine
xxx...................................................xxx.............................................xxx xi. Observation • DGPS survey of Mining lease area is not done.
based on Boundary pillars are not erected properly.
mining plan
• Production, Development, Dumping,
Plantation, Reclamation & rehabilitation works are not done as per the proposals of approved mining plan document. The mining operations are not being carried out in scientific & systematic manner. There is absolutely no relevance in approved proposals and actual working. Excavation is not in consonance with the 43 years of mining lease period.
• Reserve /resources are enhanced many fold without undertaking exploration activities xii. Observation • Over production has been observed during based on 2015-16 to 2018-19, Environmental Clearance • It has been found that the peripheral fencing of the excavated area has not been done so far, • It has been observed that the none of mine workers wearing personal protective 347 equipment's (PPEs) likes, safety shoes, helmets mask etc on site, • It has been observed that the miner is neither established nor conducting monitoring of the RSPM, SPM, SO2, NOx parameters at site, • It has been observed that the miner is neither established nor conducting monitoring of the ground water level and its quality parameters at site, • It has been observed that the miner is not given safety training to the employee, • It has been observed that the miner does not have OB waste management, • It has been observed that miner does not stored top soil at site, • It has been observed that the 7.5 meter safety zone planation has not been done throughout the boundary lease, • It has been observed that the PAs are using JCB etc. xiii. Observation • Satellite image clearly depicted that the lease based no conducted - significant mining during 2016 to Satellite 2019, images on various • Washing plant is also evidenced in above interval lease image of 2022, • Significant mining has been observed during after 2019, • Significant mining has been observed outside of the lease area, • No green belt has been developed, 348
452. Details of production from period 2014-15 to 2020-21 given at page 240 are as under:
Year Proposal Achieved Deviation Remarks (Tons) (Tons) (%) 2014-15 24000 3800 -84% Data are procured from approved Scheme of mining approved vide letter no.
374/MP/16 dated 14.06.2018 2015-16 24000 24900 4% 2016-17 24000 25000 4% 2017-18 24000 24900 4% 2018-19 23285 24900 7% Data are procured from DMO Office through Whatsup upto Dec 2021 2019-20 39283 23700 -40% 2020-21 80717 19750 -76%
453. Computation of environmental compensation, in the light of the above observations was founded on the following information:
1) Name of Mine Lease H: Shri Abhinandan Tiwari
2) Validity
a) Consent 1. From 15.03.2017 to 31.12.2018
2. From 14.06.2019 to 31.12.2020
3. From 01.01.021 to 31.12.2025
b) EC Grant Date 12.10.2013
c) Mine Plan From 2018-22 to 2022-23
3) Permitted Capacity
a) Consent 25,000 TPA (Silica Sand)
b) EC 25000
c) Mine Plan 1200000
4) Production Details Year Permitted Actual Excess Illegal Qnty.
Quantity production quantity Production For (Tons) (Tons) Env.
Comp.
(Ton)
349
2017- 25,000 24950 -- 0 0
18
2018- 25,000 24900 -- 6225* 6225
19
2019- 25,000 23700 -- 3950# 3950
20
2020- 25,000 19750 -- -- --
21
2021- 25,000 -- -- -- --
22
Total -- 10175 10175
*Average production for 3 Months calculated on the basis of CTO obtained dated.
# Average production for 2 Months calculated on the basis of CTO obtained dated."
454. Actual computation suggested/recommended by Joint Committee in respect of respondent 14 is as under:
Present Value (PV) @ 5% under Severe severity Unit Name Qnty. Qnty. Market Annual Year 01 Year 02 Year 3 Year 04 Year 05 Total (PV) Net Present For For Value Value Value Env. Env. of of (NPV) (Rs.) Comp Com Illegall Foreg (Ton) p y one (m3) mined Ecolog (Ton/ materi ical 1.5) al @ Values Rs.67 (Rs.) 5/m3 R.F =1 Ton m3 D D * R.F D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ D*RF/ PV- D 1.05 1.1025 1.157625 1.215506 1.276281 25 5625 Lease H: 10,175 6,783 45,78, 45,78, 43,60,7 41,53,0 39,55,29 37,66,94 35,87,57 1,98,23,59 1,52,44,841 Shri 750 750 14 61 6 9 0 1 Abhinandan Tiwari
455. In Fourth Report, production figures of respondent 14 in para 6.4 at page 912 are stated as under:
Table-2 Name of Mine 2018- 2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- Remarks 2019 20 21 22 23 Janwa 24900 24910 23700 19750 15373 Active (Abhinadan) 350 Objections dated 17.01.2024 by Abhinandan Tiwari i.e., respondent 14 to Joint Committee Report dated 23.02.2023:
456. Here also, preliminary objections have been raised regarding members of Joint Committee who submitted Report dated 23.02.2023, stating that it is not the Joint Committee constituted by Tribunal, therefore, Report is by unauthorized Committee. Non-communication of information for visiting the site to proponent on account whereof, he could not remain present at the time of inspection, has also been taken as an objection. Regarding observations of Joint Committee, it is said that all the allegations against the proponent are incorrect. It is said that the lease over a mining area of 14.57 hectares at khasra nos. 485, 489, 496, 502 to 508, 1053 to 1065, 1072, 1088, 1089, 1101, 1102 and 1134 at village Janwa, Taluka Bara, District Allahabad was granted to respondent 14 by second renewal dated 19.12.2014, which is for the period of 20 years from 11.09.2013 to 11.09.2033. Proponent was issued EC by SEIAA UP vide letter dated 12.10.2013 (annexure R-1 at page 871 of paper book) which allowed 25000 TPA Silica sand from mining area. Proponent was also granted CTO by UPPCB initially on 23.06.2017 for the period of 02 years valid upto from 31.12.2018 which was again extended upto 31.12.2020 and then upto 31.12.2025. Copies of CTO collectively have been filed as annexure R-3 to R-5 at page 878 to 885. Rest of the objections in respect of Joint Committee Report dated 23.02.2023 are similar as have been taken by respondent 13.
457. In respect of the computation of environmental compensation however, proponent i.e., respondent 14 has given reply in the light of the 351 facts applicable to it and the same may be reproduced as contained in para 5.4.1 to 5.4.7, as under:
"5.4.1 Deponent is one of the lease holders of silica sand and is continuing operations as per the lease deed, mining plan, EC, CTO etc. still the joint committee has recommended for environment compensation against the deponent while the people who are indulging in illegal mining have been left out arbitrarily.
5.4.2 The computation done at page 253 is baseless and absurd. The formula applied by the joint committee is neither scientific nor admissible. It is submitted without admitting that for alleged illegal production of 10175 tons or 6783 m3 @ Rs. 675/- m3 environment compensation has been determined for 1.52 crore which itself appears to be sheer absurdity being 3 times its said market value.
5.4.3. The deponent denied any mining being done in absence of the CTO in year 2018-19 and 2019-20. Unless the joint committee can show the exact figure of the mined mineral it cannot presume any figure to calculate the penalty. Hence, the entire calculation based on presumption is incorrect and illegal.
5.4.4 The deponent also challenges the market value of silica as taken to be Rs. 675 per m3 by the joint committee. There is no proof or any evidence to substantiate the said market value of the silica sand. Hence, the same is purely based on assumption of joint committee.
5.4.5 The calculation by the joint committee is mechanical and based on no unscientific formula. Further, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of In order Deepak Nitrite Ltd. v. State of Gujarat reported in 2004 (6) SCC 402 that in order to levy/impose environmental compensation it is necessary to bring on record the environmental damage caused by the illegal production. Joint committee did not state any such damage.
5.4.6 It is further submitted that joint committee has taken market value of the alleged illegally mined mineral to be Rs. 45,78,750. On the said market value expenses for mining, CSR, CER, royalty, taxes etc. is also paid by the deponent which ought to have been deducted. The charges which the deponent has 352 already paid and is not part of her revenue cannot be counted. Further, the environmental compensation is determined three times of the said value to Rs. 1.52 cr. Thus, the deponent is infact in far more worst condition that the illegal miners who merely lost the cost on illegal mined silica sand on being seized, while deponent is made to suffer three times the alleged market value on which he has already payments to the government, authorities, labours etc. 5.4.7 That apart from the arbitrary, illegal and unjustified recommendation of environment compensation the it is also against the economic interest of the society. An environment compensation to the tune of more than three times the market value of mineral will result in extreme financial difficulty to the deponent leading to the closure of the business and liquidation of the assets. Thus, many people directly and indirectly employed will lose their livelihood. Consequently, even aid and support of CER and CSR to people of nearby region will come to an end. A true copy of the photographs and invoices of the CSR activity of the deponent is attached herewith and marked as ANNEXURE R-13."
458. It is also said that proponent is running a washing plant in the name of M/s Krishna Minerals, Village Benipur, Tehsil Bara, District Prayagraj which has capacity of 1000 tonnes per month. In respect of the said plant, valid CTO was granted and there is no violation of any law.
459. The facts in respect of respondent 14 show that it was granted mining lease over an area of 14.57 hectares in various khasra nos. at village Janwa, Tehsil-Bara, District Prayagraj. Lease was renewed on second time on 19.12.2014 for the period from 11.09.2013 to 11.09.2033. Respondent 14 obtained EC from SEIAA UP vide letter dated 12.10.2013 permitting extraction of silica sand to the extent of 25000 TPA. CTO was granted for the first time on 23.06.2017 which was extended thereafter. 353 Thus, for the period prior to 23.06.2017, we do not find that mining activities were carried out by respondent 14 having a valid CTO.
460. Joint Committee in Third Report has recommended environmental compensation i.e., Net Present Value at Rs.15,24,48,841/- but we again find a similar gross mistake as has been committed in other cases in as much as the actual production of 2017-18 to 2021-22 has been added and the same has been treated as a production of one year to compute net present value of one year by multiplying it at the rate of Rs.675/m3 though the said rate was applicable in 2022-23. Again, the same quantity has been multiplied by 05 years and that is how highly exaggerated net present value has been computed which is not in accordance with any principle, criteria or guidelines applicable for determination of environmental compensation. The same, therefore, cannot be accepted. Since respondent 14 did not operate valid CTO during 2016-17 and 2017-18, environmental compensation is computed at 2.5% of the sale value as under:
(A) 2016-17 (10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017): Since the production of 2016-17 is not on record, we take average production of the year 2017-18 for this year. The production of 2017-18 has been mentioned as 24950 MT i.e., 15593.75 m3, the daily production would come to 42.72 m3/day (15593.75 m3 ÷ 365 days). The production from 10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017 (234 days), therefore, would come to 9996.48 m3 (42.72 m3/day × 234 days).
Quantity - 9996.48 m3 Sale Price - Rs.496.18/m3 354 Environmental Compensation = 9996.48 m3 × Rs. 496.18/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.1,24,001.33.
(B) For 2017-18 (01.04.2017 to 22.06.2017 i.e., 83 days): The production of 2017-18 is mentioned as 24950 MT i.e., 15593.75 m3, the daily production would come to 42.72 m3/day (15593.75 m3 ÷ 365 days). The production from 01.04.2017 to 22.06.2017 (83 days), therefore, would come to 3545.76 m3 (42.72 m3/day × 83 days).
Quantity - 3545.76 m3 Sale Price - Rs.522.30/m3 Environmental Compensation = 3545.76 m3 × Rs. 522.30/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.46,298.76.
461. Thus, respondent is liable to pay total environmental compensation of (Rs.1,24,001.33 + Rs.46,298.76) Rs.1,70,300.09 i.e., Rs.1,70,300/- (round off).
Respondent 15 (Harihar Prasad Gupta, Shankargrah, Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj):
462. In respect of respondent 15, Fourth Report shows that it was granted mining lease at gata no. 1/1, area 1.27 hectares at Bhaisahi for the period of 09.02.1993 to 08.02.1998 and 09.02.1998 to 08.02.2018. EC was granted on 08.10.2013 and CTE or CTO are not available. Annexure-C to Fourth Report at page 940 shows observations in respect of respondent 15 that large scale mining using explosive was found in the lead area. Drill on the rocks was also seen inside the rocks. Lease agreement expired on 07.01.2021.
355 Objections/Reply dated 12.04.2024 filed by respondent 15:
463. Objection/Reply dated 12.04.2024 has been filed by respondent 15 stating that it was granted mining lease on 10.11.1993 in plot no. 1/1, Village- Bhaisahi, area 1.27 hectares (3.17 acres) for a period of 05 years commencing from 09.02.1993. The lessee i.e., respondent 15 applied for renewal but the application was not disposed of and the lease was treated to have been deemed renewed till disposal of the application. Later on, vide Government Order dated 16.12.2014, first renewal was granted from 09.02.1998 to 08.02.2018 i.e., for 20 years. Lease deed was executed on 30.12.2014 (annexure-1 to the objection/reply at page 2179). It was issued EC by SEIAA UP vide letter dated 08.10.2013 for production of 15000 TPA silica sand. Director, Mining Safety granted mining production by letter dated 07.07.2012 and mining plan was approved by Controller of Mines, Indian Mines of Bureau of Jabalpur vide letter dated 15.01.2015. permission for mining on the lease land was granted by District Mining Officer vide office order dated 20.02.2015 (at page 2227). Respondent 15 vide letter dated 30.02.2018 (at page 2228) informed Mining Officer, Allahabad that it has stopped mining activities since the mining lease has already expired. Respondent 15 has stated that it has not violated any rule and regulation relating to environment but neither stated anything with regard to CTE and CTO nor it stated that it ever obtained consent under the provision of Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981. With regard to the observations made in the Report, respondent 15 has denied the allegations.
356
464. The above facts in respect to respondent 15 clearly shows that it had carried out mining activities pursuant to District Mining Officer's letter dated 20.02.2015 till the mining lease expired on 08.02.2018 without obtaining any CTE and CTO under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 and therefore, the mining activities during this period were apparently illegal and in violation of provisions of Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981. In EC dated 08.10.2013, Specific Condition no. 2 clearly required respondent 15 to obtain CTE from UPPCB and effectively implement all the conditions stipulated therein but the above conditions in our view have clearly been violated by respondent 15. We may reproduce condition no. 2 as under:
"2. The project proponent shall obtain Consent to Establish from the U.P State Pollution Control Board and effectively implement all the conditions stipulated therein."
465. Since mining activities have already been closed, we are of the view that respondent 15 is liable to pay environmental compensation for the period mining has been illegally conducted in violation of the provisions of Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981.
466. However, considering the period of limitation under Section 15 of NGT Act, 2010, we find that the action against respondent 15 can be taken for the preceding 05 years only and earlier period is barred by limitation. OA was presented on 09.08.2021, therefore, the period on and after 10.08.2016 can be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation under Section 15 of NGT Act, 2010. Therefore, we hold that respondent 15 conducted mining illegally and in violation of Section 25/26 of Water Act, 1974 and Section 21 of Air Act, 1981 and is liable to pay 357 environmental compensation for the period of mining carried out from 10.08.2016 to 08.02.2018.
467. Since information with regard to quantum of mining, respondent 15 has carried out during this period, is not on record and compensation has to be determined in view of law laid down in Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & Others, (2014) 6 SCC 590 i.e., maximum at the rate of 10% of the sale price of illegally mined mineral, we are of the view that respondent 4 i.e., UPPCB after collecting relevant information from Mining Department about the quantity of mineral extracted by respondent 15 in the period from 10.08.2016 to 08.02.2018, compute environmental compensation after giving due opportunity of hearing to respondent 15.
468. In the meantime, considering sanctioned quantity of mineral allowed to be extracted in EC i.e., 15000 TPA which comes to 9375 m3/annum and per day production comes to 25.69 m3/day (9375 m3/annum÷365 days=25.69 m3/day). The production from 10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017 (234 days), therefore, would come to 6011.46 m3 (25.69 m3/day × 234 days). Taking the sale price of corresponding period as noticed above, the interim environmental compensation for the period of 2016-17 and 2017-18 is computed as under:
(A) 2016-17 (10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017):
Quantity: 6011.46 m3 Sale Price: 496.18 m3/day Environmental compensation = 6011.46 m3 × Rs. 496.18/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.74,569.15.358
(B) For 2017-18 (01.01.2017 to 08.02.2018 i.e., 314 days):
Quantity: 6011.46 m3 Sale Price: 522.30/m3 Environmental compensation = 8066.66 m3 × Rs. 522.30/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.1,05,330.41.
469. Thus, we hold that respondent 15 is liable to pay Rs.1,79,899.56 i.e., Rs. 1,79,900/- (round off) as interim environmental compensation which shall be subject to final determination of environmental compensation by UPPCB in view of the directions given hereinabove. Respondent 16 (Om Laxmi Industries, Prop. Chandra Prakash Kesarwani, R/o 242/91, Muir Road, Ashok Nagar, Allahabad):
470. In annexure-B of Fourth Report at page 921, details of respondent 16 have been given stating that it was granted mining lease for the period of 08.08.2001 to 07.08.2021 at gata no. 143 to 148, 309 to 318, 402 to 405, 408, 561, total lease area - 8.397 hectares (20.75 acres), Village- Kachari, Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj. Mining plan was approved on 02.11.2017. Nothing has been shown as to whether any consent was granted by UPPCB. Production details commencing from 2017-18 to 2020- 21 have been given as under:
Year Production in MT
2017-18 6000
2018-19 7263
2019-20 5595
2020-21 22409
359
Objections/Reply dated 19.03.2024 (p/1842) filed by respondent 16:
471. Respondent 16 has submitted its objections/reply dated 19.03.2024 to Joint Committee Report stating that on 08.08.2001, mining lease for a period of 20 years was executed for mining of silica sand over private land bearing gata nos. 143 to 148, 309 to 318, 402 to 405, 408, 561 admeasuring lease area 8.397 hectares situated at Village- Kachari, Tehsil-Bara, District-Allahabad (now Prayagraj). Respondent 16 has not carried out any mining activity after expiry of the lease period i.e., 07.08.2021 and since then, lease mining is lying closed. However, the issue of extension of mining lease is pending for consideration before Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 23491/2022, Vijay Laxmi Kesarwani vs. State of UP & Ors.
472. Observations made in Joint Committee Report are denied and it is said that no mining activities have been carried out after expiry of mining lease i.e., after 07.08.2021 and the observation of 'signs of mining (small scale) activities', is incorrect. Proponent is storing mined mineral/silica sand procured from other bona-fide silica sand leaseholders under mineral storage license obtained from District Magistrate, Prayagraj vide license dated 04.01.2023 which is valid till 03.01.2026. Joint Committee made inspection without any notice, therefore, report is in violation of principle of natural justice. With regard to grant of EC or consent for mining activities carried out by respondent 16 during the period, mining lease was active and valid, nothing has been said which shows that mining activities were carried out by respondent 16 without obtaining any consent, hence in violation of the provisions of Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981. In 360 respect of the details of production in annexure-B to the Fourth Report at page 921, nothing has been said, meaning thereby, we can safely believe correctness of the said information contained in the Fourth Report.
473. In view of the above, we are of the view that for the past period when mining activities have been carried out without consent, respondent 16 is liable to pay environmental compensation. Since consent was not obtained therefore, environmental compensation is liable to be computed at 2.5% of the sale price. The environmental compensation thus is computed as under:
(A) 2016-17 (10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017 i.e., for 234 days): Since production of 2016-17 is not on record, we take average production of the year 2017-18 for this year. Production of 2017-18 is mentioned as 6000 MT i.e., 3750 m3. The daily production would come to 10.27 m3 (3750 m3 ÷ 365 days). The production from 10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017 (234 days), therefore, would come to 2403.18 m3 (10.27 m3 × 234 days).
Quantity - 2403.18 m3 Sale Price - Rs.496.18/m3 Environmental Compensation = 2403.18 m3 × Rs. 496.18/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.29810.24.
(B) For 2017-18:
Quantity - 6000 MT i.e., 3750 m3 Sale Price - Rs.522.30/m3 Environmental Compensation = 3750 m3 × Rs. 522.30/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.48965.62.361
(C) For 2018-19:
Quantity - 7263 MT i.e., 4539.37 m3 Sale Price - Rs.549.79/m3 Environmental Compensation = 4539.37 m3 × Rs. 549.79/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.62392.50.
(D) For 2019-20:
Quantity - 5595 MT i.e., 3496.87 m3 Sale Price - Rs.578.73/m3 Environmental Compensation = 3496.87 m3 × Rs.578.73/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.50593.58.
(E) For 2020-21:
Quantity - 22409 MT i.e., 14005.62 m3 Sale Price - Rs.609.19/m3 Environmental Compensation = 14005.62 m3 × Rs.609.19/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.213302.09.
474. Thus, total environmental compensation would come to (Rs.29810.24 + Rs.48965.62 + Rs.62392.50 + Rs.50593.58+ Rs.213302.09) Rs.4,05,064.03 i.e., Rs.4,05,064/- (round off) which is payable by respondent 16.
475. We accordingly hold that respondent 16 is liable to pay environmental compensation of Rs. 4,05,064/- to UPPCB in view of the directions given hereinabove.362
Respondent 17 (Rishi Chawla, 87, Darbhanga Colony, Allahabad):
476. In annexure-B of Fourth Report at page 922, details of respondent 17 are given. It is said that he was granted mining lease on 14.01.1990 for the period upto 10 years i.e., upto 30.01.2000 for carrying out mining of silica sand at gata no. 13, 15, 18, 137, 160, 168, 169, 172 to 174, 190, 191, 198, 199, 200 and 212 admeasuring 20.59 hectares at Village-Aswan, Tehsil Bara, District- Prayagraj. The mining lease was renewed for the period of 14.01.2000 to 13.01.2020. EC was granted on 30.09.2013 and mining plan was approved on 18.01.2017. No information is available with regard to CTE and CTO. Production and dispatches of respondent 17 in the last 03 years i.e., 2017-18 to 2019-2020 were 57889 MT (3502 MT + 27212 MT + 27175 MT). In annexure-C of Fourth Report at page 941, it is said that no mining activities were found on the lease area of respondent 17 by Joint Committee on 27.07.2021 and lease has expired on 27.07.2021.
Reply dated 30.03.2024 by respondent 17 filed on 26.04.2024 (p/2415):
477. Respondent 17 has submitted its response/objection dated 30.03.2024 to Joint Committee Report dated 17.01.2024 i.e., Fourth Report. It is said that initially mining lease for silica sand was granted to Munshi Ram Chawla s/o Late Sri Ralla Ram Chawla vide lease deed dated 14.01.1980 for an area admeasuring 20.59 hectares at Village-Aswan, Tehsil Bara, District- Prayagraj. The lease was renewed twice and second renewal was granted by Government Order dated 27.06.2014 for a period of 20 years commencing from 14.01.2000 to 13.01.2020. Vide transfer deed dated 12.12.2014, the lease was transferred by Munshi Ram Chawla 363 to respondent 17 i.e., Rishi Chawla. District Mining Officer, Prayagraj vide order dated 08.01.2015 (at page 2444) allowed respondent 17 to continue mining activities on the lease in question. EC however was already granted in the name of respondent 17 as Attorney of Munshi Ram Chawla by SEIAA UP vide letter dated 30.09.2013. Respondent 17 submitted half yearly compliance reports vide letters dated 20.01.2016 and 02.02.2017. Mining plan of respondent 17 was approved by Directorate of Geology and Mining, Lucknow vide letter dated 18.01.2017. Respondent 17 deployed qualified technical persons to ensure systematic and scientific mining of silica sand at Aswan village. After the lease expired on 13.01.2020, no mining was carried out by respondent 17 pursuant to the mining lease in question.
Joint Committee vide report dated 12.03.2024 had recommended environmental compensation of Rs. 14,60,000/- but no such compensation is payable by respondent 17. Non-obtaining of CTO is a mere technical error and for that purpose, no environmental compensation is payable and reliance is placed on Supreme Court's judgment in Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. Rohit Prajapati & Ors., (2020) 17 SCC
157. Quantum of environmental compensation suggested by Joint Committee Report dated 12.03.2014 is also disputed on the ground that the calculation/method of computation is erroneous. The environmental compensation has been computed since the proponent did not obtain any CTE and CTO. As per Guidelines issued by CPCB on 08.02.2019, environmental compensation has been calculated as per Rs.5,000/- per day for the period of 08.02.2019 to 13.01.2020 which comes to Rs.14,60,000/- but this is erroneous and, in any case, Joint Committee has no authority to impose environmental compensation. 364
478. The reply submitted by respondent 17 virtually admits that it has carried out mining operations without obtaining any consent i.e., CTE and CTO under the provisions of Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 and thus violated the said provisions. With regard to quantity of production mentioned in annexure B of Fourth Report at page 922, nothing has been said, therefore, we can take the said production to be undisputed.
479. It is evident from the above facts that mining activities carried out by respondent 17 till the lease operated validly i.e., 13.01.2020 was in violation of environmental laws since it was without consent. Proponent therefore is liable to pay environmental compensation by application of principle of 'Polluter Pays' in the light of the discussions made above. We disapprove the computation of environmental compensation made by Joint Committee. As we have already held, compensation is to be determined at 2.5% of the sale price of the mineral of the corresponding period.
480. Since there is no production given for the period 2016-17, we take the average of 2017-18 for the said period for the purpose of computation of environmental compensation. Environmental compensation is computed as under:
(A) 2016-17 (10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017): Production of 2017-18 is mentioned as 3502 MT i.e., 2188.75 m3, the daily production would come to 5.99 m3 (2188.75 m3 ÷ 365 days). The production from 10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017 (234 days), therefore, would come to 1401.66 m3 (5.99 m3 × 234 days).365
Quantity - 1401.66 m3 Sale Price - Rs.496.18/m3 Environmental Compensation = 1401.66 m3 × Rs. 496.18/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.17,386.89.
(B) For 2017-18:
Quantity - 3502 MT i.e., 2188.75 m3 Sale Price - Rs.522.30/m3 Environmental Compensation = 2188.75 m3 × Rs. 522.30/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.
28,579.60.
(C) For 2018-19:
Quantity - 27212 MT i.e., 17007.5 m3 Sale Price - Rs.549.79/m3 Environmental Compensation = 17007.5 m3 × Rs. 549.79/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.2,33,763.83.
(D) For 2019-20:
Quantity - 27175 MT i.e., 16984.37 m3 Sale Price - Rs.578.73/m3 Environmental Compensation = 16984.37 m3 × Rs.578.73/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.2,45,734.11.
481. Thus, total environmental compensation would come to Rs.17,386.89 + Rs.28,579.60 + Rs.2,33,763.83 + Rs.2,45,734.11) Rs. 5,25,464.43/- i.e., Rs. 5,25,464/- (round off). 366
482. Thus, we hold that respondent 17 is liable to pay Rs. 5,25,464/- towards environmental compensation.
Respondent 18 (Smt. Vijay Laxmi Kesarwani, W/o Late Om Prakash Gupta, 170/1-A, Newada Ashok Nagar, Allahabad):
483. Respondent 18 Vijay Laxmi Kesarwani also held silica sand mining lease which operated between the period 28.07.2001 to 27.07.2021 as per the information given in annexure-B to the Fourth Report at page 923. Mining lease was granted at Gata No. 10 to 13, 101, 102, 122, 126 to 131, 167, 570-572 and 598, area - 6.06 hectares at Village-Kachari, Tehsil- Bara, District-Prayagraj. Mining plan was approved on 02.11.2017 and subsequently on 18.06.2021. Nothing was found on record to show that respondent 18 obtained EC under the provisions of EIA 2006 read with EP Act, 1986 and CTE and CTO under the provisions of Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981. Production mentioned in annexure-B at page 923 shows 78912 MT (1051 MT + 77861 MT) in 2019-20 to 2020-21. Written statement/objection/response dated 30.03.2024 by respondent 18 filed on 27.04.2024:
484. Respondent 18 has filed its written statement/objection/response dated 30.03.2024. It is stated therein that no mining activities have been carried out by respondent 18 after expiry of the lease period i.e., 27.07.2021 and since then mining activities are lying closed. With regard to the requirement of EC, respondent 18 has relied on Government Order dated 01.07.2011 holding that where the leases were granted before 14.09.2006, EC shall not be required if mining lease has not expired and continue and such leases will continue.
367
485. The facts, therefore, mentioned in Fourth Report with regard to absence of EC, CTE and CTO as also the details of production are not disputed. Even if it is held that respondent 18 did not require to obtain EC in view of the Government Order, there was no justification or reason for not obtaining CTE and CTO under the provisions of Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981. Therefore, it is evident that mining activities have been carried out illegally in violation of the provisions of Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 by not obtaining consent from UPPCB. Hence, respondent 18 is liable to pay environmental compensation by application of principle of 'Polluter Pays' for carrying out illegal mining and thus damaging environment. Production figures of only 02 years 2019-20 and 2020-21 have been given. We find it appropriate to compute interim environmental compensation payable by respondent 18 subject to final determination by UPPCB after collecting information regarding the production in the preceding period commencing from 10.08.2016 and finalising the same after giving opportunity of hearing to respondent 18.
486. We compute interim environmental compensation for 2019-20 and 2020-21 as under:
(A) For 2019-20:
Quantity - 1051 MT i.e., 656.87 m3 Sale Price - Rs.578.73/m3 Environmental Compensation = 656.87 m3 × Rs.578.73/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.9,503.75.
B. For 2020-21:
Quantity - 77861 MT i.e., 48663.12 m3 368 Sale Price - Rs.609.19/m3 Environmental Compensation = 48663.12 m3 × Rs.609.19/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.7,41,127.15.
487. Thus, total interim environmental compensation payable by respondent 18 is (Rs. 9503.75 + Rs.7,41,127.15) Rs.7,50,630.9 i.e., Rs.7,50,630/- (round off).
Respondent 19 (M/s Harimandir Mineral Traders, Sohabatiyabagh, Allahabad
488. In annexure-B of Fourth Report at page 924, details of respondent 19 are given. It is said that mining lease was granted at gata no. 736 to 738, 746 to 764, 767, 785, 787 to 871, 873 (part) to 888, 893 to 895, area 104.206 hectares at Village - Chhatehra Gurehata, Tehsil Bara, District- Prayagraj initially for the period of 15.12.1989 to 14.12.1999 and renewed for the period from 15.12.1999 to 14.12.2019. Proponent got EC on 29.07.2015 and CTE and CTO on 02.04.2020. Production in the last 05 years has been found as 148341.61 MT (1340.205 MT + 40058.265 MT + 56822.040 MT + 50121.100 MT). In annexure-C of Fourth Report at page 942, it is stated that Joint Committee found hydraulic excavator on site and material handling activities were also observed. Lease agreement expired on 14.12.2019 but 3 lakh tons of seized material was lifted by M/s Manglore Minerals, a successful bidder, though the facts required verification from record.
Response dated 09.04.2024 filed by respondent 19 on 26.04.2024:
489. Respondent 19 has filed its response dated 09.04.2024 vide e-mail dated 26.04.2024 in regard to Joint Committee Report dated 17.01.2024 369 i.e., Fourth Report. It is said that M/s Harimandir Mineral Traders is a partnership firm registered under Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and carrying out business of mining of silica sand at Village-Chhatehra Gurehata, Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj up to 14.12.2019 i.e., lease period. Department of Geology and Mining, Government of UP granted mining lease under Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'MCR Rules, 1960') for excavation of silica sand for the period from 15.12.1999 to 14.12.2019 on an area of 104.206 hectares (257.50 acres) at Village-Chhatehra Gurehata, Tehsil-Bara, District-Allahabad (now Prayagraj). The other partners of the firm chose to retire by submitting application along with affidavit dated 01.11.2015 whereupon B. Shivaji Mendon, Managing Director, Mangalore Minerals Private Limited and Santhosh Mendon joined the firm with the permission of Department of Geology and Mining vide application supported by affidavit dated 02.11.2015. The amended partnership deed was executed on 03.02.2016 and change of partners was allowed by Mining Department vide letter dated 05.05.2016. A supplementary Mining Lease deed dated 03.06.2016 was executed by Department of Geology and Mining permitting excavation of silica sand by respondent 19 through its re-constituted structure for the remaining period of lease upto 14.12.2019. Mining plan was approved by Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines under Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 vide letter dated 21.11.2011. EC was granted to proponent by MoEF&CC vide letter dated 29.07.2015 for carrying out mining lease on 104.21 hectares of land which comprised of 78.21 hectares Government land and 26 hectares private land. EC also shows that mining was allowed to be carried only on 63.61 hectares of the 370 lease area. CTO was granted to proponent under Section 21 of Air Act, 1981 vide letter dated 14.03.2016 (annexure R3 at page 2503) valid for the period from 07.03.2016 to 31.12.2016. The above document shows that CTO was granted for operating 25 KVA DG sets and there is nothing to show that it was granted for the purpose of carrying out mining activities.
Consent under Section 25/26 of Water Act, 1974 has also been granted vide letter dated 14.03.2016 (page 2509) and this document also nowhere shows that it is for the purpose of carrying our mining activities. The conditions of CTO under Water Act, 1974 show that it allowed maximum 0.5 KLD discharge of domestic effluent and no industrial effluent. By separate letters dated 19.01.2017 (at pages 2515 and 2523), consent under Section 21 of Air Act, 1981 and under Section 25/26 of Water Act, 1974 were granted for the further period upto 31.12.2019 again for the purpose of operating generator set of 25 KVA and for discharge of 0.5 KLD domestic effluent and no industrial effluent. Mining lease of proponent expired on 14.12.2019 and no excavation has been carried out thereafter. Since effluent had to be disposed of, a consent under Water Act, 1974 was granted by UPPCB vide letter dated 02.04.2020 (at page 2527) valid for the period from 01.01.2020 to 31.03.2020. This document shows the permissible quantity of effluent as 3.0 KLD and kind of effluent as domestic. Production/quantity of silica sand extracted by proponent from March 2016 to 14.12.2019 has been detailed in para 9 at page 2470 as under:
Year Weight in MT
2016-17 18360
2017-18 90430
371
2018-19 220735
2019-20 169570
490. It is thus submitted that proponent has complied with all the conditions and safeguards stipulated in EC during excavation of silica sand and submitted six monthly compliance reports. In compliance of the conditions of EC, proponent undertook following steps/measures:
"a. Carried out controlled blasting through approved agency as per DGMS guidelines and by adopting parameters for blasting, fly rocks were almost eliminated thereby achieving good fragmentation, below permissible limit noise and vibration with no adverse impact on the nearby habitat b. Planted approximately 750 trees (250 trees in 2017-18, 300 trees in 2018-19, 200 trees in 2019-20) of various species in the leased site and surroundings. Copy of the chart of trees planted is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R8.
c. Practiced wet drilling in the mine to control dust and undertook measures like water sprinkling on roads and active mining area by tanker, planting trees and optimizing blast parameters to control particulate matter.
d. Periodically monitored ambient air and noise level.
e. No extraction of minerals from river bed, the impact of which would be significant on ground water.
f. Keeping the trucks covered during mineral transportation and regularly monitoring vehicular emission by taking necessary action when required.
g. Only mineral handling at the mine for loading silica sand by hydraulic excavators into the trucks.
h. Ensuring medical checkup, including X-ray of all workers deployed at the mine to ascertain the health of workers.372
i. Storing of rain water in mined out pit acting as water recharge pit and also for utilization in field for agricultural and sprinkling purpose."
491. There is no violation on the part of proponent in respect of compliance of any environmental laws and conditions of consent/EC. Proponent has also commented upon the First and Second Reports and the manner in which the inspections have been carried out as also the members who have submitted the report and it is said that report dated 23.02.2023 is not by the committee as constituted by Tribunal. In the Fourth Report, observations are not lease specific but general based on unsubstantiated information. UPPCB has not imposed any environmental compensation finding no violation on the part of proponent. In the Fourth Report also, nothing specific has been found against the proponent. Its production is within the permissible limit of 6 lacs MTPA mentioned in EC dated 29.07.2015. It is incorrect to suggest that lease holder was not complying with the mining plan in as much as proponent has conducted mining as per the approved mining plan and there is no violation. Plantation has also been carried out by proponent on year wise basis and planted approximately 750 trees i.e., 250 in 2017-18, 300 in 2018-19 and 200 in 2019-20 of various species in the leased site.
492. We have gone through the above submissions and find that so far as the consent granted under Section 21of Air Act, 1981 are concerned, the same are in respect of 25 KVA DG set and there is nothing contained therein to show that the same were granted for carrying out mining activities and to control dust emission causing air pollution. 373
493. In fact, the consent letters show several columns blank and it is strange for us as to how such kind of consent letters have been issued by the concerned Regional Officer, UPPCB. It shows total recklessness and negligence on his part. Similarly, the consent issued under Water Act, 1974 also, we do not find anything therein to co-relate the same with regard to industrial activities of mining. The consent letter refers to only domestic effluent of 0.5 KLD and with regard to industrial effluent, it says 'nil'. Except the name of proponent, nothing is mentioned in the said two consent orders wherefrom we may infer that the same have been issued in respect of mining activities undertaken by proponent. Hence, we find it difficult to hold that the mining activities have been carried out validly and without violating any provision of environmental laws particularly, Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981.
494. Though the proponent has said that it has carried out mining operations within sanctioned limit of 6 lacs MT per annum as per EC dated 29.07.2015 but we find from the record that EC dated 29.07.2015 (annexure R-2 at page 2111) does not mention that the sanctioned limit is 6 lakh MT per annum instead quantity of mineral allowed to be mined by the proponent is 6.0 MTPA. This is clearly mentioned in the subject as well as para 2 and 8 of EC dated 29.07.2015 at page 2111 and 2112 and we reproduce the same as under:
"Subject: Silica Sand Mining and Beneficiation plant of M/s Hari Mandir Mineral Traders, Village Chhatara, Allahabad, (U.P.) (104.21 ha, 6.0 MTPA)- Environmental clearance.
2. The proposal is for Environmental clearance of existing Silica Sand Mine (ML area-104.21 Ha) with maximum production capacity of 6.0 MTPA silica sand by M/s Hari Mandir Mineral Traders. The mining lease is located near village Chhatara, Tehsil- Bara, District-374
Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh). The mine lease area falls between Latitude 25°17'07" N & 25°18'35" N and Longitude 81°39'52" E to 81°40'39" E.
8. The Ministry of Environment and Forests has examined the application in accordance with the EIA Notification, 2006 and hereby accords environmental clearance under the provisions thereof to the above mentioned project of Silica Sand Mining with production capacity of 6.0 MTPA in mine lease area of 104.21 ha of M/s Hari Mandir Mineral Traders, at village Chhatara, Allahabad of Uttar Pradesh subject to implementation of the following conditions and environmental safeguards."
495. The claim of the proponent that it has carried out mining as per EC is not acceptable in as much as EC clearly permits maximum production capacity of 6.0 MTPA though the proponent himself has admitted its production in its response dated 09.04.2024 as under:
Year Weight (in MT)
2016-17 18360
2017-18 90430
2018-19 220735
2019-20 169570
496. There is a suggestion of some mistake in EC but in the absence of any document otherwise, we are bound to go by what is contained in the document available on record i.e., EC dated 29.07.2015 (annexure R-2 at page 2111). It is thus evident that mining conducted by the proponent is clearly in violation of the terms of EC in as much as much beyond the capacity permitted by EC, mining has been carried out by the proponent and it is in violation of EIA 2006 read with EP Act, 1986. 375
497. Further proponent has admitted of carrying mining using blasting. EC does not show that mining was allowed with blasting. No permission of explosives authorities is shown to have been obtained for blasting. This is a serious violation of EC conditions and is violative of EP Act, 1986.
498. As per own admission, production of the proponent from March 2016 to 14.12.2019 has been 500095 MT (18360 MT + 91430 MT + 220735 MT + 169570 MT) i.e., 312559.37 m3. By application of principle of 'Polluter Pays', proponent, therefore, is liable to pay environmental compensation. Environmental compensation is computed as under:
(A) 2016-17 (10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017): The production of 2016-17, is mentioned as 18360 MT i.e., 11475 m3, the daily production would come to 31.43 m3 (11475 m3 ÷ 365 days). The production from 10.08.2016 to 31.03.2017 (234 days), therefore, would come to 7354.62 m3 (31.43 m3 × 234 days).
Quantity - 7354.62 m3 Sale Price - Rs.496.18/m3 Environmental Compensation = 7354.62 m3 × Rs. 496.18/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.91230.38.
(B) For 2017-18:
Quantity - 91430 MT i.e., 57143.75 m3 Sale Price - Rs.522.30/m3 Environmental Compensation = 57143.75 m3 × Rs. 522.30/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.7,46,154.51.
(C) For 2018-19:376
Quantity - 220735 MT i.e., 137959.37 m3 Sale Price - Rs.549.79/m3 Environmental Compensation = 137959.37 m3 × Rs. 549.79/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.18,96,217.05.
(D) For 2019-20:
Quantity - 169570 MT i.e., 105981.25 m3 Sale Price - Rs.578.73/m3 Environmental Compensation = 105981.25 m3 × Rs.578.73/m3 × 2.5% = Rs.15,33,363.22.
499. Thus, total environmental compensation would come to (Rs.91230.38 + Rs.7,46,154.51 + Rs.18,96,217.05 + Rs.15,33,363.22) Rs. 42,66,965.16 i.e., Rs. 42,66,965/- (round off).
500. We accordingly hold that respondent 19 is liable to pay environmental compensation of Rs.42,66,965/- to UPPCB in view of the directions given hereinabove.
Respondent 20 (Badriprasad Amarnath), Respondent 21 (R Varshneya), Respondent 22 (M/s Indrajeet Kaur), Respondent 23 (S.P. Kesarwani), Respondent 24 (Pradeep Kumar), Respondent 25 (Jai Shri Trading Company), Respondent 26 (Mahendra Bharti), Respondent 27 (M/s Rama Silica Sand Trading), Respondent 28 (Bhulli Mahraj & Sons), Respondent 29 (Laxmi Mining Corporation), Respondent 31 (Harimandir Mineral Traders) And Respondent 32 (Harimandir Mineral Traders):
501. In respect to the above respondents, information contained in annexure-B to Fourth Report at page 925 to 937 shows that long back mining activities have been closed. Apparently, the matters of these respondents are also barred by limitation prescribed in Section 14(3) and 377 15(3) of NGT Act, 2010. The brief details of these respondents are given in the form of a chart as under:
Sl.No./ Name Gata no. Lease Place of Period of Respondent area lease lease no.
1/20 Badri Araji no. 2 18.00 Village- 10.08.1973
Prasad hectares Lakhnauti, to
Amarnath Tehsil Bara, 09.08.1993
Prayagraj
2/21 J.R. 11 to 14, 17 to 39.25 Village- 30.12.1990
Varshney 29, 36, 40 to 43 hectares Janwa, to
and 319 Tehsil Bara, 29.12.2000
Prayagraj
3/22 M/s 333 61.02 Village- 15.10.1979
Inderjeet hectares Derabassi, to
Kaur Tehsil Bara, 14.10.1989
Prayagraj
4/23 S.P. 113 to 120, 28.93 Village- 24.08.1993
Kesarwani 129, 134 to hectares Kachari, to
86 136, 140 to (71.5 Tehsil Bara, 23.08.2003
Mehjani 144, 152, 156, acres) Prayagraj
Tola 157, 293 to
297, 303, 305
to 310, 317,
319 to 323,
325, 328, 329,
380, 396, 398,
561, 558 to
560, 562 and
563
5/24 Pradeep 430 6.619 Village - 28.10.1978
Kumar hectares Madanpur, to
Tehsil Bara, 27.10.1988
Prayagraj
6/25 Jaishree 218 to 220, 51.17 Village - 29.11.1980
Trading 245, 254, 257 hectares Bhaisahi, to
Co. to 262, 264, Tehsil Bara, 28.11.2000
265 and 271 Prayagraj
7/26 Mahender 1 to 7, 45 to 36.54 Village - 06.03.1991
Bharti 50, 56, 58 to hectares Aswa, Tehsil to
61, 66, 102, Bara, 05.03.2001
115 to 117 Prayagraj
8/27 M/s Rama 111 to 113, 20.17 Village - 27.02.1975
378
Silica 289, 290, 300 hectares Janwa, to
Sand Tehsil Bara, 26.02.1995
Trading Prayagraj
9/28 Bhulli 731, 732, 741, 47.06 Village - 16.06.1989
Mehraj & 744 to 753, 755 hectares Janwa, to
Sons to 758, 760 to Tehsil Bara, 15.06.1999
766, 771, 774 Prayagraj
to 777, 780,
781, 783, 787,
788, 790, 792
to 794, 798,
799, 874 to
876, 900 to 903
and 905 to 907
10/29 Laxmi 136 26.03 Village- 10.05.1974
Mining hectares Dhara, to
Corporation Tehsil Bara, 09.05.1994
Prayagraj
11/31 Harimandir 333 19.50 Village - 06.07.1972
Mineral hectares Derabassi, to
Traders Tehsil Bara, 05.07.1989
Prayagraj and
06.07.1989
to
05.07.1999
12/32 Harimandir Gata no. 1/2 17.60 Village - 16.06.1988
Mineral acres Bhaisahi, to
Traders Tehsil Bara, 15.06.1998
Prayagraj
502. In annexure-C to the Fourth Report at page 943 to 948, in respect to the above respondents, it has been said that no mining activities were found and their lease period has expired long back.
503. Respondents 20, 25, 28 and 29 have filed their responses.
Response dated 12.04.2024 filed by Respondent 20 (Badri Prasad Amarnath) on 25.04.2024 (P/2375):
504. Response dated 12.04.2024 of respondent 20 (Badri Prasad Amarnath) states that it was granted lease for a period of 20 years from 10.08.1973 to 09.08.1993 at village-Lakhnauti, Tehsil-Bara which has 379 already expired and no mining operation has been carried out thereafter.
During period, it has carried out mining operations, no violation of environmental laws was found and nobody has ever made any complaint. Response dated 12.04.2024 filed by respondent 25 (Jai Shri Trading Company) on 20.04.2024 (p/2234):
505. In the reply dated 12.04.2024 filed by respondent 25 i.e., Jai Shri Trading Company through its partner Ashok Kumar Agrawal, it is said that mining lease for silica sand was granted for the period of 20 years i.e., from 29.11.1980 to 28.11.2000 for area admeasuring 51.17 hectares at village-
Bhaisahi, Tehsil-Bara, Allahabad (now Prayagraj). After expiry of lease, no mining activity has been carried out and during the period of mining activities, no violation of environmental laws was complained or pointed out by any authority.
Response dated 12.04.2024 filed by Respondent 28 (Bhulli Mahraj & Sons) on 22.04.2024 (P/2322):
506. Respondent 28, Bhulli Maharaj & Sons through its proprietor R.D. Awasthi has filed its reply dated 12.04.2024 stating that initially mining lease was granted for 10 years from 16.06.1979 to 15.06.1989, renewed for 10 years i.e., from 16.06.1989 to 15.06.1999 in respect of an area of 47.06 hectares at Village-Janwa, Tehsil-Bara, District-Allahabad. After expiry of lease on 15.06.1999, no mining activity has been carried out and during the period, the mining activities were conducted, no violation of environmental laws was found.380
Response dated 12.04.2024 filed by Respondent 29 (Laxmi Mining Corporation) on 22.04.2024 (P/2275):
507. Respondent 29 has submitted its reply dated 12.04.2024 stating that mining lease for 20 years i.e., from 10.05.1974 to 09.05.1994 over an area of 26 hectares at Village-Dhara, Sankargarh, District-Allahabad was granted to it and after expiry of mining lease, no mining activity has been carried out. During the period of mining activities were undertaken, no environmental laws was found or pointed out by any authority.
508. For the facts stated above, it is evident that so far as the above respondents are concerned, where mining activities have stopped long back, no action can be taken in their matter. Mining activities were closed several years ago and their consideration is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Sections 14(3) and 15(3) of NGT Act, 2010.
509. Hence, we are of the view that no order is required to be passed in respect to respondent 20 (Badri Prasad Amarnath), respondent 25 (Jai Shri Trading Company), respondent 28 (Bhulli Mahraj & Sons) and respondent 29 (Laxmi Mining Corporation) and also respondents 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 31 and 32 and proceedings against them are dropped.
Respondent 30 (Smt. Rani Rajendra Kumari Ba):
510. Smt. Rani Rajendra Kumari Ba in annexure-B of the Fourth Report at page 935 has stated that she was having lease area spread in 46 villages i.e., Shankargarh, Talapar, Kapari, Barui, Khansamera, Beyonra, Raipatna, Matarwar, Gorkha, Gheyodora, Chak Arazi Gadhwa, Gadha, Benipur, Lakhanpur, Kaitha, Shivrajpur, Osa, Atri Kapsan, Charihari, 381 Gobra Sangram, Pagwar, Majhiyari Bahelia, Gobara Hewar, Barahaiya, Bhonri, Lohgara, Gadhamar, Chandra, Lalai, Baisa, Longkhurd, Baghela, Pandua, Parvezabad Aliya Burhi, Bashara Tarhar, Lalapur, Maduri, Pratappur, Surwal. However, no mining is being carried out by her since 2011 and her issue of mining rise is subject matter of consideration in Allahabad High Court in Appeal No. 481/1979.
511. In respect of respondent 30 also, we find that since mining activities are not being carried out since 2011, her issue is also beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Sections 14(3) and 15(3) of NGT Act, 2010, therefore, we do not propose to pass any order in respect to respondent 30 and proceedings against here are dropped.
Respondent 33-Chawla Silica Sand Trading Co., Shivrajpur, Bara, Prayagraj; Respondent 34-Chawla Silica Sand Trading Co. (Crushing & Washing), Lakhanauti, Bara, Prayagraj; Respondent 35-Chawla Silica Sand Trading Co., Garha, Bara, Prayagraj; Respondent 36-Quality Minerals Development Corporation, Kaitha, Bara, Prayagraj; Respondent 37-Quality Minerals Development Corporation, Garwa, Sheorajpur, Prayagraj:
512. In Fourth Report at page 951 (annexure-E), details of the above respondents are given. These are all washing plants. It is mentioned that they are extracting ground water having installed one borewell each and NOC by concerned Competent Authority has been granted. No violation has been found by Joint Committee in these cases. Hence, we do not find any occasion to pass any further order in respect of these respondents i.e., 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 hence, proceedings against them are dropped.382
Respondent 38- Krishna Enterprises, Ledar, Bara, Prayagraj:
513. In respect to the above washing plant unit, it is stated that ground water is being extracted by installing one borewell but proponent has not produced any NOC from the Competent Authority for extraction of ground water, therefore, there is violation on its part. Since no other violation has been pointed out, we find it appropriate to impose environmental compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for preceding 5 years for extraction of ground water unauthorizedly. We also direct UPPCB to immediately take steps for sealing of borewell and restrain respondent 38 from extraction of ground water from the borewell installed at its premises.
Respondent 40-Singh Contractor and Supplier, Ledar, Bara, Prayagraj; Respondent 42-Harsh Minerals, Kachari, Bara, Prayagraj; and Respondent 43-Barawhite Stone Heights Pvt. Ltd., Parvejabad, Prayagraj:
514. In Fourth Report at page 951 (annexure-E) contains details of the above washing plants. It is clear therefrom that these proponents are extracting ground water by installing one borewell each in their premises but no NOC from competent authority has been obtained or produced either before Joint Committee or this Tribunal. They have also not filed any response despite notice served upon them. Except respondent 41, other respondents 40, 42 and 43 have also not installed water flow meter on the borewells, therefore, these proponents are extracting ground water illegally and are liable to pay environmental compensation by application of principles of 'Polluter Pays' and also to incur other consequences.
515. In the circumstances, we impose environmental compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-, each upon respondents 40, 42 and 43 and also direct 383 UPPCB to immediately seal their borewells so as to prevent them from extracting ground water without any further delay.
Respondent 41 - Girdhari Lal Chawla & Sons, Benipur, Shankargrah, Prayagraj and Respondent 48 - Girdhari Lal Chawla & Sons, Kaitha, Lakhanpur, Shankargrah, Prayagraj:
516. With respect to respondent 41, Fourth Report at page 951 (annexure-E) shows that it did not have any NOC from Competent Authority for extraction of ground water.
Response/Reply dated 30.03.2024 filed by respondents 41 and 48 on 02.04.2024:
517. Respondent 41 and 48 have filed collectively response/reply dated 30.03.2024 stating that it has two washing plants; one at village Benipur, and another at Kaitha, Lakhanpur.
518. Consent under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 were granted by UPPCB to respondent 41 vide letter dated 30.07.2020 which were valid for the period upto 31.03.2023 and thereafter, a consolidated consent under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 has been issued on 06.04.2023 for the period from 06.04.2023 to 31.03.2026. For extraction of ground water though borewell was constructed on 01.01.2022 and also energised on that day but application for NOC was submitted on 06.02.2023. Borewell has been registered under Section 10 of UP Ground Water Management and Regulation Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'UPGWMR Act, 2019') vide UP Ground Water Department's certificate of registration dated 22.03.2023 but there is nothing on record to show that any NOC for extraction of ground water from borewell has been issued to respondent
41. With regard to respondent 48, it is said that washing plant has 384 approved production of quantity of 1800 tonnes/month for silica sand and CTO was issued by UPPCB on 26.08.2021 valid for the period from 26.08.2021 to 31.03.2024. It has further been renewed by letter dated 23.03.2024 for the period from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2029. For extraction of ground water, respondent 48 has submitted application on 10.10.2023 and Certificate has been granted on 15.12.2023 by UP Ground Water Department under Section 14 of UPGWMR Act, 2019. The above certificate is at page 2053 and shows that maximum allowable annual extraction of ground water is 766500 m3. The certificate also shows that the borewell was energised on 06.04.2021, thus, for more than two and a half years, borewell was operated by respondent 48 without any NOC and it had extracted ground water illegally.
519. In view of the documents placed on record by respondents 41 and 48, it is evident that respondent 41 is extracting ground water throughout without any NOC and illegally while respondent 48 has extracted ground water for about two and a half years illegally and without any NOC.
520. We accordingly impose environmental compensation by application of principle of 'Polluter Pays' for illegal extraction of ground water upon respondent 41 as Rs. 2,50,000/- and upon respondent 48 as Rs. 1,50,000/. UPPCB shall immediately take steps to seal borewells forthwith and prevent proponents from extraction of ground water by using of borewell any further till compliance with the environmental laws is made.385
Respondent 44 - Manglore Minerals Private Limited, Aswan, Bara, Prayagraj:
521. As per the details given in Fourth Report at page 951 (annexure-E), this proponent has one borewell installed at its premises along with water flow meter and has also obtained NOC from concerned authority for extraction of ground water.
Response/Reply dated 09.04.2024 filed by respondents 44 on 26.04.2024:
522. Respondent 44 has also filed its response dated 09.04.2024 vide e-
mail dated 26.04.2024. It is pleaded that it is a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and one of its business is running of washing raw silica sand at its washing plant namely 'Aswan Silica Sand Beneficiation Plant' situated at village Aswan, Tehsil-Bara, District- Prayagarj. Proponent applied for grant of EC for establishment of Aswan Silica Sand Beneficiation Plant at village Chattara for mining silica sand with capacity of 6 lakh TPA. EC was granted by MoEF&CC vide letter dated 19.04.2017 (p/2574). Para 3.0 of EC stated that silica sand will be sourced primarily from the nearby silica sand mine of M/s Hari Mandir Mineral Traders located at about 1 km from the plant and other nearby mines. Quantity of water required for washing plants was estimated at 207 KLD. Besides, 26 KLD required for sprinkling and horticulture. Fresh water requirement would be 180 KLD which will be drawn from ground water for which approval has already been obtained from CGWA. Later on, EC was corrected vide corrigendum dated 28.07.2017 (p/2851) and instead of village-Chattara, it was made village Aswan near Chattara. The construction of the project started in November 2017 after obtaining 386 consent from UPPCB vide letter dated 14.10.2017. Project proponent set up tubewell on 01.05.2017 and installed a submersible electric motor with 1.50 horse power on 01.02.2020. It obtained NOC from UPGWD on 02.11.2022 valid for the period from 08.10.2022 to 07.10.2027. Document appended to the reply shows that following NOCs under Section 14 were issued to this proponent which show installation of 03 borewells by it:
Sr.No. Registration Date of Date of Period No. sinking of NOC well 1 202208001195 01.05.2017 02.11.2022 08.10.2022 to 07.10.2027 2 202209000055 01.05.2017 02.11.2022 08.10.2022 to 07.10.2027 3 202206001409 01.05.2017 02.11.2022 08.10.2022 to 07.10.2027
523. Proponent has further stated that it has installed electro-magnetic flow meter, piezometer DWLR, constructed STP of 150 KLD for waste treatment, village pond for rain water harvesting and got borewell water quality tested through a laboratory approved by MoEF. Proponent also got CTO dated 07.12.2022 consolidated under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 for the period from 07.12.2022 to 21.12.2025 for manufacturing of following products:
S No. Product Quantity Unit
1. Foundry Grade Silica 1000 Metric Tonnes/Day
Sand
387
2. Glass Grade Silica Sand 800 Metric Tonnes/Day
3. Oversize and Undersize 120 Metric Tonnes/Day
Silica Sand
4. Clay reject and other 80 Metric Tonnes/Day
solid waste
524. Proponent also claimed to have planted several trees i.e., 468, details whereof are given as annexure R11 at page 2614.
525. From EC, it is evident that silica sand was claimed to have been available to the proponent from silica sand mines of Harimandir Mineral Traders i.e., respondent 19. We have already discussed the matter of respondent 19 and find that lease period of silica sand of respondent 19 expired in 14.12.2019 and it has been claimed therein that thereafter no mining activity has been carried out, therefore, from the silica sand mines of respondent 19, mining was conducted upto 2019 and prior thereto. Due to change in the partnership and entering of respondent 44 in 2017, silica sand became available to respondent 44 from 2017 i.e., when it installed 03 borewells as admitted from the above discussion but did not seek any permission for extraction of ground water and it appears that the said silica sand was available to respondent 44 upto 2019 has been washed by operating borewell illegally and without permission from Competent Authority.
526. Moreover, if we read the statement of respondents 19 ad 44 together, it is clear that there is no lease deed on and after 14.12.2019 and hence in 2022 and onwards how the respondent 44 could have operated when in terms of EC, silica sand from the mines of Harimandir Mineral Traders was not available which shows that respondents have not placed correct 388 facts before this Tribunal. Harimandir Mineral Traders is also respondents 31 and 32 and mines in respect thereto are closed long back as we have already stated above.
527. In the circumstances, we are clearly of the view that respondent 44 has extracted ground water illegally and unauthorisedly and is liable to pay environmental compensation. Since there are 03 tubewells, we direct it to pay environmental compensation by application of principles of 'Polluter Pays' of Rs. 7,50,000 for five years on three borewells.
528. We also direct UPPCB and District Magistrate, Prayagraj to enquire as to wherefrom respondent 44 is getting silica sand and whether it is being procured validly and to take appropriate action accordingly.
Respondent 47-Baba Vighneshwar Minerals (Narayan Enterprises), Bargarhi, Shivrajpur, Prayagraj:
529. Fourth Report at page 951 (annexure-E) has dealt with this proponent stating that it was having consent valid upto 31.03.2024 for operating washing plant and also installed a borewell along with water flow meter and in respect thereof, NOC was also granted. However, at the time of inspection, the said unit was found closed.
530. Since no violation of environmental laws and norms has been pointed out or found, in our view, no further order is required in respect of this respondent and proceedings are dropped in respect to respondent 47.389
Respondent 49-Guru Dayal Singh & Co. (Silica), Kaitha, Shankargrah, Bara, Prayagraj:
531. Fourth Report of Joint Committee at page 951 (annexure-E) shows that this proponent in its washing unit has installed borewell for extraction of ground water and also water flow meter but possess no NOC from concerned Competent Authority for extraction of ground water. It is said that it has applied for NOC for extraction of ground water but the fact remains that it has been operating and still operating without any NOC and extracting ground water illegally. Hence by application of principles of 'Polluter Pays', it is liable to pay environmental compensation of Rs. One Lakh.
532. In our view, Rs. One Lakh is payable by respondent 49 towards environmental compensation. UPPCB shall immediately take steps to seal borewell forthwith and prevent proponent from extraction of ground water by using of borewell any further till compliance with the environmental laws is made.
Respondent 50-Vandana Singh (Stone/Silica Washing Plant), Bankipur, Bara, Prayagraj:
533. Fourth Report at page 951 (annexure-E) shows that this proponent has also installed borewell but neither water flow meter was installed nor obtaining any NOC from the Competent Authority for extraction of ground water. Consent under Water Act, 1974 was valid upto 31.03.2024 and at the time of inspection, it was found closed. However, since the extraction of ground water is illegal i.e., without any NOC from Competent Authority, in our view, by application of principle of 'Polluter Pays', it is liable to pay environmental compensation.390
534. We accordingly hold that respondent 50 is liable to pay environmental compensation of Rs. One Lakh. UPPCB shall immediately take steps to seal borewell forthwith and prevent proponent from extraction of ground water by using of borewell any further till compliance with the environmental laws is made.
Respondent 51-Silica Khanij Udyog, Kaitha, Bara, Prayagraj:
535. In Fourth Report at page 952 (annexure-E), details of this proponent are given stating that it had consent valid upto 31.03.2024, installed borewell with water flow meter for which NOC from Competent Authority has also been obtained.
Response/Reply dated 15.03.2024 filed by respondent 51 on 18.03.2024 (p/1779):
536. Respondent 51 had also filed its reply vide e-mail dated 18.03.2024 stating that it is running only one washing plant at Village-Kaitha, Tehsil-
Bara for which CTO was issued by UPPCB vide letter dated 17.01.2018 (P/1798) valid for period of 17.01.2018 to 31.12.2020. Another consent, subsequently for the period from 25.03.2021 to 31.03.2024 was issued by UPPCB vide letter dated 25.03.2021 (P/1804). It is also said that NOC for abstraction of ground water was issued by CGWA for period from 14.10.2022 to 13.10.2023 (p/1810).
537. We have perused the record and annexure appended to reply of respondent 51 and find that page 1798 is the copy of consent under Section 21/22 of Air Act, 1981 in respect of respondent 53 i.e., Silica Khanij Udyog, Lakhanpur and not village Kaitha. It appears that there is some confusion in documents in as much as copy of consent under Section 391 21/22 of Air Act, 1981 in respect of respondent 51 is dated 16.01.2018 at page 1817 while consent under Section 21/22 of Water Act, 1974 dated 16.01.2018 is at page 1820.
538. Be that as it may, since, consent under Air Act, 1981 and Water Act, 1974 were obtained by respondent 51 and also NOC from Competent Authority for extraction of ground water, and no other violation has been pointed out here also, no further order is required and proceedings in respect of respondent 51 are dropped.
Respondent 52-Silica Khanij Udyog Kaitha, Shivrajpur, Bara, Prayagraj and Respondent 53-Silica Khanij Udyog, Lakhanpur, Bara, Prayagraj
539. In respect of respondents 52 and 53, Fourth Report at page 952 (annexure-E) shows that both had consent valid upto 31.03.2024 and had installed one borewell each with water flow meter but there is no reference of any NOC for extraction of ground water from Competent Authority. Response/Reply dated 30.03.2024 filed by respondents 52 on 02.04.2024 (p/2062):
540. Respondent 52 has filed its reply dated 30.03.2024 stating that it had obtained NOC for abstraction of ground water from UPGWD on 13.12.2023 (annexure R-2 at p/2073) but we find that above document is not NOC granted under Section 14 of UPGWMR Act, 2019 but a document pertaining to registration of borewell under Section 10 (1) or 11 (1) of the said Act. Apparent manipulation in the document on the part of authorities is also evident from the fact that date of application submitted by the proponent is mentioned as 18.03.2024 but the issue date is mentioned is 13.12.2023 and it is not conceivable that registration 392 document could have been issued more than three months prior to date of submission of application for grant of such Certificate. Be that as it may, there is no document on record to show that any NOC under Section 14 of UPGWMR Act, 2019 was granted for permitting ground water extraction to respondent 52.
541. No response has been filed by Respondent 53-Silica Khanij Udyog, Lakhanpur, Bara, Prayagraj.
542. Accordingly, we are of the view that respondents 52 and 53 have abstracted ground water illegally without any permission of Competent Authority and are liable to pay environmental compensation by application of principles of 'Polluter Pays'.
543. Respondents 52 and 53 are, therefore, directed to pay environmental compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- each for unauthorized abstraction of ground water for past violations of last 5 years. UPPCB is further directed to immediately seal borewells of both the above respondents and prevent them from using borewells installed at their premises for extraction of groundwater any further.
Respondent 55-Adishwara Construction & Minerals Co., Parvejabad, Bara, Prayagraj; Respondent 60-Ujjwal Trading Co., Bargari, Bara, Prayagraj Allahabad; Respondent 63-Jai Shree Trading Company, Ramna, Bargari, Prayagraj; Respondent 65-Glass and Foundary Sand, Bargari, Bara, Prayagraj; Respondent 66-Om Luxmi Minerals, Kachari, Bara, Prayagraj; and Respondent 67-Om Laxmi Industries, Kachari, Bara, Prayagraj:
544. In respect to above respondents, details are given in Fourth Report at Page 952 and it is said that all respondents have consent from UPPCB for operating washing plants but have not installed any 393 borewell hence question of NOC for abstraction of ground water does not arise. In respect to these washing plants, it is not pointed out in the Report as to wherefrom they are getting water for running washing plants and Report is thus, incomplete.
545. We accordingly, direct CPCB and Integrated Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Lucknow to enquire into the aspect as to in what manner, these respondents 55, 60, 63, 65, 66, and 67 are getting water for running their washing units and if the source of water is not in accordance with law and water is being used by making it available illegally, appropriate action shall be taken in accordance with law within two months and Compliance Report shall be submitted to Tribunal.
Respondent 56-Prayag Quality Sand, Pratappur, Bara, Prayagraj; Respondent 57-Abhijaat Singh Associated, Golahiya, Bara, Prayagraj; and Respondent 68-Asha Devi (Silica Washing Plant), Kaitha, Shivrajpur, Prayagraj:
546. The facts regarding the above proponents are given in Fourth Report at page 952 (annexure-E). It is said that these proponents had consent operating for washing plants issued by UPPCB and also had installed borewells for extraction of ground water but no water flow meter has been installed and with regard to NOC from Competent Authority for extraction of ground water, no document could be shown by them. They have also not filed any response hence, we are entitled to draw inference that abstraction of ground water by these proponents from the borewells installed at their premises is wholly illegal and in violation of the directions 394 issued by CGWA read with EP Act, 1986 hence they are liable to pay environmental compensation by application of principle of 'Polluter Pays'.
547. Accordingly, respondents 56, 57, and 68 are required to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- each, towards environmental compensation for preceding 5 years. UPPCB shall immediately take steps to seal borewells forthwith and prevent proponents from extraction of ground water by using of borewells any further till compliance with the environmental laws is made.
Respondent 58-Anupam Enterprises, Village-Garha Katra, Shankargarh, Bara, Prayagraj; Respondent 62-Jai Shree Trading Company, Village- Kaitha, Bara, Prayagraj; and Respondent 74-Quality Minerals Development Corporation, Village-Ledar, Bara, Prayagraj:
548. The details of above respondents have been given in Fourth Report at page 952 (annexure-E). It is said that above respondents had consent valid upto 31.03.2026, 31.03.2026 and 31.03.2026 respectively. All these respondents also have installed a borewell in their premises with water flow meter and NOC from Competent Authority had also been obtained.
549. Since, there is no other violation pointed out in respect to above respondents, proceedings are dropped and no further order is required to be passed in respect to above respondents 58, 62, and 74.
Respondent 59-Shree Bhagwan Dass Industries, Shivrajpur, Bara, prayagraj and Respondent 64-Narayan Dutt Tiwari (Silica Washing Plant), Benipur, Shankargrah, Prayagraj:
550. Details of the above proponents are given in Fourth Report at page 952 (annexure-E) showing that both of them had consent issued by UPPCB and installed a borewell each along with water flow meter but did not have 395 or produce any NOC for abstraction of ground water issued by Competent Authority. They have not filed any specific response despite notice.
551. In the circumstances, it is evident that these two proponents have extracted ground water unauthorisedly and illegally and in violation of guidelines of CGWA read with EP Act, 1986 and are liable to pay environmental compensation by application of principle of 'Polluter Pays' of Rs. 2,50,000/- each for past violations of 5 years. UPPCB shall immediately take steps to seal borewells forthwith and prevent proponents from extraction of ground water by using of borewells any further till compliance with the environmental laws is made.
Respondent 61-Gupta Enterprises, Shivrajpur, Shankargarg, Prayagraj:
552. In Fourth Report at page 952 (annexure-E), details of proponent have been given showing that it had a consent from UPPCB for operating washing plant and also installed a borewell with water flow meter but did not possess any permission or NOC from Competent Authority for extraction of ground water. Joint Committee Report shows that it had applied for the same but mere application does not mean grant of permission and hence without NOC, extraction of ground water is illegal and in violation of the provisions of EP Act, 1986 read with guidelines of CGWA.
553. Respondent 61, therefore, is liable to pay environmental compensation by application of principle of 'Polluter Pays' of Rs.
2,50,000/- for preceding 5 years. UPPCB shall immediately take steps to seal borewell forthwith and prevent proponent from extraction of 396 ground water by using of borewell any further till compliance with the environmental laws is made.
Respondent 69-KR Minerals, Village- Bargari, Bihariya, Shankargrah, Prayagraj and Respondent 70-SBS Enterprises, Village-Lakhnauti, Bara, Prayagraj:
554. In respect of above proponents, details are given in Fourth Report at page 952, showing that they had CTO for washing plant from UPPCB and also installed borewell for extraction of ground water. Both the proponents have also obtained NOC from Competent Authority for extraction of ground water.
555. No violation has been pointed out; hence, no order is required in respect to above proponents and proceedings against respondents 69 and 70 stand dropped.
Respondent 71-Sita Devi (Silica Washing Plant), Village-Ledar, Bara, Prayagraj:
556. We find reference of this proponent at page 952 on Fourth Report of Joint Committee which shows that consent was granted by UPPCB for operating washing plant. Proponent also has installed a borewell but neither water flow meter has been installed nor obtained NOC from Competent Authority. At the time of inspection, it was found closed but the fact remains that proponent has illegally extracted ground water without permission and, therefore, has violated the provisions of Guidelines of CGWA read with EP Act, 1986. It is accordingly liable to pay environmental compensation by application of principle of 'Polluter Pays'.397
557. We accordingly hold that respondent 71 is liable to pay environmental compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for preceding 5 years.
UPPCB shall immediately take steps to seal borewell forthwith and prevent proponent from extraction of ground water by using of borewell any further till compliance with the environmental laws is made.
Respondent 72-Laxmi Mineral Manufacturer and Traders, Village-Garha Katra, Shankargrah, Prayagraj:
558. The details of this proponent, we find at page 953 (annexure-E) of Fourth Report showing that it has valid consent from UPPCB for operating washing plant. Proponent has installed a borewell along with water flow meter but did not have any NOC from Competent Authority for extraction of ground water. Thus, it has violated the provisions of Guidelines of CGWA read with EP Act, 1986 and liable to pay environmental compensation by application of principle of 'Polluter Pays'.
559. We accordingly hold that respondent 72 is liable to pay environmental compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for preceding 5 years.
UPPCB shall immediately take steps to seal borewell forthwith and prevent proponent from extraction of ground water by using of borewell any further till compliance with the environmental laws is made.
Respondent 73-Badri Prasad Amar Nath, Village-Shivrajpur, Bara, Prayagraj:
560. Details of this proponent, we find in Fourth Report (annexure-E) at page 953. It is evident therefrom that proponent had consent from UPPCB 398 for operating washing plant. It had also installed a borewell as also water flow meter but did not possess any NOC from Competent Authority for extraction of ground water. Report shows that it applied for grant of NOC but that does not mean that NOC has been granted authorising the proponent to abstract ground water. It is thus violating Guidelines of CGWA read with EP Act, 1986 by extracting ground water illegally, hence liable to pay environmental compensation by application of principle of 'Polluter Pays'.
561. We accordingly hold that respondent 73 is liable to pay environmental compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for preceding 5 years.
UPPCB shall immediately take steps to seal borewell forthwith and prevent proponent from extraction of ground water by using of borewell any further till compliance with the environmental laws is made.
NEED FOR GUIDELINES BY CPCB:
562. Before parting, we find it appropriate to mention that for operation of silica sand mines, lot of irregularities have been found in various ways and even the attitude and performance of the concerned authorities including Statutory Regulators, does not fulfil the requirement of law.
Silica sand mining activities are different from river sand mining activities at river bed in as much as in case of silica sand mining, there is no occasion of replenishment; silica sand is excavated along with large quantity of clay and silt and therefore, before making the silica sand marketable, its washing is necessary; the area, where silica sand is found, 399 is not very conducive for all kinds of plants and, therefore, plantation also becomes difficult.
563. Similarly, in respect of the washing plants of silica sand, regular records are not maintained and Statutory Regulators also do not pay much heed in respect of compliance or requirement of law.
564. It appears that considering the nature of activities, the things are not very clear in as much as consent conditions issued by UPPCB for silica sand mining and washing plant, do not take special consideration of the commodity involved in the matter and such conditions are mentioned which have no application to the silica sand mining activities. In other words, several conditions are such which have no application to the nature of activities for which consent or permission is granted by UPPCB in the matter of silica sand mining and washing plants. In these facts and circumstances, in order to put the things straight and to stream line these activities, it would be appropriate for CPCB to prepare a detailed Guidelines for governing silica sand mining and silica washing plants, to be followed and observed by the concerned Statutory Regulators while granting permission/consent under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 and NOC under the provisions of EP Act, 1986. CPCB shall look into this aspect of the matter and prepare detailed Guidelines and circulate the same to all concerned, PAN India, within three months. PROVISION FOR MEDICAL FACILITIES TO TAKE CARE OF SILICOSIS:
565. We may also take notice of the fact that extraction of silica sand from silica sand mines may cause health hazards to the workers since they may 400 suffer lungs related diseases and silicosis which are very serious in nature and, therefore, deserve immediate socio-medical welfare activities in the area concerned. State of UP and UPPCB in consultation and coordination with the concerned departments of State shall take immediate steps to provide specialised health care facilities in the areas where silica sand mines are being operated by mining lease holders. Necessary medical infrastructure for prevention and treatment of affected workers shall be arranged without any further delay. The amount of environmental compensation collected by UPPCB under the present order may also be utilised for this purpose and if there is any deficiency in the funds, State Government of UP shall provide the requisite funds for this purpose. Chief Secretary, State of UP shall ensure compliance of this direction and submit a compliance Report by 28.02.2025.
SUMMARY OF DIRECTIONS:
566. In view of the above discussions, we summarise our directions as under:
(i) Following respondents are liable to pay environmental compensation to the extent mentioned against them for the mining, illegally conducted, in violation of the provisions of Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 by application of Polluter's pay principle:
Sl. Respondent No. Environmental
No. Compensation
1 Respondent 8 Rs. 10,68,276/-
2 Respondent 9 Rs. 5,77,869/-
3 Respondent 10/39 Rs. 7,72,327/-
401
4 Respondent 11 Rs.3,34,279/-
5 Respondents-12/54 Rs. 6,57,112/-
6 Respondent 13/46 Rs.52,27,923/-
7 Respondent 14/45 Rs.1,70,300/-
8 Respondent 15 Rs. 1,79,900/-
9 Respondent 16 Rs. 4,05,064/-
10 Respondent 17 Rs. 5,25,464/-
11 Respondent 18 Rs.7,50,630/-
12 Respondent 19 Rs.42,66,965/-
(ii) Following respondents are liable to pay environmental compensation for illegal extraction of ground water in silica washing plants by application of principle of 'Polluter Pays':
Sl. Respondent No. Environmental
No. Compensation
1. Respondent-38 Rs. 2.5 lakhs
2. Respondents-40, 42 and 43 Rs. 2.5 lakhs each
3. Respondent 41 Rs. 2.5 lakhs
4. Respondent 44 Rs. 7.5 lakhs
5. Respondent 48 Rs. 1.5 lakhs
6. Respondent 49 Rs. One Lakh
7. Respondent 50 Rs. One Lakh
8. Respondents 52 and 53 Rs. 2.5 lakhs each
9. Respondents 56, 57, and 68 Rs. 2.5 lakhs each
10. Respondents 59 and 64 Rs. 2.5 lakhs each
11. Respondent 61 Rs. 2.5 lakhs 402
12. Respondent 71 Rs. 2.5 lakhs
13. Respondent 72 Rs. 2.5 lakhs
14. Respondent 73 Rs. 2.5 lakhs
(iii) UPPCB shall immediately take steps to seal borewell, forthwith, and prevent respondents 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 61, 64, 68, 71, 72 and 73 from extraction of ground water by using of borewell any further till compliance with the environmental laws is made.
(iv) Proceedings against respondents 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 47, 51, 54, 58, 62, 69, 70 and 74 are dropped since no violation has been found and no further order is required.
(v) In respect of respondent 30, we find that since mining activities are not being carried out since 2011, the issue of respondent 30 is also beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Sections 14(3) and 15(3) of NGT Act, 2010, therefore, we do not propose to pass any order in respect to respondent 30 and proceedings against respondent 30 are hereby dropped.
(vi) In respect of respondents 55, 60, 63, 65, 66 and 67, it is not pointed out in the Report as to wherefrom they are getting water for running washing plants and Report is thus, incomplete. We accordingly, direct CPCB and Integrated Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Lucknow to enquire into the 403 aspect as to in what manner, these respondents are getting water for running their washing units and if the source of water is not in accordance with law and water is being used by making it available illegally, appropriate action shall be taken in accordance with law within two months and Compliance Report shall be submitted to Tribunal by 31.01.2025.
(vii) CPCB is directed to prepare detailed Guidelines in respect of silica sand mining and silica washing plants, to be followed and observed by the concerned Statutory Regulators while granting permission/consent under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 and NOC under the provisions of EP Act, 1986 for silica sand mining and silica sand washing plants. CPCB shall look into this aspect of the matter and prepare detailed Guidelines and circulate the same to all concerned, PAN India, within three months.
(viii) State of UP and UPPCB in consultation and coordination with the concerned departments of State shall take immediate steps to provide specialised health care facilities in the areas where silica sand mines are being operated by mining lease holders. Necessary medical infrastructure for prevention and treatment of affected workers shall be arranged without any further delay. The amount of environmental compensation collected by UPPCB under the present order may also be utilised for this purpose and if there is any deficiency in the 404 funds, State Government of UP shall provide the requisite funds for this purpose. Chief Secretary, State of UP shall ensure compliance of this direction and submit a compliance Report by 28.02.2025.
(ix) After receiving the Compliance Reports as directed above, Registrar General, if finds any further order necessary, shall place the matter before the appropriate Bench.
567. This OA is disposed of in the light of the above findings, observations, and directions.
568. Copy of this judgment be forwarded to Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh; MoEF&CC; CPCB; UPPCB; Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh; District Collector, Prayagraj; and Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department for information and compliance.
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER November 29, 2024 Original Application No.203/2021 R 405