National Green Tribunal
J Nageswara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By ... on 17 September, 2021
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.1 & 2:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 179 of 2016 (SZ)
With
Original Application No. 07 of 2019 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Pamulapati Krishna Rao ... Applicant(s)
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
... Respondent(s)
With
J. Nageswara Rao ...Applicant(s)
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Date of Order: 17.09.2021.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE. Dr. K. SATYAGOPAL, EXPERT MEMBER
O.A. No.179/2016:
For Applicant(s): None.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Madhuri Donti Reddy for R1 to R7.
Mr. K.S. Viswanathan for R8 to R53.
O.A. No.07/2019:
For Applicant(s): Mr. S. Kamalesh Kannan.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Madhuri Donti Reddy for R1 to R5.
Mr. K.S. Viswanathan for R6 to R42.
ORDER
Common Judgment pronounced through Video Conference. Both the Original Applications are disposed of with directions vide separate Judgment. Pending interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
...................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) Sd/-
..............................E.M. (Dr. K. Satyagopal) O.A. No.179/2016 & O.A. No.07/2019, 17th September, 2021. Mn.
Item No.1 & 2:-
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Original Application No. 179 of 2016 (SZ) With Original Application No.07 of 2019 (SZ) (Through Video Conference) IN THE MATTER OF Original Application No. 179 of 2016 (SZ) Pamulapati Krishna Rao, S/o Late Kotaiah, Aged 47 years Occ: Advocate Perecherla- 522 009 Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District.
....Applicant(s) Versus
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad
2. The Director of Mines & Geology, 1st Floor, B.R.K. Rao's Office Complex, Near Tank Bund, Hyderabad.
3. The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, 4th Line, Pandaripuram, Guntur, Guntur District
4. The Deputy Director Mines Safety, Nellore, Opp: S.P. Bungalow, Podalakur Raod, Dargamitta, Nellore
5. The District Collector, Guntur District Guntur.
6. The Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board Rep by its Member Secretary A.3, I.E, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad Rep. by its Member Secretary.
7. The Environmental Engineer, Regional office, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board Flat No. 102, Raghava Apartment, Brundavan Gardens, Guntur, Guntur District.
8. Sri Sai Krishna Stone Crusher, Rep by its Managing Partner Sri P.Chandraiah, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District
9. M/s V.S. Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Director: V. Sarath, Reg. Office-109,Amruthaville, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad
10. Sri. P. Siva Sankara Rao, S/o Veera Swamy, Turakapalem Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District
11. M/s. Ganesh Metal Crusher, Rep by its Managing Partner:
Shri T. Bhaskara Rao, Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District
12. Sri. V. Sarath, D. No. 3-29-13/25/C, Krishna Nagar, 5th lane, Guntur Town
13. M/s. S.R. Infra projects, Rep by its proprietor, S. Ramesh Babu, S/o Seetha Ramaiah, 3-30-56, 3rd lane, Brundavan Gardens, Guntur
14. M/s PVR Chalapathi Metal Industries, Prop. P. Venkateswara Rao, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District
15. M/s Sundaram Stone Crusher, Prop: D. Sundara Murthy Nallapadu Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District
16. M/s Sri Balaji Stone Crusher Prop: L Veeraiah, S/o Somaiah, S.No. No. 155/A1, Chinapalakanur, Guntur District
17. Smt. S. Adilakshmi, W/o Sadasiva Rao, D. No. 3-2914/12, 3/6, Krishna Nagar, Guntur Town.
18. The Perecherla Tella Quarry Vaddera Q.W.L.C.C society Ltd, President: T. Venkata Swamy, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District
19. M/s P.U.S. Stone Crusher, Rep by its Managing Partner: T. Subba Rao, D. No. 1-131b, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District
20. B. Siva Sankara Rao, S/o Rama Kotaiah, Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District
21. M/s. 6th Mile Perecherla S.C.L.C.C. Sty. Ltd., President:-N Ramappa S/o Hanumappa, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District
22. M/s Rajamma Stone Crusher, Prop: N. Sivanagendramma, Challavaripalem Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District
23. M/s Sai Yasasvi Stone Crusher, Mg. P.S. Sasirekha, W/o Ramesh Babu, 4th Line, Devapuram, Guntur.
24. Sri Gayatri Stone Crusher, Managing partner, Sri. P. Venu, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District
25. Sree Venkatewara Crushers, Managing Partner: B. Srinivasa Rao, Perechierla Village, Medikonduru, Mandal, Guntur District
26. M/s Sri Ganesh Stone Crusher, Managing Partner, B. Satyanarayana Murthy, Challavaripalem, Nallapadu Post, Guntur Rural, Guntur District
27. M/s Venkatewara Stone Industries, Rep by its Proprietor: P. Venkateswara Rao, Late Chalapathi Rao, Nallapadu Village, Guntur Rural, Guntur District
28. K. Rama Devi, W/o Mallikarjuna Rao, Flat No. 401, Harika Apartment, Ring Road, 2nd Lane, Nalanda Nagar, Guntur
29. V. Peddanna, S/o Narasaiah, 1-8-19/B Janda Chettu Centre, Near Doddurayi, Gujjanagudla, Guntur
30. Smt. I Padmavathi, W/o Chalapathi Rao, aged about 65 years, Occ: Business, H. No. 5-76-6, 4th Lane, Pandaripuram, Guntur
31. Sri. L. Veeraiah, S/o Somaiah, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Business R/o S1, Aparna Apartments, 6th Line Brundavan Gardens, Guntur
32. Sri K.V. Krishnaiah D.No. 3-28-66, 2nd Line, Rajendra Nagar, Guntur-6
33. M/s The Perecherla Labour Contract Co-op. Society, President: M. Moses, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru, Mandal, Guntur District
34. Sri K. Butchaiah, S/o Bullaiah, aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, Kalyani Road, Chandra Mouli Nagar, Guntur-7
35. M/s The Perecherla Q.W.L.C.C Society Ltd.
President: Sri Sk. Mastanvali, D. No. 0-7, Near Mahalakshmi Hotel, Perecherla
36. Sri B. Nageswara Rao, Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District.
37. M/s Tirumala Stone Crusher, Prop: K. Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o Singaiah, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru, Mandal, Guntur District
38. M/s Naimisha Enterprises, Prop: Sri S. Sadasiva Rao, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru, Mandal, Guntur District
39. M/s Balaji Stone Crusher, Managing Partner: T.V.S.V Prasad, S/o Krishna Rao, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru, Mandal, Guntur District
40. M/s Surya Metal Crusher, Managing Partner, V. Madhu Murthy Near Kylasagiri Temple, Perecherla (V), Medikonduru, Mandal, Guntur District
41. M/s O.S.R. Constructions, Managing Partner: Sri P. Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Sumbi Reddy, Sy. No. 155/A1, Chinapalakanur, Guntur District.
42. M/s Lakshmi Sindhu Granite Metals, Prop: Smt. N. Padmavathi, W/o N.V. Nageswara Rao, Sy. No. 155/A1, Chinapalakanur, Guntur District.
43. M/s Sri Satya Sai Metal Suppliers, Managing Partner D. Surya Pradasa Rao, Turakapalem Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur.
44. M/s Sri Satya Sai Metal Suppliers, Managing Partner D. Surya Prakasa Rao, Turakapalem Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur.
45. M/s The Perecherla Tella Quarry Vadders Q.W.L.C.C Society Ltd, President: B. Deyanandam, S/o. Govindu Perecherla Village, Medikonduru, Mandal, Guntur District
46. Smt. N. Sivanagendramma, W/o N. Bapanaiah (late), H. No. 5-60-2/198, 4/2. Ashok Nagar, Guntur
47. M/s Vijayasree Granite Metals, Managing Partner, L. Veeraiah, S/o Somaiah, Sy. No. 155/A1, Chinapalakanur, Guntur, District.
48. M/s Yesuprabhu Minerals, Managing Partner: B. Venkateswara Rao, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru, Mandal, Guntur District
49. Sri Gayathri Stone Crusher, Managing Partner, Sri. P. Venu, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru, Mandal, Guntur District
50. Sri P.V.V. Surya Kumar, S/o Pattabhi Rama Rao, D. No. 3-28-26/P, Krishna Nagar, Guntur Town.
51. M/s Saroja Metal Crusher, Prop: G.P. Ranga Rao, Sy. No. 155/A1, Chinapalakanur, Guntur District.
52. M/s Pardha Saradhi Stone Crusher, Prop: Sri K. Buchaiah Kalyani Road, Chandramouli Nagar, Guntur-7
53. Sri. B. Edukondalu, S/o Late Yerraiah, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru, Mandal, Guntur District ... Respondent(s) Original Application No. 07 of 2019 (SZ) J. Nageswara Rao, S/o. Shesha Rao, No.4/230, Near Amkamma Temple, Perecherla Village, Medikondur Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
....Applicant(s) Versus
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Principal Secretary for Mines and Geology, D. No.7-104, B-Block, 5th and 6th Floor, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 521 456.
2. The Deputy Director of Mines Safety Podalakuru Road, Near Dargamitta, Opp. SP Bungalow, PSR, Nellore District D. No.7-104, B-Block, 5th and 6th Floor, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 521 456.
3. The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Nellore, No. 26-4-11, Vikram Nagar, Nellore - 524 004.
4. The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board D.No. 33-26-14, D/2, Near Sunrise Hospital, Chalamalavari Street, Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada - 520 010.
5. The District Collector, Guntur District Guntur.
6. M/s. Sri Sai Krishna Stone Crushers, Sy. No.111 (Part) Chinapalakalu (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
7. M/s. Sri Sai Krishna Stone Crushers (Road Metal Quarry) Plot No.8 (Part), Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakalu (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
8. M/s. V.S. Engineering Private Limited, Sy. No.111 (Part) Chinapalakalu (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
9. M/s. V. Sarath Road Metal Quarry, Sy. No.111 (Part), Chinapalakalu (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
10. M/s. Sri Balaji Stone Crushers, Plot No.11 (Part) & 12 (part), Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakalu (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
11. M/s. L. Veeraiah Road Metal Quarry, Plot No.11 (Part) & 12 (Part), Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
12. M/s. Ganesh Metal Crushers, Sy. No.111 (Part) Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
13. M/s. Ganesh Metal Crushers, Plot No.8 (Part), Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
14. M/s. Sri Saibaba Stone Crusher, Sy. No.111 (Part), Chinapalakalu (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
15. M/s. The Perecherla Tella Quarry Vaddora Quarry workers I, C. Co-Op. Society Ltd. Plot No.10 (P), Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
16. M/s. Perecherla Quarry Workers L.C. Co-op. Society Ltd.
Plot No.15 (part) and 16 (Part), Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
(Respondents 6 to 16 are impleaded as per order in I.A. No.30/2020 to I.A. No.35/2020 dt.21.08.2020)
17. M/s. S.R. Infra Projects, Rep. by Singu Ramesh Babu Survey No.111 (part) Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
18. M/s. Sai Yasasvi Stone Crusher, Rep. by Singu Ramesh Babu, Plot No.8 (Part), Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
19. M/s. KBC Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.
Rep. Mr. K. Butchaiah Plot No.14 (Part) Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
20. M/s. Pardhasaradhi Stone Crusher, Rep. by Mr. K. Butchaiah Plot No.14 (Part) & 17 (Part) Sy. No.155/A1 Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
21. M/s. P.V.R. Chalapathi Metal Industries, Rep. by Mr. Sri P. Venkateswara Rao, Plot No.6 (part), Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
22. M/s. Venkateswara Stone Industries, Rep. by Mr. Sri P. Venkateswara Rao, Plot No.6 (part), Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
23. M/s. Gayathri Stone Crusher, Rep. by Mr. Sri P. Venkateswara Rao, Plot No.5 (part), Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
24. M/s. P.U.S. Stone Crushers, (0.619 Hect) Rep. by Mr. T. Subba Rao, Plot No.8 (part), Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
25. M/s. P.U.S. Stone Crushers, (0.279 Hect) Rep. by Mr. T. Subba Rao, Plot No.9 (part), Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
26. M/s. P.U.S. Stone Crushers, (2.226 Hect) Rep. by Mr. T. Subba Rao, Plot No.16 (part), Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
27. M/s. P.U.S. Stone Crusher (M/s. Saroja Metal Crushers) (1.012 Hect) Rep. by Mr. T. Subba Rao, Plot No.16 (part), Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
28. M/s. Road Metal Quarry (N. Siva Nagendramma) Rep. by Smt. N. Siva Nagendramma Plot No.8, (part) Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
29. M/s. Rajamma Stone Crusher Rep. by Smt. N. Siva Nagendramma Plot No.8, (Part) Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
30. M/s. Naimisha Enterprises, Rep. by Singu Sadasiva Rao Plot No.13 (part), Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
31. M/s. S. Adhilakshmi Road Metal Quarry, Rep. by Singu Sadasiva Roa, Plot No.13 (part) Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
32. M/s. Sri V. Peddanna Rep. by Singu Sadasiva Rao Plot No.13 (part) Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
33. M/s. Balaji Stone Crusher, Rep. by Singu Sadasiva Rao, Plot No.13, (part), Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
34. M/s. Sree Ram Metal Industries, Rep. by Shri K. Ramakrishna Sy. No.111 (part) Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
35. M/s. K. Sankara Rao Road Metal Quarry Rep. by K. Sankara Roa Sy. No.111 (part) Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
36. M/s. V.S. Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
Rep. by V. Srinivas Chowdary, Sy. No.111 (part) Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
37. M/s. Sundaram Stone Crusher, Rep. by Mr. D. Sundaramurthy, Plot No.7 (part) Sy. No.155/A1 Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
38. M/s. Sri Satya Sai Metal Suppliers Rep. by Mr. D. K. Ravikumar Plot No.9 (part), Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
39. M/s. Rank Silicon and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by J. Harikrishna Sy. No.542/1A, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur - 522 009.
Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh
40. M/s. Sri PVV Surya Kumar, Rep. by Mr. PVV Surya Kumar Plot No.8, (Part) Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
(Respondents 17 to 40 are impleaded as per Order in I.A. No.19/2021 to 31/2021 dt. 19.02.2021)
41. M/s. Tirumala Stone Crusher, Rep. by Mr. Mallikakarjuna Rao Plot No.13 (part) Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M) Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
42. K. Ramadevi W/o. Mr. Mallikakarjuna Rao Plot No.13 (part) Sy. No.155/A1, Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M) Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
(Respondents 41 & 42 are impleaded as per Order in I.A. No.57/2021 & I.A. No. 58/2021 dt.25.06.2021) ... Respondent(s) O.A. No.179/2016:
For Applicant: None.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Madhuri Donti Reddy for R1 to R7.
Mr. K.S. Viswanathan for R8 to R53.
O.A. No.07/2019:
For Applicant: Mr. S. Kamalesh Kannan
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Madhuri Donti Reddy for R1 to R5
Mr. K.S. Viswanathan for R6 to R42.
Judgment Reserved on: 28th July, 2021.
Judgment Pronounced on: 17th September, 2021. CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. K. SATYAGOPAL, EXPERT MEMBER Whether the Judgement is allowed to be published on the Internet - Yes/No Whether the Judgement is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No COMMON JUDGMENT Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member.
Original Application No.179/2016(SZ):
1. The above application [O.A. No.179 of 2016 (SZ)] was filed by the applicant alleging that the respondents 8 to 53 were doing illegal mining and also they committed violation of conditions of the permission granted and causing pollution in the locality.
2. It was alleged in the application that respondents 8 to 53 were conducting mining operation in Survey No.111 and 155/A1 of Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur Mandal, Guntur District without obtaining necessary Environmental Clearance (EC) and without obtaining statutory license for the same.
3. According to the applicant, respondents 8 to 53 were not entitled to conduct mining operation without obtaining necessary Environmental Clearance (EC) as required under the EIA Notification, 2006. They did not have necessary Environmental Clearance (EC) and the same was confirmed by the 3rd respondent vide their letter No.2400/RTI/2015 dated 17.10.2015. They were using heavy explosive materials such as Ammonium Nitrate and others without obtaining permission and the mining areas are situated within a distance of 300 Meters from the residential houses of Perecherla Village, Medikonduru Mandal and 100 meters from residential area of Chinapalakaluru Village and Pedapalakaluru, Guntur Mandal. Further, two railway lines namely, Guntur to Secunderabad and Guntur to Guntakal are situated within a distance of 100 meters from the above said mining area. Two roads namely, Perecharla to Guntur and Macherla to Guntur are also situated within a distance of 500 meters from the above mining area. Further, two temples namely, Poleramma Temple and Sri Lakshminarasimha Temple are situated adjacent to the mining area and the devotees are facing lot of inconvenience. Apart from quarrying, there were stone crushing operations also going on in that area. Kondaveeti Reserved Forest is situated near to the mining area and as per the siting criteria prescribed by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB), no crushing operations could be permitted within a distance of 800 meters from the residential area. The lease area is within the limits of A.P. Capital Region Development Authority (CRDA) and no objection was issued by the CRDA on the condition that respective applicants shall carry out the quarrying activity by manual methods only and no blasting method shall be used. But, they were surprised as to how mining leases were granted and blasting of crushing of stone was permitted in the residential areas. Due to indiscriminate and unregularized mining operation by the leaseholders, heavy sound was emanating in and around the vicinity. Dust emanates from the area causes air pollution as well. Due to noise as well as air pollution, people in the locality are affected with serious health issues.
4. Further, due to indiscriminate excavation of stone below the ground water table level, it had affected the ground water level in that area thereby, untold hardship has been caused to the people in the locality, apart from causing environmental degradation. Though representations were made to the respondents 3 & 4 and also to the 6th respondent about the illegal activities, no action has been taken by them.
5. So, the applicant had no other option, but to approach this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:-
i. Direct the respondents Nos.1 to 7 to stop mining, blasting and crushing operations being carried out without obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) by the respondents 8 to 53 in their respective mining areas situated in Sy. Nos. 111 and 155/A1 of Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur Mandal, Guntur District as the same is causing serious damage to the environment.
ii. And award costs.
6. The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit contending as follows:
Environment clearance as notified in the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 was issued by the District Environment Assessment Authority (DEIAA). The Directorate General of Mines safety had no role in the issuance of environment clearance to the mines and the issue of any environment clearance was not intimated to the Directorate and hence they have no information about the question as to whether respondents 8 to 53 were having environment clearance or not. As per the notice of opening/re-opening submitted to the Directorate, there were about 30 mines located in Sy. No. 155/A1 and 15 mines were located in Sy. No. 111 of Chinnapalakalur Village, Guntur Mandal and District. The management of the mines located in the above cluster have appointed duly qualified statutory managers at their mine for the overall supervision, management, direction and control as required under Regulation 34(1) Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961, who have been duly authorized (in some cases being authorised) under Regulation 34(4)/(6) of Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 by the Directorate to work as statutory manager at the above mines. The details of the mines located in the road metal mining cluster in Sy. Nos.
155/A1 and 111 of Chinnapalakalur Village, Guntur Mandal and District as available in the Directorate was produced as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit.
7. The owners and managers of the mines in their application for authorization for manager had given an undertaking to the Directorate that they would not use ammonium nitrate fuel oil for the purpose of carrying out blasting operation at their mines. The use of ammonium nitrate fuel oil for the purpose of blasting was not permitted until a specific permission under Regulation 155(1) and 162(5) of Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 was obtained at the mine. Moreover, the use of ammonium nitrate fuel oil could be allowed in the mines where the holes for blasting were made by jack hammer drilling (i.e. small diameter holes) as was the case with the mines located in this cluster.
The mines located in the cluster were working their mine only by jack hammer drilling with small diameter holes.
8. As per the cluster plan prepared by Shri N. Rama Krishna, holder of Surveyor's Certificate of competency issued under Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961, residential houses of Pericherla Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District were located at a distance of about 500 meters from the nearest mine in the cluster located in Sy. No. 155/1A. Some of the permanent structures located in Chinnapalakalur Village, Guntur Mandal and District lie within the danger zone of blasting of some of the mines (quarries) located in Sy. No. 155/1A in Chinnapalakalur Village, Guntur Mandal and District. The residential areas of Peddapalakalur Village were located at a distance of 142 meters from the nearest mine i.e. Sea Minerals Stone Quarry of M/s Sea minerals in Sy. No. 111 of Chinnapalakalur Village, Guntur Mandal and District. The management of sea minerals had submitted that they want to only excavate the gravel from the lease hold area without any blasting operation. Other mines in the cluster (Sy. No. 111) were located beyond the danger zone of blasting with respect of Peddapalakalur Village, Guntur Mandal and District.
9. As per the provisions of Regulation 164(B)(a) of Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 which read as "In the case of an opencast working, where any permanent building or structure of permanent nature, not belonging to the owner, lies within the danger zone, the aggregate maximum charge in the holes fired at one time shall not exceed two kilograms unless permitted in writing by the Chief Inspector or Regional Inspector and subject to such conditions as he may specify therein. Provided that if blasting is done with delay detonators or other means and there is a delay of at least half a second between shots fired, maximum charge of two kilograms can be used in each hole. Provided further that if the shortest distance from the place of firing to any part of such building or structure is less than 50 meters irrespective of amount of the charge, no blasting shall be done except with the permission in writing of the Chief Inspector or the Regional Inspector and subject to such conditions as he may specify therein".
10. The danger zone as mentioned above had been defined under Regulation 164(1A)(b) of Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 as the entire area falling within a radius of 300 meters from the place of firing. According to the management of the mines located in the above cluster had been allowed to operate their quarries only by conducting blasting with limited number of small diameter jack hammer drilled holes in compliance with the provisions of Regulation 164(1B) of Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961.
11. In the case where there were permanent building or structure of permanent nature, not belonging to the owner, lying within the danger zone of blasting management had been specifically addressed not to conduct any deep hole drilling and blasting until a permission under Regulation 164(1B) of Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 was obtained at the mine and the mine had been allowed to operate only by jack hammer drilling and blasting with maximum charge in all holes in aggregate shall not exceed two kilograms at a time. According to the management of the below mentioned mine had been addressed vide Directorate's letter No. HR2/SCZ/2016/1041-1042 dated 05.04.2016; copy of the letter along with enquiry report was enclosed as annexure-2. Sl. Name of Mine Name of Owner Location of Mine No.
1. Naimisha Shri S. Sada Siva Rao Sy. No. 155/A1, Plot Enterprises Stone No. 13(P), Quarry Chinnapalakalur (R38 in O.A. Village, Guntur (M) No.179/2016) & (Dist)
2. Venkateswara Shri P. Venkateswara Sy. No. 155/A1, Plot Industries Stone Rao No. 6(P), Quarry Chinnapalakalur (R27 in O.A. Village, Guntur (M) No.179/2016) & (Dist)
3. PVR Chalapathi Shri P. Venkateswara Sy. No. 155/A1, Plot Metal Industries Rao No. 5(P), Stone Quarry Chinnapalakalur (R14 in O.A. Village, Guntur (M) No.179/2016) & (Dist)
4. Thirumala Stone Shri K. Mallikarjuna Sy. No. 155/A1, Plot Quarry Rao No. 13(P), (R37 in O.A. Chinnapalakalur No.179/2016) Village, Guntur (M) & (Dist)
5. Balaji Stone Shri V.R. Prasad Sy. No. 155/A1, Plot Quarry No. 13(P), (R39 in O.A. Chinnapalakalur No.179/2016) Village, Guntur (M) & (Dist)
6. Parthasarthy Stone M/s Parthasarthy Sy. No. 155/A1, Plot Quarry Stone Crusher No. 14(P) & 17(P), Chinnapalakalur Village, Guntur (M) & (Dist)
7. PVR Chalapathi Shri P. Venkateswara Sy. No. 155/A1, Plot Metal Industries Rao No. 18(P), Stone Quarry Chinnapalakalur (R14 in O.A. Village, Guntur (M) No.179/2016) & (Dist)
8. P.U.S. Stone Shri T. Subba Rao Sy. No. 155/A1, Plot Quarry No. 8(P), (R19 in O.A. Chinnapalakalur No.179/2016) Village, Guntur (M) & (Dist)
9. OSR Constructions Shri O. Srinivasa Sy. No. 155/A1, Plot Stone Quarry Reddy No. 6(P), (R41 in O.A. Chinnapalakalur No.179/2016) Village, Guntur (M) & (Dist)
10. Raghuram Gravel M/s Sea Minerals Sy. No. 111/P, Quarry Chinnapalakalur Village, Guntur (M) & (Dist)
12. As per the information available with the office, the management of the following mines have engaged the CIMFR (Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research), a national laboratory constituted under Council of Scientific and Industrial research (CSIR) to recommend the maximum permissible charge and suggest the other blasting parameters for carrying out the controlled blasting operations at their mine. Subsequent to the finalization of the report the respective mines had been advised to obtain controlled blasting permission under regulation 164(1B) of Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961. The following mines have already engaged CIMFR, Nagpur for conducting trail blast and the trail blasts have been carried out.
Sl. Mine Name and Location Owner
No.
1. Sri Balaji Stone Quarry M/s Sri Balaji Stone Crusher
(Sy. No. 155/A1, Plot No. 13(P))
(R39 in O.A. No.179/2016)
2. PVV Surya Kumar Stone Quarry Shri PVV Surya Kumar
(Sy. No. 155/A1, Plot No. 8(P))
(R50 in O.A. No.179/2016)
3. Vijayasree Granite Mineral Stone M/s Vijyasree Granite & Minerals Quarry (Sy. No. 155/A1, Plot No.12(P) & 13(P))
4. OSR Constructions Stone Quarry M/s OSR Construciton (Sy. No. 155/A1, Plot No. 6(P)) (R41 in O.A. No.179/2016)
5. Gayatri Stone Quarry Smt. P. Vasundhara (Sy. No. 155/A1, Plot No. 5(P))
6. Parthasarathy Stone Quarry M/s Parthasarathy Stone Crushers (Sy. No. 155/A1, Plot No. 5(P))
7. K. Butchaiah Stone Quarry Shri K. Butchaiah (Sy. No. 155/A1, Plot No. 14(P)) (R34 in O.A. No.179/2016)
13. The Guntur to Secunderabad and Guntur to Guntakal railway line are passing at a nearest distance of about 200 meters from the cluster of quarries located in Sy. No. 155/1A and 111 respectively.
14. As per the provisions of Regulation 164(1A) of the said Regulation in the case of opencast working the blaster shall not charge or fire a shot under Regulation 164(1A)(b) "unless sufficient warning, by efficient signal or other means approved by the manager is given over the entire area falling within a radius of 300 meters from the place of firing (hereinafter referred to as the danger zone) and also ensured that all the persons within such area have taken proper shelter". Regulation 164(1A)(c) says "where any part of a public road or railway lies within the danger zone, unless two persons are posted, one on the either direction at the two extreme points of such road or railway which fall within the danger zone who have, by an efficient system of telephonic communication or hooter or loudspeakers or other means approved by the Chief Inspector or Regional Inspector intimated clearance of traffic to the blaster and have also warned the passersby and whenever possible the vehicles also, if any, which have passed by such road or railway".
15. The management of the mine vide Directorate's Permission letter issued under Regulation 34(4)/(6) of Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 had been addressed to ensure the compliance of the above provisions. Poleramma Temple, Pericherla Village is located at a distance of 269 meters from the nearest quarry i.e. Pardhasarthi stone quarry on the west side and Sri Lakshmi Narsimha Swamy temple was an insitu rock mass on the west side of the hillock in Sy. No. 155A and no temple stricture had been constructed around it. An area around this radius of 50 meters was left as non-leased and not worked in Parthasarathi road metal quarry of M/s Parthasarathi Stone Crushers. As submitted earlier the management of the mine was addressed vide letter no. HR2/SCZ/2016/1041-1042 dated 05.04.2016 to ensure that all holes in aggregate shall not exceed two kilograms at a time. Management of this mine had already engaged CIMFR to study the blasting parameters for carrying out controlled blasting operations at their mine as per the provisions of Regulation 164(1B) of Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961. They have been directed to carry out blasting only by limited numbers of jack hammer drilling and blasting using small diameter holes in strict compliance with the provisions of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 to reduce the ground vibrations, sound and fly rock etc.
16. The mines located close to residential buildings have already engaged CIMFR to study the various blasting parameters and make recommendations for obtaining controlled blasting permission. They have appointed statutory mines managers and other statutory personnel for the statutory supervision, management, direction and control at the mines. No statutory permission for blasting was required to be obtained, if the operations at the mines were conducted by jack hammer drilling and blasting unless the provisions of Regulation 164(1B) of Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961were attracted at the mine. The mines located in the above cluster were not carrying out operations with deep hole drilling and blasting as the scientific study to establish the safe maximum charge for the conduct of deep hole blasting was still not concluded. The following mines have been issued conditional permission as per the circumstances under Regulation 102(2)(b) of Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 to conduct mining operation by a system of deep hole drilling and blasting operations at their mine subject to obtaining controlled blasting permission under Regulation 164(1B) of Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 after scientific study and by a Government recognised institute to recommend the blasting parameters and the maximum permissible charge etc. Sl. Name of Name of the Location of the Permission Letter No. the mine owner Mine No.
1. S.R. Infra Shri R. Sy. No. 111(P), HR-
Projects Ramesh Babu Chinnapalakalur 2/SCZ/106(2)(b) Stone (R13 in O.A. Village, Guntur /43(16)/2016/1550 Quarry No.179/2016) Mandal & District dated 11.05.2016
2. K. Shri K. Sy. No. 155/A1, HR-
Butchaiah Butchaiah Plot No. 14(P), 2/SCZ/106(2)(b)
Road (R34 in O.A. Chinnapalakalur /45(16)/2016/1554
Metal No.179/2016) Village, Guntur dated 11.05.2016
Quarry Mandal & District
3. Sai Shri S. Sy. No. 155/A1, HR-
Yasasvi Sasirekha Plot No. 8(P), 11(P) 2/SCZ/106(2)(b)
Stone (R23 in O.A. Chinnapalakalur /55(16)/2016/1240
Quarry No.179/2016) Village, Guntur dated 22.04.2016
Mandal & District
They prayed for considering their contentions and pass appropriate orders.
17. The 3rd respondent filed counter contending that since about 60 years, the quarries for road metal were being operated in Sy No. 111 and 155/A1 of Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District. The respondents 8 to 53 were also having quarry leases in those areas. Subsequently some of the respondents have transferred their leases in favour of others. The quarries were situated about 15 km from Guntur Town and were the chief producers of road metal which were being utilised for construction purposes. The road metal produced from this area was the only source for construction purposes for Guntur and surrounding 40 kms radius and also for all Government works. All these quarries were operating without having environment clearance as there was no condition laid in this aspect, as these quarries were working since several decades i.e. prior to the initial notification for environment clearance i.e., prior to 1994. In the year 1994, the Government of India had made environment clearance mandatory for major minerals only, whereas the mineral worked in the subject area was minor mineral. Till 30.04.2016, the Government had not made environment clearance as mandatory for minor minerals. Only as per the decision in Deepak Kumar and ors. vs. State of Haryana and ors, I.A. Nos. 12-13 of 2011 in SPL (C) No. 19628-19629 of 2009, environment clearance was made mandatory even for minor minerals irrespective of area of the lease.
18. The Hon'ble National Green Tribunal in several applications filed in the matter regarding sand mining and other minor minerals on 13.01.2015 had ordered that the Ministry of Environment Forests had to formulate a uniform cluster policy in consultation with the States for permitting minor mineral mining activity including its regulatory regime in accordance with the law. Pursuant to above said orders, the Government of India vide Notification no. S.No: 141(E) dated 15.01.2016 duly amended the S. No.1533 dated 14.09.2006 and formed guidelines for issuing environment clearance for minor minerals falling in category B2 for cluster of minor mineral leases and for creation of DEIAA and DEAC.
19. Subsequent to the same, the Government of India vide notification No. S.O. 190 (E) dated 20.01.2016 constituted District Level Committees DEIAA and DEAC to issue environment clearance at District level for the quarrying of minor minerals falling under category B2. Further by notification S.O. No. 2269(E) dated 01.07.2016 had amended the same and the cluster concept will apply for the leases granted after 09.09.2013 only. The Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O. Ms. No. 56, Industries & Commerce (Mines-II) dated 30.04.2016 amended Rule 7 of Andhra Pradesh minor and minerals (Concession) Rules, 1966 and as per Rule 7A(i) to (iv), mining plan approved by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology had made compulsory for systematic and scientific development of minor minerals and the quarrying operations shall be in accordance with the said approved mining plan only, that had become mandatory for obtaining environment clearance as well.
20. After amendment to the Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules i.e. after 30.04.2016, all the respondents and the subsequent lease holders have submitted their draft mining plans, environment management plans to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology in the month of May, 2016 for approval. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur had approved the mining plans of the party respondents except Serial No. 09 and 21 whose quarries are located in Sy. No. 111 and 155/A1 of Chinapalakalur Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh from 03.09.2016 to 28.09.2016.
21. The Applications for environment clearance were made through online submission and monitoring of environment clearance for category B2 projects of minor minerals and environment clearance was issued in this regard. The District portal was launched by MoEF through envirtonmentclearance.nic.in with effect from 15.09.2016. They have provided the guidelines as to how this will have to be granted and that is being followed by the respective departments. They had also produced the list of quarry owners, who have obtained environment clearance and who had submitted application for the same which were enclosed as annexure-1 along with the counter affidavit.
22. Quarry operations were banned in the hillock facing towards the villages and allowed other side of the hillock only, as the hillock itself protecting from emission of dust, rock fragments, vibration etc and all these quarries and crushers were being operated without causing much hindrance to the nearby villages of Chinapalakalur. Some of the quarries were located in Sy. No. 155/A1 at a distance of beyond 280 meters from Perecheria Vaddera colony. They were conducting quarry operations duly taking every precaution and without causing hindrance to people living in that colony. Rest of the Perecheria village is situated beyond 800 meters from these quarries. One small temple is situated on the hill top and a festival is being performed by nearby villagers once in every year in the temple and the rest of the days, the temple is kept closed. During festival days the quarrying operations in all the quarries would be stopped. They had also mentioned about the distance criteria etc provided and the methods to be adopted and the license to be obtained as provided under the Metalliferrous Mines Regulations, 1961. During 2014-2015, the Deputy Director, Mines Safety, Nellore after inspecting the area had instructed to stop issue of dispatch permits for the respondents quarry leases as they had not fulfilled the mines safety norms such as blasting etc. Thereafter, some of the quarry operations had applied for permission and obtained the same. The District Collector, Guntur on 13.07.2015 had conducted a meeting with the villagers and the persons who had made complaints about the quarry operation and quarry lease holders and the Department officials and certain decisions were taken and they had been directed to fulfil those directions issued and without using ammonium nitrate and also without causing any inconvenience and damage to the nearby habitants, the quarrying would have to be conducted. Party respondents had obtained environment clearance with certain conditions. The lease holders had formed BT road for a distance of 1.5 km and width of 7 meters spending huge amount and they had also installed four R.O plants in the nearby colonies for providing clean water. The Mining Department was planning to plant trees in and around the crushing units and quarry leases for reducing the dust. Pollution Control Board is the competent authority to check the pollution aspect.
23. There was a public interest litigation filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Telangana as W.P(PIL) No. 364 of 2015 and the Hon'ble High Court on 25.01.2016 while disposing the writ petition had directed the respondents to consider the representation dated 09.11.2015 of the writ petitioners therein within 6 weeks. The respondents vide their letter no. 853/Q/2015 dated 04.03.2016 had answered all the points raised by the applicant in his representation dated 09.11.2015 except the environment clearance as that was under process on that date. The writ petitioner in that case, filed contempt application as C.C. No. 812 of 2016 before the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh for non-compliance of the undertaking given and the Hon'ble High Court had disposed of the contempt petition recording the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the State Departments that the directions were being complied with. Environment clearance was given strictly in compliance with the EIA, notification issued and other licenses were being granted under the respective statues after complying with the provisions strictly in accordance with law. So, they prayed for dismissal of the application.
24. The 6th respondent filed counter contending that the application is not maintainable. The respondent had produced the status of environment clearance as well as consent to establish and consent to operate obtained by respondents 8 to 53 in a tabular form as annexure- R1 attached to the counter statement. Except respondents 9, 21 and 30, other private respondents obtained environment clearance for the mining activity. Out of the 43 private respondents who had obtained environment clearance, applications had been received by the 6th respondent from 34 respondents for issuance of consent to establish and consent to operate. 15 units had been issued with the consent to establish and one unit had been issued with consent to operate, namely, 13th respondent. Rest of the application were under process.
25. As per the Hon'ble Apex Court order dated 27.02.2012 in Deepak Kumar's case, it had become mandatory for obtaining environment clearance for mining of minor minerals irrespective of mining area. After the same, mining units had applied for and got the environment clearance. The blasting permission was not coming under the purview of the Pollution Control Board and 6th respondent requested the Mining Department to stop illegal mining and blasting operations vide their letter dated 28.04.2016. Dispatch permits were also not coming within the purview of the Pollution Control Board. Writ Petition W.P. (PIL) No. 364 of 2015 was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 25.01.2016 recording the submission that the representation dated 09.11.2015 would be considered by respondents 1 to 4 therein within a period of six weeks.
26. The Pollution Control Board considered the application for issuance of consent to establish and consent to operate after obtaining environment clearance by the Mining Industries. They considered the application of the applicant and also conducted an External Advisory Committee meeting on 04.06.2016 and the minutes of the said meeting were duly communicated to the applicant. The External Advisory Committee issued directions to the mining lease holders after detailed discussions with them. Copy of the minutes of the meeting was also communicated to the applicant on 20.06.2016. They were regularly monitoring the mining industries to ensure compliance of the consent conditions and in case of violation found, appropriate action would be taken. So, they prayed for accepting their contentions and pass appropriate orders in the matter. The status of the mines, who obtained environment clearance, consent to establish and consent to operate, which was shown as annexure-1 to the counter affidavit was detailed as follows:
Respo Name of the Survey EC Date of EC Status of Date of Date of ndents mine/occupier No. of obtained obtained application CFE issued CFO No in Chinpala (Yes/No) of CFE-CFO issued O.A. kaluru 179/20 (V), 16 Guntur Rural (M) 8 M/s Sri Sai Krishna 111 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on CFE issued Under Stone Crusher, Rep by 11.01.2017 on process its Managing partner Sri 02.02.2017 P.Chandraiah, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District 9 M/s V.S. Engineering 111 No No Not applied Not Not Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its applicable applicable Director: V. Sarath, reg.
Office-
109,Amruthaville, Raj
Bhavan Road,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad
10 Sri. P. Siva Sankara Rao, 111 Yes 21.10.2016 Not applied Not Not
S/o Veera Swamy, applicable applicable
Turakapalem Village,
Guntur Rural Mandal,
Guntur District
11 M/s Ganesh Metal 111 Yes 21.10.2016 Not applied Not Not
Crusher, Rep by its applicable applicable
Managing Partner: Shri
T. Bhaskara Rao,
Chinapalakaluru
Village, Guntur Rural
Mandal, Guntur District
12 Sri. V. Sarath, D. No. 3- 111 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on CFE issued Under
29-13/25/C, Krishna 30.01.2017 on process
Nagar, 5th lane, Guntur 21.02.2017
Town
13 M/s S.R. Infra projects, 111 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on CFE issued CFO issued
Rep by its proprietor, S. 04.01.2017 on on
Ramesh Babu, S/O 21.02.2017 03.02.2017
Seetha Ramalah 3-30-56,
3rd lane, Brundavan
Gardens, Guntur
14 M/s PVR Chalapathi 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on CFE issued Under
Metal Crusher, Prop. P. 16.01.2017 on process
Venkateswara Rao, 21.02.2017
Perecheria Village,
Medikonduru Mandal,
Guntur District
15 M/s Sundaram Stone 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on CFE issued Under
Crusher, Prop: D. 09.02.2017 on process
Sundara Murthy 21.02.2017
Nallapoadu Village,
Guntur Rural Mandal,
Guntur District
16 M/s Sri Balaji Stone 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on CFE issued Under
Crusher Prop: L 16.01.2017 on process
Veeraiah, S/o Somaiah, 21.02.2017
S-I, Aparna Apartments,
Brundavan Gardens,
Guntur
17 Smt. S. Adilakshmi, 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on CFE issued Under
W/o Sadasiva Rao, D. 16.01.2017 on process
No. 3-2914/12, 3/6, 21.02.2017
Krishna Nagar, Guntur.
18 The Perecheria Tella 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on Under Under
Quary Vaddera 03.02.2017 process process
Q.W.L.C.C society Ltd,
President: T. Venkata
Swamy, Perecheria
Village, Medikonduru
Mandal, Guntur District
19 M/s P.U.S. Stone 155/A1 yes 21.10.2016 Applied on Under Under
Crusher, Rep by its 07.02.2017 process process
Managing Partner: T.
Subba Rao, D. No. 1-
131b, Chinapalakaluru
(V), Guntur Rural
Mandal, Guntur District
20 B. Siva Sankara Rao, S/o 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Not applied Not Not
Rama Kothaiah, applicable applicable
Chinapalakaluru
Village, Guntur Rural
Mandal, Guntur District
21 M/s 6th Mile Perecheria 155/A1 Yes No Not applied Not Not
S.CL.C.C.Sty. Ltd., applicable applicable
President:-N Ramappa
S/o Hanumappa,
Perecheria Village,
Medikonduru Mandal,
Guntur District
22 M/s Rajamma Stone 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on CFE issued Under
Crusher, Prop: N. 17.01.2017 on process
Sivanagendramma, 21.02.2017
Challavripalem Village,
Guntur Rural Mandal,
Guntur District
23 M/s Sai Yasasvi Stone 155/A1 yes 21.10.2016 Applied on CFE issued Under
Crusher, Managing 16.01.2017 on process
Partner P.S. Sasirekha, 21.02.2017
W/o Ramesh Babu, 4th
Line, Devanagar,
Guntur
24 M/s Sri Gayathri Stone 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on Under Under
Crusher, Managing 03.02.2017 process process
partner, Sri. P. Venu,
Perecheria Village,
Medikonduru Mandal,
Guntur District
25 M/s Sree Venkatewara 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Not applied Not Not
Crusher, Managing applicable applicable
Partner: B. Srinivasa
Rao, Perechieria Village,
Medikonduru, Mandal,
Guntur District.
26 M/s Sri Ganesh Stone 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on Under Under
Crusher, Managing 09.02.2017 process process
Partner, B.
Satyanarayana Murthy,
Challavaripalem,
Nallapadu Post, Guntur
Rural, Guntur Distict
27 M/s Venkatewara Stone 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on CFE issued Under
Industries, Rep by its 17.01.2017 on process
Proprietor: P. 21.02.2017
Venkateswara Rao, Late
Chalapathi Rao,
Nallapadu Village,
Guntur Rural, Guntur
District
28 Smt. K. Rama Devi, 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on CFE issued Under
W/o Mallikarjuna Rao, 18.01.2017 on process
Flat No. 401, Harika 21.02.2017
apartment, Ring Road,
2nd Lane, Nalanda
Nagar, Guntur
29 Sri. V. Peddanna, S/o 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on Under Under
Narasaiah, 1-8-19/B 06.02.2017 process process
Janda Chettu Centre,
Near Doddurayi,
Gujjanagulla, Guntur
30 Smt. I Padmavathi, W/o 155/A1 The lease holder submitted a letter vide her Lr. Dt. 10.05.2016
Chalapathi Rao, aged informing that she leftover the mining lease existing on her name and
about 65 years, Occ: the same was transferred/leased by the Mining Dept to someone
Business, H. No. 5-76-6, else.
4th Lane, Pandaripuram,
Guntur
31 Sri. L Veeraiah, S/o 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on CFE issued Under
Somaiah, aged about 61 16.01.2017 on process
years, Occ: Business 02.02.2017
R/o S-I, Aparna
Apartments, 6th Line
Brundavan Gardens,
Guntur
32 Sri K.V. Krishnaiah 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Not applied Not Not
D.No. 3-28-66, 2nd Line, applicable applicable
Rajendra Nagar, Guntur
33 M/s The Perecheria 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Not applied Not Not
Labour Contract Co-op, applicable applicable
Society., President: M.
Moses, Perecheria
Village, Medikonduru,
Mandal, Guntur District
34 Sri K. Butchaiah, S/o 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on Under Under
Bullaiah, aged about 60 03.02.2017 process process
years, Occ: Business,
Kalyani Road, Chandra
Mouli Nagar, Guntur-7
35 M/s The Perecheria 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on Under Under
Q.W.L.C.C Society Ltd. 07.02.2017 process process
President Sri Sk.
Mastanvali, D. No. 0-7,
Near Mahalakshmi
Hotel, Perecheria
Village, Medikonduru,
Mandal, Guntur District
36 Sri B. Nageswara Rao, 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Not applied Not Not
Chinapalakaluru applicable applicable
Village, Guntur Rural
(M), Guntur District.
37 M/s Tirumala Stone 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on CFE issued Under
Crusher, Prop: K. 17.01.2017 on process
Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o 21.02.2017
Singaiah, Perecheria
Village, Medikonduru,
Mandal, Guntur District
38 M/s Naimisha 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on CFE issued Under
Enterprises, Prop: Sri S. 16.01.2017 on process
Sadasiva Rao, 21.02.2017
Perecheria Village,
Medikonduru, Mandal,
Guntur District
39 M/s Balaji Stone 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on Under Under
Crusher, Managing 03.02.2017 process process
Partner: T.V.S.V Prasad,
S/o Krishna Rao,
Perecheria Village,
Medikonduru, Mandal,
Guntur District
40 M/s Surya Metal 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on Under Under
Crusher, Managing 06.02.2017 process process
Partner, T.V.S.S. Prasad
S/o Krishna Rao,
Perecheria Village,
Medikonduru, Mandal,
Guntur District
41 M/s O.S.R. 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on Under Under
Constructions, 06.02.2017 process process
Managing Partner: Sri P.
Srinivasa Reddy, D. No.
1-2-75, Vijayapuri. *The
quarry mine lease
transferred to M/s PVR
Chalapathi metal
industries by mining
department vide order
dt.13.04.2016. The new
management has
applied for EC, CFE and
CFO
42 M/s Lakshmi SIndhu 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on Under Under
Granite Metals, Prop: 07.02.2017 process process
Smt. N. Padmavathi,
W/o N.V. Nageswara
Rao, D. No. 59-10-5. The
quarry mine lease of
plot no. 8(P), RS No.
155/A1,
Chinapalakaluru
transferred to M/s PUS
Stone Crusher by the
mining department. The
new management has
applied for EC, CFE &
CFO
43 M/s Sri Satya Sai Metal 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on Under Under
Suppliers, Managing 09.02.2017 process process
Partner P.D. Surya
Prasada Rao,
Turakapalem Village,
Guntur Rural Mandal,
Guntur.
44 M/s Sri Satya Sai Metal 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on Under Under
Suppliers, Managing 09.02.2017 process process
Partner P.D. Surya
Prasada Rao,
Turakapalem Village,
Guntur Rural Mandal,
Guntur.
45 The Perecherla Tella 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on Under Under
Quarry Vaddera 03.02.2017 process process
Q.W.L.C.C Society Ltd,
President: B.
Deyanandam,
Perecheria Village,
Medikonduru, Mandal,
Guntur District
46 Smt. N. 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on CFE issued Under
Sivanagendramma, 17.01.2017 on process
W/o N. Bapanaiah 21.02.2017
(late), H. No. 5-60-
2/198, 4/2. Ashok
Nagar, Guntur
47 M/s Vijayasree Granite 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on CFE issued Under
Metals, Managing 16.01.2017 on process
Partner, L. Veeraiah, 21.02.2017
S/o Somaiah, Flot No.
Sl, AParna Apartments,
6th Line, Brundavan
Gardens, Guntur.
48 M/s Yesuprabhu ----- Yes 21.10.2016 Not applied Under Not
minerals, Managing process applicable
Partner: B.
Venkateswara Rao,
Perecheria Village,
Medikonduru, Mandal,
Guntur District
49 M/s Sri Gayathri Stone 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on Under Under
Crusher, managing 03.02.2017 process process
Partner, Sri. P. Venu,
Perecheria Village,
Medikonduru, Mandal,
Guntur District
50 Sri P.V.V. Surya Kumar, 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on Under Under
S/o Pattabhi Rama Rao, 06.02.2017 process process
D. No. 3-28-26/P,
Krishna Nagar, Guntur
51 M/s Saroja Metal 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on Under Under
Crusher, Prop: G.P. 07.02.2017 process process
Ranga Rao, H. No. 3-28-
33, 3rd Lane, 2nd Cross
Road, Brundavan
Garderns, Guntur.
52 M/s Pardha Saradhi 155/A1 Yes 21.10.2016 Applied on Under Under
Stone Crusher, Prop: Sri 03.02.2017 process process
K. Buchaiah Kalyani
Road, Chandramouli
Nagar, Guntur-7
53 Sri. B. Edukondalu, S/o ---- Yes 21.10.2016 Not applied Under Not
Late Yerraiah, process applicable
Perecheria Village,
Medikonduru, Mandal,
Guntur District
27. The 14th respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the application is not maintainable. They were one of the several persons operating mines in the Sy. No. 111 and 155/A1 of Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh after obtaining a valid lease and all requisite permissions and approvals therein. The application was not maintainable and it was nothing but abuse of process of law as they had suppressed material facts and made misrepresentation of facts as well. The allegation that the mining industries had obtained environment clearance only after the order dated 13.04.2015 in O.A. No. 123 of 2014 was not correct. In fact the entire regulatory regime mandated by the said order dated 13.01.2015 was put into place by the concerned State Governments only after 30.04.2016. Therefore, it would have been impossible for the respondents herein to even apply for the environment clearance before May, 2016.
28. The EIA Notification, 2006 dated 14.09.2006 was amended by the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change by notification in S.O No. 141(E) dated 15.01.2016 and guidelines were issued for environment clearance for minor minerals falling under Category B2 had come into force from that date onwards. Pursuant to the notification dated 15.01.2016, Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change issued another notification, namely, S. O. No. 190(E) on 20.01.2016 giving the outlines for the constitution of district level committees, namely, District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) and District Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC), which were vested with the authority to carryout inspection for issuing environment clearance for quarrying of minor minerals falling under Category B2. After the above said notifications, the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.M.S. No. 56, Industries & Commerce (Mines- II) dated 30.04.2016 had amended Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concessional Rules, 1966 and as per the amendment, the quarrying could be carried out only in accordance with the approved mining plan. The issuance of approved mining plan was mandatory for obtaining environment clearance also.
29. It is also contended by the 14th respondent that only in April 2016, the Government of Andhra Pradesh made it possible for submission of mining plans to that the Environmental Clearance (EC) could be obtained. Accordingly, respondents herein since May 2016 had initiated the process of procuring the AMP through the Recognized Qualified Persons (RQPs). The RQPs after preparing the pre-feasibility reports, Draft Environmental Management Plans and draft mining plans had applied to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology for approval of the mining plans. Based on these applications, the mining plans with respect of Survey Nos. 111 and 155/A1 of Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh had been approved by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology between 03.09.2016 and 28.09.2016. After the issuance of the AMPs, the respondents had been submitting their applications for issuance of Environmental Clearance, online through Online Submission and Monitoring of Environmental Clearance (OSMEC) scheme which had been in force from 15.09.2016. The applications had been uploaded along with all necessary documents including the approved mining plans, pre-feasibility report and Environmental Management Plan between 25.09.2016 and 29.09.2016 for obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC). After the online submission of the applications, DEIAA and DEAC had requested the respondents to submit the hard copy of the forms that were uploaded. Accordingly, the same were submitted on 29.09.2016. They were informed that the recommendation for issuance of the Environmental Clearance (EC) was forwarded to DEIAA by DEAC and the same had also been issued. While the applicant was aware of the above process through his various petitions and applications and had yet come forward with the above application based on falsities and his own assumptions. The applicant had filed the above application only to harass the respondents with the sole intent to extract money. In fact, the alleged PIL filed by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana at Hyderabad came to be filed only when the respondents refused to entertain the demands of the applicant. The present application was only a fall out from the said writ petition and as such deserved no merit. They denied the allegations para wise reiterating the contention raised by them earlier. It was also contended that about 500 people were employed directly and indirectly by each of the mines and as such there were over 60 crushers that were dependent on the quarrying done by the respondents.
30. It was further contended that there has to be a prior Environmental Clearance (EC) was directly against the order of the National Green Tribunal dated 13.01.2015 in Original Application No.123 of 2014. So, there was no bonafide on the part of the applicant and he prayed for dismissal of the application.
31. The respondents 8, 10 to 12, 15, 16, 18 to 20, 22, 25 to 48 & 50 to 52 had filed a memo adopting the contentions raised by the 14th respondent and prayed for dismissal of the application.
32. The 9th respondent also filed a memo adopting the contentions of the 14th respondent and also further submitted that the 9th respondent had made a fresh application for Environmental Clearance (EC) on 08.11.2016 and after due process, Environmental Clearance (EC) was issued on 04.02.2017 as per Proceedings No.54/DEIAA/AP/GNT/16, just as the other respondents.
33. The respondents 8 to 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 37, 39 to 48 & 50 to 52 by index to typed set dated 25.02.2020 produced the copy of the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted in their favour.
34. As per order dated 25.02.2020, this Tribunal had directed the State Pollution Control Board to submit the present status of the quarries functioning in the disputed area. On that basis, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board had filed the status report dated 24.03.2020 which reads as follows:-
The following is the abstract information of the quarries in the area:
No. of quarry leases in Total Covered in Not listed Sy. Nos. 44 as respondents respondents list Sy. No.111 (part) 23 6 17 Chinapalakaluru (V), Guntur Rural (M), Guntur District.Sy. NO.155/A1, 46 38 8
Chinapalakaluru (V),
Guntur Rural (M),
Guntur District
Total 69 44 25
The details of the Environmental Clearance & Consent for Operation status of the 44 respondent quarries is enclosed as Annexure - I. The details of the Environmental Clearance & Consent for Operation status of the 25 non-respondent quarries is enclosed as Annexure - II. The Board issued show cause notice to the units which are not having valid consents of the Board.
The detailed status report is submitted to the Hon'ble NGT in due compliance of the directions issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal."
35. They also produced the table showing the status of quarries and the details of Environmental Clearance (EC) and Consent to Operate in respect of the 25 non-respondents stone quarries as Annexure - 1 and Annexure - 2 respectively which reads as follows:-
Original Application No.07/2019(SZ):
36. The above application [O.A. No.07 of 2019 (SZ)] was filed by one of the person from the locality alleging that pollution is being caused on account of the operation of nearly 44 stone crushing units and road metal quarries being conducted in Survey Nos. 111 and 155/A1 of Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur District. According to the applicant, in this case, the quarries have not complied with the terms and conditions imposed in the Consent to Operate issued by the State Pollution Control Board and causing air pollution, which resulted in health hazards to the people in the locality.
37. It was also alleged in the application that the State Pollution Control Board vide their Order dated 26.10.2018 had issued notice containing following direction to the quarries requested them to submit their action plan in respect of above matter, failing which, why action should not be taken for issuing closure order under Section 33 A of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and 33 B of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as follows:-
"a. The road metal quarries shall submit an action plan for implementation of the stipulated conditions of consent for operation issued by the Board to achieve compliance.
b. The Road Metal quarries shall immediately take up massive plantations all around the quarries and crushers area, more densely towards the village and along the haul roads.
c. The Quarry units shall implement water sprinkling at mine area and haul roads for dust suppression at regular intervals.
d. The road metal quarries shall implement requisite dust containment/suppression measures immediately to prevent fine dust getting air borne and cause pollution problems in the surroundings.
e. The road metal quarries shall ensure the blasting times of 3 PM to 5 PM be strictly maintained."
38. Before admitting the matter, this Tribunal felt that it was necessary to obtain report regarding the allegations made and for that purpose, as per order dated 27.03.2019, appointed a Joint Committee comprising of
(a) Senior Environmental Engineer / Senior Scientist of the Central Pollution Control Board and (b) Senior Environmental Engineer / Senior Scientist of the State Pollution Control Board and they were directed to ascertain the following things:
a. Carrying capacity assessment of the area; b. Ambient Air Quality status of the area at least at the 10 location which are representative;
c. Efficacy of the pollution control devices; and d. Violation of condition if any imposed in the condition to operate and the citing criteria and if there is any violation, any action if necessary to be taken in accordance with the law.
39. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) was designated as the nodal agency for co-ordination and for providing necessary logistics for this purpose.
40. On the basis of the directions issued by the Tribunal, the Joint Committee had filed a report through e-mail dated 09.05.2019 which reads as follows:-
Pray: The Hon'ble Court is requested to accord time for conducting carrying capacity study with IIT, Chennai and to submit the carrying capacity assessment report of the area."
41. As per order dated 15.05.2019, this Tribunal had accepted the report submitted by the committee and extracted the findings and observations in Para 6 of the order which reads as follows:-
"1. As per the directions of APPCB blasting is to be carried out from 3.00 PM to 5.00 PM. Out of 44 stone quarries, 18 number of stone quarries have operated between 3.00 PM to 5.00 PM and 10 are operating between 2-5 PM, 10 numbers are not in operation and for the rest, the data is not available. It was informed that as per the Joint Chief of controller of explosives, Chennai, the blasting is permitted from sunrise to sunset, the stone quarries may restrict blasting operation from 3.00 PM to 5.00 PM.
2. 27 numbers of stone quarries have developed 15-33% (16 nos. more than 33% and 11 nos. between 15-33%) of the area as greenbelt in the peripheral of Sy No. 155/A1 and 111 to attenuate air pollution. However, the greenbelt may be further developed in the barrier around Sy No. 155/A1.
3. The water sprinkling on haul roads and peripheral roads are carried out through tankers by the stone quarries. The records of water consumption are not maintained by the stone quarries. Thus the stone quarries shall maintain the daily records of number of trucks used for water sprinkling and quantity of water utilized for sprinkling.
4. During the visit to stone quarries on April 3rd, 2019, the peripheral road and haul roads were unpaved and were contributing predominantly to the dust re-suspension. The stone quarries have converted the peripheral road and haul roads to macadam roads paving with wet mix by April 23rd, 2019. The stone quarries may further paved peripheral road and haul roads with bitumen toping.
5. All the stone quarries shall monitor ambient air quality in the surrounding area by Approved laboratories as per the guidelines of CPCB and submit the reports to the APPCB.
6. All the stone quarries may explore the possibility of implementing wet drilling during drilling process.
7. Staggering of blasting timings for the quarries is recommended to reduce cumulative effect of air pollution.
8. Delay detonating technique may be implemented in blasting to reduce the intensity of blasting, which in turn reduces the emissions. However, this issue may be implemented after obtaining due concurrence with DGM & S, Nagapur."
42. Further, this Tribunal also included the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Andhra Pradesh as additional member of the committee and also directed the State Pollution Control Board to ensure that each of the infractions and non-compliances in respect of the individual stone mines set out in the tables Annexure 3 to 44 were set right by ensuring compliances.
43. Thereafter, the Joint Committee has filed the report through e-mail dated 24.07.2019 which reads as follows:-
5.0 Status of Carrying Capacity Assessment Study:
The carrying capacity assessment study of the area is assigned to Dr. Shivanagendra, Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai to 28.05.2019 by APPCB. The carrying capacity assessment study is under progress."
44. This Tribunal by order dated 29.07.2019, considered the report mentioned above and then, passed the following order:-
, "4. As regards the time to conduct Carrying Capacity Study is concerned, this Tribunal has granted 03 months time on the last hearing date but the same has not been completed so far. It is alleged in the report that Dr. Shivanagendra, Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai was making the study and it is under process. So under such circumstances, we feel that some more time can be granted for that purpose. However, the Committee is directed to compete the study within a further period of 03 months from today and submit a report on this aspect.
5. As regard the action taken is concerned, this Tribunal is not satisfied with mere issuing of the directions under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and 31 A in the Air (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act, 1981.
Whenever it is found that they are continuously violating or they are regular violators, mere issuance of notice may not be sufficient and the Committee is expected to go into the question as regards the damage caused to the environment namely Air Pollution in this case because most of the roads were not properly metalled as directed in consent to operate. Further there is no record maintained regarding the water consumption so as to find out as to whether they are using water only to the extent permitted.
6. So under such circumstances, we feel that it is necessary that the Committee has to consider the question of assessing damage caused to the environment and compensation to be payable by the defaulting units for the violation committed by them especially when it is seem from the order dated 27.03.2019 itself that on an earlier occasion, during 2018, such a direction was issued and in spite of the same, they have not complied the same. So under such circumstances, the committee is also directed to assess the damage caused to the environment and compensation payable by each defaulting units and Pollution Control Board is directed to take steps to recover the compensation payable from the defaulting units. The Pollution Control Board is directed to submit a further report regarding the completion of action taken pursuant to the notices issued under Section 33 A in the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and 31 A in the Air (Prevention And Control of Pollution) Act, 1981and submit a report before the next date of hearing.
7. The Committee is directed to submit the report regarding assessment of environmental compensation payable by each defaulting unit and also compliance report of the defaults committed by them after the notices have been issued as mentioned above. The Committee is also directed to submit the Carrying Capacity Study report to this Tribunal along with the above said report by e-mail."
45. The State Pollution Control Board has filed an action taken report dated 12.12.2019 which reads as follows:-
46. As per order dated 13.12.2019, this Tribunal had directed the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board to file further action taken report pursuant to the show cause notice issued and also ascertain as to whether the directions and recommendations (if any) given by the committee had been complied with in accordance with law and they were also directed to impose environmental compensation against those units which are not complying with the directions issued.
47. Thereafter, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board had filed a further action taken report dated 24.01.2020 along with the directions issued against the erring units which reads as follows:-
"Action Taken Report of A.P. Pollution Control Board submitted in compliance to Hon'ble NGT (SZ) Order dt.
13.12.2019 in 0.A. No. 7 of 2019 The following action taken report is submitted in compliance to Hon'ble NGT (SZ) Order dt.13.12.2019 in 0.A. No. 7 of 2019.
1. Action taken by the Board on defaulting units. A. The status on compliance of directions and CFO conditions issued to 44 No. of road metal quarries was reviewed by the External Advisory Committee of the A.P. Pollution Control Board, Head Office, Vijayawada on 15.10.2019 duly providing opportunity of hearing to the complainant Sri J. Nageswara Rao, (applicant) and quarry owners. It was observed that 34 No. of stone quarries are in operation and 10 No. of quarries are not in operation for a long time. Further 3 out of the 34 No. of quarries have not complied with specific directions issued by the Board on 26.10.2018, 06.06.2019 & 11.07.2019. Remaining 31 quarries have complied with the directions / consent conditions except adopting wet drilling process, monitoring of ground water level and quality as of joint inspection by the committee on 30.09.2019.
B. After review of the compliance status, the External Advisory Committee y recommended to issue closure orders to 3 quarries, directions to 22 quarries, directions to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 2.0Lakhs to 9 quarries and directions to 10 non- operating quarries to intimate before starting operations. The Board also addressed a letter to the Mines & Geology Department, Guntur on 29.10.2019 with a request not to issue mine permits in the 13 quarries (quarries issued with closure orders -3 Nos. and quarries not in operation- 10 Nos.), The 9 No.of quarries have furnished bank guarantee of Rs. 2.0 Lakhs each valid for a period of one year towards as per the Board directions.
The above action taken details were submitted in the report filed in Hon'ble NGT by the Board on 03.12.2019.
2. Action taken by the Board on levying environmental compensation.
A. It is to submit that the joint committee constituted by the Hon'ble NGT in O.A. No. 7 of 2019 has estimated environmental compensation, based on the guidelines of CPCB, payable by each defaulting unit considering major violation of consent conditions and non- compliance of the directions issued by the Board and submitted report to Hon'ble NGT on 26.10.2019 B. As per the directions of Hon'ble NGT vide order dt. 13.12.2019 and in view of the recommendations of the committee, the environmental compensation was levied on 34 No. of road metal quarries operating at Sy. No. 111 & 155/A1, Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District vide order dated. 18.01.2020. The remaining 10 No. of stone quarries were not operated since long time and the same was confirmed by the Mines & Geology Dept., during inspection of the stone quarries by the committee members also.
C. The abstract of the environmental compensation levied on the 34 No. of defaulting road metal quarries located at Sy.No. 111 & 155/A1, Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District is as follows:
Sl. Committee recommended List of road metal Environmental No. compensation amount quarries (Sl. No. Compensation in the committee amount levied by report) order dt.18.01.2020.
1. The 15 Stone quarries that have 7, 9, 12, 13, 16, 15 quarries x complied all the directions only by 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 12,85,000/quarry July 9, 2019 may be imposed with 27, 34, 41, 42 & = Rs.1,92,75,000 environmental compensation of 43 Rs.12, 85,000 (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand only)
2. The 13 stone quarries that have 1, 2, 5, 6, 10,11, 13 quarries x complied all the directions only by 15, 22, 31, 32, 37, 17,00,000/quarry September 30, 2019 may be 38, 40 = Rs.2,21,00,000 imposed with environmental compensation of Rs.17,00,000/-
(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs only)
3. The six stone quarries that have 3(Rs.18,40,000/-), Rs.1,14,95,000 not complied the directions after 4(Rs.19,85,000/-), (for 6 No. of road September 30, 2019 may be 8 (Rs.19,95,000/- metal quarries imposed with environmental ), not complied even compensation of Rs.17,00,000/- + 21(Rs.18,40,000/- after 30th Rs.5000/- per day till they comply ), September, 2019) the directions. 30(Rs.18,40,000/-
) &
36(RS.19,95,000/-
4. 10 Nos. of road metal quarries not 14, 23, 25, 26, 28, ---
in operation since long time 29, 33, 35, 39 &
44
Total Rs.5,28,70,000/-
Copies of the directions issued to 34 Nos. of stone quarries levying environmental compensation are enclosed as Annexure - 1.
3. Action taken by the Board on the recommendations of IT Madras, Chennai on Carrying Capacity:
A. As per Hon'ble NGT orders dt. 27.03.2019, the Board has engaged IIT, Chennai to undertake carrying capacity of stone quarry mines at Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur Rural, Guntur District and they have submitted carrying capacity study report with certain recommendations to maintain the environmental quality in the quarry cluster within the standard and the report was submitted to the Hon'ble NGT on 26.10.2019.
B. As per the recommendations in carrying capacity report furnished by IIT, Chennai, the Board has issued following directions to stone quarries operating at Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur Rural, Guntur District vide order dt. 21.01.2020.
i. The quarry unit holder shall reduce the capacity by 30% of consented production during poor meteorological conditions particularly in winter period (November to February) duly maintaining the production records.
ii. All the trucks which carry the materials should be covered with tarpaulins.
iii. The unit holder shall not operate beyond the consented capacity since this area has showed low ventilations and it has high potential for pollutants.
iv. The unit holder shall submit monthly production details to Regional office, Guntur and Zonal Office, Vijayawada regularly.
Copies of the directions issued to the quarries based on the recommendations of IIT, Chennai are enclosed as Annexure II.
This Action Taken Report is submitted to the Hon'ble NGT in due compliance of the directions issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
Dated at Vijayawada, A.P. on this the 24th day of January, 2020. "
48. As per order dated 28.01.2020 in O.A. No.07/2019, this Tribunal had extracted the earlier orders passed on 15.05.2019, 29.07.2019 and thereafter, considered the further action taken report dated 24.01.2020 and subsequent development and thereafter, extracted the further action report submitted by the Pollution Control Board dt. 24.01.2020 which was extracted in Para 7 of the order and this Tribunal had passed the following order:-
"8) When the matter came up for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that though as per the conditions of the Consent to Operate, they will have to adopt wet drilling process and monitoring of ground water level quality shall be carried out quarterly the same was not carried out. Even as per the previous reports, it was only mentioned that they have only provided wet covers and there is deficiency of development of green belt as according to the consent to establish and EC it has to alone in 33% of the area. There is no case for the Pollution Control Board that the conditions of dry drilling has been modified.
The units are not expected to adopt their own alternative methods in violation of the conditions imposed in the consent or EC which the Board felt is the best method to control dust emission at the time of drilling, only on the ground that it is expensive. The Pollution Control Board is the best authority to impose conditions which the units are expected to follow. If they did not follow the same consequences must follow. The Board is not expected to be lenient in tolerating such violations. Further, if there is a recommendation, they will have to reduce the production capacity to 33% to meet the carrying capacity. It is not known as to whether the recommendation of the committee has been implemented by the units. These aspects will have to be gone into by the Committee before fixing the compensation amount. The Board is at liberty to impose additional compensation after giving an opportunity to other parties to meet their objections in accordance with law. Further, if the closure order will have to be given for non compliance of the conditions, that also has to be considered by the Board till the conditions are complied with or it is modified in the process known to law with valid reasons for modifying original condition of wet drilling to some other alternative methods with scientific reasons. They are not expected to proceed casually merely because it is more beneficial to the violators rather than to protect the environment. The Committee is directed to submit further report on the basis of the above directions within a period of two months. They may also ascertain whether the environmental compensation already imposed has been recovered or deposited."
49. As per order dated 25.02.2020 in O.A. No.170/2016, this Tribunal had noted the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 8 to 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 37, 39 to 48, 50 to 52 regarding the Environmental Clearance (EC) and consent to operate obtained by those respondents.
50. Further, when the case was taken up on 11.05.2020, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 7 in O.A. No.179/2016 submitted that there is another matter pending as O.A. No.07/2019 (SZ) in respect of the same issue and this Tribunal had directed this case also to be posted along with that case for consideration and disposal of the same by a common order.
51. As per order dated 13.05.2020, this Tribunal had adjourned the case to enable the State Pollution Control Board to submit further report and posted the case to 30.07.2020 along with the applications filed for impleading.
52. The party respondents who have been impleaded before this Tribunal had moved the Hon'ble High Court against the closure order issued by the State Pollution Control Board by way of writ petitions and the Hon'ble High Court had disposed of the writ petitions directing the writ petitioners therein to approach this Tribunal to redress their grievance. Accordingly, quarry owners filed applications for impleading themselves as respondents in O.A. No.07/2019 and as per Order dated 21.08.2020 in I.A. No.30/2020 to 35/2020, respondents 6 to 16 were impleaded. Thereafter, respondents 17 to 40 were impleaded as per Order dt. 19.02.2021 in I.A. No.19/2021 to I.A. No.31 to 2021 and respondents 41 & 42 were impleaded as per order dt. 25.06.2021 in I.A. No.57 & 58 of 2021.
53. The Joint Committee has filed a report dated Nil, filed during July-2020 on the basis of the orders of this Tribunal dated 28.01.2020 which reads as follows:-
REPORT OF THE COMPLIANCE ON THE DIRECTION OF THE HON'BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, ORDER DATED JANUARY 28, 2020 IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION NO. 7 OF 2019 (SZ), J.NAGESWARA FtA0 Vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS SUBMITTED BY THE COMMITTEE I. Background In the matter of OA No. 7 of 2019 (SZ), J.Nageswara Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Other 5 respondents, the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi received a grievance regarding the pollution caused due to operation of 44 stone quarrying units in Sy.Nos.111 & 155/A1 of Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. The Hon'ble NGT vide order dated March 27, 2019, constituted a committee with Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) & Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) to conduct Carrying capacity assessment of the area, Ambient Air Quality status of the area at least at the 10 locations which are representative, Efficacy of the pollution control devices and Violation of condition if any imposed in the consent to operate and the citing criteria and if there is any violation, any action if necessary to be taken in accordance with the law".
In compliance to Hon'ble NOT order dated 27.03.2019, the Committee inspected the stone quarries located in Sy.No.111 and 155/A1 in Chinapalakalaru (V), Medikonduru (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh during April, 2019. The committee carried out Ambient Air Quality Monitoring (AAQM) in ten locations and submitted report to Hon'ble NOT. The committee had submitted its first report in the month of May, 2019 and requested time for the submission of the report on the Carrying Capacity Studies.
, The Hon'ble NGT vide order dated May 15, 2019, while permitting extension of time for submission of the Carrying Capacity Studies, ordered to include a representative from APSEIAA as a member of the committee and directed to review and verify the compliance status of the 44 stone crushers with CFO conditions, and to assess the compensation for the environmental damage, if any, caused by the 44 stone Quarries. Based on the Hon'ble NOT directions dated May 15, 2019, the committee inspected and verified the compliance of the stone quarries located in Sy.No.111 and 155/A1 in Chinapalakalaru (V), Medikonduru (M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh on July 9, 2019. Accordingly, in the month of July, 2019 the three member committee had submitted its report along with the study report on the Carrying Capacity Studies for the area submitted by a Team from IIT (Chennai).
The Hon'ble NOT vide order dated July 29, 2019 directed committee to carry out damage assessment and calculate environmental compensation, payable by each defaulting unit and also compliance report of the defaults committed by them after the notices have been issued as mentioned above. The Committee was also directed to submit the Carrying Capacity Study report to the Tribunal along with the above said report by e-mail. 2
Accordingly, based on the directions issued by Hon'ble NOT dated July 29, 2019, the committee inspected the stone quarries located in Sy.No.111 and 155/A1 in Chinapalakalaru (V), Guntur District on September 30, 2019 and submitted the carrying capacity report and the individual quarry compliance status w.r.t the directions issued by the Board since 2018.
Further, the Hon'ble NOT vide order dated January 28, 2020 (Annexure -- I) has directed the Committee, to (1) report the status of implementation of the condition of "Wet Drilling; (2) Status of the Hon'ble NOT directives on 30% reduction in production during winter months as recommended in the report of the Carrying Capacity studies; (3) Compliance to the Air and Water monitoring norms; (4) Status of the compliance to other conditions of the EC, CFO and the special directives of the APPCB. Accordingly, the three member committee consisting of the representatives from (1) CPCB; (2) APSEIAA; and (3) APPCB have conducted the joint assessment during 16-17th March, 2020.
The committee comprising of following members was constituted:
Smt. Mahima T. Scientist-D, CPCB, Regional Directorate, Bengaluru Prof. Kameshwar Rao, Member- Andhra Pradesh Environment Appriasal Committee Sri.K. Ramesh, Senior Environmental Engineer, APPCB. The committee inspected 44 stone quarries located in Sy.No.111 and 155/A1 in Chinapalakalaru (V), Guntur District during March 16 & 17, 2020 as per directions of the NGT order dated January 28, 2020.
II. Action Taken by the Andhra Pradesh PCB between 28-10-2019 to 16-03-2020:
Consequent to the directives of the, Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, and as per the recommendations of the committee constituted on the issue of the pollution caused due to operation of 44 stone quarrying units (Annexure -- ) in Sy.Nos.111 & 155/AI of Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, the APPCB, has initiated special actions. This Committee was informed that the following are the major actions initiated by the APPCB between the rd and 3'd visits of the Committee.
All the TEN non-operating stone quarries (as submitted in the First report of the Committee) were issued directions on 28-10-2019, under Sec 33 (A) of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1988 and under Sec.31(A) of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1987 " to intimate to the Board before starting the operation of the Road Metal Quarry". The list of 10 non-
operating stone quarries is as in Annexure -- III(a). APPCB, vide its order dated 28.10.2019 issued "closure directions along with disconnection of power supply" orders under Sec 33 (A) of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1988 and under Sec.31 (A) of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1987 to three stone quarries that have 3 not complied with the conditions in the 'Environmental Clearance' and in 'CFO'. The list of stone quarries issued with closure directions is as in Annexure-III(b). In case of NINE stone quarries, which have not complied with the special directions of the APPCB issued on 28.10.2019 for completing the green belt plantation and fulfilling the other conditions, the APPCB has taken assurance through Bank Guarantee for Rs. 2 Lalchs from each of the stone quarry. The list of stone quarries from which bank guarantee was collected is as in Annexure-III(c). In case of the remaining 22 stone quarries, which have complied with the special directions of the APPCB issued on 28.10.2019 for completing the green belt plantation and fulfilling the other conditions, APPCB is monitoring the progress Annexure-III(d). As directed by the Hon'ble NGT in its order dt. 13-12-2019, for all the 34 stone quarries violated the environmental conditions and caused damage to the environment, Environmental Compensation was levied on the lines recommended by the Committee for the period of non-compliance, and the APPCB has directed all the 34 stone quarries, vide its directions 18-01-2020, followed by a reminder notice on 05-02-2020 for an amount of Rs. 5,28,70,000/-.
The APPCB has directed (Vide APPCB Directions dt. 21.01.2020) all the stone quarries to implement 30% reduction in the consented production, during winter months, and also monitoring implementation of the same jointly with AP Department of Mines and Geology.
All the Owners of the Stone quarries, through their district association, has represented to the PCB on several apprehensions on the conditions imposed in the CFO, including the condition on "Wet ting" of the drills (Annexure - IV). This Committee was informed that the APPCB is examining the representation, including the condition related to drilling, in accordance with the law, and as per the Rules and Regulations of the APPCB.
The APPCB has conducted Water Quality monitoring in the area, by sampling the ground waters and mine pit waters, on 07-03-2020, and the ground water quality was found satisfactory €Annexure - V).
This committee was informed that the 31 stone quarries are submitting the six monthly Environmentally compliance reports to the Regional Office of the APPCB.
III. Environmental Compliance of the Stone Quarries as on 17-03-2020:
The committee inspected the quarries during March 16 & 17, 2020 and observed that I. The Ten stone quarries which were not in operation since March 2019; and the THREE stone quarries that were ordered for closure by the APPCB for Non-compliance, were not operating nor resumed their operations. Further, the AP Department of Mines and Geology was also directed not to issue permission for mining and permits to the mined out material.4
2. Point-wise compliance statuses of remaining stone quarries are verified during the committee's inspection on March 16th & 17th, 2020. During the committee's visit, all the 31 stone quarries were not in operation and there was no transportation of material. The committee was informed that most of the mines have stopped the operations as the demand for stone was not there due to stoppage of Amaravati capital construction works since November, 2019. The committee, besides visiting the mines, interacted with the local people during inspection, and also with the mining personnel.
3. Compliance to the condition of Wet Drilling:
The condition of the Wet drilling in the CFO is being insisted by the APPCB, however, ever since the first visit of the committee till to date, the issue could not be resolved as the mine owners have represented to the APPCB to accept the drilling method as approved in the Mining Plan approved by the AP Department of Mines and Geology.
On 15-02-2020, the Guntur District Quarry and Stone Crushers Owners ' Welfare Association, submitted a representation to the APPCB to permit Wet Clothe Covered drilling method, as alternative to the Wet Drilling condition in the CFO.
On 16-03-2020, the mine owners have also met this committee and appraised the issue, and also demonstrated the Wet Clothe Covered drilling method. This committee opines that a scientific assessment of the efficiency of the method is needed and if the indigenous technique is found efficient, it may save not only air pollution, but also save several kilo liters of water.
4. Compliance to the condition of Separate Bank Account for Environmental Budget:
All the 31 Stone quarries have complied with this condition and reported to the Regional Office of the APPCB.
5. Compliance to the condition of Environmental Monitoring:
Air Monitoring: All the mines have submitted air monitoring reports to the APPCB, the Committee examined the two latest reports for the area conducted on 11-12-2019 and on 16-12-2019 and found no significant violations. Water Monitoring: All the mines have submitted water monitoring reports to the APPCB, the Committee examined the two latest reports for the area conducted on 24-09-2019 and on 28-10-2019 and found no significant violations. The APPCB also has monitored the water quality of the ground waters and mine pit waters at several stations in the area on 07-03-2020, and the quality of the ground waters was satisfactory (Annexure-V).
Water Consumption: All the mines have started book keeping of Water Consumption and maintaining the log books.5
d) Occupational Health Checkup: All the mines have submitted the copies of the reports of the OH checkup conducted by a competent doctor. The Committee examined the two latest reports conducted on 15-11-2019 and found the reports lacked in relevancy of the tests, as the pulmonary tests are important for the quarry mine workers, and the same was not reported in the test results.
Compliance to the Payment of Environmental Compensation:
The APPCB on 18-01-2020 has issued directions to all the 34 stone quarries to pay the Environmental Compensation for the damage caused to the environment, and also served a reminder notice on 05-02-2020. However, the mine owners have individually and jointly requested for time and as on 17--03-2020, no stone quarry has paid the Environmental Compensation, and the concerned Regional Officer of the APPCB has informed this committee that action has been initiated to issue closure orders, and dealing the representation of the mine owners in accordance with the law and the Rules and Regulations of the APPCB.
Compliance to the condition of Green Belt development:
All the mines have cbmplied with Green Belt norm, and those mines which have no space in the mine lease area, have developed the plantation on the mine approach roads, or on specific lands in the village. The committee has visited green belt areas developed by 23 mines, and all the mines together has a total of 44 ha of mine lease area, and together have developed a green belt area of 16.28 ha, achieving 37% area under green belt (Annexure-VI).
Compliance to the Directions of Reduced Production during winter months:
The APPCB on 21-01-2020, has directed the stone quarries to implement production reduction by 30% during the winter months (November to February) as recommended based on the carrying capacity studies. The production details of the individual mines for the period from November 2019 to February 2020 were verified from the certified copy of the Assistant Director of Mines, Guntur. It is observed that all mines have reduced their production by more than 30%, except one mine (M/s. Ganesh Metals Crushers 2.954 Ha.) has exceeded its consented quantity (Annexure-VI).
IV. General Observations and the Submissions of the Committee:
I. Actions initiated by the APPCB have resulted in the increased awareness and greater concern for the environment among the mine operators, and remarkable progress in achieving compliance was evident as per the records for the past six months. The stone quarry operators were regularly reporting to the APPCB.6
54. The State Pollution Control Board has filed a further action taken report dated 20.08.2020 along with the proceedings issued by them which reads as follows:-
55. The respondents 6 to 40 impleaded in O.A. No.07/2019 have filed their reply with response to the Joint Committee reports contending that this Tribunal had appointed a Joint Committee by order dated 27.03.2019 and directed the committee to submit a report regarding the carrying capacity of the area and the air pollution measures adopted by the crusher and quarry units and violations if any. The committee after considering the grievance of the applicant only and without providing any opportunity to the quarry owners submitted the report before this Tribunal in April/May - 2019 and by order dated 15.05.2019, this Hon'ble Tribunal had directed the committee to conduct further study regarding the carrying capacity of the area. Thereafter, the committee submitted the further report dated 24.07.2019 wherein, the committee noted that all the units have complied with almost all the conditions of consent as well as the Environmental Clearance (EC) issued, except regarding the aspect of wet drilling. The committee noted that as per the consent conditions, drills should be water jacketed, but on the other hand, the units informed the committee that the drills do not have provisions for water jacketing and therefore, required a modification of the conditions to an alternative method for controlling dust emissions at the time of drilling by covering the drill bits with wet gunny bags/gunny bags to attenuate dust emission during drilling process.
56. It is further contended that finally, in Para 3.0, the Committee observed that out of 44 stone quarries 10 quarries are not in operation and the remaining 34 quarries were operating it with 10% to 15% of the production capacity due to lack of demand. In Para 3.0 (vi), the committee has referred to the representation of the stone quarries that implementation of wet drilling of holes for blasting is not practiced in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently, this Tribunal had passed an order dt. 29.07.2019 directing the committee to consider the question of assessing damage caused to the environment and submit a report. The committee made further inspection of the quarries in September- 2019 and submitted a further report in October-2019 wherein, the committee has clearly stated that as regards the carrying capacity to 30% of the consent capacity during the critical meteorological weather conditions. While doing the environmental damage assessment, the committee has stated in respect of air quality that after detailed studies, it has been found that the air quality in the quarry area including the habitations area are within the standards prescribed and the damage to the environment by air pollution is meagre. The committee also rejected all claims regarding damage to physical structures due to vibration. As regards environmental compensation, the committee has calculated the same on the basis of the five points relating to alleged violation of consent conditions. However, fixing 26.10.2018 as the base or first day of violation is incorrect and similarly fixing further dates for calculation as 09.07.2019 and 30.09.2019 also without any supporting material and without notice or opportunity to the concerned quarry owners to explain the situation and as such, the conclusion is incorrect. The explanation given by the quarry owners have not been considered by the committee or thereafter by the Board, before making a demand for environmental compensation. When it is an admitted position that the capital cost of the business of quarrying itself is hardly Rs.10 Lakhs and the industry falls under the small category, fixing of environmental compensation at this magnitude is totally disproportionate and impractical apart from being in total violation of the principles of natural justice.
57. It is also contended that as per order dated 13.12.2019, this Tribunal had directed the Pollution Control Board to submit a further report regarding the consequential action taken pursuant to the show cause notice issued in respect to levy of environmental compensation. While the observations in the aforesaid order was to take action in accordance with law, the Board in an unseemly hurry issued a notice dated 18.01.2020 levying huge amounts towards environmental compensation in respect of individual quarries by merely making a reference to the orders of this Tribunal and without making any independent exercise or affording an opportunity to the quarry owners before arriving at the quantum of compensation. Even as the quarry owners requested the authorities to follow the procedure contemplated by law which is what this Tribunal has ordered, the Board proceeded to issue a further order dated 18.08.2020 by which they directed all the quarries to stop production. In pursuant to the order dated 20.01.2020 passed by this Tribunal, the committee had submitted a detailed report on the compliance of the quarries to the directions issued by the Board. Most importantly, in the above report in Para 3, the committee has observed that the mine owners have met the committee and apprised the committee on the issue relating to wet drilling and also demonstrated the wet cloth covered drilling method. The committee has stated that it is of the opinion that the scientific assessment of the efficiency of the method is needed and if the indigenous technique is found efficient, it may save not only air pollution but also save several kiloliters of water. The committee has taken into account the fact that the present methodology adopted by the mining owners is as approved in the mining plan approved by the AP Department of Mines and Geology. The committee has also referred to the detailed representation made in this regard on 15.02.2020 by the Guntur District Quarry and Stone Crushers Owners Welfare Association to the Board to permit wet cloth covered drilling as an alternate to wet drilling condition mentioned in the CFO. Even in respect of reduced production during winter months, the committee has observed that all the mines have reduced the produced by more than 30%. The committee has also made general observations and submissions as regards the above issues in the concluding paragraphs of the report. The committee has also found that remarkable progress in achieving compliance by the quarries was evident as per the records for over the last six months and the stone quarry operators were regularly reporting to the APPCB. The reason for not developing the green belt was also explained and that was also found to be convincing. So under such circumstances, the compensation imposed is not correct and the same is liable to be set aside and they may be exempted from paying environmental compensation.
58. Heard the counsel for the applicant Mr. S. Kamalesh Kannan in O.A. No.07/2019 and also heard the counsel Mrs. Madhuri Donti Reddy appearing for the respondents 1 to 7 in O.A. No.179/2016 and respondents 1 to 5 in O.A. No.07/2019 and Mr. K.S. Viswanathan, counsel for the respondents 8 to 53 in O.A. No.179/2016 and respondents 6 to 42 in O.A. No.07/2019.
59. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant in O.A. No.07/2019 argued that the committee report will go to show that the quarry owners/crusher units have committed violation of the conditions and it was clear from the committee report that they are not following the conditions and they adopt their own method of pollution control mechanism, which is impermissible in law. Considering the nature of violation that they are not using the wet drilling and sufficient green belt has not been provided as per the Environmental Clearance (EC) which will have impact on environment, quantum of compensation fixed is not correct and they ought to have imposed the compensation till the conditions are complied with fully. Further, till the conditions are fulfilled, they are not expected to continue the operation of the unit. Further, they cannot adopt their own method on the ground that it is being universally followed by the crusher and quarry owners in the State of Andhra Pradesh and as such, contended that it cannot be said to be a violation, but without modifying the conditions imposed by the Pollution Control Board, which is an expert body to suggest the best mechanism to arrest dust and other pollution which is likely to be caused on account of the operation of these units, they are not entitled to continue with the operation and the action taken by the Pollution Control Board is perfectly justifiable. So, there is no merit in submission made by the quarry owners.
60. The learned counsel appearing for the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board as well as State departments argued that almost all the units which are functioning have obtained Environmental Clearance (EC), Consent to Operate and Consent to Establish, after the Deepak Kumar's case and amendment to EIA Notification, 2006 in 2016 and after issuance of Official Memorandums by the MoEF&CC in this regard. Regular monitoring is being done and the violations were correctly noted and since they have not complied with the conditions and directions, the Pollution Control Board was perfectly justified in directing them to stop production and also imposing environmental compensation. At the time of inspection by the committee, all the quarry owners were given audience and only in their presence, inspection was conducted and thereafter, as directed by this Tribunal, further action was taken on the basis of the findings of the committee by giving show cause notice and since reply was not satisfactory, they have imposed environmental compensation and as such, the submission made by the counsel for the quarry owners that no opportunity was given and the action taken by the Pollution Control Board is against the principle of natural justice is not correct.
61. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the quarry owners argued that the cumulative reading of the report of the joint committee will go to show that all the operating units are having Environmental Clearance (EC) and necessary permissions and they are operating the quarries in accordance with mining plan and lease agreement executed by them in addition to complying with the conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance (EC) as well as in the Consent to Operate. Further, the only violation that was noted by the committee was instead of water jacketed drilling system, they are adopting wet drilling and they are covering the drill bit with wet gunny bags / gunny bags to prevent dust emission during drilling process and some of the units have not achieved the 33% green belt to be maintained and except that, there is no other violations found by the committee. Further, the committee also observed that the Ambient Air Quality in that area is in conformity with the standard provided and there is no dust or other pollution caused on account of the operation of the units. Further, on the basis of the carrying capacity assessment made by the committee, they are now only producing 50% of the consent capacity and as such, there was no possibility of any sound or noise pollution arises. They have complied with all the conditions imposed in the Consent to Operate, except the above mentioned condition, which is impracticable to implement and none of the quarry owners in the State of Andhra Pradesh is adopting that method and the committee also observed that this also can be used as alternate for the condition imposed by the Pollution Control Board and that will not have any impact on environment and as such, it cannot be said to be a violation committed by them. They have also given the reason for non development of the green belt area by the quarry owners, as the area is fully rocky and the plantation will not be possible. Further, the Pollution Control Board has not afforded any opportunity to the quarry owners before issuing the closure order or imposing environmental compensation. They have only relied on the committee report which was not being heard after giving opportunity to the quarry owners and this Tribunal also directed them to impose environmental compensation in accordance with law, but relying on the directions of this Tribunal without conducting any proper enquiry, they have straightaway imposed environmental compensation and as such, the action of the Pollution Control Board is not sustainable and the orders passed by them are liable to be set aside and they will have to be directed to conduct proper enquiry and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
62. The learned counsel appearing for the quarry owners has relied on the decisions in W.A. 2572/2019 Thrisur Corporation Vs. Kerala State Pollution Control Board & Ors. of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, M/s. Ganesh Stone Crushers Vs. State of Haryana in Civil Appeal No.6368/2019 and other connected cases, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Vs. Sterlite Industries India Limited & Ors. (2019) 19 SCC 479, Director General and Road Development, National Highway Authority of India Vs. Aamadmi Lokmuch & Ors. 2020 SCC Online 572 in support of his case.
63. Heard the counsel for both the parties, perused the documents and considered the submission of both sides.
64. The points that arise for consideration are:-
i. Whether the quarry owners/crusher units have committed any violation of the conditions imposed?
ii. Whether the quarry owners/crusher units have conducted any illegal mining or crushing operation without obtaining necessary permission under the environmental laws?
iii. Whether the action taken by the State Pollution Control Board on the basis of the committee report is correct?
iv. If the violations were found to have been committed by the units, what is the quantum of compensation to be imposed and what are all the further directions to be issued by this Tribunal?
v. Relief and costs?
Points:-
65. The grievance in O.A. No.179/2016 was that respondents 8 to 53 in that case were not having necessary permission as well as clearance for conducting the quarry and crusher units and even some of them who were having permission and clearance were not complying with the pollution norms and causing untold hardship to the people in the locality.
66. The grievance in O.A. No.07/2019 was also almost similar and the applicant in that case, without impleading the quarry owners, made general allegations that crushers and quarries that were being conducted in Sy. No. 111 and 155/A1 were not complying with the conditions and causing lot of air as well as sound pollution and thereby, causing untold hardship to the persons residing in that area. Further, on account of vibration caused, certain houses in the nearby area were affected. But, later it was understood on the basis of the pleadings that prior to Deepak Kumar's case, there was no mandatory condition of obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) for doing quarrying of minor minerals and only after the Deepak Kumar's case, it has become mandatory irrespective of its area and till 15.01.2016 when the EIA Notification, 2006 was amended in the view of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepak Kumar's case and also by the National Green Tribunal, the MoEF&CC had made Environmental Clearance (EC) mandatory for all existing as well as new quarries to establish and the State of Andhra Pradesh had amended the Minor Mineral and Concession Rules, making the Environmental Clearance (EC) mandatory for obtaining mining plan as well as mining lease and thereafter, quarry owners have applied and obtained Environmental Clearance (EC).
67. In O.A. No.07/2019, as per order dated 23.07.2019, this Tribunal had constituted a committee comprising of a Senior Environmental Engineer/Senior Scientist of Central Pollution Control Board and Senior Environmental Engineer/Senior Scientist of State Pollution Control Board and they have been directed to conduct the carrying capacity assessment of the area, Ambient Air Quality status of the area at least at 10 location which are representative in nature, efficacy of the pollution control devices and violation of condition (if any) imposed in the condition to operate and the siting criteria and if there is any violation, what is the nature of action taken in accordance with the law and submit a factual as well as action taken report to this tribunal.
68. Thereafter, the committee had filed a report wherein, it was recommended that as per the directions of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, blasting has to be carried out from 03.00 PM to 05.00 PM. Out of 44 stone quarries, 18 number of stone quarries have operated between 03.00 PM to 05.00 PM and 10 are operating between 02:00 to 05:00 P.M., 10 numbers are not in operation. They have been directed to restrict the blasting operation from 03.00 PM to 05.00 PM. to avoid complaints from the local people.
69. It was also mentioned in the report that out of 44 quarries, 27 numbers of stone quarries have developed 15-33% (16 nos. more than 33% and 11 nos. between 15-33%) of the area as greenbelt in the peripheral of Sy. No. 155/A1 and 111 to attenuate air pollution. However, the greenbelt has to be further developed in the barrier around Sy. No. 155/A1. It was also mentioned in the report that though they have water sprinkling on haul roads and peripheral roads by using tankers, but they have not maintained the records showing the water consumption and they have been directed to maintain the daily records of number of trucks used for water sprinkling and quantity of water utilized for sprinkling.
70. Further, it was also mentioned in the report that on the date of inspection namely, 03.04.2019, the peripheral road and haul roads were unpaved and were contributing predominantly to the dust problem. The stone quarries have converted the peripheral road and haul roads to macadam roads paving with wet mix by 23.04.2019 and they have further paved peripheral road and haul roads with bitumen topping. The stone quarries were directed to monitor ambient air quality in the surrounding area by the approved laboratories as per the guidelines of CPCB and submit the reports to the APPCB. They have also been directed to explore the possibility of implementing wet drilling method during the drilling process, instead of present method of using wet gunny bag and gunny bag. They have been directed to implement the delay detonating technique in blasting to reduce the intensity of blasting, which in turn reduces the emissions. However, the same has to be implemented after obtaining due concurrence with DGM & S, Nagapur.
71. It was also seen from the report of the Joint Committee received by e- mail dated 09.05.2019 that the State Pollution Control Board vide Order dated 26.10.2018 had issued notice to the 44 quarries operating in Sy. No.111 and 155/A1 of Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur District of Andhra Pradesh and the following directions were issued to them:
"a. The road metal quarries shall submit an action plan for implementation of the stipulated conditions of consent for operation issued by the Board to achieve compliance.
b. The Road Metal quarries shall immediately take up massive plantations all around the quarries and crushers area, more densely towards the village and along the haul roads.
c. The Quarry units shall implement water sprinkling at mine area and haul roads for dust suppression at regular intervals.
d. The road metal quarries shall implement requisite dust containment/suppression measures immediately to prevent fine dust getting air borne and cause pollution problems in the surroundings.
e. The road metal quarries shall ensure the blasting times of 3 PM to 5 PM be strictly maintained."
72. Since no further action was taken on the basis of the notice issued, the applicant in O.A.No.07/2019 filed the application before this Tribunal and this Tribunal had appointed a Joint Committee by order dated 27.03.2019 and that is on that basis, the committee had submitted the above report.
73. It was also seen from the report that out of 67 mine lease in that area, 44 mines were identified by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board for non-compliance of the consent conditions and directions were issued to them as mentioned above.
74. Though the applicants in both the cases and at the time of inspection, local people had complained that on account of the operation of the quarries, damage has been caused to the houses, the committee came to the conclusion that there was no possibility of any damage being caused to the houses and the cracks etc. found in some of the houses could not be linked with the operation of the quarries in that area.
75. It was seen from the first report mentioned above, out of the five conditions imposed by the Pollution Control Board in the notices issued to the 44 quarries situated in Sy. No.155/A1 and 111, certain non compliances were noted and that was extracted in Table 3 of that report in the above paragraph.
76. Further, it was also seen from the non-compliance report that most of them have not complied with the condition of submitting an action plan for implementation of the stipulated conditions and they were not complying with the blasting timings as suggested in the directions issued. It was also mentioned in the report that as per the Consent to Operate issued, wet drilling was suggested, but that is not followed instead the drilling rods were covered with wet clothes / gunny bags to control fugitive emission during drilling. Some of the quarries were carrying out the blasting operation between 02:00 pm - 06:00 p.m. as against the direction of the Pollution Control Board to carry out between 03:00 pm - 05:00 p.m. and it was on the basis of the permission granted by the Joint Chief of Controller of Explosives, Chennai the blasting was permitted from sunrise to sunset, but it is for the Pollution Control Board to ascertain as to whether the blasting throughout will have any impact on the livelihood of the people in that locality. So, the restrictions made by the Pollution Control Board regarding the timing of the blasting cannot be said to be an illegal or unreasonable and the quarry owners are expected to follow the same.
77. It was also mentioned in the report that in Sy. No.111 adequate green belt is provided, but in Sy. No.155/A1, 16 quarries have more than that of equal to 33% of the area covered by the greenbelt and 11 quarries have greenbelt in 15-30% of the land and 8 quarries have less than 15% of the area covered with the greenbelt. It was also mentioned in the report that since green belt in the lease area is not possible due to its terrain nature, they have developed compensatory greenbelt at the foot of the hillocks along with periphery either in their own land or lease land, to enable to take care of fugitive dust emission that is likely to be generates during mining and transport operations. They have not provided the digital water meters to ascertain the quantum of water being used. It was also mentioned in the report that at the time of inspection only minimum vehicular movement was observed. So, it is not known what is the actual movement of vehicle in that area. It was also seen from the report that no quarry is having ambient air quality station as per the Consent to Operate condition and none of them were practising wet drilling process during drilling of holes for blasting. They have also been directed to explore the possibility of implementing wet drilling during drilling process instead of the present method of using wet gunny bag and gunny bag.
78. It is thereafter, on the basis of the directions issued by the Tribunal regarding the action taken by the Pollution Control Board, they have filed an action taken report dated 12.12.2019, where closure orders have been issued to 3 quarries and directions have been issued to 22 quarries and 9 quarries were directed to furnish Bank Guarantee of Rs.2 Lakhs and 10 quarries which were found to be non-operative were directed to intimate the State Pollution Control Board before starting. They have given the details of the action taken in a tabular column which reads as follows:-
79. Subsequently, the State Pollution Control Board had also filed further report dated 24.01.2020, where they have imposed environmental compensation on the basis of the directions given by this Tribunal by order dated 13.12.2019.
80. At the time of inspection, it was found that none of the quarries were having the wet drilling system, but they were using only wet gunny bag/wet cloth to control the fugitive emission. As per the condition to operate, one of the conditions was that they must have wet drilling during the drilling process and if it is not a practicable solution, then the quarry owners ought to have challenged that condition by filing an appeal or atleast moved the State Pollution Control Board for modifying that condition to one of using wet gunny bags / wet cloth, instead of wet drilling process. Instead of that, quarry owners themselves as an organized sector decided to have their own method of drilling, which cannot be permitted. Even in the recommendation of the joint committee report which was e-mailed on 09.05.2019 and relied on by the counsel for the quarry owners, they have directed all the stone quarries to explore the possibility of implementing wet drilling during the drilling process. It was also found that most of the roads were not bitumen topping and subsequently, they have converted the same with bitumen topping. Further, the stone quarries have not installed the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Stations in the surrounding area as per the condition to operate. So, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the quarry owners that nowhere in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the wet drilling process was being adopted and the alternate method that has been adopted by them has to be approved and it cannot be treated as a violation cannot be accepted. They are not unilaterally entitled to change the conditions imposed by the Pollution Control Board who are the experts on the field to suggest the methodology to be used to curb possible pollution that is likely to be caused on account of the same.
81. It is also seen from the direction issued in the closure order that apart from non-compliance of the conditions imposed in the Consent to Operate, there were certain non-compliance of the Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions also noted. Though on an earlier occasion they have been directed to rectify these things, they have not done the same. So, it cannot be said that they were not having previous notice about the same and even at the time when O.A. No.07 of 2019 (SZ) was filed, there were certain directions issued and those directions were not complied with. That was clear from the subsequent inspection made by the Joint Committee and the report submitted by them.
82. The Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi had directed the Central Pollution Control Board to evolve a formula for imposing environmental compensation and in turn, the Central Pollution Control Board had evolved a guidelines as well as formula for this purpose and the same has been circulated to all the State Pollution Control Boards. For the purpose of imposing compensation on the basis of the violations of the conditions, there is no condition precedent that it must result in any environmental damage. A person who is not complying with the condition is liable to pay certain compensation for non-compliance of the conditions imposed in the Consent to Operate. That stand in a different footing from imposition of environmental compensation for damage caused to the environment on account of the pollution caused due to the operation of the units, which includes amount required for cost of restoration to restore the damage caused to the environment, apart from considering the other impact of pollution on environment and health of the people.
83. Further, it will be seen from the report submitted by the Joint Committee during July-2020 regarding compliance of the conditions of wet drilling, it was mentioned as follows:-
a) The condition of wet drilling in the Consent to Operate is being insisted by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, however ever since the first visit of the committee till to date, the issue could not be resolved as the mine owners have represented to the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board to accept the drilling method as approved in the mining plan approved by the Andhra Pradesh Department of Mines and Geology.
b) On 15.02.2020, the Guntur District Quarry and Stone crushers Owners' Welfare Association submitted a representation to the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board to permit wet cloth covered drilling method, as alternative to the wet drilling condition in the Consent for Operation.
c) On 16.03.2020, the mine owners have also met this committee and appraised the issue and also demonstrated the wet clothe covered drilling method. This committee opines that a scientific assessment of the efficiency of the method is needed and if the indigenous technique is found efficient, it may save not only air pollution, but also save several kiloliters of water.
84. Even, it is clear from the opinion of the committee that it requires a scientific assessment of its efficiency and only thereafter, the question of accepting the same has to be considered by the Board. So, even they were not suggesting that it can be accepted as an alternate effective and efficient method to prevent pollution. So, the submission made by the counsel for the quarry owners that the committee had accepted this as an alternative method and it cannot be said to be a violation cannot be accepted, as they have suggested to accept this only after satisfaction by scientific assessment and not before that. The authorities from Mining and Geology Department can suggest certain methodology, but it is for the State Pollution Control Board to suggest the methodology by which pollution or fugitive emissions likely to arise on account of operation of the quarry can be curtailed. When a scientific body which is expected to impose stricter conditions to curb pollution, imposed such a condition, then it is for the same expert body to change the same and the quarry owners are not expected to change the same by their own volition without getting that condition modified by the Pollution Control Board. So under such circumstances, we cannot accept the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the quarry owners that alternate method adopted by them cannot be said to be a violation of the conditions.
85. On the basis of the formula issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, the State Pollution Control Board had assessed the compensation on the basis of the nature of violations committed by them and the period of violation committed by them. There was a direction to develop green belt along the peripheral boundaries and also on the side of the roads, but they have not complied with the same. If it is not possible to be complied with due to the terrain of the area, they ought to have applied for change of that condition either to the State Pollution Control Board or to the SEIAA or DEIAA which granted the permissions and clearances respectively.
86. Further, the committee itself had suggested an alternate method of providing plantation, but that has also not been complied with by the quarry owners. The State Pollution Control Board had issued closure orders as well as imposing environmental compensation. As regards the closure orders are concerned, even prior to issuance of closure orders, certain directions have been issued for compliance of the condition and that was not complied with. Even after filing the application, the joint committee found that those violations were continued. So, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the quarry owners were not aware of the violation and they were not given any directions earlier, but it will be seen from the records and also from the report of the committee that they have not complied with, despite directions issued and as such, the State Pollution Control Board was perfectly justified in issuing the closure orders in the form of stop production order till the directions are complied with. So, we do not find any reason to interfere with the closure order issued.
87. It is true that the closure orders issued as well as imposition of environmental compensation were challenged by the quarry owners before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh had disposed of those writ petitions, leaving open the right of the writ petitioners to approach this Tribunal and file their objections and ventilate their grievance and it is on that basis, the respondents 7 to 42 in O.A. No.07 of 2019 were impleaded. Once the quarry owners have appeared before this Tribunal, as directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and raised their objections to the report of the committee, then two options are available for this Tribunal (i) to direct the parties to file their objection before the State Pollution Control Board and direct the State Pollution Control Board to consider and pass appropriate orders and aggrieved by the adverse orders (if any) passed by the Pollution Control Board, after considering the objection, then the parties are at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate appellate forum or (ii) Having appeared before this Tribunal and raised their objections, as directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, then the Tribunal itself can consider the question and pass appropriate orders including direction of closure of the units and assessment of environmental compensation.
88. In order to avoid delay and further multiplicity of proceedings, this Tribunal decided to adopt the second option of deciding the issue by itself, after considering the objections raised by the quarry owners regarding the imposition of compensation and closure orders issued.
89. The learned counsel appearing for the quarry owners had relied on the decisions namely, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Vs. Sterlite Industries India Ltd. (2019) 19 SCC 479, Director General of Road Development, National Highway Authorities of India Vs. Aaam Aadmi Lok Manch & Ors. 2020 SCC Online SC 572 and Writ Appeal No.2572 of 2019 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Thrisur Corporation Vs. State Pollution Control Board and Ors. in support of their case.
90. Those are all the cases where the National Green Tribunal had directed the State Pollution Control Board to impose environmental compensation and on that basis, without affording opportunity, the Pollution Control Board had imposed compensation, which were challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court and in those cases, the orders were set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court, on the ground that the Pollution Control Board had violated the principle of natural justice before imposing environmental compensation, but even in those cases, the power of the National Green Tribunal to appoint a joint committee and pass appropriate orders on the basis of the recommendations of the joint committee after appraisal and issuing direction on precautionary principle have been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Since the quarry owners have approached the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the closure order and imposition of environmental compensation by the Pollution Control Board and the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh had directed them to approach this Tribunal to ventilate their grievance and on that basis, they approached this Tribunal and raised their objections, including their objection to the report of the committee and against the act of imposition of compensation and issuance of closure orders, this Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider those objections and the Tribunal itself can consider and pass appropriate orders in this regard, including direction to pay environmental compensation as directed by the Pollution Control Board, after considering the objections and if the Tribunal satisfied that the action taken by the Pollution Control Board is justifiable and there is no interference required either against the issuance of the closure order or against the imposition of environmental compensation, then it can confirm the same.
91. Since this Tribunal had already found after considering the objections raised by the quarry owners and also findings of the committee in various reports submitted by them that the quarry owners who are operating have violated the conditions imposed and in spite of the directions issued, even earlier before filing of O.A. No.07 of 2019 before this Tribunal, they have not complied with the same and they were following their own methodology without modifying the condition imposed by the authorities, the State Pollution Control Board was perfectly justified in ordering closure of the units till the directions issued by them were complied with. This Tribunal also in the earlier orders opined that if the conditions imposed were not complied in spite of the directions issued, then repeating the directions will not be sufficient and the closure of the units ought to have been adopted by the Pollution Control Board till the conditions were complied with by the units. If they got any grievance regarding one of the conditions imposed by the Pollution Control Board as a methodology for preventing fugitive emission being caused while drilling, then they ought to have applied for modification of the conditions instead of adopting their own method.
92. Further, the committee has also not opined finally that the alternate method adopted by them is sufficient, but on the other hand, they have only opined that if after scientific assessment of the alternative method adopted by the quarry owners is found to be efficient and efficacious for the purpose of preventing pollution, then it may save usage of water as well. That does not mean that the committee has finally come to the conclusion that the alternative method is scientifically efficient one to replace the condition imposed by the Pollution Control Board.
93. If the quarry owners have applied for the modification of that condition to change the same to the one being practiced by them, it is for the Pollution Control Board to have an evaluation and assessment of the same in a scientific manner and if it is found to be satisfactory and efficient, then only the Pollution Control Board is entitled to change the condition as well. They cannot ipso-facto change the condition only on the ground that it is cost effective and profitable for the quarry owners. It must be scientifically proved that it is an efficient methodology that can be adopted uniformly in the place of wet drilling method as imposed as a condition in the Consent to Operate by the Pollution Control Board. Unless this is done, it cannot be said that there was no violation of conditions imposed committed by the quarry owners as contended by the counsel for the quarry owners.
94. Once, it was found that there is a violation from the date on which the quarry is being operated after obtaining the necessary permission and in spite of the directions issued by the Pollution Control Board to comply with the conditions and if it is not complied with, then on the basis of the formula evolved by the Central Pollution Control Board, compensation fixed by the State Pollution Control Board also appears to be reasonable and this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the same as well. The Pollution Control Board had given the details in the impugned order imposing environmental compensation, on the basis of which the compensation has been arrived against each quarry owners, explaining the nature of violations committed by them and there was no serious objections raised by the quarry owners against the calculation made, except the fact that they have not been given an opportunity and also that the violation said to have been committed by them cannot be said to be a violation, according to them, which the Tribunal had found to be not sustainable and that the period of violation taken by them is not correct cannot be accepted, as from the date of establishment of units, they are committing the violation.
95. So under circumstances, the Tribunal was satisfied with the quantum of compensation imposed by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board against the quarry owners and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same as well. Till the conditions are satisfied, the units are not entitled to operate the same and they are also directed to comply with the directions and only after complying with the direction, if they applied for revocation of the closure order issued, it is for the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
96. So, considering the above observations, we feel that both these applications can be disposed of with following directions:-
a. This Tribunal is satisfied that the operating quarry owners have committed violation of the conditions imposed and the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board was perfectly justified in issuing the closure orders and also imposing environmental compensation as shown in the orders issued to each quarry owners and those directions are hereby confirmed.
b. If the quarry owners who are operating have complied with the directions issued in the closure order and also in the order imposing environmental compensation and then apply for revocation of the order, then the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board is directed to consider those requests and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law.
c. If the quarry owners apply for modification of the condition of applying wet drilling by using the present indigenous method namely, user of wet gunny bag or wet cloth, then it is for them to consider the same in a scientific manner, after conducting proper studies in this regard and if it is feasible as observed by the committee scientifically, then they are at liberty to pass appropriate orders in this regard strictly in accordance with law.
We are not expressing any opinion in this regard, but it is for the State Pollution Control Board to scientifically assess the same, but they should not dilute the pollution control mechanism merely on the ground of cost effectiveness and profitable for the quarry owners in carrying out the condition as a condition for modifying the same, as it will be against the precautionary principle of protecting environment by giving way to sustainable development as claimed by the quarry owners.
d. The quarry owners against whom the environmental compensation is imposed are directed to pay the amount within a period of 3 (Three) months, failing which, the State Pollution Control Board is at liberty to recover the amount from them by initiating recovery proceedings in accordance with law.
e. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board is also directed to monitor the units after they started its operation (after revocation) periodically and if there is any violation found, then they are directed to take appropriate action against them in accordance with law.
f. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board is also at liberty to suggest the methodology of providing green belt as required under the conditions depending upon the terrain of the area and where it can be planted so as to curb the fugitive emission that is likely to be generated during the operation of the quarries.
97. The points are answered accordingly.
98. In the result, both these applications are disposed of as follows:-
i. This Tribunal is satisfied that the operating quarry owners have committed violation of the conditions imposed and the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board was perfectly justified in issuing the closure orders and also imposing environmental compensation as shown in the orders issued to each quarry owners and those directions are hereby confirmed.
ii. If the quarry owners who are operating have complied with the directions issued in the closure order and also in the order imposing environmental compensation and then apply for revocation of the order, then the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board is directed to consider those requests and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law.
iii. If the quarry owners apply for modification of the condition of applying wet drilling by using the present indigenous method namely, user of wet gunny bag or wet cloth, then it is for them to consider the same in a scientific manner, after conducting proper studies in this regard and if it is feasible as observed by the committee scientifically, then they are at liberty to pass appropriate orders in this regard strictly in accordance with law. We are not expressing any opinion in this regard, but it is for the State Pollution Control Board to scientifically assess the same, but they should not dilute the pollution control mechanism merely on the ground of cost effectiveness and profitable for the quarry owners in carrying out the condition as a condition for modifying the same, as it will be against the precautionary principle of protecting environment by giving way to sustainable development as claimed by the quarry owners.
iv. The quarry owners against whom the environmental compensation is imposed are
directed to pay the amount within a period of 3 (Three) months, failing which, the State Pollution Control Board is at liberty to recover the amount from them by initiating recovery proceedings in accordance with law.
v. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board is also directed to monitor the units after they started its operation (after revocation) periodically and if there is any violation found, then they are directed to take appropriate action against them in accordance with law.
vi. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board is also at liberty to suggest the methodology of providing green belt as required under the conditions depending upon the terrain of the area and where it can be planted so as to curb the fugitive emission that is likely to be generated during the operation of the quarries.
vii. The parties in both these applications are directed to bear their respective costs in the respective applications.
viii. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board for their information and compliance of the direction.
99. With the above observations and directions, both these applications are disposed of.
100. Since the application (O.A. No.07/2019) is disposed of, interim order passed by this Tribunal in that case is vacated.
Sd/-
........................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) Sd/-
...............................E.M. (Dr. K. Satyagopal) O.A. No.179/2016 (SZ) & O.A. No.07/2019 (SZ), 17th September, 2021. Mn.