National Green Tribunal
Yuva A Registered Ngo Through Its ... vs The Chief Secretary State Of Bihar on 3 February, 2022
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONE BENCH,
KOLKATA
............
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 12/2019/EZ
(I.A. No.24/2019/EZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
"YUVA" a registered NGO
Represented by it's National Secretary
Mr. Buddhist Kumar,
S/o Sri Prem Narayan Singh,
Resident of Vill-Uchauli (Naumile),
P.O.-Nagariyawan, P.S.-Khizarsarai,
Dist.-Gaya, Bihar-823003
....Applicant(s)
Versus
1. The Chief Secretary,
State of Bihar,
Main Secretariat Patna,
Bihar-800015
2. The Principal Secretary cum Mines Commissioner,
Mines & Geology Department
Government of Bihar,
Vikas Bhaban, Baily Road,
Patna-800015
3. The District Magistrate,
Collectorate Office,
Jehanabad District
Jehanabad, Bihar-804408
4. District Mining Officer
Collectorate Office, Jehanaba
District-Jehanabad, Bihar-804408
5. Superintendant of Police
Collectorate Office, Jehanabad
District-Jehanabad, Bihar-804408
1
6. M/s Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Director-Mr. Ram Prasad Rai
Vill-Patila Maner,
Dist-Patna, Bihar-801108
7. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
2nd Floor, Beltron Bhawn,
Shastri Nagar, Patna-800023
....Respondent(s)
COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT:
Ms. Debanjana Ray Chowdhury, Advocate
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS:
Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate for R-1 to 5,
Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, Advocate for R-6,
Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Advocate for R-7,
Ms. Amrita Pandey, Advocate for BSPCB,
Mr. Gora Chand Roy Choudhury, Advocate for MoEF&CC
JUDGMENT
PRESENT:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA (EXPERT MEMBER) __________________________________________________________________ Reserved On: - 24th January, 2022 Pronounce On: - 03rd February, 2022 __________________________________________________________________
1. Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published on the net? Yes
2. Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published in the NGT Reporter? Yes JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as the learned Counsel for the Respondents and perused the documents on record.2
2. The Applicant is an NGO and has filed this Original Application through its National Secretary one Mr. Buddhist Kumar alleging that illegal sand miners are engaged in sand mining activities at various sand ghats in the river basin of River Falgu at Jehanabad District in the State of Bihar. It is also alleged that the Respondent No.6 who is contractor/lessee though has been granted Environmental Clearance (in short 'EC') by the appropriate authority yet he has violated the conditions of the Environmental Clearance Rules framed by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (in short 'SEIAA'), Bihar and is carrying on unscientific excavation leading to long lasting ecological degradation. It is also alleged that Clause 3 of the Bihar Minor Minerals Rules, 2014 provides that the maximum depth of sand mining should not be beyond 3 meters i.e. 10 ft but the Respondent No.6 is quarrying more than 15-20 ft depth of sand from the river bed. It is also stated that mining is being carried on at certain mining points in the vicinity of bridge which is impermissible under the said Rules. It is further alleged that the illegal sand mining being carried on by the Respondent No.6 is not only threatening bridges but has also created large and deep pits in the river bed of River Falgu resulting is drop in groundwater level.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents and affidavits have been filed by the Respondent No.3, District Magistrate, Respondent No.4, District Mining Officer and Respondent No.5, Superintendent of Police bringing on record an Inspection Report. A similar affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.7, SEIAA, Bihar.
34. Not satisfied with the affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 3,4&5 the Tribunal vide its order dated 29.07.2019 constituted a Committee comprising of the following members:
(i) Representative from Integrated Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Ranchi;
(ii) Representative from Central Pollution Control Board, Kolkata; and
(iii) Representative from Bihar State Pollution Control Board The Committee was directed to enquire into the allegations contained in the original application and verify on the factual aspects prevailing at the spot and submit a report.
The Committee was also directed to observe if any illegal sand mining is being undertaken by Respondent No.6 or any other person or persons at the stretch of the Falgu River in the Jehanabad District and accordingly appropriate action may be instituted against the offender in accordance with law.
The committee conducted an inspection of various sand ghats on River Falgu at Jehanabad District on 22.08.2019 and submitted its report, copy of which has been filed as Annexure (A) to the counter-affidavit of the Bihar State Pollution Control Board.
5. The Report received in compliance to this direction filed on 13.12.2019 reveals large scale non-compliances in respect of the sand ghats referred to therein in the River Falgu in Jehanabad District. The findings and observations of the Committee as stated in the Report read as under:-
4"2.0 Field visit The committee member inspected various sand Ghats on river Falgu in Jehanabad district in Bihar on 22.08.2019. The findings, observations of the committee members for different ghats are as under.
2.1 Sultanpur Ghat o The boundary of the lease area is not demarcated. Neither any pillar was observed at the ghat.
o Water was filled in the river and the mining/quantum of cutting on the river bed could not be observed. Sand stock was kept just beside the river. On enquiring with local people they told this sand stock is old one. Some cutting was observed after last end of both sides of the bridge. When asked why these extreme banks are being cut, the local people told that "it was not cut for sand instead while making of the bridge the nearby clay, sand, silt was cut & used for filling the approach roads". The truth of above statement could not be verified. In any case such cuttings from river banks should be avoided.
o Local people related to sand mining told that "temporary pillars were erected but due to water in the river it could not be seen". One of the pillars (through could not be seen) as informed by local people related to mining was close to the bridge. If the information was correct it was done (50 to 100 m) from bridge while no mining could be done close within 300m distance from state highway bridge. The picture taken at the time of inspection shows that the sand mining has been done within 300m in gross violation of BMMC (A) Rules 2014.
o Opposite banks of the Sultanpur Sand Ghat was also inspected near Sultanpur Primary School. No sand was observed there.
o After Sultanpur bridge there is a barrage/check dam on river Falgu as can be seen from google image Place is nearly to 'Tekaura'. After that there was very less water in the river even in rainy season i.e. at the time of inspection.
2.2 Bansi Bigha Ghat o The boundary of the lease area is not demarcated. Neither any pillar was observed at the ghat.
o Unsystematic/unscientific sand mining was observed on the banks & in river. Sand stock was observed in the 5 place near to this ghat. On the stocks mechanical excavators/shovels/backhoe were observed. It was enquired that when mechanical excavators are prohibited in the river sand mining why these excavators are engaged. Local people related to sand mining told that excavators are not used in river sand mining but they are used for sand stocking & loading to trucks/tractors for transportation to other places. It was also observed that sand stocks height was more than the height of boom of the excavator & this is an unsafe practice that may lead to accidents where sand stock fall on the machine & overwhelm it & the operators.
o When Tiraveera or Godia Veera ghat was visited (lat-250 2'25") (Long 8506'6"). One pillar was shown. However this was a symbolic pillar and not as [per specification mentioned in the EC. Moreover only one pillar could be observed at the Ghat. Sand stock was found near that ghat with mechanical excavator on it. Grasses & Shrubs had grown in the river bed at the ghat. There was no/negligible sand was observed in the river. When enquired about how come the sand stock was made when there was no sand in the river. It was told that the stock was old. It was also reported that they had been collecting the sand from wherever it was possible as the sand had got exhausted.
2.3 Bauri Bridge in river Falgu and Bauri Bigha Ghat (Makdumpur-sonwan-Hulasganj road) o The boundary of the lease area is not demarcated.
o Standing on Bauri Bridge it was observed the sand mining was done haphazardly from Falgu river. There was no/negligible sand and grasses/shrubs had grown in the river.
o Even though there was no/negligible sand in the river there was a sand stock and a mechanical excavator near Bauri Bigha ghat. Excavation of sand was done under & near the bridge (both sides) also though sand mining near & within 300m of a bridge is prohibited.
o Though the team did not observe mechanical excavator/backhoc operating in the river but the kind of excavation in the river point to use of excavator in sand mining.
o On enquiring the local people related to sand mining said that there was pillar in the other ghat and it can be shown if some distance is travelled. The team/committee members visited the sand ghat & observed that there 6 was no/negligible sand on that ghat also.
Grasses/Shrubs have grown up there & clay/silt was visible probably after all the sand was excavated. Sign of tractors wheels could be seen in the river. A symbolic pillar was shown by the local people in that ghat at Gidaspur village.
2.4 Kairwa Saho bigha Bridge/Ghat:
o The boundary of the lease area is not demarcated. Not a single pucca pillar observed.
o It was observed that there was no negligible sand in the river under bridge & nearby sand stock was observed near the bank of river Falgu near the bridge. On enquiring that when there was no sand in the river how the sand stock was present there the persons related to sand mining there told that people bring the sand from other areas & provide them. It implies that illegal sand mining from river (i.e. apart from leased ghats) is also prevalent in the area. Sand stocks in all the ghats and that too when sand was no/negligible sand in the river point to this illegal mining inference.
o It was observed that sand mining was done below the bridge and near bridge pillars which is prohibited as per rule.
o Water was there in the river at this ghat.
o Google image of this bridge & river Ghat shows that there had been haphazard sand mining in the river bed & within 300m from the bridge.
2.5 Ginjee Ghat (Lease hold area) o The boundary of the lease area is not demarcated. No a single pucca pillar observed.
o No/negligible sand was observed in the river & bed. Grasses & shrubs had grown. Unscientific & unsystematic sand mining had been done there.
o The unmined river bed could not be assessed nor demarcated. Though the present depth of sand mining was more than 2 meter at some places in this sand ghat. There were depressions made in the river haphazardly cutting was observed in the eastern side. Even though there was no sand in the river & its bed, a sand stock was present in the banks of this ghat also. Machines were not observed at the site.
72.6 Sharma Ghat/Sharwan Dumri Ghat o The boundary of the lease area is not demarcated. Not a single pucca pillar observed.
o Large sand dumping/stock yard observed at the banks of the ghat which was about 40 to 50m long and 3 to 4m average height.
o No/negligible sand was observed in the river bed at this sand ghat also. Clay/silt was observed in the river bed. Grasses & shrubs have grown inside the river.
o Sand mining was done haphazardly and unsystematically.
o Mining was appeared to be done below 2m in the river bed.
o Only one symbolic pillar was shown by people related to sand mining and that too was unstable/unsupported. The pillar was not concrete & not as per specification. A bridge was under construction near the site there was no sand in other sides of the bridge & only clay/could be observed.
o It was surprising that a large sand stock was present there without any sand in the river at that ghat & nearby area. Project authorities showed some tree plantations intheir rayati land near the river.
2.7 Damaua Sand Ghat o The boundary of the lease area is not demarcated. Not a single pucca pillar observed. One symbolic pillar was shown observed in the north west side.
o Small mounds of sand created in the river bed near the pillar. On enquiry that why sand mining is being done in monsoon/rainy (prohibited season) the local people said that local villagers take this sand for household purposes & not listen to ghat owners/their persons. Sand mining had also being done outside the pillar area i.e. outside the lease & that too in haphazard and unsystematic manner. A sand stock yard was observed in the sand ghat.
3.0 Analysis of Mining plan of M /s Bansidhar Construction Pt. Ltd. for Jehanabad District Sand deposits on river Falgu and the observations thereof:
8o In the approved mining plan of M/s Bansidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. for Jehanabad District Sand deposits it is mentioned in Chapter-5.0 Mining (page no.-
40):-"This is an open-case mining project. The operation will be semi-mechanized i.e. by means of machines with use of excavators/JCBs and manually by using hand tools etc. the sand will be collected in its existing form":
However use of excavator/JCBs have been prohibited in river sand mining & their should have review/amendment in the mining plan which is not done till date.
o "Sand Mining will be carried out only upto a depth of 2m bgl or above ground water level (whichever is less), for river bed block":
Restriction of Mining:-
i. "The quarrying of sand shall be prohibited within 300 (three hundred meters on both sides of any railway bridge or any bridge falling under any National Highway/State Highway and shall be prohibited within 100 (one hundred) meters of both sides of any other bridge": Sand Mining has been done just below near the bridges and within 100-200m.
ii. No quarrying shall be permitted within 5(five) meters from both banks of the river:
In page no. 41 in mode of working it is mentioned that:
o "Mining will be done in 6 stretches in each block leaving safety distance from bank and stream for river bed blocks and barrier zone of 7.5m around the Applied Area": This commitment is not followed in the sand ghats.
o "The sand shall be excavated by backhoe type excavators capacity & mineral is directly loaded into large trucks for dispatch to consumers situated in and around Jehanabad district. Water is sprinkled in the area from where the sand is to be removed before the operation starts and thereafter at regular intervals to keep the dust allayed at the source itself. Removal of soil (overburden) precedes the winning of sand. Once a pre-determined area has been exhausted of the sand, it shall be replenished by sand during monsoon period levelled it & maintained its maximum original topography": Use of backhoe /excavators is prohibited in river sand mining and there should be modification/amendment in the mining plan.9
o It was observed that there was no/negligible sand in the river at many ghats/places. This means no time is given for replenishment of sand & therefore this procedure is not followed.
In Page no. 43 in 5.1a-proposed method of mining it is mentioned that o "Mining activity will be carried out be open cast mechanized method.
o Light weight excavators will be used for loading of mineral in tippers-Amendment required as excavators are prohibited.
o "No OB/waste material will be produced in river bed. The sand shall be exploited upto depth of 2.0m only through the formation of bench height 1.0m & width 5.0m. An approach road having width 6.0m & gradient 1:12 shall be provided for the movement of machineries & transportation of sand. The sand shall be exploited with the deployment of an excavator & filled into tippers & transported to various buyers": No bench formation done for scientific & systematic mining in any of the Ghats inspected. Approach road for proper width & gradient also not provided.
o "Road will be properly made and sprayed by water for suppression of dust": Water tankers were not observed at any place that can be utilised for water spraying on roads for dust suppression.
o "The mined out area shall be replenished each year during monsoon period and maintained in maximum original topography": No replenishment of sand in the ghats was allowed.
o In the approved mining plan of M/s Bansidhar Const. Pvt. Ltd. for Jehanabad Sand deposits Reserve (in cubic meter & per tonnes) of sand in Falgu River in Jehanabad district stretchwise & blockwise has been provided/mentioned. Yearwise production schedule has also been mentioned stretchwise & blockwise. Actual production of sand done by Project proponents blockwise & stretchwise must be obtained. District Mining office should also submit the production data for various sand ghats on river Falgu in Jehanabad blockwise & stretchwise. This above data must be obtained since the committee observed that there was no/negligible sand in the river ghats.10
o No sand in the river may be due to over exploitation or due to non-replenishment. In any way river devoid of sand is not at all favourable situation for the river its ecosystems.
4.0 Environment Clearance conditions and compliances status SEIAA, Bihar has accorded Environment Clearance to twelve (12) sand mining projects/ghats on river Falgu in Jehanabad district. The project proponent has been irregular in submitting the six monthly compliance reports as can be seen from table below:
Sl. Name of 6 Monthly Compliance submission status No. the Project Dec June Dec June Dec June & EC No. 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 i. Sand Received Not Not Received Not Received Mining Received Received Received Project on Falgu River at Kairwa Sahobigha Ghat, Area-
9.4 Ha., EC No.187 Dated:
10.05.2016 ii. Sand Received Not Not Received Not Received Mining Received Received Received Project on Falgu River at Sarthy Triloki Bigha Ghat, Area-12.1 Ha, EC No. 72 Dated:
21.04.2016 iii. Sand Received Not Not Received Not Received Mining Received Received Received Project on Falgu River at Maiawan Ghat, Area-
2.5 Ha, EC No. 75 Dated:
21.04.2016 iv. Sand Received Not Not Received Not Received Mining Received Received Received Project on Falgu River at Jhunki Bandhuganj Ghat, Area-
6.6 Ha, EC No. 69 Dated:
21.04.2016 11 v. Sand Received Not Not Received Not Received Mining Received Received Received Project on Falgu River at Damuar Ghat, Area-
9.4 Ha, EC No. 185 Dated:
10.05.2016 vi. Sand Received Not Not Received Not Received Mining Received Received Received Project on Falgu River at Khirauti Ghat, Area-
5.4 Ha, EC No. 191 Dated:
10.05.2016 vii. Sand Received Not Not Received Not Received Mining Received Received Received Project on Falgu River at Sultanpur Ghat, Area-
24.3 Ha, EC No. 186 Dated:
10.05.2016 viii. Sand Received Not Not Received Not Received Mining Received Received Received Project on Falgu River at Bauri Ghat, Area-
10.2 Ha, EC No. 73 Dated:
10.05.2016 ix. Sand Received Not Not Not Not Received Mining Received Received Received Received Project on Falgu River at Sudaspur and Ghazipur, Area-4.6 Ha, EC No. 71 Dated:
21.04.2016 x. Sand NA Not Not Received Not Received Mining Received Received Received Project on Falgu River at Veera & Godiha Ghat, Area-
16.8 Ha, EC No. 452 Dated:
23.12.2016 xi. Sand NA Not Not Received Not Received Mining Received Received Received 12 Project on Falgu River at Sharwan-
Dumri Ghat, Area-21.5 Ha, EC No. 451 Dated:
23.12.2016 xii. Sand Received Not Not Received Not Received Mining Received Received Received Project on Falgu River at Ginjee Ghat, Area-
11 Ha, EC No. 74 Dated:
21.04.2016 Received=Six monthly compliance status report received in Regional office Ranchi, MOEF&CC.
Not received=Six monthly compliance status report not received in Regional office Ranchi, MOEF&CC.
5.0 Overall observations:
The lease holder (M/s Bansidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd.) has been granted lease for sand mining at different ghats on the River Falgu in the district of Jehanabad with condition to comply with all the provisions of rule laid down by SEIAA (State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority), Bihar as well as Bihar Minor Minerals Concession (amendment) Rules, 2014. However it has been observed that many of the rules haven't been complied and grossly violated as tabulated below:
SI. Condition Present Compliance
No. Status Status
i. Mining should begin • No Such Non compliance
only after pucca pillar pucca pillar has
marking the boundary been observed.
of lease area is erected • As
at the cost of the lease reported no
holder after certification pucca pillar
by the mining official was erected
and its geo coordinates even at the time
are made available to of beginning.
the SEIAA, Bihar. • No
demarcation of
(specific condition [point the lease hold
28 of EC) area has been
done. Now the
sand has got
exhausted still
lease hold area
is not known at
13
the ghats.
• The lease
holder has
been
excavating the
sand from
wherever it is
possible.
i. The quarrying of sand • It has Non compliance
shall be prohibited been observed
within 300 (three that sand has
hundred) meters on been mines
both sides of any within 100 m
railway bride or by even very near
bridge falling under to the pillars of
any national the bridge.
highway/state
highway and shall be
prohibited within
100(one hundred)
meters of both sides of
any other bridge.
(Section 11A(2) of the
BMMC(A) Rule 2014)
ii. No quarrying of sand • Neither Non compliance
shall be permitted the river nor the
within 5(five) meters leasehold area
from bolts banks of the is demarcated.
river. • There is
no sand
(Section 11A(2) of the anywhere on
BMMC(A) Rule 2014) the bank as it
has been mined
out.
iii. The maximum depth of • Neither Non compliance
sand quarrying in the the river bed
river bed shall not nor the water
exceed three meters table is
measured from the demarcated
unmined bed level at yet.
any point of time or the • Sand is
water table whichever being mined
is less. from where
ever possible
(Section 11A(3) of the (as reported by
BMMC (A) Rule 2014) the workers) as
it has already
got exhausted.
iv. The Project proponent • No such
shall prepare the plan plan was
of mining in conformity prepared in any
with the mine lease of the leased
conditions and the area.
Rules prescribed in the
regard clearly showing
14
the no work zone in the
mine lease i.e. the
distance form the bank
river to be left un-
worked (nonmining
area).
(specific condition point
no.5 of EC)
v. The lessee shall erect • Not a Non compliance
boundary pillars at single pillar has
regular intervals (not been erected so
exceeding 20(Twenty) far.
meters in any case at
the boundary of the
lease hold area. The
said boundary pillars
should be made of
reinforced concrete
pillars of dimension of
minimum one square
feet and height 1.5 mt.
1/3 rd of which shall
be erected below
ground. The part of the
pillar of the pillar above
ground shall be pointed
in while and black
colour alternately (in
sebra style) so as to
render it distinctly
visible.
(Section sub clause 2 of
Rule 21 of the rule
1972 clause 9(2) of the
BMMC (A) Rule 2014
6.0 Recommendations
In view of the above non compliances continued since long time it is recommended that
6.1 The river as well as the Lease hold area should be properly demarcated with fixed pillars as per rule (clearly depicting the longitude, latitude, River bed & water table etc.) (Action: Lease holder, mining authority & SEIAA, Bihar).
6.2 A surface mine plant should also be provided on each and every ghat of lease hold area showing details of mineable reserve of sand, River bank, mining area, non mining area as per rule.
6.3 A committee consisting of experts from GSIC (Geological Survey of India), Central Ground Water Authority and 15 Authority concerned with Falgu River be constituted to make assessment of the over exploitation of the sane from the river violating the mining rules. The volume of sand extraction vis-à- vis permitted capacity as per EC conditions should be verified.
6.4 No sand mining in the River Falgu should be allowed without an assessment of mineable sand in the lease hold area as per rule.
6.5 It should be ensured that the damage caused to the river is mitigated to the extent it is possible at the earliest. Environmental Compensation may also be imposed as per rule.
6.6 The authorities concerned with sand mining should ensure that no such over exploitation/unlawful mining of sand in river be allowed at the cost of environment.
In order to comply the above recommendations the Competent Authority (if deemed fit) may consider issuing direction (to the lease holder and concerned) as per Environment (Protection) Act 1986. "
6. Thereafter, an affidavit of compliance was filed by the Deputy Director, Mines & Geology, Magadh Division, Gaya.
7. On 16.12.2019, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner, Magadh Division to take appropriate action in accordance with law in the light of the recommendations made by the Committee. The Respondent No.6 was given liberty to represent before the Commissioner and the Commissioner was also directed to hear the concerned respondent and take appropriate decision. It was further directed that mining activity in the stretches mentioned in the report shall not be permitted until the matter is finally disposed off by the Commissioner.
8. In compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 16.12.2019, the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya filed his affidavit stating that he had constituted a three member Expert Committee and vide 16 his order dated 18.01.2020 directed the committee to make assessment of the exploitation of sand from the River Falgu. It is also stated that Final Assessment Report of the Committee was submitted which is titled as "Inspection Committee Assessment Report on overexploitation of sand mining from Falgu River, Jehanabad District, Bihar." Copy of the report has been filed at page no. 190 of the paper book.
9. It was further stated in the affidavit that by way of penal action, the District Magistrate, Jehanabad vide his letter No.233 dated 20.02.2020 imposed a cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) on the Respondent No.6, Bansidhar Construction Pvt.
Ltd. towards Environmental Compensation and the Respondent No.6 has also deposited the said amount with the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna which fact is also admitted by the Respondent No.6 in his counter affidavit.
10. The conclusion of the Committee and its recommendations are reproduced herein below:-
" CONCLUSION
1. It is reiterated that as active mining has been discontinued since first week of November, 2019, confirmatory evidences to over exploitation is limited to inferences drawn based on ground observations made on 13.08 and 20.08.2020 only.
2. The lease area demarcation pillars were absent at the time of observation. With zig zag boundary of the lease area in a few cases and otherwise or even no clear cut demarcation on ground, it is practically difficult to near impossible to remain within the prescribed boundary limits. Invariably, this will amount to over exploitation, which has been observed at few sand ghat locations.17
3. Any authorized/unauthorized active mining by the M/s (Bansidhar Constructions) granted with the contract or by anybody else was not observed on the dates of observation. There was no vehicular movement, use of heavy machinery or loading/unloading operations observed on these dates. Though ground manifestations are there which indicate quarrying activity prior to the dates of observation made by the committee, but whether the same has been executed by bonafide lease holders is not know. As per Mining Officer, the quarrying operation is discontinued since 8.11.2019.
4. Sand sheds with sand heaps piled up along river banks at a few locations have been observed. The matter was investigated, though the mining officer could not provide categorical information on date and time of any such retrieval from the river bed/leased out area.
5. Local exploitation was observed on a couple of locations (eg. Damaua Ghat) with sand being transported on tractors, Sensing the teams presence, the perpetrators tried to flee away from the site. The Mining officer informed that incidences of sand theft are reported periodically and raids are made regularly to curb such illegal practices, FIRs made and fine imposed.
6. Any evidences of systematic sand exploitation were not observed. Stray pits of irregular size and fashion have been observed which generally do not comply to planned excavation. Formation of benches of height 1m and width 0.9m to prevent slope failure was altogether missing.
7. Comparitive time line imageries for the sand lease area have been studied in detail and it is clearly observed that there is a diminishing sediment load in the river channel from 2014- 2019. It implies that the rejuvenation/replenishment has not been at par with the exploitation which is a critical environmental aspect to be addressed in regards to the effect of mining on river.
8. As per SEIAA guidelines, Mining shall be done in layers of 1m depth to avoid ponding effect and after first layer is excavated, the process is to be repeated for the next layers. However, this approach to excavation was not observed, rather formation of irregular pits, few shallow to even deep have affected the land topography and profile leading to ponding effect.
9. As per SEIAA guidelines, mining is to be discontinued ruing July, August and September, however the data for 2017-19 indicate that production has been achieved during these months as well. This however needs to be clarified as per standard norms.18
10. The project proponent should implement suitable conservation measures to augment groundwater resources in the area in consultation with Central Ground Water Board. This has probably not been complied to.
11. Land reclamation efforts by using topsoil, if any has not been adhered to.
12. The present lease is probably from the active river channel. But at a few sand ghat locations, buffer of 3m has not been kept from the river bank. Evidences of overexploitation based on ground inferences have been made in chapter 2.
13. Whether quantity of minor mineral extracted from leased out area is replenished in totality is not know. In view of the erection of barrage at Udera Sthan, the release of water downstream is regulated and as per requirement. This needs to be clarified with the figures of Irrigation department. Few of the sand ghats looked clearly starved of the requisite sand content contrary to the information mentioned in the PMCP document.
14. As envisaged in the PMCP, mining was to be carried out during post monsoon period and depth restricted to 2m. Mining to be suspended during monsoon period for its replenishment. However, there is routine quarrying (barring a few months) through the year as per data available.
15. There is a clause in the MNCP to promote plantation to maintain ecological balance and riparian habitat during the course of mining lease. This was not observed on ground, although exact data of plantation if any can be obtained from concerned agencies.
16. The Air Quality Management if it has been carried out annually may be obtained to assess the same.
Independent Sites:
1. The Google Image dated 18 April, 2019 in regards to Sudaspur-Ghazipur sand ghat is worth a million words. The sand layer on the river bed is intact and is an eye opener to the contrast which earlier dated (archive) images can indicate in regards to the health of the river in absence of anthropogenic interference. The fertility of the river in terms of sand content at other sites along Phalgu river is either lost or is severely affected as compared to this site.
2. Over exploitation or exploitation outside lease boundary at Sultanpur Ghat is not ruled out.19
3. At Veera-Godhiya ghat, the lease site prima facie looks sand starved. No implied manifestations of over exploitation observed.
4. Evidences of unsystematic quarrying and mining outside lease area is observed at Bauri Ghat.
5. No evidence of mining observed at Khairwa Saho Ghat. The surface of the river appears sand starved. However, sand may be available under pool of water in river channel.
6. At Ginji ghat, the river bed appears sand starved. Though sand could be available at shallow depth. The time line imageries show distinct reduction in sand content along river.
7. At Sharwan Dumri Ghat, evidence of unsystematic quarrying observed. Evidence of land deleriction observed by the committee. The possibility of quarrying outside lease area is also not ruled out.
8. At Dumao Ghat, unsystematic quarrying, ponding effect and possibility of quarrying outside lease boundary is observed.
9. At Khirauti Ghat, evidence of unsystematic quarrying observed. Land deleriction is evident.
10. At Jhunki Bandhuganj site, the river channel is mostly under water. No prima facie evidence of quarrying observed except stacked sand on the banks in large quantity.
11. At Maiwan Ghat, marginal quarrying along banks has been observed. The assessed locations lie outside the lease area boundary.
RECOMMENDATION
1. The first impression of the sand ghats suggests that demarcation pillars (as per norms) have not been used or complied to. The absense of a distinct/clear boundary will definitely leave loose ends to prevent rightful exploitation. Thus over exploitation temporally or spatially at a few locations cannot be ruled out. Flagging the boundary of the area of interest is paramount to mining under open cast conditions as per norms. Demarcation of mining area with pillars and geo- referencing should be done prior to initiation of mining. Once mining pillars have been erected as per norms, photographic evidence of the same must be submitted to the district administration and after requisite verification only, Environmental Clearance may be given.
2. Assessment of the mineable sand in the lease hold area may be made mandatory. As per the mining plan booklet, no 20 exploration has been carried out assuming the sand lies all over the area and average thickness of sand is 2-3m and it is likely to be replenished every monsoon period. This approach could lead to erroneous estimation.
As the depth of interest, doesn't go beyond 2-3m, the same can also be ascertained by improvised hand auguring by physically lowering hollow pipes of 1m, 2m and 3m to obtain core samples following which grain size analysis can yield the percentage of sand particles. This can be done at three or four locations within lease area. This is a very economical method of ascertaining mineable sand content. If found feasible, the area can be considered for mining purpose. Cross sectional profiles may also be generated at select river locations to derive extent of sand with depth.
3. Even Ground Penetration Radar is a nominvasive, non- destructive geophysical technique very useful for deciphering shallow subsurface conditions and may be used as a constructive tool for such purposes. GPR give high resolution of the surface providing a 3d pseudo image of the subsurface, including fourth dimension of colour and accurate depth. It might provide a reasonably dependable profile for shallow depths and can be repeated every season to see the replenishment. Services of scientific organizations life GSL, CGWB, IBM, Irrigation Department etc. can be sought for site specific investigations.
4. Random drone aided surveys could be useful to check illegal exploitation and maintain regular surveillance. This will require administration to be vigilant during active mining seasons. Real time monitoring and use of Artificial Intelligence can definitely help exercise better control over such activities.
5. The river reaches with sand provide the resource and thus it is necessary to ascertain the rate of replenishment of the mineral. Regular replenishment study needs to be carried out to keep a balance between deposition and extraction. Mining within or near riverbed has a direct impact on the stream's physical characteristics, such as channel geometry, bed elevation, substratum composition and stability, in-stream roughness of the bed, flow velocity, discharge capacity, sediment transport capacity, turbidity, temperature etc. Alteration or modification of the above channel configuration and flow-paths. This may also cause an adverse impact on instream biota and riparian habitat. Thus staggered replenishment surveys must be carried out to ascertain the extent of sediment revival. Here also services of geoscientific and engineering based scientific organizations can be sought.
6. There is a need to develop a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which would be terrain specific for harnessing minor 21 minerals. This will have room for mechanism to evaluate loss to the ecology and to recover the cost of restoration of such damage from the legal or illegal miners. Such evaluation must include the cost of mining material as well as the cost of ecological restoration and the net present value of future ecosystem services from the lease holders.
7. Preparation and updation of District Survey Report is integral to a planned approach for open cast mining. The report should clearly identify, the mineral-bearing area along with the mining and no mining zones considering various environmental and social factors.
The present assessment leads the committee to believe that though a leased area as an individual entity may not require various stages of clearance but recurrence of such zones at close interval may have adverse effect on fluvial system and adjoining ecological habitat. We may understand this as clustering effect. Cluster situations must be examined. In order to reduce the cluster formation mining lease size should be defined in such a way that distance between any two clusters preferably should not be less than 2.5 Km. Mining lease should be defined in such a way that the total area of the mining leases in a cluster should not be more than 10 Ha.
8. Photogrammetric mapping and photo geological and remote sensing studies would be quite beneficial to such endeavours.
9. To appreciate the sensitivity of mining on environment, the lease holders must be given specific training underlining the approach to systematic mining. Merely spelling out the norms may not be adhered to, if the expertise or intent doesn't lie with the lease holders. Their experience in similar work would be of paramount importance but site specific requirements if any must be ensured with proper practical training to all concerned."
11. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has in his oral submissions reiterated the allegations made in the original application.
12. Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.6, on the other hand, submitted that the Environmental Clearance for the project of sand mining on River Falgu at Bauri Ghat was granted to him in 2016 and thereafter, the contract was 22 awarded to him and the lease period was valid up to 31.12.2019 and in any case after 31.12.2019 the Respondent No.6 is not carrying on any sand mining operation more so in view of the interim order of this Tribunal dated 16.12.2019. He further submitted that mining lease was granted in favour of the project proponent, Respondent No.6 for Sultanpur Sand Ghat River Morhar at Balabigha Ghat of District Jehanabad. It is also stated by him that the applicant, namely Mr. Buddhist Kumar had approached him demanding sub-letting which was declined by the Respondent No.6 and thereafter, the spate of allegations were begun by the applicant against the Respondent No.6. It is also stated that the Respondent No.6 made numerous complaints to the Mines Department and District Magistrate of District Jehanabad, starting from 14.05.2016 onwards till 28.02.2020, copies of which have been filed as Annexure R/8 (Colly).
13. Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, learned Counsel submitted that in his complaint dated 14.05.2016 the Respondent No.6 had also mentioned the names of the individuals involved in the theft of the sand which he has mentioned in paragraph 24 (i) of his affidavit and which read as under:-
a. Shravan Yadav S/o Gauri Yadav (having vehicle no. BR27E- 1109) b. Arvind Kumar S/o Gauri Yadav c. Vijay Yadav S/o Ramrattan Yadav d. Vija Yadav S/o Ram Lal Yadav e. Amresh Yadav S/o Krishna Yadav f. Ram Pravesh Yadav S/o Lal Das Yadav"
14. In some other complaints, it was alleged that the illegal sand mining was being carried out in prohibited ghats like Shakur Ganj, 23 Meghri, Dharampur, Uttralai, Imampur, Bandhu Bhiga on the Rivers Morhar and Baldaiya which was also being carried out by one Arun Yadav & Pawan Yadav. It is also alleged that illegal sand mining was also carried out by Om Sai Construction for construction work of the Dular Ganj Health Centre. He had also complained about illegal sand mining at Modanganj, Village Ghazipur. Complaints were also made to the Mines Department against Birju Yadav, Virender Yadav, Ramashish Yadav, Sube Yadav, Raju Yadav and Pawan Yadav but no action has been taken against them by the authorities.
15. Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, learned Counsel however admitted that a penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) was imposed against the Respondent No.6 which he had paid although it was wrongly charged against him but it is submitted by the learned Counsel that the Respondent No.6 paid the same to avoid harassment by the authorities.
16. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
17. At the outset what we find is that the mining lease in favour of the Respondent No.6 was valid only up to 31.12.2019 and in any case he could not have continued the said mining thereafter. There is no finding of any Committee Report that the Respondent No.6 was found to be carrying on illegal mining i.e. sand mining beyond the period of the lease.
2418. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.6 has referred to Annexure R/10 of his affidavit (page no. 550) which is a 'Project Compliance' and submits that the same would show that there has been no violation of any environmental norms or of the Environmental Clearance granted to the Project Proponent, Respondent No.6.
19. However, based on the Committee Report constituted by this Tribunal comprising of representatives of different institutions, it is clear that Respondent No.6, M/s Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd.
was granted lease for sand mining at different ghats on the Falgu River in the Jehanabad District. The Committee Report clearly states that many of the conditions as specified in the Environmental Clearance granted by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Bihar as well as Bihar Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2014 has not been complied with.
The non-compliances have also been extracted in the preceding paragraphs of the judgment. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Commissioner, Magadh who appointed another committee to make an assessment of the exploitation of sand from River Falgu and give its recommendations which has also been extracted in the preceding paragraphs of the judgment. The Commissioner has also levied a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards Environmental Compensation which has also been paid by Respondent No.6, M/s Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd.
2520. Since, the mining operation has been suspended from 31.12.2019 and Respondent No.6 has already paid the Environmental Compensation on account of non-compliances of EC conditions, nothing further survives in this matter.
21. We, therefore, find no merit in the original application and the same is accordingly dismissed.
22. In view of above, the I.A. No.24/2019/EZ also stands dismissed accordingly.
23. There shall be no order as costs.
........................................ B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JM ........................................ SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EM Kolkata February 03, 2022 Original Application No. 12/2019/EZ (I.A. No. 24/2019/EZ) MN 26