National Green Tribunal
Dr. Sarvabhoum Bagali vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2022
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.11: Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
(Through Video Conference)
Original Application No. 194 of 2020 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sarvabhoum Bagali
S/o Late Satagouda, R/o Kachari Road,
Opp. Head Post Office, Indi,
Vijayapur District, Karnataka - 586 101.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
State of Karnataka
Karnataka State Environment Impact Assessment Authority
(SEIAA), Through its Member Secretary,
Room No. 709, VII Floor, IV Gate,
M.S. Building, Bengaluru - 560 001 and Ors.
...Respondent (s)
For Applicant(s): Mr. Aagney Sail.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Vasanth H.K. for R1.
Mrs. M. Sumathi for R2.
Mr. Rajath Jonathan Shaw represented
Mr. Darpan K.M. for R3 to R5.
Judgment Pronounced on: 15th September 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
ORDER
Judgment pronounced through Video Conference. The original application is disposed of with directions vide separate Judgment.
Pending interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, J.M. Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, E.M. O.A. No.194/2020 (SZ), 15th September 2022. Mn.
Page 1 of 35 Item No.11: Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
(Through Video Conference)
Original Application No. 194 of 2020 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sarvabhoum Bagali
S/o Late Satagouda,
R/o Kachari Road,
Opp. Head Post Office, Indi,
Vijayapur District, Karnataka - 586 101.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
1. State of Karnataka
Karnataka State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Through its Member Secretary, Room No. 709, VII Floor, IV Gate, M.S. Building, Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change Through its Secretary, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jorbagh, New Delhi - 110 003.
3. Deputy Commissioner - Gadag District Deputy Commissioner Office, Mini Vidan Soudha (DC Office), Hubballi road, Gadag, Karnataka - 582 103.
4. Deputy Commissioner - Raichur District Deputy Commmissioner‟s Office, Sathkacheri, Raichur Raichur (Dist.), Karnataka - 584 101.
5. Deputy Commissioner - Kalaburgi District Office of the Deputy Commmissioner, Vikas Bhavan, Mini Vidhana Soudha, Kalaburgi, Karnataka - 585 101.
...Respondent (s)
For Applicant(s): Mr. Aagney Sail.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Vasanth H.K. for R1.
Mrs. M. Sumathi for R2.
Mr. Rajath Jonathan Shaw represented
Mr. Darpan K.M. for R3 to R5.
Judgment Reserved on: 25th July 2022.
Judgment Pronounced on: 15th September 2022.
Page 2 of 35CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published on the Internet - Yes.
Whether the Judgment is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter - Yes.
JUDGMENT Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member
1. This case pertains to unscientific conditions imposed by the District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority - Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as "DEIAA - Karnataka") while granting the Environmental Clearance (EC) in river sand mining in violation of the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "SSMMG - 2016") issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and there is no monitoring mechanism that is being adopted by the MoEF&CC in respect of compliance of directions issued by them from time to time in respect of river sand mining and also the nature of mining that is being done in an unscientific manner by using heavy machineries in the riverbed area of districts viz., Gadag, Raichur and Kalaburgi of State of Karnataka.
2. According to the applicant, as per the SSMMG - 2016, issued by the MoEF&CC, mechanized sand mining was prohibited in riverbeds. But in some of the Environmental Clearances (ECs) issued by the DEIAA -
Karnataka, there is a condition permitting the semi-mechanized mining which is against the SSMG - 2016 issued by the MoEF&CC, which the DEIAA - Karnataka is bound to observe while issuing the Environmental Clearance (EC). Further, as per the sand mining guidelines, only upto a certain depth alone, mining is permissible along the riverbed and that too not in-stream mining, but out-stream mining only and there are violations of that policy and indiscriminate depth of mining is being done by the persons to whom such permissions were granted.
Page 3 of 353. According to the applicant, the DEIAA - Karnataka has no jurisdiction to issue Environmental Clearance (EC) by virtue of the Judgment of the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in Original Application No.186 of 2016 dated 13.09.2018 and subsequent directions issued by the Principal Bench in this regard. Most of the Environmental Clearances (ECs) were granted subsequent to the Judgment passed by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in the above case. Further, though there was a direction by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal to recover half of the market value of the vehicle involved in illegal sand mining, that direction is not being followed by the authorities and they are releasing the vehicles by collecting meagre amount. Further, they are not imposing adequate environmental compensation, even if the illegal mining was detected. There is no proper supervisory mechanism to ascertain the compliance of the conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance (EC) and other consents granted and appropriate supervisory mechanism will have to be provided to protect the natural resources.
4. Though representations were made to the authorities, no effective action was taken. That prompted the applicant to file this application seeking the following reliefs:-
"Direct the Respondent No. 1 to review all the Environmental Clearances for B-2 category projects of mining of minor minerals issued by DEIAA in the entire State in respect of their environmental impact and compliance of Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016 and thereafter, submit a report before this Hon‟ble Tribunal.
Direct the Respondent No. 1 to withdraw all proposals of B2 category projects pending before DEIAAs and transfer them to itself for grant of ECs in accordance with the EIA Notification, 2006."
5. As per Order dated 07.10.2020, this Tribunal was not satisfied with the prayer for setting aside the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted by the DEIAA - Karnataka after lapse of nearly more than three years and as such, this Tribunal had admitted the matter only to the extent of violation of conditions and the damage caused to the environment and compensation (if any) to be recovered from the persons who have committed violation.
Page 4 of 356. Further, when the matter was admitted to the extent mentioned above, this Tribunal appointed a Joint Committee comprising of (i) a Senior Scientist from the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Regional Office, Bangalore, (ii) a Senior Officer from State Environment Impact Assessment Authority - Karnataka (SEIAA-Karnataka), (iii) a Senior Officer from Central Pollution Control Board and (iv) a Senior Officer from Directorate of Mining and Geology of the respective Districts viz., Gadag, Raichur and Kalaburgi of State of Karnataka to inspect the areas in question and consider the nature of conditions imposed, its impact on sand mining, whether there are any violation of the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 (SSMMG-2016) issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), whether there are any violations committed by the persons to whom the Environmental Clearances were granted regarding excess mining than the quantity permitted and the depth of mining that is being done and what is the impact of such activity on environment including that of semi-mechanised machineries used for that purpose which is not permissible as per the SSMMG-2016 and the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines of Sand Mining, 2020 (EMGSM-2020) as well and if there was any violation found, the Joint Committee was directed to assess the environmental compensation and also further action taken to rectify the deficiency, if any, in the conditions imposed and the Joint Committee was directed to submit a factual as well as action taken report in this regard.
7. The State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority - Karnataka (SEIAA-Karnataka) was designated as the nodal agency for co- ordination and also for providing necessary logistics for this purpose.
8. The 2nd Respondent filed counter affidavit denying most of the allegations made in the application and their involvement. They further contended that after 13.09.2018 and more particularly, after 11.12.2018, operation of DEIAA‟s has been stayed by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi. The Ministry had issued the EIA Notification, 2006 dated 14.09.2006 enumerating the categories of industries which require prior Environmental Clearance (EC) and categorization of the project into A & B and authority for granting Environmental Clearance in respect of Category - A was Page 5 of 35 conferred on MoEF&CC, while in respect of Category - B on SEIAA. This was amended as per the Notification S.O. No.141 (E) dated 15.01.2016 whereby Category - B was divided into B1 and B2 Categories and the authority for granting Environmental Clearance for „B2 Category‟ was allocated to the DEIAA - Karnataka and the DEIAA
- Karnataka has to consider the application on the basis of the recommendations made by the DEAC. The said notification was challenged before the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi by one Satendra Pandey as O.A. No.186 of 2016 (Satendra Pandey Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change & Anr.), wherein the Tribunal in Para (25) of the order dated 13.09.2018 directed the MoEF&CC to take appropriate steps to revise the procedure laid down in the impugned Notification dated 15.01.2016 in terms of directions and observations made above, and in conformity with the letter and spirit of the directions passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar‟s case, evidenced by Annexure - R2(1), Judgment. In compliance with the Tribunal‟s order, the Ministry had issued Office Memorandum dated 12.12.2018, abolishing the DEIAA - Karnataka and transferring all cases pending before the DEIAA - Karnataka to SEIAA - Karnataka for consideration, evidenced by Annexure - R2 (2). The Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal by order dated 11.12.2018, in E.A. No.55 of 2018 in O.A. No.520 of 2016 (Vikrant Tongad Vs. Union of India) had passed the following order:
"6. ... The direction that 15.01.2016 should still be acted upon is clearly illegal and in violation of judgment of this Tribunal. The same will stand suspended till a fresh Notification is issued by the MoEF&CC as directed hereinabove.
7. This direction will apply to all the State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities/State Governments."
9. It is evident by Annexure - R2(3), pursuant to the order dated 13.09.2018 and 11.12.2018 passed by the Tribunal, the 2nd Respondent had challenged the same by filing Civil Appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court as Civil Appeal No. 3799-3800 of 2019 "Union of India Vs Rajiv Suri" and those appeals are pending and that matter in this regard is sub-judice at present. In compliance with the order of the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal in O.A. 173/2018 (Sudarsan Das vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) dated 04.09.2018, the 2nd Respondent formulated the new guidelines i.e. "Enforcement Page 6 of 35 & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining" (EMGSM-2020) supplemental to the existing guidelines i.e. Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016 (SSMMG 2016), which focus on the effective monitoring of the sand mining since from the identification of sand mineral sources to its dispatch and end-use by consumers and the general public. The document serves as a guideline for collection of critical information for enforcement of the regulatory provision(s) and also highlights the essential infrastructural requirements necessary for effective monitoring for Sustainable Sand Mining. The EMGSM-2020 & SSMMG-2016 shall be read and implemented in sync with each other. In case, any ambiguity or variation between the provisions of both these document arises, the provision made in "Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining-2020" shall prevail. The State Department of Mines and Geology is the nodal authority in the State for dealing with the allotment of mining leases under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act) and is entrusted with the enforcement and regulation of mining operations in a State including illegal mining and the 2nd Respondent/Ministry has no role to play in this regard. The State Government is empowered under Section 23 C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) to make rules for prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and the State Department of Mines & Geology is the nodal authority in the State for dealing with the allotment of mining leases under the MMDR Act and is entrusted with the enforcement and regulation of mining operations in the State as well. So, they prayed for accepting their contentions and passing appropriate orders.
10. The 1st Respondent/SEIAA - Karnataka filed counter denying the allegations made in the application, except those are expressly admitted by them in the counter statement. They reiterated the issuance of EIA Notification, 2006 dated 14.09.2006 by the MoEF&CC and the authorities enumerated there under to consider the question of Environmental Clearance (EC) and also regarding the issuance of amended Notification vide S.O. 141 (E) dated 15.01.2016 whereby the DEIAA was established for considering the projects categorized as „B2‟. They also mentioned about the order passed by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in O.A. No.173 of 2018 (Sudarsan Page 7 of 35 Das Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) dated 04.09.2018 and also pursuant to the order passed in the above case, the MoEF&CC issued new guidelines by name "Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining" (EMGSM-2020) which is supplemental to the existing guidelines i.e. Sustainable Sand Management Guidelines 2016 (SSMG-2016) which focus on the effective monitoring of the sand mining since from the identification of mineral sources to its dispatch and end-use by consumers and the general public. They also more or less reiterated the contention of the MoEF&CC in respect of applicability of these guidelines and the subsequent developments happened on the basis of the directions given by the Principal bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No.186 of 2016 dated 13.09.2018. The Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in O.A. No.08 of 2018 (CZ) titled as Suraj Pagare & Anr. Vs State of M.P. vide order dated 11.06.2020 directed the Principle Secretary for Mines; Director of Mines and State of Madhya Pradesh to follow the guidelines issued by MoEF&CC in January, 2020 viz., EMGSM- 2020. The Principal Bench in Original Application No. 360/2015 (National Green Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Virender Singh (State of Gujarat) dated 26.02.2021, directed all the States/UTs to strictly follow the SSMMG-2016 read with EMGSM-2020 reinforced by mechanism for preparation of DSRs, Environment Management Plans, replenishment studies, mine closure plans, grant of EC, assessment and recovery of compensation, seizure and release of vehicles involved in illegal mining, other safeguards against violation, grievance redressal, accountability of the designated officers and periodical review at higher levels (in terms of the order referred to by the Tribunal in the order). The Regional Office, MoEF&CC is authorized to monitor the implementation of the stipulated conditions and environmental safeguards contained in the Environmental Clearance vide Circular No. J-11013/30/2009-IA.II (I) dated 03.06.2009 issued by MoEF&CC, evidenced by Annexure -1. It is further contended that the Joint Committee is of the view that imposing such non-relevant conditions in the Environmental Clearance has led to such non-compliances and hence, the MoEFCC / SEIAA may relook into such conditions while according the Environmental Clearance, as some of the conditions are practically not feasible for implementation by small sand mining leases. The Standard Environmental Clearance conditions have been prepared by MoEF&CC for expediting the process of Page 8 of 35 Environmental Clearance without compromising environmental norms and the rigor of environment impact assessment. Accordingly, said conditions have been imposed in the Environmental Clearances accorded by DEIAA/SEIAA. The State Department of Mines and Geology is the nodal authority in the State for dealing with the allotment of mining leases under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and is entrusted with the enforcement and regulation of mining operations in a State including illegal mining. During upcoming Authority meeting, SEIAA - Karnataka will review the situation and take appropriate action in this regard, whether to issue show cause notice to project proponents in case of violation of the conditions of the Environmental Clearances in accordance with the Notification No. 637 (E) dated 28.02.2014. So, they prayed for passing appropriate orders, accepting their contentions.
11. The State of Karnataka through respondents Nos.3 to 5 filed objections contending that the application is not maintainable and the allegations made in the application are false and misrepresenting the facts. Most of the prayers in the application cannot be granted by this Tribunal. After the Satendra Pandey‟s case (supra), the District Environment Impact Assessment Authorities have been abolished and they are not in existence. All the matters are being attended by the SEIAA. The SEIAA - Karnataka, based on the judgment in the case cited supra, wrote letters to all Deputy Commissioner of the Districts for transfer of all the proposals pending at DEAC and DEIAA to SEIAA, evidenced by Annexure - R1, Communication dated 02.12.2018. The Environmental Clearance issued to all lessees listed in Annexure-A2 produced along with the application, except one, are expiring by 2022. The leases were granted for 5 years. The lease period of these leases are also expiring by 2022. So, nothing will survive after the expiry period of leases mentioned. The Government of Karnataka granted leases for sand mining either in the Rivers or Tanks in consonance with the Rules laid down in the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and the Guidelines issued by MoEF&CC in 2016 and 2020. There was no deviation or violation of terms and conditions of lease, KMMCR 1994 and MoEF&CC Guidelines by the lessees. Minor violations stated by the applicant in the application were got set right by the lessees and they were duly imposed with Page 9 of 35 penalties and fines. Now, the sand policy of the Government of Karnataka has been changed w.e.f. 01.12.2021. Grant of leases to private persons for sand mining in the rivers were stopped. Now, sand mining is entrusted to Government Companies, M/s. Hutti Gold Mines Ltd. and Karnataka State Mineral Corporation Ltd. (Previously known as MML). Rules have been amended as per No.CI 344 MMN 219 (Parts) dated 01.12.2021, evidenced by Annexure-R2 produced along with the counter. Accordingly, Karnataka New Sand Policy - 2020 was issued as per Government Order No.CI 344 MMN 2019, Bengaluru dated 05.05.2020. The Joint Committee constituted by the Tribunal had submitted its report and the report of the Joint Committee contains true statements. Before submitting the report, the Joint Committee verified the records, specially the Environmental Clearance Certificate in each Sand Mining Lease in Gadag, Raichur and Kalaburgi Districts. It never found any mistake in the Environmental Clearance or its execution. The Joint Committee also noticed that the authorities have taken action and collected fine, in case of violation of terms and conditions of the Environmental Clearance Certificate and Licence. The Applicant without verifying the records, without visiting the spot and without proof of negligence on the part of the Government Officers has filed this application making unnecessary allegation. They had no personal knowledge of the alleged statements in the application. The suggestions made by the Joint Committee are found either in KMMCR 1994 or the Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change from time to time and they were noted by the Government for future guidance. The use of mechanised boats in Sand Mining in Karnataka is prohibited and it is not at all permitted. Even semi-mechanised sand mining is not permitted. But as per MoEF&CC Guidelines 2016, if there was deposit of sand more than one meter, semi-mechanised boats are permitted. In few cases, as noted in the Joint Committee Report, the lessees were imposed with heavy penalty for using "Hitachi" in sand mining. The Joint Committee in Page 9 of the report had stated that use of Semi-Mechanised boats is permissible depending upon thickness of the sand deposit. It was also mentioned in the report at Page-10 regarding the formation of road in the river for sand mining which was prohibited. So, a case was registered in respect of Gangapur Sand Mining Block-1 & 2 against the lessees and they were heavily punished and penalty has been recovered. The Page 10 of 35 authorities will be taking action against lessees and they are monitoring the sand mining to avoid violation of terms and conditions by the lessees. So, they prayed for accepting their contentions and passing appropriate direction.
12. The State of Karnataka through the Joint Director, Department of Mines and Geology filed additional statement of objections dated Nil, e-filed on 28.07.2022 reproducing the Rule 43 and 43 A of KMMCR Act, 1994 in their earlier objection of statement filed. But there is further amendment to Rule 43 a n d 4 3 A i n N o . C I 1 1 5 M M N 2019 dated 30.06.2020 and the same has been extracted as follows:
" Rule-43. (5) The office in charge of the ch eck post or the bar rier or th e a u th ori z ed office r u n der th e su b ru le(3), sh al l s eiz e an y mi n o r min e r al s in c lu din g th e v eh i cl e o r carrier used for transit of such minor mineral, if the driver o r p e r s o n i n c h a r g e s u c h v e h i c l e o r c a r r i e r f a i l s t o produce a valid permit.
(6) Vehicle or carrier seized under sub-section(5), shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court competent t o t a k e c o g n i z a n c e o f t h e o f f e n c e u n d e r s u b - r u l e ( 1 ) o f ru le 44 an d s h all b e di sp o s ed o f in a c c or dan c e with th e directions of such court.
Provided further that authorized officer, authorized under su b- ru le(3), may eith e r before or after th e in stitution of t h e prosecution, compound the offence committed in contravention of sub-rule(5) on payment of compounding fee in addition to royal y as specified in schedule I-C. Provided that the seized vehicle shall be released only upon payment of regulation fee specified below in addition to the compounding fee specified in schedule-I-C. Sl. Type of vehicle/carrier R e g u l at i o n Fee No. in Rs.
1. B u l l o c k C a rt 5,000/-
2. T r a c t o r a n d o t h e r s m a l l l ad e n 1 0 , 0 0 0/ -
vehicle
3. Vehicle below 10 MT capacity 2 0 , 0 0 0/ -
4. V e h i c l e a b o v e 1 0 MT c a p a c i t y 3 0 , 0 0 0/ -
( 7 ) T h e A u th o r i z ed o f f i c e r e m p o w e r e d u n d e r s u b - r u l e ( 3 ) t o take a cti on u n d er th i s ru l e may r equ e st in w riti n g f or th e h el p o f t h e p o l i c e a n d t h e p o l i c e a u t h o r i t i e s s h a l l r e n d e r s u c h assistance, as may be necessary, to enable the officer or official to exercise the powers c o n f e r r e d o n t h e m b y t h e s e r u l e s t o s t o p th e illegal movement of min erals.
Rule-43-A:(2) Any Minor Mineral, tool, equipment seized under sub-section (1), shall be liable to be con fiscated by an orde r of th e cou rt comp eten t to tak e cognizance of the offence under sub -rule (1) of Rule 44 a n d s h a l l b e d i s p o s e d o f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e directions of such court.
Provided that authorized officer, auth orized under Rule 54, may either before or after the institution of the prosecution, compound the offence committed in contravention of sub -rule(5) on payment of compounding fee in addition to royalty as specified in schedule I -C. Page 11 of 35 Provided further that, the seized equipment, tool or machinery shall be released only upon payment or regulation fee specified below in addition to the compounding fee specified in schedule I-C. Sl. Name of Equipment / tool / R e g u l at i o n Fee No. m a c h in e r y (in Rs.)
1. D r i l li n g machine, compressor, 1 0 , 0 0 0/ -
p o w e r t i l l e r a n d o th e r t o o l ;
2. Crane dumper 3 0 , 0 0 0/ -
3. H e a v y d u t y d u m pe r , e x c a v a t o r 5 0 , 0 0 0/ -
( J C B , H i t a ch i , p o w er h a m m e r )
4. Any o th e r e q u i pm e n t , tools, 2 0 , 0 0 0/ -
m a c h in e Provided that, illegally extracted and stored mineral shall b e s ei z ed a n d d i s p os ed of b y p u b l i c a u c t i on a s s p e c i f i e d i n chapter-VIII of these rules.
Explanation any offence under these rules shall be tried by t h e C o u r t o f S e s s i o n s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e Procedure laid down under the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973."
13. The Joint Committee has filed the report dated Nil, e-filed on 10.06.2021 which reads as follows:-
"REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE IN O.A No 194 OF 2020 AS PER ORDER DATED 07.10.2020 OF HON'BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (SOUTHERN ZONE), CHENNAI
1. ... xxx ... xxx ... xxx ...
The Joint Committee comprising of following officials inspected a total of 38 project sites in the districts of Raichur, Gadag and Kalburgi during the months of November and December 2020 to ascertain the factual status of compliance to Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions. During the inspections, the following officials from the office of DMG also accompanied the Joint Committee:
1. Sri. Pushpalatha, Deputy Director, DMG
2. Sri. Gopi Krishna, Geologist, Raichur
3. Sri. Syed Fazil, Geologist, Raichur
4. Sri. Manjunath. Geologist, Raichur
5. Sri.Umesh, Geologist, Gadag
6. Sri. Santhosh. Geologist, Gadag
7. Sri. Chauhan. AEE, Kalaburgi, DMG.
8. Sri.Riyaz,Geologist, Kalaburgi, DMG.
3.0 PROCEDURE FOR GRANT OF SAND MINING LEASES IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA During the inspection the Joint Committee had discussions with concerned officials of Department of Mines & Geology and obtained the information on procedure followed in issuing of Grant of Lease for sand blocks in river bed, nala & patta lands. The brief note on procedure followed is given below:
3.1 PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN GRANTING LEASE As per the Sustainable Sand Mining Policy-2016 and 31(R) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules -1994 (KMMCR) of amendment of 2016, Sand blocks will be inspected and identified with co-ordinates in river bed & Nalas for the puropose of Tender-Cum-Action or reservation for Government works. With the assistance of Departments of Revenue, PWD, Forests, and DMG the approximate quarriable sand available in each identified block is estimated by restricting quarrying depth to 1 to 3 meter or water level whichever is less.
After recommendations of the Taluk Committee, District Committee notifies in the official Gazette for grant of quarrying lease Page 12 of 35 through auction for sand quarrying or extraction by Government Departments.
Tender-cum-auction is done through online. Highest price offer is declared as the successful bidder; the successful bidder obtains Quarry Plan, Environmental Clearance, as per Chapter II-A of KMMCR-1994 of amendment of 2016. Sand quarrying permission is issued up to a period for five years. The sand leases are sanctioned in patta land as per the State Government notification after obtaining quarry plan & Environmental Clearance for the period of five years.
The District Level Sand Monitoring Committee ensures stipulation of following conditions as per the New Sand Policy, 2016, KMMCR, 1994 and Amendment,2016 and as per the Sustainable Mining Management Guidelines,2016:
a) No sand quarrying shall be undertaken without a quarrying plan and Environmental Clearance.
b) Lessee shall make Stockyard, Office, CC Camera, Weigh Bridge near to the sand block.
c) Quarrying shall be done in accordance with MOEF Guidelines.
d) Instream, mining sand extraction and loading to vehicles directly from river is prohibited. So, lessee should store mining sand in stockyard.
e) Lessee should mine as per the mine plan without damaging safety zone and riverbed.
f) Sand quarrying activity shall be in accordance with terms and conditions of the EC
g) The sand has to be mined in the sand lease blocks and to be stored in stockyard.
h) No Sand quarrying shall be allowed within a radius of 500 meters from water supply.
i) Permits shall be issued to vehicles having GPS.
j) The vehicles having non-communication mode, shall not be issued with permit and shall not be allowed to load sand.
k) Permits issued for transportation of Sand shall be obtain sign in the Check Post.
l) Mechanized boats and dredgers in river sand quarrying are prohibited.
m) Usage of backhoe equipment like JCB is allowed as per Chapter IV - B, 31-R of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules - 1994 & its amendments.
n) Sand stored in stockyard, shall be disposed by issuing Computerised Mineral Dispatch Permits (CMDR) to the transporters.
4.0. DELIBERATIONS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal in its order dated 07.10.2020 directed the Joint Committee to look into the following:
i. to inspect the areas in question and consider the nature of conditions imposed, its impact on sand mining whether they are in violation of the Sustainable Sand Mining Policy issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) ii. whether there are any violations committed by the persons to whom the Environmental Clearances were granted regarding excess mining than the quantity permitted and the depth of mining that is being done iii. what is the impact of environment on account of use of semi mechanised machineries for the purpose of sand mining which is not permissible as per the Sustainable Sand Mining Policy issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) in the year 2016 and Sustainable Sand Mining Policy of 2020 as well and iv. if any violation is found to assess the environmental compensation and also further action taken to rectify the deficiency if any, in the conditions imposed In order to deliberate on the above given Terms of References (ToR), the Joint Committee inspected 36 mines in Gadag & one each in Raichur & Gulbarga Districts. The detailed report of individual blocks of Gadag, Raichur & Kulburgi is given as Annexure I, II and III respectively. The Joint Committee had examined various documents like mine lease, Environmental Clearance and the Compliance status with the prevailing regulations and guidelines etc., Based on the above, each ToR has been deliberated in detail and following are the observations/comments:
4.1. inspect the areas in question and consider the nature of conditions imposed, its impact on sand mining whether they are in Page 13 of 35 violation of the Sustainable Sand Mining Policy issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) The Joint Committee noted that conditions stipulated in the Environmental clearance are relating to installation of dust control measures, implementation of water conservations measures, advertisement on grant of EC, improvement of transport route, constitution of Environmental Management Cell, Submission of half yearly compliance report to Regional Office of the MoEFCC etc,.
The Joint Committee after perusal of EC‟s issued to 38 sand mines noted that with regard to area that is allocated for sand mining leases are ranging from 2.20 acres (lowest) to 12.0 acres (highest).
During the visit, mine owners expressed technical difficulties / non-viabilities in installing the dust control measures and implementation of water conservations measures. It is noted that EC stipulated a condition as "Mineral handling area shall be provided with the adequate number of high efficiency dust extraction system. Loading and unloading areas including the transfer points should also have efficient dust control arrangement. These should be properly maintained and operated."
The Committee opined that the dust extraction could be installed and effectively operated in a closed area, whereas here both the mining as well as the sand storage area are done in an open area and hence it would be technically not feasible. Further, the dust pollution is naturally prevented due to the moisture content and the density of the sand. Moreover, the dust settles down within few meters of the activity (within the site itself) due to density of sand particle. In view of the above, the Joint Committee opines that this condition is not so relevant for sand mining operations. Instead of dust extraction, water sprinkling at stock yard may be insisted in the Environmental clearance.
As regards, water conservation, it is noted that EC stipulates a condition as " The project authority should implement suitable conservation measures to augment ground water resources in the area in consultation with the Regional Director, Central Ground Water Board within 3 months and report be submitted to the Authority." In general water conservation involves minimisation of water usage, recycling and rainwater harvesting etc,. Whereas, in this instant case there is neither water usage nor waste water generation in the sand mining. Since all the mining sites are located either in riverbed or nallas, no separate rainwater harvesting measures are required. In view of the above, the committee opined that this condition is not so relevant for sand mining.
As regards, CSR, the mine owners have informed that they pay District Mineral Fund (DMF) which is used in the CSR activities in the vicinity of the project and also carry out certain activities viz distribution of tree saplings, issue of books for the school students etc, hence, stipulation of separate conditions on CSR amounts to duplication. The Joint Committee noted that for each metric ton of sand an amount of Rs. 5/- is collected as CSR Fee and Rs. 11/- is collected as EMF during the generation of online permits.
As regards non- constitution of Environmental Management Cell (EMC), the Joint Committee felt that it may not be viable for such mines to have a separate Environment Management cell in view of the number of workers engaged and their educational quality, nature of activity etc, and hence the mine owners may utilise the service of accredited environmental consultant/laboratory for the environmental management instead of having their own EMC.
In view of the above, the Committee opined that conditions on dust extraction system, water conservation, Environmental Management Cell, CSR need to be revisited. The MoEFCC / SEIAA need to consider suitable modification of above conditions in the Environmental Clearance for such sand mining projects in future.
With regard to compliance with Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016, it is noted that the Sand mining is not allowed in streams and no sand areas are identified for sand mining activity in a pond/tank. Mechanized boats and dredgers in river sand mining are prohibited, however usage of backhoe equipment like JCB is allowed as per Chapter IV- B, 31-R of KMMCR, 1994 & its amendment- 2016. Further, the Sustainable mining practices under Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016, provides the following:
"Depending upon the location, thickness of sand, deposition, agricultural land/riverbed, the method of mining may be manual, semi Page 14 of 35 mechanized or mechanized". In many sand leases in Yamuna River semi mechanized method is allowed by MoEFCC. Copy of an EC is enclosed at Annexure-IV.
The above reveal that the conditions of Environmental Clearance are in line with the Sustainable Sand Mining Policy.
4.2. whether there are any violations committed by the persons to whom the Environmental Clearances were granted regarding excess mining than the quantity permitted and the depth of mining that is being done Depth of Mining: According to the DMG, the mining sites are periodically inspected, and the encroachment and depth of mining are monitored. Since all the storage and movement of mined materials are monitored through geo-fencing, computerised e-permit, transport through GPS fitted vehicle, any excess mining either through encroachment of outside mine lease area or beyond the depth permitted, will be traced and fine are imposed which is about double the cost of the mined material. Moreover, the sand availability also restricts the depth of mines. In view of the above, in general, the mines are not mining beyond the permitted depth.
The Joint Committee after perusal of EC‟s issued to 38 sand mines noted that with regard to depth of mining activity that is being allowed from case to case varies from depth ranging from 0.145 metres to 3 metres.
Further, the Joint Committee also noted during the inspections that no mine is undertaking blasting/ drilling activities, no mining is done in any streams, no mining is undertaken in safety zone, adequate buffer of 7.5 metres is being left and no mining is being done outside the lease area.
Excess Mining: As per the information provided by DMG, Gadag, the EC was granted to the lessee-Srinahalli Block-1 on 13th June 2017, more sand deposited in lease area during 2019-20. Therefore lessee has requested for enhancing the annual permitted quantity for 69000 MT/Annum fro 21825 MT approved and also submitted the modified Quarry Plan to Department of Mines & Geology. After field observation, Senior Geologist Department of Mines & Geology Gadag has verified and approved the modified Quarry Plan for 69000 MT/Annum Further lessee has submitted the approved modified Quarry Plan to SEIAA Karnataka. The lessee extracted 13,374.56 MT excess sand in 2019-20 anticipating environmental clearance from SEIAA but couldn‟t get the clearance. Therefore, compensation of Rs 81,59,089/-( at the rate of Rs. 609/MT) has been collected from the lease holder.
4.3. what is the impact of environment on account of use of semi mechanised machineries for the purpose of sand mining which is not permissible as per the Sustainable Sand Mining Policy issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) in the year 2016 and Sustainable Sand Mining Policy of 2020 as well.
Environmental Impacts due to mining: The Joint Committee noted that the likely impacts from such mining activity may include noise from the operation of machineries like JCB, dust from mining, loading/ unloading, disturbance to the flora/ fauna if present at/close to the mine site, change of hydrology and related issues if the depth of mining is more etc. and among all the inspected mines, it is noted that the maximum depth being allowed is 3 metres.
Dust pollution: The Committee noted that the moisture content in the sand naturally prevents generation of dust pollution. Moreover, the dust settles down within the site itself due to density of sand particle. The ambient air quality monitoring carried out by these mine sites revealed that the dust particles (particulate matter) are within the permissible limit. Water sprinkling is carried out on haul roads to control the dust generated from the plying of vehicles. Joint Committee opines that the transport route from mining site to the stock yard and to main road shall be improved and water sprinkling shall be carried out to control the dust generated from the plying of vehicles. The Committee noted that no wind barriers provided at many stockyards and hence the proper wind barriers shall be provided on all sides at stock yards to prevent dust pollution.
Noise Pollution: It is learnt from the local that only manual mining is being carried out in the above mines and as per the noise levels monitoring reports the noise level varies are within the permissible limit.Page 15 of 35
Eco- Sensitive Area: The Joint Committee noted that no Eco- Sensitive Area‟s exist within the vicinity of leased sand mining areas. Water Pollution: The Joint Committee noted that since there is no wastewater generation from the sand mining activities, no water pollution is occurring.
The Joint Committee opines that impact due to the usage of semi mechanised machineries in mining can be minimised if the above measures are followed and the depth of mining is limited to less than three meters.
The usage of semi mechanized, or mechanized mining may be permitted as per the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016, only in case of the blocks where the depth of sand deposition is more than three meters and depth of mining can be permitted more than one meter. Mining up to one-meter depth should be by manual only.
4.4. if any violation is found to assess the environmental compensation and also further action taken to rectify the deficiency if any, in the conditions imposed According to DMG, Gadag District, out of 36 mines in the District, three mines (Annexure V) have not commenced mining activity and 12 mines (Annexure-VI) have carried out mining activity in an average of 15 days only from the lease granted date due to local issues, sand quality and the lease area was continuously submerged. Lease holders produced less than 1000 MT sand from the granted area.
The joint Committee noted that there are certain non- compliances of EC conditions in all other mines ( 21 in Gadag and one each in Kalburgi and Raichur) especially relating to installation of dust control measures, implementation of water conservations measures, advertisement on grant of EC in newspapers, rain water harvesting measures, improvement of transport route, constitution of Environmental Management Cell, submission of half yearly compliance report to Regional Office of the MoEFCC etc,. by almost all the leased sand miners. The Joint Committee is of the view that imposing such non-relevant conditions in the Environmental Clearance has led to such non-compliances and hence MoEFCC / SEIAA may relook into such conditions while according Environmental Clearance as some of the conditions are practically not-feasible for implementation by small sand mining leases.
However, as regards the non- compliances of EC, mine owners have been directed to take action to comply with the conditions and submit a Action taken report / Action plan with time schedule. Few Sand mine lease holders have submitted compliance report along with latest ambient air quality monitoring report, noise level report etc,. and the monitoring reports reveal that all the parameters are within the limit. However, there are few short comings such as improvement & maintenance of approach road, wearing of personnel protective equipment by workers, advertisement about grant of EC etc. In view of the least importance given by the lease owners on Environmental Clearance compliances and to bring attention and importance on Environmental Clearance, the committee felt that a lump sum amount, say Rs Two to Three lakhs may be imposed on all 23 mines as Environmental compensation.
4.5.1. Details of Penalties imposed /collected by DMG for illegal Sand Mining Activities / violations.
As per the information provided by the DMG, the Joint Committee noted that amongst the inspected 38 sand mines, fines/ penalties have been imposed for certain mines as detailed below:
Table 1: Details of Penalties imposed /collected by DMG for illegal Sand Mining Activities / violations.
Sl.No. Name of Violation Penalty
the collected,
mine lease Rs
Gadag District
Page 16 of 35
1 Gangapur Sand The lessee has 5,00,000
Mining Block 1-. constructed temporary 1,00,000
road in the river and
excavation by
using Hitachi which is
against the EC conditions.
In stream sand
mining which is against
the EC conditions
2 Gangapura Sand The lessee has 5,02,880
Mining Block 2 constructed temporary
road in the river and
3 Hesaruru Sand excavation by 5,02,200
Mining Block 4 using Hitachi which is
against the EC conditions.
4 Shingatalur -do- 5,00,000
Sand Mining from each lessee
Block 1
5 Shingtaloor Sand
Mining Block 2
6 Shingataloor
Sand Mining-
Block 3
7 Shiranahalli
Sand Mining-
Block 1 -
9 Hesarur Sand
Mining Block 2
10 Srinahalli Block-1 Lessee carried out 81,59,089
mining anticipating grant
of Environmental
clearance.
Kaburgi District
11 Ghattaraga- Lessee transported 85,04,039
Block 15 sand without permit (Lessee sought
a waiver
from Court
for remaining
balance of Rs.
83,51,700/-)
Raichur District
12 Joladahadegi- The lessee undertaken 19,01,952
Block 2 127 trips of sand mine 2,00,000
without permit
For using heavy
machinery (Hitachi)
4.4.2 Environmental Compensation: It can be seen from the above tables that there is excess sand mining by one of mine lease-
Srinahalli Block-1. The EC was granted to the lessee-Srinahalli Block-1 on 13th June 2017, more sand deposited in lease area during 2019-
20. Therefore lessee has requested for enhancing the annual permitted quantity for 69000 MT/Annum fro 21825 MT approved and also submitted the modified Quarry Plan to Department of Mines & Geology. After field observation, Senior Geologist Department of Mines Page 17 of 35 & Geology Gadag has verified and approved the modified Quarry Plan for 69000 MT/Annum Further lessee has submitted the approved modified Quarry Plan to SEIAA Karnataka. The lessee extracted 13,374.56 MT excess sand in 2019-20 anticipating environmental clearance from SEIAA but couldn‟t get the clearance. Therefore, compensation of Rs 81,59,089/-( at the rate of Rs. 609/MT) has been collected from the lease holder.
The Joint Committee has calculated environmental compensation based on the Judgement of Hon‟ble NGT(PB) dated 26.02.2021 in OA 360 of 2015.
Table 3: Details of the Environmental compensation Sl. Name Excess Environmental Penalty No. of the mined compensation collected, lessee Quantity, calculated based Rs.
MT on the above, Rs
1 Srinahalli 13397.52 86,50,757 81,59,089
Block-1
Calculation on Environmental Compensation is enclosed at Annexure- VII.
It can be seen from the above two table that the Environmental Compensation worked out based on the Judgement of Hon‟ble NGT(PB) dated 26.02.2021 in OA 360 of 2015 is more than the penalty levied by DMG. The excess amount may be recovered from the lessee.
5.0 CONCLUSION AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS i. The Joint Committee observed that the conditions of Environmental clearances are in line with the Sustainable Sand Mining Policy.
ii. The Committee felt that the conditions stipulated in the Environmental Clearance such as dust extraction in mineral handling area (storage area), water conservation, etc are not so relevant for these mines hence conditions on dust extraction system, water conservation, Environmental Management Cell, CSR need to be revisited. The mine owners may utilise the service of accredited environmental consultant / laboratory for the environmental management instead of having their own Environment Management Cell. The MoEFCC / SEIAA need to consider suitable modification of above conditions in the Environmental Clearance for such sand mining in future.
iii. The usage of semi mechanized, or mechanized mining may be permitted as per the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016, only in case of the blocks where the depth of sand deposition is more than three meters and depth of mining can be permitted more than one meter. Mining up to one-meter depth should be by manual only.
iv. The District/Taluka Sand Committee & DMG office shall be strengthened with additional manpower & advanced infrastructure facilities for strict vigilance on illegal mining activities.
v. Audit on the quantity permitted, quantity mined out, rate of replenishment etc shall be conducted every year.
vi. In addition to the imposition of penalty, cancellation of mine lease in case of any violation- encroachment, excess mining etc, and barring the lease owner in participating in Auction for a particular period say one to two years, may be considered.
vii. All the relevant Regulations and Guidelines shall be followed strictly in granting mining lease, carrying out the mining activity and monitoring.
viii. The CC Cameras at stock yard shall be connected to the servers of District / Taluk Sand Monitoring Committees/ DMG for monitoring.
ix. The CC Cameras shall be installed at check post on the sand transport route and connected to the servers of District / Taluk Sand Monitoring Committees/ DMG for monitoring.
Page 18 of 35x. The transport route from mining site to the stock yard and to main road shall be improved and water sprinkling shall be carried out to control the dust generated from the plying of vehicles.
xi. In view of the least importance given by the lease owners on EC compliances and to bring attention and importance on EC, the committee felt that a lump sum amount, say Rs. 2-3 lakhs may be imposed on all 23 operating mines as Environmental compensation.
xii. In case of continuance of non- compliances, the SEIAA, Karnataka to take action as per the powers delegated under S.O 637 (E) dated 28.02.2014"
14. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and respondents.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argued that the DEIAA - Karnataka has granted Environmental Clearance (EC) against the orders of the Tribunal in O.A. No.186 of 2016 (Satendra Pandey Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change & Anr.). Further, there was a condition imposed permitting the mechanized mining which is really prohibited under the Mining Rules as well as the guidelines issued by the MoEF&CC in 2016 and 2020. In spite of all those things, they are permitting such activity which is illegal. Further, the Joint Committee report also will go to show that there are certain violations and excess mining, but in spite of directions given, quantum of compensation imposed is very less and whenever they are releasing the vehicle, they are not following the directions issued by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No.360 of 2015 and this order has not been challenged before the Hon‟ble Apex Court. In that case, a slab has been provided for realization of amount from the vehicles seized at the time of release after considering the various practical difficulties raised by the State Government, including the orders passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. But the amendment made to Section 43 and 43A of MMDR Rules is against the direction of the Tribunal and a direction will have to be issued to the authorities to implement the direction issued by the Principal Bench. Further, the Joint Committee come to the conclusion that some of the conditions imposed are not feasible and practicable considering the nature and area of lease and that will have to be revisited by the SEIAA - Karnataka and the MoEF&CC while granting the Environmental Clearance (EC) in future, and it is against the environmental laws and EIA Notification. Further, imposing environmental compensation for illegal mining is in addition to the Page 19 of 35 penalty and royalty provided under Section 21 (5) of the MMDR Act and this was approved by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Common Cause‟s 1 case and also in subsequent decisions. So, stringent directions will have to be issued to check illegal mining and directions will have to be issued to the State of Karnataka to strictly implement the directions of the Principal Bench, this Bench and also the guidelines issued by the MoEF&CC in 2016 and 2020.
16. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka argued that they are strictly following the rules in granting of mining lease as well as preparing mining plan and in-stream mining is prohibited. Further, no mechanized mining is permissible and semi-mechanized mining is permissible as per the guidelines issued by the MoEF&CC in certain circumstances and they are strictly following the directions of this Bench, Principal Bench and also the guidelines issued by the MoEF&CC in 2016 and 2020. Further, whenever instance of violations were noted, they are seizing the vehicle, criminal cases are filed and penalty also imposed. They have amended the Minor Mineral Concession Rules in 2020, whereby a slab of penalty has been provided for release of vehicles which are seized involved in illegal mining and that is being strictly followed. The learned counsel also submitted that they will strictly comply with the directions (if any) to be issued by the Tribunal as well.
17. The learned counsel appearing for the SEIAA - Karnataka argued that the DEIAA - Karnataka has been abolished in Karnataka after the decision passed by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in O.A. No.186 of 2016 (Satendra Pandey Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change & Anr.) dated 13.09.2018 and thereafter, all applications are pending consideration by the SEIAA - Karnataka only. The Joint Committee observation that certain conditions are not feasible and practicable is not correct, as they are imposing certain conditions on the basis of the EIA Notification and the guidelines issued therein by the MoEF&CC from time to time, in order to protect the environment and overexploitation of natural resources by the mining lessees. As per the notification issued by the MoEF&CC, the Regional Office is the authority to take appropriate action against the violation of Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions and as and when 1 (2017) 9 SCC 499 Page 20 of 35 they were directing the SEIAA or State Pollution Control Board to take some action on the basis of the nature of violations, they are taking steps. The learned counsel further submitted that they will abide by any conditions imposed by the Tribunal.
18. We have considered the pleadings, reports submitted by the Joint Committee, written submissions submitted by the parties and also perused the documents available on record.
19. The points that arose for consideration are:-
a. Whether the conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance (EC) permitting the mechanized mining is legal?
b. Whether the compensation imposed for violation is adequate or not?
c. What are all the directions (if any) to be issued in respect of imposing certain conditions while releasing the vehicles involved in illegal sand mining? d. What are all the further directions (if any) to be issued to protect the environment applying the „Precautionary Principle‟ and also considering the „Sustainable Development‟ to protect environment?
e. Relief and costs.
POINTS:-
20. Grievance in this application was that the DEIAA - Karnataka was issuing Environmental Clearances (ECs) even after the Satendra Pandey‟s case delivered on 13.09.2018 and the Environmental Clearances (ECs) granted by the DEIAA - Karnataka have to be revisited, as the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in Original Application No.186 of 2016 (Satendra Pandey Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change & Anr.) has directed the MoEF&CC to revisit and subsequently, directed suspension of EIA Notification, 2016 and as such, a direction will have to be issued to the Government of Karnataka to revisit and review the Environmental Clearances (ECs) already granted by the DEIAA -Page 21 of 35
Karnataka in districts viz., Gadag, Raichur and Kalaburgi of State of Karnataka.
21. Further, it was alleged in the application that against the SSMMG- 2016 and EMGSM-2020 issued by the MoEF&CC, mechanized mining is being permitted in the riverbed area which is prohibited and it is against law. The compensation mechanism evolved by the authorities are also not in tune with the directions issued by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and also by the Principal Bench in respect of excess mining and release of vehicles involved in illegal sand mining and transport of the same.
22. On the other hand, the State of Karnataka through its Mining Department had filed different counter statements considering the contentions raised and also on the basis of the directions issued by this Tribunal stated that they are not permitting the mechanized mining, as it is prohibited even under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. Further, they are strictly following the MMDR Act, 1957 and also the guidelines issued by the MoEF&CC in this regard viz., SSMMG-2016 and EMGSM-2020. This was reiterated by the learned counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka and its departments.
23. As regards the relief claimed in respect of reviewing the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted by the DEIAA - Karnataka is concerned, this Tribunal even at the time of admitting the matter observed that it cannot be indirectly questioned after lapse of three years. Further, most of the Environmental Clearances (ECs) were granted by the DEIAA - Karnataka prior to the order passed by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in O.A. No.186 of 2016 (Satendra Pandey Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change & Anr.) dated 13.09.2018 and also subsequent order passed in E.A. No.55 of 2018 in O.A. No.520 of 2016 (Vikrant Tongad Vs. Union of India). Further, subsequent to the Satendra Pandey‟s case, the MoEF&CC had issued an Office Memorandum whereby a direction was issued to abolish the DEIAA - Karnataka and directed the SEIAA - Karnataka to consider all the applications pending before the DEIAA - Karnataka and it is Page 22 of 35 thereafter, SEIAA - Karnataka is considering the applications and issuing Environmental Clearances.
24. So under such circumstances, we do not think that there is any necessity to issue a direction in this regard, as now, the SEIAA - Karnataka is the only authority who is issuing the Environmental Clearance (EC) of „B - Category‟ as provided under the EIA Notification, 2006 as amended in 2016.
25. Even, the State of Karnataka in their counter statement and the additional counter statement had admitted the fact that mechanized mining is prohibited even under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules and they are strictly imposing conditions that mechanized mining is prohibited when leases are granted. The SEIAA
- Karnataka also filed a statement contending that the mechanized mining is not permissible and they are imposing a condition that mechanized mining is prohibited and no mechanized mining should be done in the riverbed areas. So, both the State Government as well as the SEIAA - Karnataka is strictly implementing those provisions.
26. The Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No.935 of 2018 (PB) while considering the issue of alleged illegal mining in the guise of desilting of Prakasam barrage in Krishna River basin of Andhra Pradesh on the basis of the several committee reports and lastly, relied on the report submitted by the Expert Committee appointed by the Principal Bench, National Green Tribunal, New Delhi to evaluate the difference of opinion and various information given by the earlier committees relied on the final recommendations wherein it was mentioned that "From the ecological assessment report it can be inferred that the cautious use of dredgers and mechanized boats and judicious desilting activity may not have serious impacts on flora and fauna in Prakasam barrage" and disposed of the matter on the basis of the recommendations of the Expert Committee by the Tribunal by final order dated 24.08.2020. That was related to desilting of Prakasam barrage in Krishna River and the words were specifically used that such dredges and mechanized boats can be used only for desilting and dredging process and not in respect of regular mining activities, that too after conducting a detailed study by the Expert Body in respect of ecological effect of such activity in Prakasam barrage area in Krishna Page 23 of 35 River. So, it cannot be taken as a general directions issued by the Tribunal for dredging and mechanized boats can be used for mining in the river beds.
27. As regards the imposition of environmental compensation for excess mining is concerned, this aspect has been approved by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Common Cause‟s case and wherein it has been specifically mentioned that imposing environmental compensation for excess mining or illegal mining is in addition to the penalties provided under Section 21 (5) of the MMDDR Act, 1957 and this was followed by the Principal Bench in several cases, including O.A. Nos.90 of 2020, 398 of 2017, Appeal No.15 of 2021, O.A. Nos. 83 of 2020, 360 of 2015.
28. Further, in Common Cause‟s 2 case, certain guidelines were also issued as to how the environmental compensation has to be levied in respect of excess mining or unauthorized mining against the provisions of the MMDR Act or against the conditions of the Environmental Clearance (EC) and Mining Lease. Further, this aspect was reiterated by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in I.A. No.29984 of 2021 in SPL (C) No.10587 of 2019 dated 11.11.2021. So, as regards this aspect is concerned, there is no doubt that any penalty imposed will not stand in the way of assessing environmental compensation for illegal mining and recovering the same from the persons who are involved in illegal mining applying the „Polluter Pays‟ principle, as no one is entitled to over-exploit the natural resources to their benefit and have unlawful enrichment of such over-exploitation which is detrimental to the environment protection and against the principle of „Doctrine of Public Trust‟ as well, as no one is having any absolute right on natural resources as it has to be enjoyed by the person of present generation knowing the fundamental principle that it must be handed over for the future generation to come for their beneficial enjoyment as well applying the principle of „Intergenerational Equity‟.
29. It is seen from the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as the written submissions submitted by him that some of the orders passed by the Principal Bench regarding the collection of 50% of the market value of the 2 (2017) 9 SCC 499 Page 24 of 35 vehicle seized involved in mining activities are concerned, there are certain appeals pending as Civil Appeal No.1659 of 2020 (against the order of the NGT in O.A. No.90 of 2020 dated 06.04.2021), Diary No.9288 of 2022 (against the order of the NGT in O.A. No.398 of 2017 dated 24.09.2021), Civil Appeal No.2265 of 2021 (against the order of the NGT in O.A. No.90 of 2020 dated 06.04.2021), Civil Appeal No.5013 of 2022 (against the order of the NGT in Appeal No.15 of 2021 dated 10.05.2022), Civil Appeal No.6437-38 of 2021 (against the order in O.A. No.83 of 2020 dated 14.07.2021 and R.A. No.32 of 2021 dated 26.08.2021 respectively) and Civil Appeal No.6463 of 2021 (against the order of the NGT in E.A. No.24 of 2020 dated 25.08.2021). However, the Principal Bench in O.A. No.360 of 2015 and other connected mattes, by order dated 26.02.2021 had passed the following order in respect of seizure and release of vehicles involved in illegal mining which reads as follows:-
"Seizure and Release of vehicles involved in illegal mining
8. Another issue bearing on the enforcement mechanism is the action against the vehicles used in illegal sand mining. Seizure of such vehicles is required and release of seized vehicles lightly defeats the purpose of the coercive measures. Since the vehicles are in a way weapon of offence, the same cannot be dealt with in the manner disputed property is dealt with under section 451 Cr.PC. by releasing the same in favour of the ostensible owner by taking an entrustment/indemnity bond/sapurdginama. In Sujit Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 129 and order dated 26.03.2019 in Cr. A. 524/2019, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh, it was held that special procedure for seizure and release of such vehicles prevails over the procedure under Section 451 Cr.P.C. This Tribunal earlier directed, in the case of illegal mining in Meghalaya that such vehicles should be released only on the payment of 50% of the showroom value. The same was affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in 2019 (8) SCC 177. Similar order was passed by the Tribunal on 10.01.2019 in O.A. No. 670/2018, Atu Chouhan v. State of U.P., which stands affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.05.2019 in C.A. No. 1590/2019. Thus, the procedure under Cr.P.C. for release of vehicles on superdari without stringent conditions would not apply in respect of action taken for enforcement of Sustainable Guidelines issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act) and for enforcement of orders of this Tribunal under Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act). However, having regard to the difficulty expressed by the State that requirement to pay 50% of the showroom value of the vehicle was resulting in vehicles not being released at all, the earlier order was modified on 19.02.2020 to the effect that following scale of amount be recovered for release of the seized vehicles:-Page 25 of 35
Sr. Category of Vehicle Penalty
No Amount
.
1 Vehicles/Equipments/Excavators with Rs. 4 lacs
showroom value more than Rs. 25 lacs
and less than 5 years old.
2 Vehicles/Equipments/Excavators with Rs. 3 lacs
showroom value more than Rs. 25 lacs
and more than 5 years but less than 10
years old.
3 For the remaining Vehicles older than 10 Rs. 2 lacs
years/Equipments/ Excavators which are
otherwise legally permissible to be
operated and not covered by Serial No. 1
and 2.
Note - I: On repetition of the offence by the same vehicle/ equipment, Order dated 05.04.2019 will be applicable.
Note - II: The option of release may be available for a period of one month from the date of seizure and thereafter, the vehicles may be confiscated and auctioned.
9. Following further directions were issued :-
"6. The State may issue an appropriate Office Order/Rule to the above effect and publish the same. Needless to say that any private contract between a financer and a debtor cannot affect the States' sovereign power to protect the environment and take incidental coercive measure for enforcement of rule of law. Lien of the State will override any private interest. The above compensation regime will be over and above any existing Rules or provisions. The amount collected may be remitted to the State PCBs/PCCs for beingutilized for restoration of the environment.
7. The above course of action will be permissible to all the States at their option."
30. Thereafter, disposed of the matter with the following directions:-
"Today's Consideration The extent of challenge posed by illegal sand mining was noted by the Tribunal in the order dated 05.04.2019 in OA 360/2015 as follows:-
"8. Despite this, the menace of illegal sand mining in India continues unabated. As per reports, the sand business in India employs over 35 million people and is valued at well over $126 billion per annum. In the year 2015-2016, there were over 19,000 cases of illegal minor minerals including sand in the country. 4 In Uttarakhand, a 115 years old bridge collapsed due to overloaded sand trucks. In Maharashtra, 26,628 cases of illegal sand mining were recorded in the year 2017. The State of Maharashtra has the highest number of cases of non-compliance of Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016. The State of Kerala suffered hugely in 2004 Tsunami and 2018 floods Page 26 of 35 which several report explain were aggravated by illegal sand extraction.5 The issue of illegal sand mining is also rampant in the states of Goa 6, Bihar7, Tamil Nadu8, Uttarakhand9, Telangana10, Jammu and Kashmir11 amidst others."
24. In view of resume of above orders and responses, the issue which survives for consideration is enforcement of the 2016 and 2020 guidelines, read with orders dated 19.2.2020, 14.10.2020, 4.11.2020 and observations herein, by evolving appropriate comprehensive monitoring mechanism, with designated accountable officers, grievance redressal mechanism, envisaging strict action against violators, including assessment and recovery of compensation for the violations, seizure of vehicles and review at higher levels in the State.
Compensation
25. In the light of discussion in para 12 above, having regard to the totality of the situation, we accept the report of the CPCB and direct that the scale of compensation calculated with reference to approach II be adopted by all the States/UTs. Though compensation assessment for damage to the environment is a dynamic concept, depending on variables, floor level formula can be worked out to avoid arbitrariness inherent in unguided discretion. The CPCB may issue an appropriate statutory direction for the facility of monitoring and compliance to the Environment Secretaries of all the States/UTs who may forthwith evolve an appropriate mechanism for assessment and recovery of compensation in all Districts of the State. The recovered compensation may be kept in a separate account and utilized for restoration of environment by preparing an appropriate action plan under the directions of the Environment Secretary with the assistance of such individual/ institutions as may be considered necessary.
Interaction for Effective enforcement
26. The above discussion shows that the problem has defied solution and unless tackled seriously, damage to the environment will continue. Clear road map is thus required with effective monitoring mechanism. Report of the Oversight Committee for UP and affidavit of the State of MP, the report from Rajasthan and some other States also show that effective mechanism is lacking. For clarity on all issues, periodic interaction of stake holders, particularly the enforcement authorities is required. This will also facilitate engagement of accredited agencies/experts for preparing DSRs/replenishment studies. In the Central Government, the concerned authorities include Mining Ministry, Environment Ministry, Jalshakti Ministry and CPCB. In States, Departments of Mining, Environment, SEIAA, PCB and District Magistrates.
Enforcement of Monitoring Mechanism and review by the Chief Secretary at State level and Secretary MoEF&CC at National level
27. We direct all the States/UTs to strictly follow the SSMG-2016 read with EMGSM-2020 reinforced by mechanism for preparation of DSRs (in terms of directions of this Tribunal dated 14.10.2020 in Pawan Kumar, supra and 04.11.2020 in Rupesh Pethe, supra), Environment Management Plans, replenishment studies, mine closure plans, grant of EC (in terms of direction dated 13.09.2018 in Satendra Pandey, supra), assessment and recovery of compensation (as per discussion in Para 25), seizure and release of vehicles involved in illegal mining (in terms of order dated 19.02.2020 in Mushtakeem, supra), other safeguards against violations, grievance redressal, accountability of the designated officers and periodical review at higher levels. As already noted, EMGSM-2020 contemplates extensive use of digital technology, including remote sensing.
Page 27 of 3528. We further direct that periodic inspection be conducted by a five-members Committee, headed and coordinated by the SEIAA and comprising CPCB (wherever it has regional office), State PCB and two expert members of SEAC dealing with the subject. Where CPCB regional office is not available, if MoEF&CC regional office is available, its Regional Officer will be included in the Committee. Where neither CPCB nor MoEF&CC regional office exists, Chairman, SEIAA will tie up with the nearest institution of repute such as IIT to nominate an expert for being included in the Committee. Such inspection must be conducted at least thrice for each lease i.e. after expiry of 25% the lease period, then after 50% of the period and finally six months before expiry of the lease period for midway correction and assessment of damage, if any. The reports of such inspections be acted upon and placed on website of the SEIAA. Every lessee, undertaking mining, must have an environment professional to facilitate sustainable mining in terms of the mining plan and environmental norms. This be overseen by the SEIAA. Environment Departments may also develop an appropriate mobile App for receiving and redressing the grievances against the sand mining, including connivance of the authorities and also a mechanism to fix accountability of the concerned officers. Recommendations of the Oversight Committee for the State of UP quoted earlier may be duly taken into account.
The mechanism must provide for review at the level of the Chief Secretary at least once in every quarter, in a meeting with all concerned Departments in the State. The Chief Secretary UP may ensure further action in the light of the report of the Oversight Committee.
Similarly, at National level, such review needs to be conducted atleast once in a year by the Secretary, Environment in coordination with the Secretaries Mining and Jalshakti Ministries the CPCB.
Publication of Annual Reports
29. We further direct all the States/UTs to publish their annual reports on the subject and such annual reports may be furnished to MoEF&CC by 30th April every year giving status till 31 st March. First such report as on 31.03.2022 may be filed with the MoEF&CC by all he States/UTs on or before 30.04.2022. The report may also be simultaneously posted on the website of the Environment Department of the States/UTs. Based on such reports, MoEF&CC may consider supplementing its Guidelines from time to time. The MoEF&CC may prepare a consolidated report considering the reports from the States/UTs and publish its own report on the subject, preferably by 31st May every year.
Interaction at National Level
30. We direct the Secretary MoEF to convene a meeting in coordination with the CPCB and Mining and Jalshakti Ministries of Central Government and such other experts/individuals at National level and representatives of States within three months for inter- action on the subject which may be followed by such meetings being convened by the Chief Secretaries in all States in next three months. Holding of such meetings will provide clarity on enforcement strategies and help protection of environment.
All the applications are disposed of. Individual issues may be gone into in accordance with the mechanism to be involved as above.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the MoEF&CC, CPCB, Secretaries, Ministries of Jalshakti and Mining, GoI, Chief Secretaries, Environment Secretaries, SEIAA and State PCBs/PCCs and District Magistrates of all the States/UTs by e-mail for compliance."
Page 28 of 3531. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant was heavily commenting on the recent amendment of Rule 43 and 43 A of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 as amended by Section 18 & 19 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules, 2020 which reads as follows:-
"CHAPTER VII Controlling of Unauthorized Transportation of Minor Minerals, Checking of Minerals in Transit and Unauthorized Quarrying Offences Amendment of rule 43.- In rule 43, of the said rules, for sub- rule (5) to sub rule (11) the following shall be substituted, namely,-
Rule-43. (5) The office in charge of the ch eck post or the bar rier or th e a u th oriz ed office r u n der th e su b ru le(3), sh al l s eiz e an y mi n o r min e r al s in c lu din g th e v eh i cl e o r carrier used for transit of such minor mineral, if the driver o r p e r s o n i n c h a r g e s u c h v e h i c l e o r c a r r i e r f a i l s t o produce a valid permit.
(6) Vehicle or carrier seized under sub-section(5), shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court compe tent t o t a k e c o g n i z a n c e o f t h e o f f e n c e u n d e r s u b - r u l e ( 1 ) o f ru le 44 an d s h all b e di sp o s ed o f in a c c or dan c e with th e directions of such court.
Provided further that authorized officer, authorized under su b- ru le(3), may eith er before or after th e in stitution of t h e prosecution, compound the offence committed in contravention of sub-rule(5) on payment of compounding fee in addition to royal y as specified in schedule I -C. Provided that the seized vehicle s hall be released only upon payment of regulation fee specified below in addition to the compounding fee specified in schedule -I-C. Sl. Type of vehicle/carrier R e g u l at i o n Fee No. in Rs.
1. B u l l o c k C a rt 5,000/-
2. T r a c t o r a n d o t h e r s m a l l l ad e n 1 0 , 0 0 0/ -
vehicle
3. Vehicle below 10 MT capacity 2 0 , 0 0 0/ -
4. V e h i c l e a b o v e 1 0 MT c a p a c i t y 3 0 , 0 0 0/ -
( 7 ) T h e A u th o r i z ed o f f i c e r e m p o w e r e d u n d e r s u b - r u l e ( 3 ) t o take a cti on u n d er th i s ru l e may r equ e st in w riti n g f or th e h el p o f t h e p o l i c e a n d t h e p o l i c e a u t h o r i t i e s s h a l l r e n d e r s u c h assistance, as may be necessary, to enable the officer or official to exercise the powers c o n f e r r e d o n t h e m b y t h e s e r u l e s t o s t o p th e illegal movement of min erals.
Amendment of rule 43A.- In rule 43A, of the said rules, for sub-rule (2) the following shall be substituted, namely,-
Rule-43-A:(2) Any Minor Mineral, tool, equipment seized under sub-section (1), shall be liable to be con fiscated by an orde r of th e cou rt comp eten t to tak e cognizance of the offence under sub -rule (1) of Rule 44 a n d s h a l l b e d i s p o s e d o f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e directions of such court.
Provided that authorized officer, auth orized under Rule 54, may either before or after the institution of the prosecution, compound the offence committed in contravention of sub -rule(5) on payment of compounding fee in addition to royalty as specified in schedule I -C. Provided further that, the seized equipment, tool or machinery shall be released only upon paymen t or regulation fee specified below in addition to the compounding fee specified in schedule I-C. Page 29 of 35 Sl. Name of Equipment / tool / R e g u l at i o n Fee No. m a c h in e r y (in Rs.)
1. D r i l li n g machine, compressor, 1 0 , 0 0 0/ -
p o w e r t i l l e r a n d o th e r t o o l ;
2. Crane dumper 3 0 , 0 0 0/ -
3. H e a v y d u t y d u m pe r , e x c a v a t o r 5 0 , 0 0 0/ -
( J C B , H i t a ch i , p o w er h a m m e r )
4. Any o th e r e q u i pm e n t , tools, 2 0 , 0 0 0/ -
m a c h in e Provided that, illegally extracted and stored mineral shall b e s ei z ed a n d d i s p os ed of b y p u b l i c a u c t i on a s s p e c i f i e d i n chapter-VIII of these rules.
Explanation any offence under these rules shall be tried by t h e C o u r t o f S e s s i o n s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e Procedure laid down under the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973."
32. According to the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, this is against the directions issued by the Principal Bench in O.A. No.360 of 2015 dated 26.02.2021. There are certain state legislatures which incorporates a provision for seizure and confiscation of vehicles involved in illegal sand mining, so that if vehicles are seized and confiscation proceedings have been initiated by the State Government, then the power of the Jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 451 or 452 of Cr.P.C. are ousted as has been observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sujit Kumar Rana's3 case. Under Section 20 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, a provision has been made for the authorities for passing orders of confiscation of vehicles/vessels/equipments/machineries used as in the case of Forest Act so as to check the illegal sand mining similar to that of provided under the Forest Act. So, it is high time for the State of Karnataka and other State Governments to come with similar provision of confiscation of vehicles/vessels/ equipments/machineries used for that purpose, so that it will be a stringent measure to check the use of vehicles/vessels/ equipments/machineries for illegal mining or unauthorized activities, if it is done against the provisions of the MMDR Act or Minor Mineral Concession Rules and the conditions imposed in the Mining Lease / Environmental Clearance (EC) granted.
33. Further, it is seen from the Joint Committee report that there are certain lessees who had violated the conditions and certain environmental compensation has been assessed, but the details of the excess mining was not clear. It is seen from the report that what is the nature of excess mining done was mentioned in Annexure - A1 3 (2004) 4 SCC 129 Page 30 of 35 produced along with the report. So, it cannot be said that they are not taking any action for violation.
34. As regards the observation of the committee that certain conditions imposed are not feasible namely, dust extraction in mineral handling area, water conservation, environment management cell, CSR etc., the SEIAA - Karnataka has filed their statement stating that such conditions are imposed based on the guidelines issued by the MoEF&CC and also as per the EIA Notification, 2006 as amended from time to time.
35. So under such circumstances, if the persons are affected by such conditions are expected to approach the SEIAA for amendment or challenge the conditions by filing appeal and they are not expected to violate the same. If a condition has been imposed and if it is not followed, then it will amount to violation of conditions and such violations will have to be taken note of by the authorities and proceedings will have to be initiated. It is for the MoEF&CC to consider those aspects and make necessary amendment in the procedure for issuing Environmental Clearance (EC) regarding conditions to be imposed, depending upon the size of the lease area if it is feasible and practicable and not affecting the environmental interest.
36. So under such circumstances, we feel that the application can be disposed of by giving the following directions:-
a. The State of Karnataka is directed to strictly implement the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 as amended from time to time subject to the further conditions (if any) issued by the MoEF&CC in SSMMG-2016 and EMGSM-2020 and directions issued by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in National Green Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Virender Singh (State of Gujarat) and connected matters 4 dated 26.02.2021 where the State of Karnataka is also a party.4
O.A. No.360 of 2015 and connected matters Page 31 of 35 b. The State of Karnataka is directed to strictly implement the prohibition of mechanized mining and in-stream mining wherever mining leases are granted for extraction of sand from riverbed in the State of Karnataka.
c. The State of Karnataka is also directed to consider the question of amendment of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 for incorporating the provision for seizure and confiscation of vehicles involved in illegal mining as has been provided under the Forest Act, so that stringent action can be taken for illegal use of vehicles and machines for doing illegal mining or transport of illegally mined articles, till then they are directed to follow the direction issued by the Principal Bench in O.A. No.360 of 2015 dated 26.02.2021.
d. The Director, Department of Mines and Geology, State of Karnataka is directed to instruct the authorities to impose environmental compensation for illegal mining on the basis of directions issued by the Principal Bench in various cases of this nature, including in O.A. No.360 of 2015 dated 26.02.2021 and by the the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Common Cause Vs. Union of India5 apart from realizing penalties and initiating prosecution under the MMDR Act, 1957.
e. In the guise of desilting or dredging or even removal of sand bar in the coastal zone, sand mining should not be permitted with machineries and also strictly implement the prohibition of mechanized mining.
f. The Integrated Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Bangalore and the SEIAA - Karnataka are directed to take appropriate action against those persons to whom Environmental Clearance (EC) is granted and committed violation of conditions imposed by initiating appropriate proceedings, including imposing environmental compensation and depending upon the nature of gravity of the violation consider the question of revocation of Environmental Clearance (EC), if any required, after giving opportunity to the concerned person against whom such action is proposed to be taken in accordance with law and as provided under the EIA Notification, 2006 as amended from time to time.
5(2017) 9 SCC 499 Page 32 of 35 g. The State Pollution Control Board is also directed to strictly monitor the areas of mining and if there is any violation found under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 or Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, then they are directed to take appropriate action against those violators in accordance with law, including imposition of environmental compensation and initiating prosecution apart from taking other coercive steps as provided under the respective statutes.
37. The points are answered accordingly.
38. In the result, this Original Application is allowed in part and disposed of with the following directions:-
i. The State of Karnataka is directed to strictly implement the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 as amended from time to time subject to the further conditions (if any) issued by the MoEF&CC in SSMMG- 2016 and EMGSM-2020 and directions issued by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in National Green Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Virender Singh (State of Gujarat) and connected 6 matters dated 26.02.2021 where the State of Karnataka is also a party.
ii. The State of Karnataka is directed to strictly implement the prohibition of mechanized mining and in-stream mining wherever mining leases are granted for extraction of sand from riverbed in the State of Karnataka.
iii. The State of Karnataka is also directed to consider the question of amendment of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 for incorporating the provision for seizure and confiscation of vehicles involved in illegal mining as has been provided under the Forest Act, so that stringent action can be taken for illegal use 6 O.A. No.360 of 2015 and connected matters Page 33 of 35 of vehicles and machines for doing illegal mining or transport of illegally mined articles, till then they are directed to follow the direction issued by the Principal Bench in O.A. No.360 of 2015 dated 26.02.2021.
iv. The Director, Department of Mines and Geology, State of Karnataka is directed to instruct the authorities to impose environmental compensation for illegal mining on the basis of directions issued by the Principal Bench in various cases of this nature, including in O.A. No.360 of 2015 dated 26.02.2021 and by the the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Common Cause Vs. Union of India7 apart from realizing penalties and initiating prosecution under the MMDR Act, 1957.
v. In the guise of desilting or dredging or even removal of sand bar in the coastal zone, sand mining should not be permitted with machineries and also strictly implement the prohibition of mechanized mining.
vi. The Integrated Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Bangalore and the SEIAA - Karnataka are directed to take appropriate action against those persons to whom Environmental Clearance (EC) is granted and committed violation of conditions imposed by initiating appropriate proceedings, including imposing environmental compensation and depending upon the nature of gravity of the violation consider the question of revocation of Environmental Clearance (EC), if any required, after giving opportunity to the concerned person against whom such action is proposed to be taken in accordance with law and as provided under the EIA Notification, 2006 as amended from time to time.
vii. The State Pollution Control Board is also directed to strictly monitor the areas of mining and if there is any violation found under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 or Air (Prevention and 7 (2017) 9 SCC 499 Page 34 of 35 Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, then they are directed to take appropriate action against those violators in accordance with law, including imposition of environmental compensation and initiating prosecution apart from taking other coercive steps as provided under the respective statutes.
viii. Considering the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the application.
ix. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Director - Department of Mines and Geology, SEIAA
- Karnataka, Chairman - Karnataka SPCB, Director - Integrated Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Bangalore and MoEF&CC - New Delhi, Chairman - CPCB, New Delhi, Additional Chief Secretary to Government - Forest, Ecology and Environment, Secretary - MSME & Mines Department and also to the Chief Secretary to Government, State of Karnataka for their information and compliance of directions.
39. With the above observations and directions, this Original Application is disposed of.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, J.M. Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, E.M. O.A. No.194/2020 (SZ), 15th September 2022. Mn.
Page 35 of 35