Pratap Bhanu Singh Shekhawat vs Department Of Mining And Geology on 24 September, 2021

[Cites 29, Cited by 0]

National Green Tribunal

Pratap Bhanu Singh Shekhawat vs Department Of Mining And Geology on 24 September, 2021

Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel

Item No. 01                                                 (Court No. 1)

              BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
                  PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

                         (By Video Conferencing)

                   Original Application No. 398/2017


Pratap Bhanu Singh Shekhawat                                   Applicant


                                 Versus


Department of Mines & Geology & Ors.                       Respondent(s)


Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order:   15.09.2021

Date of uploading of order on the website:              24.09.2021


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
       HON'BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER


                                 ORDER

The issue raised before the Tribunal and overlapping issue before Hon'ble Supreme Court

1. Grievance in this application is against illegal open cast mining of limestone in and around the Chittorgarh, particularly Chittorgarh Fort, close to Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary, close to rivers, water bodies and their catchment areas. Mining activities are alleged to be without requisite EC and statutory consents under the Water and the Air Act and EP Acts and Rules and violating other environmental norms.

2. An overlapping issue was dealt with by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court vide judgment dated 25.05.2012 in Civil Writ Petition No. 6591/2011. The said matter mainly related to protection of Chittorgarh Fort by blasting and other activities during mining. The High 1 Court prohibited blasting and mining as a remedial measure in the manner indicated in the later part of this order. Against the said order, SLP Civil No. 21211/2012, Birla Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhanwar Singh & Ors. is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, granted interim order against mining within specified distance from the Fort and obtained a report about impact of mining in the area from an expert Committee. Further, on request of original writ petitioner, study of environmental impact of mining even without blasting was directed vide order dated 23.9.2013 (quoted in later part of the order). An expert study report has been submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court to which objections have been filed by the original writ petitioner and all aspects of mining and its impact on environment are pending at large before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Preliminary Observations about scope of proceedings before the Tribunal

3. In view of overlapping issue mentioned above, we are not inclined to consider some of the issues which are directly being considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, we are dealing with some of the issues which are not directly dealt with by the Rajasthan High Court and may thus not be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which may also appear to be overlapping, subject to further orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal has already granted some interim orders against which matter is pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We are inclined to make the said interim orders absolute subject to further orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and further conditions as mentioned in the last part of this order. We are also inclined to leave open some of the questions for want of specific pleadings, material and necessary parties.

4. Original petition is of general nature with only official respondents, later on their request two private parties have been impleaded - one Birla Cement Company who is also party before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and another is association of mining operators. Order of the Rajasthan High Court and pendency of the matter and orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were not disclosed in the application even though the petition purports to have been filed on behalf of residents of the area.

5. During pendency of the matter and in view of interim orders of the Tribunal, the authorities have closed some of the mines found operating illegally. Thus, to an extent the petition has become infructuous to the extent grievance of the applicant has been redressed. Updated surviving grievances are not clearly identifiable which necessitates that such grey areas are left open to be decided in the light of specific material which may be brought on record by the parties.

6. By way of rejoinder, the applicant has sought to widen the scope of the proceedings including challenging notification of the MoEF&CC dated 1.7.2016, which was available even before filing the petition. MoEF&CC has not been impleaded as party.

7. In a connected matter, a Bench of this Tribunal awarded compensation for damage to environment against which order the matter is pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, on this aspect, subject to further orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are inclined to issue some directions. As already noted, the matter arising out of some interim orders of the Tribunal is pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court though there is no interim order and interim order of this Tribunal is said to have been complied. To the extent violation is alleged, there is no specific material which aspect has to be left open in appropriate proceedings. Further, ESZ 3 notification has been issued on 8.4.2021 which governs the issue of wildlife sanctuary, though the applicant's grievance is that the grievance of protection of the said wildlife sanctuary has not been fully addressed.

We propose to consider this aspect and require further examination.

Pleadings

8. We may now refer to the relevant pleadings. Case set out in the application, originally filed, is that there is large scale of mining in the State of Rajasthan with over 15,318 leases for mines and 18,103 quarries of all sizes. Annual production of limestone is 116 lakhs metric tonnes with revenue of 114 Crores. In Chittorgarh region open cast mining is taking place without environmental safeguards resulting in air, water and land pollution. District Chittorgarh has population of about 15 lakhs which depends for drinking water on Ghambhiri and Bidach rivers which are affected by pollution. Mining leases in Chittorgarh cover 4360 hectares of land. Lot of explosive is used even at night and heavy machinery is used for the purpose. In the process, chemical dust is discharged in the air resulting in diseases like asthma, Silicosis, Tuberculosis, Pneumoconiosis and many others, leading to pulmonary fibrosis and premature deaths.

This dust also settles in all plants and crops grown in the District and adversely affects them. It also settles and covers houses and other belonging of inhabitants. The District has tourism potential due to presence of 1500 year old Fort and 150 temples and other monuments.

Due to illegal mining, tourism is adversely affected. Huge craters are often left behind which get filled with water. Due to water coming in contact with the minerals, it gets poisoned affecting those who innocently drunk it, particularly the cattle. It also affects human food chain. Stagnant water is a breeding ground for mosquitos, leading to diseases like malaria. Mining activity is also disturbing original water catchment areas and is leading to 4 water logging problems, adversely affecting ground water recharge. Due to mining activity, water level has gone very low in the adjoining areas of the city and the District. Mining waste slurry is creating issues of water accumulation, increased soil alkalinity and pollution water sources, leading also to hardness of water. Mining related blasting and associated activities are creating noise pollution. Vibrations in the ground leads to cracks in houses of inhabitants, apart from damage to world heritage structures like Chittorgarh Fort. Illegal mining is happening close to the rivers that run through the city and District of Chittorgarh, polluting the sources of fresh water for the city. It also generates leaching in the ground, adversely affecting the ground water reservoirs. Even forested land belonging to the local wild life sanctuary at Bassi is being encroached upon. Mining is being carried on within 10 km radius of this sanctuary, against norms, leading to destruction of wild life and forests of the sanctuary. Many endangered, rare and almost extinct animals like the winged squirrel and Chowsingha - a four horned antelope, only found in this wildlife sanctuary, are facing imminent danger of extinction due to rampant and illegal mining. Sink holes are geological phenomena which is caused when underground limestone is exposed to the environment due to open cast mining leading to rain water and water from other sources like nearby rivers, leading to erosion. Calcium carbonate, main component of the limestone, easily mixes and dissolves in water leading to formation of underground caves and crevices which collapse when they are unable to support weight of construction and the land. Ignoring these environmental aspects, Rajasthan Government has given out 30 years mining leases to various parties and has allowed mining within boundaries of the City as well as in close proximity to the Bassi wildlife sanctuary and Ghambiri and Bedach rivers.

Stand of Respondents

9. We may now refer to the stand of the Respondents in response to the application. The State of Rajasthan has inter alia stated as follows in its affidavit:-

"16. That the CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee CBRI was directed to analyse and prepare a report to be presented before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of evaluation of cumulative effect of vibration induced by heavy earth moving machineries (HEMM) used in mines near Chittorgarh Fort & its impact on the structural components of the Fort. The CBRI in its detailed report gave concurrent findings as those given by IBM. Thereafter on 29.07.2013 the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide interim order passed the following directions:

i) There shall be no mining activity/operation of any sort and of any nature whatsoever from the Chittorgarh Fort wall up to 1 K.M.

ii) The mining operations between 1 K.M. and 2 K.M. from the Chittorgarh Fort wall may be permitted by using non-HEMM.

iii) The mining operations beyond 2 K.M. from the Chittorgarh Fort wall may be allowed by using HEMM.

17. It is submitted that the SLP (Civil) No. 21211/2012 is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court hence, the issue raised by the Applicant in the Original Application is similar to the issue pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

ON GOING MIING WITHIN 10 KMS OF THE BOUDARY OF THE BASSI WILDLIFE SANCTUARY

18. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 4.8.2006 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 740, on consideration thereof, laid down certain conditions precedent along with the procedure for the grant of Temporary Working Permit. In this case it was held by the apex court that:

"19. .......

(ii) The mine is not located inside any national park/sanctuary notified under Sections 18, 26-A or 35 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972;

(iii) The grant of TWP would not result in any mining activity within the safety zone around such areas referred to in Precondition (ii) above (as an interim measure, one kilometer safety zone shall be maintained subject to the orders that may be made in IA No. 1000 regarding Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary);"

Thus by the above mentioned order the Hon'ble Supreme Court as an interim measure directed to maintain 1 Km safety zone. It is submitted 6 that in the present case none of the mining leases whose EC has been challenged fall within 1 Kms from the boundary of Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary and hence there is no violation of this order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or this Hon'ble Tribunal.

19. It is submitted that the issue regarding mining activities being carried out near wildlife sanctuaries is also pending adjudication before this Hon'ble Tribunal in the matter of Nityendra Manav v. Union of India & Ors., Appeal No. 48/2016.

20. That the Appeal No. 48/2016 has been filed by one Nityendra Manav, a resident of village and Post Paota, tehsil Kotputli, district Jaipur, Rajasthan challenging the environmental clearances granted by State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as SEIAA) on 19.05.2016 and by District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as DEIAA) on 30.05.2016. It is alleged in the Appeal that the Environmental Clearances have been granted without application of mind and in violation of various Judgments/orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, directions of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) & CC which provide that there can be no mining activity within 10 Km of the boundary of a Wildlife Sanctuary and that the grant of Environmental Clearance is also in violation of the Precautionary Principle and Sustainable Development."

Steps taken to protect the health of wildlife and damage to the environment are as per following table:-

S. NO. CONCERNED DEPARTMENT ACTION TAKEN/CURRENT STATUS

1. Medical and Health Department,  Regular 'Health Check-up Camps' are Chittorgarh being organized since 2015 wherein diseases are identified and treated. 3542 labour have been checked till dated and a total of 75 camps have been organized.

Out of this only 15 labour (8 mines labour and 7 others) were detected with Silicosis disease and they have already been given compensation.

 Stagnant water is being treated duly from time to time so as to avoid diseases and/or infections.

2. Wildlife Department  As per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 740 no mining activities are being carried out within the radius of 1 km from the Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary. The same has been explained in detail hereinafter.

 The proposal for declaring area around Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary as Eco Sensitive Zone is pending with the Central Government for approval.

3. Senior Geologist, Department of  No sink holes which might be dangerous Mines and Geology for the habitants of the area have ever been reported.

 Sink holes are not so common in all the limestones and are only location specific.

In Chittorgarh area no such dangerous sink holes have been observed.

4. Groundwater Department  The Post-monsoon water level of Chittorgarh area in 2016 is much higher than that recorded in the last two years.

 There is no decrease in the water levels due to mining activities.

5. Public Health Engineering  The water being supplied in the Department Chittorgarh City is safe for drinking.

 One of the supply points for water is situated in Bherda Block of Birla Cement Corporation mining lease area and as per analysis report even that water was found to be safe for drinking.

 7.5 MLD water is supplied daily from Bherda Block.

6. Animal Husbandry Department  No report/complaint has been received by the department till date regarding any cattle falling sick because of the ongoing mining activities or against any heavy metals being introduced in the food chain from Charagah Land.

10. Vide further affidavit dated 23.08.2017 information furnished on behalf of the State of Rajasthan is as follows:-

"4. Accordingly, inspections were done and after inspection of the area following reports from various departments were submitted:

I. Joint Inspection Report Submitted by the Mining Engineer, Chittorgarh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chittorgarh on 10.07.2017.

II. Office of the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh also submitted a report dated 19.07.2017:

The consolidated report of the above-mentioned joint inspection was conducted of the Mine and the quarry licenses near the Chittorgarh Fort area.

a) During inspection in the outer periphery of 1 km of the Chittorgarh fort, the partial area of Block- Bherda of M/S Birla Cement Works no mining activity was found to be carried on.

b) From the outer periphery of the Chittorgarh fort at a distance of 1 km upto a distance of 2 kms only work is permitted with manual work i.e., without the use of any Heavy Earth Moving Machinery. Also in many areas the mines were water logged and hence no mining activity was found.

c) Beyond the periphery of 2 kms from the outer boundary of the Chittorgarh fort and upto a distance of 10 kms the mining and quarry activity are undertaken with the use of Heavy Earth Moving Machineries (hereinafter referred as HEMM).

As per the present status of the area no activity of blasting is found.

(A copy of the Joint Inspection Report dated 10.07.2017 is Annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE RA-4 at pages to) ( A c o p y o f t h e R e p o r t d a t e d 1 9 . 0 7 . 2 0 1 7 i s Annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE RA-5 at pages to) III. It is also submitted that the Department of Mines and Geology, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan has also conducted random inspection in the said area on several date whose consolidated finding is that there were no incidences of blasting found in the said area and the activities were undertaken in consonance with the interim order dated 29.07.2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) no. 21211 of 2012 in the matter titled as Birla Corp. Ltd. versus Bhanwar Singh & Ors.

IV. It further stated that the Department of Mines and Geology, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan has installed various boards on the mining sites stating the interim directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above captioned matter and their strict adherence to the directions. (A set of photographs showing the boards installed in the said area is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE RA-6 at page to) V. It is submitted that the State of Rajasthan vide letter dated 02.08.2017 has directed the District Collector, Chittorgarh and Mining Engineer Chittorgarh to comply with the interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 29.07.2013 and direction of Hon'ble Tribunal dated 03.07.2017 so that no blasting activity is undertaken for the purpose of mining. In continuation of the above direction Mining Engineer, Chittorgarh has constituted a team consisting of Assistant Mining Engineer and Mines foreman Grade-I & Grade -II officers vide letter dated 03.08.2017.

(A copy of the letter dated 02.08.2017 & 03.08.2017 is Annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE RA-7 (colly) at pages to . ) VI. In compliance of the above letter dated 02.08.2017 and 03.08.2017 the team inspected the Manpura area, Gopal Nagar, Surajpole, Bheru Singh ka Khera, Semalpura, Jai Surjana area and Pandoli, Devri, Sahanva, Raghunathpura & Kantharia area on date 10.08.2017, 16.08.2017 and 18.08.2017. As per inspection report the mining activity was found in consonance with the earlier report dated 10.07.2017 9 (Joint Inspection Report Submitted by the Mining Engineer, Chittorgarh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chittorgarh annexed as RA-4 at pages) and 19.07.2017 (a report by the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh annexed as Annexure RA-5 at pages to) as well as with the interim order dated 29.07.2013 of Hon'ble Supreme Court and direction dated 03.07.2017 of Hon'ble Tribunal.

VII. It is further submitted that the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board has also submitted in its report dated 18.07.2017 that:

a) Till date the office of the RSPCB has not received any complaint regarding air/water/soil pollution caused by operation of Manpura Quarries,

b) The Air Quality monitoring could not be carried out due to rainy season and only than 10 % were under operation which were also scattered in complete Manpura Area to assess representative air quality it will be better to monitor in dry season and operation of quarries nearly 40-50% in the entire area. Though visually air quality was clean as no blasting or HEMM mining was going on.

VIII. It is further submitted that Medical And Health Department, State of Rajasthan has also submitted a report dated 17.07.2017 stating that Regular Health Check-up camps are being organized since 2015 and a total of 75camps have been organized so far wherein in the Chittorgarh district a total of 3542 laborers have been checked out of which only 15 laborers (8 mines laborers and 7 other laborers) were detected with the silicosis disease and have been duly compensated as per the rules. Also the stagnant water is duly treated from time to time so as to avoid water borne diseases and/or infections.

IX. It is submitted that the Department of Forest and Wildlife, State of Rajasthan has also submitted a report dated 14.07.2017 wherein following findings have been made:

a) There has been no mining activity in the Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary Area and within 1 km of the periphery of the sanctuary area.

b) Forest and Wildlife Department, Chittorgarh has proposed eco-sensitive zone from 0 to 3 kms from the outer periphery of the sanctuary area whose final approval is pending with the Union of India.

c) The mining activity undertaken in the area has no adverse impact on the winged sequel and Chowsingha-a four horned antelope or other wildlife, as the mining activity is far away from the sanctuary area.

X. It is submitted that Public Health and Engineering Department, State of Rajasthan has submitted a report 10 dated 28.06.2017 and 18.07.2017 wherein it is stated that:

a) The water supplied in the Chittorgarh City is safe for drinking purpose.

b) One of the supply points for water is situated in Bherda Block of the Birla Cement Works mining lease area and as per the analysis report even that water was found to be safe for drinking.

c) 7.5 MLD of filtered water is supplied daily from Bherda Block to the City of Chittorgarh.

(A copy of the Public Health and Engineering Department Report dated 29.06.2017 and 18.07.2017 is Annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE RA-8 at pages to . ) XI. It is submitted that the Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of Rajasthan vide its letter dated 28.06.2017 has stated that till date there has been no reported incident of any cattle getting sick from the ongoing mining activities neither there has been any case of contamination of milk due to drinking of water accumulated in the mining pits.

5. It is further submitted that on the issue of sink hole the Senior Geologist, Chittorgarh has stated that:

a) There is no such serious danger observed/reported like collapse of man-made structure or farm land in the area.

No sink holes which might be dangerous to habitants of the area hive ever been reported,

b) Solution cavities (sink holes) which are characteristics of lime stone formation are geological phenomena which take thousands of years to form under suitable geological and environmental conditions i.e., highly acidic nature of water coming into contact of reactive lime stone formation.

c) In Chittorgarh area intact limestone formation can be observed in course of the River Gambhiri. It shows that the limestone of the area are mostly resistant to weathering and erosion action of River water.

It is further submitted that presently the State of Rajasthan is bound by the order dated 29.07.2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) no. 21211 of 2012 in the matter titled as Birla Corp. Ltd. versus Bhanwar Singh & Ors."

11. Vide affidavit filed on 21.10.2019 in response to order of this Tribunal dated 11.10.2019 information was given about the mining leases.

Vide affidavit filed on 13.12.2019 clarification about the extent of mining 11 was provided. Similar information has been given by further affidavits dated 20.01.2020, 20.02.2020 and 20.03.2020.

12. We now refer to the affidavits filed by the added Respondents - Birla Cement Company Limited and the Association of miners - Chittorgarh Patthar Udpadak Sewa Samiti, District Chittorgarh. The Company has raised objection to the maintainability of the application on account of pendency of the SLP No. 21211 of 2012, Birla Company Limited v. Bhanwar Singh before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further stated that it is undertaking mining in two blocks Jai Surjana Limestone Mine and Bherda Limestone Mine with all necessary permissions. The Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ (PIL) No. 6591 of 2011 dealt with the issue of mining near the Chittorgarh Fort and a report was sought from the Indian Bureau of Mines which found that no damage has been caused to the Fort. The High Court directed that no mining and blasting shall take place within 10 Kms. of the Fort against which the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various orders have been passed in the said proceedings as follows:-

"xxx ......................................xxx.......................................xxx a. That vide order dated 18.01.2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that since the question of a complete ban on mining operations around the Fort, even without involving blasting, has not been examined, the Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee was directed to conduct a study of impact of mining on the said Fort, without blasting operations and submit its Interim Report expeditiously within three weeks by evaluating the effect of mining in the Fort area, with any kind of manual or electric gadgets, like surface scrappers, rock breakers etc. The relevant extracts of the order are quoted hereunder for ready reference:

"The parties are ad idem that before making final orders on the prayer for stay of the impugned directions, a report from an expert on the subject matter be called for. It is suggested that in the first instance, the Central Building Research Institute, 12 Roorkee, may be asked to conduct a study of impact of mining on the said fort even without blasting operations and submit its interim report. In other words, an expert should evaluate the effect of mining in the fort area, with any kind of manual or electric gadgets, like surface scrappers, rock breakers, etc. We accede to the prayer and accordingly request the Director of the Said Institute to nominate an expert to undertake the said exercise and submit his report as expeditiously as possible. In any case, interim report shall be submitted within three weeks from today. It will be open to the said expert to consult or seek assistance of any other agency, as he may deem necessary. It is agreed that all the expenses in this regard shall be borne by M/s Birla Company Ltd. The Secretarial assistance shall, however, be provided by the State.

In the meanwhile, the petitioners are permitted to carry out mining operations manually, without the use of any kind of heavy equipment like the JCBs, Earth movers etc. As the said fort is a protected monument, the ASI shall closely monitor the mining operations. "

A copy of the order dated 18.01.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- C. b. The Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee (hereinafter referred to as "CBRI, Roorkee") submitted its interim report on 20.02.2013 and thereafter submitted its final report on 02.07.2013. In the said Report, CBRI inter alia observed as under:

"Comprehensive investigation of vibration induced by machineries used in the mines reveals that there is no adverse impact of vibration on the Fort structures, as it does out completely at a distance of approx. 500 m and does not reach the Fort premises. Vibration data collected from important Fort structures corroborate the findings, too.

1. Study of cumulative effect of different machineries indicates that the vibration intensity falls down to a value of less than 2.0 mm/s (Peak Particle Velocity) at a distance of 50 m. This is the minimum recommended safe limit of vibration, as per Indian and many other international standards applicable to heritage structures.

2. In light of the above stated facts the Expert Committee is of the opinion that mining operation between 1.0 km and 10.0 km from Chittorgarh Fort are harmless to the monument if allowed only by using HEMM.

3. The Expert Committee feels that a few weeks are too short a period to arrive at a conclusion as far as the response of the cracks observed in the Fort structures are concerned. It is recommended that the issue of resuming of mining operations using HEMM may be taken up 13 independently. However, long term study of response of the cracks to the full scale mining operations may be taken up separately in a delinked manner, in close association with the major stakeholders like Birla Corporation and ASI.

4. CSIR-CBRI will be happy to undertake such study in greater National interest, f given the responsibility."

c. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.07.2013, ordered that:

i. "There shall be no mining activity/operation of any sort and of any nature whatsoever from the Chittorgarh Fort wall upto 1 km ii. The mining operations between 1 km and 2 km from the Chittorgarh Fort wall may be permitted by using non-HEMM.

iii. The mining operations beyond 2 km from the Chittorgarh Fort wall may be allowed by using HEMM."

Further, the Hon'ble Court also kept open for whether mining consideration the question operations by using HEMM can be permitted between 1 km and 2 km from the Chittorgarh Fort. The Hon'ble Court also invited suggestions for long term study of the response of the cracks to the full-scale mining operations.

copy of the order dated 29.07.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is annexed herewith and marked as annexure- D. d. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 23.09.2013 noted the suggestions of the counsels appearing for the parties regarding the scope of the study to be conducted by CBRI, Roorkee and directed CBRI, Roorkee to undertake a comprehensive study of all the relevant aspects and submit a Report within six months. The Court also directed CBRI, Roorkee to give their expert opinion on how to restore the structural integrity to repair the cracks and generally ensure that no damage in future is caused to the structural integrity. The relevant extracts of the Order are quoted hereunder for ready reference:

"2. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in S.L.P. (C) No. 21211 of 2012 has given his suggestions in writing. Inter alia, he has suggested that it is necessary to commission a study by the CBRI into the following issues:

(a) Whether blasting including the Cumulative effect of blasting beyond a specified distance has any impact whatsoever upon the structure of the fort?

(b) What appeared to be, in their expert opinion, the causes that have led to cracks and other damage caused to the fort, other than ageing simplicitor?

(c) Whether the uncontrolled access to tourists has any adverse impact upon the structure and if so, any suggested steps to regulate this activity.

(d) Whether the activities within the colony situated in the fort itself as well as the flow of traffic including heavy traffic in the vicinity of the fort have any adverse consequences upon the structural integrity of the fort, and if so, the suggested measures to deal with this problem.

3. Mr. Harish N. Salve also suggested that CBRI may be requested to generally recommend what steps in their opinion should be taken to restore the structural integrity to repair the cracks and generally ensure that no damage in future is caused to the structural integrity.

4. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.

1 to 6 in S.L. P. (C) No. 21211 of 2012 has also given some suggestions in her letter dated 10.9.2013 to M/s. Parekh & Co.

- advocate(s) for the petitioner. She submits that now since Comprehensive study is to be made by CBRI it may also undertake a comprehensive environmental impact assessment covering all kinds of pollution air, ground water, visual noise etc. by the complete cycle of mining activities including its transportation.

5. Learned senior counsel and counsel for the parties were ad idem that CBRI may be requested to undertake a comprehensive study of all the aspects, as noted in their report of May, 2013 and the above suggestions of Mr. Harish N. Salve and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati.

6. We, accordingly, request the CBRI to undertake a comprehensive study of all relevant aspects and facets as noted above. The CBRI may submit its report within six months from today. The entire expenditure of CBRI shall be borne by the petitioner - Birla Corporation Limited in S.L.P. (C) No. 21211 of 2012.

7. We clarify that the petitioner - Birla Corporation Limited shall make the payment to CBRI within 10 days of receipt of demand (towards expenses) that may be made by CBRI. List the matter after six months. "

[Emphasis Supplied] A copy of the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- E. Note 1:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide the order dated 23.09.2013 had already directed CBRI, Roorkee "to undertake a comprehensive environmental impact assessment covering all kinds of pollution- air, ground water, visual noise etc. by the complete cycle of mining activities including its transportation."

Note 2: The scope of the proceedings were enlarged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter pending before it covers not just the impact of the mining activity on the Chittorgarh Fort but also the environmental impact of the mining activities.

e. The CBRI, Roorkee submitted it's Final Report in September, 2014 in which it has inter alia mentioned that the mining operations in the Applicant's mine are being carried out in the most scientific manner. The relevant extracts from the report are set out below for ready reference: -

"..The mine is developed scientifically in compliance with the statutory requirement of the regulatory bodies of the country.

Drilling and blasting operation in mines is carried out in scientific manner with due blasting safety precautions. Every operation is accompanied by the siren system for taking clearance before and after each blast. Whole blasting operation is supervised by a DGMS (Directorate General of Mines Safety) certifying9 competent person."

Note 1: -Broadly the CBRI Report is divided into three parts, viz.:

        a.    Geology of the Area
        b.    Structural and Physical Studies
        c.    Environmental Impact Assessment

Note 2: -The Environmental Impact Assessment conducted by CBRI runs into over 75 pages and thus forms a significant part of the study undertaken by the body Note 3: - The Report, in addition to identifying issues identified during the study of the factors causing damage to the fort and the local environment of Chittorgarh, also provides suggestions and remedial solutions of the issues, which were assessed by the data collected from the environmental impact evaluations and base in line data. The Environmental Management Plan (hereinafter referred to as "EMP") takes into account the existing account scenario of the future scenario due to industrial activities. The EMP has prescribed environmental monitoring and implementation of environmental protection measures during and after mining operations. f. That on 24.11.2014, the counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 to 6 in the SLP, sought liberty of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to file objections to the Report. The same was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

A copy of the order dated 24.11.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- F. g. The Respondents No. 1 to 6 in the said matter filed their objections to the Report in December, 2014 and the Respondent No. herein also filed their reply to the objections raised by the Respondent No. 1 to 6.

Note:-The same is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

h. Thereafter, on 31.03.2015, the counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 to 6 informed the court that she would like to find out a competent agency in the country to carry out a study of the impact of mining other than the agencies who have prepared a report. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to adjourn the matter to 07.04.2015 and directed the counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 to 6 to provide full details of the agency. A copy of the order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-G. i. That on 07.04.2015, the counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 to 6 informed the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "she cannot suggest any alternative agency to carry out a study of the impact of mining other than the agencies who have prepared the report." However, she sought liberty of the Hon'ble Court to make some comments about the report. The same was allowed and the matter was adjourned to 21.04.2015."

13. It is further stated:-

"19. When the final report was submitted by CBRI, which took almost 2 years to undertake a comprehensive study, the Respondent No.1 to 6 in the SLP raised questions regarding the very competence of the CBRI and the credibility of the Report. That the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 questioned the competency of a prestigious body such as the Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee (CBRI) for the first time and that too at such a belated stage i.e. after the submission of the comprehensive report. The Respondent No.5 herein, who was the petitioner in the said SLP, filed its reply to the objection raised by the Respondent No.1 to 6. Both the objections to the CBRI Report and the Reply to the Objection to the CBRI Report are annexed with this Affidavit, however, without going into the merits of the said documents, the Respondent No.5 submits that since the objections and reply to the objections are already pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Hon'ble Tribunal should not entertain the contention of the applicant in so far as the CBRI Report is concerned.

21. As mentioned above, the CBRI, Roorkee was appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court pursuant to the suggestions of the Archaeological Survey of India alongwith the consensus of all the parties, vide its order dated 18.01.2013. The Hon'ble Court in its Order ordered as under:

"On the question of interim orders, we have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents at some length. It is evident from the impugned order that the main issue before the High Court pertained to the impact of blasting operations in the periphery of Chittorgarh fort. Hence, the question of a complete ban on mining operations around the fort, even without involving blasting, has not been examined. The parties are ad idem that before making final orders on the prayer for stay of the impugned directions, a report from an expert on the subject matter be called for. It is suggested that in the first instance, the Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee, may be asked to conduct a study of impact of mining on the said fort even without blasting operations and submit its interim report. In other words, an expert should evaluate the effect of mining in the fort area, with any kind of manual or electric gadgets, like surface scrappers, rock breakers, etc. We accede to the prayer and accordingly request the Director of the Said Institute to nominate an expert to undertake the said exercise and submit his report as expeditiously as possible. In any case, interim report shall be submitted within three weeks from today. It will be open to the said expert to consult or seek assistance of any other agency, as he may deem necessary."

22. It may further be noted the Respondent No.1 to 6 in the SLP, through their Advocate, had also give suggestions to this Hon'ble Court requesting CBRI, Roorkee to carry out the study on various aspects. This has also been observed in this Hon'ble Court's order dated 23.09.2013.

xxx ......................................xxx.......................................xxx

26. As mentioned in the aforesaid paragraphs, the CBRI Report is broadly divided into three parts:-

a. Geology of the Area b. Structural and Physical Studies c. Environmental Impact Assessment

27. The Environmental Impact Assessment conducted by CBRI runs into over 75 pages and thus forms a significant part of the study undertaken by the body. The Scope of Work undertaken by CBRI with respect of Environmental Studies is as under:-

(a) "Air quality monitoring in and around 10 km of the fort during pre-monsoon and post-monsoon seasons in pre-

blasting and post-blasting scenario.

(b) Air quality modeling to assess dispersion of air pollutants from mining areas and transportation towards the fort.

(c) Assessment of vehicular activities emission, traffic density, mining, transportation and modeling of vehicular emission.

(d) Assessment of nocturnal and diurnal noise level.

(e) Ground water level monitoring in and outside areas and fort area including surface water quality monitoring of Gambhira and Badeh rivers, ponds of the fort and around mining leases during pre-monsoon and post monsoon season.

(f) Reconnaissance survey of the people living in the fort and their habitat, and impact of same on fort structures.

(g) Collection of data on number of tourists during the peak and lean seasons including traffic density at the fort continuous seven days in peak tourist season.

(h) Survey of flora and fauna and their impact on the health of the structure.

(i) Impact prediction and suggestion on environmental control measures."

28. It is noteworthy that:

a. The area of 10 kms of the fort fully encompasses the entire municipal area of Chittorgarh. Therefore, entire municipal area of Chittorgarh was covered in the above study.

b. Water studies have been conducted in the mines area as well both the rivers that the applicant has alleged in its application as getting polluted is covered.

xxx ......................................xxx.......................................xxx

33. It is submitted that the Applicant, other than raising the contentions regarding Air, Water and Noise Pollution, has falsely raised the issues of land degradation and formation of sinkholes. It is submitted that the contentions so raised by the Applicant regarding the issue of land degradation is covered by the mining plan It is submitted that in the MMDR Act there are separate provisions of reclamation of open cast mining and plantation etc. and the method of closure of mines forms part of the mining plan. Post closure the excavated pit may have varying utility, in some cases where backfilling is possible, land use can be made as per requirement. It may be planted, or can be converted into grassland/agriculture land. Since, in the case of Respondent No. 5's mining pits, the availability of waste material for backfilling was meager, it was converted into water reservoir with a water holding capacity of around 80 million cubic metres. It is submitted that the conversion of excavated pit into water Reservoir (by allowing rain water) has already been approved in the progressive Mine Closure Plan and therefore the contention of the Applicant is business.

xxx ......................................xxx.......................................xxx

35. Further, it is submitted that the Applicant has raised the issue of sinkhole formation in the area. It is submitted that a sinkhole is a 19 natural erosion of Florida's Limestone terrain that occurs over thousands of years. Sinkhole is created by effect of severally wet winter which raises the water table. This is not the case in Rajasthan. Sinkholes are created in slightly acidic water. It is basically found in South Eastern United States between the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Whereas the cement grade limestone is entirely different mineral in comparison to Florida Limestone. Further, it may be noted that the entire area has been drilled at a close interval and no sinkhole/cavity has ever been detected in the 60 years of mining. It is submitted that the issue raised by the Applicant is imaginary, factually incorrect and irrelevant with the sole intent to prejudice this Tribunal. This shows that the Applicant is only trying to delay the resumption of normal mining operations of Birla Corporation Ltd.

xxx ......................................xxx.......................................xxx

37. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal had vide its order dated 03.07.2017 directed the District Collector to ensure that no blasting activity is done in the areas referred to in the Original Application and had also directed the Government of Rajasthan to take necessary steps in this regard. That pursuant to the said order, a team of 7 Officers was constituted to look into the matter by the District Collector on 10.07.2017. That various inspections were carried out by the team and the following reports from various departments were submitted:

i. Joint inspection report submitted by the Mining Engineer, Chittorgarh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chittorgarh on 10.07.2017.

ii. Report dated 19.07.2017 by Office of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh also submitted a report within 19.07.2017.

The aforesaid reports are annexed as Annexure RA-4 and RA-5 with the additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 1, 3 and 4 in the month of August, 2017.

xxx ......................................xxx.......................................xxx

48. The averments and allegations mentioned in para 8, 9 and 12 are wrong and denied. A detailed chart giving point-wise reply to the issues raised in public hearing, which was submitted to the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as "MoEF&CC") is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure I. The contents thereof are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

i. However, it is submitted that as a part of the process of grant of Environmental Clearance (EC), the recordings of public hearings together with the response of the Applicant are submitted to MoEF for its perusal, which takes the same into consideration while grant of the EC. Since the process of grant of EC is in the domain of Central Government and not the State Government, in 20 any case the isolated event of corruption of a State Government Official does not have any relevance whatsoever in the present application. The Applicant is deliberately trying to mislead the bench by citing irrelevant events which do not have any bearing in the present application. It is submitted that the submissions made by the company in regard to various issues raised during public hearings is corroborated by the findings of CBRI in its report, following its long-term study on Environment Impact Assessment.

ii. It is submitted that governments made by the applicant in paragraph 9 are completely false and unfounded. There are no health hazards related to limestone mining as being made out. The answering respondent has been mining for the past 50 years and no such cases of health issues due to contamination of water with limestone have ever been reported. Staff and workers work in the mines on a continuous basis but no one has ever been affected by any of the ailments being alleged by the applicant. In fact, the answering respondent as part of its CSR activities, carries out Medical health check up in the vicinity on a regular basis during which no such instances have been witnessed. It is submitted that the answering respondent maintains zero discharge, i.e., there is no water contamination/pollution due to mining activities. The drinking water is being supplied to Chittorgarh City through the Rajasthan State PHED from the old Bherda limestone pit.

The river is passing through the mining lease area but not through the present working pit.

iii. It may be noted that the water deposited in the mining pits is portable and the same is borne out by the fact that the water from Bherda mines is supplied to the Chittorgarh City. The water so supplied is safe for drinking purpose is also confirmed in paragraph X of the additional affidavit date filed by the state government. The PHED/Government of Rajasthan closely monitors the water quality and till date nothing has been reported any kind of adverse effect of any residence of the Chittorgarh City. A water quality report is attached as to the additional affidavit filed by the state government as annexure R8 at page no. 61. It is submitted that the authenticity and veracity of the map produced by the applicant needs to be ascertained.

iv. Further the prayer of the applicant in para 12 for relocation of mining lease is legally untenable. The applicant has failed to show that under which provision of law this relief may be granted. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent number 5 is not in violation of any of the act applicable to the mining operations in the State of Rajasthan. It is submitted that if the relief to asked is granted the same will be in derogation of the rights guaranteed under the constitution of India and other statutes and would cause grave and irreparable injury to the respondent no. 5.

49. The contents of para 10 are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the RSPCB vide its order dated 23.06.2016 has already granted consent to respondent no. 5 to operate under Section 21(4) of the Air Act, and section 25 and 26 of the Water Act for carrying out mining operations in the Bherda mines from 23.06.2016 to 31.05.2019. The map as provided by the applicant is incorrect and the map showing the actual distance of the mines from water bodies and adjoining forests and sanctuary area is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure M (colly).

Additionally, it is submitted that there is no water entering to natural stream from the mines site. Rather the water collected in the mines is rainwater harvested which is gainful utilized including supply to Chittorgarh City as mentioned above.

50. The averments and allegations mentioned in Para 11 are wrong and denied. The contents of Preliminary submission may be read as a part of the reply to Para 11. It is further submitted that the reliance placed on Section 32 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 is erroneous and misplaced. Section 32 reads as "32 Ban on use of injurious substances. No person shall use, in a sanctuary, chemicals, explosives or any other substances which may cause injury to, or endanger, any wild life in such sanctuary."

A bare perusal of the Section suggests that the same will be applicable where chemicals, explosives or any other substances which may cause injury to, or endanger, any wild life in such sanctuary are used within the boundary of sanctuary. In the instant case, the Respondent No.5's mine is located at a distance of 8.3 km from the sanctuary area in accordance with the applicable law.

Further, it is submitted that there is no report/ complaint against the Respondent No. 5 that it has violated the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 in general and Section 35 in particular.

In fact, report published in the new paper Rajasthan Patrika, and Dainik Bhaskar, both dated 23rd February, 2018 states that there has been an increase in wild life specifically 'Panther' in the Bassi Wild Life Sanctuary. Both of above newspaper states the confirmation of the fact by the District Forest Officer, Chittorgarh.

A copy of relevant paper cutting of newspaper Rajasthan patrika, and 'Dainik Bhaskar' dated 23rd February, 2018 are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-N. A copy of acknowledgment of application made by the Respondent No.5 from the National Board for Wild Life (NBWL) annexed hereto ad marked as Annexure-O Further it would not be out of place to mention that the answering Respondent carried out bio diversity study in the core zone and buffer zone and it is observed that the biodiversity index is not affected I the core zone as well as buffer zone. It is submitted that the company has not5 violated the National Forest Policy, 1988; rather, the company is in favour of carrying out wildlife conservation plan of worth 225 lacs in consultation with district forest authority."

14. The stand of the Chittorgarh Patthar Utpadak Sewa Samiti, District Chittorgarh is that the mining is undertaken after requisite permissions.

There were 570 plots where license has been granted by the Government to carry out mining activities and more than 5000 workers are engaged in the mining of Limestone Khanda Farsi and in all these units, mining operation are being conducted strictly in compliance of the statutory rules after obtaining permission from the Government. As per report filed by the Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee no adverse impact on mining has been found.

15. We note that the applicant has filed rejoinders to the Affidavits filed by the State as well as the miners.

Filing of consolidated submissions by the applicant

16. In view of the fact that as against the averments in the original application, the applicant has raised certain issues by way of rejoinders, we asked learned counsel for the applicant to file a consolidated statement from which issues raised can be understood. He has filed written submission during the course of the hearing as follows:-

"2. Major mining lease of Chittorgarh is over 4360 hectares with production of Limestone in excess of 11221720 tons each year, the minor mineral lease area is 260 hectares with production of over 5200000 tons annually-all through open cast mines.

3. In fact it is the admitted position of the State that over 587 mines operating within municipal limits of the City, with a 588 hectare open cast mine of R5 operating within 2 kms of the City.

4. These mines use blasting illegally at night, use Heavy Earth breaking and moving machinery like Jack Hammers, earth movers, bull dozers, Heavy haul trucks in very large numbers-all operating on Diesel and adding to the pollution of the City without any checks.

5. This is a clear case of the economic interest of a few being allowed to highjack the health of lakhs of people and causing irreparable damage to the flora and fauna of the area, and adversely effecting tourism in the area.

6. On page 1723 of the reply affidavit of the applicant to the affidavit of director department of mines and geology, Govt. of Rajasthan filed on 06/11/2019, the Director of Mines is on record and validates the stand of the applicants that blasting has been going on despite orders of the Hon. Supreme Court and Hon. NGT, wherein they have found evidence and cancelled the licenses of 5 miners.

7. The govt has further put on record that are 165 operators do not have a valid licence to operate. This figure contradicts the figures given in the reply filed by the pollution control board filed on 20/08/2017 in which the state of Rajasthan has deposed that there are 587 mines out of which 371 have the consent to operate and 2 have been refused the consent to operate, and 214 mines have not applied for renewal, and thus the Govt of Rajasthan is indulging in selective reporting , and is shying away from producing the accurate records regarding mines, licenses, consent to operate, actual pollution statistics, public hearing reports and wild life approvals given for all mining operations in the area.

8. This is clearly made out as the Department of mines and Geology in their affidavit have only provided data pertinent to the Manpura area of Chittorgarh, and have not deliberately shown the status of the entire area in and around Chittorgarh and Bassi wildlife sanctuary in a 10 -15 Km radius-not only in Manpura.

9. On page 1672 in para 5, the mining engineers have reported issuing consent to operate in the years 2017, 2018, 2019 instead of taking action against mines that did not have consent to operate before the dates but were operating without it. Further, in Annexure 3, the respondents Department of mines and Geology shows that 400 mines/queries on the list have received environmental clearance on 23/06/2016 thus this clearly shows that mines were operating without any Environmental clearance since 1971 !! Further, Annexure 4 of the same reply from page 1689 to 1695 shows that 165 listed operators had valid consent to operate till 2005, so in essence they have operated from 2005 to 2019 without any action taken by the respondents against them in the last 14 years !!

10. The City and the district of Chittorgarh has 8 rivers flowing through it, 2-Bedach and Gambhiri rivers flow through and adjoining the City, with mines (including R5) adjoining the river and polluted water is being discharged in the rivers, polluting them as per the testimony of the villagers in a public hearing report annexed as RA 8 (page 109 to 191) in the Rejoinder Affidavit of the applicant. This is violation of water prevention and control of pollution act 1974, section 24(1), which reads as No person shall cause or permit any poisonous or noxious polluting matter to enter any stream, well, sewer or land.

11. In fact, Limestone mixes with water to form Calcium Hydroxide, which is corrosive to eyes and skin, bums the lining of the human tissues and organs, and causes serious digestive 24 issues, and is used as a pesticide and fungicide in EU countries. Limestone can be inhaled as dust, or through water injestion. Reports and details are enclosed on page 84 to 86 of the rejoinder affidavit of the applicants.

12. The City and district is also in the grip of a mining mafia, who are in collusion with all authorities in the City/district and threaten and file FIR's and cases against Local residents if they complain of the pollution and its adverse impact. They scare people from attending any public hearings (pages 105-108) even the Area Pollution control officer and Senior vice president of the Birla Corporation have been named in these FIR's.

13. In fact, the Principle Secretary mines of the Raj. Govt, along with other govt officials was arrested and undergoing trial for granting approvals and consent to operate to 100 illegal mines operating in the area. He was also jailed after recovery of over Rs. 4 Crores (pages 97 to 105) Many of the mafia are known to have links with the underworld.

14. The public hearing documents (annexed by the applicants in their rejoinder affidavit to RI to R5 from pages 109 to 191) of Birla mine expansion of 588 hectare mine next to City held at village Jai expose the misinformation being spread by the respondents and reflect the pain and suffering of the residents through the testimonies of over 100 people who attended and gave feedback in the public hearing.

The key complaints made are :

A). Blasting has led to cracks and damages to houses of villagers and people living in the vicinity.

B). Lands have been acquired and also illegally captured from the villages C). There is a serious issue of air pollution with huge amounts of dust falling on the adjoining area, leading to skin and respiratory diseases.

D). Water from mines is being released in the river leading to pollution of the river. No water is being shared with the villagers for agriculture.

E). People have been rendered jobless as their lands have been taken for mining, but they have not been rehabilitated or provided with jobs, due to this, mass exodus from villages has happened, only a small population are left behind, mostly old and infirm.

F). There is a lot of damage to the agriculture as fields and crops are affected due to pollution, discharge of dirty water. G). Water table in the area has gone down.

H). Wild life, flora and fauna of the area are facing damage and destruction due to rampant mining.

I). No CSR activity is being done by the Respondents in the area. J). No trees are being planted as required. Where planted, the number is very low, the failure rate is 80% for the plantations done so far.

K). There is a lot of noise pollution in the area. L). Dust clouds cover the entire area.

M). Grazing lands have been illegally taken over and crushers are running on them. In fact, this question has also been raised in the state assembly, and the concerned ministers have admitted that grazing lands have been illegally acquired and is a concern.

N). Authorities are hand and glove with the miners, and despite frequent complaints nothing is being done. O). If there is no action on the complaints, villagers would be forced to agitate at a large scale to get attention of the state and national attention to their issues and difficulties.

In fact, its not wrong to state that years of neglect and suffering faced by the people of the area has led to filing of this petition as all their pleadings before local authorities have fallen on deaf ears and no relief has ever come to them.

15. Its an admitted position of R5 Birla Corp (pages 118 to 126) that their open cast mines are 2 kms from City, two rivers flow in between their mining blocks, distance from a world heritage site is 0.8 KMS, reserve forest is between 0.65 km to 3 kms.

16. Despite requests, Pollution Control Board and Dept of Mines has not provided information on the size of mining area in and around the City (within 10- 15 kms of the City) -- thus why should this mining area not be considered as a Category A Project, and why the 587 mines operating in close proximity to each other would not qualify to be a cluster situation? Nor have they submitted any maps showing all the mining in and around the City where these 587 mines operate, neither have they submitted public hearing details for this mining despite multiple observations by the bench and as requested by the applicants.

17. The government is also silent on the issue of consent to operate to over 100 mines due to which the state's Principle Secretary mines was arrested in 2016 along with other mining and other state officials with over RS. 4 crores recovered from his house. The Govt has not disclosed if any large-scale investigation has been done to check validity of all the mining leases issued in the area. This amounts to their admission of the large-scale corruption happening in Chittorgarh mining.

18. The state government admits that it has found evidence of blasting, and has cancelled permits, after swearing on affidavit that no blasting happens in Chittorgarh mines.

19. The State pollution Control Board in compliance of the order of this court dated 30/01/2018 filed a pollution report which is an eye wash and an attempt to mislead this Hon. Court as it has not measured PM2.5, the main pollutant of Air, recorded data from only three places away from affected areas of the City, and also did not 26 record Ozone, Lead, Arsenic, Nickle and Chromium -- which are part of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards of the Central Pollution Control Board (enclosed at pages 943 to 945), the report also does not mention the measurement scale and permissible limits of each pollutant thus misleading the court. In fact, this report confirms the submissions of the applicants and indicates high pollution, as almost all 8 hourly and overall average across the entire study period is failing miserably compared to both Indian and WHO standards. State of Global Air report (page 254) reports PM2.5 to be the 5th highest contributor to human mortality with over 2.1 million cases across India and China, with over 90 lakh deaths in India. Details of the extract are on page 242. Mineral dust is a key component of PM 2.5. per WHO.

20. State of Rajasthan's affidavit dated 01/07/2016 on pages 227, 228 and 229 extract on page 243 and 244, Ministry of Environment and Forests has granted the state of Rajasthan an exemption from public notice inviting objections and suggestions from people likely to be affected , and has allowed the state of Rajasthan to determine size of cluster as per local situation, thus doing away from classifying any project as a Category A or following guidelines for Cluster mining for licenses issued after 9th Sept 2013, thus contravening all laid down principles of Environment law like Public Trust Doctrine, Intergenerational Equity, Precautionary Principle, Sustainable Development and Polluter Pays, and the direction laid down in Dinesh Bothra VS State of Rajasthan, Deepak Kumar vs State of Haryana and Ors (SLP (C) 19628 -- 19629 of 2009) , EIA notifications 2006, and this court 's judgement in Lokendra Kumar V/S State of Uttar Pradesh and are also against articles 21 , 39(e) 47 , 48A , 49 and 51.

21. The State of Rajasthan despite asking has not provided information on how many mines are exempted under public hearing guidelines, provide a list of Eco sensitive zones/Wildlife Sanctuaries as per the wildlife Conservation strategy 2002 of the National Board of Wildlife, provided any information on how many trucks and machines are operating supporting mining in and around Chittorgarh.

22. The State and none of the respondents have provided their approvals from the Standing Committee of Wildlife under section 3 (v) of environment protection Act 1986. R5 has only submitted copy of application made to the wild life clearance portal on 04/04/2016 at page 222, thus proving that they have been operating open cast mines over 588 hectares next to a wild life sanctuary without any center or state wildlife approvals from 1965 onwards ! Non submission of the wildlife approvals is an admission to no approvals being sought or provided but mining being allowed -- this is a major lapse that must attract strict action through an order of this court, and the same is prayed for. In fact, in one of the media investigation reports, one of the wildlife officials is quoted as saying correct mining maps have never been submitted, hence no approvals have been provided so far! 27

23. Neither the state or the miners have taken the risk of Sinkholes seriously and have dismissed all apprehensions expressed in this OA as imaginary and that sink holes only happen in USA, which is an incorrect fact and an attempt to mislead this court. Sinkholes commonly occur across the world in soil containing Limestone, where the land collapses due to erosion of subsoil limestone due to action of water. Meghalaya has some of the world's largest caves of limestone, and applicants have enclosed reports on pages 936 to 942, showing how sinkholes are suddenly threatening to swallow people and their villages and farms in Cuddapah district of Andhra Pradesh, a limestone mining rich area. It is the submission of the applicants that Chittorgarh is a ticking time bomb as regards Sinkholes caused due to rampant open cast limestone mining, and this risk cannot be ignored either by the state or miners as one can guarantee protection from it or take responsibility for any damage due to it. Thus precautionary principle may be invoked to protect the City and adjoining areas from possible harm by stopping all limestone mining in and around 10-15 kms of the City.

24. Against such overwhelming evidence, the respondents have chosen to duck the key contentions on merits by raising frivolous objections on maintainability of this OA, stating in each reply and affidavit that the issue at hand is covered under SLP (c) 21211 of 2012 before the Hon. Supreme Court in appeal against judgement of the Hon. High Court of Rajasthan in DB Civil Writ (PIL) No.6591 of 2011. Where the Hon. High Court was (pages 253 to 373) pleased to order as follows for the protection of the World Heritage monument of the Chittorgarh Fort:

a) Ban mining and Blasting Operations around a 10 KM radius of the Fort.

b) Fine of Rs. 5 Crore on miners who caused damage to the historic fort.

c) Cancelled all mining leases within 10 KM radius of the fort.

The contention of the respondents that a report commissioned by Central Building Research Institute covers the subject matter of this OA.

Applicants reject this contention and respectfully submit the following:

a) There is a serious conflict of interest, as substantial money was paid by R5 and other miners for it, and the purpose of the report was to audit the same concerns!

b) The report acknowledges that only "test" blasts were conducted in order to not damage the fort-this cannot simulate reality of multiple simultaneous and uncontrolled blasting carried out prior to High court order and thus does not reflect reality.

c) The report is over 7 years old, and does not reflect the reality of pollution of today.

d) The report is titled "Report on Cumulative Effect of mine blasting operations on Chittorgarh fort, thus is only focused on the fort and immediate areas.

f) CBRI by their own admission on their website and in report describe their vision and mission as experts in Building Construction/Habitat planning, Building materials, Building Technology, Fire Engineering and disaster mitigation. Director of the institute on page 15 of the report mentions the institutes expertise as measuring distress to Heritage sites like the Taj Mahal and Qutab Minar. Therefore the applicants submit that CBRI are not the correct authority for determining pollution in and around the City, but an organization like NEERI would be. Therefore the applicants submit that the report of CBRI is irrelevant to the current OA, and pray that it may be set aside and declared irrelevant for this OA.

g) The applicants were not a party to the PIL before the Hon. Rajasthan High Court, nor a party to the SLP before the Hon. Supreme Court, and are thus not barred from raising an issue of heavy pollution in and around the City of Chittorgarh affecting its over 16 lakh population, and the flora and fauna of the area.

h) Further, in neither the prayers in the PIL before the Hon Rajasthan High Court, nor the judgement of the High Court, or the prayer before the Hon. Supreme Court is pollution taken as an issue, then how can any substantial relief on pollution be expected by the applicants, who are thus well within their rights to agitate this issue before this Hon. Court through this OA. It is therefore prayed that maintainability objections of the respondents be dismissed, and the OA be allowed in light of the overwhelming evidence provided by the applicants.

i) It is humbly submitted that even while maintaining that the CBRI report is irrelevant to this OA, the applicants wish to submit that the report is also defective on the following additional counts-it measures samples of Air and water only over 4 months-May, July, August Sept, the monsoon season when the pollution is at its least. Further the report does not comply with National Air Ambient Quality Standards as it does not measure all the laid down parameters, measuring only 4 against 11 identified pollutants to be measured as per the National Pollution Control Board Standards as well as international Standards.

The report also takes incorrect standards thus under reporting pollution, and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone !

j) The report actually confirms high pollution as almost all samples measured of PM 2.5, PM10, NO2, are failing. Further it does not show standards and units for Conductivity and Alkalinity though both fail ! Dissolved oxygen samples fail, and report indicates High Pollution 29 both in Air as well as water! The report only nails the truth that the respondents have tried so hard to hide. The report indicates heavy pollution both of Air and Water standards at pages 133, 141, 143, of the CBRI report.

25. In compliance of the order dt. 12.08.2018 the Surveyor General of India filed a report on 20.02.2019. However, the report was merely a Lip service hence the Hon'ble Tribunal yet again directed the Additional Surveyor General to file a complete updated report vide its order dt. 08.03.2019. It is notable that final report was filed on 22.07.2019 i.e., after a delay of almost 10 years (Copy of the report at Page no. 1251-1540). The highlights of this report are as follows:-

A) It validates the stand of the applicant as 707 ha. of mining within the municipal area of Chittorgarh as well as within the Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary.

B) Large scale mining around and outside within a 10 km radius of the City-This is a significant contributor to the air pollution in the City.

C) The report details that how the mines are adjoining to the forest and is in violation of environmental laws. D) The report refers the River Gambhiri which flows at the foothill of the Chittorgarh Fort (World Heritage Site)- is heavily polluted and has been referred to as a NALA.

26. The report of the surveyor general while trying to cover up the illegality by filing vague maps with no clear legend, no clearly marked Eco Sensitive zones has made a complete mockery of the orders of this court, some of which are highlighted in the Rejoinder affidavit by the Applicant to the Surveyor General India report Pg. No. 1554-1587.

a) On page 1254 point c the word "Pit used in this report, invariably means man-made excavation of different sizes and shapes but these pits may not necessarily be mines"- thereby completely destroying any credibility that this report may have, as lot of the pits shown in the report could very well be open limestone mines which due to natural or man-made reasons have gotten filled with water which is highly corrosive and extremely unfit for consumption or any form of agriculture (herein public hearing report from pg.109-191 are imp. as the same entails the grievances of the residents).

b) On page 1253 of the report, it is stated that no observation or comments were received through the council for the extent of the areas to be surveyed for mining/excavated areas. It implies Survey General was himself unsure of the area to be surveyed, if that was the case why was this not clarified from the court? And how they have determined the area to be surveyed otherwise?

c) On page 1255 (point j & k) survey around Bassi Wildlife sanctuary was not carried out by drones but only by satellite imagery. It is contrary to the direction that use of drones be done while doing the survey. Hence it defeats the purpose of the survey itself. Further the report fails to mention what kind of drone was actually used during the survey.

d) Surprisingly, despite the presence of ground teams who visited the sites- the report fails to clearly identify any of the mines from the pits. Hence the purpose of the report is redundant as the report was meant to verify the stand of State Pollution Control Board regarding there being 587 quarries in the area out of which only 371 has valid consent.

e) The maps annexed with the report are without any proper key and no explanation of the maps has been provided thus the maps are incomprehensible and even the scale provided with the map is confusing. It is better that the Surveyor General or any other authorized person explains this report. (Para 7 Pg. No. 1560).

f) Mapping of the Bassi wildlife sanctuary at Map A2 on page 1267 cannot be found (Para 8 Pg. No.1561)

g) Eco-sensitive zones are not shown to be eco-sensitive zones and hence not clear.

h) Municipal limit is not clear (Para 10 Pg No. 1561-1562)

g) Pits 64, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, & 81 are close to the inhabited areas like Jai, Surjana, Dhordia, Mannpura, Chittori etc.

i) The mine operated by respondent no.5 is an open cast mine running into 588 ha. Within 2 km of the City and this is not shown in the report itself.

j) It is notable that 587 mine operating within the municipal limits, of which only 371 have a valid consent. Therefore, the report should carry out details of all these mines and the report not tallying with the Government of Rajasthan points to a potential serious violation and shielding the illegal mining area (mine 68, 69 & 86 seems to be the mines of Respondent no. 5 and close to City Chanderia which is a highly populated City).

k) Pits 120 and 121 are shown outside the area without clarifying there distance and area.

l) Pits 68, 69, 37, 86, 18 & 51 etc. are open cast mine operating next to the river.

m) Map A3 on Pg No. 1262 shows mining inside the forest sanctuary.

n) Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary and eco-sensitive zone not clearly marked.

o) There are pits left unnumbered those are inside the Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary.

p) The report furnishes evidence of total 168 mines whereas Government of Rajasthan has on affidavit admitted to 587 mines within municipal limits and a 588 ha. open cast mine operating within the limits.

q) Pit 102 to117, 155 to 161 are the mines which are shown adjoining to the reserved forest area. Thus, an adverse impact on the eco system. Further, this is in absolute congruence of the maps furnished by the Applicants.

r) The report in its incompleteness is still able to highlight the minings happening adjoining to the river, untreated effluents being discharged in the rivers and the same is substantiated by the CBRI report filed by the respondents (Pg. No. 84 to 86 of the O.A. shows how limestone mixes with water to form calcium hydroxide) (Pg No. 939-942 open cast limestone has a huge risk of sink holes in and around the City of Chittorgarh)

27. The report clearly proves the point being made by the applicants about the huge amount of open cast mining happening in and around a 10 km radius of the City, and in and around the Bassi 31 wildlife sanctuary which is heavily polluting the air, water, land, and is in complete contravention to all existing pollution and wildlife laws. The irreparable damage to the wildlife, Agriculture, plant life, water table, and the rest of sinkholes; is thus clearly made out. There is also in irreparable damage being done to the health of the lakhs of people living in the area who are forced to breathe in the polluted air, and drink polluted water -- this is being brought out in the public hearing report annexed in the rejoinder of the applicants at pages 109 to 191.

28. It is notable that despite asking for it, the State pollution control board has not submitted any public hearing reports for any of the mines or mining leases.

29. The Rajasthan government has been granted an exception from MOEF that allows them to categorize mines locally at a district level, and also an exemption from conducting public hearing-both are against all settled environmental law -- as no one can then oppose any mining even if it is illegal, harmful to the environment and ecology and health of the local citizens. This is a draconian measure that needs to be set aside, and has been challenged by the applicant through this O.A.

30. In light of the failed submissions of the government and other respondents, the O.A. maybe allowed, and a strong order banning mining in the entire City, as well as a 10-15 km radius of the City maybe passed."

Procedural History of proceedings before the Tribunal

17. The application was filed on 08.06.2017. Notice was issued on 09.06.2017. Original parties to the application are the Department of Mining, Rajasthan, State PCB, Health Department, Rajasthan and District Collector, Chittorgarh. On 03.07.2017, the Tribunal noted the statement made on behalf of the State of Rajasthan about the steps taken in the matter as follows:-

"1. That there is a ban on blasting of mining activity within 1 km from the river and the Municipal limits.

2. Beyond 1 km upto 2 km no heavy machinery is permitted to be used if there is valid legal mining. Beyond 2 km mining activity is permitted but without blasting.

3. The Supreme Court of India is presently seized of the same issue as raised in case no. Special Leave to appeal (Civil) No. 21211/2012 dated 29.07.2013 in which interim order to the above effect have been passed.

4. The State has constituted a High Level Committee which is likely to sit in session today and take a pragmatic view and direct steps required to be taken necessity for banning blasting and mining activity in the entire area, whichever is referred to in the application. The State of Rajasthan is keen to enforce the order to prevent blasting in the eco-sensitive zone, sanctuaries and also the municipal limits and in this regard decisions are likely to be taken shortly. He seeks reasonable time to be given to Rajasthan to place submissions on the above aspects.

However, he submits that as of now no blasting is permitted and/or being carried out within 1 km from the municipal limits or sanctuaries as alleged by the Applicant.

The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant refuting these submissions, submits that the blasting activity is erratic and not at a particular time. In the Middle of night blasting is making life of the people miserable living in the area in question.

The Matter which is pending in the Supreme Court deals only with issues related to protection of a monument. Whereas, in this case several other environmental issues are raised for adjudication and therefore, an independent adjudication of this application is necessary.

We have taken note of submission of Learned Additional Advocate General and the Counsel for the Applicant. Needless to observe that both seem to be in agreement that there shall be no blasting activity in area which is at least within 1 km of municipal limit and the sanctuaries therefore, whatever be the stand of the State Government it shall ensure protection of environment.

Hence, we feel that in the given circumstance, interim direction could be issued to the District Collector concerned to ensure that no blasting activity is done in the areas referred to in applications subject to further orders that we may pass after receiving response by the State Government and other response in this regard."

18. Vide order dated 27.07.2017, M/s Birla Corporation, Chittorgarh was impleaded as party and vide order dated 24.08.2017, Chittorgarh Patthar Udpadak Sewa Samiti, District Chittorgarh was added as a party, as the said parties are affected by the relief sought in the application to ban illegal mining activity. Vide order dated 31.08.2018, the Tribunal directed Surveyor General of Survey of India, Dehradun to measure the area of mining in and around Chittorgarh City. Vide order dated 08.03.2019, the Tribunal directed stopping of mining activities within Municipal limit of Chittorgarh City and within 10 Kms of Bassi Wildlife 33 Sanctuary or within Eco-Sensitive Zone of Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary, if finally notified. The said order was reiterated vide order dated 24.04.2019 in Review Application No. 30/2019. The said two orders are subject matter of consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.

5757/2019, Department of Mines and Geology & Ors. v. Pratap Bhanu Singh Shekhawat and 2216/2021, Department of Mines and Geology & Ors. v. Pratap Bhanu Singh Shekhawat respectively. There is, however, no interim order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, interim order dated 8.3.2019 continues to remain in force. The Tribunal directed preparation of a report by the Surveyor General to ascertain the extent and location of mining using drones. The Tribunal noted that there were 587 quarries out of which 371 had valid consent. Vide order dated 06.09.2019, the Tribunal directed the State PCB to call for the record of 371 mines to which consent has been given and also mention steps taken against illegal mining. Vide order dated 11.10.2019, a statement was made on behalf of the State PCB that there were 410 mines with valid consent and 155 mines were closed which was in conflict with the earlier stand that 371 mines has valid consent and total mines were 587. Accordingly, Director of Mines was required to explain to anomaly about the number of mines and action taken against illegal mines. On 12.02.2020, the Tribunal was informed by the Director of Mining that 77 mines had been closed and 292 mines were operating in violation of interim order of the Tribunal dated 08.03.2019.

The same were directed to be closed and compliance affidavit filed by the Additional Director. Vide last order dated 28.02.2020, the Additional Director of Mines was further required to file an affidavit in response to observation in the order dated 06.01.2020 and 22.01.2020. Order dated 06.01.2020 relates to the report being filed by the Collector instead of Mining Department and order dated 22.01.2020 relates to unauthorized constitution of a Committee by the Additional Director of Mining. In 34 pursuance of order dated 28.02.2020, Additional Director of Mines has filed an affidavit dated 20.03.2020 to the effect that difference in figures in the report of Surveyor General, report of Municipal Council Chittorgarh and report of the Department of Mines was the reason for constitution of a Committee. There was no mining within the Municipal limits or within 10 Kms. of Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary. 292 mines in Manpura which were shown to be within the Municipal limits in the report of Surveyor General had been closed down.

Order of Rajasthan High Court dated 25.05.2012

19. Reference to the order of the Rajasthan High Court dated 25.05.2012 against which the matter is pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court shows that the issue considered therein is against blasting and mining which involved digging and use of heavy equipments within 10 kms. of the Chittorgarh Fort. The High Court noted that as per report of the Archaeological Survey of India, cracks had appeared to parts of the Fort due to mining activities and blasting. The High Court finally directed no mining activities and blasting shall take place within 10 kms from the fort wall. The mining leases granted within 10 kms from the Fort wall were cancelled. The Birla Cement as well as mine holders were directed to make payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 crore (Five Crores only), out of which, 90% shall be paid by Birla Cement and the remaining amount shall be paid by other mine holder is involved in blasting. The amount of compensation shall be kept at the disposal of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and be utilized for repair and upkeep of the Fort in question.

The plan to repair damages and improve facilities was to be submitted to the High Court within four months. Some extracts from the order are:

"xxx ......................................xxx ................................xxx 35 The question which arises for consideration is whether damage has been caused to structures of Chittorgarh Fort, which is ancient monument of national importance, due to the mining activities and blasting done by Birla Cement and various other lease holders or damage to the ancient monument can be attributed to daily visit of about 2000 tourists to fort or wear and tear or natural occurrences such as earthquake, lightning, aging or lack of proper maintenance or shrubs and trees etc., as suggested by the learned counsel for respondent-Birla Cement.

xxx ......................................xxx ................................xxx Thus, there is no denial that cracks have developed in the Vijay Stambha, Kirti Stambha and Kumbha Mahal and wall of Chittorgarh Fort after the decision of the previous writ application and there is also no denial that mirrors (tell-tales) have been found to be cracked.

xxx ......................................xxx ................................xxx Thus, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that mirrors (tell-tale) were broken due to blasting as submitted by the petitioners and the fact has not been traversed by the respondents, rather has been admitted by Archaeological Survey of India. There is no other way in which mirrors (tell-tale) could have broken; cracking of mirror is telling the truth and has strengthened the story that mining operations and blasting in the area in question have caused damage to the ancient monument 'Chittorgarh Fort', which ranks at par with any one of the world heritage monuments of India. The Fort represents the quintessence of tribute to the nationalism, courage, medieval chivalry and sacrifice exhibited by the Mewar rulers of Sisodia and their kinsmen and women and children, between the 7th Century and 16th Century. Vijay Stambh is illuminated and looks all the more mesmerizing. The Fort welcomes many a tourists around the world to its complex every year. Moreover, the history of this majestic fort makes the visit to this place more interesting. The magnificent monuments of this Fort are definitely worth spending some time in seclusion over the heroism of Mewar Rulers. This heritage Fort of Rajasthan is definitely a 'must-visit' place that cannot be afforded to miss. Thus, mining activities and blasting in the area in question causing damage to such ancient monument of national importance cannot be permitted.

xxx ......................................xxx ................................xxx Thus, it is apparent from the report of Geological Survey of India that due to blasting at Jai Surjana mine, there was seismic vibrations recorded at the fort site. It was also observed by GSI in its report that long term monitoring of the impact of blasting shall be made by providing tale tells across the minute cracks, if any, present on the fort structure.

xxx ......................................xxx ................................xxx

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 36 The area around Chittorgarh Fort in a radius of about 10 km was examined geotechnically to study the effects of blasts vibrations from the nearby mines to important national monument Chittorgarh Fort. The geotechnical studies carried out around Chittorgarh Fort and its vicinity in a radius of 10km have indicated that the fort is located over a sound foundation of thick bedded, hard, massive sandstone which is blocky in nature due to three sets of joints. This sandstone is underlain by soft, friable, incompetent shale rock forming the hill slopes. This rock unit below the competent cover may cause micro level settling owing to continuous vibrations, which may ultimately lead to instability in the slopes and settling of overlying competent rock mass. For protection of hill slopes it is suggested that mining activity should not be carried out in the vicinity of the hill slopes.

The geophysical studies have indicated that due to blasting at Jai- Surjana mines peak-to-peak amplitude values of recorded events vary between 5 mm to 38mm at the fort site, which is considered quite high.

Mining activity-using explosives if unavoidable, can be carried out by deploying technique of controlled blasting with continuous monitoring of the blasting schedule and ground vibration as specified by D.G.M.S so that hill slopes are not disturbed and vibration levels in the fort region remain within specified safe limit.

Long term monitoring (preferably for three years) for any possible impact of blasting on fort structure is recommend to be carried out. For this purpose tale tells may be provided across the minute cracks, if any, present on fort structure and its regular monthly monitoring may be done to study the behavior of cracks.

xxx ......................................xxx ................................xxx It is apparent from the aforesaid order passed by this Court that effect of mining operations was confined within 5 kms radius and blasting operations beyond 5 kms of the Fort wall, but within 10 kms. of the Fort wall and this Court directed continuous monitoring of mining operations particularly done by Birla Cement and fitting of mirrors (tell-tale) was also observed. However, further reports were submitted before this Court and the Division Bench has ultimately pass the order on 3.1.2007 by which it was observed that since 3 years continuous vigilance reports have not given any evidence that the blasting operation in the mine beyond 10 kms is having any adverse effect on the safety of the structure of Chittorgarh Fort, further reporting was dispense with.

xxx ......................................xxx ................................xxx In the instant case, there are cogent material available on record including expert opinion of GSI, report of ASI etc. filed in previous case and material placed on record in the present case, which show that blasting and mining operations have caused damage to the Fort structures. As regards report of IBM, it cannot be regarded as conclusive being not based on study of cumulative effect of blasting. Cracking mirrors (tell-tale) also strengthens the fact that blasting and mining operations have caused 37 damage to the ancient monument. Hence, the above judgment of Apex Court is of no help to Birla Cement.

In view of the discussion made above, the reckless mining activities and blasting have caused damage to the ancient monument of national importance, houses and crops and have impact on ecology and environment which have overruled and thus, they should be put to grinding halt and should not be allowed within 10 kms from the fort wall. Thus, mining leases within 10 kms from the Fort wall are liable to be cancelled.

Under Article 51A(f) of the Constitution, every citizen is obliged to value and preserve the rich heritage and the lease-holders have failed to comply with such obligation and similarly, as per mandate of Article 49 of the Constitution, the State is under obligation to protect ancient monuments from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, etc. which is failed to do so, rather allowed mining and blasting causing damage to ancient monuments and mining and blasting are also done in an illegal manner and thus time has come to direct them to comply with their constitutional obligations for preservation and restoration of the damages caused to the ancient monuments.

For causing severe damage to the fort structures including Vijay Stambh, Kirti Stambh and Kumbha Mahal and houses and affecting ecology and environment considering the polluter-pays principle, it is just and proper to direct Birla Cement and other mine holders to pay compensation for restoring back glory of ancient monument to the extent it is possible after damage. A lot of damage has also been caused in the area in question, let restoration and its reclamation be done as expeditiously as possible.

Accordingly, we make the interim order absolute and direct that no mining activities and blasting shall take place within 10 kms from the fort wall. The mining lease is granted within 10 kms from for wall are cancelled. The Birla Cement as well as mine holders are directed to make payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 crore (Five Crores only), out of which, 90% shall be paid by Birla Cement and the remaining amount shall be paid by other mine holder is involved in blasting. The amount of compensation shall be kept at the disposal of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and be utilized for repair and upkeep of the Fort in question. The plan to repair damages and improve facilities be submitted to this court within four months."

Proceedings in Supreme Court

20. We have already noted the proceedings in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 21211 of 2012, in the course of noting the stand of the Birla Company in para 12 above. Vide order 29.7.2013, as against the order of the High Court, interim stay of mining is as follows:

i. There shall be no mining activity/operation of any sort and of any nature whatsoever from the Chittorgarh Fort wall upto 1 km ii. The mining operations between 1 km and 2 km from the Chittorgarh Fort wall may be permitted by using non- HEMM.

iii. The mining operations beyond 2 km from the Chittorgarh Fort wall may be allowed by using HEMM."

21. The relevant part of the subsequent order dated 23.09.2013 is as follows:

"...She submits that now since Comprehensive study is to be made by CBRI it may also undertake a comprehensive environmental impact assessment covering all kinds of pollution air, ground water, visual noise etc. by the complete cycle of mining activities including its transportation...

We, accordingly, request the CBRI to undertake a comprehensive study of all relevant aspects and facets as noted above. The CBRI may submit its report within six months from today."

22. Thus, environmental impact by complete cycle of mining has also been taken up for consideration.

Consideration of the matter by the Tribunal and directions

23. Issues sought to be raised by the Applicant appear to be the following :

(i) Legality of Mining adversely affecting Chittorgarh Fort and habitation in and around Chittorgarh.

(ii) Legality of Mining adversely affecting Bassi Wild Life Sanctuary.

(iii) Legality of Mining without requisite EC/Consents adversely affecting the rivers, in violation of environmental norms, including the air and water.

(iv) Compensation and accountability for the illegal mining already conducted without requisite EC/consents.

(v) Validity of notification dated 1.7.2016 issued by the MoEF&CC granting certain exemptions from EIA notification dated 14.9.2006.

24. We propose to take the above points seriatim. We heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Senior Counsel for the Birla Corporation and learned Counsel for the Association of miners. No other Counsel made any submission. While closing the hearing on 15.09.2021, we gave liberty to the parties to file written submissions. We have considered the submissions filed by the State of Rajasthan and the Birla Corporation. The same do not add anything to the pleadings already filed which have been referred to above.

Re (i) : Legality of Mining adversely affecting Chittorgarh Fort and habitation in and around Chittorgarh

25. The issue of legality of mining affecting the Chittorgarh Fort is expressly before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is interim order dated 29.7.2013 prohibiting mining in the manner mentioned therein.

Additionally, this Tribunal vide order dated 8.3.2019 directed stopping of mining activities within Municipal limits of Chittorgarh City. The said order is reproduced below:

"A very serious issue regarding pollution to the environment, particularly air pollution, affecting the residents of Chittorgarh City has been raised by the applicant in this case. It is mainly due to opencast mining. The population of Chittorgarh City is about 15 lakhs. The major mining lease area around Chittorgarh City is approximately 4600 ha. and the production is over 11.22 million tones per year and minor mineral mining area is 260 ha. with the production of over 5.2 million tones per year. The mining are scattered across the municipal limit of Chittorgarh City and many of them are extracting lime stone and other minerals within 15 kms. radius of the city center. Besides, district of Chittorgarh has a tremendous tourist potential because of the existence of a Fort of over 1500 years old and there are over 150 temples/monuments, many of which relate to Mahabharta era. The rampant mining in this area is adversely affecting the tourism. The main cause of concern is because these minings are adversely affecting the health of the people who are living in and around the Chittorgarh City and numerous diseases relating to air pollution are found prevalent amongst residents.

It is also noteworthy that the State Pollution Control Board has very categorically stated that there are 587 quarries in the area out of which only 371 have valid consent.

After filing of this application in the year 2017, notices were issued on 09.06.2017. Looking to serious grievance raised by the applicant, the Tribunal had specifically addressed to certain circumstances during the proceedings and directed the State of Rajasthan to take immediate steps to redress the grievance raised in this applicant. Subsequently, people having interest in this case such as Chittorgarh Pathar Utpadak Sewa Samitti and some companies were also impleaded as party.

During these proceedings continuous grievance was being raised by the applicant that the situation at the site is deteriorating and living the conditions of the residents have become very pitiable. It is also submitted by the counsel for the applicant that these mining operations are also very close to Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we thought it proper to direct the Surveyor General, Survey of India, Dehradun to assist in this matter by sending a report after deputing a team of concerning officials to inspect the site, particularly with regard to mining operations which are being done within the municipal limits, at the foothills of Chittorgarh Fort and in close proximity of Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary.

Despite of our sincere efforts, the matter is taking time and a persistent request is being made from the side of the applicant that life in Chittorgarh City is becoming difficult because of increasing pollution, particularly air pollution, caused due to mining operations. Mr. Naveen Tomar, Additional Surveyor General, Survey of India is present before us and he has assured that complete update report with regard to mining, present and of recent past, within the municipal limits and within 10 kms of the Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary and within the ECO Sensitive Zone, if finally notified, shall be submitted to the Tribunal at the earliest.

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the totality of the circumstances and the suffering which are being faced by the residents of the Chittorgarh City on account severe air pollution, we are of the considered opinion that it would be just and proper and in the interest of public at large, particularly those residing in the Chittorgarh City and the tourists who are visiting the historical heritage site of Chittorgarh Fort everyday, we direct the State Pollution Control Board; the Director, Mining Department, State of Rajasthan and Collector Chittorgarh to immediately stop all mining activities which are being carried on within the municipal limits of Chittorgarh City and within 10 kms of Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary or within Eco-Sensitive Zone of Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary, if finally notified. The District Collector, Chittorgarh shall be the nodal officer. It shall be the responsibilities of the said authority to ensure that this order is carried out/complied with in its letter and spirit, without any default whatsoever.

We direct the Surveyor General of India to complete the work assigned to them and submit a report, as early as possible.

We direct the Director General of Civil Aviation to consider the request made on behalf of Surveyor General of India for permission to fly drones for the purpose of preparing the report, as directed by the Tribunal. We sincerely hope and expect that such permission be granted to them on priority, looking to the seriousness and urgency of the matter, but not later than two weeks of the filing of the application by the Surveyor General of India. In the assignment given to the Surveyor General of India, we also request the Archeological Survey of India and all other concerning government authorities to cooperate with the Surveyor General of India with regard to preparation of the report.

A copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Civil Aviation, and the Director Archeological Survey of India through e- mail, forthwith.

List this part heard matter on 1st July, 2019."

Against the said order, appeal is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said order has continued to be in operation. As per stand in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan on 20.3.2020, referred to above in para 14, no mining is taking place within the municipal limits of the city. None of the respondents have shown any case for vacating order dated 8.3.2019 which has been in operation for more than two years.

Moreover, by and large, order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court prohibiting mining in specified radius of the Fort covers the major part of the Municipal area. We see no reason to discontinue the said order.

Accordingly, we make the said order absolute subject to further orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If the stand of the State that the order is being complied is disputed, the aggrieved party can take remedies with evidence of violation in accordance with law. This question is disposed of accordingly.

Re (ii) Legality of Mining adversely affecting Bassi Wild Life Sanctuary

26. As shown above, vide order dated 08.03.2019, this Tribunal also prohibited mining in the radius of 10 km from Bassi Wild Life Sanctuary 42 against which appeal is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said order has continued to be in operation. As per stand in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan on 20.3.2020, referred to above in para 14, no mining is taking place within the radius of 10 km from Bassi Wild Life Sanctuary. It is argued on behalf of the Birla Company that in view of ESZ Notification dated 08.04.2021, interim order passed by the Tribunal be modified/vacated so that the matter is now governed by the said notification. On the other hand, it is stated on behalf of the applicant that permitting mining close to the sanctuary or even upto distance of 3 kms is not enough to protect the sanctuary from adverse impact of mining unless ground situation is studied by an expert Committee. It is pointed out that the boundaries of Eco-Sensitive Zone is at even 'zero' distance from sanctuary, as shown below:

" xxx ..................................xxx ..............................xxx

1. Extent and boundaries of Eco-Sensitive Zone.- (1) The Eco- Sensitive Zone shall be to an extent of zero to 3.0 kilometres around the boundary of Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary and the area of the Eco- Sensitive Zone is 106.91 square kilometres. The minimum extent of Eco-Sensitive Zone is zero at places where the National Highway and PWD road are marked as ESZ boundary:

         Direction        Eco-Sensitive Zone               Distance
                           Boundary Points

       North                     1 to 14                 0 to 3.0 kms
       North-East               14 to 17               0.015 to 0.5 kms
       East                     17 to 48                 0 to 1.11 kms
       South-East               48 to 58                 0 to 3.0 kms
       South                    58 t0 81                0.5 to 3.0 kms
       South-West               81 to 84               0.157 to 1.4 kms
       West                     84 to 89              0.015 to 0.325 kms
       North-West                 89 to               0.030 to 0.650 kms      "

It is further stated that illegal mining is still continuing in violation of interim order. As regards the grievance of the applicant, in view of stand 43 of the State that no such illegal mining is taking place, the aggrieved party can take remedies with evidence of violation, if any, in accordance with law.

27. As regards the prayer for vacating order prohibiting mining within 10 kms from sanctuary, in the light of the ESZ notification, we find that permitting mining too close to the sanctuary is against the "Precautionary" principle. Thus, the said prohibition will have to continue till a decision is taken after an expert study of impact of mining beyond the boundaries of ESZ as per notification dated 08.04.2021, upto 10 kms is required, subject to further order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Such study may consider need for rationalizing the boundaries of ESZ in terms of minimum distance from the Wild Life Sanctuary as well as inter-se distance of mines outside such boundaries. Such study may be conducted by a seven-

member joint Committee comprising Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Dehradun, IIT Roorkee, CPCB, State PCB and District Magistrate, Chittorgarh. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan will be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance. The Committee may hold its first meeting within one month and undertake visit to the site. It may also interact with the stakeholders. The Committee will be free to conduct proceedings online, except for site visit. The report may be given to the MoEF&CC within three months of its first meeting. If the report suggests prohibition/restriction on mining beyond the prohibition/restriction in the ESZ Notification, the MoEF&CC may revisit the said Notification upon which the interim order of this Tribunal will end and final notification so issued will 44 prevail, subject to the same being challenged by the aggrieved party as per law. Till MoEF&CC revisits the notification, the interim order of this Tribunal will continue to operate subject to further orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This question is disposed of accordingly.

Re (iii) Legality of Mining without requisite EC/Consents adversely affecting the rivers, in violation of environmental norms, including the air and water

28. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that there is large scale illegal mining having adverse impact on environment. The Secretary Mining was arrested for corruption for permitting illegal mining. Having regard to the magnitude of mining, regulatory regime for protection of environment is ineffective as shown by arrest of Principal Secretary Environment on the charge of corruption for permitting illegal mining. As per the National Mineral Policy, 2008 mining could not be permitted ignoring the aspects of restoration and afforestation as per Para 7.10 of the said Policy which runs as follows:-

"7.10. Mineral Development & Protection of Environment:

Extraction of minerals closely impacts other natural resources like land, water, air and forest. The areas in which minerals occur often have other resources presenting a choice of utilisation of the resources. Some such areas are ecologically fragile and some are biologically rich. It is necessary to take a comprehensive view to facilitate the choice or order of land use keeping in view the needs of development as well as needs of protecting the forests, environment and ecology. Both aspects have to be properly coordinated to facilitate and ensure a sustainable development of mineral resources in harmony with environment.

Mining activity often leads to environmental problems like land degradation in opencast mining and land subsidence in underground mining, deforestation, atmospheric pollution, pollution of rivers and streams, soil erosion due disposal of solid wastes like overburden and so on, all affecting the ecological balance of the area. Open-cast mining in areas with actual forest cover leads to deforestation. Prevention and mitigation of adverse environmental effects due to mining of minerals and repairing and re-vegetation of the affected forest area and land covered by trees in accordance with the latest internationally acceptable norms and modern afforestation 45 practices shall form integral part of mine development strategy in every instance. All mining shall be undertaken within the parameters of a comprehensive Sustainable Development Framework which will be so devised as to take all these aspects into consideration. The guiding principle shall be that a miner shall leave the mining area in better ecological shape than he found it.

Mining operations shall not ordinarily be taken up in identified ecologically fragile and biologically rich areas. Strip mining in forest areas should be avoided and it should be permitted only when accompanied with comprehensive time- bound reclamation programme.

No mining lease would be granted to any party, private or public, without a proper mining plan including the environmental management plan approved and enforced by statutory authorities. The environmental management plan should adequately provide for controlling the environmental damage, restoration of mined areas and for planting of trees according to the prescribed norms. As far as possible, reclamation and afforestation will proceed concurrently with mineral extraction. Efforts would be made to convert old disused mining sites into forests and other appropriate forms of land use."

29. Reliance has been placed on judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that adverse impact on unscientific mining on environment is well acknowledged and established. Particular reference has been made to observations in TN Godavarman (2002) 10 SCC 606, MC Mehta (2004) 12 SCC 118, Deepak Kumar (2012) 4 SCC 629, Samaj Parivrtan Samuday (2013) 8 SCC 154, Sanjay (2014) 9 SCC 772, Goa Foundation (2014) 6 SCC 590, Common Cause (2017) 9 SCC 499 and Goa Foundation (2018) 4 SCC 218. Some of the judgements have laid down rquirements of consents under the Air and the Water Acts and grant of EC as per EIA notification dated 14.9.2006. In the process compliance of norms is required to be gone into and continuously monitored by the statutory regulators.

30. Sustainable mining is a facet of sustainable development which requires that mining is done without adverse impact on air, water and land. This aspect needs to be monitored by the State PCBs under the 46 Water, Air and EP Acts for ensuring that standards of air, water and land are maintained during mining and other related activities. These aspects have been discussed in a recent order of this Tribunal dated 26.2.2021 in OA 360/2015 NGT Bar Association vs. Virender Singh (State of Gujarat) and other connected matters, in the context of sand mining but are also relevant in the present context and are reproduced below:

"1 to 16. xxx ..............................xxx..................................xxx

17. ..in Goa Foundation, supra (prs 74-76) it was observed that mining was required to be regulated not only by the Mining department but also by the PCBs under the Water and Air Act and by the MoEF under the EP Act. It is made clear that the environment laws override other laws and any provision to the contrary in the Mines Act will not stay in the way of enforcing the environment norms. In this regard reference may also be made to report of the Ministry of Mines entitled "Sand Mining Framework" which will not stand in the way of modified mechanism in accordance with this order.

18. We may note the salient features of the EMGSM-2020, which are supplemental to existing SSMG-2016 and seek to provide effective enforcement and monitoring from the stage of identification of source to its dispatch and end use which requires involvement of all stakeholders viz. Central Government, State Government, Leaseholders/Mine Owners, Distributors, Dealers, Transporters and Consumers (bulk & retail). EMGSM refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 629 making EC mandatory irrespective of the area of mining lease, followed by monitoring in terms of the Environment Management Plan, using IT and IT enabled services. Monitoring has to be with reference to quantity of mined material, transportation with a view to promote environmental protection, limit negative physiological, hydrogeological and social impacts underpinning sustainable economic growth.

Observations in the order of this Tribunal dated 04.09.2018 in O.A. 173/2018 in Sudarsan Das vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. has also been referred to as follows:

"There can be no two views that an effective institutional monitoring mechanism is required not only at the stage when Environmental Clearance is granted but also at subsequent stages".

"The guidelines focus on the preparation of District Survey Report and the Management Plan" ...

We are of the view that all the safeguards which are suggested in sustainable sand mining guidelines as well as notification dated 15.01.2016 ought to be scrupulously followed." ... It is a known fact that in spite of the above-suggested guidelines being in existence, on the ground level, illegal mining is still going on. The existing mechanism has not been successful and effective in remedying the situation." ...

Since there is an utter failure in the current monitoring mechanism followed by the State Boards, SEIAAs and DEIAAs, it is required to be revised for effective monitoring of sand and gravel mining and a dedicated monitoring mechanism be set up."

Further reference has been made to the directions in the order dated 05.04.2019 requiring the 17 States, which were party before the Tribunal viz. West Bengal, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Uttarakhand, Jammu and Kashmir, Goa, Kerala, Telangana and Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh, to follow the revised Guidelines and to review their respective monitoring mechanism. It is then stated that with the object of regulating the mining, the sources of sand and steps required are mentioned which provide for District Survey Report (DSR), Mining Plan, replenishment study, consideration of environment impact while granting EC, laying down conditions for EC, monitoring of transportation to the end user to ensure that only legally mined material is transported. There is need to balance between deposition and extraction of sand as per replenishment study, maintaining surveillance, using Unmanned Artificial Vehicles (UAVs)/Drone for reserves estimation, quantity estimation, land use monitoring. Details about all these aspects have been mentioned in the said Guidelines. With regard to post EC monitoring, there is a provision for environment audit, monitoring of sale and purchase by developing online portal and laying down the levels of monitoring i.e. Level 1- Reach/ Stockyard level monitoring, Level 2 - Transportation monitoring, Level 3 - End consumer monitoring/ bulk consumer, Level 4 - Indirect monitoring. Reference has then been made to the High- Powered Committee incorporating safeguards to be adopted by the project proponents. There is also provision for assessment of compensation for the ecological damage by the State/ PCB/ any other Authority. Inter District and Inter State boundaries are separately dealt with. The uniform monitoring mechanism stipulates:

" 9.4. Monitoring Mechanism xxx ...............................xxx.......................xxx....................

1. All precaution shall be taken to ensure that the water stream flows unhindered and process of Natural river meandering doesn't get affected due to mining activity.

2. River mining from outside shall not affect rivers, no mining shall be permitted in an area up to a width of 100 meters from the active edge of embankments or distance prescribed by the Irrigation department.

3. The mining from the area outside river bed shall be permitted subject to the condition that a safety margin of two meters (2 m) shall be maintained above the groundwater table while undertaking mining and no mining operation shall be permissible below this level unless specific permission is obtained from the Competent Authority. Further, the mining should not exceed nine-meter (9 m) at any point in time.

4. Survey shall be carried out for identifying the stretches having habitation of freshwater turtles or turtle nesting zones. Similarly, stretches shall be identified for other species of significant importance to the river ecosystem. Such stretch with adequate buffer distance shall be declared as no-mining zone and no mining shall be permitted. The regulatory authority as defined for granting Environmental Clearance, while considering the application of issuance of ToR and/or EC for the adjacent block (to non-mining zone) of mining shall take due precaution and impose requisite conditions to safeguard the interest of such species of importance.

5. District administration shall provide detailed information on its website about the sand mines in its district for public information, with an objective to extend all information in public domain so that the citizens are aware of the mining activities and can also report to the district administration on any deviation observed. Appropriate feedback and its redressal mechanism shall also be made operational. The details shall include, but not limited to, lease area, geo-coordinates of lease area and mineable area, transport routes, permitted capacity, regulatory conditions for operation including mining, environmental and social commitments etc.

6. A website needs to be maintained to track the movement of centralised sand mining and a Centralised server system should be made to manage the data related to sand mining across India.

7. The mineral concession holders shall maintain electronic weighbridges at the appropriate location identified by the district mining officer, in order to ensure that all mined minerals from that particular mine are accounted for before the material is dispatched from the mine. The weighing bridge shall have the provision of CCTV camera and all dispatch from the mine shall be accounted for.

8. The mineral movement shall be monitored and controlled through the use of transit permit with security features like printing on IBA approved MICR papers, Unique bar/QR, fugitive ink background, invisible ink mark, void pantographs and watermarks papers or through use of RFID tagged transit permits and IT /IT-enabled services. Such monitoring system shall be created and made operationalised by State Mining department and district level mining officer shall be responsible for ensuring that all legal and operational mines are connected and providing the requisite information on the system. Regular check and associated report shall be submitted to DLTF and uploaded on the website.

9. State Government shall constitute a District Level Task Force (DLTF) under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate/ Collector with Superintendents of Police and other related senior functionaries (District Forest Officer, District transport officer, Regional officer- SPCBs, Senior Officer of Irrigation Department, District Mining Officer) with one/two independent member nominated by the Commissioner concerned. The independent member shall be retired government officials/ teacher or ex-serviceman or ex-judiciary member.

The DLTF shall keep regular watch over the mining activities and movement of minerals in the district. The DLTF shall have its regular meeting, preferably every month to reconcile the information from the mining activity, and other observations made during the month and take appropriate corrective and remedial action, which may include a recommendation for revoking mining lease or environmental clearance. The DLTF may constitute an independent committee of the expert to assess the environmental or ecological damage caused due to illegal mining and recommend recovery of environmental compensation from the miner's concern. The recommendation may also include action under the provision of E(P) Act, 1986.

10. The area not identified for mining due to restriction or otherwise are also to be monitored on a regular basis by the DLTF. Any observations of mining activity from the restricted area shall be reported and corrective measures shall be initiated on an urgent basis by the DLTF.

11. The dispatch routes shall be defined in the Environmental Clearance and shall be avoided through densely habituated area and the increase in the number of vehicle movement on the road shall be in agreement with the IRC guidelines / carrying capacity of the road. The alternate and dedicated route shall be explored and preferred for movement of mining to avoid inconvenience to the local habitat. The mining production capacity, by volume/weight, shall be governed by total permissible dispatch calculated based on the carrying capacity of dispatch link roads and accordingly, the production should be regulated.

12. The movement of minerals shall be reconciled with the data collected from the mines and various Naka/check posts. Other measures may also include a general survey of the potential mineable area in the district which has not been leased/auctioned or permitted for mining due to regulatory or other reasons.

13. The location and number of check post requirement shall be reviewed by DLTF on a regular basis so that appropriate changes in location/number could be made as per the requirement. Such review shall be carried out on a regular basis for the district on inter- state boundary or district providing multiple passages between two districts of different states.

14. The district administration shall compile the information from their district of the permitted and legal mined out minerals and other details and share such information and intelligence with the officials of the adjoining district (Inter or/and Intra State) for reconciliation. The information shall include the area of operation, permissible quantity, mined out minerals (production) the permitted route etc., and other observations, especially where the mine lease boundary is congruent with the district boundary. Such coordination meeting shall be held on a quarterly basis, alternatively in two district headquarters or any other site in two districts decided mutually by the District Magistrate.

15. The mining department shall include submission of an annual environmental audit report as one of the conditions in the mining lease agreement. The annual audit for each river bed mining lease shall be carried out and the audit report shall be uploaded on the website of district administration. The audit shall be carried out by an independent team of 3 members nominated by District Collector/Magistrate/Commissioner comprising of Ex-Serviceman, Ex-Government officials of repute, Professor or Person having experience of mining/environment. The guidelines and method of the audit shall reflect adequately the monitor-able parameters and output and reflect the compliance status with respect to the conditions imposed by the regulatory authorities including conditions of Environmental clearance.

16. The in-situ and ex-situ environmental mitigative measures stipulated as EMP, CER, CSR and other environmental and safety conditions in mines including the welfare of labours shall properly reflect in the audit report.

9.5 Suggestive additional requirements are i. The requirement at the Mine Lease Site:

a. Small Size Plot (Up to 5 hectares): Android Based Smart Phone.

b. Large Size Plots (More than 5 hectares): CCTV camera, Personal Computer (PC), Internet Connection, Power Back up.

c. Access control of mine lease site.

d. Arrangement for weight or approximation of the weight of mined out mineral on the basis of the volume of the trailer of vehicle used.

ii. Scanning of Transport Permit or Receipt and Uploading on Server:

a. Website: Scanning of receipt on mining site can be done through barcode scanner and computer using the software; b. Android Application: Scanning on mining site can be done using Android Application using a smartphone. It will require internet availability on SIM card; c. SMS: Transport Permit or Receipt shall be uploaded on the server even by sending SMS through mobile. Once Transport Permit or Receipt get uploaded, a unique invoice code gets generated with its validity period.

iii. Proposed working of the system:

The State Mining Department should print the Transport Permit or Receipt with security features and issue them to the mining leaseholder through the District Collector. Once these Transport Permits or Receipts are issued, they would be uploaded on the server against that mine lease area. Each receipt should be preferable with pre-fixed quantity, so the total quantity gets determined for the receipts issued. When the Transport Permit or Receipt barcode gets scanned and invoice is generated, that particular barcode gets used and its validity time is recorded on the server. So all the details of transporting of mined out material can be captured on the server and the Transport Permit or Receipt cannot be reused.

iv. Checking On Route:

The staff deployed for the purpose of checking of vehicles carrying mined mineral should be in a position to check the validity of Transport Permit or Receipt by scanning them using the website, Android Application and SMS.

v. Breakdown of Vehicle:

In case the vehicle break-down, the validity of Transport Permit or Receipt shall be extended by sending SMS by the driver in specific format to report the breakdown of the vehicle. The server will register this information and register the breakdown. The State can also establish a call center, which can register breakdowns of such vehicles and extend the validity period. The subsequent restart of the vehicle also should be similarly reported to the server or call center.

vi. Tracking of Vehicles:

The route of the vehicle from source to destination can be tracked through the system using checkpoints, RFID Tags, and GPS tracking.

vii. Alerts or Report Generation and Action Review:

The system will enable the authorities to develop a periodic report on different parameters like daily lifting report, vehicle log or history, lifting against allocation, and total lifting. The system can be used to generate auto mails or SMS. This will enable the District Collector or District Magistrate to get all the relevant details and shall enable the authority to block the scanning facility of any site found to be indulged in irregularity. Whenever any authority intercepts any vehicle transporting illegal sand, it shall get registered on the server and shall be mandatory for the officer to fill in the report on action taken. Every intercepted vehicle shall be tracked.

The monitoring of mined out mineral, environmental clearance conditions and enforcement of Environment Management Plan will be ensured by the regulatory authority and the State Pollution Control Board or Committee. The monitoring arrangements envisaged above shall be put in place. The monitoring of enforcement of environmental clearance conditions shall be done by the Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and the agency nominated by the Ministry for the purpose.

Some of the State has followed the SSMMG-2016 and has also improvised or customized on the provisions given therein, and are successfully in operation. Salient provision adopted at different stages of sand mining in the state of Tamil Nadu is given as Annexure VIII.

9.6 Actions against illegal excavation and transport Solapur district administration in Maharashtra had adopted a multi-pronged strategy to penalize the persons involved in illegal excavation and transport which resulted in a significant increase in revenue earned by the state.

Following rules and procedures as mentioned in these guidelines will add to the costs of PP. Those involved in illegal activities are not required to bear these costs and this will make their supply in the market cheaper (though illegal). This will put the players running their business by following rules and procedures laid down by the government to disadvantage as far as the selling price is considered. Therefore, it is necessary to come down heavily on those involved in illegal excavation/transport, so that there is no incentive for players to abide by the rules.

The following action may be taken to achieve this deterrence against illegal business:

1. The action should be taken under all legal options available simultaneously. Thus, after identifying the case 53 of illegal excavation, storage and/or transport of minor minerals (including sand), fine should be levied as per the land revenue laws/code(s) of the state. In addition, FIR should be lodged in the police station under relevant sections of law including sec 379 IPC. In addition, action under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1989 and relevant rules should initiate to cancel/suspend the driving license of the driver and permit of the vehicle. Further, action should be initiated under provisions in the Income Tax Act, 1961 for unaccounted income and under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 for nonpayment of GST. (Earlier this was done under the state act pertaining to Value Added Tax/Sales Tax). Habitual offenders should also be taken up under local state laws for externment and/or preventive action. It is clarified that as per law, it is possible to take all actions under various laws simultaneously for one offence. What is prohibited in law is an action under the same law for the same act more than once.

2. The action should be taken against all persons responsible. Often, there is a tendency to penalize only the drivers of the vehicles. The mafia of illegal mining and transport is much bigger and drivers are only one part of the system. It is necessary to identify all those involved in the offence. It is usually not possible to reach the place of excavation without creating a motorable pathway up to the same through land which may be private land. Such role of such landowners needs to be looked into for each offence and proceeded against simultaneously. Further, the role of vehicle owners needs to be probed. Role of the person who allowed his land to be used for illegal excavation and storage should also be examined. Lastly, the person who purchases such sand should also be probed. The legal proceedings stated above needs to be initiated against all of these together. An attempt should be made to fix the financial responsibility in joint and several ways so that recovery is easier.

3. There may be discretion available in law about the extent of the penalty to be levied. If such discretion is very wide, then it is advisable that guidelines may be laid down to reduce such discretion in law for levying penalties. For example, in Maharashtra, Land Revenue Code, fine of any amount of penalty up to thrice the value of the sand can be levied. Solapur district administration had instructed Tahsildars and SDMs not to use discretion and levy the fine of three times the value. Availability of discretion makes junior level functionaries susceptible to pressures and it may also lead to corrupt practices.

4. It is emphasized that actions, as stated above, are most important to ensure that the IT-based system works. If these exemplary actions are not taken against everyone, it shall create a strong disincentive to those involved in legal excavation and transportation. For IT-based (or any 54 other) legal system to work, it is necessary to ensure that illegal system stops working altogether."

19. Several formats have been suggested in the Annexures, apart from salient provisions in the State of Tamil Nadu before execution of the mining lease and after execution of such lease including judicious mined closure plan, reclamation, removal of sheds and maintaining of record for future reference."

31. The proposition that unscientific and unsustainable mining in violation of norms needs to checked being undisputed, the parties agree that no mining can continue without requisite EC/consents and compliance of conditions thereof. Suitable conditions have to be laid down to ensure sustainable mining and guidelines on the subject can be laid down in exercise of powers of the MoEF&CC under the EP Act on the pattern of such guidelines relating to sand mining. While we note the disturbing event of Mining Secretary being involved in the racket of illegal mining, which does give inference of illegal mining and failure of regulatory regime and that even the State had to admit such illegal mining in its affidavits referred to above, the said event was of the year 2016. Directions were issued by this Tribunal to stop illegal mining. The State claims to have taken remedial measures to check the same. As noted earlier, vide order dated 31.7.2017, stand of the State was noted that a high level committee was formed to check illegal mining. The authorities need to continuously take steps in the matter. We have noted that in pursuance of directions of this Tribunal, report of Survey of India was filed on 18.07.2019 titled "Survey & Computation of Area of Mines/Excavated Pits within Municipal Area & Bassi Wild Life Sanctuary and Eco-Sensitive Zone in Chittorgarh District (Rajasthan)" which is not conclusive, as rightly stated by learned Counsel for the Applicant and not disputed by any of the respondents. The PCB filed its affidavit on 11.10.2019 that mining without consents was stopped. As per stand in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan on 20.3.2020, referred to above in para 14, no mining 55 is taking place without EC/Consents. Mining which was illegally going on has been stopped. If the said stand is disputed, the aggrieved party is at liberty to take remedies based on specific evidence against a specific party.

The Tribunal having monitored this aspect in the last two years and remedial steps are claimed to have been taken, we hope the statutory regulators will act as trustees of power, as is expected under the public trust doctrine. In absence of specific evidence of violation by specified parties, no further order is called for but this order will not debar consideration of any particular grievance based on material in support of continuing illegal mining, in any other appropriate proceedings. However, we consider it necessary that on the pattern of "Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016" (SSMG-2016) and "Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020"

(EMGSM-2020) issued by the MoEF&CC under the EP Act to regulate sand mining, the guidelines need to be issued to regulate on the subject of limestone mining. This may be done after discussion among the nominees of MoEF&CC and CPCB. The Committee may be constituted within one month and its report may be furnished within three months. The guidelines may be issued within one month thereafter. The question is disposed of accordingly.

Re (iv) Compensation and accountability for the illegal mining conducted without requisite EC/consents.

32. With regard to illegal mining without EC/consents under the Environmental laws, which admittedly took place in the past, the matter needs to be considered by the statutory regulators after ascertaining the facts by an independent joint Committee. No individual alleged violators is a party before the Tribunal. There is no data available with us of extent of illegal mining. However, there have admittedly been violations and failure 56 of the authorities in enforcing the law for which the violators and the authorities need to be held accountable and liable. Though this aspect was, to an extent, considered by a Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 23.05.2019 in M.A. No. 08/2019, OA No. 414/2018, Santosh Mittal & Ors.

v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., the said order has been stayed. Thus, the issue remains at large. While correctness of order already passed is to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no bar to prayer of the applicant being gone into by the statutory regulators in accordance with law. Order of a Bench of this Tribunal on the subject is as follows:

"While considering this misc. application, it was brought to our notice by the Learned Counsel for State of Rajasthan that a compliance affidavit has been filed on 12.11.2018 by Mr. A. N. Gupta, Deputy Conservator Forest, Alwar, Rajasthan. The said affidavit is accompanied by various annexures. It has been deposed in the affidavit that the cost of mined mineral due to illegal mining has been calculated by the Mining Department, State of Rajasthan as Rs.15,68,65,17,000/-. The cost of ecological restoration has been calculated as Rs.19, 26,09,180/-. The net present value of future eco- system services is Rs. 22,76,41,120/- and the punitive amount has been determined as Rs. 16,096,767,600/-. Accordingly, the total loss by illegal mining activities in the area in question, under various heads, has been calculated by the State of Rajasthan as Rs. 32,193,535,200/- (Thirty two billion one hundred ninety three million five hundred thirty-five thousand and two hundred only).

Therefore, the aforesaid amount is the total loss which is to be recovered from the crushers and others in accordance to the order dated 17.01.2017. The said amount is to be equally distributed amongst them. The Learned Counsel for Haryana State Pollution Control Board shall take note of the total loss which has been determined, while recovering the amount from the stone crushers and others as mentioned in the aforesaid final order.

List the matter on 30th May, 2019.

Raghuvendra S. Rathore, JM Dr. Satyawan Singh Garbyal, EM"

33. Against above order, SLP (Civil) No. 5082/2019 is pending wherein interim stay has been granted. While the said matter can be dealt with as per orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, subject to such orders, an exercise needs to be conducted in the matter so that no violators 57 remain unaccountable. For this purpose, a joint Committee of CPCB, State PCB and District Magistrate, Chittorgarh may take further remedial action as per law against violators who may be identified and proceeded against in accordance with the powers of the statutory regulators, following due process. The State PCB will be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance. The Committee may hold its first meeting within one month, undertake visit to the sites and interact with the stakeholders. The Committee will be free to conduct proceedings online, except for site visits. The Committee will be free to take assistance from expert institution or individual. Expenses may be met out of consent funds available with the State PCB and adjusted later out of the compensation recovered. The compensation may be assessed by the Committee and recovered as per law which may be credited to a separate account with the District Magistrate to be spent on restoration of the environment as per action plan to be prepared by the Committee. The Committee may also prepare SOP for regular and sustainable monitoring of ambient air and water, including CAAQMS, control of dust, NOx emissions and other associated aspects and also for self regulatory norms for monitoring.

The Committee may complete its task within six months and give its report to the Chief Secretary, Rajasthan for further action by all concerned as per law. The Chief Secretary, Rajasthan may evolve appropriate oversight and compliance mechanism for the purpose and also to make erring officers accountable. The issue is disposed of accordingly.

Re: (v) Validity of notification dated 1.7.2016 issued by the MoEF&CC granting certain exemptions from EIA notification dated 14.9.2006 58

34. Case of the applicant is that ignoring the norms, the MoEF&CC issued Notification dated 01.07.2016 exempting the requirement of public notice as per Rule 5(3)(a) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 before grant of mining leases, in the interest of generating employment. By the said Notification, the State of Rajasthan has been permitted to define the size of the cluster as per the local situation. The same is against the Public Trust Doctrine as well as Precautionary Principle. The notification is reproduced below:

"S.O. 2269(E).--Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Environment and Forest number S.O. 1533 (E), dated the 14th September, 2006 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) (hereinafter referred to as the said notification) directions has been given on environmental clearance for minor minerals and environment clearance for leases in cluster;

And whereas, the provision of cluster in the said notification is causing practical difficulty in the State of Rajasthan, where a large number of small size (15×30 sq. mt or 30×60 sq. mt) leases and quarry licenses are operational for many years. A large number of such leases have been granted years before, and have been further fragmented with family partitions. These mines are located adjacent to each other leaving no space between two leases, which make it difficult to prepare and implement Environment Management Plan for individual leases;

And whereas, many of the lessees who applied for environmental clearance for individual leases, but by classification of cluster in the said notification are being included in B1 category and has to be processed at the State level, whereas the work of appraisal and environmental clearance for small leases is assigned to the district level authority;

And whereas, in view of the sudden unemployment of a large number of persons in the State of Rajasthan due to closure of mines, the Central Government hereby amends the said notification by exempting public notice inviting objections and suggestions from persons likely to be affected thereby under clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986, in public interest;

Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) read with sub-rule (4) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments to the notification of the Government of India, in the erstwhile Ministry of Environment and Forests number S.O. 1533(E), dated the 14th September, 2006 after having dispensed with the requirement of 59 notice under clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of the said rule 5 in public interest, namely :-

In the said notification,-

(a) in the Schedule, in item 1(a), in column (5), entry (ii) shall be renumbered as entry (iii) and before entry (ii) as so renumbered, the following entry shall be inserted, namely:-

"(ii) for project or activity of mining of minor minerals of Category 'B1' in case of cluster of mining lease area;";

(b) in Appendix XI,-

(i) for paragraph 6, the following shall be substituted, namely:-

"(6) A cluster shall be formed when the distance between the peripheries of one lease is less than 500 meters from the periphery of other lease in a homogeneous mineral area which shall be applicable to the mine leases or quarry licenses granted on and after 9th September, 2013.";

(ii) after the Table relating to "Schematic Presentation of Requirements on Environment Clearance of Minor Minerals including cluster situation" and before Appendix XII, the following Note shall be inserted at the end, namely:-

"Note .- (1) In the State of Rajasthan, for mining of minor minerals, in situation of a large number of leases or quarry licenses of very small size (up to one hectare each) in contiguous area, the Mines and Geology Department of the State Government shall,-

(A) define the size of cluster as per local situation for effective formulation and implementation of mine plan and Environment Management Plan;

(B) prepare mine plan and an Environment Management Plan for the cluster;

(C) prepare a Regional Mine Plan and Regional Environment Management Plan including all the clusters in that contiguity.

(D) provide for mobilistation of funds from the Project Proponents in predetermined proportion for implementation of cluster and Regional Environment Management Plan.

(2) The District Mineral Fund can also be used to augment the fund for implementation of Environment Management Plans.

(3) The Environment Management Plan shall be prepared and presented within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette for environment clearance granted on or after 15th January, 2016 to any lease in that cluster. The recommendation of the State Expert Appraisal Committee and approval of the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority shall be granted within sixty days of presentation of the Environment Management Plan.

(4) The implementation of the Environment Management Plan shall begin within six months from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette. The Environment Management Plan shall be monitored at the interval of six months by the concerned State Environment Impact Assessment Authority.

(5) The leases not operative for three years or more and leases which have got environmental clearance as on 15th January, 2016 shall not be counted for calculating the area of cluster, but shall be included in the Environment Management Plan and the Regional Environmental Management Plan."

35. We find difficulty in going into the issue. The same was not raised in the original application though the impugned notification existed prior to the Application. No application for amendment has been filed. The MoEF&CC has not been impleaded as a party. Thus, validity of the said notification cannot be gone into in these proceedings but this will not debar the applicant or any other aggrieved party to take their remedy in accordance with law. The issue stands disposed of accordingly.

Directions

36. As a result of the above discussion, this application is disposed of with following directions:

i) We make the interim order dated 8.3.2019 on the subject of prohibiting mining within Municipal limits of Chittorgarh City absolute subject to further orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

ii) We direct that the interim order dated 8.3.2019 on the subject of prohibiting mining in the radius of 10 km from Bassi Wild Life Sanctuary will continue, subject to further orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, till the MoEF&CC takes a call on the issue of revising ESZ notification dated 8.4.2021 in the light of report of seven-member expert Committee in terms of para 27 above. Thereafter, the matter will be governed by the 61 decision of the MoEF&CC subject to any challenge to such decision as per law.

iii) A joint Committee of MoEF&CC and CPCB may meet within one month to formulate guidelines for sustainable limestone mining on the pattern of SSMG-2016 and EMGSM-2020 in consultation with any other expert/institution as per direction in para 31 above. The guidelines may be framed within three months of the first meeting of the Committee. MoEF&CC may thereafter issue appropriate guidelines within one month in exercise of statutory powers under the EP Act. CPCB will be nodal agency for compliance.

iv) A joint Committee of CPCB, State PCB and District Magistrate, Chittorgarh may take further remedial action in terms of para 33 above. The exercise may be completed within six months.

v) The State of Rajasthan and regulatory authorities in the State dealing with the regulation of mining - Secretary, Environment, Secretary, Mining, State PCB and District Magistrate may ensure that mining is conducted as per environmental norms under the Water Act, Air Act and EP Act, including the notifications under the EP Act for sustainable mining. While the issue of validity of Notification dated 01.07.2016 is left to be gone into in appropriate proceedings separately, environmental norms laid down therein may be strictly followed particularly with regard to preparation and implementation of environment management plan.

A copy of this order be forwarded to Chief Secretary, Rajasthan, Secretaries, Environment and Mining, Rajasthan, MoEF&CC, CPCB, 62 Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Dehradun, IIT Roorkee, Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan, State PCB and District Magistrate, Chittorgarh by e-mail for compliance.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP Brijesh Sethi, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM September 24, 2021 Original Application No. 398/2017 DV + A + AVT 63

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

National Green Tribunal