National Green Tribunal
Swapnesh Bhanudas Sherlekar vs Ministry Of Environment Forest And ... on 16 October, 2024
Item No.3 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[Through Physical Hearing (with Hybrid Option)]
APPEAL NO.73 OF 2024 (WZ)
Swapnesh Sherlekar & Ors. ... Appellants
Versus
MoEF&CC & Ors. ... Respondents
Date of Hearing : 16.10.2024
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellants : Mr. Agney Sail, Advocate
Respondents : Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for R-1
Mr. Manish Salkar, Advocate for R-2
Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Advocate for R-3
Mr. Devidas Pangam, Advocate General along with
Mr. Shubham Priolkar, Advocate for R-4
ORDER
1. By this appeal, the Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 23.01.2024, granted by respondent No.1-MoEF&CC in favour of respondent No..3 - M/s Vedanta Ltd. for mining of Iron Ore to its project, namely, Bicholim Mineral Block - Block-1 (Auction Block) with proposed production capacity of 3.0 MTPA, Waste: 25.162 MTPA (Total Excavation : 28.162 MTPA) along with crushing and screening plant capacity of 4.0 MTPA in the mine lease area of 478.5206 ha, located at Bicholim, Bordem, Lamgao, Mulgoa, Mayem and Sirigao villages of Bicholim Taluka of North Goa District, Goa, has been prayed to be quashed. The grounds set up for challenge of the said EC in this appeal are as follows:
Page 1 of 6
(I) That the proposed mining is being categorized as "green field project"
in the EIA report erroneously despite the fact that mining activity of this lease area has been carried out for seven decades since 1941. By mislabeling the project in question as "green field" , it has entitled the Project Proponent - respondent No.3 and its EIA consultant to use baseline data from 2023, which has skewed the entire EIA report. (II) The Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) has ignored the fact that the erstwhile lease (now called `block') was given an EC on 17.11.2005, which had recorded that the mine would exhaust in ten years with an annual production of 2 MTPA. The 2005 EC required a mine closure plan and several other requirements to be met during the conduct of mining operations, but the EAC has not reviewed the 2005 EC before grant of the impugned EC.
(III) False information has been provided by the Project Proponent by suppressing the fact that the land for transportation of miners to jetty outside lease area is not owned by the Project Proponent. Besides that, the disclosure is not made of the agriculture land i.e. 12% of land of Mulgao village is falling within the mining block, village settlements and village lands, which are falling within the mining area. Apart from it, the Directorate of Mines and Geology memorandum restricts transportation of Iron Ore on village roads to 20 to 40 trips per hour i.e. 160 trips to the maximum whereas in the present case, as per the EC, 1205 trips are allowed to be made. For this, the learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to page 183 of the paper-
book, which is a memorandum dated 05.04.2023 regarding transportation of Iron Ore, issued by the Director and Ex-officio Joint Page 2 of 6 Secretary, Government of India, Directorate of Mines & Geology, Panaji-Goa, wherein the above number of trips has been provided. (IV) The EAC has completely ignored the role of the local body i.e. duly elected Mulgao Panchayat, despite the fact that bulk of the land and settlement owned by the people of this Panchayat falls within the lease boundaries. In support of this, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to pages 185 and 186 of the paper-book, which is a letter dated 31.07.2023, written by the Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Mulgao, Bicholim, Goa to respondent No.3 - Project Proponent regarding mining issue of Mulgao villagers, stating therein that the Village Panchayat had conducted a joint meeting with Devasthan Committees, Mulgao, Communidade committees of Mulgao, Mulgao Nagrik Kruti Samiti of Mulgao and Mulgao Sesa Mining worker with panchayat members of village panchayat, Mulgaon on 23.07.2023, wherein decisions with respect to as many as 15 points were taken, including desilting of paddy fields, which should be carried out by company on priority and desilting of three lakes and retaining wall on lakes for maintaining natural resources. Further, Mulgao Communidade was having 2.21 laks sq.mtrs area in the said mining block of which lease rent is in arrears from the year 2011 and Mulgao Communidade was having three water lakes under Survey No.69/1 and 71/0 which has been filled with mining silt, which needs to be cleaned, etc. It is urged by the learned counsel that all these points were never considered before grant of the EC impugned in this appeal.
(V) The public hearing was conducted, but the same violated several established norms. Regarding this, our attention was drawn to page Page 3 of 6 42 of the paper-book, wherein in paragraph No.47, following conditions were alleged to have been violated:
(a) First, the site was located 12 kms away from the village. The villagers had to recruit special personal transport to attend the hearing at considerable expense.
(b) The public hearing was conducted from 10.30 am on 11.08.2023 till 01.30 am of 12.08.2023, which violated all norms. No food or water facility was readily available at the location.
(c) The Respondent No.3 made a Power Point presentation briefly explaining the content of the EIA Report and the project in local language "Konkani" and in English, just before commencing of the public hearing. Therefore, a demand was made by Appellant No.1 in his oral submissions for granting additional 15 days for making submissions to the draft EIA report, since they needed to study what the consultant was saying and because the Panchayat's earlier demands for explanation of the EIA report had not been taken up.
(d) There was no one present from the Project Proponent to explain or respond to issues raised during the public hearing. The consultant was not available at the venue till late in the evening, even though it was mentioned in the notice for public hearing that, "The Environmental Public hearing is conducted for ascertaining the concerns of the affected persons who can express their views or seek information or clarifications from the project proponents." The PP became available later at night only when the public demanded for their presence. The PP's people appeared only around 7 pm on stage. By then most persons had left to return to their villages. During this entire period of 9 hours, the Collector and PCB officials sat silently through the proceedings, with total lack of interest, as if going through some formality.
(e) Since the Minutes were only ready at 01.30 am (of 12/08/2023) they could not be read out to the public and corrected before being uploaded. The minutes were uploaded a few days later on the Goa SPCB website without correction, which is a serious violation.
(f) None of these violations of EPH procedures would be tolerated if one goes by the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Hanumant v/s Union of India (Mopa airport EC)."
Page 4 of 6 (VI) Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellants has also raised a ground orally, which is not in the grounds of appeal, that the procedure which has been laid down by the MoEF&CC vide letter dated 29.04.2020, issued by the Director-IA (Policy), MoEF&CC, Government of India to the Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Government of India on the subject "Pre-embedded prior Environmental/Forest Clearance for the identified mineral block with proven reserves (proposed mining lease areas), wherein it is laid down that the State Governments/Union Territory administrations, after identifying the mineral blocks with proven reserves, may apply as project proponent, seeking prior environmental clearance (EC) under the provisions of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. The States/UTs concerned, after obtaining such prior environmental clearance from the Ministry or SEIAA, as the case may be, may transfer the said prior-EC to a new user agency (successful bidder holding Letter of Intent), identified by the States/UTs through the process of auctioning or any other legitimate means, as per the provisions of Clause 11 of EIA Notification, 2006. Having drawn our attention to this letter, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that this procedure has not been followed in the present case and hence, the EC issued in favour of respondent No.3 needs to be quashed.
2. Considering the grounds raised in the appeal, we admit the same and direct the Registry to issue notice to the respondents. Since the learned counsel for all the respondents are present today, they waive service of notice on behalf of respective respondents.
3. From the side of respondent No.1 - MoEF&CC, learned counsel Mr. Rahul Garg has appeared and seeks four weeks' time to file the reply. We Page 5 of 6 allow the same with a direction that a copy of the reply shall be served on the learned counsel for the appellants, who may file rejoinder to the same within two weeks thereafter.
4. From the side of respondent No.2 - GSPCB, learned counsel Mr. Manish Salkar has appeared and seeks four weeks' time to file the reply. The same is allowed.
5. From the side of respondent No.3 - M/s Vedanta Ltd., learned counsel Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan has appeared and states that they have already filed the reply. The rejoinder to the same may be filed by the appellants within four weeks.
6. From the side of respondent No.4 - State of Goa, its learned Advocate General Mr. Devidas Pangam along with learned counsel Mr. Shubham Priolkar has appeared and states that affidavit-reply has already been filed; however, he seeks time to file additional affidavit. Four weeks' time is allowed for the same.
7. The parties shall exchange their respective pleadings among themselves before the next date.
8. Put up this matter for next consideration on 15.01.2025.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM October 16, 2024 APPEAL NO.73/2024(WZ) npj Page 6 of 6