National Green Tribunal
Dr. Sarvabhoum Bagali vs State Of Karnataka Through Its Director ... on 11 May, 2022
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan, Satyagopal Korlapati
Item No.1:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 171 of 2020 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sarvabhoum Bagali
S/o Late Saragouda,
R/o Kachari Road,
Opp. Head Post Office, INDI,
Vijayapur District, Karnataka - 586 101.
... Applicant(s)
Versus
State of Karnataka
Through its Director,
Department of Mines and Geology,
#49 Khanija Bhawan, Race Course Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001 and Ors.
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Mr. Aagney Sail
For Respondent(s): Mr. K.M. Darpan along with
Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw for R1, R5 to R7.
Mrs. M. Sumathi for R2.
Mr.H.K. Vasanth for R3.
Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan for R4.
Mr. K. Venkatasubban
For M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates for R8 and R9.
Date of Judgment: 11th May 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
Page 1 of 47
ORDER
Judgment pronounced through Video Conference. The original application is disposed of with directions vide separate Judgment.
Pending interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, J.M. Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, E.M. O.A. No. 171 of 2020 (SZ) 11th May, 2022. SE Page 2 of 47 Item No.1:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Original Application No. 171 of 2020(SZ) IN THE MATTER OF:
Sarvabhoum Bagali S/o Late Saragouda, R/o Kachari Road, Opp. Head Post Office, INDI, Vijayapur District, Karnataka - 586 101 ... Applicant(s) Versus
1. State of Karnataka Through its Director, Department of Mines and Geology, #49 Khanija Bhawan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru - 560 001
2. Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change Through its Secretary, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jorbagh, New Delhi - 110 003
3. Karnataka State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) Through it s Member Secretary, Room No. 709, VII Floor, IV Gate, M.S. Building, Bengaluru - 560 001.
4. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Through its Regional Office - Raichur, M.S. Chambers, I Floor, Beside S.S.I. Yuva, Com Computers Lingasugar Road, Raichur - 584 101
5. Deputy Commissioner - Raichur District Deputy Commissioner‟s Office, Sathkacheri, Raichur Raichur (Dist.), Karnataka - 584 101
6. Superintendent of Police Raichur Distirct, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad Road, Raichur, Karnataka - 584 101 Page 3 of 47
7. Senior Geologist Department of Mines & Geology, #1-4-156/165/181, I.D.M.S. Layout, Raghavendra Nagar, Near Shri Shakthi Bhavan, I.B. Road, Raichur, Karnataka - 584 101
8. Anand B. Doddamani Concerned Sand Mining Contractor, 68, Behind Chetan College, Akshay Colony, Hubli, Dharwad District, Karnataka 580 021
9. P.L. Kamble Concerned Sand Mining Contractor, N.H.13, Illakal Road, Hunagund, District Bagalkot, Karnataka - 587 125 ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s): Mr. Aagney Sail For Respondent(s): Mr. K.M. Darpan along with Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw for R1, R5 to R7.
Mrs. M. Sumathi for R2.
Mr.H.K. Vasanth for R3.
Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan for R4.
Mr. K. Venkatasubban For M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates for R8 and R9.
Judgment Reserved on: 29th March 2022.
Judgment Pronounced on: 11th May 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER Whether the Judgement is allowed to be published on the Internet - Yes/No Whether the Judgement is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No Page 4 of 47 JUDGMENT Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member.
1. The above case has been filed by the applicant against the user of heavy machineries while doing sand mining from river bed on the basis of the mining lease granted by the Mining Department.
2. It is alleged in the application that large scale illegal sand mining is going on at two different sites in the Krishna River Bed in Joldahadgi Village, Devadurga Taluk, District Raichur, Karnataka using Pokhland/JCB machines which is against the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change on sustainable sand mining policy and also against the EIA Notification, 2006. On account of the indiscriminate use of machineries for river bed sand mining, huge pits were created in Krishna River and one girl by name Miss. Shridevi daughter of Chandappa who went there for washing her clothes fell down and drowned on 14/03/2020 in that place and died. This has happened on account of the negligence on the part of the persons who have done the sand mining using the heavy machineries and as such they are liable to pay compensation for the same.
3. The applicant is a Senior Citizen who served as a Government Doctor in Health Department of State of Karnataka for 34 years and after retirement in the year 2004, he joined politics and elected as MLA from Indi Constituency in 2008 and served as such still 2013. He had filed several applications before the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal highlighting illegal sand mining in Bhima River of Vijayapura District of Page 5 of 47 Karnataka State and adjoining Sholapur District in Maharashtra. The application so filed by him are (i) MA No. 529/2014 in OA No. 171/2013 which was decided by Judgment dated 13.01.2015, (ii) OA No.363/2015 decided by Judgment dated 25.09.2018 granting compensation for drowning of three teenage girls on 04.07.2014 in a sand mining pit. (iii) OA No. 366 of 2015 decided as per Judgment dated 25.09.2018 (iv) OA No. 367 of 2015 decided as per Judgment dated 11.09.2017 and (v) OA No. 368 of 2015 decided as per Judgment dated 19.09.2018.
4. The Mining leases that have been granted for the two blocks in Joldahadgi Village, Devadurga Taluk, Raichur District, Karnataka dated 13.05.2017 and 14.06.2017 were issued by the Department of Mines and Geology whereby they have been permitted to do sand mining using heavy machineries evidenced by Annexure A2 Series Mining leases.
5. The applicant also produced the tender notice issued by the Department in respect of 18 sand blocks using heavy machineries in Apparal, Madarakal, Chikaraykumpi, Parataapur, Myadaragol, Karikihalli, Chinchodi, Nilavanji, Joladahadgi, Baagoor, Karkihalli and Parataapur of Devadurga Taluk. On 11.06.2020, the applicant filed MA 33/2020 in OA 366/2015 seeking directions against the large scale illegal sand mining in Krishna riverbed in 12 villages of Devadurga Taluk (highlighting instances of sand blocks No. 1 & 2 of Joladahadgi Village, Raichur District, Karnataka). MA 32 of 2020 was filed for impleadment of Richur District Sand Monitoring Committee Officials as Respondents evidenced by Annexure A4 Series.Page 6 of 47
6. Rampant illegal and unscientific sand mining led to the death of a teenage girl by name Miss. Shridevi who drowned on 14.03.2020 on account of her falling down in the pit created due to unlawful sand mining and drowning on account of the same.
7. The applicant had produced the documents relating to the death of the girl as Annexure 5 and Annexure 6 and also narrated the manner in which the incident occurred and how the body was recovered and the nature of investigation conducted, evidenced by Annexure A7.
8. The applicant filed MA 38/2020 in OA 366/2015 and MA 39/2020 on 09.07.2020 seeking an enquiry regarding the death and impleadment of the sand mining contractors evidenced by Annexure A8. The applicant had reiterated the O.M. issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change dated 24.12.2013 produced as Annexure A9, wherein it was mentioned that the river sand mining can be done manually only. Further, as per the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change considered all these aspects and recommended standard environmental conditions for sand mining and under Clause 29 they have mentioned as follows:
"29. Standard Environmental Condition for Sand Mining Impact S.No. Environmental Conditions Category Sustainable 19 Depending upon the location, thickness of Mining sand, deposition, agricultural land/Riverbed, Practices the method of mining may be manual, semi-
mechanized or mechanized; however, manual method of mining shall be preferred over any other method.
The guideline was produced as Annexure 10.Page 7 of 47
9. There are certain direction given and the Karnataka Government has given certain inputs which read as follows:
"Suggestions/Recommendations for Environmentally Sustainable Sand Mining:
1. Undertaking sand mining activity through a Government agency to be governed by District Level Sand Monitoring Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner.
2. The area should be properly surveyed and mapped with the help of GPS to assign geo coordinates and accordingly erect boundary pillars so as to avoid illegal and unscientific mining.
3. Depth of sand available may be indicated in a contour map using suitable drilled holes to ensure sand mining do not exceed one meter depth.
4. Once thickness is established sand mining may be permitted to one meter depth where the thickness of sand is more than three meter deep. If the thickness of sand is less than three meter, sand mining shall not be permitted.
5. Sufficient spacing shall be ensured from one block to another block and sufficient time gap shall be provided for replenishment before undertaking mining activity in the same block.
6. Mining activity shall be restricted to only non-monsoon season and in the area that is exposed.
7. No in-stream mining shall be permitted.
8. No stream should be diverted for the purpose of sand mining. No natural water course and/ or water resources are obstructed due to mining operations.
9. Site specific plan with eco-restoration should be in place.
10. Sand mining shall be undertaken only by manual method without use of earth moving equipment such as JCB etc. Use of mechanized boats for sucking sand from in-stream area shall be strictly prohibited.
11. Appropriate safety zones shall be maintained in proximity to any bridge/ and/or embankment and other permanent structures. No sand mining shall be undertaken in such safety/buffer zones. Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Mines in this regard shall also be adhered to.
12. The quarrying activity shall not intersect subterranean water level and ground water table.
13. The top soil in case of surface land mining shall be stored temporarily in an earmarked site and concurrently used for land reclamation.
14. Use of alternate material such as M-sand in place of natural river sand shall be encouraged in order to reduce stress on natural eco-system."Page 8 of 47
10. But in the lease deeds dated 13.06.2017 and 14.06.2017 produced as Annexure A2, the following conditions have been added:
(a) MECHANISED MINING ALLOWED:
The lease / license deed allows operation of machinery, equipment, etc. as per Part II clause 3 stating, "PART II LIBERTIES, POWERS AND PRIVILEGES TO BE EXERCISED AND ENJOYED BY THE LESSEES/LICENSEES SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS IN PART III ...
3. To bring and use machinery, equipment, etc. Liberty and power for or in connection with any of the purposes mentioned in this to erect, construct and maintain and use on or under the said lands any engines, machinery plant dressing .. and other Buildings and other works and conveniences of the like nature or under said lands."
11. These conditions are contrary to the Sustainable Sand Mining Policy and Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines of 2016 as per this no mechanised mining was permitted.
12. There was no mention/condition of taking Environmental Clearance before commencement of the work as per Rule 8(1A) and 31R(20) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. In the Form E issued by Mining Department under Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, mechanised mining was permitted which is against the Rules.
13. While disposing O.A. No. 363 of 2015 by Judgment dated 25.09.2018, the Principal Bench has issued certain directions and also directed to pay certain compensation to the death of the girls evidenced by Annexure-12.
Since illegal sand mining is going on without following the standard procedure provided using heavy machineries and in spite of it being brought to the notice of the authorities, no action was taken, the applicant Page 9 of 47 has no other remedy except to approach this Tribunal seeking the following interim reliefs.
A. "Hold and declare that use of machinery in ordinary sand mining from river bed in the quarrying lease deeds dated 13.06.2017 and 14.06.2017 (Annexure - A2(Colly) issued by the Government of Karnataka is not permissible as per Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and in violation of the same.
B. Direct the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur District (who is also Incumbent Chairman of the District Sand Mining Committee) to immediately stop all sand mining using mechanized devices like JCB‟s Pokland machines etc., on river bed of Krishna river at 12 Villages including Joladhadgi of Devadurga Taluk, District Raichur, Karnataka as mentioned in the present Application.
C. Direct the Deputy commissioner, Raichur District to bring on record the recent (ongoing) 4 environmental clearances, mining plans, contractor details etc., and file affidavit of compliance of Rule 31R(3) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 pertaining to sand mining on Krishna river in the entire District of Raichur. D. Direct the Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Raichur District, Government of Karnataka to submit before this Hon‟ble an affidavit detailing the format for quarrying lease/licence deed used for ordinary to the lapses pointed out in the quarrying lease deeds dated 14.06.2017 & 14.06.2017 as mentioned in the present Application E. Direct the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change to Constitute a Committee for Issuing „Guidelines on enquiry and payment of compensation in cases of loss of life the EIA Notification, 2006 and other applicable Environmental laws, and to submit such Committee‟s report before this Hon‟ble Tribunal.
F. Direct the District Magistrate, Raichur District, Karnataka to conduct an enquiry into the death of Shridevi D/o Chandappa who fell/slipped and drowned in a sand mining pit on 14.03. 2020 on the riverbed of Krishna 5 River in or around Sand Block Nos. 1 & 2 at village Joladahadgi, Taluka Devadurga, District Raichur, Karnataka especially with respect to the environment and liability of the holders of the quarrying lease deeds dated 13.06.2017 and 14.06.2017 and submit a report to this Hon‟ble Tribunal.
G. Direct the Karnataka State authorities to provide compensation to the family of the teenage girl Shridevi D/o Chandappa who drowned on Page 10 of 47 14.03.2020 at village Joladahadgi, Taluka Devadurga, District Raichur, Karnataka.
H. Direct prosecution of the concerned sand mining contractors, government officials involved for their lapse and violation of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and various orders Supreme Court and this Tribunal.
I. Pass any such order as this Hon‟ble Tribunal may find fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
14. The 2nd Respondent filed counter affidavit reiterated the allegations made by the applicant in the application and also the relief sought for in the application. They have further contended that as regards M.A. No. 33/2020, 32/2020 and 39/2020 in O.A. No. 366/2015 are concerned according to their knowledge by the order dated 17.08.2020, those applications were withdrawn by the applicant. The 2nd Respondent Ministry had issued EIA Notification 2006 vide S.O. 1533(e) dated 14.09.2006 under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. As per this Notification, certain projects require prior Environmental Clearance and those projects which require Environmental Clearance have been enumerated in the schedule attached to the Notification. Further, as per the notification, the projects were categorized as Category „A‟ and Category „B‟ and as regards, the Category „A‟ is concerned, the Environmental Clearance will have to be obtained from MOEF and CC and as regards the Category „B‟ is concerned, the same will have to be obtained from concerned State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). They have also mentioned that as per the Provisions of Sustainable Sand Management Guidelines, 2016 (SSMG-2016), the mining activity shall be done manually and no in-stream Page 11 of 47 mining shall be allowed. The relevant paragraph of the said guideline has been extracted below:
"(a) The mining activity shall be done manually. The depth of mining shall be restricted to 3 m/ water level, whichever is less.
(b) For carrying out mining in proximity to any bridge and / or embankment, appropriate safety zone shall be worked out on case to case basis to the satisfaction of SEAC / SEIAA, taking into account the structural parameters, locational aspects, flow rate etc., and no mining shall be carried out in the safety zone so worked out. NO in-stream mining shall be allowed."
15. In compliance with the directions issued by the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal in its order dated 04.09.2018 in O.A. No. 173 of 2018 in the matter of Sudarsan Das vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., the 2nd Respondent has formulated new guideline i.e. "Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining" (EMGSM-2020) supplemental to the existing guidelines, i.e. Sustainable Sand Management Guidelines 2016 (SSMG-2016), which focuses on the effective monitoring of the sand mining right from the identification of sand mineral sources to its dispatch and end-use by consumers and the general public. Further, this document will serve as a guideline for collection of critical information for enforcement of the regulatory provisions and also highlights the essential infrastructural requirements necessary for effective monitoring of Sustainable Sand Mining. The 2nd Respondent Ministry vide S.O. 637 (E) dated 28th February 2014 delegated the powers vested in it under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 to all State and Union Territory Environment Impact Assessment Authorities to issue show cause notice and to issue directions to the project proponent in case of violation of EC conditions and for keeping such Environment Clearance in abeyance or withdrawing them, if required.
Page 12 of 47The Environment Clearance for the project under consideration has been granted by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Karnataka.
The State Department of Mines and Geology is the nodal authority of the State for dealing with the allotment of mining leases under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and is entrusted with the enforcement and regulation of mining operations in the State including illegal mining. The State Government is empowered under Section 23 C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) to make rules for prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and the State Government is entrusted with the enforcement and regulation of mining operations in the State. They prayed for accepting their contentions and pass appropriate orders.
16. The 3rd Respondent has filed their Reply in the form of submissions contending as follows:
"Submissions in respect of orders of Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai in O.A. No. 171 of 2020 (SZ), from Respondent No.3, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Karnataka.
It is submitted that the Hon‟ble NGT while hearing the above mentioned matte on 08.09.2020 in order ot ascertain the genuineness and real status of river bed sand mining, appointed a Joint Committee comprising of the District Collector, Raichur District, a Senior Officer from MoEF & CC, Regional Office, Bangalore, a Senior Officer from SEIAA, Karnataka, a Senior Officer from KSPCB and a Senior Officer from Department of Mines& Geology as deputed by the Director of Mines, State of Karnataka, to inspect the area in question and submit a factual as well as action taken report, if there is any violation found.
Accordingly, the Joint Committee constituted by the NGT has submitted its report before the Hon‟ble NGT by e-filing on 16.12.2020. Further, the Hon‟ble NGT, during the hearing on 27.01.2021 upon verifying the report Page 13 of 47 noted that there was excess mining done and also heavy machineries were used for doing the quarrying and some illegalities were found and certain penalties have been recovered for transporting more than the permitted quantity. However, for the excess mining, whether they have imposed penalty and recovered additional royalty, including whether they have recovered environmental compensation for doing excess mining including the cost required for restoration has not been mentioned in the report. Hence, the committee is directed to submit a further report.
Further, it is submitted that the Joint Committee has e-filed the second report on 24.03.2021, which is examined by the Hon‟ble Tribunal on 09.02.2022. It was also directed that the official respondents who have not filed the Statements to file the statement on or before 23.02.2022. Further, it is also submitted that the Environmental Clearances were issued to the alleged mining areas by the District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Raichur, vide letter No. DEIAA-OS-18 MIN/2017 and No. DEIAA-OS-25MIN/2017, dated 08.06.2017.
In this regard, it is kindly submitted that, SEIAA, Karnataka was part of the Joint Committee constituted by the Hon‟ble Tribunal, which has dealt with the issues raised by the applicant and submitted reports. The SEIAA is in agreement with the reports of the Joint Committee."
17. The 2nd Respondent has filed a further statement contending that this Tribunal by order dated 08.09.2020 appointed a Joint Committee to inspect the area in question and submit a report both factual and action taken if there is any violation found. The Joint Committee constituted by the Tribunal had submitted the report before this Tribunal by e-filing on 16.12.2020. This Tribunal after considering the report directed to file further report of action taken for violations and excess mining including imposition of environmental compensation. The Joint Committee filed the second report on 24.03.2021, which was considered by this Tribunal on 09.02.2022 directed the officials who have not filed their statement to file their statement. Environment and Clearance were issued to the alleged Mining areas by the District Level Environment Impact Assessment authority by Page 14 of 47 letter No. DR-OS-18 MIN/2017 and No. DR-OS-25 MIN/2017 dated 08.02.2017. They are adopting the findings of the Joint Committee as part of their Statement.
18. The 8th Respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the application. They were carrying on the mining activity on the basis of the Lease Deed dated 13.06.2016 granted by 1st Respondent. As per the lease deed they were permitted to use backhoe equipment like JCB as per Chapter IV-B, 31-R of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and its amendments. They denied the allegations that mining operations were done during night time as well. They were conducting the mining strictly in accordance with the permissions granted and they have not carried out any illegal mining. The death of Ms. Shridevi happened accidentally on 14.03.2020 and it was not occurred inside the mining lease area and the same happened on the North of Joladahedagi Blocks. They have taken all precautions by which the life of any person visiting the area is not endangered. Investigation was conducted in respect of the death of said girl and it was concluded by the concerned police officials. They have taken advantage of the illiteracy of father of the girl in obtaining the affidavit produced along with the application and he had subsequently withdrawn that affidavit and declaring that it was invalid. The user of backhoe equipment, like JCB were allowed as per the Provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and Amendments 2016 and as per the Sustainable Mining Management Guidelines 2016 they have not violated any of the conditions and they are strictly complying with the conditions imposed in the permissions granted. So they prayed for dismissal of application with cost.
Page 15 of 4719. The 9th Respondent filed a counter which reads as follows:
Counter affidavit of P.L. Kamble I, Parashuram S/o Laxman Kamble, Hindu, aged 48 years, residing at N.H. 13, Ilakal Road, Hunagund, Bagalkot District, Karnataka -587125 today at Bangalore do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:
1. I am the 9th Respondent herein and I am fully acquainted with the facts of the case. I have read contents of this application and I am filing this counter affidavit in answer thereto.
2. I submit that I deny the allegation stated in para 4 of the application. I submit that I am carrying out the mining on the strength of the quarrying Lease/License deed dated 13.06.2017 granted by the 1st Respondent herein.
As per the Lease deed I am permitted to use backhoe equipment like JCB is allowed as per Chapter IV - B, 31-R of Karnataka Minor Mineral concession Rules - 1994 & its amendments and it is false to state that the mining are being carried out during the night time as well and I put the Applicant to strict proof of the same. I submit that the mining is been carried out as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the Lease Deed dated 13.06.2017 and I have environmental clearance on 08.06.2017. I submit that the details given regarding the Lease deeds are correct and I deny the allegation that mining carried out by me is illegal. The averments stated in para 6 are hereby denied and I put the applicant to strict proof of the same. I submit that with respect to averments in Para 7 of the application are not within my knowledge and being the court proceedings I am not disputing the same.
3. I submit that I deny the allegations stated in para 8 of the application and put the applicant to strict proof of the same. I submit that the death of Ms. Sridevi happened accidentally on 14.03.2020 and it was not occurred inside the mining lease area and the same happened is on the north of the Joladahedagi Blocks. Further I have taken all precautions by which the life of any person visiting the area is not endangered. I submit that investigation with respect to the death of Ms. Sridevi was conducted and the same was concluded by the concerned police officials. I submit that I stoutly deny the allegations stated in para 9 of the application that the father of the deceased girl namely Chandappa gave an affidavit dated 06.072020 describing the incident and the thumb impression was obtained by fraud and undue influence taking advantage of the illiteracy of Chandappa and the same was subsequently withdrawn by him in the subsequent affidavit dated 21.07.2020 withdrawing his earlier affidavit declaring it to be invalid. I submit that as the deceased father namely Chandappa withdrawn the alleged Page 16 of 47 affidavit dated 06.07.2020 the allegations in para 10 are denied and same needs no reference.
4. I submit that it is true that an application M.A. No.39 of 2020 in O.A. No. 366 of 2015 was filed by the applicant and the O.A. No.366 of 2015 itself was disposed off by the Principal Bench, New Delhi vide order dated 26.02.2021. I submit that the allegations in Para 11 and 12 are denied and as per the New Sand Policy, 2016, Karnataka Minor Mineral concession Rules, 1994 and Amendment 2016 and as per the Sustainable Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 usage of bachoe equipment like JCB is allowed. Further I have not violated any environmental laws till date. Further the father of the deceased girl namely Chandappa himself has filed an affidavit dated 21.07.2020 stating that her daughter had accidentally drowned in the Krishna River at Joladahedagi Village and not in mining lease area and hence I shall not be penalized for no wrong or negligence on my part. I submit that in order to extort money from me the applicant had obtained an affidavit dated 06.07.2020 from the father of the deceased and nowhere the father had stated that he death of his daughter was due to drowning in a sand mining block pit except in the alleged affidavit dated 06.07.2020 produced before this court. Even in the FIR lodged it was stated that the deceased girl had accidentally drowned in the Krishna River. The conduct of the applicant is mala fide and I pray this Hon‟ble Tribunal to dismiss the application with exemplary cost.
5. For all the reasons stated above, it is therefore prayed that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the application with exemplary cost and pass such further orders as this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
20. They have also more or less reiterated the contentions raised by the 8th Respondent in their Counter Statement. They also tendered on carrying on the mining operations strictly in accordance with the permissions granted and no illegal mining has been done by them.
21. The 7th Respondent filed Counter Affidavit in the form of Additional Statements contending that the counter affidavit filed by them on 18.12.2020 was directed to be read as part and parcel of this affidavit and this will have to be in continuation of the earlier counter filed. Specific and separate rules Page 17 of 47 were made governing sand mining other than mining lease of minor minerals Chapter IVB deals with grant of quarrying leases or composite licence by auction, Rules 31R to 31 ZE govern the sand mining. They were drafted in compliance of the Guideline 2016 and 2020 issued by the MoEF & CC. Form E (Rule-18) of KMMCR 1994 violates 2016 guidelines issued by the MoEF and CC in as much as it allows the use of heavy vehicles and machinery in sand mining. A copy of the lease deed executed by the lessee for sand mining is produced along with the affidavit. It is in Form E. It refers to execution of quarrying lease as per Rule 18 of KMMCR 1994.
Chapter II of KMMCR 1994 governing grant of lease to quarry minor mineral other than sand. Rule 18 is not applicable to sand mining. However, by mistake or as usual practice, the Form E is used in sand mining leases.
Copy of the lease deed is produced in Anneuxre-R1(A). Clause 3 in Part II of the lease deed should have been struck down. But by the over sight, it was not scored off, for which they beg apology for the same and the mistake will be rectified in future. The lease deed contains additional conditions, which are part of the lease deed. Second condition prohibits use of dredger and Machinery in sand mining. Sub rule 10 and 11 of Rule 31R governing sand mining read as under:
"10) Mechanised boats and dredgers in river sand quarrying are prohibited.
11) Use of backhoe equipment like JCB and screening in river bed sand quarrying shall be in accordance with guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Government of India (MoEF) from time to time.
Provided that loading equipment like dumpers, tractor mounted loaders, may be used on the river banks, only for loading without destabilising river bank."
Page 18 of 4722. They prohibit use of dredgers and compels the lessee to bind by the guidelines issued by the MoEF & CC from time to time. Clause-3 in Part-III of the lease deed contradicts the Rules. Rules over-ride the lease deed. The rules in Chapter IVB of the KMMCR regarding sand mining are in consonance with the guidelines issued by MoEF & CC. The State Government is not permitting use of machineries in sand mining except in exceptional circumstances as stated in the guideline of MoEF and CC. Rules for sand mining were amended in consonance with the guidelines of 2016 and 2020 issued by MoEF and CC. In the earlier affidavit filed by them, the State has explained the relevancy of sand mining rules in Chapter IVB and Guidelines of 2016-2020. They are strictly followed and action is being taken against violators and penalty recovered as per rules. They admitted the second part of the Joint Committee Report which gives the true facts relating to the mater. Table-I of report contains two leases where there was no excess sand mining. So there is no question of collection of Environmental Compensation arises. Table-2 contains the names of lessees, who have transported sand without obtaining permission. They were penalised with penalty of Rs.12,64,500/-. Table 3 show names of lessees who have extracted sand by encroachment and penalties were levied on them recently and partly recovered and action will be taken to recover the balance. Action against defaulters are taken by levying penalty on various grounds and in some cases, FIRs were registered. There was no case of sand mining by encroachment in Krishna River. Those referred to in the report of Joint Committee are not related to the area mentioned in this application.
Those sand mining is permitted without Environment Clearance, thus there is no question of imposing lump sum amount. If Environment Compensation is worked out more than the lump sum, it will have to be Page 19 of 47 restricted to lump sum amount. They also described the procedure adopted by Government of Karnataka in respect of grant of mining lease as follows.
(i) No sand quarrying shall be undertaken without a quarrying plan and Environmental Clearance.
(ii) Lessee shall make Stockyard, Office, CC Camera and Weigh Bridge near to the sand block.
(iii) Quarrying shall be done in accordance with MoEF Guidelines.
(iv) In-stream, mining sand extraction and loading to vehicles directly from river is prohibited. So, lessee should store mining sand in stockyard.
(v) Lessee should mine as per the mining plan without damaging safety zone and riverbed.
(vi) Permits are issued to vehicles fitted with GPS.
(vii) The vehicles having non-communication mode, shall not be issued with permits and shall not be allowed to transport sand.
(viii) Mechanised boats and dredgers in river sand quarrying are prohibited.
(ix) Sand stored in stockyard, shall be disposed by issuing Computerized Mineral Dispatch Permits (CMDR) to the transporters
23. So, they prayed for dismissal of the application.
24. The 3rd Respondent filed a further counter affidavit contending as follows:
1. "That I in my official capacity in the SEIAA, Karnataka Bengaluru, i.e. Respondent No.3 in the above mentioned matter, am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of official records, and as such authorised and competent to swear this affidavit.
2. It is submitted at the very outset that the Respondent No.3 denies each averment and/or submission made in the Application which is contrary to and inconsistent with the averments made and facts stated in the present reply. It is submitted that nothing stated in the application may be deemed to have been admitted by the Respondent No.3 unless and until the same is expressly admitted in the present reply.
3. That a short affidavit is being filed by the answering respondent at this stage and craves leave and liberty to file a detailed Counter Affidavit to the aforesaid application, as and when required.
4. That the applicant in the present matter has alleged that the illegal sand mining being done at t wo different sites on the Krishna Riverbed in village Joldahadgi, Taluka Devadurga, District Raichur, Karnataka by using poclain/JCB Page 20 of 47 machines. It is also alleged in the application that during March 2020, a girl died by falling into the pit caused in the river Krishna by the contractors, who were engaged in sand mining and such things are still continuing.
5. That the applicant has inter-alia prayed for that the Hon‟ble Tribunal please to
(a) Hold and declare that use of machinery in ordinary sand mining is not permissible as per EIA Notification. (b) Direct the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur District to immediately stop all sand mining using mechanized devices like JCBs Poclain machines etc., on riverbed of Krishna river (c) Direct the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur District to bring on record the recent (ongoing) environmental clearances, mining plans, contractor details etc. and file affidavit of compliance of Rule. 31R(3) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (d) Direct the Department of Mines and Geology to submit an affidavit detailing the format for quarrying lease used for ordinary sand in entire District (e) Director MoEF & CC to constitute a Committee for issuing "Guidelines on enquiry and payment of compensation in cases of loss of life connected to sand mining (f) direct the District Magistrate, Raichur District to conduct an enquiry into the death of minor girl (g) direct the State authorities to provide compensation to the family of the teenage girl (h) Direct prosecution of the concerned sand mining contracts, government officials involved for their lapse and violation of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 EIA Notification, 2006, Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and various orders Supreme Court and this Tribunal.
6. That it is further submitted that MoEF & CC, New Delhi has issued EIA Notification dated 14th September 2006 which requires certain projects to obtain prior Environmental Clearance ("EC") before any construction work in case of new projects or expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities.
The Schedule to the Notification details the categories or projects or activities which require prior Environmental Clearance.
7. That it is further submitted that all projects and activities are broadly categorized into two categories - Category "A" and Category "B", based on the potential impacts on spatial extent and human health and natural and man- made resources. All projects or activities included as Category „A‟ in the Schedule, including expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities and change in product mix, shall require prior environmental clearance from the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and all projects or activities included as Category „B‟ in the Schedule will require prior environmental clearance from the State/Union territory Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). In the absence of a duly constituted SEIAA or SEAC, a Category „B‟ project shall be treated as a Category „A‟ project.
8. It is further submitted that the MoEF & CC, New Delhi further came up with the notification having S.O. 141 (E) dated 15th January, 2016 which stipulates that „B2‟ Category projects pertaining to mining of minor mineral of lease area Page 21 of 47 less than or equal to five hectares shall require prior environmental clearance from DEIAA (District Environment Assessment Authority). The DEIAA shall base its decision on the recommendations of DEAC (District Level Expert Appraisal Committee), as constituted as per this notification. The copy of the notification S.O. 141 (E) dated 15th January, 2016 is annexed herein and marked as ANNEXURE-1.
9. It is respectfully submitted that the Environmental Clearances were issued to the alleged mining areas by the District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Raichur vide letter No.DEIAa-OS-18 MIN/2017 and No.DEIAA- OS-25MIN/2017, dated 08.06.2017. Copy of the Environmental Clearances are enclosed at ANNEXURE -2 & ANNEXURE - 3 respectively.
10. It is most respectfully stated that in compliance of direction passed by Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal in its order dated 04.09.2018 in O.A. 173/2018 in the matter of Sudarsan Das vs. State of West Bengal & Ors, MoEF & CC, New Delhi has formulated the new guidelines i.e. "Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining" (EMGSM-2020) supplemental to the existing guidelines i.e. Sustainable Sand Management Guidelines 2016 (SSMG-2016), which focus on the effective monitoring of the sand mining right from the identification of Sand mineral sources to its dispatch and end-use by consumers and the general public. Further, this document will serve as a guideline for collection of critical information for enforcement of the regulatory provision(s) and also highlights the essential infrastructural requirements necessary for effective monitoring for Sustainable Sand Mining.
11. It is submitted that the EMGSM-2020 & SSMG-2016 shall be read and implemented in sync with each other. In case, any ambiguity or variation between the provisions of both these document arises, the provision made in „Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining-2020" shall prevail. Further, it is submitted that the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. NO. 8 of 2018 (CZ) titled as SurajPagare&Anr. Vs State of M.P vide order dated 11.06.2020 directed the Principle Secretary, Mines; Director, Mines and State of Madhya Pradesh to follow the guidelines issued by MoEF in January, 220 i.e. EMGSM-2020.
12. It is most respectfully submitted that the Hon‟ble Tribunal vide order dated 26.02.2021 passed in the matter of Original Application No. 360/2015 titled as National Green Tribunal Bar Association versus Virender Singh (State of Gujarat) directed all the States/UTs to strictly follow the SSMG-2016 read with EMGSM-2020 reinforced by mechanism for preparation of DSRs, Environment Management Plans, replenishment studies, mine closure plans, grant of EC supra), assessment and recovery of compensation, seizure and release of vehicles involved in illegal mining, other safeguards against violations, grievance redressal, accountability of the designated officers and periodical review at higher levels (in terms of the order referred by the Hon‟ble tribunal in the order).
Page 22 of 4713. It is most respectfully submitted that the Regional Office, MoEF&CC is authorized to monitor the implementation of the stipulated conditions and environmental safeguards contained in the Environmental Clearance vide Circular No. J-11013/30/2009-1A.II(I) dated 3rd June 2009 issued by MoEF. The copy of the Circular is enclosed at ANNEXURE-4.
14. It is respectfully submitted that State Department of Mines and Geology is the nodal authority in the State for dealing with the allotment of mining leases under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act) and is entrusted with the enforcement and regulation of mining operations in a State including illegal mining.
15. That in view of the submissions made hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be leased to pass any order(s) as deemed fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the matter."
25. They have more or less reiterated the contentions raised by MoEF and CC. So, they prayed for accepting their contentions and pass appropriate orders.
26. As per order dated 08.09.2020 when this Tribunal admitted the matter appointed a Joint Committee consisting of the District Collector, Raichur District or a Senior Officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector or Sub Divisional Magistrate as deputed by the District Collector, a Senior Officer from integrated Regional Office of MOEF & CC, Bangalore, a Senior Officer from State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) Karnataka, a Senior Officer from Karnataka State Pollution Control Board as nominated by its Chairman and Senior Officer from Department of Mines and Geology as deputed by the Director of Mines, State of Karnataka to inspect the area in question and submit a factual; as well as action taken report if there is any violation found.
Page 23 of 4727. The committee was directed to consider the following issues:-
i. The question regarding accident said to have happened in that area and ascertain the cause of incidents and if it is related to any negligence on the part of the contractor lessee in doing mining in unscientific manner then that will have to be mentioned in the report.
ii. Whether the sand mining is being done in river bed using mechanical process, using heavy machinery which is not permitted under the Sustainable Sand Mining Policy as well as directions issued by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal regarding sand mining in river bed areas.
iii. Whether there were any violations of environment clearance and other consent conditions in carrying out the mining and whether any excess mining has been done and if so assess environmental compensation and also compensation payable to the kit and kin of the deceased as has been recorded by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in OA No. 363 of 2016 vide order dated 25.09.2018.
iv. MOEF and CC Regional Office Bangalore was designated as Nodal Agency for coordination and for providing all necessary logistics for this purpose.
28. On 27.01.2021 this Tribunal considered the Joint Committee Report dated Nil e-filed on 16.12.2020 which was extracted in Para 3 of the Order dated 27.01.2021 which reads as follows:
"REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE IN THE MATTER OF O.A. 171 OF 2020 (DR. SARVABHOUM BAGALI) SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI, AS PER Page 24 of 47 ORDER DATED 08.09.2020 1.0 PREAMBLE In the Original Application No. 171 of 2020 (SZ), filed by Dr.SarvabhoumBagali, Vs The State of Karnataka &Ors, the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal (NGT), Chennai issued an Orders on 08.09.2020 with the following directions:
"1. In order to ascertain the genuineness and real status of river bed sand mining, we feel it appropriate to appoint a joint committee comprising of 1) the District Collector, Raichur District, or a Senior Officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector or Sub Divisional Magistrate, as deputed by the District Collector, 2) a Senior Officer from Ministry of Environment Forests and climate Change (MoEF& CC), Regional Office, Bangalore 3) a Senior Officer from State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA),Karnataka 4) A Senior Officer from Karnataka State Pollution Control Board as nominated by its Chairman and5) a Senior Officer from Department of Mines & Geology as deputed by the Director of Mines, State of Karnataka to inspect the area in question and submit a factual as well as action taken report, if there is any violation found.
2. The committee is also directed to go into the question regarding the accident said to have happened in that area and ascertain the cause of the incident and if it is related to any negligence on the part of the contractor in doing mining in an unscientific manner, then that may also be mentioned in the report.
3. The committee is also directed to go into the question as to whether sand mining is being done in river bed using mechanical process using heavy machinery which is not permitted under the Sustainable Sand Mining Policy as well as the directions of the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal regarding sand mining in river bed areas.
4. The committee is also directed to go in to the question as to whether there were any violations of environmental clearance and other consent conditions in carrying out the mining and any excess mining has been done then, assess the environmental compensation and also compensation payable to the kith and kin of the deceased as has been recorded by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in Original application No. 363 of 2015 vide order dated25.09.2018.
5. The Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate change (MoEF & CC), Bangalore will be the nodal agency for co-ordination and for providing all necessary logistics for this purpose."
In compliance of above Order, the Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate change (MoEF & CC), Bangalore, vide letter No. F. No. EP/12.7/NGT /54/KAR dated 18/09/2020 has requested the concerned Departments/Authorities to nominate senior official for the Committee to complete the task as appointed by the Hon‟ble NGT. A reminder was also sent on 01.10.2020.
2.0 PRELIMINARY MEETING On receipt of the Nominations, a preliminary meeting was held on 09.10.2020 to Page 25 of 47 decide the further course of action for completing the task assigned by Hon‟ble Tribunal .Following members have attended:
1. Shri Santhosh Kama Gouda, KAS, Assistant Commissioner, Raichur Sub- Division.
2. Shri M Sridhar, Zonal Senior Environmental Officer, KSPCB, Ballari.
3. Shri Kiran Kumar B S, Scientific Officer, Grade-I, Dept of Forest, Ecology and Environment and Karnataka Wetland Management Authority.
4. Shri M Viswanath, Senior Geologist, Department of Mines & Geology, Raichur.
5. Shri E. Thirunavukkarasu, Scientist „E‟, Integrated Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
The Joint Committee discussed about the Terms of references given by the Hon‟ble NGT and decided to obtain the relevant information from concerned departments before the inspection of the Joint Committee such as District Survey Report (DSR) /report on estimation of sand deposits, List of mines permitted by the District Sand Committee, Audit of the quantity extracted etc. The site visit was also scheduled between 19-23 October 2020. However, due to meteorological forecast dated 13.10.2020 and continuous heavy rain in both the districts and flood in the rivers, the members felt that it will be difficult to reach and visit all mines sites and committee cannot find out ground reality of the sites and compliance status etc., Hence, site visit could not be completed. In view of the above, members suggested to seek additional time of three months from Hon‟ble NGT to complete the task. Hon‟ble Tribunal Vide order dated 29.10.2020 has granted time till 17.12.2020 to file the report.
3.0 INSPECTION BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE Joint Committee inspected the mine sites at Raichur District on 24-25 November 2020. Following members have attended:
1. Shri Santhosh KamaGouda, KAS, Assistant Commissioner, Raichur Subdivision.
2. Shri Kiran Kumar B S, Scientific Officer, Grade-I, Dept of Forest, Ecology and Environment and Karnataka Wetland Management Authority.
3. SmtSuganda B Kuri, Deputy Environmental Officer, KSPCB, Raichur.
4. Shri M Viswanath, Senior Geologist, Department of Mines & Geology, Raichur.
5. Shri E. Thirunavukkarasu, Scientist „E‟, Integrated Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
Following were also present:
1. Smt K. Pusphalatha, Senior Geologist, O/O Joint Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Ballari
2. Shri Maduraj, Tahsildar, Deodurga
3. Shri Manjunath, Geologist, Department of Mines & Geology, Raichur.
4. Shri Gopikrishna Geologist, Department of Mines & Geology, Raichur.
5. Shri Syed Fazil, Geologist, Department of Mines & Geology, Raichur.
6. Shri RM Nadaf, Circle Inspector, Deodurga.
7. Shri K Rangaiah, Police Sub Inspector, Deodurga.Page 26 of 47
4.0 ABOUT THE GRANT OF MINING LEASE The Joint Committee noted that the following procedure is being followed in granting of sand mining 4.1 Procedure followed in granting lease:
As per the Sustainable Sand Mining-2016 and 31(R) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules -1994 (KMMCR) of amendment of 2016, Sand blocks have been inspected and identified with co-ordinates in river Krishna, Tungabhadra & in Nalas for the propose of Tender-Cum-Action or reservation for Governments works. With the assistance of Revenue, PWD, Forest, and DMG, the approximate quarriable sand available in each identified block is estimated by restricting quarrying depth to 1 to 3 meter or water level whichever is less.
After recommendations of the Taluk Committee, District Committee notifies in the official Gazette for grant of quarrying lease through auction for sand quarrying or extraction by Government Departments.
Tender-cum-auction is done through online. Highest price offer is declared as the successful bidder; the successful bidder obtains Quarry Plan, Environmental Clearance, as per Chapter-II-A of KMMCR-1994 of amendment of 2016. Sand quarrying permission is issued up to a period for five years. In Raichur District, 2 sand leases granted in Joladhahadgi of Deodurga Taluk in Krishna riverbed to the successful bidder through Tender-Cum-auction as per Sand Policy-2016.
The District level Sand Monitoring Committee ensures stipulation of following conditions as per the New Sand Policy, 2016, KMMCR, 1994 and Amendment,2016 and as per the Sustainable Mining Management Guidelines,2016:
a) No sand quarrying shall be undertaken without a quarrying plan and Environmental Clearance.
b) Lessee shall make Stockyard, Office, CC Camera, Weigh Bridge near to the sand block.
c) Quarrying shall be done in accordance with MOEF Guidelines.
d) In stream, mining sand extraction and loading to vehicles directly from river is prohibited. So, lessee should store mining sand in stockyard.
e) Lessee should mine as per the mine plan without damaging safety zone and riverbed.
f) Sand quarrying activity shall be in accordance with terms and conditions of the EC
g) The sand has to be mined in the sand lease blocks and to be stored in stockyard.
h) No Sand quarrying shall be allowed within a radius of 500 meters from water supply.
i) Permits shall be issued to vehicles having GPS.
j) The vehicles having non-communication mode, shall not be issued with permit and shall not be allowed to load sand.
k) Permits issued for transportation of Sand shall obtain sign in the Check Post.
l) Mechanized boats and dredgers in river sand quarrying are prohibited.Page 27 of 47
m) Usage of backhoe equipment like JCB is allowed as per Chapter IV - B, 31-R of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules -1994 & its amendments.
n) Sand stored in stockyard, shall be disposed by issuing Computerised Mineral Dispatch Permits (CMDR) to the transporters.
4.2. Action taken on violators Established 14 check post across the District to check the illegal transportation of sand. Action have been taken to file FIRs impose penalty, against the violators like multiple illegal transport using same permit, vehicles for transporting more than the Permit Quantity, vehicles not equipped with GPS, usage of Heavy machinery like Hitachi etc. Following are the major action taken to prevent illegal sand mining/transportation/stock by the District/Taluk sand Monitoring Committee. i. 83 vehicles which have not equipped with GPS have been block listed and sand permits not issued for a period of three months.
ii. 77 vehicles which have violated the rules by using the same permits transporting 237 multiple times from the 11 different sand stockyards of sand blocks have been block listed and transport permits not issued for a period of three months. Tender bid amount, Royalty, District Mineral Fund (DMF) of amount Rs.38,02,344/- has been collected as penalty. Each Vehicle owners have been imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000. iii. Six FIRs have been lodged against multiple illegal sand transportation on vehicles.
iv. 30 FIRS have been registered & penalised for 76 vehicles of an amount Rs:
13,01,535/-by the members of the District Sand Monitoring Committee/Taluk Sand Monitoring Committee against the vehicles for transporting more than the Permit (Mineral Dispatch Permit) quantity.
v. 78 vehicles have been penalised of an amount Rs 13.01 lakhs for transporting more than the Permit.
vi. Six FIRs have been filed against for being used Hitachi‟s for mining in the blocks. vii. An amount of Rs 14 lakhs have been imposed as penalty for using Hitachi‟s for mining in the blocks.
viii. In the Year 2017-18, 27 FIRs against the 27 Survey number& in the Year 2018- 19, 38 FIRs against 68 Survey numbers have been registered for unlawful collection of sand on Patta land. District Level Sand Committee decided that, such lands to be entered as "Government" in the records.
ix. Rs 58.66 lakhs imposed on three Sand Mining Lease holders who have extracted more quantity and six Sand Mining Lease holders for encroachment. x. During 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 District/Taluk Sand Monitoring Committee lodged
- 995 FIR‟s against illegal transportation (1090 Tippers, 320 Tippers/lorry Seized)
- 105 FIR‟s against illegal Storage of sand (54118 MT Seized)
- 6 FIR‟s against illegal Sand Mining (7 Hitachis, 4 JCBs, 5 tippers Seized) Page 28 of 47 5.0 DELIBERATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal in the order dated 08.09.2020 directed the Joint Committee to look into the following:
i. Ascertain the cause of the accident said to have happened in that area ii. whether sand mining is being done in riverbed using mechanical process using heavy machinery which is not permitted under the Sustainable Sand Mining Policy as well as the directions of the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal regarding sand mining in riverbed areas.
iii. whether there were any violations of environmental clearance and other consent conditions in carrying out the mining and any excess mining has been done then, assess the environmental compensation and also compensation payable to the kith and kin of the deceased as has been recorded by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in Original application No. 363 of 2015 vide order dated 25.09.2018.
In order to deliberate on the above given Terms of References (ToR), the Committee, inspected the mine sites, had examined various documents like mine lease, Environmental Clearance and the compliance status with the prevailing regulations and guidelines etc., Based on the above, each ToR has been deliberated in detail and following are the observations/comments:
5.1 Ascertain the cause of the accident said to have happened in that area Shri Chandappa, Father of the deceased girl Ms.Sridevi, along with the few villagers -
Shri Sugureshgouda, Shri Ramesh patil, Shri Reddyyappagouda, Shri Somanathgouda, Shri Venkanagouda, Shri Amathyannagouda, Shri Veereshgouda, Shri Shankargouda,Shri Nagappa, Shri Yallappa, Shri Vasudevnaikmet the Joint Committee and produced an affidavit and made an oral statement. According to the affidavit and the oral statement, her daughter Ms. Sridevi has accidently drowned in the Krishna River at Joladahedagi Village on 14.03.2020 and it was not occurred inside mining lease area. Shri Honnappa who resides in his village introduced Dr.Sarvabhoum Bagalito him stating that he is a social welfare worker and they assured to get funds under Ashraya scheme for his family from the Government in view of the accidental death of her daughter. Shri. Honnappa and Dr.Sarvabhoum Bagali had executed an affidavit on 06.07.2020 and got his thumb impression. Since he has not done any schooling, cannot read or write in any language and hence could not verify the contents in the affidavit. Later, came to know that Dr. Sarvabhoum Bagali has filed an application -O.A No: 366 of 2015 based on the alleged false/affidavit. He has further informed that he has never stated that the death of her daughter was due to drowning in a sand mining block pit, concerned Police officials and authorities have conducted investigation and had concluded the same. Therefore, Page 29 of 47 he has executed another affidavit on 21.07.2020 withdrawing the affidavit dated 06.07.2020 and declaring it to be invalid. The place shown by him to the Committee where Ms.Sridevi accidently drowned is north of the Joladhahadgi Blocks. It is noted from the affidavit and statement of Shri Chandappa father of the deceased girl that his daughter has accidently drowned in the Krishna River at Joladahedagi Village, and not in mining lease area. Copy of the affidavit of Shri Chandappa dated 21.07.2020 is enclosed at Annexure-I. The FIR filed in Devadurga Police station, Raichur also states that the girl has accidently drowned in the Krishna River. Copy of the FIR in Kannada and its English translation are enclosed at Annexure-II and III\ 5.2 Whether sand mining is being done in riverbed using mechanical process using heavy machinery which is not permitted under the Sustainable Sand Mining Policy as well as the directions of the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal regarding sand mining in riverbed areas. It is noted that as per the information from Mines and Geology Department, Raichur following two sand mining leases have been awarded to the successful bidder in Krishna River, Joladahadegi, Devadurga Taluk, Raichur District through tender-cum-auction as per the KMMCR-1994 of Amendment of 2016 of Sand Policy. It is noted that these sand mining are permitted following due procedure prescribed under the regulations and guidelines:
Table -1: Details of Mine leases granted in Joladahadegi, Devadurga taluk, Raichur District SL. Name of the lessee Name of Extent Date of Quarry Date of EC Quantity Extracted No the water (acres) Plan approval permitted, from 2017 to body, MTPA till date, MT village 1 Sri.Anand.B.Doddam Krishna 12.20 06.06.2017 08.06.2017 38500 51151 ani River 2 Sri. P L Kamble Krishna 12.20 06.06.2017 08.06.2017 48000 76278 River According the Department of Mines and Geology, mechanized boats and dredgers in river sand mining are prohibited, however usage of backhoe equipment like JCB is allowed as per the Chapter IV-B, 31-R of KMMCR,1994& its amendment-2016.
According to Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016, Standard Environmental Conditions for Sand Mining, under Sustainable mining practices "Depending upon the location, thickness of sand, deposition, agricultural land/riverbed, the method of mining may be manual, semi mechanized or mechanized." In many sand leases in Yamuna river semi mechanized method has been allowed by MoEF & CC. Copy of a lease is enclosed at Annexure-VI. However, it was reported that both these mine owners have used heavy machinery - Hitachi for mining and hence FIRs have been filed against these mine owners and imposed penalty of Rs 2.0 lakhs each. Though the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016 permits usage of semi mechanized or mechanized method of mining depends upon the Page 30 of 47 location, thickness of sand deposition etc,. the Committee opined that manual method of mining be preferred for mining up to a depth of one-meter, the usage of semi mechanized or mechanized may be permitted only in case of the blocks where the depth of sand deposition is more than one meter and depth of mining can be permitted more than one meter. It may be noted that according to the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016, the depth of mining may be restricted to 3m / water level, whichever is less.
4.3 Whether there were any violations of environmental clearance and other consent conditions in carrying out the mining and any excess mining has been done then, assess the environmental compensation and also compensation payable to the kith and kin of the deceased as has been recorded by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in Original application No. 363 of 2015 vide order dated 25.09.2018. The Committee has noted from the Google earth imageries that that both the mines have commenced their mining activity only after the grant of EC. Bock-1 - Sri.Anand.B.Doddamani The Environmental clearance was granted to Sri.Anand.B.Doddamanion 08.06.2017. From the google satellite imageries (April, 2017 to September, 2019) & field visit following point is/ are inferred:
The plain area in the blocks of the image of April, 2017 is evident that there was no mining.
The pit formation and water logging found from satellite image of the year 2019 is evidence that mining done in the lease area after obtaining Environmental Clearance.
As per records DMG, Raichur, this mine owner has been imposed Rs 2.0 lakhs for using heavy machinery - Hitachi for mining. FIRs have also been filed for using heavy machinery - Hitachi for mining. Bock-2 - Sri. P L Kamble The Environmental clearance was granted to Sri. P L Kambleon 08.06.2017. From the google satellite imageries (April, 2017 to September, 2019) & field visit following points are inferred:
The plain area in the blocks of the image of April, 2017 is evident that there was no mining.
The pit formation and water logging found from satellite image of the year 2019 is evidence that mining done in the lease area after obtaining Environmental Clearance.
As per records DMG, penalty of Rs.19,01,952/- has been imposed for transporting sand by 127 multiple trips using same permits. Also mine owner has been imposed Rs 2.0 lakhs for using heavy machinery - Hitachi for mining. FIRs have also been filed for using heavy machinery - Hitachi for mining.
The Committee observed in both mines that there are no violation of Environmental laws since the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016 permits manual, semi mechanized or mechanized method of mining depending upon the location, thickness of sand, deposition, agricultural land/riverbed, there are certain non- compliances of EC conditions relating to installation of dust control measures, implementation of water conservations measures, advertisement on grant of EC, Page 31 of 47 improvement of transport route, constitution of Environmental Management Cell, submission of half yearly compliance report to Regional Office of the MoEFCC / SEIAA, Karnataka etc,.
The mine owners expressed technical difficulties / non-viabilities in installing the dust control measures and implementation of water conservations measures. It is noted that EC stipulated a condition as "Mineral handling area shall be provided with the adequate number of high efficiency dust extraction system. Loading and unloading areas including the transfer points should also have efficient dust control arrangement. These should be properly maintained and operated." The Committee opined that the dust extraction could be installed and effectively operated in a closed area whereas both the mining as well as the sand storage area are open and hence it is technically not feasible. Further, the dust pollution is naturally prevented due to the moisture content and the density of the sand. Moreover, the dust settles down within few meters of the activity (within the site itself) due to density of sand particle. In view of the above, the Committee opined that this condition is not so relevant. Instead of dust extraction, water sprinkling at stock yard may be insisted. As regards, water conservation, it is noted that EC stipulates condition as " The project authority should implement suitable conservation measures to augment ground water resources in the area in consultation with the Regional Director, Central Ground Water Board within 3 months and report be submitted to the Authority." In general water conservation involves minimisation of water usage, recycling and rainwater harvesting etc,. Whereas, there is no water usage and waste water generation in the sand mining. Since all the mine sites are located either in riverbed or nallas, no separate rainwater harvesting measures are required. In view of the above, the committee opined that this condition is not so relevant. As regards, CSR, the mine owners have informed that they pay District Mineral Fund which is used in the CSR activities in the vicinity of the project and also carry out certain activities viz. distribution of tree saplings, issue of books for the school students etc, hence, stipulation of separate conditions on CSR amounts to duplication. The Committee also agree with the statement of mine owners. As regards non- constitution of Environmental Management Cell (EMC), the committee felt that it may not be viable for such mines to have a separate Environment Management cell in view of the number of workers engaged and their educational quality, nature of activity etc, and hence the mine owners may utilise the service of accredited environmental consultant/laboratory for the environmental management instead of having their own EMC.
In view of the above, the Committee opined that conditions on dust extraction system, water conservation, Environmental Management Cell, CSR need to be revisited. The SEIAA need to consider suitable modification of above conditions in the EC in future. As regards the other non- compliances, considering the nature of non- compliances, the Committee instructed the mine owners to comply with the EC conditions and submit a compliance report within a month, otherwise enforcement action will be initiated as per the regulations.
Page 32 of 47As regards the compensation payable towards the death of a girl, it was noted from the records that the death happened in the river and not in the mining area. 6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS After detailed deliberation, the Joint Committee has made the following conclusion and Recommendations:
According to the site visit and records produced before the Committee viz., affidavit of Shri Chandappa father of the deceased girl, the girl has accidently drowned in the Krishna River at Joladahedagi Village, and not in mined pit / inside mining lease area. Hence, the Committee has not calculated any compensation. Mechanized boats and dredgers in river sand mining are prohibited, however usage of backhoe equipment like JCB is allowed as per the prevailing Rules and Regulations. Though the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016 permits usage of semi mechanized or mechanized method of mining depends upon the location, thickness of sand deposition etc,. the Committee opined that manual method of mining be preferred for mining up to a depth of one-meter, the usage of semi mechanized or mechanized may be permitted only in case of the blocks where the depth of sand deposition is more than one meter and depth of mining can be permitted more than one meter. It may be noted that according to the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016, the depth of mining may be restricted to 3m / water level, whichever is less.
Mining shall be done in layers of one-meter depth to avoid ponding effect and after first layer is excavated, the process can be repeated for the next layers so as to avoid pit formation.
There are no violation of Environmental laws noticed except certain non- compliances of EC conditions relating to advertisement on grant of EC, Display of EC at the site, improvement of transport route, constitution of Environmental Management Cell, submission of half yearly compliance report. Considering the nature of non- compliances, one Month time may be given to the mine owners to comply with the EC conditions and submit a compliance report to Integrated Regional Office, MoEFCC, Bangalore / SEIAA, Karnataka with a copy to DMG, Raichur. The Committee also felt that the conditions stipulated in the EC such as dust extraction in mineral handling area (storage area), water conservation, etc are not so relevant for these mines hence conditions on dust extraction system, water conservation, Environmental Management Cell, CSR need to be revisited. The mine owners may utilise the service of accredited environmental consultant / laboratory for the environmental management instead of having their own Environment Management Cell. The SEIAA need to consider suitable modification of above conditions in the EC in future.
In addition to the imposition of penalty, cancellation of mine lease in case of any violation- encroachment, excess mining etc, and barring the lease owner in participating in Auction for a particular period say one to two years, may be considered.Page 33 of 47
DMG need to be strengthened with manpower and infrastructure so as to enhance the frequency of monitoring The CC Cameras at stock yard shall be connected to the servers of District / Taluk Sand Monitoring Committees/ DMG for monitoring.
The CC Cameras shall be installed at check post on the sand transport route and connected to the servers of District / Taluk Sand Monitoring Committees/ DMG for monitoring."
29. Thereafter this Tribunal passed the following order:
"4. It is seen from the report that there was excess mining done and also heavy machineries were used for doing the quarrying and some illegalities were found and certain penalties have been recovered for transporting more than the permitted quantity. However for the excess mining, whether they have imposed penalty and recovered additional royalty, including whether they have recovered environmental compensation for doing excess mining including the cost required for restoration has not been mentioned in the report.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant wanted some time to give their written submissions regarding the report for considering the matter in detail.
6. The committee is also directed (i) to submit a further report regarding the adequacy of the penalty recovered for the excess mining and whether that calculation was made in tune with the direction issued by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in such matters and also in tune with the penalty provided under the respective mining laws in that State, (ii) to ascertain as to whether any further royalty has been recovered from the licensee who have been permitted to do the quarrying for the excess mining that has been done by them over and above the penalty imposed and whether the penalty imposed for transportation of more than the permit against the 78 lorries will include the amount that has been mentioned by this Tribunal above and (iii) to submit what are all the action taken by them against the alleged mining operators, including imposition of Environmental compensation and submit a further report to this Tribunal on or before 25.02.2021 by e-filing in the form of Searchable PDF/OCR Supportable PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hardcopies to be produced as per Rules.
7. The applicant is also at liberty to file their objections/written submission, if any, to the Joint Committee report before the next hearing date.Page 34 of 47
8. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the members of the committee by e-mail immediately so as to enable them to comply with the direction.
9. For consideration of further report and written submission/objections, if any, to the committee report, post on 25.02.2021."
30. On 09.02.2022 this Tribunal considered the second Joint Committee Report dated Nil e-filed on 24.03.2021 extracted in Para 5 of the Order which reads as follows:
"SECOND REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE IN THE MATTER OF O.A. 171 OF 2020 (DR. SARVABHOUM BAGALI) SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI, AS PER ORDER DATED 27.01.2021.
1.0 PREAMBLE In the Original Application No. 171 of 2020 (SZ), filed by Dr. Sarvabhoum Bagali, Vs The State of Karnataka & Ors., the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal (NGT), Chennai vide Order dated 08.09.2020 constituted a Joint Committee to inspect the sites in question and submit a Report. Accordingly, the Joint Committee has inspected the sand mines at Raichur District and submitted a report. Hon‟ble NGT vide Order dated 27.01.2021 issued following directions:
"6. The committee is also directed
(i) to submit a further report regarding the adequacy of the penalty recovered for the excess mining and whether that calculation was made in tune with the direction issued by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in such matters and also in tune with the penalty provided under the respective mining laws in that State, (DMG)
(ii) to ascertain as to whether any further royalty has been recovered from the licensee who have been permitted to do the quarrying for the excess mining that has been done by them over and above the penalty imposed and whether the penalty imposed for transportation of more than the permit against the 78 lorries will include the amount that has been mentioned by this Tribunal above and (DMG)
(iii) to submit what are all the action taken by them against the alleged mining operators, including imposition of Environmental Compensation (MoEFCC) 2.0 DELIBERTAIONS OF THE COMMITTEE In order to deliberate on the above directions, the Committee had collected the information from concerned Departments and deliberated in detail. Following are the details/ observations/comments:
2.1 Adequacy of the penalty recovered for the excess mining and whether that calculation was made in tune with the direction issued by the Principal Bench Page 35 of 47 of National Green Tribunal in such matters and also in tune with the penalty provided under the respective mining laws in that State, (DMG) According to the DMG, following are the details of quantity permitted and mined by both the sand mines which are the subject matter of the OA:
Table -1: Details of Mine leases in Joladahadegi, Devadurga Taluk, Raichur District with quantity permitted and mined. Sl. Name of the Date of EC Quantity Quantity extracted, MT No. Lessee permitted per 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 year, MT 1 Sri Anand. B. 08.06.2017 38500 0 5000 35351 10800 Doddamani 2 Sri P.L. Kamble 08.06.2017 48000 0 19500 43974 12804 It can be seen from the table that there is no excess sand mining by these leases. Hence, environmental compensation has not been worked out. However, Rs. 19.01 lakhs collected by District Sand Committee from Lessee Sri P.L. Kamble as penalty for transporting sand without permit/by multiple trips.
The Committee also noted the District Sand Committee, Raichur has collected Rs.12,64,500 Lakhs from three mines in the District for transporting sand without permit/multiple trips. Details are given in the Table 2 below:
Table 2: Details of the mines leases transported sand without permit/by multiple trips.
Sl. Name of the Date of EC Lease Quantity Penalty levied Penalty
No. lessee area, transported (Rs) Collected,
acre without Rs
permit, MT
1 Myadargol-2 08.06.2017 12.20 270 2,43,000/- 2,43,000/-
2 Myadargol-3 08.06.2017 12.20 435 3,91,500/- 3,91,500/-
3 Myadargol-5 08.06.2017 12.20 700 6,30,000/- 6,30,000/-
4 ARshangi-2 08.06.2017 12.20 1750 6,30,000/- Nil
5 Apparal-1 08.06.2017 12.20 600 Rs.2,16,000/- Nil
6 Madlapur 29.09.2018 12.20 240 Rs.2,20,150/- Nil
The Committee also noted that District Sand Committee, Raichur has imposed penalty on the following three mines who have extracted and by encroaching areas outside the lease area and collected Rs.16,11,200 Lakhs. Details are given in Table 3 below:
Table 3: Details of the sand mining outside lease areas in Raichur District Sl. Name of the lessee Date of EC Quantity Penalty Imposed Penalty No. extracted (Rs) Collected, Rs outside lease area, MT 1 Apparal-1 08.06.2017 1300 4,68,000/- 1,00,000/- 2 Chikkarayakumpi-1 08.06.2017 6200 22,32,000/- 15,11,200/- 3 Singapur 29.09.2018 500 8,35,500/- Nil Page 36 of 47 Based on the direction of Hon‟ble Tribunal, the Joint Committee has calculated environmental compensation based on the Judgment of Hon‟ble NGT (PB) dated 26.02.2021 in OA 360 of 2015. The Joint Committee considered the entire quantity mined outside lease area as illegal sand mining. The details are given in the Table 4 below:
Table 4: Details of the Environmental compensation Sl. No. Name of the lessee Quantity extracted Environmental outside lease area, MT compensation calculated based on the above, Rs
1. Apparal-2 1300 10,78,286
2. Chikkarayakumpi-1 6200 51,42,603
3. Singapur 500 4,14,725 Calculation on Environmental Compensation is enclosed at Annexure-1.
It can be seen from the above two table that the Environmental Compensation worked out based on the Judgment of Hon'ble NGT(PB) dated 26.02.2021 in OA 360 of 2015 is more than the penalty levied by DMG in respect f two mine leases (Apparal-2 and Chikkarayakumpi-1) and less in case of Singapur mine lease.
2.2 Whether any further royalty has been recovered from the licensee who have been permitted to do the quarrying for the excess mining that has been done by them over and above the penalty imposed and whether the penalty imposed for transportation of more than the permit against the 78 lorries will include the amount that has been mentioned by this Tribunal above and (DMG) The Committee noted that the penalty collected from the above sand lease holders include five times of the royalty, tender bid amount, over and above the penalty.
The penalty imposed and collected from 76 vehicles for transporting of more than the permit quantity does not include the penalty collected for transporting without permit/by multiple trips. Rs.13.01 lakhs collected against transporting of more than the permit quantity and Rs.45.45 lakhs collected against transporting sand without permit/by multiple trips.
2.3 Action taken by them against the alleged mining operators, including imposition of Environmental compensation (MoEFCC) The Committee noted that apart from penalty, the District Sand Committee has taken following actions on the defaulters:
In the year 2017-18, 27 FIRs against 27 Survey number & in the year 2018-19, 38 FIRs against 68 Survey numbers have been registered for unlawful collection of sand on Patta land.Page 37 of 47
Out of 77 vehicles who have transported sand without permit/ by multiple trips, 26 vehicles failed to pay penalty and hence those have been block listed. Six FIRs have been filed for using heavy machineries-Hitachi‟s for mining. An amount of Rs 14 lakhs has been collected as penalty for using Hitachi‟s for mining.
995 FIRs filed against illegal transportation (1090 Tippers, 320 Tippers/lorry seized) 105 FIRs filed against illegal Storage of sand (54118 MT Seized) As regards the non-compliances of EC, mine owners have been directed to take action to comply with the conditions and submit a Action taken report / Action plan with time schedule on or before 25th February, 2021. The two sand mine leases which are subject matter of this OA have submitted compliance report along with latest ambient air quality monitoring reports, noise level reports, etc., The monitoring report reveals that all the parameters are within the limit. However, there are few short comings such as improvement & maintenance of approach road, wearing of personnel protective equipment by workers, advertisement about grant of EC etc., In view of the lease importance given by the lease owners on EC compliances and to bring attention and importance on EC, the committee felt that a lumpsum amount, say Rs five lakhs may be imposed on all mines as Environmental compensation.
3.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
i. Joint Committee noted that there is no excess sand mining in both the sand mines which are the subject matter of this OA. Imposition of Environmental Compensation is therefore does not arise.
ii. The Joint Committee noted that DMG has imposed penalty of RS.35,35,000 on three mines and collected Rs.16,11,200 for mining in encroachment areas outside the lease area. All these three mines are not part of present OA. The Joint Committee has worked out Environmental Compensation based on the methodology approved by Hon‟ble NGT(PB) vide Judgment dated 26.02.2021 in OA 360 of 2015. It is noted that the Environmental Compensation calculated is more than the penalty levied by DMG in respect f two mine leases (Apparal-2 and Chikkarayakumpi-1) and less in case of Singapur mine lease. Since these mine leases are not part of this present OA, the Joint Committee felt that it would be appropriate to leave to Hon‟ble Tribunal to decide on imposing Environmental Compensation.
iii. Apart from penalty, the District Sand Committee has taken various actions on the defaulters including collecting penalty for using heavy machineries, filing FIR, etc., iv. The DMG to take necessary action to collect the balance penalty. v. In view of the least importance given by the lease owners on EC compliances and to bring attention and importance on EC, the Committee recommends for imposing a lumpsum amount, say Rs five lakhs on all mines as Environmental compensation. vi. In case of continuance of non-compliances, the SEIAA, Karnataka to take action as per the powers delegated under S.O 637(E) dated 28.02.2014.Page 38 of 47
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPENSATION The environmental compensation for capital dredging is calculated based on the method approved by the Hon‟ble NGT (PB) vide Judgment dated 26.02.2021 in OA 360 of 2015. The Joint Committee considered the entire quantity mined outside lease area as illegal sand mining.
Present Value of Foregone Ecological values ( @5-8% discount rate and over 5 years) 𝑡 PV = 5 = 1 (Dx RF)/(1+r)t Where D is Market Value of Illegally mined Material Risk Factor (RF) = 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00 as per the extent of severity of damage and ecological fragility of the river basin Severity of Impact Mild Moderate Significant Severe Risk level 1 2 3 4 Risk Factor 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Discount Rate 8% 7% 6% 5% Net Present Value (after netting out market value of illegally mined material) - i.e., Total Compensation to be levied, NPV = PV-
CALCULATION The Committee noted that three mines - Apparal-2, Chjikkarayakumpi-1 and Singapur have extracted sand by encroaching areas outside the lease area. The entire quantity mined outside lease area has been considered as illegal. RF is considered as 0.5 (Moderate).
Market value of Rs. 790 as per the District Sand Committee, Raichur is considered.
1. Mine lease - Apparal-2 Quantity mined out = 1300 MT Market value, D, Rs=1300 x 790 = Rs.10,27,000 PV = [102700x0.5]/(1+0.07)1 + [1027000x0.5]/ (1+0.07)2 + [1027000 x 0.5]/ (1+0.07)3 + [1027000x 0.5]/ (1+0.07)4 + [1027000 x 0.5]/ (1+0.07)5 = Rs.21,05,286 NPV = PV-D = 21,05,286 - 10,27,000 = Rs 10,78,286
2. Chikkarayakumpi-1 Quantity mined out = 6200 Mt Market value, D = 6200 x 790 = Rs.48,98,000"
31. On 29.03.2022, the case was heard and taken for Judgment.Page 39 of 47
32. The Counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the Provisions of the MMDR Act and also as per the Sustainable Sand Management Guidelines, 2016 and Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining of 2020, use of heavy machineries are prohibited. But in the list Lease Deed executed by the authorities, they have permitted the mechanised sand mining which is against the Rules. Further, 9th Respondent had filed their additional Counter Affidavit where they have mentioned that they are not permitting mechanised sand mining and they are strictly adhering to the Provisions of the MMDR Act and the Lease Deed in Form E was in relation to the quarrying lease granted under Rule 18 and by mistake that was incorporated and relevant portion in respect of Sand Mining prohibiting use of heavy machineries was omitted to be struck off by mistake. So, under such circumstances, the Counsel for the applicant prayed that orders may be passed directing the authorities to strictly comply with the provisions of the MMDR Act.
33. On the other hand, the Counsel appearing for State of Karnataka submitted that the affidavit filed by the 9th Respondent will go to show that the Form-E attached to the lease was by mistake which intended for granting lease under Rule 18 which relates to quarrying operations other than minor minerals and sand and that mistake was later rectified and no mechanised mining is permitted in river bed sand mining activities.
34. Considered the pleadings submissions made in Committee Reports and submissions made by both sides.Page 40 of 47
35. The points that arise for consideration are:-
i. Whether there was any Sand Mining done against the provisions of the Statute and the guidelines issued in this regard in respect of river bed sand mining?
ii. What is the nature of direction, if any, that will have to be issued in the circumstances of the case?
POINTS:
36. The grievance in this application was regarding permission being granted to do mechanised sand mining in river beds of Krishna River in Richur District. According to the applicant, mechanised sand mining was prohibited under the Sand Mining Management Guidelines of 2016 and Lease Deed issued by the 9th Respondent permits such activities which is illegal.
37. The applicant also raised question that on account of the unscientific Sand Mining, death of a girl by name Shridevi happened during March 2020 and compensation will have to be directed to be paid for them.
38. Admittedly, to ascertain the genuineness of the allegation made in the application, a Joint Committee was appointed and the Joint Committee has filed a report wherein they have categorically stated that there was no excess mining done in the disputed area and the death of the girl was not happened in the mining lease area but it was outside the mining area and as Page 41 of 47 such it cannot be related to any negligence on the part of the lessees who were undertaking the mining in this area.
39. Respondents 8 and 9 were impleaded in this case alleging that the death of the girl happened within their area and as such they are liable to pay compensation. In view of the Joint Committee Report that the death has occurred not within the lease area and mining is nothing to do with the death of the girl, there is no necessity to direct respondents 8 and 9 to pay any compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased girl. The Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant fairly conceded that he is not pressing for this relief in view of the finding of the Joint Committee. So that prayer is rejected.
40. It is an admitted fact that as per the directions of this Tribunal in several cases in relation to River Bed Sand Mining and also on the basis of the guidelines given by MoEF and CC on sustainable sand mining policy namely Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 (EMGSM-2020) Mechanised sand Mining was prohibited in River Bed Sand Mining activity. So, any provision in the Lease Deed contrary to the same is not valid.
41. Further the 7th Respondent had filed a counter affidavit, wherein they have categorically stated that the Rule 18 of KMM CR 1994 is not applicable to sand mining and it relates to quarry of minor mineral other than sand. Form-E is a Lease Deed which has to be executed for doing quarry of other minor minerals other than sand and in fact, it is also mentioned that the Class 3 of Part II of Form E was omitted to be struck off Page 42 of 47 and it is only a mistake which deals with permission for bringing machinery and equipment which reads as follows:
"Liberty and power for are in connection with any of the purpose mentioned in this to erect, construct and maintain and use on or under the said land any Indian Machinery Plant pressing and floors furnaces coat oven brickle workshop, store houses, Bungalows, Godowns, shed and other buildings and other works and conveniences of light nature on or under the said lands. So it is clear from that even in this clause machineries can be brought only for the purposes mentioned therein."
42. Further, the Counter affidavit filed by 7th Respondent clearly shows that there are other conditions in Sub Rule 10 and 11 of Rule 31 (R) of KMMCR Rules, 2019 KMMCR 1994 which reads as follows:
"Mechanised Doors and Grudges in river sand quarry are prohibited. Use of backhoe equipment like JCB and Screening in River Bed Sand Quarrying shall be in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, from time to time.
Provided that loading equipment like dumpers, tractors, mounted loaders may be used on the river banks only for loading without destabilising river bank."
43. Further, they have also assured that they will be permitting river sand mining strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the MoEF and CC.
44. So, under such circumstances, we feel that the application can be disposed of with the following directions:-
a. The prayer for compensation for the death of Miss. Shridevi is rejected.
b. Whenever lease in respect of sand mining in river bed is granted, then the granting authority must specifically mention in that deed that no heavy machinery can be used for carrying out the sand Page 43 of 47 mining in river beds. The officials must be careful in drafting the lease deed in future.
c. The Mining and Geology Department, State of Karnataka is directed to strictly implement the provisions of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1994 amended from time to time and also the Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and Enforcement and Monitoring of Guidelines of Sand Mining, 2020 issued by the MoEF and CC in respect of River Bed Sand Mining.
d. Whenever there is any violation found, then the authorities are directed to take appropriate action against those violators strictly in accordance with law including the imposition of Environmental compensation apart from realising the penalty under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1994 as amended from time to time and initiating prosecution under the respective statute.
e. The Mining and Geology Department is directed to make necessary monitoring system to check illegal mining and violation of conditions and excess mining being done and if anything is brought to their notice, they are directed to take appropriate action against those persons who are responsible for the same, in accordance with law.
f. The authorities must also provide necessary mechanism to check all these aspects and also must have a regular mechanism to have a vigil to supervise the sand mining areas to avoid natural resources being exploited.
g. The authority dealing with grant of Sand Mining Lease in river bed area and the regulator who are Monitoring the same are directed to follow strictly the recommendations made by the Joint Committee Page 44 of 47 extracted above and also the provisions in Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016 and also in Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines on Sand Mining, 2020.
h. The Mining department is directed to take steps to realise the Environmental Compensation imposed against the persons responsible for illegal mining outside the permitted mining area in addition to the penalty imposed by the Joint Committee in accordance with law, after issuing show cause notice and providing opportunity of filing objection.
45. The points are answered accordingly.
46. In the result, the application is allowed in part and disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) The claim for compensation for death of the girl Miss.
Shridevi is rejected as not pressed, since the incident occurred not within the lease area and it was not due to any activities of the lessees of the mining operations.
(ii) Whenever lease in respect of sand mining in river bed is granted, then the granting authority must specifically mention in that deed that no heavy machinery can be used for carrying out the sand mining in river beds. The officials must be careful in drafting the lease deed in future.
(iii) The Mining and Geology Department, State of Karnataka is directed to strictly implement the provisions of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1994 amended from time to Page 45 of 47 time and also the Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and Enforcement and Monitoring of Guidelines of Sand Mining, 2020 issued by the MoEF and CC in respect of River Bed Sand Mining.
(iv) Whenever there is any violation found, then the authorities are directed to take appropriate action against those violators strictly in accordance with law including the imposition of Environmental compensation apart from realising the penalty under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1994 as amended from time to time and initiating prosecution under the respective statute.
(v) The Mining and Geology Department is directed to make necessary monitoring system to check illegal mining and violation of conditions and excess mining being done and if anything is brought to their notice, they are directed to take appropriate action against those persons who are responsible for the same, in accordance with law.
(vi) The authorities must also provide necessary mechanism to check all these aspects and also must have a regular mechanism to have a vigil to supervise the sand mining areas to avoid natural resources being exploited.
(vii) The authority dealing with grant of Sand Mining Lease in river bed area and the regulator who are Monitoring the same are directed to follow strictly the recommendations made by the Joint Committee extracted above and also the provisions in Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016 and also in Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines on Sand Mining, 2020.
Page 46 of 47(viii) The Mining department is directed to take steps to realise the Environmental Compensation imposed against the persons responsible for illegal mining outside the permitted mining area in addition to the penalty imposed by the Joint Committee in accordance with law, after issuing show cause notice and providing opportunity of filing objection.
(ix) Considering the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their respective cost in the application.
(x) The Registry is directed to communicate this Judgment to the Official respondents for their information and compliance with the direction.
47. With the above observations and directions, this Original Application is disposed of.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, J.M. Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, E.M. O.A. No. 171 of 2020 (SZ) 11th May, 2022. SE Page 47 of 47