National Green Tribunal
Om Pal And Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 5 August, 2024
Item No. 01 (Court No. 2)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(Through Physical Hearing with Hybrid VC Option)
Original Application No.160/2022
(I.A. No. 860/2023 & I.A. No. 75/2023)
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Om Pal and others,
Residents of Village Pachayra, Tehsil Loni,
District Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh. ...Applicants
Versus
1. State of Uttar Pradesh,
Through Chief Secretary,
Government of Uttar Pradesh,
101, 'B' Block, Lok Bhawan,
U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow - 226001.
Email: [email protected].
2. The Director,
Directorate of Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh,
Raja, Khanij Bhawan 27/8, Ram Mohan Rai Marg,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226001.
Email: [email protected].
3. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board,
Building No. TC-12V,
Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow-226 010, U.P.
Email: [email protected].
4. District Magistrate, Ghaziabad,
Office of the District Magistrate,
Rajnagar, Ghaziabad-201001, U.P.
Email: [email protected].
5. Mr. Mumtaz Ali,
S/o Mr. Fakir Mohammad, Resident of Mohammadabad,
District Jyotiba Phule Nagar, Uttar Pradesh,
(Project Proponent). ...Respondents
Counsel for the Applicants:
Mr. S. P. Singh Senior Advocate alongwith applicant. O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -2- Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Bhanwar Singh Jadon, Mr. Chetan Jadon and Mr. Hardik Saxena, Advocates for respondent no. 1-State of U.P. Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocate for respondent no. 2- Mining Department.
Mr. Utkarsh Tripathi Mining Officer.
Mr. Pradeep Misra and Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocates for respondent no. 3- UPPCB.
Mr. R. P. Mehrorta Senior Advocate with Ms. Pallavi Pratap, Ms. Muskan Jain and Mr. Apoorv Srivastava, Advocates for respondent no. 5.
PRESENT:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER Judgment Reserved on:- 13.03.2024 Judgment pronounced on :- 05.08.2024 Application is registered based on a complaint received by post.
Judgment PRONOUNCED BY: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JM
1. Mr. Ompal and other residents of Village Pachayra, Tehsil Loni, District Ghaziabad have sent by post the present letter petition, which has been treated and registered as original application.
2. The applicants have complained in the letter petition about illegal sand mining at Khasra no. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 37, 38 etc. in river bed of River Yamuna in village Pachayra Khand-1, Tehsil Loni, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh by contractor Mr. Mumtaz Ali in violation of environmental norms.
3. The relevant part of the letter petition enumerating grievances of the applicants reads as under:
"िवषय- ाम पचायरा ख -1 म बालू खननं पटटे दार ारा भू ामीओं की िबना िल खत सहमित मुआवजा िदये िबना तथा शासनादे शों, पयावरण O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -3- ता भाव की शत /िनयमों / ीकृित आदे श/पटटा अनुब की शत तथा मा० ायालय एन०जी०टी० की शत का सरे आम उ ंघन कर ितब त पौकलैन मशीनों ारा ीकृत े से बाहर, यमुना नदी तल से नीचे 15-20 फुट गहराई खुदाई कर भारी मा ा म अवैध खनन कर रा सरकार को राज की भारी ित प ँचाने के संबंध म।
X X X X िनवेदन यह है िक आपके ारा / िजलािधकारी महोदय ारा ाम पचायरा म खसरा न र 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 37, 38 आिद म बालू खनन का पटटा िदया गया है आपके ारा िदये गये अनुउपयु बालू खनन हे तु मुमताज अली ठे केदार को जो बालू खनन हे तु िदया गया है िपछले वष उ ठे केदार ने िबना िकसानों की सहमित के ही जबरन खनन शु कर िदया ाथ गणो की भूिम ाम पचायरा व िद ी दे श की सीमा के गां वो से लगती है जहाँ होम िडपाटमे भारत सरकार वष 1884 के िनयम व शासनादे श व खनन िवभाग की रपोट के अनुसार दोनों दे शो की सीमा यमुना नदी की गहराई धारा को माना गया है उ ठे केदार मुमताज अली िपछले वष शासनादे श, ता माण प , पटटा अनुब की शत , िसंचाई िवभाग, व मा० ायालय एन०जी०टी० की शत का लगातार उ ं घन करते ितब त पौकलैन मशीनों ारा ीकृत के बाहर िसचाई िवभाग की ितब त सीमा 600 मीटर के अ र के खसरा न र/ े म भारी मा ा म अवैध खनन िकया गया था िजस पर खनन िवभाग / राज िवभाग ारा भारी मा ा म अवैध खनन थलीय जां च रपोट / राय ी की वसूली की कायवाही की गयी।
उ ठे केदार ारा उ बडी-बडी पौकलैन मशीनों ारा यमुना नदी के िकनारों को काटकर 15-20 फुट गहराई तक खुदाई कर अवैध खनन िकया गया था। िजससे यमुना नदी अपनी मु धारा से हटकर उ र दे श की तरफ ितब त सीमा 600 मीटर के अ र आ गयी िजससे उ र दे श की भू ािमयों की भूिम यमुना पार िद ी की तरफ चली गयी िजसकी िशकायते हम भू ािमयों ने कई बार की थी पर ु ठे केदार की िमलीभगत सां ठ गां ठ से कोई कायवाही नहीं ई।
िफर अब माह अ ु बर 2021 के बाद पुनः उ ठे केदार िबना िकसानों की िल खत सहमित के ही खनन काय शु कर रहा है उ ठे केदार ने यमुना नदी की धारा को मोड कर/अव कर िद ी दे श की तरफ कर िदया है िजससे कभी भी उ० ० सरकार व िद ी सरकार व हम भू ामी म टकराव उ हो सकता है ।
यह भी अवगत कराना है िक िक उ ीकृत े अिधकतर जल म है ीकृत े म आपके ारा अंिकत 3,23,600 घन मीटर बालू उपल ही नहीं है । उ ठे केदार शासनादे शों, प ा अनुबंध की शत पयावरण व मा ायालय एन०जी०टी० की शत का पूरा पूरा उलंघन कर ीकृत े से बाहर तथा यमुना नदी की मु धारा को काटते ए ितबंिधत े म बडी बडी पोपलेन मशीनों से िदन-रात 24 घ े पु नः यमुना नदी के जल र/तल से नीचे 15-20 फुट गहराई तक भारी मा ा म अवै ध िकया जायेगा जो पूण प से अवैध खनन की ेणी होगा।
पुनः यह भी अवगत कराना है िक उ ीकृत े म ना तो िपलर / सीमा है न ही कैमरे है । उ ठे केदार ारा बालू के खाली व भरे टकों को धमकां टे पर िबना तुलाई के ही ओवरलोड भरकर लगभग 25 घनमीटर की बालू भरकर िदन रात 24 घ े बेची जाती है । जो रव ा पच एम०एम० 11 म लगभग 12 घनमीटर ही अंिकत O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -4- कर दशाया जाता है । धमकां टे की वजन की कोई पच नहीं दी जाती है । केवल धमकां टा िदखावे के िलये ही रखा है । मु प से अवगत कराना है िक हम भू ािमयों / ामवािसयों की भूिम म ीकृत े म तथा ीकृत े के बाहर बडी- बडी पोपलेन मशीनों (जो नीचे खुदाई करती है ) िदन रात 24 घ े को चलाने से रोकने के िलए जो पयावरण/ मा ायालय एन०जी०टी० / ीकृती आदे श / प ा अनु बंध की शत तथा िसंचाई िवभाग की शत का उ ंघन करने का कारण बनती है । यह मशीने लोडर नहीं है ब 40 फुट नीचे यमुना नदी तल की गहराई म खुदाई कर यमुना नदी की धारा को बदलकर प ी भूिम की कटाई कर जनहािन, पशुहािन, भूिमहािन, जीवहािन आिद को ित प ँ चाती है । िजससे माह अ ु बर म मशीन से खुदाई करने से ए ग े म एक की डु बकर मौत हो गयी थी।
अतः ीमान जी से सानुरोध ाथना है िक ाम पचायरा म ख 1 म भू ािमयों को मुआवजा / िल खत सहमित के उपरा ही खनन की अनुमित / ओ०टी०पी० दी जाये तथा ीकृत आदे श / पटटा आदे श की शतों पयावरण ता माण प , मा० ायालय, एन०जी०टी० महोदय तथा िसंचाई िवभाग की शत का उ ंघन न हो सके इसके िलए ितबंिधत पोपलेन मशीनों को चलाने से रोकने की कृपा कर। तािक जनहािन, पशुहािन, भूिमहािन, जीव ज ु की हािन तथा उ० ०- िद ी दे श की सीमा िववाद उ न हो सके तथा भूिम िद ी दे श की सीमा म न चली जाए।"
4. In view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the application, this Tribunal, vide order dated 10.03.2022, constituted a Joint Committee comprising of Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) and District Magistrate-Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and directed the same to look into the grievances of the applicant and submit factual and action taken report within three months. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-
" Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, it appears necessary to ascertain the factual position in the matter through a Joint Committee of the State PCB, and District Magistrate- Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh). The State PCB will be the Nodal agency for coordination and compliance. The Joint Committee may meet within four weeks and undertake site visit and look into the grievance of the applicant. Factual and action taken report may be furnished within three months by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF."
5. In compliance thereof, the Joint Committee inspected the site on 04.04.2022. Compliance Report alongwith Joint Inspection Report of the Joint Committee was filed by Regional Officer, UPPCB, Ghaziabad vide email dated O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -5- 25.05.2022. The relevant part of the compliance report reads as under:
"Report of the Joint Committee submitted in compliance to Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, New Delhi Order dated 10-03-2022 in OA No-160/2022 Ompal & Ors. Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
X X X X During inspection it was informed by the representative of Mining department that sand mining permission has been granted in favour of Late Shri Fakir Mohammad resident- Mohammadabad, District-Jyotiba Phule Nagar- 244235 for a period of 05 years for total area of 16.183 in gata number 8m, 9m, 10m, 11m, 12m, 13m, 17m, 18m, 19m, 20m, 21m, 22m, 25m, 26m. of village Pachayra block-1 , 27m, 30m, 37m, 38m, 39m, 40m, 41m, 53m, 54m, 55m, S6m, 57m, 237m, 238m, 239m, 240mm of village- Pachayara khand-1, tehsil- Loni, Ghaziabad.
The joint team conducted the site inspection of the area in question in the presence of the complainant Shri Ompal to ascertain issues raised by the complainant with regards to degradation of environment and violation of environmental laws. Point-wise compliance status with respect to complaint is as follows: -
a. Complaint has been made by the complainant Shri Ompal that illegal sand mining is being done by the lessee Shri Mumtaz Ali in Khasra No. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 37 and
38.
It was observed by the Joint Committee that, the above mentioned Khasras come under the sanctioned lease area in favour of Mr. Mumtaz Ali. Mining work is being done by Mr. Mumtaz Ali in his approved area, which does not come under the category of illegal mining.
b. Complaint has been made by the complainant Mr Ompal that illegal sand mining is being done by Mr. Mumtaz Ali lessee in the mining area of village Pachayra Khand-1 by doing 15-20 feet deep pit-
It was noticed by the Joint Committee that a part of the sanctioned lease area is presently submerged and no pothole was found in the dry area.
c. Complaint has been made by the complainant that the work of mining and loading of sand is being done by the lessee by heavy machines-
It was noticed by the Joint Committee that the work of mining and loading of sand is being done by the excavator cum loading machine in the order of the Directorate's letter no. 414/M (Mining Policy)/2018 dated 21.06.2019 by the lessee.
d. Complain has been made by the complainant that due to mining by the lessee, the Yamuna River has shifted within a distance of 600 meters from the bandh- In O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -6- relation to the above complaint, it is to be informed that on the basis of a joint investigation of Irrigation Department, Revenue Department and Mining Department at the time of lease settlement, the lease section has been formed as per the guidelines of the Irrigation Department. During the investigation by the joint team, it was noticed on the spot that the mining work was being done by the lessee within the same geo-coordinates in which mining permission is sanctioned. The boundary pillars of the approved mining lease are located in the same place 600 meters from the pusta of the Irrigation Department.
As per the Joint report, complaints made by the complainant is baseless, a copy of the Joint report along with relevant documents is annexed as Annexure-1.
6. The relevant part of the Joint Inspection Report of the Joint Committee reads as under:-
"संयु जां च आ ा मा० एन०जी०टी नई िद ी म योिजत OA No. 160/2022 Om Pal & Ors. Versus State of Uttar Praesh & Anr. म पा रत आदे श िदनां क 10.03.2022, ारा उ० ० दू षण िनयं ण बोड तथा िजलािधकारी गािजयाबाद की संयु सिमित के मा म से बालू खनन प ा ाम पचायरा ख -1 के खसरा सं० 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 37 व 38 म अवैध बालू खनन की जां च िकये जाने के आदे श िदये गये। उ आदे श के अनुपालन म उ० ० दू षण िनयं ण बोड जनपद गािजयाबाद के ितिनिध के प म ी बी०के० िसंह, सहायक पयावरण अिभयंता, उ० ० दू षण िनयं ण बोड, गािजयाबाद तथा िजलािधकारी गािजयाबाद के आदे श िदनां क 15.03.2022 के ारा अपरिजलािधकारी (िव०/रा०) गािजयाबाद को नािमत िकया गया। कायालय अपरिजलािधकारी (िव०/रा०) गािजयाबाद के प सं ० 2247/एन०जी०टी०-142/ओपन-160/2022 िदनां क 26.03.2022, ारा िजला खनन अिधकारी, गािजयाबाद एवं तहसीलदार लोनी को उपरो आदे श के अनुपालन म बालू खनन प ा ाम पचायरा ख -1 म अवैध बालू खनन की जाँ च के समय अपने अधीन थ ाफ एवं आव क अभलेखो सिहत उप थत रहने हे तु िनदिशत िकया गया।
िदनां क 04.04.2022 को अपरिजलािधकारी (िव०/रा०) गािजयाबाद, े खान अिधकारी गािजयाबाद, सहायक पयावरण अिभयंता, उ० ० दू षण िनयं ण बोड, गािजयाबाद, तहसीलदार लोनी, सव क े ीय कायालय गािजयाबाद, े ीय कानूनगो एवं े ीय लेखपाल ारा गत े का थलीय िनरी ण िशकायतकता ी ओमपाल की उप थित म िकया गया, िजसकी जां च आ ा िन वत् है -
जनपद गािजयाबाद के तहसील लोनी के अ ्रगत ाम पचायरा ख -1 के गाटा सं० 8िम०, 9िम०, 10िन0, 11 िम०, 12 िम०, 13िन०, 17िम०, 18, 19, 20िम०, 21िम०, 22िम०, 25िम0, 26िम0, 27िम०, 30 िम०, 37िम०, 38िन०, 39िम०, 40 िम०, 41िम०, 53िम०, 54िम०, 55िम०, 56िम०, 57िम०, 237िम०, 238िम0, 239 िम०, 240िन0 के रकबा 16.183 हे ० म 05 वष की अविध के िलये बालू खनन ी मुमताज अली पु ० ी फकीर मौह द िनवासी- मौह दाबाद, जनपद- ोितबा फूले नगर- 244235 के प म ीकृत एवं संचािलत है ।
O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -7- िशकायतकता ी ओमपाल ारा िशकायत की गयी है िक प े धारक ी मुमताज अली ारा खसरा सं० 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 37 व 38 म 15-20 फीट गहरे गडढे करके अवैध बालू खनन िकया जा रहा है , साथ ही प े धारक ारा भारी मशीनों ारा बालू खनन कर लोिडं ग का काय िकया जा रहा है , िजसके कारण प े धारक ारा खनन करने से यमुना नदी बंधे से 600 मीटर की दू री के अ र िश हो गयी है ।
उ िशकायत के स ंध म जां च के समय पाया गया िक उपरो उ खत खसरा सं० ी मुमताज अली के प म ीकृत प ा े के अ गत आते है । ी मुमताज अली ारा अपने ीकृत े म खनन काय िकया जा रहा है , जो अवैध खनन की ेणी म नहीं आता है । ीकृत प ा े का एक िह ा वतमान म जलम है एवं जो े सूखे म है उसम िकसी भी कार का गडढा नहीं पाया गया। भारी मशीनों के स ंध म गिठत टीम ने दे खा िक जाँ च के समय प ाधारक ारा िनदे शालय के प सं० 414/एम० (खनन नीित)/2018 िदनां क 21.06.2019 म उ े खत मशीन ारा काय िकया जा रहा है । (िनदे शालय के प िदनां क 21.06.2019 की छाया ित एवं उ० ० उपखिनज (प रहार) िनयमावली, 2021 के िनयम-35 की छाया ित सं ल है ।) उ िशकायत के स ंध म अवगत कराना है िक प ा व थापन के समय िसंचाई िवभाग, राज िवभाग एवं खनन िवभाग की संयु जां च के आधार पर िसंचाई िवभाग के गाईड लाईन के अनुसार की प ा ख बना है । संयु टीम ारा जां च के समय मौके पर दे खा गया िक व थापन के समय जो िजयोकािडनेटस है , उसी िजयोकािडनेटस के अ र ही प े धारक ारा खनन का काय िकया जा रहा है । िसंचाई िवभाग के पु ा से 600 मीटर के बाहर ही ीकृत खनन प े के सीमा यथा थान थत है ।.
X X X X"
7. This Tribunal considered the Compliance Report and the Joint Inspection Report of the Joint Committee on 12.07.2022 and noticed the deficiencies therein and in view thereof by order of even date directed the Joint Committee to submit further factual and action taken report. The relevant part of order dated 12.07.2022 reads as under:-
"4. We have gone through the report. It is pertinent to observe that in the letter petition, the applicants had complained that the Project Proponent was illegally mining beyond permitted area and permitted depth by use of prohibited machines without written consent of the applicants and without payment of compensation to them in accordance with order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in W.P No. 3101 of 2010 titled Sripal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. The applicants have complained that pillars and cameras have not been installed and the sand mined is transported without weighing on any weighment bridge and without submitting weighment slip in over loaded trucks containing 25 cubic meters sand against 'rawana parchi' recording transported quantity as 12 cubic meters. The applicants have claimed that earlier the Project Proponent had illegally mined within prohibited area of 600 meters notified by Irrigation O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -8- Department for which heavy penalty/royalty was recovered by Mining/Revenue Department. The applicants have mentioned that one person died in October 2021 due to drowning in the pit created by machine used for mining. Vide order dated 10.03.2022, this Tribunal had directed the Joint Committee to look into the grievances of the applicants but while submitting its report the Joint Committee has not looked into the allegations regarding alleged incident of illegal mining by the Project Proponent and recovery of penalty/royalty by Mining/Revenue Department, alleged incident of death of one person by drowning in the pit created by the machine used for mining and alleged requirement of written consent and payment of compensation under order of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and non-compliance thereof by the Project Proponent. The Joint Committee had submitted in the report that pillars were installed and the Project Proponent was mining by using permitted machine within the permitted area ruling out illegal mining by the Project Proponent but the Joint Committee has not attached any document regarding the mining lease, photographs of the pillars, cameras and weighment bridge installed and also of the machines used by the Project Proponent. The Joint Committee has not mentioned the particulars of machines permitted to be used and actually used on the spot and has also not attached map showing tallying of geo-coordinates of the mining sites leased out with sites actually mined by the Joint Committee.
6. In these facts and circumstances, we consider it appropriate to direct the Joint Committee to look into these aspects and verify the factual position and take appropriate remedial action by following due process of law and submit further factual and action taken report."
8. Pursuant thereto, the Joint Committee inspected the site on 03.11.2022 and submitted report vide email dated 11.11.2022. The relevant part of the report reads as under:
"संयु जां च आ ा कृपया मा० ायालय एन०जी०टी० नई िद ी म योिजत OA No.-160/2021 OM Pal & Ors. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh Anr. म पा रत आदे श िदनां क 12.07.2022 के अनु पालन म प ाधारक ी मु मताज अली पु ० ी फकीर मौह द िनवासी -मौह दाबाद, जनपद- ोितबा फूले नगर- 244235 के प म ीकृत उपखिनज बालू खनन प ा े जनपद गािजयाबाद के तहसील लोनी अ गत ाम पचायरा ख -1 के गाटा सं० 8िम०, 9िम०, 10िन0, 11 िम०, 12 िम०, 13िम०, 17 िम०, 18. 19, 20िन0, 21िम०, 22िम०, 25िम०, 26 िम०, 27िम०, 30िम०, 37िम०, 38िम०, 39िम०, 40 िम०, 41 िम०, 53िम०, 54िम०, 55 िम०, 56 िम०, 57 िम०, 237िम0, 238 िम०, 239िम०, 240 िम० रकबा 16.183 है ० मा ा 323600 घ०मी० ितवष प ा अविध िदनां क 14.10.2020 से 13.10.2025 तक की संयु जां च खान अिधकारी, गािजयाबाद एवं सहायक पयावरण अिभयंता, उ० ० दू षण िनयं ण बोड, गािजयाबाद के साथ िदनां क 03.11.2022 को की गयी। मा० ायालय एन०जी०टी० नई िद ी ारा पा रत आदे श िदनां क 12.07.2022 के अनु पालन म िब दु वार आ ा िन वत् है - O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -9-
1. थलीय जां च म उ प ा े म खनन काय बंद पाया गया। यहाँ यह अवगत कराना है िक मानसून स (िदनां क 01.07.2022 से 30.09.2022 तक) म खनन काय बंद हो गया था, जो वतमान म शु नहीं आ है । मानसून स म यमुना नदी म जल र बढ़ जाने एवं प ा े म माह 01 जु लाई, 2022 अथात् िपछले 04 माह से ही खनन काय बंद होने के कारण प ा े के सीमािच िमट गये है । प ा े म खनन काय शु होने से पूव यह सुिनि त िकया जायेगा िक प ा े को िजयो कािडने ट के अनु सार व थत करते ये सीमा िब दु के िपलर और कैमरा पुनः लगाया जाये। ीकृत खनन प े का िजयो कािडने ट संल है । (संल क-1)
2. थलीय जां च म खनन प ा े से कुछ दू री पर तौल मशीन Weighment Bridge लगा आ पाया गया, िजसके फोटो ा स संल है । खनन काय शु होने से पूव उ Weighment Bridge का केली ेशन कराया जाना आव क है । (संल क-2)
3. यािचकाकता ारा दायर यािचका म यह कथन िकया गया है िक प ाधारक ारा खनन काय से बने गड् ढे म िगरने से िकसी की मृ ु हो गयी थी। इस स ं ध म यह अवगत कराना है िक इस कार की घटना की कोई सूचना कभी भी खान अिधकारी, गािजयाबाद के सं ान म नहीं आयी है । यािचकाकता ारा उ घटना के स ं ध म सा सिहत िववरण भी ु त नहीं िकया गया है । उ के कारण यािचकाकता के कथन की पुि िकया जाना स व नहीं है ।
4. यािचकाकता ारा मा० उ ायालय, इलाहाबाद ारा पा रत आदे श के म म Compensation िदलाये जाने का कथन िकया गया है। यहाँ यह अवगत कराना है िक यािचकाकता ारा मा० उ ायालय, इलाहाबाद ारा पा रत आदे श के म म Compensation िदलाये जाने हे तु िकसी कार का ावेदन खनन िवभाग, गािजयाबाद के कायालय म ु त नहीं िकया गया है । यािचकाकता ारा मा० उ ायालय, इलाहाबाद ारा पा रत आदे श के म म Compensation िदलाये जाने हे तु यिद कोई ावेदन ुत िकया जाता है तो उस पर िनयमानु सार कायवाही की जायेगी।
5. यािचकाकता ारा प ाधारक पर ितब त े म खनन िकये जाने व इस स मे िवभाग ारा पैना ी / राय ी वसूली िकये जाने के स म कथन िकया गया है , िजस स मे अवगत कराना है िक खनन प ा ीकृि क िदनां क 14.10.2020 के उपरा संयु टीम ारा 18.03.2021 को प ा े का थलीय िनरी ण िकया गया, िजसम प ाधारक ारा प ा े से बाहर पि म िदशा म खनन िकया जाना पाया गया था, िजसके म म प ाधारक ऊपर ० 69,07,160.00 की धनरािश पैना ी के प म अिधरोिपत की गयी है । इस स म प ाधारक ारा जारी नोिटस के िव मा० ायालय आयु , मे रठ म ल, मे रठ के सम वाद योिजत िकया गया। प ाधारक ारा योिजत वाद को मा० ायालय आयु , मे रठ म ल, मे रठ ारा बलहीन होने के कारण िनर कर िदया गया। प ाधारक पर आरोिपत पैना ी की धनरािश 0 69,07,160.00 को जमा करने हे तु पु नः नोिटस ेिषत िकया गया। वतमान मे उ रािश को वसूला नहीं गया है । वसूली कायवाही चिलत है । मा० रा ीय ह रत अिधकरण म आवेदन उपरा अथवा िनरी ण िदनां क 08.04.2022 म िकसी कार का अवैध खनन नही पाया गया है ।
6. पूव की जां च आ ा िदनां क 08.04.2022 (संल क-३) के अनु सार िसंचाई िवभाग, राज िवभाग एवं खनन िवभाग की संयु जां च के आधार पर िसंचाई िवभाग के गाईडलाईन के अनु सार ही प ा ख बना है तथा प ाधारक ारा प ा सीमा े म खनन काय िकया गया है । वतमान म खनन प ा े म खनन काय बंद है । प ाधारक को ीकृत खनन अनु मित म मा 03 मी० गहराई तक खनन व उ० ० उपखिनज (प रहार) िनयमावली, 2021 म अनु म मशीनों ारा ही काय िकये जाने की अनु मित दी गयी है । प ाधारक ारा खनन काय शु करने पर यह सुिनि त िकया जायेगा िक िनयमानु सार वग कृत मशीन एवं गहराई के अनु सार प ा सीमा े के अ र खनन काय िकया जायेगा।
O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -10- प ा े की थलीय जां च िदनां क 03.11.2022 म प ा े की मौके पर िलये गये फोटो ा स संल ह। (संल क-4)"
9. In its report, the Joint Committee had mentioned that the mining work was lying closed during monsoon period from 01.07.2022 to 30.09.2022 and that environmental compensation of Rs. 69,07,160/- had been imposed on the project proponent and the proceedings for recovery thereof are pending. In its report the Joint Committee had also mentioned that no documents have been furnished by the applicant regarding the death of a person in the mining pit and non-compliance with the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
10. Vide order dated 16.11.2022, this Tribunal impleaded State of Uttar Pradesh through the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh; the Director, Directorate of Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh; Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB); the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and the Project Proponent-Mr. Mumtaz Ali S/o Mr. Fakir Mohammad, resident of Mohammadabad, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar, Uttar Pradesh as respondents no. 1 to 5 and notices were ordered to be served on respondents.
11. By order dated 16.11.2022 the Project Proponent was restrained from carrying out any further mining from the mining site in question till further orders to the contrary. The relevant part of the order reads as under :
"11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the project proponent is alleged to have previously indulged in illegal mining for which environmental compensation has been imposed regarding which recovery proceeding are pending and the mandate of Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to apply inter alia precautionary and polluter pays principles, the project proponent is restrained from carrying out any further mining from the mining site in question till further orders to the contrary.
12. The District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad are directed to take all requisite steps for ensuring that no illegal mining take place in the mining site in question."
O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -11-
12. Additional Director, Directorate of Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh filed compliance report vide email dated 06.12.2022 that in compliance of the injunctive order passed by this Tribunal the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad had vide order dated 18.11.2022 prohibited mining by respondent no. 5 till further orders.
13. The Project Proponent filed Civil Appeal No. 8872/2022 titled Mumtaz Ali Vs. Ompal and Others before Hon'ble Supreme Court in which following interim order was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 02.12.2022 :-
"The proceedings before the National Green Tribunal are re-listed on 08.12.2022. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the reports, which, he states, are in his favour. He submits that given these facts, the direction passed that the appellant should stop mining would cause immense prejudice to the appellant. Conditions can be imposed to ensure mining in accordance with rules, as the reports indicate that the appellant has been complying with the rules."
14. The Project Proponent filed I.A. No. 319/2022 for passing an order in compliance of the interim order dated 02.12.2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court and allowing the project proponent to continue the mining in accordance with rules. I.A. No. 319/2022 was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 08.12.2022 and injunctive order dated 16.11.2022 was vacated and the project proponent was allowed to carry out the mining strictly in accordance with rules and in compliance with the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTE/CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-
"9. It is evident from the interim order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that conditions can be imposed to ensure mining in accordance with rules. The project proponent has represented before Hon'ble Supreme Court that the project proponent had been complying with the rules as reported by the Joint Committee constituted by the Tribunal. However, it is pertinent to observe that the Joint Committee and even UPPCB did not undertake comprehensive assessment and monitoring with regard to the compliance by the project proponent with the conditions imposed by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Uttar O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -12- Pradesh (SEIAA) at the time of granting Environmental Clearance (EC) to the said project proponent, more particularly, conditions no. 15, 16, 19, 33, 34 and 46 which read as under:-
"15. Primary survey of flora and fauna shall be carried out and data shall be submitted to the RO, PCB and SEIAA within six months.
16. Hydro-geological study shall be carried out by a reputed organization/institute within six months and establish that mining in the said area will not adversely affect the ground water regime. The report shall be submitted to the RO, PCB and SEIAA within six months. In case adverse impact is observed/anticipated, mining shall not be carried out.
X X X X
19. Green cover development shall be carried out following CPCB guidelines including selection of plant species and in consultation with the local DFO/Horticulture Officer.
X X X X
33. Possibility for adopting nearest three villages shall be explored and details of civic amenities such as roads, drinking water etc. proposed to be provided at the project proponent's expenses shall be submitted within 02 months from the date of issuance of Environment Clearance.
34. The funds earmarked for environmental protection measures should be kept in separate account and should not be diverted for other purpose. Year wise expenditure should be reported to the Ministry of Environment and Forests and its Regional Office located at Lucknow, SEIAA, U.P. and UPPCB... "
10. Similarly, status of compliance by the project proponent with the consent conditions imposed at the time of grant of CTE/CTO by UPPCB has also not been verified properly. As per the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA, an environmental audit was required to be carried out annually during the operational phase of the mining and submitted to the SEIAA and the District Mining Officer was required to quarterly monitor the compliance of stipulated conditions. On being questioned, Mr. Sunny Kaushal, Mining Officer, Ghaziabad, who appeared before this Tribunal through VC, could not give any satisfactory answer regarding such annual audit and quarterly monitoring.
11. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Senior Advocate, appearing for the project proponent has submitted that the project proponent will ensure strict compliance with the conditions imposed by SEIAA and consent conditions by UPPCB and will also deposit, under protest, the amount of environmental compensation, in the eventuality of revision petition filed by the project proponent being decided against him, within 30 days of such decision, without prejudice to availing further remedies in accordance with law. O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -13-
12. In view of the interim order dated 02.12.2022 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the undertaking given by learned Senior Counsel for the project proponent, I.A. No. 319/2022 is allowed and an injunctive order dated 16.11.2022 is vacated and the project proponent is allowed to carry out the mining strictly in accordance with rules and in compliance with the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTE/CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms."
15. No affidavit regarding point- wise compliance of the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTE/CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms was filed by respondent no.5 within one month with the consequence that the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB did not verify the factual position and submit status report regarding compliance with the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTE/CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms within two months. On the other hand, I.A. No. 75/2023 was filed by respondent no. 5-Project Proponent on 10.03.2023 for placing on record the documents in compliance of order dated 08.12.2022. I.A. No. 75/2023 was allowed vide order dated 27.03.2023 and the documents mentioned therein were taken on record.
16. Joint Status report was filed by the AEE and RO, UPPCB, Ghaziabad and Senior Mining Officer, Ghaziabad vide email dated 24.03.2023.
17. This Tribunal noticed the violations by respondent no. 5 and vide order dated 27.03.2023 directed respondent no. 5 to desist from carrying out any further mining activity in the mining site leased out to it. Environmental clearance if any granted by SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh to respondent no. 5 in respect of the above said mining site was also ordered to remain in abeyance till further orders to the contrary. Relevant part of order dated 27.03.2023 reads as under :
"11. We have gone through the compliance report filed by the Project Proponent and the joint status report filed on behalf of the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB. We find that O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -14- our order has been observed more in breach than in compliance. Vide order dated 08.12.2022, we directed the Project Proponent to file compliance report within one month but the Project Proponent has filed I.A 75/2023 on 10.03.2023 after expiry of more than three months. Vide order dated 08.12.2022, the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB were directed to verify compliance status and file status reports within two months but the Joint Status Report has been filed on 24.03.2023 after expiry of more than three months. Vide order dated 16.11.2022 the Project Proponent was restrained from carrying out further mining against which the Project Proponent filed appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court by misrepresenting the facts regarding compliance with the environmental norms while relying upon the reports submitted by the Joint Committee before this Tribunal to be in his favour but as per the Joint Status Report now filed before this Tribunal there are serious environmental violations on the part of the Project Proponent who had not even obtained CTE/CTO from UPPCB prior to 05.01.2023. We find the present case to be a classical example of inaction/non- application of mind and also misrepresentation of facts before this Tribunal by the concerned State Authorities/the Joint Committee. In its report dated 25.05.2022, the Joint Committee did not mention the relevant facts regarding particulars of EC, validity period of the lease as well as grant of CTE/CTO by UPPCB and merely reported in well-crafted manner that there was no illegal mining. In its report filed vide email dated 11.11.2022, the Joint Committee mentioned that the lease was valid from 14.10.2020 to 13.10.2025 but did not mention the relevant facts regarding particulars of EC and also grant of CTE/CTO by UPPCB. It is stated before this Tribunal that the Project Proponent obtained CTO in January 2023 from UPPCB. There was serious violation of the environmental laws/norms as the Project Proponent commenced and carried out mining without obtaining CTE/CTO from the UPPCB which fact was completely ignored by the State Authorities for extraneous consideration. In the Joint Status Report now filed on behalf of the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB serious violations on the part of the Project Proponent have been mentioned but the Joint Status Report has been prepared and submitted after expiry of the EC and discontinuance of the mining and no justification has been given for not carrying out of requisite inspection for verification of the compliance status during continuance of the mining.
12. In the present case EC is stated to have been transferred in favour of the Project Proponent which was valid upto 31.01.2023 but lease dead was executed in favour of the Project Proponent which is valid from 14.10.2020 to 13.10.2025 and was not executed for period co-terminus with EC.
13. The Project Proponent is stated to have applied to SEIAA for grant of EC for further mining in terms of the lease dead but this Tribunal is not informed as to what is the present status thereof.
14. In view of the mandate in Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 requiring this Tribunal to apply precautionary principle and also the provisions made in Section 19 (4) (j) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 empowering this Tribunal to require any person to cease and desist from committing or causing any violation of any enactment specified in Schedule I thereof, respondent no. 5 is directed to desist from carrying out any further mining activity in the mining site leased out to it and environmental clearance if any granted by SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh to respondent no. 5 O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -15- in respect of the above said mining site shall also remain in abeyance till further orders to the contrary.
15. The District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad are also directed to take appropriate steps to ensure that no illegal mining takes place in the mining site in question.
16. List for further consideration on 26.04.2023.
17. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case, we also consider personal appearance of the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and the Member Secretary, UPPCB, before this Tribunal on the date fixed to be essential for assisting this Tribunal in just and proper adjudication of the questions involved in the case and they are accordingly directed to remain present before this Tribunal on that date."
18. In compliance of above referred order, Ms. Roshan Jacob, Director, Mining and Geology, U.P. and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member Secretary, UPPCB appeared before this Tribunal through VC on 26.04.2023 and submitted that NoC/consent from UPPCB was not required by the Project Proponent for sand mining.
19. Vide order dated 26.04.2023 Ms. Roshan Jacob, Director, Mining and Geology, U.P. and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member Secretary, UPPCB were directed to file their detailed response affidavits with regard to their submission that consent from UPPCB was not required by the Project Proponent for sand mining. Respondent no. 5 was also directed to file his reply/response.
20. In compliance of order dated 26.04.2023, affidavits were filed by the Member Secretary, UPPCB vide email dated 19.05.2023 and by the Director, Mining and Geology, U.P. vide email dated 22.05.2023. In their affidavits the Member Secretary, UPPCB and the Director, Mining and Geology, U.P. also mentioned that no mining activity is taking place but the application of the Project Proponent for EC is pending.
21. Vide order dated 30.05.2023 this Tribunal noticed that the case also involves the question as to whether mining lease deed can be executed by the District Magistrate on behalf of the State beyond the validity period of EC O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -16- granted by SEIAA and the parties were given opportunity to file their response in respect of the above said question if so desired.
22. Reply was filed by District Magistrate, Ghaziabad vide email dated 01.01.2024. The relevant part of the reply is reproduced below:-
"कृपया उपरो िवषयक जनपद गािजयाबाद के तहसील लोनी थत बालू खनन प ा ाम पचायरा ख -1 प ाधारक ी मु मताज अली के िव मा० ायालय रा ीय ह रत ािधकरण, नई िद ी म योिजत ओ०ए० नं ० 160/2022, ओमपाल व अ बनाम उ० ० रा व अ म पा रत आदे श िदनां क 17.10.2023 का संदभ हण करने का क कर, िजसके कायकारी अंश िन वत् है :-
"1. Vide order dated 30.05.2023 this Tribunal directed filling of response regarding the aspect involved as to whether mining lease deed can be executed by the District Magistrate on behalf of the State beyond the validity period of EC granted by SEIAA. No response has been filed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
इस स ं ध म बालू खनन प ा पचायरा ख -1 तहसील लोनी का िववरण िन वत् है -
1.इस कायालय के िव सं० 864 िदनां क 05.03.2020 ारा जनपद गािजयाबाद के तहसील लोनी थत बालू खनन े ाम पचायरा ख -1 गाटा सं० 8 िम०, 9िम०, 10 िम०, 11िम०, 12 िम०, 13िम०, 17 िम०, 18, 19, 20िम०, 21 िम0, 22िम०, 25 िम०, 26िम०, 27िम०, 30 िम०, 37िम०, 38 िम०, 39 िम०, 40 िम०, 41 िम०, 53िभ०, 54 िम०, 55िम०, 56िम०, 57िम०, 237िम०, 238 िम०, 239िम०, 240 िम० रकबा 16.183 हे ० बालू मा ा 323600 घ०मी० ित वष को 05 वष की अविध हे तु बालू खनन प ा पर ीकृत िकये जाने के िलये ई-िनिवदा सह ई-नीलामी णाली के मा म से िव ािपत िकया गया।
2 उपरो िव के कम म ी मु मताज अली िनवासी मौह दाबाद पो िबजौरा ाितबा फूले नगर-244235 ारा उ तम बोली 0 206/- ित घनमीटर ु त की गयी, िजस पर ीकृित उपरा ी मुमताज अली के प म 05 वष य बालू खनन प ा ीकृत िकये जाने हे तु आशय प सं० 990 िदनां क 23.06.2020 जारी िकया गया।
3. ी मु मताज अली के प म िनगत आशय प की शत के अ गत िनयत धनरािश जमा कराने के उपरा प ाधारक ारा ह ा रत पयावरण ता माण प सं० 293/पया/एस०ई०ए०सी०/3886/2018 िदनां क 10.09.2020 इस कायालय म ु त िकया गया। (संल क-1)
4. प ाधारक ारा ु त पयावरण ता माण प के संबंध म अवगत कराना है िक उ पयावरण ता माण प पूव प ाधारक ी गुरबाज िसंह पु ी मे जर िसंह िनवासी- बी-6/1379, माडन कालोनी, जगधारी, िजला ह रयाणा के नाम ीकृत था, िजसकी प ा अविध िदनां क 01.02.2018 से िदनां क 31.01.2023 तक थी। प ाधारक ी गुरबाज िसंह ारा प ा िवले ख की शत का उ ं घन करने के कारण ीकृत बालू खनन प ा को त ालीन िजलािधकारी महोदया के आदे श िदनां क 30.03.2018 ारा िनर कर िदया गया।
5. रा रीय पयावरण समाघात िनधारण ािधकरण, उ० ०, लखनऊ ारा ी गुरबाज िसंह के प म ीकृत पयावरण ता माण प िदनां क 12.01.2018 म उ खत सम शत को यथावत रखते ये ी मुमताज अली के प म पयावरण ता माण िदनां क 10.09.2020 ह ां रत िकया गया। (संल क-2) O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -17-
6. ी मु मताज अली ारा उ ह ां त रत पयावरण ता माण प (Transferred EC) को कायालय म ु त िकया गया, िजसके म म ी मु मताज अली के प म िदनां क 21.10.2020 को प ा िवले ख का िन ादन त ालीन िजलािधकारी ारा उ र दे श उपखिनज (प रहार) िनयमावली, 1963 यथा संशोिधत िनयमावली, 2021 के िनयम- 35 (5) म िदये गये ािवधानों के अ गत िकया गया। िनयम 35 (5) म िदये गये ािवधान िन वत् है :-
"िनयम 35-(5)- खनन प ा िवले ख का िन ादन, इस िनिम रा सरकार ारा अिधसूचना ारा ािधकृत अिधकारी ारा स क प से खनन योजना अनु मोिदत िकये जाने के उपरा और ावक के प म पयावरण अनापि माण प जारी िकये जाने के िदनां क से एक माह के भीतर िकया जायेगा। खनन संि या नदी तल खिनज के प े दार हे तु त ाल एवं अ खिनजों के प े दार ारा प ा िवले ख के िन ादन के िदनां क से 03 (तीन) माह के भीतर ार की जायेगी और प े दार त ात् जानबूझकर कोई थगन िकये िबना ऐसी खनन संि याओं का संचालन, उिचत और द तापूण रीित से तथा कुशल कारीगर की भॉित करे गा:
ितबंध यह है िक सरकार ारा िविध संगत ढं ग से या िकसी िविधक कायवाही के अनु सार खनन प ा/अनु ा प समा करने या प ा/अनु ा प धारक ारा अ पण िकये जाने पर, ऐसे प ा/अनु ा प धारक के प म ीकृत पयावरणीय अनापि उस िविधक को अ रत की जा सकेगी, िजसके प म ऐसा प ा/अनु ा प उसकी वैधता अविध म तय िकया गया हो।"
7. उपरो के स ं ध म प ाधारक ी मु मताज अली ारा पयावरण ता माण प की अविध समा होने के प ात् खनन प ा की ओ०टी०पी० िनदे शालय से बंद कर दी गयी है तथा प ाधारक ीकृत खनन े म खनन काय बंद कर िदया गया है । वतमान म प ाधारक ी मु मताज अली ारा पुनः पयावरण ता माण प ा िकये जाने हे तु आवेदन िकया जा चुका है , जो िवचाराधीन है ।
अतः उपरो ानु सार आ ा सेवा म सादर ेिषत है । "
23. Vide order dated 30.05.2023 the Project Proponent was directed to file additional reply giving details of CSR/EMP activities carried out by the Project Proponent along with all supporting bills/receipt/documents and also to file copies of annual audit statement and CSR statements filed by him before Director, Mining and Geology, U.P.
24. However respondent no. 5-Project Proponent did not file any additional reply giving details of CSR/EMP activities carried out by the Project Proponent along with all supporting bills/receipt/documents and did not file copies of annual audit statement and CSR statements filed by him before Director, Mining and Geology, U.P.
25. In the course of interaction Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member Secretary, UPPCB mentioned that environmental compensation of Rs. 83,17,34,132/- was imposed out of which amount of Rs. 53,70,000/- had been realized. O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -18-
26. Vide order dated 17.10.2023 this Tribunal sought response from the State of Uttar Pradesh as to why amount of environmental compensation imposed remains unrealized for very long periods even after receipt of the reference from the UPPCB for realization of the same and as to why the amount for remediation of environmental damage caused by the violators be not incurred by the State of Uttar Pradesh immediately on receipt of such references for remediation of the damage caused to the environment before the same results in irreversible damage to the ecology and bio-diversity. The amount so spent by the Uttar Pradesh may be recovered from the violators as arrears of land revenue in accordance with law.
27. In compliance thereof response was filed on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh vide email dated 10.01.2024.
28. I.A. No. 860/2023 has been filed by respondent no. 5 for vacating the stay order dated 27.03.2023. The relevant part of the IA is reproduced below:-
"1. That the applicant by means of present application is praying to Hon'ble Green Tribunal to vacate the order of stay dated 27.03.2023 directing the applicant to desist from carrying out any further mining activity in the mining site leased out to it.
2. That the O.A. 160/2022 was registered based on a complaint letter received by post in which the Hon'ble NGT passed a brief order and forming a Joint Committee, extract of the Order is below:-
"Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, it appears necessary to ascertain the factual position in the matter through a Joint Committee of the State PCB, and District Magistrate- Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh). The State PCB will be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance. The Joint Committee may meet within four weeks and undertake site visit and look into the grievance of the applicant. Factual and action taken report may be furnished within three months by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF."
True copy of the order dated 10.03.2022 is annexed as Annexure A-1.
3.That the Hon'ble NGT vide order dated 16.11.2022, issued notices to the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh; the Director, Directorate of Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh; UPPCB; the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and the applicant was to restrain from carrying out O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -19- any mining from the mining site in question till further orders to the contrary.
A true copy of order dated 16.11.2022 is annexed as Annexure A-2.
4.That being aggrieved of Stay order dated 16.11.2022, the applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 8872/2022 titled as Mumtaz Ali Vs. Ompal & Ors. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 02.12.2022 the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order:-
"The proceedings before the National Green Tribunal are re-listed on 08.12.2022. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the reports, which, he states, are in his favour. He submits that given these facts, the direction passed that the appellant should stop mining would cause immense prejudice to the appellant. Conditions can be imposed to ensure mining in accordance with rules, as the reports indicate that the appellant has been complying with the rules."
A true copy order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8872/2022 is annexed as Annexure A-3.
5.That the applicant filed an I.A. No. 319/2022 for passing order in compliance with order of Hon'ble Supreme Court which the Hon'ble NGT allowed vide order dated 08.12.2022 vacated the injunctive order dated 16.11.2022 passing the following order:-
"12. In view of the interim order dated 02.12.2022 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the undertaking given by learned Senior Counsel for the project proponent, I.A. No. 319/2022 is allowed and an injunctive order dated 16.11.2022 is vacated and the project proponent is allowed to carry out the mining strictly in accordance with rules and in compliance with the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTE/CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms."
And further directed the applicant:
"13. However, the project proponent to file an affidavit regarding point wise compliance of the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTE/CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms within one month by email at judicial- [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR supported PDF and not in the form of Image PDF and the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB are directed to thereupon verify the factual position and submit status report regarding compliance with the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTE/CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms within two months by email at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR supported PDF and not in the form of Image PDF."
A true copy of the order dated 08.12.2022 is annexed as Annexure A-4.
6.That the applicant filed an I.A. 75/2023 for placing on record the documents in compliance of order dated 08.12.2022 and the same was taken on record. That further the Joint Status report was also filed by the AEE and RO, UPPCB, Ghaziabad and Senior Mining Officer, Ghaziabad vide email dated 24.03.2023. That the Hon'ble NGT after going through the compliance observed that there were serious violation environmental laws/norms and that the applicant is carrying out mining without obtaining CTE/CTO from UPPCB. That the Joint Status O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -20- Report contained serious infringements on the part of the Joint Committee and the Hon'ble NGT vide order dated 27.03.2023 in violation of enactment specified in Schedule I, again directed the applicant to desist from carrying out any mining activity in the mining site.
A true copy of order dated 27.03.2023 is annexed as Annexure A-5.
7. That it is submitted that the Applicant has strictly abide with the directions imposed by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal vide order dated 27.03.2023. In such situation for ends of justice it is necessary that the order of stay granted by this Hon'ble Court should be vacated.
8. That in such circumstances this application has been filed for vacating the order of stay. Unless the order of stay is vacated the applicant will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated. As such for ends of justice the order of stay may be vacated.
9. That this application filed by the Applicant for vacating the order of stay is filed bonafide.
10. That the Applicant is therefor approaching this Hon'ble Tribunal bringing the aforesaid facts to its notice and praying as under:
PRAYER Wherefore it is most humbly prayed that your Lordships would graciously be pleased to:-
i. Vacate the stay order passed on 27.03.2023 in Original Application No. 160/2022 by this Hon'ble Court, and; ii. Pass any other order or directions as deemed suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case."
29. Written Submissions/Reply to I.A. No. 860/2023 was filed by respondent no. 2-Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh vide email dated
11.03.2024. In its reply respondent no. 2--Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh referred to the Joint Status Report regarding compliance of EC/consent conditions and environmental norms and prayed that this Tribunal may pass such order on above said I.A. No. 860/2023 as it may deem fit.
30. Reply to above said IA has been filed by respondent no. 3-UPPCB vide email dated 11.03.2024. In its reply UPPCB referred to Joint Status Report where in environmental violations on the part of Project Proponent were observed and mentioned that the mining activity was carried out by the Project Proponent prior to 05.01.2023 without obtaining CTO from UPPCB but the Project Proponent had obtained CTO from UPPCB on 05.01.2023 which is valid from O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -21- 05.01.2023 to 31.12.2026. In its reply UPPCB has also mentioned that environment compensation of Rs. 55,00,000/- (Fifty-Five Lakhs only) was imposed on project proponent vide letter No. H99983/C-1/Samanya-
1326/ParyaChatipurti/2023 dated 28.08.2023 for carrying mining activity without CTO. It was also mentioned in the reply that the Environmental Clearance for said land expired on 31.01.2023 and the Project Proponent stopped the mining activity since 31.01.2023.
31. We have heard arguments addressed by learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record. In the course of hearing we have also interacted with the Officers who appeared before us physically or through VC in compliance with orders passed in this regard.
32. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has reiterated the submissions made in the Original Application.
33. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 5 has submitted that the Project Proponent carried out mining in accordance with EC and CTO conditions and in compliance with the environmental norms and also submitted the requisite returns and statements to the concerned authorities. Mining was stopped by the Project Proponent after expiry of the EC. Application of the Project Proponent for renewal of the EC is pending with UPSEIAA which is not being further processed by UPSEIAA due to injunctive order dated 27.03.2023 and the same may be vacated.
34. Learned Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 4 and learned Counsel for respondent no. 2 have submitted that respondent no. 5 violated EC and CTO conditions and also indulged in illegal mining. Mining is lying closed after expiry of the EC. Application for grant of EC is pending before UPSEIAA. This Tribunal may pass such orders as considered appropriate. Learned Counsel for respondent no. 3 has submitted that the Project Proponent violated EC/CTO O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -22- conditions and environmental norms as mentioned in Joint Status Report and responses/reports filed by UPPCB. Mining activity was carried out by the Project Proponent prior to 05.01.2023 without obtaining CTO from UPPCB and the Project Proponent obtained CTO from UPPCB on 05.01.2023.
Environmental compensation of Rs. 55,00,000/- (Fifty-Five Lakhs only) was imposed on Project Proponent vide letter No. H99983/C-1/Samanya-
1326/ParyaChatipurti/2023 dated 28.08.2023 for carrying mining activity without CTO which is under challenge by the Project Proponent. The Environmental Clearance for the land leased out expired on 31.01.2023.
Mining is lying closed after expiry of the EC. Application of respondent no. 4- Project Proponent for grant of EC is pending before UPSEIAA. This Tribunal may pass such orders as it deems fit.
35. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned Counsels for the parties and perusal of the material on record we are of the considered view that intervention by this Tribunal is warranted for issuance of the directions and for the reasons hereinafter mentioned.
36. It may be observed that in the letter petition applicants Ompal and other residents of Village Pachayra, Tehsil Loni, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh complained about following grievances:-
(i) the Project Proponent was illegally mining beyond permitted area;
(ii) the Project Proponent was illegally mining beyond permitted depth;
(iii) the Project Proponent was illegally mining by use of prohibited machinery;
(iv) the Project Proponent was illegally mining without written consent of the applicants and other land owners without payment of compensation to them in accordance with order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in W.P No. 3101 of 2010 titled Sripal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others;
O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -23-
(v) pillars and cameras have not been installed;
(vi) the sand mined is transported without weighing on any weighment bridge and without submitting weighment slip;
(vii) the sand mined is transported in over loaded trucks containing 25 cubic meters sand against 'rawana parchi' recording transported quantity as 12 cubic meters;
(viii) the Project Proponent had illegally mined earlier for which heavy penalty/royalty was recovered by Mining/Revenue Department; and
(ix) one person died in October 2021 due to drowning in the pit illegally created by use of prohibited machinery for mining.
37. Vide order dated 10.03.2022, this Tribunal had directed the Joint Committee to look into the grievances of the applicants and to submit its factual and action taken report. Joint Inspection Report of the Joint Committee was filed by Regional Officer, UPPCB, Regional Office, Ghaziabad vide email dated 25.05.2022. The relevant part of the report has been reproduced in earlier part of this judgment.
38. This Tribunal considered the report on 12.07.2022. A perusal of the Report showed that while submitting its Report the Joint Committee did not look into the allegations regarding (i) alleged incident of illegal mining by the Project Proponent and recovery of penalty/royalty by Mining/Revenue Department, (ii) alleged incident of death of one person by drowning in the pit created by the machine used for mining and (iii) alleged non-compliance with respect to requirement of written consent and payment of compensation under orders of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad.
39. This Tribunal also noticed that the Joint Committee had submitted in the report that (i) pillars were installed and the (ii) Project Proponent was mining by using permitted machinery within the permitted area ruling out illegal mining by the Project Proponent but the Joint Committee has not attached any O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -24- document regarding the mining lease, photographs of the pillars, cameras and weighment bridge installed and also of the machinery used by the Project Proponent. The Joint Committee has not mentioned the particulars of machinery permitted to be used and actually used on the spot and has also not attached map showing tallying of geo-coordinates of the mining sites leased out with sites actually mined by the Project Proponent.
40. Vide order dated 12.07.2022, this Tribunal directed the Joint Committee to look into these aspects and verify the factual position and take appropriate remedial action by following due process of law and submit further factual and action taken report.
41. In compliance thereof the Joint Committee inspected the site on 03.11.2022. Report of the Joint Committee was filed vide email dated 11.11.2022. The relevant part of the report has been reproduced in earlier part of this Judgment.
42. In its report, the Joint Committee mentioned that the mining had been stopped due to inundation of the mining site by the river and had not recommenced and that environmental compensation of Rs. 69,07,160/- had been imposed on the Project Proponent for illegal mining and the proceedings for recovery thereof are pending. In its report the Joint Committee also mentioned that no documents have been furnished by the applicant regarding the death of a person in the mining pit and no application for payment of compensation in compliance with the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had been submitted.
43. Vide order dated 16.11.2022, the Project Proponent was restrained from carrying out any further mining from the mining site in question till further orders to the contrary. The relevant part of the order reads as under:
"11..In view of the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the project proponent is alleged to have previously O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -25- indulged in illegal mining for which environmental compensation has been imposed regarding which recovery proceeding are pending and the mandate of Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to apply inter alia precautionary and polluter pays principles, the project proponent is restrained from carrying out any further mining from the mining site in question till further orders to the contrary
12. The District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad are directed to take all requisite steps for ensuring that no illegal mining takes place in the mining site in question."
44. The Project Proponent filed Civil Appeal No. 8872/2022 titled Mumtaz Ali Vs. Ompal and Others before Hon'ble Supreme Court and the following interim order was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 02.12.2022:-
"The proceedings before the National Green Tribunal are re-listed on 08.12.2022. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the reports, which, he states, are in his favour. He submits that given these facts, the direction passed that the appellant should stop mining would cause immense prejudice to the appellant. Conditions can be imposed to ensure mining in accordance with rules, as the reports indicate that the appellant has been complying with the rules."
45. The Project Proponent filed I.A. No. 319/2022 for passing an order in compliance of the interim order dated 02.12.2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court and allowing the Project Proponent to continue the mining in accordance with rules. Vide order dated 08.12.2022 I.A. No. 319/2022 was allowed and injunctive order dated 16.11.2022 was vacated and the Project Proponent was allowed to carry out the mining strictly in accordance with rules and in compliance with the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTE/CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms.
46. Accordingly, vide order dated 08.12.2022, the Project Proponent was directed to file an affidavit regarding point-wise compliance of the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms within one month and the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB were directed to thereupon O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -26- verify the factual position and submit status report regarding compliance with the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms within two months.
47. However, the Project Proponent did not file affidavit regarding point-wise compliance of the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms within one month as directed vide order dated 08.12.2022. On the other hand, I.A. No. 75/2023 was filed by respondent no. 5-Project Proponent on 10.03.2023 for placing on record the documents in compliance of order dated 08.12.2022. I.A. No. 75/2023 was allowed and the documents mentioned therein were taken on record.
48. Joint Status report was filed by the AEE and RO, UPPCB, Ghaziabad and Senior Mining Officer, Ghaziabad vide email dated 24.03.2023 highlighting violations by respondent no.5-Project Proponent of the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms.
49. We have gone through the compliance report filed by the Project Proponent and the Joint Status Report filed on behalf of the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB. We find that our order was observed more in breach than in compliance. By order dated 08.12.2022, we directed the Project Proponent to file compliance report within one month but the Project Proponent filed I.A. No. 75/2023 on 10.03.2023. Similarly, by above mentioned order, the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB were directed to thereupon verify compliance status and file status reports within two months but the Joint Status Report has also been filed on 24.03.2023.
O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -27-
50. In the Joint Status Report filed on behalf of the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB it has been mentioned that in pursuance to order dated 08.12.2022 the above-mentioned order of this Tribunal, the Project Proponent did not provide copy of proof of submission of compliance status in this Tribunal and copy of additional affidavit dated 06.03.2023 was given in Mining Department, Ghaziabad on 16.03.2023 on which the officers of Mining Department, Ghaziabad and Regional Office, UPPCB, Ghaziabad carried out Joint Inspection of the mining site on 17.03.2023 to ascertain factual status with regard to compliance of conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance as claimed by the Project Proponent.
No mining was being done on site at the time of inspection. Further mining was carried out only for a period of twenty days between 12.01.2023 to 31.01.2023 and was stopped thereafter as the Environment Clearance for said parcel of land expired on 31.01.2023.
51. We find explanation furnished by the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB to be wholly unsatisfactory as in case of not filing of any such affidavit within the stipulated period the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB ought to have brought the fact of such non-compliance to the notice of this Tribunal and ought to have verified compliance status by periodical inspections.
52. Compliance of orders passed by this Tribunal cannot be left to the mercy of the project proponents and the concerned authorities. Such non-compliance with the orders passed by this Tribunal need to be visited with exemplary costs for non-compliance with order dated 08.12.2022 to maintain the sanctity thereof. Accordingly, respondent no. 5 is directed to deposit amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs only) as costs with the Member Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Legal Services Authority within one month. The amount of costs shall O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -28- be utilized for providing legal aid to eligible persons from the State of Uttar Pradesh intending to approach this Tribunal for adjudication of civil cases involving substantial questions relating to environment arising out of implementation of the enactments specified in the first schedule to the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act 2010) . It is clarified that in case of failure of respondent no. 5 to deposit the amount of costs, the Member Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Legal Services Authority shall be entitled to recover the amount of costs by filing execution petition for execution of the order passed by this Tribunal before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions made in Section 25 of the NGT Act 2010.
53. Even though in the six monthly compliance report of stipulated conditions of environmental clearance for river bed sand/morrum mining filed by way of I.A. No. 12/2024 respondent no. 5-Project Proponent has claimed compliance of the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTO by UPPCB and the statutory/environmental norms but in the Joint Status Report Mr. Navneet Pandey, AEE, UPPCB, Ghaziabad, Mohd. Mahboob, Senior Mining Officer, Ghaziabad and Mr. Utsav Sharma, Regional Officer, UPPCB Regional Office, Ghaziabad, who verified the compliance status as claimed by respondent no. 5, have mentioned serious violations of the EC/CTO conditions and environmental norms by respondent no. 5. The relevant part of the joint status report is reproduced as under:
"COMPLIANCE OF STIPULATED GENERAL AND SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE Part-A -General conditions:-
Poi General conditions as per Compliance as per nt Environment Compliance on Site PP no. clearance issued O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -29- The Mining lease Thisenvironmental clearance documents are is subject to allotment of PP has stopped work on completely mining lease in favour of site since 31.01.2023 as
1. compatible with project proponent by District mining lease cease to Environment Administration/Mining exist.
Clearance Department document.
The land is non forest land. Already Forest clearance shall be the Letter of intent Forest clearance is not
2. taken by the proponent as was granted to us applicable on present necessary under law. after getting NOC site.
form forest
department
Any change in mining area,
khasra numbers, entailing
capacity addition with
change in process and or To be complied at the
mining technology, time of mining in the
modernization and scope of area. Mining to be done
3. Agreed
working shall again require strictly in Khasra
prior Environmental Numbers listed in LoI
Clearance as per the and EC.
provisions of EIA,
Notification, 2006 (as
amended)
Precise mining area will be
jointly demarcated at site by
project proponent and
officials of mining/Revenue
department prior to starting
of mining operations. Such
site plan, duly verified by Neither Site plan nor
4. competent authority along- Agreed copy of EC was
with copy of the displayed on site.
Environmental Clearance
letter will be displayed on a
hoarding/board at the site. A
copy of site plan will also be
submitted to SEIAA within a
period of 02 months
Mining has been
Mining and loading, shall be Mining was found closed
done in daytime
5. done only within day hours at the time of
only and single shift
time. inspection.
operation
Mining has had
been done with due
respect to mining
guideline, No
No mining shall be carried Mining was found
mining has been
6. out in the safety zone of any closed at the time of
done in safety zone
bridge and/or embankment inspection.
of any
bridge and or
embankment
O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors
-30-
The
environmen
tal quality
parameters
are within
standards
It shall be ensure that specified by
Ambient standards are
standards related to CPCB as
not met in entire
ambient air evident form
District. Anti-smog gun
quality/effluent as test reports
was found installed on
prescribed by the Ministry already
site at the time of
of Environment & Forests attached
inspection. Same was
are strictly complied with with this
not in operation as
Water sprinklers and other compliance
7. mining was closed. No
dust Control measures report.
sprinkler tanker
should he applied to take- Sprinkling of
observed on- site. PP has
care of dust generated water has
annexed a photograph
during mining operation. been
of sprinkler along with
Sprinkling of water on haul regularly
their response. Same
roads to control dust will practiced on
needs to be verified at
be ensured by the project haul roads
the time of operations.
proponent and
loading/unl
oading
points
during
working
period
All necessary statutory
PP has obtained CTO
clearances shall be obtained
from Board on
before start of mining
05.01.2023 Thus, the
operations. If this condition is
8. Agreed said condition was
violated, the clearance shall be
violated as mining was
automatically deemed to have
started before
been
obtaining CTO.
cancelled.
There is limited
movement of
vehicles as the
workers are from
nearby villages they
are using cycles but
Very light vehicular
Parking of vehicles should not be the employee
9. movement observed in made on public places. coming through the area.
other vehicles has been instructed not to park near public places.
The lease area is
No tree-felling will be done in
devoid No tree plantation
the leased
10. of trees thus no observed in the mining
area, except only with the
cutting of trees has lease area.
permission of Forest Department
been done
It shall be ensure that excavation The mining has No mining activity was of miner mineral been practiced as
11. observed at the time of does not disturb or change the per the depth inspection.
underlying soil characteristics of restricted in O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -31- the river bed /basin, where Environmental mining is carried out. clearance issued.
Mining has been done in river bed area no river It shall be ensured that mining stream channel operation of Sand/Morram will disturbed, Mining was found closed
12. not in any way disturb the, eventually no at the time of inspection.
velocity and flow pattern of the velocity and flow river water significantly pattern of the river has been disturbed due mining It shall be ensured that there is No fauna no fauna dependent on the river Compliance report dependent on river bed or areas close to mining for vetted by competent bed or areas close its nesting. authority not submitted
13. to the mining for its A report on the same, vetted by in the concerned nesting has been the competent authority, shall Regional Office of the reported in the be submitted to the RO, PCB and State Board lease area.
SEIAA within 02 months.
Hydro geological study shall be carried out by a reputed organization/institute within six The Environmental months and establish that Hydro geological study clearance has been mining in the said area will report by competent issued for mining not adversely affect the ground organization/institute upto ultimate depth
14. water regime. The report shall not submitted in the of 3.0m.No ground be submitted to the RO, PCB and concerned Regional water intersection SEIAA within six months. In case Office of the State has been done adverse impact is observed Board during mining.
/anticipated, mining shall not be carried out.
Adequate protection against dust and other environmental Adequate pollution due to mining shall be protection made so that the habitations (if measures have any), close by the lease area are been made to avoid Report not submitted in not adversely affected. The further the concerned Regional
15. status of implementation of environmental Office of the State measures taken shall be pollution. There is Board reported to the RO, UPPCB and no habitation on or SEIAA and this activity should be close to the project completed before the start of site.
sand mining.
Need based assessment for the As per letter issued nearby villages shall be by gram Pradhan conducted to study economic claiming that Under Pictures dated measures which can help in Corporate 04.01.2023 enclosed in improving the quality of life of environment the reply. No record of economically weaker section Responsibility
16. earlier activities with of society. Income generating programmes regards to socio-
projects/tools such as project has is
economic measures
development of fodder farm, stitching and
submitted.
fruit bearing orchards, distributed blankets
vocational training etc. can form to economically a part of such programme.The weaker people of O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -32- project proponent shall provide village Pachayara separate budget for community (Gram Pradhan development letter & pictures activities and income generating enclosed).
programmes Project proponent has planted 300 Pictures dated Green cover development shall saplings at 04.01.2023 enclosed in be carried out following CPCB community land at the reply received.
guidelines including selection of
17. different places in Considering the period plant species and in consultation village pachayara. of lease, no substantial with the local DFO/Horticulture (Pictures enclosed plantation observed on Officer.
and gram Pradhan site or in the area.
letter also enclosed) Separate stock piles shall be The lease area is maintained for excavated top No mining activity river bed, no topsoil
18. soil, if any, and the top soil observed on site at the cover in the lease should be utilized for green time of inspection.
area cover/tree plantation Dispensary facilities for first- aid Dispensary facility not
19. Agreed shall be Provided at site. provided on site. An Environmental Audit should be annually carried out during No record of audit 20 agreed the operational phase and report submitted. submitted to the SEIAA The District Mining Officer should quarterly monitor At present the under compliance of the stipulated signed i.e. Mohd. conditions. The project Mahboob, Senior Mines proponent will extend full officer has taken charge cooperation to the District of district Ghaziabad
21. Mining Officer by furnishing the Agreed from 21-02-2023 and requisite even before then the data/Information/monitoring concern mining activity reports. In case of any violations has ceased due to of stipulated conditions the expiration of E.C. district Mining Officer will report to SEIAA.
The project proponent shall submit six monthly reports on the status of compliance of the Six monthly reports on stipulated environmental the status of compliance clearance conditions including of the stipulated results of monitored data (both environmental
22. Agreed, in hard & soft copies, to the clearance conditions SEIAA, the District Officer and including results of the respective Regional Office of monitored data no the State Pollution Control Board submitted as required. by 1st June and 1st December every year.
A copy of the clearance letter Proof of receipt not shall be sent by the proponent to provided at the time of
23. concerned Panchayat, Zila Agreed inspection nor given in Parisad/ Municipal Corporation compliance report.
and Urban local Body.
O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -33- Transportation Of materials shall be done by covering the No mining observed on trucks / tractors with tarpaulin site. Can be verified
24. or other suitable mechanism to Agreed when the site is in avoid fugitive emissions and operation.
spillage of mineral/dust.
Waste water, from temporary habitation campus be properly No temporary collected & treated before habitation proposed No test report in this 25 discharging into water bodies onsite, the labours regards submitted.
the treated effluent should hired are from conform to the standards nearby villages prescribed by MoEF/CPCB.
Measures shall be taken for No test report regarding
control of noise same submitted during
26. Agreed
level to the lands prescribed by operation submitted.
CPCB
Special Measures shall be
adopted to protect the nearby
settlements from the impacts of
mining activities maintenance of No record regarding
village roads through which same submitted during
27. Agreed
transportation of minor minerals operation submitted.
is to be undertaken, shall be
carried out by the project
proponent regularly at his own
expenses.
Measure for prevention &
control of soil erosion and
management of soil shall be No record or
undertaken. Protection of dumps photographic evidence
28. Agreed
against erosion, if any, shall be regarding same
carried out with geo textile submitted.
matting or other suitable
material.
Project Proponent shall explore
the possibility of using solar No solar panel observed
29. Agreed
energy wherever possible. on site.
O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors
-34-
As per letter issued
by gram Pradhan
Under corporate social claiming that Under
responsibility a sum of 5% of the Corporate total project cost or total income environment Detailed regarding work whichever is higher is to be Responsibility done under different earmarked for total lease period. programmes heads, cost incurred Its budget is to be separately project proponent and sustainability as maintained. CSR component has distributed well as quality of these shall be prepared based on need stitching Machines works should be of local habitant. Income and distributed submitted by the PP. generating measures blankets to Also, same
30. which can help in upliftment of Economically report work under poor section of society, weaker people of heads, should be consistent with the traditional village Pachayara verified by competent skills of the people shall be (Gram Pradhan authority and certificate identified. The programme can letter & Pictures with regards to include activities such as enclosed). Project completion of work be development of fodder farm, proponent has also issued to PP. fruit bearing orchards, free got installed distribution of smokeless Chula handpumps in etc. village Pachayara (pictures enclosed) Possibility for adopting nearest three villages shall be explored and details of civic amenities such as roads, drinking water etc No record or proposed to be provided at the photographic evidence
31. Agreed project proponent's expenses regarding same shall be submitted within 02 submitted.
months from the date of issuance of Environment Clearance.
The funds earmarked for environmental protection measures should be kept in No report with regards separate account and should not to expenditure of funds be diverted for other purpose earmarked for
32. Agreed year wise expenditure should be environmental reported to the Ministry of protection submitted in Environment and Forests and its Regional Office, UPPCB. Regional Office located at Lucknow. SEIAA, U P and UPPCB The suggestion Action plan with respect to made by public Action Plan not
33. suggestion/improvement hearing panel and submitted in Regional months public has Office, UPPCB.
implemented.
Environmental clearance is subject to obtaining clearance under the Wild Life Protection,
34. Agreed Not Required Act. 1972 from the competent authority, if applicable to this project.
The proponent shall observe No nesting sites has every 15 day for nesting of any
35. been observed till Not observed.
turtle in the area. Based on the date observations so made, if turtle O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -35- nesting is observed, necessary safeguard measures shall be taken in consultation with the State Wildlife Department. For the purpose, awareness shall be created amongst the workers about the nesting sites so that such sites, if any, are identified by the workers during operations of the mine for taking required safeguard measures. In this regards, the safety, notified zone should be left so that the habitat/nesting area is undisturbed.
Adequate safeguard measures has been The project proponent shall adopted, Mining undertake has been done adequate safeguard measures No mining observed at strictly in adherence during extraction of river bed the time of inspection.
36. to EC issued & no material and ensure that due to Needs to be verified hydro geological this activity the hydro geological during operation phase.
regime of the regime of the surrounding area Surrounding area shall not be affected.
has been affected.
The project proponent shall No ground water
obtain necessary prior withdrawal of
permission of the competent water done onsite
Authorities for withdrawal of the water No borewell observed on
37.
requisite quantity of water requirement has site.
(surface water and been done by water
groundwater) required for the tankers supplied project. form local vendors Appropriate mitigative measures shall be taken to prevent Needs to be pollution of the river in verified during consultation with the State operation phase.
38. Pollution Control Board. It shall Agreed Mitigation Measure Plan be ensured that there is no not submitted leakage of oil and grease in the in UPPCB.
river from the vehicles used for transportation Vehicular emissions shall be kept Agreed, The under control and regularly vehicles used for Needs to be verified
39. monitored; the vehicles carrying transportation are during operation phase. the mineral shall not be PUC certified.
overloaded.
Provision shall be made for the The labour has been housing of construction labour hired from locals, within the site with all necessary no requirement of infrastructure and facilities such accommodation No labour was present as fuel for cooking, mobile onsite thus no on site. Small temporary
40. toilets. mobile STD, safe drinking temporary hutment of 3-4 huts water, medical hutment/constructi observed on site.
health cafe, creche etc (MoEF on has been done, circular Dated however for daily 22.09. 2008 regarding workers bio- toilets stipulation of condition to provision has been O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -36- improve living conditions of made.
construction labour at site) Safe drinking water has had been provided by water tankers and first-
aid kit has also been made available onsite Personnel working in dusty areas should wear protective respiratory devices and they should also be provided with adequate training and information on safety and health Needs to be verified
41. aspects. Occupational health Agreed during operation phase.
surveillance program of the workers should be undertaken periodically to observe any contractions due to exposure to dust and take corrective measures, if needed A copy of the clearance letter shall be sent by the proponent to concerned Panchayat, Zila Parishad/Municipal Corporation, Urban local Body and the local NGO, if any, from whom Proof of receipt not
42. Agreed suggestions/representations, if submitted. any, were received while processing the proposal. The clearance letter shall also be put on the website of the Company by the proponent The environmental statement for each financial year ending 31st March in Form V as is mandated to be submitted by the project proponent to the concerned State Pollution Control Board as prescribed under the Environment (Protection) Rules.
43. 1986, as amended subsequently, Agreed Not submitted. shall also be put on the website of the company along with the status of compliance of environmental clearance conditions and shall also be sent to the Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment and forests, Lucknow by e- mail The green cover Plantation has been development/tree plantation is done along to be done in an area equivalent approach road and No such plantation to 20% of the total
44. community places observed on site on the leased area either on river bank in village approach road.
or along road side (Avenue pachayara, Plantation) (pictures enclosed) O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -37- Debris from the river bed will be No Mining activity was collected and stored at secured Agreed observed at the time of
45. place and may be utilized for inspection.
strengthen the embankment.
Safety measures to be taken for the safety of the People Needs to be verified working at the mine lease area during operation
46. should be given, which would Agreed phase. On-site also include measure for dispensary needs to treatment of bite of poisonous be made operational. reptile/insect like snake.
Periodical and Annual medical Checkup of workers as per Mines
47. Agreed No record submitted.
Act and they should be covered
under ESI as per rule
Part B- Specific conditions
Sl no. Specific conditions as per Compliance as per Compliance on Site
environment clearance PP
issued
01 Project proponent should Agreed Report with regards to
ensure all sapling should mortality rate and
survive any mortality will be replacement done
replaced. thereof not
submitted.
02 Site photographs should be Site photographs Camera was found
submitted with date and enclosed Installed near weigh
time. bridge but may not be
Operational as there was
no mining activity
going on.
03 Provision for small cylinder to Workers are from Needs to be verified
workers should be made for local villages, no During operation cooking. cooking phase. On-site cooking provision done provisions onsite, workers not available.
have been carrying lunchbox with them O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -38- 04 The capacity of trucks/tractor Trucks/tractors Compliance report for loading purpose will be in loading in tonnes as need to be tonnes as per PWD and per Transport submitted by PP Transport Department Department along with vehicle applicable norms and applicable norms details.
standard fixed by the and standard fixed
Government. by the Government.
05 Provide suitable mask to Agreed Needs to be verified
the workers. during operation
phase.
06 Approach road kaccha is to Approach road has Not complied.
be made motarable and tree been strengthened saplings to be planted on and plantation both sides of the road carried out 07 The project proponent shall Agreed No such study has in 2 years conduct detailed been undertaken replenishment study duly by project authenticated by a QCI, proponent.
NABET accredited consultant, and the District Mines Officer which shall form the basis for midterm review of conditions of Environmental Clearance 08 Provision for two toilets and Provision of bio- Bio-toilets not observed hand pumps should be made toilets has been on site as site closed at mining site. made onsite, and since 30/01/2023.
for drinking water facility water tankers has been made available (picture of water tanker enclosed) 09 Drinking water for workers Water tanker Proof of purchase would be provided by tankers. provision has been needs to be made onsite submitted.
10 Mining will be carried only Mining is based No Mining activity was
according to the approved on approved observed at the time of
mining plan. mining plan inspection.
O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors
-39-
11 A buffer/safe tone shall be Mining site is quite No Mining activity was maintained from the away from observed at the of habitation as per mining settlement & inspection.
guidelines proper buffer zone
has been
maintained as per
mining
guideline
12 Total Project Cost has been Agreed Proof of receipt of Plan
submitted as Rs. in Directorate as well as
1,10,36,850/-. A CSR plan to the District
with minimum Rs. magistrate/Chief
5,51,842/- work to be Development Officers
executed with installation of office not furnished.
five hand pumps for drinking
water, solar light in villages
of streets, construction of
two numbers of toilets at
the primary school with
name displayed and address
and details of beneficiary
and gram Pradhan along
with phone number,
photographs should be
submitted to Directorate as
well as to the District
magistrate/Chief
Development Officers,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
13 Detail of works under CSR Agreed Proof of receipt not
which has to be executed furnished.
as above is to be submitted
with an affidavit to
Directorate as well as to the
District magistrate/Chief
development
officers, Ghaziabad, U.P.
14 Health/insurance card, Health checkup Documentary and
Medical claim, regular health camps being photographic evidence
Checkup camps, facilities organized annually proof of such camps not
shall be provided to the for health check up furnished by PP.
regular/temporary/Contractu of workers al or any base workers. Copy of receipt shall be produced to the Directorate of Environment along with the compliance report.
O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -40- 15 The Environmental clearance Agreed That the EC granted to will be co-terminus with the the PP was transferred mining lease period. EC whose validity was co-terminus with the earlier lease deed granted to one Gurbaj Singh which has expired on 31-01-2023 hence making the EC void.
16 Project falling with in 10 KM Project site is not in Site not in notified eco-
area of Wild life Sanctuary is eco-sensitive zone sensitive zone to obtain a clearance from National Board Wild life (NBWL) even if the eco Sensitive zone is not earmarked 17 Geo coordinates should be Verified Geo- Has notbeen submitted.
verified by Director. coordinates by
DGM/District Magistrate/ mining officer
Regional Mining Officer/ Ghaziabad has
NHAI and should be been submitted to
submitted SEIAA/SEAC, SEIAA/SEAC, UP
Secretariat as earliest
18 In case it has been found that Agreed Area in less than 25 Hac.
the E.C. obtained by
providing incorrect
information, submitting that
the distance between the two
adjoining mines is greater
than 500m and area is less
than 25ha, but factually the
distance is less than 500 m
and the mine is located m
cluster of area equal or more
than 25ha, the E C issued will
stand revoked
19 The project proponent shall in Agreed No Such study has been
2 years conduct detailed conducted by Project
replenishment study duly proponent.
authenticated by a OCI,
NABET accredited consultant,
and the District Mines Officer
which shall form the basis for
midterm review of conditions
of Environmental Clearance.
O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors
-41-
20 The mining work will be open- Agreed No Mining activity was
cast and exclusively manual. observed at the time of
No mechanical work or inspection.
drilling/blasting should be
involved at any stage
21 It shall be ensured that there Mining has been No Mining activity shall be no mining of any type done as per SSMG was observed at the time within 03 m or 10%, of the guideline 2016 of inspection. width which-ever is less, shall be left on both the banks of precise area to control and avoid erosion over river bank. The mining is confined to extraction of sand/moram from the river bank only 22 The project proponent shall Mining depth is No Mining activity was undertake adequate above ground water observed at the time of safeguard measures during table. No inspection. extraction of river bank intersection of material and ensure that due ground water table to this activity the hydro- done geological regime of the surrounding area shall not be affected 23 The project proponent I strictly adhere to No Mining activity shall adhere to mining in plan submitted for observed at the time of conformity to plan submitted mining was and inspection. for the mine lease conditions rules prescribed. No and the Rules prescribed a mining has been this regard clearly showing carried out in the no work zone in the mine monsoon season lease i.e. the distance from the bank of river to be left un- worked 'Non mining aerial, distance from the bridges etc. It shall be ensured that no mining shall be carried out during the monsoon season.
O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -42- 24 The project proponent shall I strictly adhere that No Mining activity was ensure that wherever applicable Mines observed at the time of deployment of labour Act, the provision inspection.
attracts the Mines Act, the thereof strictly
provision thereof shall be followed
strictly followed
25 The project proponent will Personnel protective Needs to be verified provide personal protective equipment's has at the time of operation. equipments (PPE) as required, been provided to Documentary/Photo also Provide adequate workers graphic proof of same training and information on not furnished by PP. safety and health aspects Periodical medical examination of the workers engaged in the project shall be carried out and records maintained. For the purpose, schedule of health examination of the workers should be drawn and followed accordingly.
26 The critical parameters such Environmental One time reporting as PM 10, PM2.5, SO2 and parameters has does not meet NOx in the ambient air within been monitored and requirement of EC. the impact zone shall reports Routine reports need to he monitored periodically. are attached be furnished by PP. Further, quality of discharged herewith water it any shall also be monitored [TDS, DO, PH, Fecal coliform & Total suspended solids (TSS)].
27 Effective safeguard measures, Regular water Needs to be such as regular water sprinkling carried verified at the time of sprinkling shall be carried out out in critical areas operation. in critical areas prone to air prone to air pollution and haying high pollution and having levels of particulate matter high levels of such as loading and particulate matter unloading point and all (letter issued by transfer points. Extensive Gram Pradhan water sprinkling shall be Pachayara also carried Out on haul roads. claimed the same enclosed with) 28 It should be ensured that the Ambient Air Ambient standards are Ambient Air Quality/ Quality/ parameters not met in the area due parameters conform to the conform to to external factors as norms prescribed by the the norms well. Plan to mitigate air Central Pollution Control prescribed by pollution sources at Board in this regard. the Central Pollution the time of operation Control Board in needs to be furnished.
this
regard
O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors
-43-
29 The extended mining scheme Agreed Mining Plan is yet to
Will be submitted by the expired.
Proponent before expiry of
present mining plan.
30 Four ambient air quality Agreed, Monitoring Documentary/Photo
monitoring stations should be test reports graphic proof of
established in the core zone enclosed same not furnished.
as well as in the buffer zone No stations
for monitoring PM 10, PM2.5, observed on site at
SO2 and NOx. location of the the time of
stations should be decided inspection.
based on the meteorological
data, topographical
features and environmentally
and ecologically sensitive
targets and frequency of
monitoring should be
undertaken in consultation
with the State Pollution
Control Board
31 Common road for Agreed being ensured by
transportation of mineral is irrigation department.
to be maintained collectively.
Total cost will be
shared/worked out on the
basis of lease area among
users
32 Proponent will provide Agreed No labour found on site
adequate sanitary facility in as mining was closed.
the form of mobile toilets to Need to be verified at
the labours engaged for the the time of operation. No
project work. bio toilet was found on
site.
33 Solid waste material with Agreed No separate bin
gutkha pouch, plastic bags, system found on site.
glasses etc to be generated
during project activity will be
separate, storage in bins and
managed as per Solid
Waste Management rules.
34 Green area/belt to be Agreed, Plantation Not observed
developed along haulage has been done
road in consultation of Gram along approach Sabha/Panchayat road and community places in village Pachayara, (pictures enclosed) 35 Natural/customary paths Plantation has been Needs verification used by villagers should not Done along during operation be obstructed at any time by approach road and phase. the activities Proposed under community places in the project village pachayara, (pictures enclosed) O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -44- 36 Digital processing of the Agreed Report not submitted in entire lease area in the Regional Office, UPPCB district using remote sensing technique should be done regular, once in three years for monitoring the change of river course by Directorate of Geology and Mining, Govt of Uttar Pradesh The record of such study to be maintained and report be submitted to Regional office of MoEF, SEIAA, U.P. and UPPCB.
37 A copy of clearance letter will Agreed Proof of receipt not
Be marked to concerned furnished
Panchayat / local NGO, if any,
From whom suggestion /
representation has been
received while processing the
proposal. The clearance letter
shall also be put on the
website of the company.
38 State Pollution Control Board Agreed Copy furnished
Shall display a copy of the throughSEIAA and
Clearance letter at the put up on notice
Regional office, District board of the Regional
Industry Centre and Office.
Collector's office/Tehsildar's
Office for 30 days.
39 The project authorities Agreed Proof of
shall advertise at least in two advertisement not
local newspapers widely furnished.
circulated, one of which shall
be in the vernacular language
of the locality concerned,
within 7 days of the issue of
the clearance letter informing
that the project has been
accorded environmental
clearance and a copy of the
clearance letter is available
with the State Pollution
Control Board and also at
web site of the SEIAA at
http//www.seiaaup.in and a
copy of the same shall be
forwarded to the Regional
Office of the Ministry located
in Lucknow, CPCB, State PCB
40 The MoEF/SEIAA or any other Agreed Need no comment
Competent authority may
alter/modify the above
conditions or stipulate any
further condition in the
interest of environment
Protect,
O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors
-45-
41 Concealing factual data or Agreed Need no comment
submission of
false/fabricated data and
failure to comply with any
of the conditions mentioned
above may result in
withdrawal of this clearance
and attract action under the
provisions of Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986.
42 Any appeal against this Agreed Need no comment
environmental clearance
Shall lie with the National
Green Tribunal, if
preferred, within a period of
30 days as prescribed under
Section 11 of the National
Environment Appellate
Authority Act, 1997.
43 Waste water from potable Agreed Need verification
use be collected and reused during operation
for sprinkling. phase. No such
mechanism
observed on site.
44 During the school opening Agreed Need verification
and closing time vehicle during operation
movement will be restricted. phase.
You shall also ensure that the I assure that the Present issue pertains to
proposed site is not a Part of project site is not addition of Khasra in any no development zone as located in no Mining Lease without required/prescribed/identifie development zone obtaining NOC from the d under law. In case of land owner, the violation, this permission shall applicant in present automatically deem to be case.
cancelled. Also, In the rent of any dispute on owners, or land use of the proposed site, this clearance shall automatically deem to be cancelled.
O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -46- 45 The above stipulated Agreed Need no comment Conditions will be enforced inter-alia under the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
The Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the PubIic Liability Insurance Act, 1991 along-with their amendments and rules made there under and also any other orders passed by the Hon"ble Courts of law relating to the subject matter.
46 the project proponent will Agreed Need no comment have to submit approved plans and proposals incorporating the conditions specified in the Environmental Clearance within 03 months of issuance of this clearance. The SEIAA/MoEF reserves the right to revoke the environmental clearance, if conditions stipulated are not implemented to the satisfaction of SEIAA/MoEF.
SEIAA may impose additional environmental conditions or modify the existing ones, if necessary.
47 This is to request you to take Agreed Need no comment further necessary action in matter as per provisions of Gazette Notification No. S.O. 1533(E) dated 14/09/2006, as amended and send regular compliance reports to the authority as prescribed in the aforesaid notification
54. It is evident from the Joint Status Report that respondent no. 5-Project Proponent has not complied with material conditions imposed in EC issued by UPSEIAA and CTO granted by UPPCB which have been highlighted by us in O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -47- the above table.
55. Specific conditions were imposed at the time of grant of EC for earmarking of 5 % of the total Project costs or total income whichever is higher towards CSR component and respondent no. 5 Project Proponent was directed to carry out the CSR activity as mentioned in EC issued by UPSEIAA and also CTO granted by UPPCB. Respondent no. 5-Project Proponent filed some photographs showing distribution of blanket and swing machines etc., but details regarding the CSR activities carried out and utilization of the budget amount earmarked for the same were not mentioned. The Project Proponent was directed to file additional reply giving details of CSR/EMP activities carried out by the Project Proponent along with all supporting bills/receipt/documents and also to file copies of annual audit statement and CSR statements filed by him before Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh. No reply has been filed the Project Proponent giving details of CSR/EMP activities carried out by the Project Proponent along with all supporting bills/receipt/documents and also copies of annual audit and CSR statements filed by him before Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh.
56. Condition was imposed on Respondent no. 5-Project Proponent that green cover development shall be carried out by following CPCB guidelines including selection of plant species and in consultation with the local DFO/Horticulture officer. The green cover development/tree plantation was to be done in an area equivalent to 20 % of the total leased area either on river bank or along road side (Avenue Plantation). Respondent no. 5-Project Proponent has claimed to have planted 300 saplings in community land in village Pachayra and to have carried out plantation along approach road and community places in village Pachayra and produced some photographs showing carring out of plantation by him but in the Report of the Joint Committee it has been O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -48- mentioned that considering the period of lease no substantial plantation has been observed on site or in the area and no such plantation as claimed by respondent no. 5-Project Proponent was observed on site on the approach road.
57. We find the present case to be a glaring example of (i) non-compliance with the statutory provisions, EC and CTO conditions and environmental norms and also failure to discharge the statutory obligations on the part of the Project Proponent, (ii) willful avoidance of enquiry into the relevant facts, deliberate suppression of material facts and misrepresentation of relevant facts before this Tribunal by the Joint Committee and (iii) negligence, non-
application of mind and inaction on the part of concerned State Authorities as evidenced by the following facts and circumstances:
(i) Vide order dated 16.11.2022, the Project Proponent was restrained from carrying out further mining against which the Project Proponent filed appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court by misrepresenting the facts regarding compliance with the environmental norms while relying upon the reports submitted by the Joint Committee before this Tribunal to be in his favour but as per the Joint Status Report subsequently filed before this Tribunal there are serious environmental violations on the part of the Project Proponent who had not even obtained CTE/CTO from UPPCB prior to 05.01.2023.
(ii) In its report filed vide email dated 25.05.2022, the Joint Committee did not mention the relevant facts regarding EC, validity period of the lease as well as grant of CTE/CTO by UPPCB and merely reported in well-crafted manner that there was no illegal mining without referring to earlier incident of illegal mining.
(iii) In its report filed vide email dated 11.11.2022, the Joint Committee mentioned that the lease was valid from 14.10.2020 to 13.10.2025 but O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -49- did not mention the relevant facts regarding EC and also grant of CTE/CTO by UPPCB.
(iv) There were serious violations of the environmental laws/norms and the Project Proponent commenced and carried out mining without obtaining CTE/CTO from the UPPCB which fact was completely ignored by the State Authorities for extraneous consideration.
(v) In the Joint Status Report now filed on behalf of the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB serious violations on the part of the Project Proponent have been mentioned but the Joint Status Report has been prepared and submitted after expiry of the EC and discontinuance of the mining and no justification has been given for not carrying out requisite inspections for verification of the compliance status during continuance of the mining.
(vi) In the present case EC is stated to have been transferred in favour of the Project Proponent which was valid upto 31.01.2023 but lease dead was executed in favour of the Project Proponent which is valid from 14.10.2020 to 13.10.2025 and was not executed for period co-
terminus with EC.
(vii) The Project Proponent is stated to have applied to SEIAA for grant of EC for further mining in the land in question leased out in his favour but this Tribunal is not informed as to what is the basis and purport thereof.
58. Ms. Roshan Jacob, Director, Mining and Geology, U.P. and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member Secretary, UPPCB, who appeared before this Tribunal through VC on 26.04.2023 submitted that NoC/consent from UPPCB was not required by the Project Proponent for sand mining. Ms. Roshan Jacob, Director, Mining and Geology, U.P. and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member Secretary, UPPCB were directed to file their detailed response affidavits in this regard.
Respondent no. 5-Project Proponent was also directed to file his O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -50- reply/response.
59. In compliance of order dated 26.04.2023, Affidavits were filed by the Member Secretary, UPPCB vide email dated 19.05.2023 and by the Director, Mining and Geology, U.P. vide email dated 22.05.2023 but no reply/response was filed by respondent no.5.
60. In his affidavit the Member Secretary, UPPCB has submitted that pursuant to remarks made in the final List issued by CPCB on 07.03.2016 of Orange Category of Industrial Sectors, no categorization had been made by the MoEF&CC for excavation of sand from the river bed till date and sand mining is not covered in any of the categorization viz. Red/Orange/Green and White.
Relevant part of the affidavit is reproduced below:
" AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF MEMBER SECRETARY, UTTAR PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN PURSUANCE TO THE ORDER DATED 26.04.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL X X X X
3. That the Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.03.2023 directed the project proponent to desist from carrying out any further mining activity in the mining site till further orders and directed Director, Mining and Geology and Member Secretary, UPPCB to appear in person on the next dated fixed.
4. That as mentioned in the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal the State Board has given the consent to operate to the project proponent regarding the site in question for the period of 05.01.2023 to 31.12.2026. The copy of the order dated 05.01.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure-1 to this affidavit.
5. That in the final List issued by CPCB on 07.03.2016 of Orange Category of Industrial Sectors the following comment regarding "Excavation of sand from the river bed" has been mentioned. "There are specific remarks in respect of some of the industrial sectors. These sectors are either merged with other relevant sectors or deleted due to duplication /vague category. The details are as follows:-
Origin SI. Original at SI. Industry Sector Remarks no Category No 1 24 Excavation Since such type of of sand form 0 activities cause the River O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -51- Bed (excluding ecological disturbances, manual the instructions issued by excavation) the Government from time to time be followed.
To be categorized by MoEF&CC
6. That pursuant to remarks made in categorization of sector, uptill now no categorization has been made by the MoEF&CC for excavation of sand from the river bed, therefore, the sand mining is not covered in any of the categorization viz. Red/Orange/Green and White.
7 That further it is stated that the State Board has issued the Show Cause notice for imposition of Environmental Compensation for total 550 defaulter days {the period of 22.10.2020 to 01.05.2021 (192 defaulter days) and for 15.11.2021 to 07.11.2022 (358 defaulter days)}. The show cause notice regarding environmental compensation for the mining during the period in which activity progressed without CTE/CTO is issued @ of Rs. 10,000/- per day i.e. Environmental Compensation of Rs. 55,00,000/- vide letter dated 25.04.2023. The copy of the letter is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure no-2 to this affidavit.
8. That further it is stated that the show cause letter regarding the Environmental Compensation has been received by project proponent on 09.05.2023 as per Indian Postal Track Report, but till ate the project proponent has not replied to the show cause letter dated 25.04.2023.
9. That the project proponent himself closed down the mining activities. Presently no mining activity is in operation. The joint inspection report dated 19.04.2023, conducted by the joint committee of the mining officer and sub divisional magistrate, Loni is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.-3 to this affidavit.
10. That further in pursuance to the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal the inspection has been carried by the officials of the State Board on 18.05.2023 and during the inspection the mining found closed at site in question. A Copy of inspection report dated 18.05.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.-4 to this affidavit."
61. In her affidavit the Director, Mining and Geology, U.P. also submitted that since no categorization has been made by the MoEF&CC for excavation of sand from the riverbed, therefore, the sand mining is not covered under the categorization of the industrial Sector and that in the said mining operations, neither anything is added to the water nor is anything released, so water or air does not get polluted. The relevant part of the affidavit is reproduced below:
"Affidavit of Compliance.
X X X X O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -52-
3. That, regarding obtaining NoC/consent from UPPCB for sand mining, it is humbly submitted that For harmonization of Classification of Industries under Red/Orange/Green/White Categories CPCB vide letter dated 19.08.2015 forwarded a copy of draft document on revised concept of categorization of industrial sectors to all SPCBs, PCCs and concerned ministries. CPCB further issued modified directions to revise/prepare categories of industrial sector in Red, Orange, Green and White as per final report to all SPCBs/PCCs on 07.03.2016.
(i) That is further worthwhile to mention here that in compliance to the directions issued by CPCB, UPPCB in its meeting dated 29.03.2016 adopted the same categorizations of industries and issued letter dated 18.04.2016 to all concerned controlling officers of the UPPCB and Regional officers of the UPPCB to comply the same. A true copy of the letter dated 18.04.2016. That there are two additional notes in the list of Industrial Sectors mentioned in the final report and Note (ii) is being quoted as below;
SI.No. Origin Industry Sector Original Remarks at SI. Category No. 1 24 Excavation of 0 Since such type of sand form the activities cause ecological River Bed disturbances, the (excluding manual instructions issued by the excavation) Government from time to time be followed. To be categorized by MoEF&CC
(ii) That at Serial No. 1 which was originally at SI.No 24 regarding excavation of Sand from the riverbed (excluding manual excavation), it has been mentioned in remark column that such type of activities cause ecological disturbances, the instructions issued by the Government (MoEF&CC) from time be followed. So, excavation of Sand from the riverbed (excluding manual excavation) has to be categorized by MoEF&CC separately.
(iii) That pursuant to remarks made in categorization of sector up till now no categorization has been made by the MoEF&CC for excavation of sand from the riverbed therefore the O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -53- sand mining is not covered under the categorization of the industrial Sector. It is also submitted that as per the MOEF&CC, EIA notification 2006, EC has been obtained in this particular case and also in case of sand mining across the state.
(iv) under the provision of Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981, Industries, which causes underground/surface water and Air pollution, requires CTE /CTO from concerning SPCB. But in the case of Sand Mining no fugitive emissions are released. It is to be mentioned that neither permanent structure of any kind is erected during the mining operations of Sand/Morrum situated in the river bed nor heavy machinery are used in the mining operations. In the said mining operations, neither anything is added to the water nor is anything released, so water or air does not get polluted.
X X X X"
62. This Tribunal has passed order dated 30.05.2023 in O.A No. 176/2022 titled as Aman Chaudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors that sand mining from river bed mandatorily requires CTE and CTO from SPCBs/PCCs and for reasons of gravity the detailed reasons and operative part of the order are not reproduced here which may be read as part of this Judgment.
63. It may also be observed here that in his affidavit the Member Secretary, UPPCB has taken contradictory stands as on the one hand affidavit filed by him implies that sand mining from river bed does not require CTE/CTO from UPPCB but on the other hand the same mentions the Project Proponent to be non-compliant on the ground that CTE/CTO had not been taken from UPPCB.
Such contradiction by itself not only points out lack of transparency and accountability but also negates impartiality and integrity in the working of the UPPCB subjecting the same to serious doubt of being animated by ulterior motives and extraneous considerations. UPPCB has allowed river bed sand mining without obtaining of CTE and CTO under the pretext of non-
categorization by MOEF&CC but at the same time proceeded to issue show cause notices for imposition of environmental compensation to and pass orders for imposition of environmental compensation on some of the project O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -54- proponents on the ground of not obtaining of CTE/CTO by them without taking any action against the majority of the similarly placed project proponents for not obtaining of CTE/CTO by them and has not monitored compliance of conditions imposed by MOEF&CC or UPSEIAA and allowed riverbed sand mining to be carried out despite serious violations of the EC conditions which warranted cancellation of EC and mining leases.
64. In O.A. no. 360/2015 National Green Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Virender Singh (State of Gujarat) this Tribunal vide order dated 26.02.2021 issued the following directions:-
" Enforcement of Monitoring Mechanism and review by the Chief Secretary at State level and Secretary MoEF&CC at National level
27. We direct all the States/UTs to strictly follow the SSMG-2016 read with EMGSM-2020 reinforced by mechanism for preparation of DSRs (in terms of directions of this Tribunal dated 14.10.2020 in Pawan Kumar, supra and 04.11.2020 in Rupesh Pethe, supra), Environment Management Plans, replenishment studies, mine closure plans, grant of EC (in terms of direction dated 13.09.2018 in Satendra Pandey, supra), assessment and recovery of compensation (as per discussion in Para 25), seizure and release of vehicles involved in illegal mining (in terms of order dated 19.02.2020 in Mushtakeem, supra), other safeguards against violations, grievance redressal, accountability of the designated officers and periodical review at higher levels. As already noted, EMGSM-2020 contemplates extensive use of digital technology, including remote sensing.
28. We further direct that periodic inspection be conducted by a five-members Committee, headed and coordinated by the SEIAA and comprising CPCB (wherever it has regional office), State PCB and two expert members of SEAC dealing with the subject. Where CPCB regional office is not available, if MoEF&CC regional office is available, its Regional Officer will be included in the Committee. Where neither CPCB nor MoEF&CC regional office exists, Chairman, SEIAA will tie up with the nearest institution of repute such as IIT to nominate an expert for being included in the Committee. Such inspection must be conducted at least thrice for each lease i.e. after expiry of 25% the lease period, then after 50% of the period and finally six months before expiry of the lease period for midway correction and assessment of damage, if any. The reports of such inspections be acted upon and placed on O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -55- website of the SEIAA. Every lessee, undertaking mining, must have an environment professional to facilitate sustainable mining in terms of the mining plan and environmental norms. This be overseen by the SEIAA. Environment Departments may also develop an appropriate mobile App for receiving and redressing the grievances against the sand mining, including connivance of the authorities and also a mechanism to fix accountability of the concerned officers.
Recommendations of the Oversight Committee for the State of UP quoted earlier may be duly taken into account.
The mechanism must provide for review at the level of the Chief Secretary at least once in every quarter, in a meeting with all concerned Departments in the State. The Chief Secretary UP may ensure further action in the light of the report of the Oversight Committee.
Similarly, at National level, such review needs to be conducted atleast once in a year by the Secretary, Environment in coordination with the Secretaries Mining and Jalshakti Ministries the CPCB.
Publication of Annual Reports
29. We further direct all the States/UTs to publish their annual reports on the subject and such annual reports may be furnished to MoEF&CC by 30th April every year giving status till 31st March. First such report as on 31.03.2022 may be filed with the MoEF&CC by all he States/UTs on or before 30.04.2022. The report may also be simultaneously posted on the website of the Environment Department of the States/UTs. Based on such reports, MoEF&CC may consider supplementing its Guidelines from time to time. The MoEF&CC may prepare a consolidated report considering the reports from the States/UTs and publish its own report on the subject, preferably by 31st May every year.
Interaction at National Level
30. We direct the Secretary MoEF to convene a meeting in coordination with the CPCB and Mining and Jalshakti Ministries of Central Government and such other experts/individuals at National level and representatives of States within three months for interaction on the subject which may be followed by such meetings being convened by the Chief Secretaries in all States in next three months. Holding of such meetings will provide clarity on enforcement strategies and help protection of environment."
65. In the present case there is nothing on record to show that any such periodical inspections were conducted and the reports of such inspections O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -56- were acted upon and placed on website of UPSEIAA; any mobile application was developed as directed for receiving and redressing the grievances against the sand mining, including connivance of the authorities and also a mechanism to fix accountability of the concerned officers; any annual reports have been prepared, submitted and uploaded on website on the website of the Environment Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Under the EC conditions the District Mining Officer was required to quarterly monitor compliance of the stipulated conditions and to report violations to UPSEIAA.
There is nothing to show such quarterly monitoring of compliance status and reporting of violations to UPSEIAA by the District Mining Officer. The Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh has also failed to ensure compliance with the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act 1957) and Rules framed under the same and the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 (SSMMG 2016) and the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 (EMGSM 2020) by making periodical inspections and verifying compliance with the same. No response giving the requisite details of periodical inspections for verification of the compliance status with respect to compliance with MMDR Act 1957, the SSMMG 2016 and EMGSM 2020 has been filed by the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh.
66. In the present case the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB have also failed to ensure compliance by respondent no.5 with EC/CTO conditions and allowed respondent no. 5 to carry out mining despite such non-
compliance without taking any action for such non- compliance. We are of the considered view that by making periodical inspections for monitoring compliance status with respect to compliance of the EC and CTO consent conditions and environmental norms and by taking of remedial action on the basis thereof the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -57- would have prevented illegal mining and environmental violations and consequent environmental damage. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB are also liable for payment of environmental compensation for remediation of the environmental damage caused by respondent no. 5 Project Proponent which would have been prevented by periodical monitoring and taking of remedial action by them.
However, by taking a lenient view the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB are directed to pay nominal amount of ₹ 1 Lakh each as environmental compensation. The amount of environmental compensation be deposited by the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB with the Central Pollution Control Board within one month. The amount of environmental compensation shall be utilized for restoration of environment in the affected area. It is clarified that in case of failure of the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB to deposit the amount of costs, the Member Secretary, CPCB shall be entitled to recover the amount of costs by filing execution petition for execution of the order passed by this Tribunal before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions made in section 25 of the NGT Act 2010.
67. EC was granted by UPSEIAA in favour of Gurbaj Singh s/o Major Singh resident of B6/1379, Modern Colony, Jagadhari, Haryana. As per Specific Condition no. 15 the environmental clearance was co-terminus with the mining lease period. Lease in favour of said Gurbaj Singh was valid from 01.02.2018 to 31.01.2023. Lease in favour of said Gurbaj Singh was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad by order dated 30.03.2018.
Subsequently, EC was transferred in favour of respondent no.5-Mumtaz Ali on 10.09.2020. Lease deed was executed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad in favour of respondent no.5-Mumtaz Ali on 21.10.2020 for period of five years with validity upto 20.10.2025. UPPCB granted CTO to respondent no. 5 on O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -58- 05.01.2023 with validity upto 31.12.2026.
68. Questions arise as to permissibility of execution of lease deed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad with validity upto 20.10.2025 beyond the period of EC which was to expire on 31.01.2023 and grant of CTO by UPPCB with validity upto 31.12.2026 beyond the period of EC which was to expire on 31.01.2023 and lease deed which was to expire on 20.10.2025.
69. Opportunity was granted to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and UPPCB to file response in this regard.
70. Reply has been filed by District Magistrate, Ghaziabad vide email dated 01.01.2024. The relevant part of the reply is reproduced below:-
"कृपया उपरो िवषयक जनपद गािजयाबाद के तहसील लोनी थत बालू खनन प ा ाम पचायरा ख -1 प ाधारक ी मु मताज अली के िव मा० ायालय रा ीय ह रत ािधकरण, नई िद ी म योिजत ओ०ए० नं ० 160/2022, ओमपाल व अ बनाम उ० ० रा व अ म पा रत आदे श िदनां क 17.10.2023 का संदभ हण करने का क कर, िजसके कायकारी अंश िन वत् है :-
"1. Vide order dated 30.05.2023 this Tribunal directed filling of response regarding the aspect involved as to whether mining lease deed can be executed by the District Magistrate on behalf of the State beyond the validity period of EC granted by SEIAA. No response has been filed by the District Magistrate, Gaziabad.
इस स ं ध म बालू खनन प ा पचायरा ख -1 तहसील लोनी का िववरण िन वत् है -
1.इस कायालय के िव सं० 864 िदनां क 05.03.2020 ारा जनपद गािजयाबाद के तहसील लोनी थत बालू खनन े ाम पचायरा ख -1 गाटा सं० 8 िम०, 9िम०, 10 िम०, 11िम०, 12 िम०, 13िम०, 17 िम०, 18, 19, 20िम०, 21 िम0, 22िम०, 25 िम०, 26िम०, 27िम०, 30 िम०, 37िम०, 38 िम०, 39 िम०, 40 िम०, 41 िम०, 53िभ०, 54 िम०, 55िम०, 56िम०, 57िम०, 237िम०, 238 िम०, 239िम०, 240 िम० रकबा 16.183 हे ० बालू मा ा 323600 घ०मी० ित वष को 05 वष की अविध हे तु बालू खनन प ा पर ीकृत िकये जाने के िलये ई-िनिवदा सह ई-नीलामी णाली के मा म से िव ािपत िकया गया।
2 उपरो िव के कम म ी मु मताज अली िनवासी मौह दाबाद पो िबजौरा ाितबा फूले नगर-244235 ारा उ तम बोली 0 206/- ित घनमीटर ु त की गयी, िजस पर ीकृित उपरा ी मुमताज अली के प म 05 वष य बालू खनन प ा ीकृत िकये जाने हे तु आशय प सं० 990 िदनां क 23.06.2020 जारी िकया गया।
3. ी मु मताज अली के प म िनगत आशय प की शत के अ गत िनयत धनरािश जमा कराने के उपरा प ाधारक ारा ह ा रत पयावरण ता माण प सं० O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -59- 293/पया/एस०ई०ए०सी०/3886/2018 िदनां क 10.09.2020 इस कायालय म ु त िकया गया। (संल क-1)
4. प ाधारक ारा ु त पयावरण ता माण प के संबंध म अवगत कराना है िक उ पयावरण ता माण प पूव प ाधारक ी गुरबाज िसंह पु ी मे जर िसंह िनवासी- बी-6/1379, माडन कालोनी, जगधारी, िजला ह रयाणा के नाम ीकृत था, िजसकी प ा अविध िदनां क 01.02.2018 से िदनां क 31.01.2023 तक थी। प ाधारक ी गुरबाज िसंह ारा प ा िवले ख की शत का उ ं घन करने के कारण ीकृत बालू खनन प ा को त ालीन िजलािधकारी महोदया के आदे श िदनां क 30.03.2018 ारा िनर कर िदया गया।
5. रा रीय पयावरण समाघात िनधारण ािधकरण, उ० ०, लखनऊ ारा ी गुरबाज िसंह के प म ीकृत पयावरण ता माण प िदनां क 12.01.2018 म उ खत सम शत को यथावत रखते ये ी मुमताज अली के प म पयावरण ता माण िदनां क 10.09.2020 ह ां रत िकया गया। (संल क-2)
6. ी मु मताज अली ारा उ ह ां त रत पयावरण ता माण प (Transferred EC) को कायालय म ु त िकया गया, िजसके म म ी मु मताज अली के प म िदनां क 21.10.2020 को प ा िवले ख का िन ादन त ालीन िजलािधकारी ारा उ र दे श उपखिनज (प रहार) िनयमावली, 1963 यथा संशोिधत िनयमावली, 2021 के िनयम- 35 (5) म िदये गये ािवधानों के अ गत िकया गया। िनयम 35 (5) म िदये गये ािवधान िन वत् है :-
"िनयम 35-(5)- खनन प ा िवले ख का िन ादन, इस िनिम रा सरकार ारा अिधसूचना ारा ािधकृत अिधकारी ारा स क प से खनन योजना अनु मोिदत िकये जाने के उपरा और ावक के प म पयावरण अनापि माण प जारी िकये जाने के िदनां क से एक माह के भीतर िकया जायेगा। खनन संि या नदी तल खिनज के प े दार हे तु त ाल एवं अ खिनजों के प े दार ारा प ा िवले ख के िन ादन के िदनां क से 03 (तीन) माह के भीतर ार की जायेगी और प े दार त ात् जानबूझकर कोई थगन िकये िबना ऐसी खनन संि याओं का संचालन, उिचत और द तापूण रीित से तथा कुशल कारीगर की भॉित करे गा:
ितबंध यह है िक सरकार ारा िविध संगत ढं ग से या िकसी िविधक कायवाही के अनु सार खनन प ा/अनु ा प समा करने या प ा/अनु ा प धारक ारा अ पण िकये जाने पर, ऐसे प ा/अनु ा प धारक के प म ीकृत पयावरणीय अनापि उस िविधक को अ रत की जा सकेगी, िजसके प म ऐसा प ा/अनु ा प उसकी वैधता अविध म तय िकया गया हो।"
7. उपरो के स ं ध म प ाधारक ी मु मताज अली ारा पयावरण ता माण प की अविध समा होने के प ात् खनन प ा की ओ०टी०पी० िनदे शालय से बंद कर दी गयी है तथा प ाधारक ीकृत खनन े म खनन काय बंद कर िदया गया है । वतमान म प ाधारक ी मु मताज अली ारा पुनः पयावरण ता माण प ा िकये जाने हे तु आवेदन िकया जा चुका है , जो िवचाराधीन है ।
अतः उपरो ानु सार आ ा सेवा म सादर ेिषत है । "
71. In his reply, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad has referred to Rule 35 (5) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The above said Rule permits execution of the lease deed in favor of the person, to whom EC is transferred, limited to the period of validity of the EC. Since the EC was valid upto 31.01.2023, lease deed in favor of respondent no. 5-Project Proponent could be executed under the above said Rule for the period from 21.10.2020 to 31.01.2023. No other statutory provision enabling execution O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -60- of the lease deed for the period of five years extending beyond the validity period of transferred EC has been referred to in the response filed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and has been referred to or pointed out even during hearing of the arguments by learned Counsel for respondent no. 4- District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and by respondent no. 5-Project Proponent.
72. In the very nature of things CTE/CTO cannot be granted by SPCB/UTPCC beyond the period of EC and lease and CTE/CTO has to be coterminous with EC/Lease. UPPCB has also not referred to and pointed out any statutory provision or official memorandum justifying grant of CTO for period upto 31.12.2026 extending beyond the validity period of EC upto 31.01.2023 and validity period of lease upto 20.10.2025.
73. Consequently, lease deed executed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad with validity upto 20.10.2025 extending to period beyond the validity period of EC upto 31.01.2023 and CTO granted by UPPCB with validity upto 31.12.2026 extending to period beyond the validity period of EC and also validity period of lease will be illegal and of no consequential effect to confer any validity beyond 31.01.2023.
74. Member Secretary, UPPCB and the Director, Mining and Geology, U.P. have both stated that no mining activity is taking place but the application of the Project Proponent for EC clearance is stated to be pending.
75. This Tribunal vide order dated 27.03.2023 directed respondent no. 5- Project Proponent to desist from carrying out any further mining activity in the mining site leased out to it and environmental clearance if any granted by SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh to respondent no. 5-Project Proponent in respect of the above said mining site was ordered to remain in abeyance till further orders to the contrary. Relevant part of the order reads as under:
O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -61- "14. In view of the mandate in Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 requiring this Tribunal to apply precautionary principle and also the provisions made in Section 19 (4) (j) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 empowering this Tribunal to require any person to cease and desist from committing or causing any violation of any enactment specified in Schedule I thereof, respondent no. 5 is directed to desist from carrying out any further mining activity in the mining site leased out to it and environmental clearance if any granted by SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh to respondent no. 5 in respect of the above said mining site shall also remain in abeyance till further orders to the contrary.
15. The District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad are also directed to take appropriate steps to ensure that no illegal mining takes place in the mining site in question."
76. It may be observed here that respondent no. 5 was served with a show cause notice bearing letter No. 1453/Kha. Anu. -Ghazi./2020-21 dated 05.02.2021 regarding illegal mining outside the lease area. The District Magistrate, Ghaziabad passed order dated 20.05.2021 directing the respondent no. 5 to deposit Rs. 69,07,160/- for illegal mining outside his lease area. Respondent no. 5 filed Appeal No. 764 of 2021 against order dated 20.05.2021 before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut under Rule 77 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 who vide order dated 16.02.2022 dismissed the appeal and upheld order dated 20.05.2021.
Respondent no. 5 filed Revision No. 20(R)/SM/2023 against order dated 16.02.2022 before the Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh under Rule 80 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 which was dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2023. On 08.12.2022 Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Senior Advocate, appearing for the Project Proponent had submitted that the Project Proponent will ensure strict compliance with the conditions imposed by SEIAA and consent conditions by UPPCB and will also deposit, under protest, the amount of environmental compensation, in the eventuality of revision petition filed by the Project Proponent being decided against him, within 30 days of such decision, without prejudice to availing further remedies in accordance with law. Respondent O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -62- no.5-Project Proponent has not produced any document to show deposit of the penalty amount in terms of the undertaking. On the other hand Respondent no.5-Project Proponent filed Writ Petition (C) No. 1843/2023 titled as Mumtaz Ali Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others against order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh, order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and order dated 20.05.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
77. It is also pertinent to mention here that show cause notice dated 25.04.2023 was issued to respondent no. 5 by UPPCB for imposition of environmental compensation of Rs. 55,00,000/- and pursuant to said show cause notice, order for imposition of environmental compensation of Rs.
55,00,000/- was passed by UPPCB on 28.08.2023. Reference for realization of the amount of compensation was made to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad vide letter dated 21.09.2023 which remained pending. Respondent no.5- Project Proponent filed Writ Petition (c) No. 10340/2023 titled as Mumtaj Ali Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others challenging order dated 28.08.2023 before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court which is pending.
78. In the course of hearing during interaction, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member Secretary, UPPCB mentioned that environmental compensation of Rs.
83,17,34,132/- had been imposed out of which amount of Rs. 53,70,000/- has been realized.
79. This Tribunal observed that environmental Compensation, which is imposed by the UPPCB in compliance with directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal for restoration of environment and remediation of environmental damage caused, remains unrealized and unutilized for long periods of time during which the environmental damage O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -63- caused continues unabated which may become irreversible and sought response from the State of Uttar Pradesh as to why the amount for remediation of environmental damage caused by the violators be not incurred by the State of Uttar Pradesh immediately on receipt of such references for remediation of the damage caused to the environment before the same results in irreversible damage to the ecology and bio-diversity and the amount so spent by the Uttar Pradesh may be recovered from the violators as arrears of land revenue in accordance with law.
80. Reply has been filed by state of Uttar Pradesh vide email dated 10.01.2024. The relevant part of the reply is reproduced below:-
"RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, IN COMPLIANCE TO THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2023 PASSED BY HON'BLE NGT PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 160 OF 2022 IN RE: OM PAL & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UP & ORS.
X X X X
2. That on 04.01.2024 a review meeting has been held under the Chairmanship of Additional Chief Secretary, Environment, Forest and Climate Change Department, Uttar Pradesh regarding the progress of compliance of directions passed by Hon'ble Tribunal. The true copy of Minutes of Meeting dated 04.01.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.-1 to this response.
3. That during the course of above meetings, the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, hereinafter referred as UPPCB, has informed that ₹ 86,60,00,948/- amount of environmental compensation has been imposed against the defaulter Mining Units in Uttar Pradesh, out of which ₹ 76,90,000/- environmental compensation has been recovered/realized and for ₹ 30,38,45,716/- the respective mining units have taken stay from Hon'ble Supreme Court/Hon'ble High Court. For remaining amount ₹ 55,44,65,232/- of environmental compensation, UPPCB vide different letters has requested to concerned District Magistrates to recover/realize the amount of environmental compensation as a arrears of land revenue in accordance with law.
4. That it is pertinent to mention here that the UPPCB has imposed the Environmental Compensation in compliance to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal and also in pursuance to the order/direction passed by Commission for Air Quality O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -64- Management (CAQM) and against for non-compliance of Environmental Laws.
5. That it is also informed by the officials of UPPCB that Environmental Compensation amounting of ₹ 58.14 Cr. has been recovered/realized from the defaulter units, in which ₹ 10.63 Cr. has been recovered in compliance of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal and ₹ 1.25 Cr. and ₹ 46.26 Cr. has been recovered in compliance to the order passed by Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) and for noncompliance of Environmental Laws, respectively.
6. That further, following decisions have been taken during the course of meeting dated 04.01.2024:
i. That the Environmental Compensation recovered in pursuance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal shall be utilized as per the Guideline prepared by the Central Pollution Control Board herein after referred as CPCB. The true copy of Guideline prepared by the CPCB for Utilization of Environmental Fund is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.-2 to this response.
ii. That the monthly progress report regarding the recovery of Environmental Compensation as arrears of Land Revenue by the concerned District Magistrates shall be furnished to the UPPCB and the same shall be compiled and forwarded to the State of UP by UPPCB on a prescribed format as mentioned in the Minutes of Meeting dated 04.01.2024, contained as annexure no.-2 to this response.
iii. That regarding to the recovery of the Environmental Compensation stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court, the UPPCB shall immediately move a Stay Vacation application before the concern courts through a panel of advocates.
iv. That for the speedy recovery of Environmental Compensation by the concerned District Magistrates the issue shall be requested to be included in the agenda of monthly progress meeting of District Magistrates/Commissioners under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary. UPPCB shall submit the proposal along with progress of recovery of Environmental Compensation to the Government.
v. That the Corpus Fund will be established with the amount of Environmental Compensation already recovered/realized by UPPCB for non-compliance of Environmental Laws as mentioned in para 5.
vi. T h at t h e C o r p u s F u n d s h al l b e u t il iz e d f o r th e i m me d i a t e remediation of environmental damages caused by the violators in accordance to the Guideline prepared by the CPCB for Utilization of Environmental Fund after decision to do so by a committee having following members;
a) Officer nominated by the Additional Chief Secretary, Environment, Forest and Climate Change Department, Uttar Pradesh not below the rank of Secretary (Chairman) O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -65-
b) Officer nominated by the Member Secretary, Central Pollution Control Board (Member)
c) Member Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (Convener) The aforesaid committee shall give financial approval to the action plan for remediation of environmental damages and the whole work shall be accomplished in accordance to the Guideline prepared by the CPCB for Utilization of Environmental Fund through Corpus Fund.
7. That it has been decided during the meeting that direction of Hon'ble NGT may be sought on above decisions.
Therefore, the response of the State of Uttar Pradesh is placed before this Hon'ble National Green Tribunal for perusal and kind consideration.
81. The Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh is directed to issue appropriate instructions within three months to all the concerned Revenue Officers to recover the amount of environmental compensation from the polluters as arrears of land revenue expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of receipt of reference from UPPCB for recovery thereof as arrears of land revenue. However, in cases in which amount of environmental compensation is not so recovered within the period of six months from the polluters and paid to UPPCB due to any negligence/inaction/un-reasonable delay on the part of the concerned Revenue Officers, it will be appropriate that the State of Uttar Pradesh bears the cost of restoration/protection of environment and thereafter recovers the same from the polluters.
82. In the application the applicants have made allegations that respondent no. 5-Project Proponent did not pay compensation to the applicants and other land owners in terms of order passed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 3101/2010 titled as Sripal Vs. State of U.P. & others. vide order dated 12.07.2022 the Joint Committee was directed to look into this aspect but the Joint Committee did not look into this aspect and merely submitted that the applicant did not submit any application for payment of compensation in terms of such order and if any such application is submitted O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -66- appropriate action will be taken. A reference to revenue record pertaining to the land leased out for mining to respondent no.5-Project Proponent available on Uttar Pradesh Government website Bhulekh shows ownership of villagers and other persons on some of the khasra numbers thereof and question of their entitlement to payment of compensation arises in the present case.
83. Rule 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, which bars owner of land from putting any restriction on mining operation and entitles him to raise demand of compensation, reads as under:-
"67. No restriction etc. to be imposed by owner of land on mining operation except demand of compensation: (1) No person, who has right in any capacity on the land covered by a mining lease or mining permit, shall be entitled to impose any prohibition or restriction on the mining operations by the holder of such lease or permit of such land or to demand any sum by way of premium or royalty for the removal of minor mineral. Provided that such person shall be entitled to get annual compensation from the said holder of mining lease or permit for the use of surface of the land for mining operations, as may be agreed upon between them. (2) Where the holder of a mining lease or permit and the owner of the surface of the land could not agree upon the amount of annual compensation and a dispute arises in respect thereof, it shall be determined by the District Officer in such manner that: (a) in the case of agricultural land, the amount of annual compensation shall be worked out on the basis of the average annual net income from the cultivation of similar land for the past three years, and (b) In the case of non- agricultural land, the amount of annual compensation shall be worked out on the basis of average annual letting value of similar land for the previous three years,"
84. In view of above rule land owners/persons having right in any capacity on the land covered by the mining lease in favour of respondent no.5-Project Proponent will be entitled to get annual compensation from respondent no.5- Project Proponent for the use of the surface of the land for mining operation as per agreement with respondent no. 5-Project Proponent or determination by the District Officer in accordance therewith.
85. The District Magistrate, Ghaziabad is directed to look into the aspect of entitlement of the applicants or other land owners/persons having any right O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -67- in the land in question as per revenue record to payment of compensation in accordance with Rule 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and directions issued by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and to take appropriate action/pass appropriate order to ensure payment of compensation to such eligible persons in accordance with the above-said rule and directions issued by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.
86. In the present case one of the grievances of the applicants is extraction of minor mineral by respondent no. 5 from mining lease area by use of impermissible heavy machinery.
87. This Tribunal vide interim order dated 23.12.2015 passed in O.A. No. 517 of 2015 titled as Sandeep Kumar V/s MoEF & CC, Gol and O.A. No. 550 of 2015 titled as Virender Kumar V/s MoEF & CC, Gol restrained all the riverbed contractors from carrying out mechanical mining in riverbed but subsequently in O.A. No. 44/2016 titled as Mushtakeem Vs. MoEF & CC & Ors relating to the method of mining in the riverbed (mechanical or non-
mechanical) decided on 05.09.2018 all concerned riverbed contractors were allowed to undertake mining as per EC.
88. In O.A. No. 44/2016 titled as Mushtakeem Vs. MoEF & CC & Ors, MOEF&CC suggested that the excavators with bucket capacity of 1 cubic meter and maximum boom length of 3 meters should be used for river bed mining and flood plain mining and the excavators used for river bed mining and flood plain mining should be tyre mounted only.
89. However, it appears that no office memorandum has been issued by MOEF&CC and no guidelines have been issued by CPCB about the machinery which can be used and the machinery which cannot be used for river bed mining and also about the transport vehicles which can be used and the O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -68- transport vehicles which cannot be used for transportation of mined minor mineral. As per current practice, the machinery and the transport vehicles as mentioned in Environment Management Plan are allowed to be used without any genuine assessment regarding the impact of such machinery and transport vehicles on river ecology and aquatic life and on approach roads and air pollution.
90. It may also be observed here that as per the largely prevalent current practice State Mining and Geology Departments approve manual and Semi-
Mechanized mining as per Environment Management Plans submitted by the prospective mining lease/permit holders. In some States Excavator with bucket capacity of 1 cubic meter and maximum boom length of 3 meters is permitted for river bed mining and flood plain mining. In some States use of Poclain is permitted for loading/unloading of mined minor mineral. Invariably in original applications allegations are made regarding use of heavy machinery and heavy transport vehicles which are denied by concerned authorities and project proponents and even Joint Committees constituted by this Tribunal overlook the issue and do not collect relevant evidence for verifying the factual position. In the present case also in its report the Joint Committee has merely mentioned that respondent no. 5 is using machinery in accordance with letter dated 21.06.2019 issued by the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh without producing photographs of the machinery and vehicles used by respondent no.5.
91. The relevant part of the letter dated 21.06.2019 issued by the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh is reproduced below:-
"िवषय - उपखिनज बालू/ मोंरम के खनन व िनकासी म मशीनों के योग के संबंध म।
X X X X उपयु िवषय के संबंध म अवगत कराना है िक जगपदों म नदी तल म उपल उपखिनज बालू/ मोंरम के ीकृत खनन प ा े ों का आक क िनरी ण के दौरान यह त काश म आया है िक खनन प ाधारगन ारा बालू खनन एवं O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -69- िनकासी म मानक के िवपरीत अ िधक भारी मशीनी या योग िकया जा रहा है । वन पयावरण एवं जलवायु प रवतन मं ालय भारत सरकार नई िद ी के िदशा िनदश एवं मा० रा ीय ह रत अिधकरण, नई िद ी ारा पा रत िविभ आदे शों म यह िकया गया है िक बालू खनन म यु ए वेटर कम लोिडं ग मशीन की Boom Length तीन मीटर एवं Bucket Capacity एक घनमीटर से अिधक न हो पर ु खनन प ा धारकों ारा Poclain आिद क िनयों के भारी मशीन का योग कर अ िधक गहराई म बालू का खनन िकये जाने से पयावरण एवं पा र थितकी पर कु भाव पड़ने की स ावना है । अिधक खनन के कारण बालू की ओवरलोिडं ग को बढ़ावा िमलता है ।
अतः आपसे अपे ा है िक नदी तल म बालू एवं मोंरम के खनन म मानक से अिधक Boom Length के ए वेटर कम लोिडं ग मशीन का योग न हो, यह अपने र से सुिनि त करने का क कर।"
92. As per current practice transport vehicles are also permitted by the Mining and Geology Departments. In the State of Uttar Pradesh a circular dated 03.06.2019 was issued by Directorate of Geology & Mining mentioning different loading capacities of trucks as summarized under: -
SL.No Type of Vehicle Defined Quantity Quantity in Cubic meter 1 6 Tyre Truck 18500 Kg or 12.5 Ton 8.00 2 10 Tyre Truck 28000 Kg or 18 Ton 12.00 3 12Tyre Truck 35000 Kg or 24 Ton 16.00 4 14 Tyre Truck 42000 Kg or 30 Ton 20.00
93. MOEF&CC is directed to examine the issue and issue appropriate directions within three months in exercise of its powers under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 regarding the machinery which can be used and the machinery which cannot be used for river bed mining/flood plain mining and also regarding the transport vehicles which can be used and the transport vehicles which cannot be used for transportation of mined minor minerals.
94. I.A. No. 860/2023 has been filed by respondent no. 5 for vacation of the stay order dated 27.03.2023. The relevant part of above said I.A. has been reproduced in earlier part of this Judgment.
95. Replies have been filed by respondent no. 2-Director, Mines and Geology, O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -70- Uttar Pradesh and respondent no. 3-UPPCB vide separate emails dated 11.03.2024.
96. In Civil Appeal No. 3611/2020 titled as Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India vide order dated 10.11.2021 held that in accordance with the 2020 Guidelines, the DSR is required to be prepared before auction/e-auction/ grant of Mining lease by Mining Department or department dealing with mining activity in the respective States.
97. In Anjani Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2017 SCC Online NGT 979 this Tribunal vide its Judgment dated 08.12.2017 held that a District Survey Report (DSR) is a pre-requisite and condition precedent to the grant of any mining leases of sand and bajri.
98. It may be observed here that we have found in some cases coming before this Tribunal that the conditions imposed in EC issued by UPSEIAA and CTE/CTO granted by UPPCB are not complied with by the Project Proponents who also indulge in illegal mining. Penalty imposed for illegal mining and environmental compensation imposed for violation of environmental norms are challenged by way of filing appeals/revisions or writ petitions before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court/Hon'ble Supreme Court decision of which may take long time. The defaulter Project Proponents continue with mining activities without remediating the violations and ensuring compliance with EC/CTE/CTO conditions and environmental norms. The Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh, UPSEIAA and UPPCB are directed to ensure compliance by the Project Proponents with EC/CTE/CTO conditions and environmental norms by way of requisite monitoring and periodical inspections and taking prompt action in respect of violations reported. It will be appropriate that the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh, UPSEIAA and UPPCB take into O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -71- consideration past violations, non-compliance with EC/CTE/CTO conditions and environmental norms, non-payment of environmental compensation imposed and non-remediation of environmental damage caused before grant of any fresh EC or grant of fresh CTE/CTO or renewal thereof in favour of the defaulting Project Proponents in respect of the same or any other new Project.
99. UPSEIAA is directed to ensure that application for environmental clearance filed by respondent no.5-Project Proponent is considered in accordance with the SSMMG 2016 and EMGSM 2020 and directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal and also on the basis of DSR prepared and approved after following the prescribed procedure including conducting of requisite replenishment studies.
100. Interim order dated 27.03.2023 passed by this Tribunal to the effect that environmental clearance if any granted by SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh to respondent no. 5 in respect of the above said mining site shall also remain in abeyance till further orders to the contrary is vacated and I.A. No. 860/2023 is allowed to that extent.
101. In view of the above discussion, the original application is disposed of with issuance of the following directions in exercise of the powers under Section 15 of the NGT Act 2010:-
(i) Respondent no. 5 is directed to deposit amount of ₹ 2 Lakhs as costs with the Member Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Legal Services Authority within one month for failure to file compliance affidavit within one month as directed by order dated 08.12.2022. The amount of costs shall be utilized for providing legal aid to eligible persons from the State of Uttar Pradesh intending to approach this Tribunal for adjudication of civil cases involving substantial questions relating to O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -72- environment arising out of implementation of the enactments specified in the first schedule to the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It is clarified that in case of failure of respondent no. 5 to deposit the amount of costs, the Member Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Legal Services Authority shall be entitled to recover the amount of costs by filing execution petition for execution of the order passed by this Tribunal before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions made in Section 25 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
(ii) The Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and Member Secretary, UPPCB are directed to pay amount of ₹ 1 Lakh each as environmental compensation for failure to conduct periodical inspections and monitor compliance as per EC/CTE/CTO conditions and directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal.
The amount of environmental compensation be deposited by the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB with the Central pollution control Board within one month. The amount of environmental compensation shall be utilized for restoration of environment in the affected area. It is clarified that in case of failure of the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB to deposit the amount of costs, the Member Secretary, CPCB shall be entitled to recover the amount of costs by filing execution petition for execution of the order passed by this Tribunal before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions made in section 25 of the NGT Act 2010.
(iii) The Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh is directed to ensure that mining leased site is closed/reclaimed as per O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -73- Environmental Management Plan and no illegal mining takes place in the same.
(iv) The Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh, UPSEIAA and UPPCB are directed to ensure compliance by the Project Proponents with EC/CTE/CTO conditions and environmental norms by way of requisite monitoring and periodical inspections and taking prompt action in respect of violations reported. The Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh, UPSEIAA and UPPCB are also directed to take into consideration past violations, non-compliance with EC/CTE/CTO conditions and environmental norms, non-payment of environmental compensation imposed and non-remediation of environmental damage caused before grant of any fresh EC or grant of fresh CTE/CTO or renewal thereof in favour of the defaulting Project Proponents in respect of the same or any other new Project.
(v) UPSEIAA is directed to ensure that application for environmental clearance filed by respondent no.5-Project Proponent, which is pending with it, is considered in accordance with the SSMMG 2016 and EMGSM 2020 and directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal and also on the basis of DSR prepared and approved after following the prescribed procedure including conducting of requisite replenishment studies.
(vi) The District Magistrate, Ghaziabad is directed to look into the aspect of entitlement of the applicants or other land owners/persons having any right in the land in question as per revenue record to payment of compensation in accordance with Rule 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and directions issued by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and to take appropriate action/pass O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -74- appropriate order to ensure payment of compensation to such eligible persons in accordance with the above-said rule and directions issued by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.
(vii) The Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh is directed to issue appropriate instructions within three months to all the concerned Revenue Officers to recover the amount of environmental compensation from the polluters as arrears of land revenue expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of receipt of reference from UPPCB for recovery thereof as arrears of land revenue. However, in cases in which amount of environmental compensation is not so recovered within the period of six months from the polluters and paid to UPPCB due to any negligence/inaction/un-reasonable delay on the part of the concerned Revenue Officers, it will be appropriate that the State of Uttar Pradesh bears the cost of restoration/protection of environment and thereafter recovers the same from the polluters.
(viii) MOEF&CC is directed to examine the matter regarding the machinery which can be used and the machinery which cannot be used for river bed mining/flood plain mining and also regarding the transport vehicles which can be used and the transport vehicles which cannot be used for transportation of mined minor minerals and issue appropriate directions in this regard in exercise of its powers under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 within three months.
102. Any person having any grievance may move this Tribunal for clarification/modification of this order and also for further directions in the matter.
O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors -75-
103. A copy of this Judgment be sent to the Secretary, MoEF & CC, the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Member Secretary, UPSEIAA, the Member Secretary, UPPCB, the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad by email for requisite compliance.
Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM August 05th, 2024 AG