National Green Tribunal
C R Vijayakumar vs Seiaa on 14 March, 2023
Author: Satyagopal Korlapati
Bench: Satyagopal Korlapati
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 101 of 2021 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
C.R. Vijay Kumar,
S/o. M.C. Ranganathan,
No. 223/1, Bajanai Kovil Street,
Unamacheri, Chennai- 600 127.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
1. The Member Secretary,
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
3rd Floor, Pangal Maligai,
No.1, Jennis Road, Saidapet, Chennai- 600015.
2. District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Boad,
Plot No. CP-5B, SIPCOT Industrial,
Growth Centre Vandalur,
Wallajahbad Road, Oragadam,
Sriperumpudur Taluk, Kanchipuram- 603 109.
3. The District Collector,
District Collectorate Office,
Chengalpattu Taluk,
Chengalpattu, District- 601 001.
4. The Director,
Geology and Mining Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Alandur Road,
Guindy Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai- 600032.
5. The Deputy Director,
Geology and Mining Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Kancheepuram- 631 501.
Kancheepuram District.
6. U.G.C. Aravind,
Unamancheri Village,
Chengalpet Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
...Respondent(s)
1
For Applicant(s): Ms. Nivedhita S. Menon for Mr. R. Arun and
R. Sakthinathan.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Meyappan for Mrs. M.E. Sarashwathy for
R1.
Mr. Sai Sathya Jith for R2.
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R3 to R5.
Mr. Mukunth for M/s. Sarvabhauman
Associates for R6.
Judgment Reserved on: 20th February, 2023.
Judgment Pronounced on: 14th March, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. Disturbed by the quarry activities being carried on in Sy. Nos. 273/1, 319/1, 326/1A and 326/4 in Unamancheri Village in Chengalpattu District, the applicant has filed the above application seeking a direction to forbear the 6th respondent from quarry operations in Sy. Nos. 275/2A, 2B, 2C, 2C2A, 2C2B, 2C2C, 2D1, 2D3, 2D4, 2D5, 273/3, 324/1, 324/2, 326/2A, 326/2B of Unamancheri Village, Chengalpattu District and also seeking a direction to the official respondents to take immediate action against the illegal quarrying done by the 6th respondent and to levy appropriate compensation.
2. Admittedly, the 6th respondent had obtained the Environmental Clearance for the quarry activities. The applicant found that the Environmental Clearance had been obtained by him by suppression of vital facts. He sent a representation on 21.04.2018 to the official respondents bringing to their knowledge about the 2 suppression. The applicant states that Vandalur Zoological Park is situated at a distance of less than 03 km and the location of the nearby forest and the water bodies have been suppressed by the 6th respondent while applying for the Environmental Clearance. For the quarry operations, the 6th respondent has been using explosives indiscriminately and also misusing the transport licenses.
3. The 6th respondent is also alleged of being quarrying in lands not covered by the lease under Environmental Clearance. Due to the act of the 6th respondent, the nearby agricultural lands have become dry and unfit for cultivation. The grievance of the applicant is that the official respondents have granted the license and also the Environmental Clearance to the 6th respondent who has suppressed the fact that there are reserved forests, water bodies and the Vandalur Zoological Park. Further the 6th respondent also has violated the Environmental Clearance condition by using the explosives indiscriminately. Hence, the application is filed seeking appropriate direction against the 6th respondent.
4. After issuing notice to the official and the private respondents, this Tribunal has constituted a Joint Committee comprising of the District Collector, Chengalpattu, a senior officer of SEIAA and a Officer from Directorate of Mining and Geology and an Senior officer from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to inspect the area and submit a factual as well as action taken report in case of any violation found. The Committee was particularly directed to find out if necessary permission or clearance for the purpose of quarrying was issued to the 6th respondent and if the same were 3 granted, whether the 6th respondent has violated the conditions mentioned therein.
5. The Joint Committee had inspected the area under the lease granted to the 6th respondent. The Firka surveyor identified the boundaries of the area granted under lease in respect of leases mentioned by the applicant in Unamancheri Village and dimensions of the quarried pits have been measured with total station instruments. It is stated that in Chengalpattu District there are 12 rough stone and gravel quarry leases in Unamancheri Village of Chengalpattu Taluk in operation from 2004 onwards. Cumulatively the quarry operations had been carried over an extent of 9.99.80 ha., out of 20.68.00 ha. All the leases are merged together and formed a single pit and the part of it is filled with rain water. Presently, the 6th respondent is said to be carrying the rough stone quarry operations in two valid leases only. The remaining are said to be abandoned quarries. The Joint Committee also has furnished the survey numbers and proceedings of the District Collector and the lease period from 2004 till date. As per the report currently only two leases are subsisting in the name of the 6th respondent, which are as follows:
a. In Sy. No. 324/1 and 2 and Sy. No. 326/2A and 2B an extent of 0.95.500, the lease period granted from 08.11.2018 to 07.11.2023.
b. In Sy. No. 275/2A, 2B 2C1, 2C2A, 2C2B, 2C2C, 2D1, 3, 4, 5 and 277/3, an extent of 1.10.50 ha., having a valid lease from 08.11.2018 to 07.11.2023.
6. The 1st lease referred above in Sy. No. 324/1 etc., the 6th respondent was granted lease for a period of 05 years by the District Collector by proceedings dated 08.11.2018 and the lease was executed on 08.11.2018 and valid upto 07.11.2023. The 4 lessee also had obtained the Environmental Clearance from the DEIAA for a period of 05 year from the date of lease deed on 03.10.2018 subject to the conditions stipulated therein for quarrying rough stone and gravel to the tune of 33490 cubic meters and 16848 cubic meters respectively. The lessee also had obtained Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board‟s consent vide „Consent to Operate‟ dated 30.11.2018 which is valid upto 31.03.2023 subject to the conditions mentioned therein.
7. The Committee had observed and given their findings as follows:
"iv) Findings observed in the lease granted area;
a) As per lease deed conditions the required safety distance of 7.5 m had been provided to the adjacent patta lands and quarrying operation carried out over an extent of 0.60.00 ha out of 0.95.50 ha.
b) Boundary pillar have been maintained on the northern area, other sides not maintained all along the boundary of the lease granted area as per rule 36(4) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
c) The lessee has not maintained 1.5 m height and width for benches with 45 degree slope from horizontal in order to avoid untoward incident as per regulation 106(2)(a) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations 1961 and also the lessee had not carried out the quarrying operation in a skilful, scientific and systematic manner keeping in view of proper safety of the labourers.
d) The lessee had monitored the quality of the ground water and air sampling survey in and around the quarry site periodically.
e) Mining operation is approved up to a depth of 28m (below ground level) in the mining plan/environmental clearance and the lessee had carried out the mining operation to a depth of 20m.
f) As per the pit measurement, it is estimated that a quantum of 42573 cbm of gravel and 74177 cbm of rough stone had been quarried from the area granted under lease in S.F. Nos. 324/1 (0.22.50), 324/2 (0.25.00), 326/2A (0.24.00) and 326/2B (0.24.00)"
8. Regarding the 2nd lease in Sy. Nos. 275/2A etc., quarry lease has been granted for a period of 05 years to the 6th respondent for quarrying rough stone and gravel over an extent of 1.10.50 ha., of patta lands in various survey numbers referred above in Unamancheri Village by proceedings of the District Collector dated 08.11.2018 which is valid upto 07.11.2023. Here also the lessee 5 had obtained the Environmental Clearance from the DEIAA dated 03.10.2018 for quarrying the rough stone and gravel to the tune of 154190 M3 and 27594 M3 respectively. The 6th respondent also had obtained consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 30.11.2018 which is valid up to 31.03.2023. The lessee had entered into blasting work contract agreement with one Shiva Kumar of Udayam Explosives, Perungalathur for extraction of minerals. After inspection the following findings were given by the Joint Committee:
"v) Findings observed are as follows:
a) As per lease deed conditions the required safety distance of 7.5 has not been provided to the adjacent patta land on the southern side and quarrying had been carried out in the safety zone area also.
b) Boundary pillars have not been erected and maintained all along the boundary of the lease granted area as per rule 36(4) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
c) The lessee had not maintained the 1.5m height and width for benches with 45 degree slope from horizontal in order to avoid untoward incident as per regulation 106(2)(a) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 and also the lessee had not carried out the quarrying operations in a skilful, scientific and systematic manner keeping in view of proper safety of the labourers.
d) The lessee had monitored the quality of the ground water and air sampling survey in and around the quarry site periodically.
e) Mining operation is approved up to depth of 33 m (below ground level) in the mining plan/environmental clearance whereas the lessee had carried out the mining operation to a maximum depth of 20m i.e, over an extent of 0.22.0 hec out of 1.10.20 ha.
f) As per the pit measurement, it is estimated that a quantum of 8800 cbm of gravel and 44000 cbm of rough stone had been quarried from the area granted under lease in S.F. Nos. 275/2A, (0.07.00), 275/2B (0.10.00), 275/2C1 (0.09.00), 275/2C2A (0.06.50), 275/2C2B (0.02.50), 2752C2C (0.24.50), 275/2D1 (0.06.00), 275/3 ( 0.11.50), 275/4 (0.09.50), 275/5 (0.12.00), 277/3 (0.12.00)."
9. As per the report, it is estimated that a quantum of 79127 cbm of gravel and 161012 cbm of rough stone had been quarried and removed from the lease hold area without payment of seigniorage fee and without obtaining despatch slips.
10. The Joint Committee also had observed that the lessee had encroached and indulged in illegal quarrying operation in the 6 adjacent non- leased Government Poramboke land as detailed below:
(i) S.F. No. 271/part, extent is 0.04.5 ha., illegal extracted gravel is 2255 cbm and rough stone is 12854 cbm.
(ii) S.F.No. 481/Part, extent is 0.04.47 ha., illegal extracted gravel is 2235 cbm and rough stone is 12516.
(iii) S.F. No. 326/1B (Part), extent is 0.00.86 ha., illegal extracted gravel is 654 cbm.
11. The Joint Committee further observed the dumping of 58,045 cbm of over burden and weathered rock in the northern side of the non lease hold patta lands and 2250 cbm of earth and 1000 cbm of rough stone were stocked in the bench of downside area. The District Forest Officer had stated that the patta falling in Sy. No. 273/1, 319/1, 326/1A and 326/4 are not part and parcel of any forest area notified under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. The area is also not qualified to define as forest as per the orders of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Thus, the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is not applicable. However, 7.5 m strip of the forest land all along the outer boundary of the mining lease area shall be maintained as per the Government of India instructions. Having observed as above, the Environmental Compensation was assessed and quantified as Rs. 1,02,25,000/- and the following recommendations made by the Joint Committee:
"9. Recommendations":-
(i) For illegal and unlawful quarrying and transportation of 84271 of gravel and 186382 cum of rough stone and gravel necessary penal action has to be initiated by the concerned authority as per G.O. 170 industries department dated 05.08.2020 and the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
(ii) For the violations of lease deed conditions, penalty action may be imposed in respect of such breach, and may cancel the lease after granting an opportunity of hearing to the lease as per the Rule 36(5)(h) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
(iii) Since at present further quarrying in the subject area is a threat to the life of the quarry workers, further quarrying may be allowed only after taking remedial measures and 7 after getting concurrence from the Director General of Mines Safety and District Collector.
(iv) The Committee recommends that drone survey be under taken for the existing/proposed quarries at the expense of the lessee twice in a year through the empanelled agencies.
(v) For removal of over and above the approved mining plan quantity of mineral from the lease granted in Sl. No. 2, the District Administration had already issued notice demanding cost of mineral for the excess removed quantity to the concerned lessee.
(vi) Action may be initiated demanding cost of mineral for removal of over and above the approved mining plan quantity of mineral from the quarry mentioned in Sl. 3 of Table-II.
(vii) The Committee recommends that the lessee shall deposit Environmental Compensation as appealed by Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal (SZ) in the TNPCB-Environmental Compensation Fund payable at Chennai. The amount shall be used for restoration of environment and for necessary remedial and preventive measures in regard to environmental matters."
12. The 1st respondent, who is the SEIAA, has filed a report dated 04.01.2022 which states that the 6th respondent had submitted an application to SEIAA, Tamil Nadu on 07.06.2013 seeking an Environmental Clearance for quarrying rough stone in Unamancheri Village. As per the recommendation of the SEAC in the meeting held on 18.07.2013, the SEIAA had issued the Environmental Clearance for quarrying operation dated 18.07.2013 with the conditions specified therein. It is only stated that the Environmental Clearance is coterminous with the mining lease period, however limited to a maximum period of 05 years.
13. The 2nd respondent, namely, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, has filed a report dated 28.07.2021. Pollution Control Board also has stated that there are only two leases which were subsisting as on date as had been mentioned in the Joint Committee report. The Pollution Control Board had inspected the quarries on 20.07.2021 and made the following observations:
i) The unit of M/s Aravind Stone Quarry has carried out mining of rough stone located at S.F. No. 275/2A, 2B, 2C1, 2C2A, 2C2B, 2C2C, 2D1, 3, 4, 5, 277/3. The said quarry was not in operation 8 during the time of inspection and also it was informed that there is no quarrying activity in the said quarry for the last one year.
ii) The unit of M/s Aravind Stone Quarry located at SF. No. 324/1, 324/2, 326/2A, 326/2B was in operation and quarrying activity was found carried out by the said unit.
iii) The unit is carrying out manual water sprinkling after blasting and during loading of the blasted materials.
iv) The above said quarries are located adjacent separated by two abandoned quarries.
v) The abandoned quarries were found filled with rain water.
14. There was yet another report filed by the Pollution Control Board dated 30.11.2022. This report is filed after this Tribunal had directed the Pollution Control Board to inspect the quarry sites again. Accordingly on 17.11.2022 the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had inspected the quarry sites and made the following observations:
(i) The unit of M/s Aravind Stone Quarry has carried out mining of rough stone located at S.F. No. 275/2A, 2B, 2C1, 2C2A, 2C2B, 2C2C, 2D1, 3, 4, 5, 277/3. The said quarry was not in operation during the time of inspection and also it was informed that there is no quarrying activity in the said quarry for the last two year.
(ii) Another unit of M/s Aravind Stone Quarry has carried out mining of rough stone located at SF. No. 324/1, 324/2, 326/2A, 326/2B. The said quarry was not in operation during the time of inspection and also it was informed that there is no mining activity in the said quarry for the last two year.
(iii) The above said quarries are located adjacent separated by two abandoned quarries.
(iv) The abandoned quarries and adjacent abandoned quarries were found stagnated with rain water.
15. The report further mentioned that there was an objection and mistake pointed out by the 6th respondent in the Joint Committee report with respect to the calculation and arithmetic mistakes while arriving at the excess mining as well as quantum of compensation. The Pollution Control Board has checked up that and the same will be assessed once again based on the report that may be filed by the Mines and Geology Department.
16. The 3rd respondent, who is the District Collector, Chengalpattu, has filed his report extracting the 9 recommendations of the Joint Committee. He has further stated that with regard to illegal and unlawful quarrying of 84271 cum of gravel and 186382 cum of rough stone necessary penal action has to be initiated as per G.O. No. 170 Industries Department dated 05.08.2022 and the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959. It is further stated by him that regarding the removal of mineral quantity over and above the mining plan approved quantity in respect of lease granted on 14.11.2013, the District Administration had already issued notice dated 13.10.2021 demanding cost of mineral for the excess removed quantity to the concerned lessee. Regarding the mining of gravel and rough stone in the non lease hold area, the competent authorised office i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram has been requested vide the letter dated 22.11.2022 to take the appropriate penal action against the 6th respondent as per the G.O No. 170 Industries Department dated 05.08.2020.
17. The 4th and 5th respondents, who are the Department of Geology and Mining, have filed their report dated 18.02.2023 and tabulated the violations within the lease hold area and estimated that 79,127 CuM of gravel and 1,61,012 CuM of rough stone had been quarried and removed from the lease hold area without payment of seigniorage fee and without obtaining despatch slips. The Commissioner of Geology and Mining has further pointed out the violations committed in the non lease hold areas as per the report of the Joint Committee. As stated earlier, there were errors pointed out in the Joint Committee report and they were rectified on behalf of the Joint Committee by the Geology and Mining Department. Thus, based on the Joint Committee report dated 10 11.10.2021 after rectification, it is estimated that a quantum of 80587 cbm and 1,45,312 cbm of rough stone had been removed from the lease hold area by the 6th respondent without payment of seigniorage fee and without obtaining despatch slips. There were no error in the calculation for the violations committed in non lease hold area as found by the Joint Committee, the 4 th and 5th respondents have retained the same as that of the Joint Committee. Accordingly, the total violations including the lease hold and non lease hold areas are furnished as below:
Total Violations (including lease hold and non-lease hold areas) Mineral Quantity of minerals Quantity of Total quantity of quarried and transported minerals quarried minerals quarried excessively without valid and transported and transported permits in lease hold illegally in non- (in Cbm) areas (Cbm) lease hold areas (in Cbm) Gravel 80,587 5,144 85,731 Rough Stone 1,45,312 25,370 1,70,682
18. The 6th respondent, who is the project proponent, has filed his counter originally on 16.06.2021. As already the District Forest Officer has stated that the quarry area does not come under the reserved forest area or even within forest area, the said objection of the applicant is not considered. The 6th respondent had specifically filed an objection to the Joint Committee report and in his objections, he has disputed the quantum arrived at by the Joint Committee as the Joint Committee has not taken into consideration the wastage material used for construction of the bund around the quarry for safety purpose as per mining rule and the wastage material used periodically for laying roads and material that are stored in the stockyard with the permission of the mining authority.
The 6th respondent had denied the estimation and the quantum of gravel and rough stone quarried in violation as reported in the Joint 11 Committee report. He had specifically objected to the report of the Joint Committee with regard to the illegal quarrying in non leased out area also. There is also a specific denial with regard to number of days of quarrying operations carried unlawfully as reported in the Joint Committee which according to him, they have not taken note of the days when the quarries were not functioning due to the lockdown for almost four months due to the Novel Corona virus.
19. From the above narration of the facts, it is evident that the 6 th respondent had quarried in violation of the licenses, lease and also the Environmental Clearance granted. Besides, 6th respondent is also found to have quarried in the non leased area and the Joint Committee has found the numbers of days of violations and quantity quarried in excess of permitted limit. The objections of the 6th respondent to the calculation were also taken note of and the respondent nos. 4 and 5 have given a fresh calculation by correcting the error pointed out and furnished the fresh calculation.
20. Admittedly, there has been excess of quarrying and violations committed by the 6th respondent. The quarry lease is granted for a certain period by the District Collector with certain conditions. Similarly, the Environmental Clearance is also granted which is coterminous with the lease period by the SEIAA with general and specific conditions. The authorities, namely, the SEIAA, Geology and Mining Department and also the Pollution Control Board have the responsibility of monitoring the project proponent for their proper implementation of their license and clearance. 12
21. Even as per the Environmental Clearance, the NOC from the Standing Committee of NBWL shall be obtained, if protected areas are located within 10 km from the proposed project site. It would be appropriate to direct the project proponent to obtain NOC even before the grant of Environmental Clearance from the NBWL or give a declaration by the project proponent to that effect. The conditions imposed while granting the Environmental Clearance are to be monitored by the authorities concerned. In this case, the project proponent had quarried both the rough stone as well as gravel in excess of an alarmingly large quantity and had transported the same without paying the seigniorage fee or even obtaining the transport slips. If that be so, the Geology and Mining Department and the Revenue Department should be responsible for the same as they have failed to monitor either the excess quarrying or excess transportation unauthorisedly.
22. In view of the violations discussed in Para 17 and the quantum arrived at, remedial action by way of preventing the illegality should be taken. The authorities concerned should have terminated the lease, cancel the Environmental Clearance and consents granted and take coercive measures to enforce the law by way of initiating prosecution, black listing and recovery of compensation for restoration of damages to the environment are required to be taken.
23. The quantum of compensation is required to be assessed on the principle of restoration having regard to the extent of violation, repeat violations, extent of loss to the ecological services caused, illegal benefit taken, turnover of the violator and other attending 13 circumstances. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board shall assess the Environmental Compensation as per the guidelines in force and levy the same following due process of law.
24. Taking into account the liability of the project proponent, we direct that 50% of Rs. 1,02,25,000/- the amount arrived by Joint Committee as interim compensation be paid within a period of 03 months subject to the final amount to be arrived by Pollution Control Board based on the computation arrived at by the Director, Geology and Mining Department.
25. The project proponent may deposit the interim compensation within 03 months with the District Collector, Chengalpattu or furnish bank guarantee. On such deposit/bank guarantee, utilisation will be for remediation and pollution abatement works as per the recommendation of the Pollution Control Board.
26. With the above directions, the Original Application is disposed of.
............................................................J.M. (Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana) .......................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No O.A. No.101/2021(SZ) 14th March, 2023. (AM) 14 Before the National Green Tribunal Southern Zone (Chennai) O.A. No. 101 of 2021(SZ) C.R. Vijay Kumar Vs. The Member Scretary, SEIAA, Chennai and Ors.
O.A. No. 101/201(SZ) 14th March, 2023. (AM) 15