National Green Tribunal
Shefy Joseph vs Government Of India Represented By Its ... on 27 May, 2021
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan
Item No.2:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 244 of 2017 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
Shefy Joseph ...Applicant(s)
Versus
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
New Delhi and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): None.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Me. Saraswathy for R1.
Mr. E. K. Kumaresan for R2 & R3.
Mr. M. George Poonthottam Senior Adv. along with
Mr. Shoban M Padmanaban for R4.
Judgment Pronounced on: 27th May, 2021.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER
ORDER
Judgment pronounced through Video Conference. Original Application is disposed of with directions vide separate Judgment.
Sd/-
....................................J.M.
(Justice K. Ramakrishnan)
O.A. No.244/2017,
27th May, 2021. Mn. Sd/-
...............................E.M.
(Shri. Saibal Dasgupta)
Page 1 of 33
Item No.2:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 244 of 2017 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
Shefy Joseph,
D/o. Late M.P. Joseph,
Aged 29 years, Puthanpurackal House,
Chembarakki, South Vazhakulam P.O.,
Perumbavoor - via, Ernakulam District,
Kerala State, Pin - 683 556.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
1) Government of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Pariyavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
2) Government of Kerala, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Environment, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala - 695 001.
3) Geologist, Mining and Geology Department, Civil Station, Kakkanad, Ernakulam, Kochi, Kerala - 682 030.
4) M.D. Kuriakose, Madappillil House, Pazhanganad P.O., Kizhakkambalam - via, Ernakulam District, Kerala State - 683 562.
...Respondent(s)
Page 2 of 33
For Applicant(s): None.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Me. Saraswathy for R1.
Mr. E. K. Kumaresan for R2 & R3.
Mr. M. George Poonthottam Senior Adv. along with
Mr. Shoban M Padmanaban for R4.
Judgment Reserved on: 19th March, 2021.
Judgment Pronounced on: 27th May, 2021.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER Whether the Judgement is allowed to be published on the Internet - Yes/No Whether the Judgement is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No JUDGMENT Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member.
1. The above application has been filed by the applicant alleging certain irregularities committed by the 4th respondent in conducting the quarry in the place allotted to him. According to the applicant, his father namely, M.P. Joseph was in absolute possession, ownership and enjoyment of 2.10 Acres of property (84.98 Ares) comprised in Resurvey No.289/4 of Vengola Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk, Ernakulam District, by virtue of Document No.2922/1991 dated 12.08.1991 of the District Registrar Office, Ernakulam. Her father died on 24.06.2016 and his entire property devolved on his four daughters including the applicant and she is one of the legal heirs of said M.P. Joseph which is evidenced from Relationship Certification, Annexure A1. The 4th respondent is conducting a quarry in Survey No.285/2, 5, Page 3 of 33 288/1/3, 291/1, 2, 290/7, 289/1, 289/3-2, 3-4 in Vengola Village without obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) causing severe threat and danger to the environment.
2. The 4th respondent had obtained annexure A2, Consent to Operate from Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) dated 03.07.2012 valid up to 30.06.2015 and it was renewed upto 31.03.2016, evidenced by annexure A3, proceedings dated 19.06.2015. Later, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) had issued Consent Variation Order dated 12.01.2016, evidenced by annexure A4, renewing the Consent to Operate upto 30.06.2018. The Village Officer, Vengola had issued the annexure A5, Possession Certificate dated 21.12.2017, enabling the 4th respondent to run the quarrying operation, as he was said to be in possession of the same. On account of the illegal mining conducted by the 4 th respondent without obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) had caused irreparable damage to the environment. Further, the property of the applicant's father is lying adjacent to the quarrying site of the 4th respondent where he conducting illegal mining. The fact that he was running the quarrying without obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) was admitted by him in letter dated 28.02.2017, annexure A6 submitted before the Secretary, Vengola Grama Panchayat for getting license from the Panchayat. The Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi by virtue of annexure A7, Judgment dated 13.01.2015 in O.A. No.123/2014 and connected cases held that no quarrying/ mining shall be done, without obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC), relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2012) 4 SCC 629.
3. It was observed in Para 74 & 75 of the said Judgment that as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepak Kumar's case, even persons Page 4 of 33 conducting quarrying operation of minor minerals having area of less than 5 Hectares must also obtain Environmental Clearance (EC). The Tribunal had rejected the contentions of the quarry owners that for existing quarries, it is not applicable and as per the Office Memorandums issued by the MoEF&CC dated 18.05.2012, 24.06.2013 and 24.12.2013, the extent which it was quashed was valid and would be enforceable against the existing mining leaseholders. They cannot be permitted to destroy the environment and ecology for their personal gains on the strength of the contention that they are existing units and these notifications and Office Memorandums would not apply to them. Several States have granted time to the existing leaseholders to apply for Environmental Clearance (EC), irrespective of the area of mining on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and following directions were issued by the Principal Bench in Annexure A7, Judgment as cited supra:-
(i) For the reasons afore recorded, we hold and declare that the Notification dated 9th September, 2013 is invalid and inoperative for non-compliance of the statutorily prescribed procedure under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and for absence of any justifiable reason for dispensation of such procedure.
(ii) We also hold and declare that the Office Memorandums dated 24th June, 2013 and 24th December, 2013 to the extent aforeindicated are invalid and inoperative being beyond the power of delegated legislation.
(iii) All the Office Memorandums and Notifications issued by MoEF i.e. 1st December, 2009, 18th May, 2012 and 24th June, 2013 and 24th December, 2013(except to the extent afore-stated) are operative and would apply to the lease mine holders irrespective of the fact that whether the area involved is more or less than 5 hectares.
(iv) We further hold that the existing mining lease right holders would also have to comply with the requirement of obtaining Environmental Clearance from the competent authorities in accordance with law.
However, all of them, if not already granted Environmental Clearance would be entitled to a reasonable period (say three months) to submit their applications for obtaining the same, which shall be disposed of expeditiously and in any case not later than six months from pronouncement of this judgment.
Page 5 of 33
(v) All the States and the Ministry of Environment and Forest shall ensure strict compliance to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra). We direct Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest to hold a meeting with the State of Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka to bring complete uniformity in application of the above referred Notifications and Office Memorandums including the Notification of 2006.
(vi) We direct that in the meeting it shall also disused and appropriate recommendations be made and placed before the Tribunal, as to whether riverbed mining covering an area of less than 5 hectares can be permitted, if so, the conditions and regulatory measures that need to be adopted in that behalf.
(vii) We direct that the District Environmental Committees constituted by the respective State Governments shall not discharge any functions and grant approval as contemplated under the Notification of 2006.
(viii) Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest along with such experts and the States afore-referred will also consider the possibility of constituting the branches of SEIAA at the district or at least, division levels, to ensure easy accessibility to encourage the mine holders to take Environmental Clearance expeditiously.
(ix) It is stated before us that in large number of cases, particularly in relation of State of Rajasthan, persons carrying on mining activity of minor minerals, non-coal mining and brick earth and ordinary earth have applied for obtaining Environmental Clearances in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Notification of 2006. Let all such applications be dealt with and orders passed by the concerned authorities at the earliest and in any case not later than six months from today.
(x) We direct the respondent authorities, particularly SEIAA, to dispose of the application of all these private respondents who have already filed applications seeking Environmental Clearance as expeditiously as possible, in any case not later than three months from today. Thus, Appeal No. 23/2014 and M.A. No. 469/2014, M.A. No. M.A No. 488/2014, 489/2014, 479/2014, 480/2014, 473/2014, 470/2014, 471/2014 and 469/2014 stand disposed of with the above directions. Till the grant of environmental clearance they would not carry out any activity of marble mining.
(xi) We dispose of Original Application No. 123/13 with a direction that SEIAA shall consider the applications filed for seeking Environmental Clearance in accordance with law and observations made in this judgment, expeditiously, and in any case within a period of three months from today.
(xii) In the meanwhile, no State shall permit carrying on of sand mining or minor mineral extraction on riverbed or otherwise without the Page 6 of 33 concerned person obtaining Environmental Clearance from the competent authority.
(xiii) We direct the Ministry of Environment and Forest to issue comprehensive but self-contained Notification relating to all minor mineral activity on the riverbed or otherwise, to avoid unnecessary confusion, ambiguities and practical difficulties in implementation of the environmental laws.
(xiv) In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court and what has emerged from the various cases that are subject matter of this Judgment, we direct the Ministry of Environment and Forest to formulate a uniform cluster policy in consultation with the States for permitting minor mineral mining activity including, its regulatory regime, in accordance with law."
4. Further, while disposing the M.A. No.260 of 2017 in O.A. No.123/2014 by annexure A8 - Judgment dated 18.04.2017, dismissed the application holding that the economic development and sustainable development must be considered on balanced approach and it should not cause any irretrievable damage to the environment and ecology and rejected the contentions that, no Environmental Clearance (EC) is required for the existing lease till their renewal and it was not accepted.
5. According to the applicant, the running of the quarry by the 4 th respondent without Environmental Clearance (EC) is illegal. Though this was brought to the notice of the official respondents, they have not taken any steps. So, the 4th respondent is responsible for the damage caused to environment on account of the unauthorized operation of the mining without obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC).
6. So, the applicant filed this application seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue any appropriate order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to restrain the 4th respondent from conducting the quarrying operations, without Environmental Clearance
(ii) Issue any appropriate order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to ascertain the damages caused by the 4th respondent to the environment, consequent to the quarrying Page 7 of 33 done without EC, and to recover the loss caused by the 4th respondent to the environment, forthwith
(iii) Issue any appropriate order or direction, in favour of the applications, as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the above O.A."
7. The 1st respondent filed reply affidavit contending that the applicant alleged in the application that the 4th respondent is carrying out illegal mining operation of granite stone without obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) in Vengola Village, Kerala and he had obtained valid consent from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) which was valid upto 30.06.2018. The 1st respondent/Ministry had issued EIA Notification, 2006 dated 14.09.2006, which is superseded the old EIA Notification dated 27.01.1994. As per the EIA Notification, 2006, certain projects are expected to obtain prior Environmental Clearance (EC) before any construction work in case of new projects or expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities. The schedules to the notification detail the categories/ projects/ activities which require prior Environmental Clearance (EC). As per the notification, the projects were divided into two categories namely, Category 'A' and Category 'B', based on the spatial extent of potential impacts and potential impacts on human health, natural and man-made resources. All projects/activities included as Category 'A' in the schedule, including expansion and modernization of existing projects/activities and change in product mix, shall require prior Environmental Clearance (EC) from the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) on the recommendations of Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) to be constituted by the Central Government for this purpose. All projects/ activities coming under Category 'B' includes expansion and modernization of existing projects/ activities as specified in Page 8 of 33 Sub Paragraph (ii) of Paragraph 2, or change in product mix as specified in sub paragraph (iii) of Paragraph 2, but excluding those which fulfil the General Conditions stipulated in the schedule will require prior Environmental Clearance (EC) from the State/Union Territory Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). The SEIAA shall base its decision on the basis of the recommendations of a State or Union Territory Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) to be constituted as per the notification. In the absence of a duly constituted State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) or State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), Category 'B' project shall be treated as a Category 'A' project and Environmental Clearance (EC) shall be obtained from the MoEF&CC. Further, as per the amended EIA Notification, 2006 dated 15.01.2016, mandated Environmental Clearance (EC) for all mining projects irrespective of the lease area and nature of mineral including existing projects, such that 'B2' Category projects pertaining to mining of minor mineral of lease area less than or equal to five hectares shall require prior Environmental Clearance (EC) from District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) which shall base its decision on the recommendations of the District Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC) as constituted under this notification evidenced by annexure R1 (A) Notification dated 15.01.2016. The Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) at the levels shall screen, scope and appraise projects or activity in Category 'A', 'B1', 'B2' and 'B2' projects for mining of minor minerals. The proposal of mining lease area less than and equal to five hectares are dealt at District Level by DEIAA/DEAC. They shall meet atleast once in a month. The State Pollution Control Board is the nodal authority in the State for dealing with cases related to pollution or environment management coming under the purview of Water Page 9 of 33 (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and as per the requirements of the EIA Notification, 2006 as amended, should have insisted upon the requirements of Environmental Clearance (EC) for all mining projects post 15.01.2016. It is also obligatory on the part of mining operators to obtain valid permission under various statutes including Environmental Clearance (EC). In case, the 4th respondent is carrying out mining operation, even after consent from SPCB without prior Environmental Clearance (EC), then it will amount to violation of EIA Notification, 2006 and the operations are liable to be stopped immediately. The mining operation shall not be allowed to continue till such time Environmental Clearance (EC) is obtained. The State Department of Mines and Geology is the nodal authority entrusted with the enforcement and regulation of mining operations in the State, including illegal mining. Since the area falls within the jurisdiction of the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), the Central authority has no role and they are unnecessary party to the proceedings. So, they prayed for passing appropriate orders accepting their contentions.
8. The 2nd respondent filed counter statement contending that as per the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal in several cases, it was made clear that for the existing leaseholders, Environmental Clearance (EC) mandates only for renewal and hence, the functioning of the 4th respondent quarry with valid mineral concession 'without Environmental Clearance' cannot be defined as illegal. The quarrying lease was granted to the 4 th respondent in the name of M/s. Cochin Granites, West Vengola P.O., Perumbavoor for quarrying of Granite Building Stones in Survey Nos.285/2-2, 285/5-4, 288/1-1, 290/7 pt, 288/3 pt, 291/1 pt and 291/2 pt, Block 21 of Vengola Village, Kunnathunad Page 10 of 33 Tank, Ernakulam District for a period of 12 years with a validity upto 12.12.2018. The permission vide order No.388/4209/2006-07/M3/06 dated, 15.09.2006 was granted by the Director of Mining and Geology as per the Kerala Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 satisfying all the stipulated conditions as per Rules. The lessee opted for payment of consolidated royalty as per Rule 89 and registered as per Registered Metal Crusher Unit (RMCU) as per Reg. No.96/2018-19/RMCU/EKM/3782/M3/2018 dated, 28.03.2018. The 4th respondent had acquired the statutory documents such as Explosive License with validity upto 31.03.2020, D&O license from concerned panchayath with validity upto 31.03.2018 and Consent to Operate from Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) with validity upto 30.06.2018. This Court has made it clear in several occasions that for existing lease holders, Environmental Clearance (EC) mandates only for renewal of land and hence, the functioning of the 4th respondent's quarry with valid mineral concession 'without Environmental Clearance' cannot be defined as illegal. Since the existing lease was granted to prior to 18.05.2012, the Environmental Clearance (EC) is not a requisite license in the case of the 4th respondent. So, the 4th respondent was permitted to conduct quarrying as per the prevailing rules. In the meanwhile, a new quarrying lease was granted to the 4th respondent for 4.4603 Hectares of land in Block 21, Sy. Nos.288/4-2 pt, 288/3 pt, 291/1 pt, 291/2 pt, 291/4 pt, 297/1-2 pt, 297/2 pt, 299/1 pt, 299/5 pt, 289/4 pt, 290/8 pt, 290/9 pt, 290/10 pt and 290/7pt of Vengola Village, Kunnathunad Taluk. The quarrying lease was granted by the Director of Mining and Geology as per the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (vide order No.86/2018-19/5486/M3/DMG dated 05.05.018) for a period of 5 years having validity upto 08.05.2023. The lease was granted as per Rules on submission of all the requisite Page 11 of 33 documents including approved mining plan and Environmental Clearance (EC) obtained from the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA). The Environmental Clearance (EC) (No.P/6508/2017/DIA/KL/MIN/8877/2017 dated 19.03.2018) was granted for aforesaid quarrying area for a validity period of 5 years or the expiry of quarrying lease period issued by the Kerala Government, whichever is earlier. The respondent had obtained requisite valid documents for functioning of the quarry in the said lease, the details of which is enumerated as follows:-
(i) Quarrying lease - Validity upto 08.05.2023.
(ii) Consent to Operate from Kerala State Pollution Control Board validity upto 18.03.2023.
(iii) D&O License - Validity upto 31.03.2019.
(iv) Explosive License - Validity upto 31.03.2020.
(v) Environmental Clearance - Validity upto 18.03.2023.
9. On the grant of new quarrying lease, Quarrying Lease No.388/4209/2006- 07/M3/06 dated 15.09.2006 stands cancelled vide order No.85/2018- 19/5486/M3/2017/DMG dated 05.05.2018 of Director of Mining and Geology. The quarry in the said lease area was functioning as Registered Metal Crusher Unit as per the Registration No.96/2018-19 RMCU/EKM/3/2018 dated 31.05.2018, on opting for payment of consolidated royalty as per Rule 89 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. The 4th respondent was conducting the quarry unit with all necessary documents and as such, it cannot be said to be an illegal and their functioning cannot be stopped as requested for in the application. They prayed for dismissal of the application.
Page 12 of 33
10.The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the application is not maintainable as it was filed with ulterior motive without having any real interest in protecting the environment so as to pressurize the 4 th respondent to meet the illegal demands of the applicant. She tried to compel him to purchase alleged share in the land said to be covered by the Document No.2922/1991 for an unconscionable price as a condition for her abstinence from resisting quarrying in respect of which the application was filed. He denied the allegations that the applicant's father M.P. Joseph was in absolute possession and enjoyment of 2.10 acres of property comprised in resurvey No.289/4 of Vengloa Village as per Document No.2922/1991 of District Registry, Ernakulam. They also denied the allegation that the death of M.P. Joseph on 24.06.2016, entire property was succeeded to his four daughters including the applicant and thereby she is also having interest and title in the property. According to the 4th respondent, annexure A1 - Document is an invalid document to prove succession and claim title to the property and that document is nothing to do with the title and ownership comprised in resurvey No.289/4 of Vengola Village. Since this respondent was not amenable for the proposal made by the applicant and her husband to purchase her share in the said land in respect of which no original title deeds were available with her and other legal heirs did not say anything about her right in the property, she filed this application to coarse him to purchase her share in the property. The quarrying is being done by the 4 th respondent as a partnership firm under the name and style of "Cochin Granites", for which, he had obtained all necessary permission for conducting quarry. The allegations that quarrying in survey No. 285/2, 285/5, 288/1/3, 291/1, 291/2, 290/7, 289/1, 289/3-2, 289/3-4 without obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) was causing very severe threat and danger to the environment is not Page 13 of 33 correct and hence denied. The quarrying in dispute is being operated with all required permits and licences. The Environmental Clearance (EC) was not required to the said quarry, which was commenced prior to 2012, till its renewal. The allegation that the illegal mining is being done by this respondent without Environmental Clearance (EC), is illegal and unauthorized are not correct and this accordance with the approved mining plan without causing any pollution beyond the statutory limit. The allegations that the property inherited by the applicant is lying adjacent to the quarrying site are not fully correct and thereby causing severe environmental issue is also not correct. Annexure A6 produced by the applicant cannot be used to prove that the 4 th respondent is conducting the quarry illegally. It is admitted that there was no Environmental Clearance (EC) for quarrying obtained by the 4th respondent and as per their letter, they have only mentioned that panchayat cannot insist for production of EC certificate for processing D&O licence.
11.The allegation in Para 7 of the application were denied and the dictum laid down in the decision relied on in O.A. No. 123/2014 is not applicable to the facts of the case. In Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Haryana it has been made clear that obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) is required only on the renewal of a mining lease. Further, as per Judgment in All Kerala River Protection Council Vs. State of Kerala, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala had clarified that the mining lease commenced prior to Deepak Kumar's case need not to obtain Environmental Clearance (EC) till the renewal of the lease. Actually, during the hearing in the said case, the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 was replaced by the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. The ratio therein was applied directly in Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya Samithy & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala Page 14 of 33 & Ors. wherein, it has been held that even in the matter of permitted quarries, if they had valid permit upto 09.01.2015, they can continue without Environmental Clearance (EC) till the tenure of permit. This was in tune with the benefit granted by Rule 12 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. The challenge against the said Judgment before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SL.P. No.30103/2015 was dismissed. So, it is clear from this, the Hon'ble Apex Court had stuck to its earlier stand that Environmental Clearance (EC) is not mandatory for mining lease, which commenced prior to Deepak Kumar's case. So, the averments in Para 8 of the application and the Annexure A8 - Judgment relied on by the applicant is not applicable to the facts of this case. The Kerala State had redrafted the Minor Mineral Concession Rules in 2015, incorporating additional conditions to protect environment by mineral conservation. The quarry of the 4th respondent has been following the statutory requirements, including mining plan, even in respect of the then existing quarry for conducting the quarrying operations as on the date of the above application. The said Concession Rules, 2015 also does not mandate that there should be Environmental Clearance (EC) for conducting with the quarrying activities under a valid lease commenced prior to Deepak Kumar's case. The application is barred by limitation and the allegation that she came to know about the conduct of 4th respondent quarrying only recently without Environmental Clearance (EC) on 14.08.2014 is false and hence denied. The allegations in the application projecting her as an environmentalist is not genuine. Some of the pseudo environmentalist had approached the Hon'ble Kerala Lok Ayuktha by filing Complaint C 874/2017-D alleging that due to illegal quarrying, there were several environmental violations with the aid of official respondents. The Hon'ble Kerala Lok Ayuktha through its investigation agency headed by the Page 15 of 33 Superintendent of Police conducted a surprise inspection and detailed investigation and they submitted Annexure R4 (a) Report to the Kerala Lok Ayuktha holding that the quarrying conducted by the 4th respondent unit did not cause any pollution to the environment and they are complying with all the environmental norms. Since there was some threat made by the pseudo environmentalist for demanding money, on the basis of the complaint given by the 4th respondent, the Station House Officer of Perumbavoor Police Station, Kerala registered a Criminal Case as Crime No.3813/2017 against them and they were arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate who had ordered to remand them to the Judicial custody. Some of the colleagues of the applicant move the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala to stop the quarrying operation of the 4th respondent but that was in vain. As an abundant caution, the Cochin Granites had already stopped the disputed quarry which was being run on the basis of the Lease Order bearing Nos.388/4209/2006/07/M3/06 dated 15.09.2006. The EIA Notification, 2006 was not applicable as it was the lease for an area less than 5 Hectares evidenced by annexure R4(b) which was valid up to 14.09.2018. The said quarrying was being done with consent from the Pollution Control Board after satisfying with all the parameters for preventing pollution. The EIA Notification, 2006 is contrary to the provisions of Section 3, 5 r/w Section 6 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rule 5 (3) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 does not take in the activities of MMDR Act, 1957. Further, there was no valid notification which prohibits or restricts any quarrying in the land covered by annexure R4 (b). As an abundant caution, the said Cochin Granites had applied for Environmental Clearance (EC) and the same has been granted, evidenced by annexure R4 (c). As per the proceedings of the Page 16 of 33 DEIAA Ernakulam, after several rounds of public hearing permitted by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. It is only after evaluating the possible pollution that is likely to be caused on account of the quarrying operation of the 4th respondent in the disputed area that the Environmental Clearance (EC) was granted. Later, the quarry in dispute was stopped by cancelling the lease arrangement as per annexure R4 (b) Order. Now, a fresh lease has been executed in favour of Cochin Granites and fresh quarry is working in tune with the conditions prescribed in the annexure R4(c) and the fresh lease deed executed bearing No.2209/2018 of District Registrar Ernakulam in favour of the Cochin Granites was produced as annexure R4(d). The 4 th respondent is conducting the quarrying operation in accordance with law and there was no violation of environmental laws and there was no pollution caused on account of the quarrying operation and the 4th respondent prayed for dismissal of the application.
12.No rejoinder was filed by the applicant to the same.
13.On several occasions, though the matter was posted for hearing, there was no representation for the applicant and several opportunities have been given to the applicant to appear by adjourning the case and ultimately, it was taken up on 19.03.2021 and on that day also, there was no representation for the applicant.
14.Though the applicant was not present on several occasions, in view of the enabling provision in the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 namely, Rule 20 of the National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011, the Tribunal may in its discretion either dismiss such application or appeal for default or hear and decide it on merit. Since environmental issue has been raised in this matter, this Tribunal feels that instead of dismissing the application for default, it is better to consider and pass appropriate orders, Page 17 of 33 after hearing the counsel appearing for the respondents and dispose the matter on merit.
15.Heard Mrs. Me. Saraswathy counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, Mr. E.K. Kumaresan counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3 and Mr. George Poonthotam, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Shoban M Padmanabhan counsel appearing for 4th respondent.
16.The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent argued that as per EIA Notification, 2016 dated 15.01.2016, even the existing quarry owners are expected to obtain Environmental Clearance (EC) irrespective of the area of lease and this was necessitated on the basis of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepak Kumar's case and also by several directions issued by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in this regard. So, according to the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent that if the 4th respondent was operating the quarry after 15.01.2016 without getting Environmental Clearance (EC), then it is an illegal operation.
17.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3 argued that the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has held in All Kerala River Protection Council Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in 2015 (2) KLT 78 = MANU/KE/0345/2015 dated 23.03.2015 that Deepak Kumar's case is not applicable to the existing leases of quarrying and that will apply only to fresh lease.
18.The learned counsel further argued that a reading of the Official Memorandum issued by the MoEF&CC and the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, it is not mandatory for the existing quarry owners who were operating prior to Deepak Kumar's case or prior to the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 to obtain Environmental Clearance (EC) and they need only to obtain Environmental Clearance (EC) Page 18 of 33 at the time of renewal. So, the contention of the applicant that the operation of the 4th respondent unit without Environmental Clearance (EC) is not valid in law and the applicant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs claimed.
19.The learned Senior Advocate Mr. George Poonthotam appearing for the 4th respondent argued that the lease was in existence since long time and the applicant filed the application with ulterior motive. Further, the Deepak Kumar's case is not applicable to the existing leases and even as per the subsequent notification issued by the MoEF&CC on the basis of the Deepak Kumar's case, the Environmental Clearance (EC) is required only for new quarrying operations or new activities and it is not necessary for the existing quarry owners having less than 5 Hectares mining area and the Hon'ble High Court in All Kerala River Protection Council case mentioned supra held that the existing quarry owners need not obtain Environmental Clearance (EC) for continuing their operation and they need only to obtain Environmental Clearance (EC) only at the time of renewal of their lease or if any modernization or other activities were intended by them.
20.The learned Senior Advocate further argued that the same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya Samithy & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. an attempt made by the applicant and other alleged natural lovers by filing various proceedings before the various authorities including the High Court were entered against them and this was filed thereafter to wreck vengeance against the 4threspondent, as he was not amenable for the illegal demands made by the applicant to purchase her alleged share in the neighbouring property. However, for some time, he had stopped operation of the quarry and thereafter, he get a fresh lease and he obtained Environmental Clearance (EC) on 19.03.2018 which was issued by District Environment Impact Page 19 of 33 Assessment Authority (DEIAA) after consideration of all aspects and objections raised by the local people. Even prior to that, they were operating the unit with necessary consent from the Pollution Control Board which was the only condition required for running the quarry and the crusher unit. There is no pollution caused on account of the operation of the 4 th respondent unit which is evidenced from the report submitted by the investigation agency appointed by the Kerala Lok Ayuktha when a complaint was filed regarding the operation of the 4th respondent unit. Further, since the Hon'ble High Court has already held that no Environmental Clearance (EC) is required for existing leases, the question of directing to pay environmental compensation as opined by this Tribunal also did not arise for consideration.
21.The points that arise for consideration are:-
(i) Whether the operation of the 4th respondent unit is unauthorized for want of Environmental Clearance (EC) in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepak Kumar's case?
(ii) Whether the 4th respondent is liable to pay any environmental compensation?
(iii) Whether the applicant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the application?
Points:-
22.The allegation in the application was that the 4th respondent was conducting mining operation without obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) especially, after the dictum laid down in the decision reported in Deepak Kumar's case by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also by orders of the Principal Page 20 of 33 Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No.123 of 2014 dated 18.04.2017.
23.It is an admitted fact that the 4th respondent was conducting quarrying operation in 285/2, 5, 288/1/3, 291/1, 2, 290/7, 289/1, 289/3-2, 3-4 in Vengloa Village prior to 2012. Prior to 2012 Judgment in Deepak Kumar Case, there was no obligation on part of the mining lease holders having lease area less than 5 Hectares to obtain Environmental Clearance (EC). Only, leaseholders having more than 5 Hectares are mandated to obtain Environmental Clearance (EC) for establishing the mining operation. It is after Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Haryanan 2012 (4) SCC 629 case that it became mandatory for obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) irrespective of the area of operation.
24.It is also an admitted fact that after Deepak Kumar's case, certain official memorandums have been issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) during the year 2012-13 clarifying that existing mine operators of having less than 5 Hectares of minor minerals, need not obtain Environmental Clearance (EC) and they need apply for Environmental Clearance (EC) only at the time of renewal or at the time of expansion of their unit more than the capacity permitted under the lease. This aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in All Kerala River Protection Council Vs. State of Kerala &Ors. and other connected cases reported in 2015 (2) KLT 78 = MANU/KE/0345/225 dated 23.03.2015 wherein, the Division Bench of High Court of Kerala considered all the notifications till then issued and also considered the impact of the decision in Deepak Kumar's case and considered the question as to whether for existing leaseholders, there is no necessity for obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) and the Environmental Clearance (EC) is required only at Page 21 of 33 the time of renewal in view of the EIA Notification, 2016 dated 14.09.2016 and after the elaborate discussion, came to that conclusion and disposed of the matter with the following directions:-
"82. In view of the foregoing discussion, we come to the following conclusions.
(i) In case where quarrying/mining/lease which were existing on the date of issuance of Notification dated 14.09.2006 or on the date of issue of the order dated 18.05.2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests with regard to area less than 5 hectares no environmental clearance with regard W.P(C) No.31148 of 2014 & connected cases to extraction of minor mineral is required.
Notification dated 14.09.2006 contemplated obtaining environmental clearance only with regard to new projects/new activities.
(ii) Government Order dated 10.01.2014 cannot be relied on by the parties in view of the restraint order issued by the National Green Tribunal dated 27.09.2013 till such time the restraint order continues.
(iii) By amendment of Section 14 by Act 37 of 1986 making Section 4 applicable to minor minerals also the provision contained in Section 4 shall be applicable to mining operations by a person holding mining lease or any other kind of mineral concession. It cannot be accepted that mining operation with effect from 10.02.1987 cannot be continued by a person holding any other mineral concession apart from mining lease.
(iv) Judgment of the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar's case (supra) did not contemplate environmental clearance for an area less than 5 hectares with regard to existing mining lease/mining permits on the date of judgment. Paragraph 29 of the judgment clearly directed that leases of minor minerals including their renewal for an area of less than five hectares be granted by the State/Union Territories only after getting environmental clearance.
(v) Environmental clearance as contemplated by Notification dated 14.09.2006 required environmental clearance for new projects/new activities.
(vi) The Notification dated 14.09.2006 having been applied vide order dated 18.05.2012 of the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests all mining operations for new project and new activities for an area less than 5 hectares after 18.05.2012 required environmental clearance carried through either a mining lease or mining permit.
(vii) Interim order passed by the Apex Court on 27.01.2012 was intended by the Supreme Court to operate till the Rules have been framed by the States taking into consideration the guidelines and recommendations of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Page 22 of 33
(viii) As per Rule 68 no mining/quarrying operations can be permitted without there being an approved mining plan. But such rule is subject to exception as engrafted in Rule 66, i.e., for existing lease holders, time has been allowed to submit mining plan.
83. Now we come to Issue No. IX, reliefs which the petitioners are entitled to.
84. In view of foregoing discussions, we dispose of all the Writ Petitions including one Writ Appeal in the following manner:
(i) Writ Petitions relating to Group - I, Public Interest Litigations are disposed of in accordance with our conclusions and directions contained in paragraph 82.
(ii) All the Writ Petitions relating to Group - II, challenging quarrying operations by private individuals are disposed of with a direction to the District Collector to examine the right of quarrying owners/mining permit owners (private respondents) to carry mining operations and to issue necessary clarifications/clearance only after being satisfied that such mining operations are in accordance with the 2015 Rules as well as the observations made by this Court in the present case.
(iii) Writ Petitions of Groups - III & IV (except WP(C).No.7632 of 2014), by quarry owners as well as quarry owners seeking police protection are disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the District Collector for carrying on mining operations which clearance shall be issued by the District Collector only after being satisfied that they are entitled to carry mining operations as per the 2015 Rules and the observations made by this Court in the present case.
(iv) W.P(C).No.7632 of 2014 is dismissed upholding the order of State Government dated 19.2.2014 cancelling the quarry lease.
(v) All the three cases of miscellaneous Group are disposed of in the following manner:
(a) W.P(C) No.4462 of 2014 is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to submit appropriate application before the competent authority seeking permit of ordinary earth as per the 2015 Rules.
(b) Writ Appeal No.1566 of 2014 is dismissed giving liberty to the appellant to make fresh application before the Panchayat for obtaining licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act after obtaining necessary permit for quarrying operations in accordance with the 2015 Rules.
(c) W.P(C) No.2636 of 2015 is dismissed having become infructuous due to enforcement of 2015 Rules with effect from 07.02.2015."
25.The question whether for getting temporary permit and conduct quarrying on that basis, Environmental Clearance (EC) was required or not was Page 23 of 33 considered by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in W.P.C. No.10694/2015 in Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya Samithy & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. wherein, the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala has observed that the party respondents therein should not carry on any mining operations unless they obtain valid permit along with Environmental Clearance (EC) and the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 as far as applicable to the mining operation is to be followed in its letter and spirit and if there is any violation, then the same will have to be dealt with in accordance with law.
26.It is also observed therein that under Rule 12 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, obtaining of Environmental Clearance (EC) need not be insisted, only when the applicant had valid permit as on 09.01.2015. After 09.01.2015, for valid permit for carrying on mining operation, obtaining of Environmental Clearance (EC) is a pre condition. Only those permits can take benefit of Rule 12 first proviso which were having valid permit as on 09.01.2015.
27.The Judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court dated 30.09.2015 in Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya Samithy & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (W.P.C. NO.10694/2015) was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.30130/2015 T.K. Thomas & Ors. Vs. Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya Samithy & Ors. dated 02.12.2016.
28.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent relying on the decision of the Kerala High Court cited supra for the proposition that there is no necessity to obtain Environmental Clearance (EC) for leaseholders having mining area less than 5 Hectares and that is required only at the time of renewal of the lease.
Page 24 of 33
29.It may be mentioned here that it was thereafter the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in M.A. No.419/2014 in O.A. No.123/2014 and other connected cases (Himmat Singh Shekhaswat Vs. State of Rajasthan &Ors.) disposed of the case with following directions:-
(i) For the reasons afore recorded, we hold and declare that the Notification dated 9th September, 2013 is invalid and inoperative for non-compliance of the statutorily prescribed procedure under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and for absence of any justifiable reason for dispensation of such procedure.
(ii) We also hold and declare that the Office Memorandums dated 24th June, 2013 and 24th December, 2013 to the extent aforeindicated are invalid and inoperative being beyond the power of delegated legislation.
(iii) All the Office Memorandums and Notifications issued by MoEF i.e. 1st December, 2009, 18th May, 2012 and 24th June, 2013 and 24th December, 2013(except to the extent afore-stated) are operative and would apply to the lease mine holders irrespective of the fact that whether the area involved is more or less than 5 hectares.
(iv) We further hold that the existing mining lease right holders would also have to comply with the requirement of obtaining Environmental Clearance from the competent authorities in accordance with law.
However, all of them, if not already granted Environmental Clearance would be entitled to a reasonable period (say three months) to submit their applications for obtaining the same, which shall be disposed of expeditiously and in any case not later than six months from pronouncement of this judgment.
(v) All the States and the Ministry of Environment and Forest shall ensure strict compliance to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra). We direct Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest to hold a meeting with the State of Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka to bring complete uniformity in application of the above referred Notifications and Office Memorandums including the Notification of 2006.
(vi) We direct that in the meeting it shall also disused and appropriate recommendations be made and placed before the Tribunal, as to whether riverbed mining covering an area of less than 5 hectares can be permitted, if so, the conditions and regulatory measures that need to be adopted in that behalf.
(vii) We direct that the District Environmental Committees constituted by the respective State Governments shall not discharge any functions and grant approval as contemplated under the Notification of 2006.
(viii) Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest along with such experts and the States afore-referred will also consider the possibility of Page 25 of 33 constituting the branches of SEIAA at the district or at least, division levels, to ensure easy accessibility to encourage the mine holders to take Environmental Clearance expeditiously.
(ix) It is stated before us that in large number of cases, particularly in relation of State of Rajasthan, persons carrying on mining activity of minor minerals, non-coal mining and brick earth and ordinary earth have applied for obtaining Environmental Clearances in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Notification of 2006. Let all such applications be dealt with and orders passed by the concerned authorities at the earliest and in any case not later than six months from today.
(x) We direct the respondent authorities, particularly SEIAA, to dispose of the application of all these private respondents who have already filed applications seeking Environmental Clearance as expeditiously as possible, in any case not later than three months from today. Thus, Appeal No. 23/2014 and M.A. No. 469/2014, M.A. No. M.A No. 488/2014, 489/2014, 479/2014, 480/2014, 473/2014, 470/2014, 471/2014 and 469/2014 stand disposed of with the above directions. Till the grant of environmental clearance they would not carry out any activity of marble mining.
(xi) We dispose of Original Application No. 123/13 with a direction that SEIAA shall consider the applications filed for seeking Environmental Clearance in accordance with law and observations made in this judgment, expeditiously, and in any case within a period of three months from today.
(xii) In the meanwhile, no State shall permit carrying on of sand mining or minor mineral extraction on riverbed or otherwise without the concerned person obtaining Environmental Clearance from the competent authority.
(xiii) We direct the Ministry of Environment and Forest to issue comprehensive but self-contained Notification relating to all minor mineral activity on the riverbed or otherwise, to avoid unnecessary confusion, ambiguities and practical difficulties in implementation of the environmental laws.
(xiv) In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court and what has emerged from the various cases that are subject matter of this Judgment, we direct the Ministry of Environment and Forest to formulate a uniform cluster policy in consultation with the States for permitting minor mineral mining activity including, its regulatory regime, in accordance with law."
30.Further, the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in M.A. No.260/2017 in O.A. No.123/2014 (Himmat Singh Shekhaswat Vs. State of Rajasthan &Ors.) in the matter of State of Tamil Nadu declined to extent Page 26 of 33 time for applying for Environmental Clearance (EC) by the existing leaseholders and dismissed that application.
31.After the orders of the Principal Bench, the MoEF&CC has issued further notification amending Item 1 (a) of Schedule 1 of EIA Notification, 2006 by notification dated 15.01.2016 whereby, Environmental Clearance (EC) irrespective of mining lease area was made mandatory even for existing mining leases.
32.This aspect was considered by this Bench in O.A. No.136/2017 (Tamil Nadu Small Mine Owners Federation Vs. The Secretary, MoEF&CC, New Delhi and Ors.) and by Judgment dated 30.06.2020, after considering all the notifications issued in this regard and also the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal observed that after 15.01.2016, all existing mining leaseholders whether minor or major mineral irrespective of the area of lease has to obtain Environmental Clearance (EC) for continuance of their operation and further held that, those who have not filed application prior to 31.03.2016, will be considered as a violation case.
33.The judgment relied on by the senior counsel appearing for the 4th respondent was decided on the basis of the then existing rules which does not insist for Environmental Clearance (EC) for existing mining lease area of less than 5 hectares and even the amended notification issued thereafter in respect of the same where also an exemption was provided for existing mining lease holders permitting them to obtain Environmental Clearance (EC) at the time of renewal.
34.So, it was under such circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala held that those mining leases have less than 5 Hectares which were in existence prior to Deepak Kumar's case need not obtain Environmental Clearance Page 27 of 33 (EC) for their continuance and they need obtain Environmental Clearance (EC) only at the time of their renewal.
35.But the position has changed after 15.01.2016 notification whereby, even for existing mining leases irrespective of the area, Environmental Clearance (EC) was made mandatory and one time measure by Notification of 2017, an opportunity was given to the parties to apply for getting Environmental Clearance (EC) as violation case and that part of the notification was upheld as one time settlement by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the Writ Petition No.11189/2017 dated 14.03.2018. This Tribunal also in that Judgment held that applications which were pending as on 30.06.2020 for Environmental Clearance (EC) has to be treated as normal application and not as violation applications.
36.It was also made clear in that Judgment that all mining leases either major or minor even less than 5 Hectare has to apply and get Environmental Clearance (EC) as per amended EIA Notification, 2016 dated 15.01.2016 and this will apply to existing mining leases as well and without obtaining necessary Environmental Clearance (EC) irrespective of the area, no mining both minor and major shall be permitted to operate.
37.Admittedly, in this case, at the time when this application was filed, the EIA Notification, 2016 dated 15.01.2016 was in operation and the 4th respondent had not obtained Environmental Clearance (EC) for his existing lease. Though it was mentioned in the counter affidavit that as an abundant caution M/s. Cochin Granites had stopped by cancelling the lease arrangement as per annexure R4 (b) - Order and after obtaining the fresh lease as per the annexure R4(c) - Lease Deed bearing No.2209/2018 of District Registrar Office, Ernakulam, they have applied for Environmental Clearance (EC) and obtained Environmental Clearance (EC) by Proceedings Page 28 of 33 No.DIA/KL/MIN/8877/2017 dated 19.03.2018, it is not clear from the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent as to when they have stopped the mining operation.
38.If the mining operation was done after 15.01.2016 without obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC), then the period of operation from 15.01.2016 till they stopped the operation will be treated as an unauthorized operation of the quarry, for which, they will be liable for payment of environmental compensation.
39.Further, it is not known as to whether the 4 th respondent had complied with the mining closure plan of the prior lease area in respect of which he had conducted mining operation. Further, it is not on the basis of the quantity of mining done that the royalty was fixed, but it was on the basis of the lump sum payment of royalty that he is doing the mining operation. It is also not known as to whether he had made any excess mining as well.
40.So under such circumstances, there is some force in the allegations made in the application that till he stopped operation before obtaining the present Environmental Clearance (EC), after 15.01.2016 will be deemed to be an illegal operation and he must be made liable to pay compensation for the same.
41.So, the submission made by the Senior Advocate appearing for the 4 th respondent that there was no illegal operation of mining conducted by the 4th respondent cannot be accepted.
42.So under such circumstances, we hold that the mining operation of the 4th respondent in the name and style of M/s. Cochin Granites after 15.01.2016 till they stopped the mining operation as mentioned in the counter statement till they obtain the fresh lease and Environmental Clearance (EC) is illegal and they are liable to pay environmental compensation for doing Page 29 of 33 unauthorized mining operation during this period and the Mining and Geology Department and the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) are bound to take action against the 4th respondent for that period.
43.So under such circumstances, we feel that the application can be disposed of by giving following directions:-
(i) It is declared that the mining operation done by the 4th respondent under the name and style of M/s. Cochin Granites in the disputed area after 15.01.2016, till they stopped their mining operation on the basis of the old lease of 2006 is illegal and unauthorized and they are liable to pay environmental compensation for the quantity of mined articles which has to be assessed by the Mining and Geology Department.
(ii) The Directorate of Mining and Geology Department is directed to assess the environmental compensation, penalty for excess mining and royalty lost to the exchequer for excess mining on the basis of the quantity of minerals mined from 15.01.2016, till the mining operation was stopped by M/s. Cochin Granites on the basis of the old lease and take steps to recover the amount from M/s. Cochin Granites in accordance with law.
(iii) The Director of Mining and Geology Department is also directed to ascertain as to whether he had complied with the closure plan provided while executing the mining lease of 2006 and if he had not complied with the same, take appropriate action against them for enforcing the mining closure plan and recover the damage, if any, caused on account of the same to the environment from the 4th respondent in accordance with law.
Page 30 of 33
(iv) The Director of Mining and Geology Department is directed to file the action taken report on the basis of the above direction before this Tribunal within a period of 4 (Four) months, after providing necessary opportunities to the 4th respondent in this regard in accordance with law.
(v) If such report is filed, then the office is directed to place the same before the Bench for consideration and issuing further directions in this regard.
(vi) Considering the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the application.
44.Thus, the points are answered accordingly.
45.In the result, the application is disposed of as follows:-
(i) It is declared that the mining operation done by the 4 th respondent under the name and style of M/s. Cochin Granites in the disputed area after 15.01.2016, till they stopped their mining operation on the basis of the old lease of 2006 is illegal and unauthorized and they are liable to pay environmental compensation for the quantity of mined articles which has to be assessed by the Mining and Geology Department.
(ii) The Directorate of Mining and Geology Department is directed to assess the environmental compensation, penalty for excess mining and royalty lost to the exchequer for excess mining on the basis of the quantity of minerals mined from 15.01.2016, till the mining Page 31 of 33 operation was stopped by M/s. Cochin Granites on the basis of the old lease and take steps to recover the amount from M/s. Cochin Granites in accordance with law.
(iii) The Director of Mining and Geology Department is also directed to ascertain as to whether he had complied with the closure plan provided while executing the mining lease of 2006 and if he had not complied with the same, take appropriate action against them for enforcing the mining closure plan and recover the damage, if any, caused on account of the same to the environment from the 4th respondent in accordance with law.
(iv) The Director of Mining and Geology Department is directed to file the action taken report on the basis of the above direction before this Tribunal within a period of 4 (Four) months, after providing necessary opportunities to the 4th respondent in this regard in accordance with law.
(v) If such report is filed, then the office is directed to place the same before the Bench for consideration and issuing further directions in this regard, if any required.
(vi) Considering the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the application.
(vii) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Director of Mining and Geology Department by e-mail immediately for their information and compliance. Page 32 of 33
46.With the above observations and directions, this application is disposed of.
Sd/-
....................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) Sd/-
...............................E.M. (Shri. Saibal Dasgupta) O.A. No.244/2017, 27th May, 2021. Mn.
Page 33 of 33