National Green Tribunal
Nagendrakumar vs Ministry Of Environment Forest And ... on 23 March, 2023
Author: Satyagopal Korlapati
Bench: Satyagopal Korlapati
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 152 of 2021 (SZ)
with
Original Application No. 53 of 2022 (SZ)
With
Original Application No. 187 of 2021 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
D. Hema Kumar,
No. 1-63, Karani Village,
Nagalapuram, Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh-517 589
...Applicant(s)
(In O.A. Nos. 152/2021 & 53/2022)
Versus
1. Union of India
Represented by its Secretary,
Union Ministry of Environment, Forest & CC,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh, New Delhi- 110003.
2. State of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by its Principal Secretary for Mines and Geology,
Secretariat, D.NO. 7-104, B-Block,
5th and 6th Floor, Ibrahimpatnam,
Vijayawada, AP- 521456.
3. The District Collector Chittoor,
New Collectorate Office of Chittoor,
Chittoor District.
4. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology,
Chitoor Jurisdiction,
2-53 & 54, Officer Lane,
Kongareddy Pally, Chittoor- 517001.
5. The Chairman,
Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board,
D.No. 33-26-14 D/2, Near Sunrise Hospital, Pushpa Hotel Centre,
Chalamalavari Street, Kasturibaipet,
Vijaywada- 520 010.
6. The Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited,
Rep by its Executive Director,
No. 294/1D, Tadigadapa to Enikepadu 100ft. Road,
Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal,
Vijayawada- 521137
7. PMR Infra India Limited,
Rep by its Managing Director,
Flat No. 706, MVV Royal Palace,
1
D. No. 1018, Visakhapatnam,
Andhra Pradesh- 530003.
8. Jai Prakash Power Venture Ltd.,
Rep by its Managing Director,
H. No. 40-14-7, Second Floor,
Chandramoulipuram, Benz Circle, Vijawada,
Andhra Pradesh- 530003.
...Respondent(s)
(In O.A. No. 152/2021)
With
1. Union of India
Represented by its Secretary,
Union Ministry of Environment, Forest & CC,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh, New Delhi- 110003.
2. State of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by its Principal Secretary for Mines and Geology,
Secretariat, D.NO. 7-104, B-Block,
5th and 6th Floor, Ibrahimpatnam,
Vijayawada, AP- 521456.
3. The District Collector Chittoor,
New Collectorate Office of Chittoor,
Chittoor District.
4. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology,
Chitoor Jurisdiction,
2-53 & 54, Officer Lane,
Kongareddy Pally, Chittoor- 517001.
5. The Chairman,
Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board,
D.No. 33-26-14 D/2, Near Sunrise Hospital, Pushpa Hotel Centre,
Chalamalavari Street, Kasturibaipet,
Vijaywada- 520 010.
6. State Environment Impact Asssessment Authority (SEIAA),
Door No. 33-26-14 D/2. Near Sun Rise Hospital,
Pushpa Hotel Centre, Chalamavari Street,
Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada- 520 010.
7. The Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited,
Rep by its Executive Director,
No. 294/1D, Tadigadapa to Enikepadu 100ft. Road,
Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal,
Vijayawada- 521137
8. PMR Infra India Limited,
Rep by its Managing Director,
Flat No. 706, MVV Royal Palace,
D. No. 1018, Visakhapatnam,
Andhra Pradesh- 530003.
2
9. Jai Prakash Power Venture Ltd.,
Rep by its Managing Director,
H. No. 40-14-7, Second Floor,
Chandramoulipuram, Benz Circle, Vijawada,
Andhra Pradesh- 530003.
...Respondent(s)
(In O.A. No. 53/2022)
With
Nagendra Kumar
S/o Sathyanarayana,
Dharanikota Village,
Amaravathi Mandal,
Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
1. Government of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Central Secretariat,
Indira Paryavaran Bhavan,
Jorbagh Road,
New Delhi- 110003.
2. State of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by Secretary to Government,
Department of Mines and Geology,
Sri Anjaneya Towers, D. No. 7-104,
B-Block, 5th & 6th Floors,
Vijayawada, Ibrahimpatnam,
Andhra Pradesh- 521 456.
3. The Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited,
Rep by its Executive Director,
No. 294/1D, 100ft. Road Tadigadapa to Enikepadu Road,
Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal,
Vijayawada- 521137
4. State Environment Impact Asssessment Authority (SEIAA),
Rep by its Member Secretary,
Door No. 33-26-14 D/2. Near Sun Rise Hospital,
Pushpa Hotel Centre, Chalamavari Street,
Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada- 520 010.
5. The Director,
Department of Mines and Geology,
Sri Anjaneya Towers, D. No. 7-104,
B-Block, 5th & 6th Floors, Vijayawada,
Ibrahimpatnam, Andhra Pradesh- 521456.
6. The Deputy Director,
Department of Mines and Geology, Srikakulam,
Plot No.6, 1st Floor, Vysya Bank Colony,
Srikakulam- 532001, Andhra Pradesh.
3
7. The Deputy Director,
Department of Mines and Geology, Vizianagaram,
H.No. 1-15-18, Plot No. 31,
Near St. Paults Lutharan Church,
SBI Cantonment Road,
Vizianagaram- 535003, Andhra Pradesh.
8. The Deputy Director,
Department of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam,
D.No. 2-2/4D/15 M.I.G-108,
M.V.P. Colony, Sector-6,
Visakhapatnam-17, Andhra Pradesh.
9. The Deputy Director,
Department of Mines and Geology, Kakinanda,
Vishwa House, Palam Raj Nagar,
Road No.2, Kakinada- 533001, Andhra Pradesh.
10. The Deputy Director,
Department of Mines and Geology, West Godavari,
D.No. 23-9-2, Near Atidhi Hotel,
R.R. Peta, Eluru, West Godavari District,
Andhra Pradesh- 534002.
11. The Deputy Director,
Department of Mines and Geology, Krishna
D. No. 54-18-67/1B, LIC Colony,
Vijayawada, Krishna District,
Andhra Pradesh- 520008.
12. The Deputy Director,
Department of Mines and Geology, Guntur,
D. No. 17-14-830, 3/5, Vidhya Nagar,
Guntur- 522007, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
13. The Deputy Director,
Department of Mines and Geology, Prakasam,
Block No. 58 & 59, Old RIMS,
Government Officers Complex,
Opp. Collectorate, Ongole,
Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh- 523001.
14. The Deputy Director,
Department of Mines and Geology, Nellore,
Lakshmi Villa, D. No. 11/28, Talpagiri Colony,
Buja Buja Nellore, Nellore Rural Mandal,
Nellore- 524004, Andhra Pradesh.
15. The Deputy Director,
Department of Mines and Geology, Chittoor,
D. No. 2-55/2, Officers Line, Guru Nagar Colony,
Near Municipal Office, Chittoor- 517001,
Andhra Pradesh.
16. The Deputy Director,
Department of Mines and Geology, Kadapa,
G-3, New Collectorate Complex,
4
Kadapa- 516004, YSR District,
Andhra Pradesh.
17. The Deputy Director,
Department of Mines and Geology, Ananthapur,
D.No.6/3/116, 1st Floor,
Opp. Comfort Apartment, Ram Nagar,
Anantapuramu- 515002, Andhra Pradesh.
18. The Deputy Director,
Department of Mines and Geology, Kurnool,
45/86-6, Upstairs, Narasimhareddy Nagar,
Kurnool- 518004, Andhra Pradesh.
19. Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited,
Rep by its Chairman and Mangaing Director,
Registred Office at
Complex of Jaypee Nigrie Super Thermal Power Plant,
Tehsil Sarai, Nigrie, Singrauli,
Madhya Pradesh- 486669.
20. Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited,
Rep by its Chairman and Mangaing Director,
Corporate Office at
„JA House‟, 63 Basant Lok,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi- 110057.
...Respondent(s)
O.A. No. 152/2021
For Applicant(s): Mr. A. Yogeshwaran along with
Mr. S. Kamalesh Kannan.
For Respondent(s): Mr. L. Suryaprabhu for Mr. G. M. Syed
Nurullah Sheriff for R1
Mrs. Madhuri Donti Reddy for R2 to R5.
Mr. Atmaram NS Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Along with
Mr. S.S. Rebello, Mr. Shreeyash U. Lalit,
Mr. Gauravvardhan Nadkarni for R8.
Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy for R6.
O.A. No. 53/2022
For Applicant(s): Mr. A. Yogeshwaran along with
Mr. S. Kamalesh Kannan.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Madhuri Donti Reddy for R2 to R7.
Mr. Atmaram NS Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Along with
Mr. S.S. Rebello, Mr. Shreeyash U. Lalit,
Mr. Gauravvardhan Nadkarni for R8.
O.A. No. 187/2021
For Applicant(s): Mr. R. Jayaprakash.
For Respondent(s): Mr. L. Suryaprabhu for Mr. G. M. Syed
Nurullah Sheriff for R1
Mrs. Madhuri Donti Reddy for R2, R3, R5 to R18.
Mr. Atmaram NS Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Along with
Mr. S.S. Rebello, Mr. Shreeyash U. Lalit,
Mr. Gauravvardhan Nadkarni for R19 & R20.
5
Judgment Reserved on: 06th December, 2022.
Judgment Pronounced on: 23rd 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. Unabated illegal sand mining is the matter of concern in the above applications filed by one D. Hema Kumar, who is the applicant in O.A. No. 152 of 2021 and O.A. No. 53 of 2022 and Mr. Nagendra Kumar in O.A. No. 187 of 2021.
O.A. No. 152 of 2021
2. It is stated that the River Aaraniaar runs through the karani Village and other nearby villages, namely, Suruttapalli, SSB Petta, BK Bedu and Nagalapuram before entering the State of Tamil Nadu. The total stretch of the river runs to about 11km. The villages are primarily engaged in agriculture. It is alleged that the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited and one M/s PMR Infra India Limited who are respondents 2, 6 and 7 are indulging in the above said illegal sand mining in the Aaraniaar River in different survey numbers in each of the above referred villages. The allegations of the applicant are as follows:
(i) It is alleged that in the name of desilting and dredging activity without an Environment Impact Assessment, respondents 6and 7 are doing illegal activity of sand mining.6
(ii) In the mining activity heavy machineries are being used in the river when there is the Reserved Forest adjacent to the impugned site. The District Collector on 08.07.2019 identified 05 reaches for river sand mining in Aaraniaar River which clearly mentioned that the word that the purpose of mining is due to shortfall of sand demand-supply in the State.
Accordingly, the 3rd respondent, the District Collector, had given the consent for excavation of sand. The respondents are carrying on the mining activity, covering to an extent of 11km in total in the same river without obtaining prior Environmental Clearance for the same. The term „desilting‟ is used in the sites in which the permissions are issued mentioned as „sand reaches‟.
(iii) Without assessing the environmental damage that would be caused, the respondents 6 and 7 have started their mining activity. For the purpose of carrying the excavated sand using the heavy machineries, the respondents have also laid a temporary road. If it is only an activity of desilting for the purpose of removing the accumulated silt, only bullock carts are to be used and not heavy machineries and lorries. It is also stated that the excavation is being done 24 hours a day in full capacity at nights.
(iv) Respondents are misusing the office memorandum dated 15.01.2016, which gives an exemption for dredging and desilting of dams, reservoirs , weirs, barrages, rivers and canals for the purpose of their maintenance, upkeep and disaster management. As the mining is done in the extent of 11km covering about 350 ha of area, it is done without necessary Environmental Clearance as per EIA Notification, 2006.
3. On the above allegations, the applicant sought for a direction forebearing the respondents 2, 6 and 7 mining the Aaraniyar River sand from Nagalapuram to Surutuppali villages to an extent of 350 ha., running about 11km in Chittoor District and also sought for criminal action for illegal activity.
7
4. The 1st respondent, who is the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), has stated that as per EIA Notification, 2006 certain projects are required to obtain prior Environmental Clearance before any construction work in case of new projects or expansion and modernization of the existing projects or activities and these activities are categorised in two categories- „A‟ and „B‟ on the potential impacts on spatial extent and human health and natural and man-made resources. The 1st respondent also had came up with the notification S.O. 141 (E) dated 15.01.2016 which stipulates „B2‟ category projects pertaining to mining of minor mineral of lease area less than or equal to 05 ha., which requires prior Environmental Clearance from the DEIAA. The DEIAA shall base its decision on the recommendations of the DEAC. After the challenge to the said notification, the National Green Tribunal had directed the MoEF&CC to take appropriate steps to revise the procedure laid down in the said notification in terms of the directions and observations in conformity with the Judgement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2012) 4 SCC 629. Subsequently, the Central Government had made amendments in the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 vide S.O. 3977(E) dated 14.08.2018 wherein schematic presentation of requirements on Environmental Clearance of minor minerals including cluster situation and entries relating thereto. After quoting the other notifications, the MoEF&CC stated that the Mines and Geology Department of the State is the nodal authority for allotting mining lease under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act).
8
5. The 6th respondent, who is the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.,(APMDC) had filed their counter affidavit stating that the application itself was filed on misplaced facts and that the Environmental Clearance obtained by the 6th respondent with respect to 05 sand reaches are furnished in the report. It is stated that the District Authority had permitted the 05 sand reaches for excavation of sand in the area mentioned in the application after getting the required statutory clearances, namely, Approved Mining Plan, Environmental Clearance and Consent for Operation from authorized departments. Previously, the above sand reaches were operated by APMDC as per sub-rule 1(d) of Rule 9-B of APMMC Rules, 1966 prevailing at that time. Later Government of Andhra Pradesh appointed a private agency, who is the 8th respondent, to undertake the sand operations in the districts of Nellore, Ananthapurram, Chittoor and YSR Kadapa Districts. Now, the 8th respondent is carrying on sand mining in the 05 authorised sand reaches. The respondent has further stated that the SEIAA, Andhra Pradesh had granted permission for sand mining with semi-mechanised method/manual vide order dated 19.12.2020. The statutory clearances were obtained from all the Departments, namely, Approved Mining Plan, Environmental Clearance and Consent for operation for excavation of sand. It is stated that the permitted sand reaches are located 230 meters away from State Highway. The shortest aerial distance from Ambakam Reserve Forest to the authorised sand reaches is 0.7km.
6. As per the agreement between the State Governments and the private agency the sand excavated from the authorised sand reaches shall be stored nearby stock points. As it is not possible to 9 excavate sand from reaches during the rainy season or flowing time the excavated sand are stored in particular stock yard from where it is supplied to the consumers. Hence, it was stated that there was no merit in the allegations made by the applicant. The 6th respondent also had produced the copy of the Environmental Clearances obtained by them.
7. The 8th respondent, who is the project proponent, has filed an affidavit in response to the application. It is stated that this respondent had undertaken mining activity only from 14.05.2021 in only two out of the five reaches i.e. SSB Petta Village, Pichatur Mandal and BK Bedu Village, Nagalapuram, Mandal. The 8th respondent also stated that they had obtained all clearances, permissions, licenses as mandatory under the law for mining. The 8th respondent also had carried out mining activity only with the valid Environmental Clearance and wherever the Environmental Clearances have expired no mining activity has been conducted by them. Regarding two reaches the lease expired in December, 2021 and thereafter mining was stopped in those reaches.
8. The 8th respondent further stated that apart from Mining Department of the State, the Ground Water Department takes up periodical or annual inspections as the case may be in terms of the rules and a joint inspection of the officials from the Department of Mines and Geology and/or other concerned Departments. For mining in the sand reaches all the statutory clearances, namely, Approved Mining Plan, Preparation of the District Survey Report, obtaining Environmental Clearance, Consent for Establishment and Consent for Operation for the sand reaches are handed over to the 10 agency for undertaking the sand operations as per the procedure laid down by the Director of Mines and Geology. As this respondent started mining from 14.05.2021 strictly in accordance with and as per the mining plan approved and in compliance with the conditions as imposed in the Environmental Clearance, there is no violation as alleged by the applicant. It is further stated that the mining operation is being carried on in the very professional and scientific manner conscious of the precious ecology and environment. The 8th respondent had denied that he is involved in the activity of mining using heavy machinery in the River. This respondent also denied that he had mined the river sand to a depth of 35 feet using heavy machinery and the allegation of construction of temporary road is also denied. The alleged temporary road is only used for the purpose of transportation. The activity of mining is for 24 hours a day is also denied. It is specifically submitted that this respondent was permitted to mine only till the depth of 01 meter as per the Environmental Clearance and the mining is done within the precincts of Environmental Clearance.
O.A. No. 53 of 2022
9. The above Original Application is filed by the applicant on the allegations that the respondents 7 to 9 are running sand mining quarries in the River Aaraniaar in an uncontrolled manner beyond the depth and boundary noted in the earlier Environmental Clearance. The respondents 7 to 9 are indulging in the illegal sand mining in about 11km stretches in the villages referred to in the earlier O.A. No. 152 of 2021. The specific prayer of the applicant in 11 this Original Application is to declare respondents 8 and 9 as violators of the Environmental Clearance conditions and direct the authorities to take immediate measures to assess the damages that have been caused on account of the illegal quarrying and take criminal action against the officials responsible for permitting such illegal activities.
10. The applicant has stated that though these activities are covered under B2 category as per the Environmental Clearance issued the respondents 7 to 9 are using numerous heavy machineries for the purpose of mining and the same is being done in a hurried manner. Though the prayers are identical in both the Original Applications. This Original Application is filed because of the lethargic attitude of the officials in taking steps to control the illegal mining and the severe damage caused to the ecology which had in fact resulted in change of natural flow pattern of the river. The applicant alleges that there is no fencing around the Environmental Clearance granted area which itself is violation of the condition in the Environmental Clearance.
11. In response to the same, the 3rd respondent, who is the District Collector, Tirupati had filed his report dated 16.05.2022 stating that the private respondents have been given an Environmental Clearance by the 6th respondent. As per the Environmental Clearance, the mining has to be done manually. Contrary to the said condition it is alleged that the project proponents are using heavy machinery and have breached the conditions resulting in affecting the ecology at large. To the said allegations, the District Collector has found that the 11km stretch of Aaraniaar River is 12 spread over five villages in Nagalapuram and Pitchatur Mandals of newly formed Tirupati District. The District Collector had observed the physical features of the river and the sand mining areas which are permitted to the private respondents, project proponent. It is reported that during his inspection no machinery was found in the sand excavation localities of the 05 villages in the stretch of 11km and sand excavation is not done at the time of inspection. The Collector has specifically stated that unless a technical Committee is appointed and verify, it will not be possible to ascertain whether the conditions are violated or not and also about the environmental impact.
12. The Tahsildar, Nagalapuram Mandal has addressed the District Collector, Tirupati in his correspondence dated 03.09.2022 stating that he has been keeping a constant vigil on the extraction of sand from the reach by keeping the VROs of B.K Bedu, Nandhanam, Subbanaidu Kandriga and Karani Villages round the clock to monitor. He has stated that it has been taken care of not using the heavy machineries from the reach. The said correspondence is also filed by the District Collector.
13. The 4th respondent, who is the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, also has filed his report. It is stated in the report that the project proponent had taken all permissions as the excavations are for commercial purpose. The sand excavation is being done after getting required statutory clearances only. The SEIAA, Andhra Pradesh has granted permission for sand mining with semi- mechanised method/manually by its order date 19.12.2020. It is stated that the shortest aerial distance from Ambakam Reserved 13 Forest to the above said authorised sand reaches is 0.7km. The 4 th respondent also has repeated the submissions of the District Collector and requested the Joint Inspection Committee report to be referred.
14. The 5th respondent, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board has field its report contending that the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board had issued the „Consent for Operation‟ of the Board to the project proponent, who is the 9th respondent, for the locations in 05 villages and 07 reaches upon considering the validity of the Environmental Clearance obtained for the respective sand reaches. The above sand reaches have obtained Environmental Clearance for carrying out the mining operations in semi-mechanised method.
15. The 6th respondent, who is the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Andhra Pradesh has filed counter stating that the 9th respondent had obtained Environmental Clearance from SEIAA and has been carrying out the sand mining in Aaraniaar River in about 11km stretch in five villages coming under the control of the Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittoor District. The SEIAA also confirms that the Environmental Clearance granted to the 9th respondent for sand mining is in a semi-mechanised method. The mining plan was also approved by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology permitting semi- mechanised mining of the sand. The practice of semi-mechanized mining of sand is being carried out as per the Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 published by the MoEF&CC. The counter further states that the semi-mechanized mining is 14 permitted as part of ensuring sustainable sand mining and environmentally friendly management practices in order to restore and maintain the ecology of the river and other sand sources. Accordingly, the SEIAA permitted the semi-mechanized mining i.e., the sand shall be excavated by backhoe/shovel and loaded into tippers. It is stated further that the red line is at a depth of 3.2 mts from the surface of the sand reach as per approved mining plan.
16. The SEIAA had explained three methods of sand operations which are as follows:
1. Manual: This method involves the scooping of sand with shovels and loading on the tractors/tippers.
2. Semi-mechanised: It is method to excavate sand manually along with machinery like backhoes (JCB) comprising bucket capacity of 0.6cum and load the excavated sand on to tippers. Combination of man and machine is semi-mechanized method of mining.
3. Mechanised: it is a method to excavate sand using heavy machinery (without human intervention) of bucket capacity of 1.1 cum and more and load the excavated sand on the lorry‟s/tippers.
17. In the present case, the 9th respondent has been granted Environmental Clearance to carry out the sand mining operations by way of semi-mechanised method of mining.
18. Finally, the 9th respondent, who is the project proponent, has filed his objections denying all the allegations against it in its counter dated 07.11.2022. According to the 9th respondent, the application itself is filed on ulterior motive. The SEIAA granted the Environmental Clearance after careful consideration and permitted the project proponent to carry out the mining only to one meter depth sand through semi-mechanised /manually and no underwater mining is undertaken. It is stated that the respondent 15 is not using heavy machinery for carrying out the sand mining operation and is carrying the sand mining operations by using semi-mechanised method i.e. manually method along with backhoe and thereafter loading the excavated sand into the tippers which method is known as semi-mechanised method of mining.
19. While denying all the allegations made in the application against the 9th respondent, it is stated that the mining activity is taken by the 9th respondent only in a permissible manner in terms of the conditions of the Environmental Clearance, manually and in a semi-mechanised manner without any damage to the ecology in large. The allegations made by the applicant are said to be bared and without any substance. The photographs annexed by the applicant to prove the usage of heavy machinery is misconceived as they are employed only for the formation of the road work and there was no excavation process being done on the relevant date i.e. 09.01.2022. Regarding the other photographs taken on 27.03.2022 they are the piled up excavated sand for drying purpose. There is no earth moving or sand excavation done there. The backhoes are only used to load the piled up excavated sand which are then taken and loaded by the backhoes into the tippers. Therefore, the photographs allegedly taken on 27.03.2022 are not relevant to the allegations made by the applicant. O.A. No. 187 of 2021
20. This application also relates to the sand mining in the State of Andhra Pradesh. However, this application is filed in general seeking direction against the respondents 2 to 18 to take appropriate and effective steps to monitor and sand mining 16 performed by the respondents 19 and 20 in particular in 13 districts of State of Andhra Pradesh.
21. The contention of the applicant is that despite the existence of repeated circulars and enforcement guidelines to prevent mismanagement of the sand mining process, the officials have been unable to monitor/enforce strictly the statutory guidelines which they ought to have followed. The present application is filed seeking to address the same by highlighting the various violations committed by the private respondents who have been awarded the sand mining contract in the State of Andhra Pradesh, particularly, in Guntur District.
22. It is stated that the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 is a supplementary guidelines to the already existing regulatory mechanism. As per the above guidelines, the mining should be done only during dry season and State SEIAA has been entrusted with the duty of monitoring periodically and to file a compliance report once in every 06 months. The river bed mining during monsoon season has been prohibited as per the enforcement guidelines only to ensure sustainable sand mining. It is generally alleged that the mandatory requirements for sand mining are not being followed in its letter and spirit. The present application is focused on the violations committed by the respondents 19th and 20th who are contractor selected for the purpose of sand mining and excavation in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The applicant alleges that the respondents 19 and 20 have violated all the mandatory requirements in all the 13 districts 17 of Andhra Pradesh where they are involving in excavation and sand mining. The applicant raised the following allegations:
(i) The first allegation is that the private respondents are involved in the process of sand mining, even during the monsoon season.
(ii) The respondents 19 and 20 have undertaken instream mining in Rajamundhry, Karnool and Kastala for the last two months even though the same has been categorically mandated to be prohibited.
(iii) The SEIAA has failed to comply with its duty of filing a compliance report every six months.
(iv) The District Administration has also failed to take any effective steps to monitor the mandatory requirements under the Acts and Rules. To file a report with respect to the status of excavation and sand mining works in the respective districts undertaken by the respondents 19 and 20.
23. On the above allegations, the applicant is seeking a direction to the official respondents to take effective steps to monitor the excavation and sand mining performed by the respondents 19 and 20 and to prevent any further damage to the environment in terms of the illegal excavation.
24. The 5th respondent, who is the Director of Mines and Geology, had placed his counter affidavit dated 3rd December, 2022. The said counter affidavit referred to the upgraded sand policy which is as follows:
"a. The sand excavation, storage and sale operations shall be preferably undertake by the Central Govt. agencies/Central Govt. PSUs (CPSUs) appointed on nomination basis on terms and condition as prescribed by GoAP. b. In case, no response is received from Central Govt. agencies/CPSUs, sand operations shall be entrusted to a technically experienced, competent and financially strong agency (ies) selected through two (2) bid system i.e., Technical and Commercial bids, with a minimum auction premium fixed 18 by GoAP, in addition to seigniorage fee and other applicable levies.
25. When the Director of Mines and Geology approached the Central Government agencies/CPSUs seeking their willingness to undertake all sand operations such as excavation, storage, sale etc, there was no response or any interest expressed. Hence, as per the Upgraded Sand Policy referred above under G.O. Ms. No. 25 dated 16.04.2021, a tender procedure for selecting the technically experienced, competent and financially strong agency through tender was invited and the 19th and 20th respondents emerged as the successful bidder for all the three packages by quoting the highest bid. As per the tender terms and conditions, the work order was issued in favour of the successful bidder as per the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. Of the total 446 sand reaches including 331 open reaches and 115 desiltation points have been handed over to the M/s Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited and the said agency started the operations with effect from 14.05.2021.
26. While considering the pleadings in all the above three applications, the following points emerged for consideration:
(i) Whether the private respondents have necessary clearances, consents, approvals, sanctions from the authorities concerned for sand mining?
(ii) If so, whether there are any violations of the conditions imposed either in the Environmental Clearance or any of the approvals granted?
(iii) Whether there is any indiscriminate, unscientific mining being carried out as had been alleged by the applicant?
(iv) Whether there is any excess mining being done by the private respondents?19
(v) If so, whether they are liable to be levied with Environmental Compensation?
27. Earlier there was a Joint Committee appointed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 87 of 2020 comprising of an officer from MoEF&CC, a Scientist from SEIAA, Andhra Pradesh, Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Chittoor District, Senior Officer from Central Pollution Control Board and District Collector, Chittoor District to inspect the area in question and submit a report regarding the status and nature of work that is being done in that area and also to find out whether in the guise of desilting and dredging any illegal mining is being done without obtaining any permissions and clearances. The said Committee was directed to submit a report in this regard. Accordingly, the Joint Committee had visited the site on 12.10.2021 to see the present status and nature of work done in the area, ascertain whether illegal mining is taking place in the guise of desilting or dredging. The quantity of sand mined and the quantity of sand mined that has been transported for supply and also to assess the quantity of illegally mined sand in order to fix the environmental compensation.
28. The Committee constituted by this Tribunal had visited the villages concerned and had interacted with the villagers and also with the Department concerned and compared the satellite images. As per the finding of the Committee the District Authority had permitted sand mining in five reaches for excavation of sand after getting following statutory clearances (i) Approved Mining Plan from the Department of Mines and Geology, Andhra Pradesh, (ii) Environmental Clearance from SEIAA, (iii) Consent for Operation 20 from Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board. It is specifically stated that till May, 2021 the sand reaches were operated by APMDC ltd, Vijayawada, which is the 6 th respondent. As the sand policy was upgraded and amendments were issued to the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, the 8th respondent was awarded the work of sand extraction for package-3 which is Nellore, Anathapuram, Chittoor and YSR Kadapa Districts. The District Level Committee during the meeting held on 13.10.2020 based on the joint inspection report of Mines and Geology, Irrigation Department, Ground water and Water Audit, RWS&S and Revenue Departments had permitted for sand extraction in five open sand reaches in River Araniar.
29. The area permitted for sand mining is 4.910 ha. However, as per the geo-coordinates given in the approved mining plan, Environmental Clearance and Consent for Operation, the area permitted for mining is 37.85 ha. The report states that the officials from the Department of Mines and Geology stated that there is a typographical error in the mining plan, Environmental Clearance and Consent for Operation. The Department of Mines and Geology had not approached SEIAA, Andhra Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board for correction of the same. The joint Committee had further observed that the total excavation permission quantity from Nandanam reach is 73,650 metric tonnes. Out of which 18,273 metric tons was excavated by APMDC and 53,820 was excavated by the 8th respondent till 30.09.2021. The reach had a valid Consent for Operation issued by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board valid from 11.12.2020 to 30.11.2021. The operations were stopped during 30.06.2021. The 21 aerial distance between Nandanam-I and Nandanam-II is 531 metres. The sand excavated by the 8th respondent is observed to be within the permitted quantity mentioned in the Environmental Clearance and Consent for Operation.
30. Apart from the observations referred above, the Committee also specifically observed that the area permitted is 4.75 ha., and as per the satellite image also the area is 4.75ha., and it is matching. Similarly, the total sand excavation permission quanity from Nandanam-2 reach is 71,250 metric tons. Out of which 66,667 metric tons was excavated by the APMDC and 3,500 metric tons was excavated by 8th respondent till 30.09.2021. Operations were started during03.03.2021 and stopped during 30.06.2021. Regarding the BK Bedu area, the area permitted for sand mining is 4.92 ha., and the satellite image also shows only 4.92 ha., and both are matching. The total sand excavation permitted quantity at BK Bedu reach is 73,800 metric tons. Out of which 4,488 metric tons was excavated by APMDC and 68,120 metric tons was excavated by the 8th respondent till 30.09.2021. The reach was having a valid Consent for Operation issued by Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board till 30.11.2021. However, operation stopped during 30.06.2021. Thus, it was observed that the excavated sand from BK Bedu sand reach is within the permitted quantity mentioned in Environmental Clearance and Consent for Operation.
31. Similarly, for Subbaiah Naidu Kandriga also the Joint Committee found the satellite image to match with the permitted extent. In this case also the satellite image is matching with the permitted 22 hectares of the area. Here, the operation was stopped during 10.02.2021.
32. The specific observation with respect to SSB Peta-2 also is said to matching in terms of hectares and regarding the excavation done. The permitted quantity was 72,000 metric tons. Out of which 20,911 metric tons was excavated by APMDC and 49,800 metric tons was excavated by the 8th respondent till 30.09.2021. The aerial distance from SSB Peta-2 and Surutupalle is around 340 meters and the entire area between these two reaches is mined. Under such circumstances, it has to be treated as a single reach of larger area and accordingly necessary permissions need to be obtained.
33. The Joint Committee had further observed that the quantity of sand present, extracted and transported from each reach was assessed by inspection of documents submitted by different departmental officials. However, scientific assessment of each reach by measuring the length, width and depth of sand at different locations was not carried out due to the fact that river was in full flow.
34. As per the information provided by Director of Mines and Geology the sand excavation is within the approved limits and that the sand reaches are having valid Environmental Clearance from SEIAA and Consent from Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board. There were no proper records on the quantity of sand extracted from the reaches. The Joint Committee further observed that registers were not available in the reach on the quantity of sand produced and 23 the quantity dispatched and the type of vehicles used per day for sand transportation etc. There was no weigh bridge at the reach also. The mining plans does not include scientific mine closure plan and approach road/ramps to the sand reach etc. Thus, the Joint Committee concluded that the APMDC and Department of Mines and Geology may effectively be directed to monitor and regulate the sand extraction activities in River Araniar. The sand reaches shall be permitted for sand extraction only after scientific assessment of the quantity of sand. The Committee did not observe any environmental impacts or damage to structures near to reach.
35. Considering the importance and gravity of the issue alleged in the Original Application No. 187 of 2021 a Joint Committee was constituted and making the Department of Mines and Geology as nodal agency for coordination. The Joint Committee also conducted inspection over the sand reaches on various dates at various districts. The Committee observed that no open reaches are being sanctioned and entrusted to the private respondents for sand quarrying operations. It also submitted that most of the sand reaches in the State of Andhra Pradesh are inundated with flood water and very few are in working conditions. Regarding the fact whether the respondents 19 and 20 had valid consent under the Environmental Laws. The Committee had observed that all the sand reaches which are in operation in the State of Andhra Pradesh have obtained Environmental Clearance and Consent for Operations. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology is the lessee for all sand reaches. The Joint Committee also seem to have observed that there was no violation of the Environmental 24 Clearance conditions. Regarding the indiscriminate and unscientific sand being carried out in the reaches, the Joint Committee had observed that gravel/boulders used for construction of roads/ramps were left in unscientific manner causing obstruction of river flow during flood seasons. The strict implementation and practice of the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines, 2020 was recommended to be followed strictly in all the reaches. Regarding the excess mining done, it was found that there was no excess mining done by the private respondents and the Department also has given its explanation in this regard in every aspect to the report of the Joint Committee.
36. The concern of the applicant in both the O.A. No. 152 of 2021 and O.A. No. 53 of 2022 are same i.e. regarding the alleged illegal mining by the project proponent, M/s Jai Prakash Power Venture Limited in the Aaraniaar River sand from Nagalapuram to Suruttapalli Villages to an extent of about 350 ha., running about 11 km in Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh and in O.A. No. 187 of 2021 the prayer is to regulate the illegal sand mining in 13 districts of State of Andhra Pradesh. Hence the above three applications are taken together for disposal.
37. The Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued orders for upgrading the existing Sand Policy 2019 as per G.O No. 78 dated 12.11.2020 wherein it was stated that sand operations will be entrusted to a technically experienced, competent and financially strong agencies selected through two bid system. All the reaches across the State are classified into three packages. The Director of 25 Mine and Geology entered into a MoU with M/s MSTC, Government of India Enterprise for selection of package wise agency to carry out all sand operations such as excavation, storage, sale etc in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, tenders were invited for all the sand operations such as excavation, storage, sale etc of sand in the State of Andhra Pradesh for package no. 3 Nellore, Ananthapurram, Chittoor, Kurnool and YSR kadapa Districts. The MSTC informed that M/s Jai Prakash Power Venture Limited had quoted the highest consideration amount and emerged as the highest bidder. Accordingly, M/s Jai Prakash Power Venture Limited was engaged to commence the sand operations in the specified areas of package. Thus, M/s Jai Prakash Power Venture Limited have been doing the sand mining on behalf of the M/s APMDC Limited.
38. The preparation work of DSRs of the State was given to M/s Andhra Pradesh Space Application Centre (APSAC), Vijayawada which prepared the DSR for the 13 districts giving out the details of the mineral resources including the sand in accordance with the guidelines given under Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016. Regarding the replenishment studies to be carried out every year, it is stated that in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the statutory clearances such as Environmental Clearances, „Consent to Establish‟ and „Consent to Operate‟ are being obtained for the feasible sand bearing areas for a period of one year only. For identification of sand reaches feasible for sand quarrying the line departments, namely, Ground water, Irrigation, Revenue, Mines and Geology shall inspect all the sand bearing areas in the district and identify the sand reaches feasible for sand quarrying in 26 accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Water Land Tree Rules, 2004 and Rule 9-B(1)(b) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. As per the Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016, the sand mining shall be permitted depending upon the location, thickness of sand deposition, agricultural land/river bed, the method of mining like manual, semi-mechanised and mechanised. The District Level Sand Committee of the concerned District will prepare a report and the mining plan will be approved by the Director of Mines and Geology and will obtain the Environmental Clearance, „Consent to Establish‟ and „Consent to Operate‟ for a period of one year only.
39. The number of reaches with mine lease area of less than 05 ha., at a particular area may lead to cluster formation. Instead of number of reaches a single mine lease of having mine lease area up to 25 ha., may be identified and processed. The Director of mines and Geology may declare the areas of sand mining zone and mine leases may grant up to 25 ha. The SEIAA, Andhra Pradesh will examine and appraise the Environmental Clearance applications for sand mining reaches especially the reaches falls at cluster area. The Director of Mines and Geology is required to obtain prior Environmental Clearance for sand mining for quantities more than 5,000 cum. As per G.O Ms. No. 2 dated 06.01.2022, the sand extraction from Ist to IIIrd Order streams shall be permitted from the non-notified areas having estimated sand deposits of more than 5,000 cum. Accordingly, total of 44 numbers of III order streams having sand deposit more than 5,000 cum., have been identified. Even as part of post mining, the approach roads/ramps should be removed and the gravels/boulders should be stacked 27 outside the river bank for further use in other sand reaches. The mining plans of sand reaches shall have detailed information regarding total sand reserves available in respective reach. The mining plans also shall include scientific mine closure plan along with the detailed map of approach roads/ramps to the sand reach. Similarly, the mining plan shall also include detailed mine closure plan. The Director of Mine and Geology also should comply with all the conditions stipulated in the Environmental Clearance and the „Consent for Operation‟.
40. The River Aaraniaar is originating at Sadasivuni Konda in Narayanavanam Mandal and passing through various villages in the Narayanavaram, Nindra, Nagalapuram and Pichatur Mandals in Andhra Pradesh and then enters into Tamil Nadu. The total stretch of Aaraniyaar River is 108 km. In this, the District Authorities had permitted five reaches for excavation of sand after getting the statutory clearances, namely, approved mining plan from Department of Mines and Geology, Andhra Pradesh, Environmental Clearance from SEIAA and „Consent for Operation‟ from Pollution Control Board.
41. In the instant case, the Project proponent has obtained Environmental Clearance for each of the sand reaches i.e. Nandanam 2, B.K. Bedu, Modugulapalem-2, Musalipedu, Kotrakona and Nandanoor, Anagallu, Muthukur, S.S.B. Peta-2, Nandanam-1, Subbanaidu Kadriga-2 and Taha Nagar-1 and there was also amendment to the above Environmental Clearance on 19.12.2020. The said Environmental Clearances granted for different locations was challenged by the applicant, herein, in Appeal Nos. 81 of 2021 28 and 1,2,3 and 4 of 2022. The appeals were disposed of on 01.04.2022 on the ground of limitation granting liberty to the appellants, therein, to move the Tribunal in the event if there is any violation of the Environmental Clearance conditions. Issue nos. 2, 3 and 4
42. The allegation of the applicant in both the O.A. No.152 of 2021 and O.A. No. 53 of 2022 is that there is illegal activity by the project proponents as they have indulged in illegal sand mining in Aarniaar River in the 11 km stretch of the 05 villages in the pleadings. The complaint of the applicant in particular is that the mining is to be done only manually but the project proponents are using heavy machineries thus violating the conditions which have resulted in ecological damage. In this regard, the original Environmental Clearance granted on 01.12.2020 may be usefully adverted to:
"....III. The proposal comes under Category „B2‟. The proposed project falls under Item No. 1(a) of the Schedule of the EIA Notification 2006-(i) Mining of Minerals (<100 Ha of mining lease area in respect of non-coal mine lease). The proposal has been examined and processed in accordance with EIA Notification, 2006 and its amendments thereof; The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) examined the application, in its meeting held on 18.11.2020 and 19.11.2020. The representatives of the project proponent District Sand Officer, and their RQP M/s. PV Satyanarayana have attended the online meeting. The Committee recommended for issue of Environmental Clearance for one year to this proposed sand mining project for the production quantities: Ordinary sand 49,100 m3/annum, duly stipulating a condition that the project proponent shall carryout mining only one meter depth sand from the top manually and no underwater mining is undertaken....."
43. Further in Specific Condition No.II, it is mandated that the project proponent shall carryout mining only one meter depth sand from the top manually and no underwater mining is undertaken. The said allegation is denied by the project proponent stating that 29 there is no usage of heavy machinery for carrying out the sand mining operations and the same is done by using semi-mechanised method i.e. manual method along with back hoe and using the JCB for loading the excavated sand into the tippers which is defined as semi-mechanised method as per the Environmental Clearance. In this regard, the project proponent also invited our attention to the amendment to the Environmental Clearance issued by the SEIAA, Andhra Pradesh dated 19.12.2020. The above document goes to show that original Environmental Clearance for various sand reaches were issued on 01.12.2020 therefore, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh in letter dated 17.12.2020 had requested for an amendment in the Environmental Clearance orders issued to operate through semi- mechanized method for sand mining. The said issue was examined by the SEAC in its meeting dated 18.12.2020 and recommended as follows "The Committee after detailed discussions and deliberations on the Environmental Clearance amendment to the above said sand reaches of sand mining with semi-mechanised method has considered and recommended subject to submission of the following information by the project proponent: (i) The District Survey Report as per the "Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016" issued by MoEF&CC, (ii) the details of the revised mining plan and (iii) the details of replenishment of sand in the sand reach".
44. The SEIAA, Andhra Pradesh in its meeting held on 19.12.2020 examined the proposal and recommendation of SEAC for taking up semi-mechanised mining in place of manual mining. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Chittoor District also had submitted 30 documents, namely, the District Survey Report as per the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and the details of the revised mining plan and the details of replenishment of sand in the sand reach to the SEAC or SEIAA. After considering the said aspect SEIAA amended Clause 2 of the Environment Clearance special conditions as follows "(ii) The project proponent shall carryout mining only one meter depth sand through semi- mechanised/manually and no underground mining is undertaken"
retaining all the other conditions. This amendment Environmental Clearance was not challenged by the applicant.
45. Be that as it may, the S.O 3977(E) dated 14.08.2018 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change had made amendment in the EIA Notification, 2006 which reads as follows:
Area of Lease Category Requirement Require Require Who can Who Authority Authority to (Hectare) of Project of ment of ment of prepare will to monitor EC EIA / EMP/ Public EC EIA/ apply appraise/ compliance DSR Hearing EMP for EC grant EC EC Proposal of Sand Mining and other Minor Mineral Mining on the basis of individual mine lease 0 - 5ha „B2‟ Form -1M, No Yes Project Project DEAC/ DEIAA PFR, DSR Propone Propone DEIAA SEIAA SPCB and nt nt CPCB Approved MoEFCC Mine Plan Agency > 5 ha and < 25 „B2‟ Form -I, PFR, No Yes Project Project SEAC / nominated ha DSR Propone Propone SEIAA by MoEFCC and nt nt Approved Mine Plan and EMP ≥ 25ha and ≤ „B1‟ Form -I, Yes Yes Project Project SEAC / 100ha PFR, DSR Propone Propone SEIAA and Approved nt nt Mine Plan and EIA and EMP > 100 ha „A‟ Form -I, PFR, Yes Yes Project Project EAC/ DSR Propone Propone MoEFCC and Approved nt nt Mine Plan and EIA and EMP EC Proposal of Sand Mining and other Minor Mineral Mining in cluster situation Cluster „B2‟ Form -1M, No Yes State, Project DEAC/ DEIAA area of PFR, DSR State Propone DEIAA/ SEIAA SPCB mine and Approved Agency, nt CPCB leases Mine Plan Group of MoEFCC up to 5 Project Agency ha Proponent nominated s, Project by MoEFCC Proponent 31 Cluster „B2‟ Form -I, PFR, No Yes State, Project DEAC/ area of DSR State Propone DEIAA/ Mine and Approved Agency, nt leases Mine Plan and Group of > 5 ha and one EMP for Project < 25 ha all leases in Proponent with no the Cluster s, Project individual Proponent lease > 5 ha Cluster „B2‟ Form -I, PFR, No Yes State, Project SEAC/ area of DSR State Propone SEIAA Mine and Approved Agency, nt leases Mine Plan and Group of > 5 ha and one EMP for Project < 25 ha all leases in Proponent with any the Cluster s, Project individual Proponent lease > 5 ha Area of Lease Category Requirement Require Require Who can Who Authority Authority to (Hectare) of Project of ment of ment of prepare will to monitor EC EIA / EMP/ Pub EC EIA/ apply appraise/ compliance DSR lic EMP for EC grant EC Hea ring EC Proposal of Sand Mining and other Minor Mineral Mining on the basis of individual mine lease 0 - 5ha „B2‟ Form -1M, No Yes Project Project DEAC/ DEIAA PFR, DSR Propone Propone DEIAA SEIAA SPCB and nt nt CPCB Approved MoEFCC Mine Plan Agency > 5 ha and < 25 „B2‟ Form -I, PFR, No Yes Project Project SEAC / nominated ha DSR Propone Propone SEIAA by MoEFCC and nt nt Approved Mine Plan and EMP ≥ 25ha and ≤ „B1‟ Form -I, Yes Yes Project Project SEAC / 100ha PFR, DSR Propone Propone SEIAA and Approved nt nt Mine Plan and EIA and EMP > 100 ha „A‟ Form -I, PFR, Yes Yes Project Project EAC/ DSR Propone Propone MoEFCC and Approved nt nt Mine Plan and EIA and EMP EC Proposal of Sand Mining and other Minor Mineral Mining in cluster situation Cluster „B2‟ Form -1M, No Yes State, Project DEAC/ DEIAA area of PFR, DSR State Propone DEIAA/ SEIAA SPCB mine and Approved Agency, nt CPCB leases Mine Plan Group of MoEFCC up to 5 Project Agency ha Proponent nominated s, Project by MoEFCC Proponent Cluster „B2‟ Form -I, PFR, No Yes State, Project DEAC/ area of DSR State Propone DEIAA/ Mine and Approved Agency, nt leases Mine Plan and Group of > 5 ha and one EMP for Project < 25 ha all leases in Proponent with no the Cluster s, Project individual Proponent lease > 5 ha Cluster „B2‟ Form -I, PFR, No Yes State, Project SEAC/ area of DSR State Propone SEIAA Mine and Approved Agency, nt leases Mine Plan and Group of > 5 ha and one EMP for Project < 25 ha all leases in Proponent with any the Cluster s, Project individual Proponent lease > 5 ha 32
46. Earlier on 24.12.2013 an office memorandum was issued by the MoEF&CC prescribing the guidelines for consideration of proposals for grant of Environmental Clearance and its amendments regarding categorization of „B‟ projects/activities into category „B1‟ and „B2‟. As per the said OM, category „B‟ projects prescribed under EIA Notification, 2006 will be further categorised into category „B1‟ and „B2‟ except for township and area development projects for which the MoEF&CC shall issue appropriate guidelines from time to time, provision under 7.1 stage-I screening of the notification referred. The project categorised as „B1‟ will require EIA report for appraisal and to undergo public consultation process. Projects categorised as „B2‟ will be appraised based on the application in Form-I accompanied with the pre-feasibility report and any other documents.
47. The said notification specifically deals with river sand mining "no river sand mining project with mine lease area less than 05 ha., may be considered for granting Environmental Clearance. The river sand mining project with mining lease area more than 05 ha., but less than 25 ha., will be categorised as „B2‟". In addition to the requirement of the documents, the above projects will be considered subject to the following stipulations (i) the mining activities shall be done manually, (ii) the depth of the mining shall be restricted to 03 meters/water level whichever is less for carrying out mining in proximity to any bridge and/ or any embankment, appropriate safety zone shall be worked out on case to case bases to the satisfaction of SEIAA/SEAC taking into account the structural parameters, locational aspects floor rate etc. 33 and no mining shall be carried out in the safety zone so worked out, (iii) no in stream mining shall be allowed.
48. The above OM and the statutory order 3977(E) while allowing sand mining which is less than 05 ha., to be categorised as „ B2‟ category requires a Form-IM, pre-feasibility report, District Survey Report and approved mining plan. While public hearing is dispensed with, requirement of Environmental Clearance is made mandatory based on the EIA or EMP to be prepared by the project proponent. However, the OM dated 24.12.2013 which is guideline for consideration of proposal for grant of Environmental Clearance categorically states that the mining activity shall be done manually for „B2‟ category. In such circumstances, whether the SEIAA can grant the amendment in contradiction to the conditions stipulated in the guidelines, if the answer is in the negative, then the amendment permitting the project proponent to use semi- mechanised method is without any authority and any act done by the project proponent pursuant to the same also would be illegal.
49. The Joint Committee appointed by this Tribunal had inspected the site on 12.10.2021 (i) to find out the present status and also the nature of work being done in the area, (ii) to ascertain whether illegal mining is taking place in the guise of desilting or dredging,
(iii) the quantity of sand mined and the quantity of sand transported to the sand yards and (iv) also to assess the environmental compensation for any violations. So far as the Nandanam-1 is concerned, the area permitted for sand mining is 4.910 ha. It is pointed out that there is a typographical error in the mining plan, Environmental Clearance and „Consent to Operate‟, 34 however, the Department of Mines and Geology has not approached SEIAA, Andhra Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board for correction of the same. The permitted quantity was 73,650 tonnes whereas as on 30.06.2021 the sand excavated is within the permitted quantity mentioned in the Environmental Clearance and „„Consent for Operation‟. The operations were stopped during 30.06.2021. Regarding the Nandanam-2 the area permitted was 4.75 ha., permitted quantity was 71,250 tonnes and the excavated quantity by APMDC is 66,667 tones. Therefore the sand excavated is within the permitted quantity mentioned in the Environmental Clearance and „„Consent for Operation‟ here also the operation stopped during 30.06.2021. In the B.K. Bedu Village also the permitted quantity was 73,800 tonnes and the excavated quantity was only 4,488 tones and there is balance quantity available for excavation. In Subbaiah Naidu Kandriga the entire permitted quantity of 73,200 metric tonnes was excavated by the APMDC and it was stopped during 10.02.2021. In S.S. B. Peta-2 the area permitted for sand mining was 4.80 ha., and permitted quantity was 72,000 metric tonnes out of which 20,911 metric tonnes was excavated by the APMDC and 49,800 tonnes by the project proponent till 30.09.2021. The sand extraction was carried out beyond the boundaries. The aerial distance between S.S.B. Peta-2 and Surutupalle is around 340 metres and the entire areas between these two reaches are mined. Under such circumstances, it has to be treated as a single reach of larger area and accordingly permission ought to have been obtained.
50. Besides the above there are no CCTV cameras in the reach, no proper records regarding the quantity of sand extracted, the 35 registers were also not available on the reach and the quantity of sand excavated and quantity of sand dispatched, the particulars about the type of vehicles and the registration numbers used per day for sand transportation, there are no weigh bridges at the reach area. Above all the mining plan does not include any scientific mine closure plan and approach roads/ramps to the sand reach are not shown.
51. Earlier, there was a Joint Committee constituted in O.A. No. 187 of 2021 to look into the question as to whether the project proponents have valid documents, valid approvals and licenses and whether any excess mining has been done and penalty to be imposed. The 13 districts mentioned in O.A. No. 187 of 2021 and the sand reaches being operated in the State of Andhra Pradesh was mentioned in the report. In three districts, namely, Vijayanagaram, Visakhapatnam and Prakasham districts, there are no sand reaches available. The Committee had observed that most of the sand reaches in the State of Andhra Pradesh are inundated by flood water and very few reaches are in working condition. The Committee had specifically observed that sand replenishment studies in respect of district survey reports were not prepared in a scientific manner considering all the parameters by a competent person or authority. The mining plan of sand reaches does not have detailed information regarding the total sand reserve available in respective reach, the mining plan also does not include the scientific mine closure plan and approach road/ramp to the sand reach. Few of the sand reaches are located at inter-State and inter-district boundaries are falling under the cluster category i.e., 36 less than 500 meters distance between the two reaches which require prior public hearing for grant of Environmental Clearance.
52. The Joint Committee also had mentioned the non-compliance of the Environmental Clearance conditions by the project proponent which are as follows:
(i) Assistant Director, Mines and Geology is not submitting the six monthly compliance report to the MoEF&CC.
(Violation of General Condition No. iii- The half-yearly compliance reports in respect of the terms and conditions stipulated in this order & monitoring reports shall be uploaded in the website of the project periodically. It shall simultaneously be submitted in hard and soft copies to the SEIAA, A.P, District Collector and Ministry‟s Regional Office, Chennai on 1 st June and 1st December of each calendar year.)
(ii) Assistant Director, Mines and Geology has not allocated funds for implementation of cooperate social responsibility activities as committed.
(Violation of Specific Condition No. III- The project proponent shall allocate sufficient funds for implementation of CSR activities as committed by the representative along with the EMP).
(iii) It is observed that at few reaches the river flow pattern is being disturbed by the ramp constructed for transportation of the sand.
(Violation of Specific Condition No. VII- It shall be ensured that sand mining does not in any way disturb the flow pattern of the river water).
(iv) The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology does not have a separate environmental management cell with the suitable qualified persons to implement various environmental protection measures.
(v) Plantation has not been done on both sides of the approach path between the bund of the river and the main road. (Violation of Specific Condition No. XXII- Plantation shall be undertaken on either sides of the approach Katcha path (through which the vehicles ply between the bund of the river and the main road by the proponent at his cost).
37
(vi) The air ambient quality is not being monitored, (Violation of Specific Condition No. XXIII- The proponent shall take appropriate measures to ensure that the GLC shall comply with the revised NAAQ norms notified by MoEF&CC, GOI on 16.11.2009).
(vii) The ground water levels are also not being monitored in and around the mine lease areas.
(Violation of Specific Conditions No. XXIV and XXV- Hydro geological studies in the mine lease area to be carried out by the Ground Water Department and Regular monitoring of Ground Water levels shall be carried out in and around the mine lease area to assess the quality of the ground water ).
(viii) The expenditure statement regarding the environmental protection measures are not being done.
(ix) The sand replenishment studies in respective District Survey Reports (DSR) were not prepared in a scientific manner considering all the technical parameters by a competent person/authority.
(x) The mining plans of sand reaches do not have detailed information regarding total sand reserves available in respective reach.
(xi) The mining plans do not include scientific mine closure plan and approach road/ramps to the sand reach.
53. The Joint Committee had further observed that though the State of Andhra Pradesh had obtained the Environmental Clearance and „„Consent for Operation‟ for the sand reaches which are in operations, the sand is being extracted at a few III order stream for quantities below 5,000 cum., for government work and local use with the permission of the District Collector at various districts without obtaining prior Environmental Clearance and „Consent for Operation‟. It has also been observed that a few sand reaches located at interstate and inter district boundaries fall under cluster category (distance between two reaches is below 500 meters) and requires prior public hearing for grant of Environmental Clearance 38 (B1 category) sand mining on river beds in area less than 05 ha., The extent in all the segments is less than 05 ha., and there is no discussion about the size of the cluster in the Environmental Clearance.
54. During the visit of the Joint Committee most of the sand reaches were not reachable due to inundation by flood water and the operational violations could not be identified. However, it has opined that by verifying the records there are no violation of the conditions imposed either in the Environmental Clearance or „Consent for Operation‟. The next main violation observed by the Joint Committee is the indiscriminate and unscientific sand mining carried out against the directions issued by the Tribunal in several cases. The Joint Committee has specifically observed that the expired/exhausted/earlier operated reaches the gravel/boulder used for construction of roads and ramps were left in unscientific manner causing obstruction of the river flow during flood season. The Joint Committee has found that there are violations as per the records available with the office of Deputy Director, Mines and Geology and M/s Jai Prakash Power Ventures Limited, it has not mentioned about the damages caused for using the heavy machineries when for „B2‟ category sand mining it should be done only manually.
55. Finally the Joint Committee had given the following recommendations:
"6.0 Recommendation of the Joint Committee As per the observations, the following recommendations are made by the Joint Committee:
1. Replenishment study of the sand bearing areas must be prepared in a scientific manner considering all the technical parameters by a 39 competent person/authority. The District Survey Report shall be strengthened by including replenishment study of sand.
2. Operation of number of reaches with mine lease area of less than
05.ha., at a particular area may leads to cluster formation. Instead of number of reaches, a single mine lease of having mine lease area up to 25 ha may be identified and processed.
3. The Director of Mines and Geology Department (DM&G) may declare above areas sand mining zone and mine leases may grant up to 25 ha.
4. The SEIAA, Andhra Pradesh may carefully examine and appraise the EC applications for sand mine reaches especially the reaches falls at cluster area.
5. The DM&G is required to obtain prior EC for sand mining at third order streams for quantities more than 5,000 Cu.m if used for commercial purpose.
6. As a part of post mining, the approach roads/ramps should be removed and the gravel/boulders should be stacked outside the river bank for further use in other sand reaches.
7. The mining plans of sand reaches shall have detailed information regarding total sand reserves available in respective reach.
8. The mining plans shall be included scientific mine closure plan along with detailed map of approach roads/ramps to the sand reach.
9. The mining plan shall include detailed mine closure plan.
10. The mining plan shall include the plates/sketches, as produced for other minor minerals.
11. Financial Assurance for the mine closure shall be furnished.
12. The DM&G must comply all the conditions stipulated in Environmental Clearances and Consent for Operation."
56. Time and again this Tribunal has emphasised the importance of scientific and regulated sand mining especially in river beds. In O.A. No. 360 of 2015 and connected cases this Tribunal has clearly observed the likely adverse impacts of unscientific/unregulated sand mining which reads as follows:
"15. It is undisputed that there is huge degradation of environment on account of unregulated sand mining remains which is otherwise lucrative activity. It poses threat to bio-diversity, could destroy riverine vegetation, cause erosion, pollute water sources, badly affecting riparian ecology, damaging ecosystem of rivers, safety of bridges, weakening of riverbeds, destruction of natural habitats of organisms living on the riverbeds, affects fish breeding and migration, spell disaster for the conservation bird 15 species, increase saline water in the rivers. It has direct impact on the physical habitat characteristics of the rivers such as bed elevation, substrate composition and stability, in-stream roughness elements, depth, velocity, turbidity, sediment transport, stream discharge and temperature. Increase in demand of sand has placed immense pressure in the supply of sand resource and mining activities were going on illegally as well as legally without requisite restrictions......"
From the above, it is very clear that lack of detailed site specific environmental impact studies and lack of proper planning will result in unscientific sand mining which will disturb the riverine ecosystem.
40
57. The Environmental Clearances granted and the subsequent amendments issued which are listed below have been examined:
Table - 1 Sl. Name of the Date of EC Date of EC Date of Remarks No. sand reach applied issued Amended EC
1. Nandanam-1 10.11.2020 01.12.2020 19.12.2020 Representation
2. Nandanam-2 10.11.2020 01.12.2020 19.12.2020 by AD of Mines
3. B.K. Bedu 08.11.2020 01.12.2020 19.12.2020 and Geology was
4. Subbanaidu 11.11.2020 01.12.2020 19.12.2020 sent on Kandriga-2 17.12.2020 for
5. Modugulapalem- --- 01.12.2020 19.12.2020 amendment.
2 SEAC Meeting
6. Musalipedu ---- 01.12.2020 19.12.2020 held on
7. Kotrakona and --- 01.12.2020 19.12.2020 18.12.2020 and Nandanoor SEIAA meeting
8. Anagallu ---- 01.12.2020 19.12.2020 held on
9. Muthukur --- 01.12.2020 19.12.2020 19.12.2020.
10. Taha Nagar-1 --- 01.12.2020 19.12.2020
11. Nandanam-3 05.04.2022 21.04.2022 NA
12. Nandanam-4 05.04.2022 03.05.2022 NA All ECs were
13. Nandanam-5 05.04.2022 21.04.2022 NA issued permitting
14. B.K. Bedu-1 05.04.2022 03.05.2022 NA semi-mechanised
15. SSB Peta-3 05.04.2022 21.04.2022 NA mining except S.
16. SSB Peta-4 05.04.2022 21.04.2022 NA No. 18 which
17. S.N. Kandriga, 25.11.2021 24.12.2021 NA was issued Karani-2 permitting
18. SSB Peta-2 28.11.2020 19.12.2020 NA manual mining.
In respect of Environmental Clearances cited in Sl. No. 1 to 10 granted on 01.12.2020, an application was made by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology on 17.12.2020 for amendment of Environmental Clearance to permit semi-mechanised method for sand mining. The matter was placed on the very next day i.e. on 18.12.2020, before SEAC and the issue was examined by SEAC and the same was recommended to SEIAA subject to submission of the following information from project proponent:
(i) The District Survey Report as per the "Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016" issued by MoEF&CC.
(ii) The details of the revised mining plan and
(iii) The details of replenishment of sand in the sand reach.
The issue was examined by SEIAA in its meeting held on 19.12.2020, agreed with the recommendation of SEAC with certain 41 conditions. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Chittoor through his letter dated 19.12.2020 submitted the documents sought by SEAC/SEIAA. On 19.12.2020 SEAC convened its 156th meeting and submitted its recommendation to the SEIAA, Andhra Pradesh for granting the amendment sought and the very same day SEIAA has convened its meeting, considered the proposal and issued its proceedings permitting the same. In respect of Environmental Clearances listed in Sl. Nos. 11 to 17, the Environmental Clearances were granted mostly within 20 days from date of application with permission for semi-mechanised mining, though Environmental Clearance was granted under „B2‟ category. With regard to Sl. No. 18, the Environmental Clearance was granted under „B2‟ category with permission for manual mining only.
58. The importance of appraisal by the SEAC prior to the grant of Environmental Clearance has been emphasised in several cases by National Green Tribunal and the Hon‟ble High Courts. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Bengaluru Development Authority Vs. Mr. Sudhakar Hedge and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2566 of 2019 held that appraisal by the SEAC being structured and defined by the EIA Notification, 2006, the SEAC is required to conduct a detailed scrutiny of the application and other documents submitted by the applicant for the grant of Environmental Clearance. It was also held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that:
".....72. The reasons furnished by the SEAC must be assessed with reference to the norm that it is required to submit reasons for its recommendation. The analysis by the SEAC is, to say the least, both perfunctory and fails to disclose the reasons upon which it recommended to the SEIAA the grant of EC for the PRR project. The SEAC proceeds merely on the reply furnished by the appellant to the queries raised by the SEAC at its 115th meeting dated 11-12 August, 2014. In this view, the procedure followed by the SEAC suffers from a non application of mind.42
73. The SEAC is under an obligation to record the specific reasons upon which it recommends the grant of an EC. The requirement that the SEAC must record reasons, besides being mandatory under the 2006 Notification, is of significance for two reasons: (i) The SEAC makes a recommendation to the SEIAA in terms of the 2006 Notification. The regulatory authority has to consider the recommendation and convey its decision to the project proponent. The regulatory authority, as para 8(ii) of the 2006 Notification provides18, shall normally accept the recommendations of the EAC. Thus, the role of the SEAC in the grant of the EC for a proposed project is crucial; and (ii) The grant of an EC is subject to an appeal before the NGT under Section 16 of the NGT Act 2010. The reasons furnished by the SEAC constitute the link upon which the SEIAA either grants or rejects the EC. The reasons form the material which will be considered by the NGT when it considers a challenge to the grant of an EC.
.......
76. The SEAC, as an expert body, must speak in the manner of an expert. Its remit is to apply itself to every relevant aspect of the project bearing upon the environment and scrutinise the document submitted to it. The SEAC is duty bound to analyse the EIA report. Apart from its failure to repudiate a process conducted beyond the prescribed time period stipulated by the MoEF-CC, the SEAC failed to apply its mind to the abject failure of the appellant in conducting the EIA process leading upto the submission of the EIA report for the grant of EC. The SEAC is not required to accept either the EIA report or any clarification sent to it by the project proponent. In the absence of cogent reasons by the SEAC for the recommendation of the grant of EC, the process by its very nature, together with the outcome, stands vitiated."
59. From the above, it is clear that SEAC is under an obligation to record the specific reasons upon which it recommended the grant of Environmental Clearance and the reasons furnished by the SEAC constitute the link upon which the SEIAA either grants or rejects the Environmental Clearance. In the instant case, in the first instance, SEAC makes a recommendation to SEIAA stating that the request for semi-mechanised method of sand mining may be subject to submission of some information. The reports are said to have been furnished by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology on the very next day and it was examined on the same day by the SEAC as well as SEIAA which clearly reveals that the said meetings have been convened only for the sake of record and without any analysis of the said reports, recommendation was made by SEAC and amendments were approved by SEIAA on 19.12.2020. We fail to understand how in respect of Environmental 43 Clearances listed in Sl. No. 1 to 10 within a matter of three days i.e. between 17th December, 2020 to 19th December, 2020 notices were sent for the meetings of SEAC and SEIAA and how the agenda papers were circulated among the members which normally requires a notice period of at least a weeks‟ time for each of the said meetings to facilitate scrutiny of the relevant documents circulated for offering their recommendations/decision making. In the instant case, it is evident that all the standard procedures involved in convening the meetings, circulation of papers in advance were all given a goby and we are constrained to infer that the said meetings were convened only for granting the amendment sought without any scrutiny of the records called for and without any application of mind and in violation of the guidelines to be followed under „B2‟ category as per the Office Memorandum No.J-13012/12/2013-IA-II(I) dated 24.12.2013 issued by MoEF&CC as well as the clause 19 of standard environment conditions for sand mining of Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 (brought out by MoEF&CC) which clearly states:
"Depending upon the location, thickness of sand, deposition, agricultural land/Riverbed, the method of mining may be manual, semi-mechanised or mechanised: however, manual method of mining shall be preferred over any other method."
Even in respect of proposals listed in Sl. No. 11 to 17 the time taken for the issuance of the Environmental Clarence from the date of submission ranges from 16 to 30 days. Within this particular period the meetings of SEAC and SEIAA were held. Perusal of the terms and conditions of the Environmental Clearances reveal that the basis on which SEAC has made a recommendation under „B2‟ Category is not spelt out. Moreover the specific conditions (ii) and 44
(xi) [In Sl. No. 11 to 16 and conditions (ii) and (xiii) in Sl. No. 17] imposed in the Environmental Clearance are as follows:
"(ii) The project proponent shall carryout mining only one meter depth sand from the top Semi-mechanized mining method and no underwater mining is undertaken.
(xi) The proponent shall carry mining by scrupulously following conditions stipulated for river sand mining in MOEF O.M. No. J-
13012/12/2013-IA-II(I) dated 24.12.2013 and in A.P. WALTA Rules, 2004. The mining plan shall get modified to this extent." As per MoEF O.M. No. J-13012/12/2013-IA-II(I) dated 24.12.2013, the following condition interalia is imposed i.e., "in respect of „B2‟ Category mining is to be done manually". So the permission granted under specific condition (ii) and (xi) are contrary to each other. Since as per the above referred O.M under „B2‟ category only manual mining is permitted. This shows that besides non- conformity to the guidelines enforced, there is non-application of mind while imposing specific conditions.
60. It is also to be noted that though the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines allows usage of semi-mechanised and mechanised mining, it ought to be permitted only depending upon the location, thickness of sand, deposition and nature of land, which requires detailed examination for each site. Such an examination is possible only if a detailed Sand Replenishment Study and Environmental Impact Assessment Study are undertaken and is subject to public hearing to ensure transparency. In the instant case, when considering the amendment, SEAC/SEIAA before permitting semi-mechanized mining ought to have sought a detailed EIA study and consider the Environmental Clearance under „B1‟ Category which alone would have fulfilled the conditions of the Sustainable Sand Mining 45 Management Guidelines, 2016. Under „B2‟ category neither an EIA study nor a public hearing is envisaged, as a result only manual mining is permitted. This aspect was completely ignored by SEAC and SEIAA and they were too eager to grant the amendment sought by fast tracking the proposal and bypassing well established procedures of scrutiny and analysis of all relevant documents.
61. So far as the instant cases are concerned, there are violation of Environmental Clearance conditions as „B2‟ category as they cannot be permitted to use any machine be it mechanised or semi- mechanised. Mandatorily, it has to be done only manually. We are at a loss to understand as to how the SEIAA has amended the Environmental Clearance given earlier without adverting to its own guidelines for „B2‟categories. No doubt there is no specific challenge to the Environmental Clearance granted but amendment given by SEIAA without adverting to its own guidelines cannot be taken advantage of by the project proponent. In this regard, we regret to state that the authority who is the rule maker has deliberately omitted to follow the same detrimental to environment.
62. To sum up, (i) Sand Replenishment studies were not carried out scientifically as stipulated in the guidelines in vogue, (ii) SEIAA without application of mind, has accorded permission for engagement of machinery in gross violation of guidelines in force instead of directing the PP to seek fresh EC under B1 category which would have necessitated an EIA, Public Consultation and other required processes. The permission granted for semi- 46 mechanised mining is in gross violation of the existing guidelines and (iii) established procedures of notice period, circulation of agenda notes in advance were all given a go by, by SEIAA.
63. We deprecate the conduct of the SEAC and SEIAA members who have consented for the amendment and granted Environmental Clearances and also hold that the Irrigation Department has failed in discharge of its responsibility of protecting the riverine ecosystems by consenting for segmentation of the sand mining in small pockets which paved the way for SEIAA to consider the Projects as B2 category. The Principle of Public Trust Doctrine was a casualty due to the conduct of the government agencies.
64. It has also been noticed that it has become a common practise for the Irrigation departments in different States to permit sand mining in rivers in stretches less than 25 hectares with impunity oblivious of the need to protect the riverine ecosystems which can be possible only if sand replenishment studies and detailed environmental impact assessment are undertaken for the entire river basin, prior to mining. We fail to understand why the Irrigation department and SEIAA are not insisting on such studies to be undertaken on the rivers, streams and Lakes. It is also noted that in the garb of sand mining in less than 25 hectares the State Government is splitting the river / lake /water bodies artificially only to secure EC under B2 category to escape the rigours of critical scrutiny which negates the very objective of EIA notification, Principles of Public Trust Doctrine and Principles of Sustainable Development. One can understand the need for B2 categorisation to cater to the needs of areas which are small where 47 mining, be it sand or mineral, are to be permitted. However, segmentation of rivers and water bodies which are more than 25 hectares is not what could be envisaged by the law makers, when the intention is to promote sustainable development. Unscientific mining on riverine and wetland ecosystem including manmade water bodies can spell disaster and have long term consequences for the riverine/lake ecosystems which in turn impact the very well being of people.
65. Time and again, cutting across States, it is noted by this Tribunal that the provisions of B2 are being misused by the State Agencies to undertake sand mining/quarrying to avoid the prescribed but time taking scientific studies for short term gains at the cost of environmental interests. Such an approach only belittles the faith reposed by Ministry of EF& CC in the State Agencies, since most of the amendments are being carried out based on the representations received from the State Agencies. Therefore we direct the MOEF&CC to re-examine the categorisation of B1 and B2 especially relating to Sand Mining.
66. In the conspectus of the above facts, the applications are disposed of in the following terms:
(i) The amendment granted to the Environmental Clearance in Sl.
No. 1 to 10, Table-1 permitting semi-mechanised mining under „B2‟ Category and all Environmental Clearances under „B2‟ Category permitting semi-mechanised sand mining i.e. Sl. No. 11 to 18 are declared to be illegal and set aside as they are violative of the guidelines issued for „B2‟Category and are 48 also in violation of Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016.
(ii) In view of the above, the operations should be stopped forthwith and the project proponents may be directed by SEIAA to obtain a fresh Environmental Clearance before proceeding further.
(iii) The MoEF&CC is directed to constitute a committee headed by Head of Integrated Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Vijayawada and a scientist from Southern Regional Office of CPCB to assess the environmental Compensation for mining carried out by the project proponent in violation of the original Environmental Clearance as observed by the Joint Committee in O.A. No. 187 of 2021 and also for the amendment of the Environmental Clearance by SEIAA contrary to the guidelines within a period of two months. Thereafter, the CPCB shall recover the environmental compensation so arrived by following due process of law within three months.
(iv) The Secretary to Government, MoEF&CC is directed to enquire into the manner in which amendments were granted to Environmental Clearances listed in Sl. No. 1 to 10 in Table-1, and also how semi-mechanised sand mining in riverbed/lakes was permitted under „B2‟ Category in violation of the guidelines and Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry and recommend appropriate action against the persons concerned.
(v) MoEF&CC is also directed to re-examine categorisation of „B1‟ and „B2‟ categories especially in sand mining and sensitize the SEIAAs of various States.
(vi) SEIAA, Andhra Pradesh is directed to verify all the Environmental Clearances granted for sand mining under „B2‟ 49 Category if permission has been granted for semi-mechanised or mechanised mining and re-examine the proposal either under „B2‟ category (manual mining) or „B1‟ Category (if semi- mechanised or mechanised mining is sought) following the prescribed procedures.
(vii) In view of the violations cited above, an interim compensation of Rs. 18 crores i.e. Rs. 1 Crore for each of the Environmental Clearance issued, is levied and this will be subsumed in the Environmental Compensation to be arrived by the Committee constituted by this Tribunal in point (iii). In case the Environmental Compensation arrived is less than the interim compensation levied by this Tribunal, the interim compensation will become final.
(viii)The above interim compensation is payable by the project proponent to the Central Pollution Control Board within a period of 03 months. Upon payment, the said amount may be defrayed by the Central Pollution Control Board for remediation of sites and restoration of Araniyar riverine/lake ecology including pollution abatement measures.
Sd/-
............................................................J.M. (Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana) Sd/-
.......................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No O.A. No.152/2021(SZ) O.A. No.53/2022(SZ) O.A. No.187/2021(SZ) 23rd March, 2023. (AM) 50