National Green Tribunal
E.Uma, W/O.Ramalinga Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka, Department Of ... on 9 July, 2021
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.12:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 144 of 2017 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF:
E. Uma,
W/o. Ramalinge Gowda
Bankapura Village, Kanthapura Post,
Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District,
Karnataka.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
1) The State of Karnataka,
Department of Forest, Environment, Ecology,
Rep. by its Secretary,
4th Floor, Gate No.2
MS Building, Bangalore - 560 001.
2) The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board,
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
Parisara Bhawan,
No.49, Church Street,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3) The Karnataka State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
7th Floor, MS Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4) The Department of Mines and Geology,
Rep. by its Director,
5th Floor, Khaniji Bhawan,
Race Course Road, Bangalore - 560 001.
5) The Senior Geologist,
The Department of Mines and Geology,
(Minerals Division) - cum - Member Secretary,
The District Stone Crushers Licensing & Regulation Authority,
Vidyanagara, Mandya District - 571 401.
6) The Deputy Commissioner - cum - Chairman,
The District Stone Crushers Licensing & Regulation Authority,
Mandya, Mandya District - 571 401.
Page 1 of 15
7) The Deputy Conservator of Forest & Member,
The District Stone Crushers Licensing & Regulation Authority,
Mandya, Mandya District - 571 401.
8) Sri Maruthi Stone Crusher & Quarry Unit,
Rep. by its Managing Partner,
K.M. Ravi,
S/o. Late. Mariyappa,
Bankapura Village, Kantapura Post, Nagamangala Taluk,
Mandya District, Karnataka.
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Mrs. G.V. Seetha Lekshmi along with Mr. E. Vijay Anand.
For Respondent(s): Ms. Ojas Sivakumar represented Mr. Darpan K.M. for R1, R4 to R7.
Ms. Ojas Sivakumar represented Mr. M.R. Gokulkrishnan for R2.
Mr. Vasanth H.K. for R3.
Mr. R. Gopinath represented M/s. M.C. Gan Law Firm for R8.
Date of Judgment: 09th July, 2021.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Dr. K. SATYAGOPAL, EXPERT MEMBER JUDMGNET
1. The above application has been filed by the applicant alleging that the 8 th respondent herein was running an illegal quarrying and stone crushing unit without any valid license issued under the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 and its Rules, without any valid lease or permission from Mines and Minerals Department, without any Environmental Clearance (EC) and valid consent from the Pollution Control Board, thereby, damaging the Page 2 of 15 environment. The said fact was confirmed by the competent authority by way of reply under the RTI Act. When the applicant suspected the functioning of the 8th respondent unit is illegal one, she made an application under the RTI to the competent authority/5th respondent and by reply dated 30.06.2017, the competent authority had replied to the applicant that the 8 th respondent did not have any licenses/permissions to quarry and to run crushing unit. They also received another reply dated 17.05.2017 wherein, they have furnished the copy of the application filed by the 8 th respondent.
The applicant and others were subject to harassment at the hands of the hooligans appointed by the 8th respondent and cases have been registered more than on one occasion in Nagamangala Police Station, one such crime case was Crime No.199 of 2017 dated 27.06.2017. Under Section 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011, they will have to obtain necessary license from the respective authorities and also they will have to obtain necessary Consent to Operate from the Pollution Control Board as well. Section 6 and 6A of the Act provides the conditions for declaring safe zone and procedure for granting license. On account of the operation of the 8th respondent, serious pollution is being caused in that area. They have not provided any pollution control mechanism to control noise as well as air pollution that is likely to be caused.
2. In order to stop the illegal functioning of stone crushing unit, which was functioning without any statutory approval and without installing any safety measures as mandated under various environmental related acts, the applicant has filed this application seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) Permanently restrain the 8th respondent from in any way operating and functioning the illegal quarry and stone crushing unit in Survey No.34 and 5, Gollarahalli Village, Kantapura Post, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, Karnataka State, which is functioning without and valid licenses under the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Page 3 of 15 Crushers Act, 2011 and its Rules, without any valid consent and Environmental Clearance (EC) from Pollution Control Board and MoEF, without valid permission from the Mines and Minerals Department.
(ii) Direct the respondents 1 to 7 to initiate appropriate steps to close down the 8th respondent's illegal quarrying stone crushing unit functioning at in survey No.34 and 5, Gollarahalli Village, Kantapura Post, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, Karnataka State.
(iii) Direct the respondents 1 to 7 to initiate appropriate action against the 8th respondent.
(iv) Direct the 8th respondent o pay compensation for the environment harm caused by its illegal activities.
(v) And issue such other or orders as may be fit, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
3. The 2nd respondent/Karnataka State Pollution Control Board has filed a reply affidavit contending that as per the Board Office Circular No. KSPCB/BO/SEO-Mines/Circular/2013-14/51/641 dated 12.02.2014, the stone quarrying/blasting activities are not covered under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and also under the consent mechanism. The unit of the 8th respondent was inspected on 25.07.2017 and it was observed that the unit was established and operated without obtaining Form B1/Form C from the District Licensing Authority, Mandya District under the provisions of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 and its Amendment Act, 2013 and without obtaining mandatory consent from the Board. The 8th respondent had also not provided requisite air pollution control measures to control the pollution which are likely to emanate from the Jaw crushers, secondary crushers, vibratory screen and conveyor belts. The 8th respondent was informed not to operate the unit without obtaining clearance in Form B1/Form C from the District Licensing Authority, Mandya District under the provisions of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Page 4 of 15 Crushers Act, 2011 and Amendment Act, 2013 and without obtaining mandatory consent from the Board. So, they prayed for dismissal of the application, after accepting their contentions.
4. The 8th respondent has filed reply affidavit contending that the 8th respondent had started a firm by name Maruthi Stone Crushers with an intention to set up a stone crushing unit in a safe zone identified by the 1 st respondent. They denied the allegation that the applicant is a public spirited person and filed this application on her behalf and also on behalf of the nearby villagers residing and cultivating around the unit. In fact, the applicant is close relative to the respondent and also a former partner with the respondent. They were originally partners in a firm called N.K. Stone Crushers, which was an adjacent land where the 8th respondent proposed to set up a stone crusher. The document produced by the 8th respondent will go to show that he had applied for necessary license to set up stone crusher unit. No document has been filed by the applicant to show that the 8 th respondent was running any crusher unit without obtaining any permission. The photographs produced by the applicant did not relate to their unit. They have not started operation of the unit, but they are only at the construction stage. The Engineering firm which was entrusted with the work of erecting the stone crusher unit commenced work and it is likely to be completed by the end of September, 2017. On 14.08.2017, after inspection, the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Mandya, the Range Forest Officer, Nagamangala Range had sent annexure - R8 (3) report stating that the land where the proposed unit is to be established had no tree cover and it was situated about 1.6 Kms away from the reserve forest and 8.6 Kms away from the outer edge of the Melkote Wildlife circle and forwarded the report to the Deputy Conservator of Forest for further action in this regard. They have no Page 5 of 15 intention to start the unit without obtaining permission and sanction from the authorities. The apprehension of the applicant is that her business is likely to be affected on account of the establishment of new unit by the 8 th respondent. They have not obtained the power supply and that was the reason why the erection works are slowly progressing. There is no bonafides on the part of the applicant in filing this application. It was only a professional rivalry that the application has been filed. So, they prayed for dismissal of the application.
5. The 8th respondent also filed a further reply pursuant to the reply submitted by the 2nd respondent contending that the conclusion arrived at by the 2 nd respondent that at the time when they inspected, they found some stone dust and they are not expected to start functioning without getting necessary permissions is not correct. In fact, all necessary pollution control mechanism will have to be provided there at the time of starting the operation of the unit and it is only in the construction stage. The documents produced by the 8 th respondent will go to show that no M-Sand unit or Stone crushing unit is being operated in the schedule premises and they have not violated any of the laws.
6. The respondents 4 & 5 filed reply statement contending that the 8 th respondent has filed an application on 28.11.2014 for quarry license to run the building stone quarry in Survey No.34, Old Sy. No.5 of Gollarahalli Village in Nagamangala Taluk and also an application dated 28.11.2016 seeking to declare Sy. No.24 Old Sy. No.5 of Gollarahalli Village in Nagamangala Taluk as safer zone to establish a crushing unit under Section 6 (1) of the Karnataka Stone Crushers Regulation Act, 2013. They are patta lands. As per the Karnataka MMRCR 1994 and Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 and NOC were called for and they were received. Page 6 of 15 There was a joint inspection report. Application of the 8th respondent unit were complying with the conditions for grant of building stone quarry license, since they are patta lands and declared the area as safe zone. Form B1 was issued and due notification was issued. The 8th respondent also produced Consent for operation certificate from the Pollution Control Board. The application for license to quarry building stone was processed and No Objection Certificate from the different authorities were received. Environmental Clearance Certificate was also obtained and all the documents produced by the 8th respondent. They are entitled to get necessary permission/license and none of the objections raised by the applicant will go to show that they are not fit for consideration. The 8 th respondent was directed to obtain order from the Deputy Commission, Mandya for using the land for non agricultural purpose. If they produced such document, then necessary permission to run the stone crusher unit and quarry licence would be issued. They denied the allegations that illegal quarrying and running of stone crusher unit against the norms etc. by the 8th respondent. They have produced the necessary documents submitted by the 8th respondent for the purpose of getting necessary license/permission along with their counter statement and prayed for dismissal of the application.
7. As per order dated 13.12.2019, this Tribunal had considered the submission made by the counsel for the applicant and also counsel appearing for the 8 th respondent that they have obtained necessary consent from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Mining Authority and other authorities expect license from the licensing authority namely, local body. He had also submitted that since there was injunction against the 8th respondent restraining from operating the unit, the local authority has not issued the license. But as per order dated 19.09.2017, this Tribunal had clarified that Page 7 of 15 the interim order already passed against the 8th respondent from carrying on quarrying operation stands clarified to the effect that there is no impediment for Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and other statutory authorities to consider the application for consent on merit in accordance with law and in respect of other issues, the interim order stands to continue. It is made clear that clarification applies to all the authorities, not only for the Pollution Control Board but also to the local bodies in respect of applications pending with them and the authorities can pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board was directed to submit the present status and whether the environmental compensation has to be assessed for violation (if any) committed by the 8th respondent also can be considered by the Pollution Control Board and pass appropriate orders in this regard. Thereafter, the matter is being adjourned from time to time.
8. As per order dated 12.04.2021, this Tribunal had commented on the part of the authorities in not filing the reports and thereafter, directed them to submit the respective reports and posted to case to 05.05.2021. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned from time to time either by notification or at the request of the parties.
9. When the matter came up for hearing today through Video Conference, Mrs. G.V. Seetha Lekshmi along with Mr. E. Vijay Anand represented the applicant. Ms. Ojas Sivakumar represented Mr. Darpan K.M. for respondents 1, 4 to 7 and also represented Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan for 2nd respondent, Mr. Vasanth H.K. represented 3rd respondent and Mr. R. Gopinath represented M/s. Gan Law Firm for 8th respondent.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the 8th respondent is operating the unit even without getting any necessary permission and they are doing the work during night time also, which causes Page 8 of 15 nuisance to the others. The question of pollution alleged in the application still continues.
11.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 8th respondent submitted that they had only started the construction work and he had not started the operation of the crusher unit or quarrying operation. Further, now they had obtained all necessary permissions and clearances and whatever conditions imposed by the authorities, will be strictly adhered to by the 8th respondent and they will start operation of the unit only after complying with the direction.
12.The grievance in this application is regarding the alleged illegal operation of the 8th respondent unit which is involved in building stone quarrying as well as crusher unit.
13.According to the applicant, they started functioning without obtaining necessary clearance and license required under the respective laws. It is also seen from the proceeding papers that this Tribunal had restrained the 8 th respondent from operating thee quarrying/stone crusher unit without getting necessary permission from the authorities. Subsequently, this order was clarified that interim order granted will not stand in the way of the authorities considering the applications (if any) filed by the 8th respondent for starting their unit and directed the authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, if all necessary conditions were satisfied.
14.The 3rd respondent/Karnataka State Environment Impact Assessment Authority has filed their reply statement recently wherein, they have stated that the Karnataka State Environment Impact Assessment Authority have not issued any Environmental Clearance (EC) to the project under consideration in this case. But it is seen from the records that Environmental Clearance Page 9 of 15 (EC) was issued by the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority as per annexure - R1, Proceedings No. MSC(DEIAA)EC/10/2018-19 dated 04.06.2018 produced along with the counter statement in favour of the 8th respondent for quarrying building stone in Survey No.34 of Gollarahalli Village, Nagamangala Taluk of Mandya District. They also produced information obtained from the Director of Mines and Geology vide their Proceedings No.DMG/SG(Mines)/NGT/2021-22 dated 23.04.2021 stating that the 8th respondent who was the applicant for issuing mining lease had mined stock nearly 690 MT Minerals without obtaining Form-C, for which, they had been fined and an amount of Rs.2,07,000/- was levied and also served notice with letter dated 07.09.2019.
15.It is also mentioned in the report that the complaint regarding the illegal crusher unit, the unit was inspected on 28.01.2017 and the 8th respondent unit was found illegally mined stock nearly 200 MT of minerals, for which, they were fined for Rs.60,000/- and served with notice.
16.It is also mentioned that since they have illegally operated the unit, they have been served with notice under Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 and they have been asked to give their reply to the same. The District Commissioner had inspected the crusher unit with Revenue Department, Forest Department, Environment Department and Mines and Geology Department along with Police Department and seized an estimated 225 MT minerals stock, for which, fine was levied and notice was served on 25.08.2020, demanding the cause. The 8th respondent vide letter dated 15.02.2021, requested to issue Form - C Licence, for which, they submitted documents obtained from the District Commissioner's Office, Mandya District for land conversion to industrial crusher proposes for an area of 1.35 acre in Sy. No.34 of Nagamangala Taluk in Gollarahalli Village and Consent Page 10 of 15 for Operation was issued by Karnataka State Pollution Control Board as well. It is also informed by the Mines and Geology Department by this letter that the 8th respondent had to pay the earlier fines levied for illegal crusher operation. The 8th respondent had paid Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) vide receipt No.C.R.0421085300116360/07-04-2021 and requested time for payment of remaining fine amount part by part and to issue crusher license Form - C. The 8th respondent also obtained necessary No Objection Certificate from the Revenue and Forest Department and also produced Environmental Clearance (EC) obtained. It is also mentioned that the stone mining license will be issued after the submission of Land Conversion documents. It is also noted that the crusher unit was not operational and no illegal mining was in progress in Sy. No.34 and also no illegal mining activity were observed at Sy. No.5 also.
17.The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board had filed their further affidavit wherein, they have stated that inspection was conducted on the 8th respondent unit on 23.06.2021 along with their District Officials in the disputed site. The Consent for Operation was issued on 15.02.2021 for a period upto 30.09.2028 with condition to obtain Form-C and the crusher shall operate only after obtaining Form-C and provide air pollution control measures as per the affidavit submitted by them. The 8 th respondent has not submitted the compliance of the consent conditions. So, notice was issued on 8th respondent on 31.02.2021 and the unit was inspected on 23.06.2021 to verify the present status and the following things were observed:-
(i) The stone crusher was not operating and no stock of stone boulders and finished graded jelly/stone dust was found.
(ii) The 8th respondent has not provided the remaining air pollution control measures as per affidavit submitted. Page 11 of 15
(iii) The 8th respondent has not obtained electric supply from CHESCOM and is being operated by 2 Nos. of DG set of capacities 320 KVA each.
18.On that basis, Mahazar was prepared. The 8th respondent had submitted a reply to the notice on 25.06.2021, stating that due to COVID-19 pandemic situation, they were facing labour as well as material problems due to lockdown and they could not take up the tasks of covering conveyer belts, wind breaking wall etc. as per the affidavit, but the same will be completed after the receipt of Form - C from the District Stone Crusher Regulation and Licensing Authority, Mandya District.
19.It is seen from the reports submitted that the 8th respondent unit had committed some violations and started functioning without obtaining necessary permission and certain actions had been initiated and fines had been imposed for illegal extraction of minerals. It is also seen from the report of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board that Consent to Operate was granted with certain conditions and also after obtaining necessary affidavit from the 8th respondent undertaking to comply with the conditions imposed and they can start only after filing the compliance report of the conditions imposed by the Pollution Control Board.
20.Further, this Tribunal had already issued an injunction order against the 8th respondent from operating the quarry or crusher unit in the disputed land without obtaining necessary permission/clearance from the authorities. So under such circumstances, we feel that the application can be disposed of with certain directions.
21.So, the application is disposed of as follows:-
Page 12 of 15
(i) The 8th respondent is directed not to operate their quarry or crusher unit without obtaining necessary permission/clearance/license from the authorities as required under the respective statutes.
(ii) The 8th respondent is also directed to comply with all the conditions imposed by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board while granting the Consent to Operate before starting the unit.
(iii) The 8th respondent is also directed to take all necessary precautions for preventing any possible air and noise pollution, even while carrying on their construction activity for establishment of the unit and they can even start the construction work only if they had obtained necessary permission from the respective authorities as per the relevant rules prevailing in the State of Karnataka for this purpose.
(iv) The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board as well as the Mining Authorities are at liberty to take appropriate action against the 8th respondent in accordance with law for any of the violation said to have been committed by them, while starting their activity including recovery of environmental compensation as directed by this Tribunal in several cases of this nature, after providing an opportunity to the 8th respondent by issuing show cause notice, filing objection and giving personal hearing.
Page 13 of 15
(v) The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board as well as the Mining Authorities are also directed to inspect the area in question periodically so as to ascertain as to whether the 8th respondent is violating any of the provisions of the Mining Rules and other rules and operating the unit without obtaining license/permission and if it is found that they are violating any of the provisions, then they are at liberty to take action against the 8th respondent for such violation in accordance with law.
(vi) The Mining Department is also at liberty to consider the application for Form-C License etc. if they had already complied with all the conditions and also paid the fine (if any) imposed for the alleged violation found by them and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(vii) The Karnataka State Environment Impact Assessment Authority is directed to inspect the area in question periodically to ascertain as to whether the conditions imposed by the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Karnataka while granting the Environmental Clearance (EC) are being strictly adhered to by the 8th respondent and if there is any violation found, they are also at liberty to take action against the 8th respondent in accordance with law.
(viii) Considering the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the application. Page 14 of 15
22.The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Karnataka State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Department of Mines and Geology, State of Karnataka for their information and compliance of the direction.
23.With the above observations and directions, this application is disposed of.
Sd/-
...................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) Sd/-
............................E.M. (Dr. K. Satyagopal) O.A. No.144/2017 (SZ), 09th July, 2021. Mn.
Page 15 of 15