National Green Tribunal
Debashis Das Son Of Late Tarini Das Aged ... vs West Bengal Pollution Control Board on 30 May, 2022
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONE BENCH,
KOLKATA
............
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 80/2020/EZ
(I.A. No. 06/2022/EZ, I.A. No. 07/2022/EZ, I.A. No.
24/2022/EZ, I.A. No. 25/2022/EZ, I.A. No. 133/2022/EZ,
I.A. No. 134/2022/EZ, I.A. No. 135/2022/EZ, I.A. No.
136/2022/EZ, I.A. No. 137/2022/EZ, I.A. No.
138/2022/EZ, I.A. No. 157/2022/EZ & I.A.
No.158/2022/EZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Debasish Das,
S/o Late Tarini Das,
R/o Vivekananda Sarani, Rail Vihar Colony,
Asansol, District-Paschim Bardhaman,
Pin - 713325,
....Applicant(s)
Versus
1. West Bengal Pollution Control Board,
Through Member Secretary,
Paribesh Bhavan, 10A, Block-LA, Sector-III,
Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata,
Pin - 700106,
2. The Central Pollution Control Board,
Through Member Secretary,
Paribesh Bhawan, CBD-CUM-Office Complex,
East Arjunnagar, New Delhi,
Pin - 110032,
3. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, W.B.
Through Member Secretary,
Pranisampad Bhaban, 5th Floor, LB-2,
Sector-III, Salt Lake, Kolkata,
Pin - 700106,
1
4. The District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman,
Kanyapur, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman,
Pin - 713305,
5. The Additional District Magistrate cum District Land and
Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman,
Kanyapur, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman,
Pin - 713305,
6. M/s India Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.,
....Respondent(s)
COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT:
Mr. Somnath Roy Chowdhury, Advocate
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS :
Mr. Prithwish Basu, Advocate for R-1,
Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Advocate for R-2,
Ms. Susmita Chatterjee, Adv. for R-3,
Mr. N.C. Bihani, Advocate a/w Mr. Sibojyoti Chakraborty, Advocate
for R-4&5,
Ms. Debanjana Ray Chowdhury, Advocate for R-6,
Ms. Paushali Banerjee, Advocate in I.As.
WITH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 32/2020/EZ
(I.A. No.145/2022/EZ & I.A. No.146/2022/EZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Avik Goswami,
S/o Sanatan Goswami,
R/o Dubey Para Narsingh Badh, Burnpur,
Asansol, District-Paschim Bardhaman,
Pin - 713325,
....Applicant(s)
Versus
2
1. West Bengal Pollution Control Board,
Through Member Secretary,
Paribesh Bhavan, 10A, Block-LA, Sector-III,
Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata,
Pin - 700106,
2. The Central Pollution Control Board,
Through Member Secretary,
Paribesh Bhawan, CBD-CUM-Office Complex,
East Arjunnagar, New Delhi,
Pin - 110032,
3. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, W.B.
Through Member Secretary,
Pranisampad Bhaban, 5th Floor, LB-2,
Sector-III, Salt Lake, Kolkata,
Pin - 700106,
4. The District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman,
Kanyapur, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman,
Pin - 713305,
5. The Additional District Magistrate cum District Land and
Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman,
Kanyapur, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman,
Pin - 713305,
6. Parvez Alam,
Partner, M/s National Traders,
Old Court, Naim Nagar, G.T. Road, Durgapur,
District-Paschim Bardhaman,
Pin - 713303,
7. Laltu Dutta,
Partner, M/s National Traders,
Old Court, Naim Nagar, G.T. Road, Durgapur,
District-Paschim Bardhaman,
Pin - 713303,
3
....Respondent(s)
COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT:
Mr. Somnath Roy Chowdhury, Advocate a/w Ms. Arpita
Chowdhury, Advocate
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS :
Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Advocate for R-1,
Mr. Ashok Prasad, Advocate for R-2,
Ms. Susmita Chatterjee, Adv. for R-3,
Mr. N.C. Bihani, Advocate a/w Mr. Sibojyoti Chakraborty, Advocate
for R-4 & 5,
Mr. Rajarshi Basu, Advocate for R-6 & 7,
JUDGMENT
PRESENT:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA (EXPERT MEMBER) __________________________________________________________________ Reserved On:- 19th May, 2022 Pronounce On:- 30th May, 2022 __________________________________________________________________
1. Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published on the net? Yes
2. Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published in the NGT Reporter? Yes JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
2. These two Original Applications raise common questions of law and fact and, therefore, being taken up together.
3. The Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ has been filed by the Applicant, seeking a direction to the Respondents to declare the operation of extracting or lifting of sand plots/sand ghats 4 mentioned in Table A and Table B as illegal and unlawful and to fix the responsibility on persons carrying on such illegal mining activities in sand blocks as mentioned in the Table A & B. The allegation of the Applicant is that illegal sand mining is being carried on in the river bed of river 'Ajay' within the Blocks, namely, Jamuria and Barbani in the District of Paschim Bardhaman, State of West Bengal.
4. In Original Application No. 32/2022/EZ the Applicant also raised the question of illegal sand mining activity on the river bed and river bank of River 'Ajay' at Parulbedia and Rosna Mouza Ghat, Village-Rosna and Parulbedia, District-Paschim Bardhaman, West Bengal, being carried on by the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7, Private Respondents. In brief, it has been alleged in paragraph 6 of the Original Application as follows:-
"6. The applicant thereafter came to know as under:-
The said wrongdoers i.e. the respondent nos. 6 and 7 do not have any Mining Lease for extracting minable reserve from the said area;
The respondent nos. 6 and 7 are continuing the mining activity since last couple of years even without having any Environmental Clearance from the competent authority upon compliance of the necessary formalities prescribed under EIA Notification, 2006 (as amended up to date);
The respondent nos. 6 and 7 are carrying out their mining activity without adopting the necessary 5 measures for safeguarding the environment of the river and also to protect the uninterrupted flow of the stream of the river;
The said wrongdoers i.e. the respondent nos. 6 and 7 are excavating sand and exploiting them commercially by selling the said sand by using illegal challans;
The said respondent no. 6 and 7 are extracting sand beyond the permissible depth of the river bed, as prescribed under the relevant policies relating to sand mining activities;
The said wrongdoers i.e. the said respondent no. 6 and 7 has not paid any royalty for extracting the said minor mineral i.e. sand from the aforesaid place of river Ajay;
The said wrongdoers, i.e. the said respondent no. 6 and 7 are carrying their illegal activity of extracting sand from the river bed and river bank of river Ajay by using machineries, like, Excavator and Pokelane.
The said wrongdoers are carrying out their activity of extracting sand without obtaining any necessary consent under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, from the competent authority."
5. At the time of admission, this Tribunal had constituted a Committee in Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ comprising of the following Members:-
6
i. Senior Scientist from the Central Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Kolkata, W.B., ii. Senior Scientist from the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, W.B., and iii. District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman.
6. The Committee was tasked to inspect the site in question and submit its report with regard to the quantity of sand illegally mined, the degradation caused to the environment and loss of revenue caused to the State exchequer. The Committee was also required to examine as to whether any Mining Lease or Environmental Clearance had been granted to the alleged illegal miners and if it is found that there is no mining lease granted or no Environmental Clearance has been granted to the illegal miners, the Committee shall proceed to take steps for criminal prosecution of the alleged offenders. The Committee was further directed to assess the Environmental Compensation on account of illegal sand mining.
7. Accordingly, the Committee has submitted its report (in Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ) which has been filed along with the affidavit of the Respondent No. l, West Bengal Pollution Control Board dated 29.06.2021. The Overall Observations and Recommendations of the Committee read as under:-
9.0 Overall observations:
1. The Committee visited all the 9 sand ghats mentioned in the petition. Out of these 9 (Nine) ghats only at 2 (two) ghats (Parulberiya under Baraboni Block and Shyampur under 7 Jamuria Block as observed at the time of inspection) it has been found that there are no conclusive evidence of sand mining being carried out.
2. As far s remaining 7 (seven) ghats are concerned, conclusive evidence of sand mining being carried out using heavy earth moving equipment and large trucks/dumpers was observed at all the remaining Ghats as reported above with photographs.
3. The natural flow of water in the river has been obstructed by making pathway for heavy earth moving machines and transporting vehicles using boulders as well as solid waste from industries.
4. As far as regulatory compliance status is concerned, it has been found that the EC (Environment Clearance) has been granted for only one block (mouza-Chinchurbill, Jamuria) in the name of M/s India Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. The date of possession is reported to be 16.05.2019 (copy of EC and LoI (letter of intent) are enclosed as Annexure C).
5. At all the other blocks sand mining has been done without EC in gross violation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court order in case of Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Hon'ble NGT order in OA 171/2013.
6. It has been reported by the District Administration that Letter of Intent (LoI) has been issued for 6 blocks (4 blocks at Deshermohan, 1 at Parulberia, 1 at Chinchurbill), the name of the final successful bidders is listed in Annexure G. The bid amount has been deposited by the success bidders too. However, the possession 8 of the lease hold area has not been handed over by the Govt. Authority to 5 blocks excepting the block at Chinchurbill which has been obtained Environmental Clearance. So any mining on these blocks are illegal.
7. As far as the sand mining at block 1283(P), J.L. No. 05, Mouza-Chichurbill, P.S. Jamuria, District: Paschim Bardhman, West Bengal is concerned, it has obtained EC vide memo no.
1172/7/M(i)/EC/2018 dated 07/06/2018.
However, it has not even submitted application for 'Consent to Establish' and 'Consent to Operate and mining is being carried out violating conditions of EC and order of the Hon'ble Courts. Some of them are tabulated below:-
Sl. Conditions as Present Compliance No. laid down in EC Status Status i. Mining should • No such Non begin only after pucca compliance pucca pillar pillar has demarcation the been boundary of the observed. leasehold area • No is erected at the demarcati cost of the lease on of the holder after lease hold certification by area has mining Official been done. and its geo coordinates are made available to the district level committee. (point no.16 of EC) ii. To maintain • Neither Non safety and the river compliance stability of river bank nor banks i.e. 3 the lease meter or 10% of hold area 9 the width of the is river whichever demarcate is more will be d so it intact as as no cannot be mining zone. assured (point no.11 of how much EC) sand to be left intact. Taking into account the width of the river and specified non mining zone on the river bank the mining has been done in non- mining zone in violation of this conditions however the extent the violation can be done only after survey of the mining area clearly demarcating the leased hold area, mineable area, non mineable area, river bank, river bed water level etc. by the authorities concerned. iii. The depth of In many Non mining in river places the compliance bed shall not mining exceed one depth meter or water appears to 10 level which is be much less provided more than 3 that where the m. joint inspection committee de certifies about excessive deposit or over accumulation of mineral in certain reaches requiring channelization, it can go upto 3 meter on defined reaches of the river . (point no.4 of EC) iv. Mining shall be At most of Non done in a layer the place compliance of 1 meter depth the mining to avoid ponding depth is effect and after more than 1 forest layer is m. excavated, the The process will be excavation repeated for has been next layers. done (point no. 9 of without EC) maintaining any layer in violation of the layer concept to prevent ponding effect. v. The EC holder No Non shall keep a compliance compliance correct amount report has of quantity of been mineral mined submitted as out, dispatch reported. from the mines, mode of transport, registration number of 11 vehicle and the mines plan. They should be produced before officers of Central Govt. and State for inspection. (point no.18 of EC) 10.0 Recommendations In view of the above observations and non-
compliances observed, it is recommended that:
10.1 The illegal sand mining activity should be immediately stopped.
10.2 No sand mining to be allowed without proper approval from competent authority and in violation of 'Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guideline 2016' and 'Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for sand Mining 2020' as per rule.
10.3 Mining being carried out violating the conditions of the Environmental Clearance should also be stopped.
10.4 The pathway developed on riverbed should be removed and natural flow of river should be restored.
10.5 It must be ensured by the concerned authorities that the compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (dated 27.02.2012 in Deepak Kumar case) and Hon'ble NGT order (dated 05.08.2013 in application no. 171/2013) are implemented to prevent illegal mining in true spirit and necessary action be taken against the wrong doers.
10.6 The concerned departments (i.e. District Mining Authority, District Land and Land 12 Reforms Authority) should provide necessary information regarding the extent of illegal sand mining activity i.e. mining area, duration of mining, royalty collected & the name of the persons carrying out the activity. This information will be required for calculation of environmental compensation.
10.7 The loss of revenue due to illegal mining will also be recovered from the concerned offenders.
8. From a perusal of the Committee's report, the Tribunal found that the recommendations made were general in nature. However, it was admitted that illegal mining is being carried out by several illegal miners. From the letter dated 28.12.2020 of the B.L. & L.R.O, Barabani, Paschim Bardhaman Annexure-A to the affidavit, it was found that the illegal mining is also being carried out by one M/s National Traders and one Shibasankar Misra was also detected to have piled sand stock beside the river Ajay near Amulia Pump House. This report further mentions that illegal sand transportation by tractors has been detected at Bindudih during various raids. It also mentions that there are newly built roads, built unauthorisedly at Parulberia, Bindudih, Shyampur, Gourbazar at Bindudih by changing the agricultural nature of classification. These observations of the B.L. & L.R.O, Barbani, Paschim Bardhaman, do not find mention in the report of the Committee. Annexure-G of the said Report discloses that M/s National Traders is not in possession of Environmental Clearance and yet he is carrying out the mining 13 activity in the area in question. This means that M/s National Traders was also involved in illegal sand mining. The report further mentions that none of the persons whose names have been mentioned in the chart of 'Annexure-G' are in possession of any Environmental Clearance, Consent to Establish or Consent to Operate except M/s India Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., which is in possession of Environmental Clearance, however, Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate has not been submitted which indicates that it was also carrying on the operation of sand mining illegally.
9. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the West Bengal Pollution Control Board and the Committee to look into these aspects and submit a further detailed and scientific report including assessment of Environmental Compensation. The District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman, was also directed to file his personal affidavit providing necessary information regarding the extent of illegal sand mining activity with reference to:-
(i) Mining area,
(ii) Duration of mining,
(iii) Quantity of mined material,
(iv) Name of the persons carrying out the mining activity, and
(v) Loss of revenue due to illegal sand mining.
This was required for computation of Environmental
Compensation by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board. 14
10. In the Original Application No. 32/2020/EZ also the West Bengal Pollution Control Board has filed the Committee Report on 08.09.2020 and it is stated that during the inspection the sand block and the land adjoining the river were found submerged under water due to heavy monsoon rainfall and river Ajay was in the full spate. Road leading to the mining block was also found submerged and no mining activity was observed during the inspection and excavation machinery as mentioned in the complaint have also not seen. It is, however, stated that a stockpile of sand was observed in an area adjoining the river bank in close proximity of the identified proposed mining block indicating that sand mining activity was being undertaken previously. The Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 had claimed that the sand was purchased from outside for maintenance of the road adjoining the river. No demarcation was noticed as the entire area on the riverbed was submerged. It is further reported that the application submitted by the Respondents after being successful in the E-auction for grant of Environmental Clearance is still pending, as a consequence of an order dated 13.09.2018 in the case of Satendra Pandey Vs. Union of India & Others by which District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) was declared to be incompetent to deal with such matters. No mining lease had been executed for want of Environmental Clearance. Based on the above observations, the remarks of the Committee were as follows:-
"Remarks:15
• As per order dated 03/07/2020 issued by the District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman all types of riverbed sand mining activity had been suspended on & from 06th July 2020 until further Order (Annexure -I).
• As per record available, a Letter of Intent (LoI) with reference to e-auction was issued to the Respondent M/s. National Traders after been declared as successful bidder by the District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman on 15/01/2019 in plot No. 2366(P) in Mouza Parulbedia, J.L. No. 01, P.S. Baraboni over an area of 5.90 acres (2.39 hectares) (Annexure-II).
• Most of the land adjoining the river were found submerged due to recent heavy downpour. No sign of mining activity was observed during inspection. • A stock pile of sand was observed in an area adjacent to the riverbank which the respondents claimed to have purchased from outside for maintenance of road adjoin the river.
• As observed from the topography of the area some parts of the land possibly been eroded and assumed to be lying under water.
• Photographs taken during inspection• have been annexed alongwith (Annexure-III)."
11. Thereafter, in the proceedings held on 02.12.2020 in Original Application No. 32/2020/EZ, the Counsel for the Applicant alleged that the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 were continuing with illegal mining and, therefore, the Tribunal by its order dated 02.12.2020 directed 16 the Committee to verify these aspects and if the allegations are found to be correct, appropriate action be initiated against the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 in accordance with law for such violations. In the meantime, it was also directed that there shall be no illegal sand mining in the area.
12. In the meantime, the Committee was revised and the District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman, along with Central Pollution Control Board were added to the Committee. The Committee submitted its report on 16.01.2021. The Observations and Remarks of the Committee Report read as under:-
Observation The present Committee visited the site. Surprise inspection was conducted. The committee walked down along the kutcha pathway from the Runakura Bridge entrance (lat23.858703, Long-86.985655) upto the entrance of diversion pathway constructed on the river bed (Lat-23.856527, Long86.987981).
During inspection it was observed:
• Although during inspection mining activity was not being carried out, but ample conclusive evidence of illegal sand mining in the river bed being carried out was observed. The inspection team had observed smoke emanating from the working excavator from the Runakura Bridge. But it appears that the perpetrator mining the sand 17 had observed the movement of inspection team and had left the site leaving behind the heavy earth moving equipment.
• One excavator was found on the river bank. It appeared to be used for excavating the sand from the river bed. The modus operandi of illegal sand mining appears to be excavation of sand by excavators and then loading onto trucks for transportation.
• Fresh remarks of excavator and wheel marks of big trucks were observed on the approach road on the river bank and also on the river bed in the site.
Marks of excavator shovel could also be found on the river bed. Even the marks appeared to be fresh and moist which conclusively proves that illegal sand mining is being carried out.
• Pathway is being made on the river bed itself for movement of the earth moving equipment and trucks. Slag dumped on the river bed was observed which is being used for the propose.
• Slag is being dumped on the pathway to create an approach road for trucks and heavy earth moving equipment. The driver of one such truck was 18 questioned to which he replied that he had transported the slag for creation of the approach road.
• The geographical coordinate at the end of diversion pathway developed on the river bed is as follows: Lat23.857992, Long86.986653 This pathway is constructed in addition to the main pathway on river bed.
• Local villagers were met. They informed that the sand mining activity was being carried out on a daily basis using heavy earth moving equipment and large trucks/dumpers.
Remarks:-
1. Surprise inspection was conducted.
2. Conclusive evidence of illegal sand mining being carried out using heavy earth moving equipment and large trucks/dumpers was observed.
3. The illegal sand mining activity should be immediately stopped. The pathway developed on river bed should be removed and natural flow of river should be restored.
4. It should be ensured that no sand mining is allowed without proper approval from competent authority as per the rules.
5. Information regarding the extent of illegal sand mining activity i.e. mining area, duration of mining, royalty collected, and the project proponents carrying out the activity should be provided the district authority and same will be required for calculation of environmental compensation.
6. Photographs taken during inspection are enclosed as annexure.19
13. It is clear from the Committee's Report that illegal mining was going on, however, the Report of the Committee is silent as to what action has been taken against the illegal sand miners and whether any FIR has been lodged or whether any monetary value of the same has been calculated.
14. The West Bengal Pollution Control Board in its affidavit dated 15.01.2021 filed in Original Application No. 32/2020/EZ, has filed an Enquiry and Action Taken Report dated 14.01.2021 (page no. 100 of the paper book), wherein it is stated that amongst the raids and seizures, important are seizure of 36 loaded trucks on 22.09.2020 and realizing fine amount of Rs. 14,80,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Eighty Thousand only) by Land and Land Reforms Department. Also a total of 4 cases have been started, 4 vehicles with loaded sand have been seized, 4 accused have been arrested and charge-sheeted.
15. Further, the Tribunal in its order dated 30.11.2021 has referred to the letter dated 23.09.2021 which has been addressed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Barabani, Paschim Bardhaman, addressed to the Sub-Inspector & I.O., Barabani P.S. (page no.116 of the paper book), wherein it has been mentioned that no Lease Deed or Environmental Clearance was executed in favour of the National Traders though unauthorized stacking of sand by the company was detected in Roshna and as per order of the ADM & DL & LRO, Paschim Bardhaman, huge penalty has been realized.
20
16. The Tribunal has further referred to the another letter dated 22.11.2021 (page no. 113, Annexure R-5 of the paper book), which further shows that an FIR has already been lodged against M/s National Traders by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Barabani on 17.09.2021. It is also mentioned that subsequently names of Parvez Alam Siddiqui and Laltu Dutta, Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 of the Original Application, have also been included in the Criminal Case as partners of M/s National Traders. This letter further mentions that the ADM & DL & LRO has been requested to initiate an enquiry and send an estimate of the amount required for restoration of the river whereupon the Block Development Officer, Barabani, has sent an estimate of Rs. 4,96,199/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand One Hundred Ninety Nine only) being the cost of restoration of natural flow of river.
17. Further, as the controversy involved in the Original Application No. 32/2020/EZ is identical to that of Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ both the cases were connected together vide order of the Tribunal dated 30.11.2021.
18. Mr. Somnath Roy Chowdhury, learned Counsel in both the Original Applications has referred to Table-A in para 5 of the Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ which reads as under:-
SAND BLOCK JL PLOT SAND LATITUDE LONGITUDE GHAT/MOUZA NAME NO NO BLOCK DESHARMOHAN JAMURIA 14 583(P) A, B, C, 23.4659 N 87.06291E D 87.06432E 21 PARULBERIYA BARBANI - 2366(P) B 23.5142N 86.585659E
19. The learned Counsel next referred to Table-B in para 7 of the Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ which also reads as under:-
Sl. Name of the place Block Police Latitude Longitude No. (from where the Name Station sand is being extracted illegally
1. CHINCHURBILL JAMURIA JAMURIA 23.789N 87.099E
2. BAHULI JAMURIA JAMURIA 23.804N 87.082E
3. GOVINDPUR JAMURIA JAMURIA 23.809N 87.072E
4. LODA JAMURIA JAMURIA 23.802N 87.896E
5. SHYAMPUR BARABANI BARABANI 23.807N 87.031E
6. BINDUDIH BARABANI BARABANI 23.826N 87.045E
7. GORABAZAR BARABANI BARABANI 23.838N 87.028E
20. The learned Counsel next referred to the Inspection Report of the Committee (page no. 77 of the paper book), wherein for Deshremohan under Jamuria Block, it is mentioned that in this area there are 4 sand blocks which have been identified but no lease has been issued and no Environmental Clearance has been obtained for any one of them. It is also mentioned that already mining activity has been started illegally on river bed of Ajay and temporary cause ways have been constructed on the riverbed upto the main connecting road to facilitate movement of heavy vehicles.
21. So far as Parulberiya under Barabani Block is concerned, it is mentioned in the Inspection Report that no lease has been issued 22 and no Environmental Clearance has been obtained. During inspection the area was found to be submerged under water.
22. So far as the sand sites in Table-B are concerned, the Report mentions that with regard to Chinchurbill under Jamuria Block, there is one successful bidder for the block who has obtained Environmental Clearance but Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate has not been obtained. No demarcation of lease hold area as well as river bank has been done by the unit but during inspection it has been noticed that mining activity has been started illegally on the river bed of Ajay river and causeway has been constructed.
23. Similarly, for Shyampur under Barboni Block, the Report mentions that no record was available about this sand block. Ample conclusive evidence of illegal sand mining on the river bed being carried out was observed. Causeway was constructed upto the main connecting road from the river bed for movement of heavy vehicles.
24. So far as Govindpur under Jamuria Block is concerned, the Report mentions that during inspection it was observed that no mining and/or any other related activity has been started on the river bed of River Ajay.
25. As regards Loda under Jamuria Block it was observed that there was no record available about this sand block but it has been noticed that already mining activity has been started illegally on the riverbed of Ajay river and the causeway is constructed upto the 23 main connecting road from the river bed for movement of heavy vehicles.
26. For the area of Baguli under Jamuria Block, it was noted that there was no record available about this Block but it has been noticed that already mining activity has been started illegally on the river bed of river Ajay and the causeway is constructed upto the main connecting road from riverbed for movement of heavy vehicles.
27. So far as Bindudih and Gourbazar under Barbani Block is concerned, it was noted that no record was available about this sand Block. Ample conclusive evidence of illegal sand mining on the river bed being carried out was observed at both the places. Causeway is constructed upto the main connecting road from riverbed for movement of heavy vehicles. Sand has been mined out dangerously near the Pumphouse.
28. The learned Counsel then referred to the affidavit dated 17.11.2021 filed by the SEIAA, West Bengal, Respondent No.3, regarding Environmental Compensation filed as Annexure-A & Annexure-B to the affidavit, (page no. 366-367 of the paper book), showing calculation of Environmental Compensation for Jamuria Block and Barabani Block for illegally mined sand. Annexure-A & B are extracted herein below:-
24 25
29. Mr. N. C. Bihani, learned Counsel appearing for State Respondents, Govt. of West Bengal, has referred to the affidavit filed by the SEIAA, West Bengal, Respondent No.3, dated 19.04.2022 wherein in para 5 it has been stated that since no information was provided by the District Authority regarding extent of sand mining in Shyampur, it is not possible for the Committee Members to assess the amount of Environmental Compensation even though a letter was sent by the SEIAA, West Bengal, to the District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman, on 24.11.2021 seeking clarification followed by a reminder dated 24.12.2021. Refuting these allegations Mr. Bihani has referred to the affidavit of the District Magistrate dated 02.05.2022, particularly para 6 thereof wherein it is stated that the District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman, has already replied to the SEIAA, West Bengal, on 24.12.2021 with regard to the Shyampur Block, copy of the letter has been filed as Annexure-R5 (page no. 1283 of the paper book), wherein it has been clarified that M/s RSP Green Development and Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., a firm accredited EIA Consultant, has been appointed to cause survey to find out the damage caused to the environment due to alleged illegal extraction of sand. The report submitted by M/s RSP Green Development and Laboratories PVT.
Ltd. has been filed as Annexure-R10 (page nos. 1290 to 1300 of the paper book) and details of all illegal mining have been dealt with by M/s RSP Green Development and Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. at page no. 1296 of the paper book, stating therein that approximately 26 1500+2000 cubic feet of sand has been illegally extracted per day over a stipulated period of time from an illegally sand extraction area covering 1.36 acres/3.35 hectares. This report also mentions that FIRs have been lodged against several persons.
30. One supplementary affidavit dated 07.05.2022 has been filed on behalf of Bikalpa Traders Pvt. Ltd. in the I.A. No. 25/2022/EZ, stating therein that it has submitted an application seeking consent before the West Bengal Pollution Control Board on 13.09.201 which is still pending and it has pleaded before the State Board on 26.10.2021, 18.11.2021 and 14.12.2021 to dispose of the application of consent but till date same has not been disposed of by the Board. In our opinion, mere filing of an application will not justify any party to commence extraction of sand and such operations of extraction of sand without a valid consent from the State Board would be deemed to be illegal and liable for consequences thereof. However, in case such an application has been filed and is still pending before the State Board, the West Bengal Pollution Control Board is directed to examine the matter and decide the Application of Bikalpa Traders Pvt. Ltd. expeditiously in accordance with law.
31. So far as the computation of Environmental Compensation is concerned, proceedings of the meeting of the Members of the Committee constituted by the Tribunal have been filed as Annexure R-3 to the supplementary affidavit of the Respondent No.4, District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman, dated 18.05.2022, wherein it is 27 stated that the calculation sheet of such computation will be submitted to SEIAA as per the calculations provided by the technical members. The technical members of the Committee, namely, Scientist-D, Regional Director, CPCB, Kolkata and Assistant Environmental Engineer, West Bengal Pollution Control Board and representative of SEIAA, who are the persons having technical expertise to calculate Environmental Compensation and they will have the responsibility to compute Environmental Compensation of the Shyampur Block and submit it to the Committee for its perusal.
32. We, therefore, direct the above Technical Members to compute the Environmental Compensation for the Shyampur Block and submit it to the SEIAA, West Bengal, who, in turn, will examine the computation of Environmental Compensation for Shyampur Block and thereafter take action in accordance with law.
33. I.A. No. 06/2022/EZ & I.A. No. 07/2022/EZ:-
1. This I.A. No. 06/2022/EZ has been filed in the Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ by one Sudheswar Kumar, with a prayer to be impleaded in the array of Respondents.
2. This I.A. 07/2022/EZ has also been filed in the Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ by Sudheswar Kumar, with a prayer to modify the directions given in para 13 of the order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ and suspend the operation of the directions of the District Magistrate and Collector, Paschim Bardhaman, 28 being Memo No. 123/6(6)/2021/VII-5/C dated 07.07.2021 and permit the applicant herein to continue his sand mining activity at Sand Block Barbani/Rasunpur/1679(P)/B located at Plot No. 1673(P) of Mouza-Rasulpur, J.L. No. 16, Police Station-Barboni, District Paschim Bardhaman.
3. We find that this Tribunal by its order dated 30.06.2021 had directed that there shall be a stay on all mining activities in the bank and bed of river 'Ajay' particularly Jamuria and Barboni Blocks, District Paschim Bardhaman till further orders of the Tribunal.
4. In our opinion, since several cases of illegal extraction of sand has been confirmed by the Committee in its report which has also been reproduced herein above, we only provide that the Applicant in the I.A. may apply to the District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman, with all his documents including Lease Deed, Environmental Compensation, Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate and other necessary documents as may be required by the District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman and if such documents are filed with the District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman within 15 days, the District Magistrate shall examine those documents in the light of the Report of the Committee and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Applicant in the I.A., Mr. Sudeshwar Kumar, shall pass appropriate orders on his application in accordance with law.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the I.A. No. 06/2022/EZ and I.A. No. 07/2022/EZ are accordingly disposed of.29
34. I.A. No. 24/2022/EZ & I.A. No. 25/2022/EZ:-
1. This I.A. No. 24/2022/EZ has been filed in the Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ by one Bikalpa Traders Pvt. Ltd, with a prayer to be impleaded in the array of Respondents.
2. This I.A. 25/2022/EZ has also been filed in the Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ by Bikalpa Traders Pvt. Ltd, with a prayer to modify the directions given in para 13 of the order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ and stay the operation of the directions of the District Magistrate and Collector, Paschim Bardhaman, dated 02.07.2021 and permit the applicant herein to continue his sand mining activity at Sand Block Birkulti with respect to sand Block ID: Jamuria/Birkulti/2065/C Plot No. 2065 measuring an area of 7.38 acres.
3. We find that this Tribunal by its order dated 30.06.2021 had directed that there shall be a stay on all mining activities in the bank and bed of river 'Ajay' particularly Jamuria and Barbani Blocks, District Paschim Bardhaman till further orders of the Tribunal.
4. In our opinion, since several cases of illegal extraction of sand has been confirmed by the Committee in its report which has also been reproduced herein above, we only provide that the Applicant in the I.A. may apply to the District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman, with all his documents including Lease Deed, Environmental Compensation, Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate and other necessary documents as may be 30 required by the District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman and if such documents are filed with the District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman within 15 days, the District Magistrate shall examine those documents in the light of the Report of the Committee and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Applicant in the I.A., M/s Bikalpa Traders Pvt. Ltd., shall pass appropriate orders on his application in accordance with law.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the I.A. No. 24/2022/EZ and I.A. No. 25/2022/EZ are accordingly disposed of.
35. I.A. No. 133/2022/EZ & I.A. No. 134/2022/EZ:-
1. This I.A. No. 133/2022/EZ has been filed in the Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ by one M/s Ganesh Nandy, with a prayer to be impleaded in the array of Respondents.
2. This I.A. 134/2022/EZ has also been filed in the Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ by M/s Ganesh Nandy, with a prayer to stay the operation of the directions of the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman, being Memo No. MM/OA80-
2020/566/DL&LRO-PAB/21 dated 17.02.2021 wherein out of the total Environmental Compensation amounting to Rs. 1,99,99,341/-, the Applicant herein is required to deposit a sum of Rs. 33,33,224/- towards Environmental Compensation.
3. We find that this Tribunal by its order dated 30.06.2021 had directed that there shall be a stay on all mining activities in the bank and bed of river 'Ajay' particularly Jamuria and 31 Barbani Blocks, District Paschim Bardhaman till further orders of the Tribunal.
4. In our opinion, since several cases of illegal extraction of sand has been confirmed by the Committee in its report which has also been reproduced herein above, we only provide that the Applicant in the I.A. may apply to the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman, with all his documents including Lease Deed, Environmental Compensation, Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate and other necessary documents as may be required by the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman, and if such documents are filed with the District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman within 15 days, the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman, shall examine those documents in the light of the Report of the Committee and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Applicant in the I.A., M/s Ganesh Nandy, shall pass appropriate orders on his application in accordance with law.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the I.A. No. 133/2022/EZ and I.A. No. 134/2022/EZ are accordingly disposed of.
36. I.A. No. 135/2022/EZ and I.A. No. 136/2022/EZ:-
1. This I.A. No. 135/2022/EZ has been filed in the Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ by one Koilash Mahato, with a prayer to be impleaded in the array of Respondents.32
2. This I.A. 136/2022/EZ has also been filed in the Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ by Koilash Mahato, with a prayer to stay the operation of the directions of the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman, being Memo No. MM/OA80-
2020/2604/DL&LRO-PAB/21 dated 10.12.2021 wherein out of the total Environmental Compensation amounting to Rs. 1,99,99,341/-, the Applicant herein is required to deposit a sum of Rs. 33,33,224/- towards Environmental Compensation.
3. We find that this Tribunal by its order dated 30.06.2021 had directed that there shall be a stay on all mining activities in the bank and bed of river 'Ajay' particularly Jamuria and Barbani Blocks, District Paschim Bardhaman till further orders of the Tribunal.
4. In our opinion, since several cases of illegal extraction of sand has been confirmed by the Committee in its report which has also been reproduced herein above, we only provide that the Applicant in the I.A. may apply to the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman, with all his documents including Lease Deed, Environmental Compensation, Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate and other necessary documents as may be required by the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman and if such documents are filed with the Additional District 33 Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman, within 15 days, the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman, shall examine those documents in the light of the Report of the Committee and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Applicant in the I.A., Koilash Mahato, shall pass appropriate orders on his application in accordance with law.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the I.A. No. 135/2022/EZ and I.A. No. 136/2022/EZ are accordingly disposed of.
37. I.A. No. 137/2022/EZ and I.A. No. 138/2022/EZ:-
1. This I.A. No. 137/2022/EZ has been filed in the Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ by one M/s Debnath Enterprise, with a prayer to be impleaded in the array of Respondents.
2. This I.A. 138/2022/EZ has also been filed in the Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ by M/s Debnath Enterprise, with a prayer to stay the operation of the directions of the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman, being Memo No. MM/OA80-2020/2605/DL&LRO-PAB/21 dated 10.12.2021 wherein out of the total Environmental Compensation amounting to Rs. 1,99,99,341/-, the Applicant herein is required to deposit a sum of Rs. 33,33,224/- towards Environmental Compensation.
3. We find that this Tribunal by its order dated 30.06.2021 had directed that there shall be a stay on all mining activities in 34 the bank and bed of river 'Ajay' particularly Jamuria and Barabani Blocks, District Paschim Brdhaman till further orders of the Tribunal.
4. In our opinion, since several cases of illegal extraction of sand has been confirmed by the Committee in its report which has also been reproduced herein above, we only provide that the Applicant in the I.A. may apply to the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman, with all his documents including Lease Deed, Environmental Compensation, Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate and other necessary documents as may be required by the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman and if such documents are filed with the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman, within 15 days, the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman, shall examine those documents in the light of the Report of the Committee and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Applicant in the I.A., M/s Debnath Enterprise, shall pass appropriate orders on his application in accordance with law.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the I.A. No. 135/2022/EZ and I.A. No. 136/2022/EZ are accordingly disposed of.
38. I.A. No. 157/2022/EZ and I.A. No. 158/2022/EZ:- 35
1. This I.A. No. 157/2022/EZ has been filed in the Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ by one M/s Chandra Enterprise, with a prayer to be impleaded in the array of Respondents.
2. This I.A. 158/2022/EZ has also been filed in the Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ by M/s Chandra Enterprise, with a prayer to modify the directions given in para 13 of the order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ and suspend the operation of the directions District of the Magistrate and Collector, Paschim Bardhaman, being Memo No. 123/1(6)/2021/VII-5/C dated 07.07.2021 and permit the applicant herein to continue his sand mining activity in respect of an area of 8.27 acres (3.35 hectares) in Plot No. 2780(P), Sand Block Jamuria/Semalya/2780(P)/E of Mouza-Semalya, Police Station-Pandaveswar, District Paschim Bardhaman.
3. We find that this Tribunal by its order dated 30.06.2021 had directed that there shall be a stay on all mining activities in the bank and bed of river 'Ajay' particularly Jamuria and Barbani Blocks, District Paschim Bardhaman till further orders of the Tribunal.
4. In our opinion, since several cases of illegal extraction of sand has been confirmed by the Committee in its report which has also been reproduced herein above, we only provide that the Applicant in the I.A. may apply to the District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman, with all his documents including Lease Deed, Environmental Compensation, Consent to Establish and 36 Consent to Operate and other necessary documents as may be required by the District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman and if such documents are filed with the District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman within 15 days, the District Magistrate shall examine those documents in the light of the Report of the Committee and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Applicant in the I.A., M/s Chandra Enterprise, shall pass appropriate orders on his application in accordance with law.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the I.A. No. 157/2022/EZ and I.A. No. 158/2022/EZ are accordingly disposed of.
39. So far as Original Application No. 32/2020/EZ is concerned, we may advert to the Inspection Report of an inspection carried out on 25.11.2020 which has already been reproduced herein above. The Committee has found conclusive evidence of illegal sand mining being carried out by using heavy earth moving equipments and large trucks/dumpers. The report of the Committee being silent with regard to action taken against the illegal sand miners, therefore, the West Bengal Pollution Control Board was required to file a fresh action taken report. In response the said Respondent has referred to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, WZ. Asansol- Durgapur, Enquiry and Action Taken Report dated 14.01.2021 (copy of which has been filed at page no. 100-101 of the paper book), mentioning therein that amongst the raids and seizures, important seizure of 36 loaded trucks on 22.09.2020 and realizing fine of Rs. 14,80,000/- by Land and Reforms Department. Also a 37 total of 4 cases have been started, 4 vehicles with loaded sand have been seized, 4 accused have been arrested and charge-sheeted.
40. The West Bengal Pollution Control Board has also referred to the letter dated 22.11.2021 (page no. 113-114 of the paper book) filed along with the Board's affidavit dated 26.11.2021, which further discloses that FIR has been lodged against M/s National Traders by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Barbani, on 17.09.2021 and that the names of Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 of the Original Application have also been included in the Criminal Case as partners of M/s National Traders. This letter also mentions that the Block Development Officer, Barbani has been requested to initiate an enquiry and submit an estimate of the amount required for restoration of the river whereupon the Block Development Officer, Barbani has sent an estimate of Rs. 4,96,199/- (Four Lakhs Ninety Six Thousands One Hundred Ninety Nine only) being the cost of restoration of the natural flow of water. The relevant extract of the letter of the District Magistrate and Collector, Paschim Bardhaman dated 22.11.2021 is reproduced herein under:-
i) "B.L. & L.R.O. Barabani was requested to lodge F.I.R. against the offenders. Accordingly, an F.I.R.
has been lodged against M/s National Traders by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Barabani on 17.09.2021. Subsequently names of Pervez Alam Siddiqui and laltu Dutta, respondent no. 6 and 7 of the instant O.A., have been included in that case as partners of M/s National Traders by the B.L.&L.R.O. Barabani vide his memo no. 803/BL&LRO/Barabani dt. 23.09.2021 and 914/BL&LRO/Barabani dt. 08.10.2021.
38
ii) Block Development Officer, Barabani was requested vide memo no. O.A. 32/1750/A.D.M & D.L. & L.R.O.- PAB/2021 dated 16/09/2021 to cause an enquiry and send an estimate duly vetted by the appropriate authority of the amount being required for restoration of the river. Block Development Officer, Barabani, sent an estimate of Rs. 4,96,199/- (Rupees Four Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Only Hundred Ninety Nine), duly vetted by the Assistant Engineer Samagra Shiksha Mission, being the cost of restoration of natural flow of river. Accordingly, B.D.O. Barabani has been instructed vide memo no. O.A.32/MM/2320/A.D.M. & D.L. & L.R.O.-
PAB/2021 dated 18/11/21 to take necessary measures for restoration of natural flow of river.
iii) Regarding assessment of environmental compensation, as this office has no enough expertise and competency, the Senior Environment Engineer and In-charge of Asansol Regional Office, WBPCB was requested vide memo no. O.A.32/1749/A.D.M. & D.L. & L.R.O.- PAB/2021 dated-16/09/21, to made necessary arrangement for assessment of environmental compensation and communicate to this end. No reply has been received till date."
41. I.A. No. 145/2022/EZ:-
1. This I.A. has been filed in the Original Application No. 32/2020/EZ by the Respondent No.6, Parvez Alam Siddiqui, praying for recall of the order dated 07.04.2022 passed in Original Application No. 32/2020/EZ and adjourning the final hearing of the Original Application on the ground that the Applicant has filed WPA No. 20788/2021 before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, challenging the validity and legality of the assumption of jurisdiction by the National Green Tribunal.39
2. In the said WPA No. 20788 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, the following grounds have been taken:-
(i) "That the National Green Tribunal has not been vested with powers under the laws to entertain petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.
(ii) That the National Green Tribunal has not been vested with powers under the Laws specified in Schedule-I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to adjudicate matters relating to mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Rules, 1957.
(iii) That there is a clear violation of the principle of Natural Justice."
3. The prayer in the I.A. is for recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 07.04.2022 passed in Original Application No. 32/2020/EZ and adjourn the final hearing of the Original Application till adjudication of FMA/338/2022 by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court.
4. In para 6 of the I.A. it is stated that being aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the solemn order dated 03.01.2022 passed in WPA/20788/2021, an appeal being FMA/338/2022 has been preferred before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta and the same is still pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Division Bench having appropriate determination.
42. A similar I.A. No. 146/2022/EZ has been filed by the Respondent No.7, Mr. Laltu Dutta, disclosing the same facts regarding filing of the Writ Petition in the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court on the same prayer that the Tribunal may recall its order dated 07.04.2022 and adjourn the final hearing of the Original 40 Application No. 32/2022/EZ till final adjudication of FMA/324/2022 by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court.
43. The West Bengal Pollution Control Board in its affidavit dated 26.11.2021 filed in Original Application No. 32/2020/EZ has filed the copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in WPA No. 20690 of 2021. The issue before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the said Writ Petition was with regard to mining activity which is involved in the present case and it was argued that in terms of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change Notification dated 14.09.2006, particularly Schedule-I thereof under Clause 1(1)(1a), Environmental Clearance is not necessary as the Petitioner's LOI is only in respect of 5 hectares of land. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the West Bengal Pollution Control Board before the Hon'ble Single Judge have also been noted. The relevant extract of the order dated 06.01.2022 passed in WPA No. 20690 of 2021 is extracted herein below:-
"It appears from the records of the case in O.A. 32 of 2020 before the NGT that the matter was heard over a long period of time. The WBPCB has conducted an inspection on 9th June, 2020 of all sand mining leases in the area in question i.e., on the banks of the river Ajay River at Dubrajpur in Birbhum District. The petitioner was personally present in course of such inspection. The writ petitioner has admittedly and illegally mined in the area that was subject matter before the NGT.
Applying the Second Proviso of Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, this Court is of the view 41 that the writ petitioner cannot take the plea of having been condemned unheard when he was at all material times aware of the said proceeding occurring before the NGT and the subject matter thereof.
The decision in the case of Sarup Singh (supra) and Harshad C. Modi (supra) have no manner of application in the facts of the case.
The reference to O.A. 80 of 2020/EZ in the order dated December 10, 2021 is therefore a typographical error. Similar and extract orders have also been passed by the NGT in OA 32/2020/EZ which has been suppressed by the petitioner. Various orders passed in OA 32 have been placed before and scrutinized by, this Court. The writ petitioner ought to have been dismissed on the said ground alone.
On the question of the requirement of EC, it appears from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar (Supra), particularly paragraphs 29 thereof that even sand mini ng leases below 5 hectares are required to obtain environmental clearance. Admittedly, the writ petitioner never had any environmental clearance. The decision in Deepak Kumar (Supra), delivered in the year 2016 is subsequent to the notification of the MoEF of the year 2006 referred to by the writ petitioner.
The challenge to locus of the private respondent/applicant is not sustainable. The Tribunal has recorded in the order dated 9th June, 2020 that a substantial question relating to environment has been raised requiring intervention. The requirement of Section 14(1) of the NGT Act, 2010 is therefore fulfilled. Therefore, it cannot be argued that proceeding in the Tribunal was a PIL or could not have been entertained. The decision in the cases of A.R. Antulay (supra) and Balwant Singh (supra) have no manner of application in the instant case.
Given the fact that a sand mining is being continued by the petitioner, albeit after issuance of a Letter of Intent 42 but without any sand mining lease having been executed with the State, is itself a very serious crime.
Having considered the gamut of facts, in the instant case, this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not inclined to interfere with the imposition of penalty passed in OA 32/2020/EZ. This court does not find any serious infirmity in the procedure adopted by the NGT. It is clear before this Court based on the documents handed over by the parties that the petitioner had at all material times notice of the said proceedings. the writ petitioner did not even have a lease executed in his favour by the State. He is a rank trespasser and is guilty of stealing the Natural Resources of the State. The petitioner is just a common criminal convicted by a competent forum.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Mr. Rajarshi Basu, who is led by Mr. Sandip Kumar Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order dictated that his client is desirous of appearing before the NGT and to seek leniency.
The Additional District Magistrate and District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman shall, therefore, not take any coercive measures against the petitioner only until January 10, 2022.
There shall be no order as to costs.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)"
44. In para 6 of the I.A. No. 146/2022/EZ, it is stated that being aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the solemn order dated 06.01.2022 passed in WPA/20690/2021, an appeal being FMA 324/2022 has been preferred before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta and the same is still pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Division Bench having appropriate determination.43
45. We may address the three issues raised in both the I.A. No. 145/2022/EZ and I.A. No. 146/2022/EZ hereinafter:-
46. Issue No.(A):- That the National Green Tribunal has not been vested with powers under the laws to entertain petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation:-
This issue is no longer, res-integra, having been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2021) SCC Online SC 897 being Civil Appeal No. 12122-12123 of 2018 (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Ankita Sinha & Others). Para 35 to 40 of the judgment read as under:-
"35. The NGT, with the distinct role envisaged for it, can hardly afford to remain a mute spectator when no-one knocks on its door. The forum itself has correctly identified the need for collective stratagem for addressing environmental concerns. Such a society centric approach must be allowed to work within the established safety valves of the principles of natural justice and appeal to the Supreme Court. The hands-off mode for the NGT, when faced with exigencies requiring immediate and effective response, would debilitate the forum from discharging its responsibility and this must be ruled out in the interest of justice.
36. It would be procedural hairsplitting to argue (as it has been) that the NGT could act upon a letter being written to it, but learning about an environmental exigency through any other means cannot trigger the NGT into action. To endorse such an approach would surely be rendering the forum procedurally shackled or incapacitated.
37. When the Registry of the NGT does indeed receive a communication or letter, including matters published in 44 media, it may cause to initiate suo motu action by inviting attention of NGT to such matters in the form of office report. Such circumstances would however require a notice to be given to the sender of the communication or author of the news item, as the case may be, to assist the NGT in the course of hearing and to substantiate the factual matters. It must also be said that the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction does not mean eschewing with the principles of natural justice and fair play. In other words, the party likely to be affected should be afforded due opportunity to present their side, before suffering adverse orders.
38. One could admit to the argument of danger of suo motu jurisdiction, if the NGT was acting outside its domain. But when it is legitimately working within the contours of its statutory mandate and with procedurals safeguards clarified above in play, the nature of the trigger itself viz. a letter or a 'suo motu' initiation, cannot be the basis to curtail the role and responsibility of the specialized forum.
39. Institutions which are often addressing urgent concerns gain little from procedural nitpicking, which are unwarranted in the face of both the statutory spirit and the evolving nature of environmental degradation.
Not merely should a procedure exist but it must be meaningfully effective to address such concerns. The role of such an institution cannot be mechanical or ornamental. We must therefore adopt an interpretation which sustains the spirit of public good and not render the environmental watchdog of our country toothless and ineffective.
40. Let us now hark back to the dialogues of the two protagonists, in Waiting for Godot, the play written by Samuel Beckett with which, we started this judgment. At the end of the deliberations, we find ourselves saying that the National Green Tribunal must act, if the exigencies so demand, without indefinitely waiting for the metaphorical Godot to knock on its portal. The preceding discussion 45 advises us to answer the pointed question in the affirmative. It is accordingly declared that the NGT is vested with suo motu power in discharge of its functions under the NGT Act."
47. Issue No.(B):- That the National Green Tribunal has not been vested with powers under the laws specified in Schedule-I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to adjudicate matters relating to Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957:-
'Environment' has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 which reads as under:-
"2. Definitions In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -
(a) "environment" includes water, air and land and the inter-relationship which exists among and between water, air and land, and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property;"
'Environment' has also been defined in Section 2 (1)(c) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 which reads as under:-
"2. Definitions (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(c) "environment" includes water, air and land and the inter-relationship, which exists among and between water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property."46
However, with the passage of time the Hon'ble Supreme Court through its judgments has expanded the scope of the meaning of environment to include subsoil, spectrum band, frequency bands of mobile towers etc.
48. We may advert to the provisions of Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 which reads as under:-
"14. Tribunal to settle disputes.-(1) The shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. (2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions referred to in sub-section (1) and settled such disputes and pass order thereon.
(3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose;
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days."
49. Sub-section (1) of the Act, 2010 clearly provides that the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction over the civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment) is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule-I to the Act, 2010. Schedule-I of the Act, 2010 reads as under:-
47
SCHEDULE-I (1) The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; (2) The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977; (3) The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; (4) The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; (5) The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; (6) The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991; (7) The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
50. The enactments enshrined in Schedule-I deal specifically with cases of pollution caused to water, air, forest, land etc. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Act, 2010 is of a limited nature and extends only to regulate the environmental norms as prescribed in the above enactments of Schedule-I. Environmental pollution whether caused to air, water, forest, land or relating to degradation of environment by way of destruction of landscape or otherwise, falls within the domain and jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is immaterial whether the degradation of environment is caused by mining of major or minor minerals, as the case may be, or felling of trees or by whatever means, if the environmental degradation or pollution is noticed whether it be of air, including noise pollution or water pollution, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere to remedy such environmental degradation or pollution would extend. The Tribunal cannot concern itself with the enforcement of rights or violations of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957. How the licence for mining should be granted; for what period it should be granted or how it should be regulated does not fall 48 within the domain and jurisdiction of the Tribunal but if pollution is caused to the environment due to excessive mining resulting in environmental degradation and destruction of land or soil including sub-soil or air or water bodies, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal would be attracted.
51. The Tribunal has from time to time interfered in matters relating to illegal mining which has also come to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued directions for implementation of the directions given by the Tribunal in respect of imposition of penalty/determining the scale of compensation for illegal mining and for strict implementation of the Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016 and the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020.
52. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in SLP (Civil) No. 10587 of 2016 (Bajri Lease Holders Welfare Society through its President Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others) with SLP (Civil) No. 10670 of 2019. Paragraphs 13 to 20 of the judgment read as under:-
"13. In spite of the order passed by this Court on 16.11.2017 that no river sand shall be permitted unless a scientific replenishment study is completed and EC is granted, 194 mining leases of Khatedari lands have been granted in the State of Rajasthan, with most of these lands being in close proximity of the river banks of the State. 114 Khatedari leases are within a distance of 100 metres or less from the river bank and only 23 Khatedari 49 leases have been granted beyond a distance of 5 km from the river bank. The CEC has stated in its report that the agricultural lands do not have deposits of quality sand suitable for construction, being a mixture of sand, silt and clay. The Khatedars have been exploiting the locational proximity to the river banks by excavating sand from the river bed, instead of restricting the mining to their leasehold areas, completely in violation of the mining plan. The quantity of sand is in excess of the permissible limit which is transported by being shown as having been mined in the Khatedari lands. The CEC has commented upon the involvement of sand mafia in the trade of sand illegally mined by the Khatedars as well as the involvement of authorities in the State of Rajasthan. Therefore, the CEC has recommended the cancellation of all Khatedari leases located within 5 km from the river banks as well as those leases where violation of lease conditions including misuse of e-ravannas are detected. The CEC further recommended that no fresh Khatedari leases shall be granted, except for Palaeo deposits, without the approval of this Court.
14. Section 23C of the MMDR Act empowers the State Governments to make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals. This Court in Deepak Kumar (supra) directed the State Governments / Union Territories to formulate rules in accordance with the Model Guidelines. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court and the National Green Tribunal ("NGT"), the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 were issued ("2016 Sand Mining Guidelines"). The responsibility for implementation of the said Guidelines was placed on the State Governments which had to create a mechanism to measure the mined-out mineral and its transportation and also to ensure that the amount of mineral mined does not exceed the quantity permitted in the EC. The 2016 Sand Mining Guidelines recommended use of Transport Permits with bar codes, 50 for generation of reports showing the daily lifting of sand and user performance reports. Transport Permits with bar codes would also enable vehicles carrying sand to be tracked from source to destination. Dissatisfied with the ineffective monitoring mechanism, failure of the Mines Surveillance System as well as lack of an effective institutional monitoring mechanism not only at the stage of the grant of EC but at subsequent stages with respect to illegal sand mining, the NGT, in an order dated 05.04.2019 in National Green Tribunal Bar Association v. Virender Singh in OA No. 360 of 2015 and connected matters, directed the MoEFCC and the State Governments to review extant monitoring mechanisms and consider revision of the 2016 Sand Mining Guidelines. Consequently, the MoEFCC issued the 2020 Sand Mining Guidelines.
15. The damage caused to the environment due to rampant unscientific illegal mining needs no reiteration. Unabated illegal mining has resulted in the emergence of sand mafia who have been conducting illegal mining in the manner of organized criminal activities and have been involved in brutal attacks against members of local communities, enforcement officials, reporters and social activists for objecting to unlawful sand excavation. The statistics provided by the State Government highlights the magnitude of the problem as about 2411 FIRs have been registered in relation to illegal mining in the State of Rajasthan, between 16.11.2017 and 30.01.2020. When this Court has restrained 82 mining lease / quarry holders from carrying on mining of sand and bajri unless a scientific replenishment study is completed and EC is issued by the MoEFCC, the State of Rajasthan ought not to have issued mining leases in favour of the Khatedars. It is clear from the report of the CEC that the majority of the Khatedari leases are within 100 metres from the river bed. The 2020 Sand Mining Guidelines prescribe that mining plan for mining leases on Khatedari lands shall 51 only be approved if there is a possibility of replenishment of the mineral or when there is no possibility of river bed mining within 5 km of the patta land /Khatedari land. Agreeing with the CEC's conclusions on the issue of mining leases in Khatedari lands facilitating legalisation of transportation and sale of illegally extracted sand, we approve the recommendation of the CEC that all Khatedari leases which are located within 5 km from the river bed and those leases where lease conditions have been violated have to be terminated forthwith and that Khatedari leases shall be granted only with the permission of this Court.
16. The CEC has recommended imposition of exemplary penalty of Rs.10 lakh per vehicle and Rs.5 lakh per cubic metre of sand seized, which would be in addition to what has already been ordered/collected by the State agencies as compensation. Compensation/penalty to be paid by those indulging in illegal sand mining cannot be restricted to the value of illegally-mined minerals. The cost of restoration of environment as well as the cost of ecological services should be part of the compensation. The "Polluter Pays" principle as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of "Sustainable Development" and as such the polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.
17. The scale of compensation by those who are involved in illegal mining has been dealt with by the NGT in National Green Tribunal Bar Association v. Virender Singh (supra). In its order dated 26.02.2021, the NGT considered and approved the Report submitted by the Central Pollution Control Board dated 30.01.2020, in 52 pursuance of its earlier orders, on scale of compensation to be recovered for violation of norms for mining on "Polluter Pays" principle. Additionally, para 9.2 of the 2020 Sand Mining Guidelines provides as follows:
"The environmental damages incurred or resulting due to illegal mining shall be assessed by a committee constituted by District Administration having expertise from relevant fields, and also having independent representation of locals and State Pollution Control Board. Guidelines for assessment of ecological damages prescribed by the State Government or Concerned Pollution Control Boards or any other authority shall be applicable and compensation as fixed shall be paid by the project proponent, in light of Hon'ble National Green Tribunal orders."
18. Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act empowers the State Government to recover the price of the illegally-mined mineral, in addition to recovery of rent, royalty or tax. The penalty recommended by the CEC for illegal sand mining is in addition to the penalty that can be imposed by the State Government in terms of Section 21(5) of the Act. However, the basis for imposition of exemplary penalty of Rs. 10 lakh per vehicle and Rs. 5 lakh per cubic metre of sand has not been stated by the CEC in its report. The CEC is directed to follow the directions given by the NGT in respect of imposition of penalty/determining scale of compensation for illegal mining and the provisions of the 2020 Sand Mining Guidelines and determine the penalty / compensation afresh and submit a report to this Court within a period of eight weeks from today.
19. The recommendations made by the CEC, except recommendation 'J', are approved for implementation forthwith. IA No. 29984 of 2021 and IA No. 54981 of 2021 are disposed of.
53
20. SLP (C) No. 10587 of 2019 and SLP (C) No. 10670 of 2019 are directed to be listed after eight weeks."
53. In (2012) 4 SCC 629; Deepak Kumar Vs. Union of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued extensive directions regarding regulation of mining of minor minerals. Paragraphs 22 to 29 of the judgment reads as under:-
"20. The report clearly indicates that operation of mines of minor minerals needs to be subjected to strict regulatory parameters as that of mines of major minerals. It was also felt necessary to have a re-look to the definition of "minor"
minerals per se. The necessity of the preparation of "comprehensive mines plan" for contiguous stretches of mineral deposits by the respective State Governments may also be encouraged and the same be suitably incorporated in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 by the Ministry of Mines.
21. Further, it was also recommended that States, Union Territories would see that mining of minor minerals is subjected to simpler but strict regulatory regime and carried out only under an approved framework of mining plan, which should provide for reclamation and rehabilitation of mined out areas. Mining Plan should take note of the level of production, level of mechanisation, type of machinery used in the mining of minor minerals, quantity of diesel consumption, number of trees uprooted, export and import of mining minerals, environmental impact, restoration of flora and host of other matters referred to in 2010 rules. A proper framework has also to be evolved on cluster of mining of minor mineral for which there must be a Regional Environmental Management Plan. Another important decision taken was that while granting of mining leases by the respective State Governments, location of any eco-fragile zone(s) within the 54 impact zone of the proposed mining area, the linked Rules/Notifications governing such zones and the judicial pronouncements, if any, need to be duly noted.
22. The Minister for (E & F) wrote DO letter dated 1st June, 2010 to all the Chief Ministers of the States to examine the report and to issue necessary instructions for incorporating the recommendations made in the report in the Mineral Concession Rules for mining of minor minerals under Section 15 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Following are the key recommendations re-iterated in the letter:
"(1) Minimum size of the mine lease should be 5 ha.
(2) Minimum period of mine lease should be 5 years.
(3) A cluster approach to mines should be taken in case of smaller mine leases operating currently.
(4) Mine plans should be made mandatory for minor minerals as well.
(5) A separate corpus should be created for reclamation and rehabilitation of mined out areas.
(6) Hydrogeological reports should be prepared for mining proposed below ground water table.
(7) For riverbed mining, leases should be granted stretchwise, depth may be restricted to 3m/water level, whichever is less, and safety zones should be worked out.
(8) The present classification of minerals into major and minor categories should be re-examined by the Ministry of Mines in consultation with the States."
23. The Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India sent a communication No.296/7/2000/MRC dated 16.05.2011 called "Environmental Aspects of Quarrying and of Minor Minerals - Evolving of Model Guidelines" along with a draft 55 model guidelines calling for inputs before 30. 06. 2011. Draft rules called Minor Minerals Conservation and Development Rules, 2010 were also put on the website. Further, it may be noted Section 15(1-A)(i) of the Act specifies:-
"15. (1-A)(i) the manner in which rehabilitation of flora and other vegetation, such as trees, shrubs and the like destroyed by reasons of any quarrying or mining operations shall be made in the same area or in any other area once selected by the State Government, (whether by way of reimbursement of the cost of rehabilitation or otherwise) by the persons holding the quarrying or mining lease."
24. We are of the view that all State Governments / Union Territories have to give due weight to the above mentioned recommendations of the MoEF which are made in consultation with all the State Governments and Union Territories. Model Rules of 2010 issued by the Ministry of Mines are very vital from the environmental, ecological and bio-diversity point of view and therefore the State Governments have to frame proper rules in accordance with the recommendations, under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
25. Quarrying of river sand, it is true, is an important economic activity in the country with river sand forming a crucial raw material for the infrastructural development and for the construction industry but excessive in-stream sand and gravel mining causes the degradation of rivers. Instream mining lowers the stream bottom of rivers which may lead to bank erosion. Depletion of sand in the streambed and along coastal areas causes the deepening of rivers which may result in destruction of aquatic and riparian habitats as well. Extraction of alluvial material as already mentioned from within or near a streambed has a direct impact on the stream's physical habitat characteristics.
56
26. We are of the considered view that it is highly necessary to have an effective framework of mining plan which will take care of all environmental issues and also evolve a long term rational and sustainable use of natural resource base and also the bio-assessment protocol. Sand mining, it may be noted, may have an adverse effect on bio-diversity as loss of habitat caused by sand mining will effect various species, flora and fauna and it may also destabilize the soil structure of river banks and often leaves isolated islands. We find that, taking note of those technical, scientific and environmental matters, MoEF, Government of India, issued various recommendations in March 2010 followed by the Model Rules, 2010 framed by the Ministry of Mines which have to be given effect to, inculcating the spirit of Article 48A, Article 51A(g) read with Article 21 of the Constitution.
27. The State of Haryana and various other States have not so far implemented the above recommendations of the MoEF or the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Mines before issuing auction notices granting short term permits by way of auction of minor mineral boulders, gravel, sand etc., in the river beds and elsewhere of less than 5 hectares. We, therefore, direct to all the States, Union Territories, MoEF and the Ministry of Mines to give effect to the recommendations made by MoEF in its report of March 2010 and the model guidelines framed by the Ministry of Mines, within a period of six months from today and submit their compliance reports.
28. Central Government also should take steps to bring into force the Minor Minerals Conservation and Development Rules 2010 at the earliest. State Governments and UTs also should take immediate steps to frame necessary rules under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 taking into consideration the recommendations of MoEF in its Report of March 2010 and model guidelines framed by the 57 Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India. Communicate the copy of this order to the MoEF, Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi, Ministry of Water Resources, Central Government Water Authority, the Chief Secretaries of the respective States and Union Territories, who would circulate this order to the Departments concerned.
29. We, in the meanwhile, order that leases of minor mineral including their renewal for an area of less than five hectares be granted by the States/Union Territories only after getting environmental clearance from the MoEF. Ordered accordingly."
54. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar (Supra), the Tribunal has also issued similar directions in Original Application No. 186 of 2016 (Satendra Pandey Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change & Others). Para 22 of the judgment reads as under:-
"22. For all these reasons, we direct that the procedure laid down in the impugned Notification be brought in consonance and in accord with the directions passed in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra) by (i) providing for EIA, EMP and therefore, Public Consultation for all areas from 5 to 25 ha falling under Category B-2 at par with Category B-1 by SEAC/ SIEAA as well as for cluster situation wherever it is not provided; (ii) Form-1M be made more comprehensive for areas of 0 to 5 ha by dispensing with the requirement for Public Consultation to be evaluated by SEAC for recommendation of grant EC by SEIAA instead of DEAC/DEIAA; (iii) if a cluster or an individual lease size exceeds 5 ha the EIA/EMP be made applicable in the process of grant of prior environmental clearance; (iv) EIA and/or EMP be prepared for the entire cluster in terms of recommendation 5 (supra) of the Guidelines for the purpose of recommendations 6, 7 and 8 thereof; (v) revise 58 the procedure to also incorporate procedure with respect to annual rate of replenishment and timeframe for replenishment after mining closure in an area; (vi) the MoEF&CC to prepare guidelines for calculation of the cost of restitution of damage caused to mined-out areas along with the Net Present Value of Ecological Services forgone because of illegal or unscientific mining."
The judgment of the Deepak Kumar (Supra) and the judgment of the Tribunal have already been referred to in para 14 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajri Lease Lol Holders Welfare Society (Supra).
55. For reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 neither trench upon nor inhibit nor fetter the powers of the Tribunal to examine questions relating to environmental destruction or damage or degradation resulting from excessive mining and also ensuring strict implementation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar (Supra).
56. Issue No.(C):- That there is a clear violation of the principle of Natural Justice:-
In our opinion, as would be clear from the Inspection Report environmental violations by Respondent Nos. 6 & 7, have been established. We may point out, that so far as criminal proceedings having been initiated against the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 are concerned, the question of 59 violation of principles of Natural Justice do not arise since the said Respondents will have adequate opportunity to defend themselves during the criminal trial, the charge-sheet have already been filed.
57. So far as computation and imposition of Environmental Compensation is concerned, it is always open for the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 along with the aggrieved miners to approach the concerned District Magistrate, who shall consider their individual grievances and thereafter proceed further for recovery of Environmental Compensation, if any, only after hearing the parties including the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7. While computing Environmental Compensation, the Competent Authority shall bear in mind the observations made in para 15, 16, 17 & 18 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bijri Lease Holders Welfare Society (Supra).
58. Mr. Rajarshi Basu, learned Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal should not proceed with the hearing of Original Application No. 32/2020/EZ since the two appeals of the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 stated to have arisen from the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 06.01.2022 against the dismissal of the two Writ Petitions of the said Respondents, are pending before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court.
59. Learned Counsel for the Respondents have placed before us an order of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court dated 05.05.2022 to show that the appeals are pending 60 before the Hon'ble Division Bench. We may, however, note that so far neither Mr. Rajarshi Basu, the Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7, nor the Counsel for the other Respondents or even the Counsel for the Applicant have pointed out to us that any interim order has been passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the pending appeals, restraining the Tribunal from proceeding with the hearing of the matter. No interim order has been referred to or placed before us either by Mr. Rajarshi Basu or by the learned Counsel for the Applicant.
60. Further, since the Environmental Compensation for Shyampur under Barabani Block was not computed earlier, the District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman as well as the Member Secretary, SEIAA, vide affidavits both dated 19.05.2022, have calculated the Environmental Compensation for Shyampur under Barbani Block which reads as under:-
61
61. For reasons aforesaid, the Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ and the Original Application No. 32/2020/EZ are accordingly disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) The District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman, is directed to ensure that no further cases of illegal mining takes place in his District and strict vigil be maintained.
(ii) The District Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman, is further directed to ensure installation of CCTV cameras at strategic areas, GPS enabled trucks used for transportation of sand from legal sand mining so that tracking and monitoring of the same can be achieved.
(iii) The West Bengal Pollution Control Board shall also keep a strict vigil on illegal sand mining in the area.
(iv) The Environmental Compensation as assessed for the Barabani, Jamuria and Shyampur Blocks of Paschim Bardhaman District may be recovered by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board within a period of one month.
62. The I.A. No. 145/2022/EZ and I.A. No. 146/2022/EZ are also disposed of accordingly.
63. There shall be no order as to costs.
........................................ B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JM ....................................... SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EM 62 Kolkata, May 30th, 2022, Original Application No. 80/2020/EZ (I.A. No. 06/2022/EZ, I.A. No. 07/2022/EZ, I.A. No. 24/2022/EZ, I.A. No. 25/2022/EZ, I.A. No. 133/2022/EZ, I.A. No. 134/2022/EZ, I.A. No. 135/2022/EZ, I.A. No. 136/2022/EZ, I.A. No. 137/2022/EZ, I.A. No. 138/2022/EZ, I.A. No. 157/2022/EZ & I.A.No.158/2022/EZ) With Original Application No. 32/2020/EZ (I.A. No.145/2022/EZ & I.A. No.146/2022/EZ) AK 63