National Green Tribunal
Bhavesh Arun Karekar vs Ministry Of Environment Forest And ... on 30 January, 2025
Item No.12 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[Through Physical Hearing (with Hybrid Option)]
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.74 OF 2024 (WZ)
Bhavesh Arun Karekar & Anr. ... Applicants
Versus
MoEF&CC & Ors. ... Respondents
Date of Hearing : 30.01.2025
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicants : Ms. Supriya Dangare, Advocate
Respondents : Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate along with Mr. Shubham Rathod,
Advocate for R-1/MoEF&CC
Mr. Vilas Jadhav, Advocate for R-3/MPCB
Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate along with Mr. Adwait Gokhale,
Advocate for R-5
ORDER
1. This order is being passed in continuation with our previous order dated 15.04.2024, whereby, after taking cognizance of the matter, we had constituted a Joint Committee, which has submitted its report in this matter, relevant part of which is quoted herein below: Page 1 of 20 Page 2 of 20 Page 3 of 20 Page 4 of 20 Page 5 of 20 Page 6 of 20 Page 7 of 20 Page 8 of 20 Page 9 of 20 Page 10 of 20 Page 11 of 20 Page 12 of 20 Page 13 of 20
2. Respondent No. 5/Project Proponent - M/s Ashapura Meinchem Limited has also filed their reply-affidavit dated 23.08.2024, denying all the allegations made by the applicants.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants first. She tried to draw our attention to the Joint Committee Report and the findings stated therein. However, the learned counsel for respondent No.5/PP states that the applicants in this case got the Joint Committee constituted in order to collect the evidence against the Project Proponent and that is why she is trying to draw our attention first to the Joint Committee's report and the pleadings which have been placed by the applicants before this Tribunal. Thereafter, we directed the learned counsel for the applicants to point out before us the violations allegedly committed by the Project Proponent, which have been pleaded by the applicants before this Tribunal. Pursuant to that, our attention was drawn to the Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 24.02.2016, annexed at pages 35 to 41 of the paper-book, wherein she read out the terms and conditions, which are allegedly violated by the Project Proponent by referring condition Nos.(iv), (v), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xii), (xiv) (xv), (xix) and (xxii) of the Specific Conditions, which are as follows:
"(iv) The Project Proponent shall obtain Consent to Operate from the State Pollution Control Board, Maharashtra and effectively implement all the conditions stipulated therein.Page 14 of 20
(v) A study from an Institution of Repute may be conducted on the impact of Bauxite dust on Crop Productivity in agricultural land located around mines and mitigation measures to be implemented by PP to reduce the impact.
(vii) Proponent shall carry out Occupational Health surveillance for workers engaged in the Project and records maintained and necessary remedial/preventive measures to be taken accordingly. Implementation of the Recommendations of National Institute for ensuring good occupational environment for mine workers.
(viii) Use of mechanical devices for excavating the ore shall be promoted and _reducing use of explosives.
(ix) Concurrent reclamation of mined out areas shall be done.
(x) Use of effective sprinkler system to suppress fugitive dust on haul roads and other transfer points and undertaking comprehensive study in a years' time for slope stabilization of mine benches and OB dumps shall be undertaken.
(xii) The mining operations shall be restricted to above ground water table and it should not intersect groundwater table.
Prior approval of the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change and Central Ground Water - Authority shall be obtained for mining, below water table.
(xiv) Top soil should be stacked with proper slope at earmarked site(s) only with adequate measures and should be used for reclamation and rehabilitation of mined out areas.
(xv) The entire waste generated shall be backfilled and there shall be no external over burden dump left at the end of the mine life. The entire backfilled area shall be reclaimed by plantation. The back filling should be Carried- out in such a manner that it is-restored to the normal ground level. Monitoring and management of rehabilitated areas should continue until the vegetation becomes self-sustaining. Compliance status should be submitted to the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change and its Regional Office, Nagpur on six monthly basis.
(xix) Plantation shall be raised in the specified area including a 7.5m wide green belt in the safety zone around the mining lease by planting the native species around ML area, backfilled and reclaimed area, around water body, roads etc. in consultation with the local DFO/Agriculture Department. The density of the trees should be around 2500 plants per ha.
(xxii) Regular monitoring of ground water level and quality should be carried out in and around the mine lease by establishing a network of existing wells and constructing new piezometers during the mining operation. The monitoring should be carried out four times in a year i.e. January, April-May, August, November and the dat-a thus collected may be sent regularly to Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, its Regional Office, Nagpur; Central Ground Water Authority and Central Ground Water Board."
Page 15 of 20
4. Thereafter, learned counsel drew our attention to the pleadings in the Original Application, wherein in paragraph No.18 thereof, it is recorded that respondent No.5 had not provided adequate Air Pollution Control mechanism at the site, which is causing air pollution and the water sprinkling was not being done regularly, which pertains to the condition No.(x) of the Specific Conditions contained in the EC. Likewise she stated that all the violations are narrated in part of the pleadings as well.
5. Thereafter, we made a query to the learned counsel as to what is considered by the Joint Committee regarding violations committed by respondent No.5/Project Proponent, whereupon she read out relevant part of the Joint Committee Report, drawing our attention first to point No.5.1.6, which states that PP has obtained Consents from MPCB only for the mining activities whereas PP has not obtained Consent for Stone Crushers. PP has two movable stone crushers which are in operations since the commissioning of the mining activity. At point No.5.2, it is recorded that crushing activities are being carried out in haphazard manner and that the possibility cannot be ruled out impacting the surrounding environment.
6. Learned counsel drew our attention to point 5.3.3 of the Report which states that PP has not applied for NOC from Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) and that the unit is extracting the ground water without NOC from CGWA. Further, point No.5.3.6 states that in-depth groundwater study of the area should have been conducted through an expert agency, in the view of the Committee, in order to verify the applicant's claim. But the same has not been done, nor any order in that regard has been passed by this Tribunal.
7. Next learned counsel has drawn our attention to point No.5.5.4, which states that no significant efforts have been made by the Committee regarding tree plantation as per the terms and conditions laid down in the EC, which provide that plantation shall be raised in the specified area including 7.5 mtrs wide green belt in the safety zone around the mining lease by planting the native species around ML area, backfilled and reclaimed area, around Page 16 of 20 water body, roads, etc. in consultation with the local DFO/Agricultural Department. The density of the trees should be around 2500 plants per Ha. She further submits that at point No.5.6.3, it is recorded by the Joint Committee that the transportation vehicles are covered by thick LDPE/HDPE sheets only and not by tarpaulin, which are generally having good strength and better wear & tear resistance.
8. Learned counsel thereafter drew our attention to point No.5.6.6 of the Joint Committee Report, which states that the bridge, which is being used by the PP for transportation of the minerals is considered to be unsafe as it has developed several cracks and therefore, proper safety/structural audit of bridge was needed to be carried out from the concerned department/agency before taking any decision for allowing the bridge for the heavy transportation related to mining.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants has taken us through point No.8.0 i.e. Conclusions and Recommendations of the Joint Committee, which, at point No.8.6, the Joint Committee has assessed the amount of EDC to be levied from the PP to the tune of Rs.1,74,60,000/- for reported environmental non-compliances(i.e. non-compliance of the conditions related to tree plantation, mineral transportations and operation of stone crushers without consents from MPCB and an amount of Rs.26,73,600/- has been assessed for extraction of groundwater without NOC from CGWA/CGWB.
10. Per contra, from the side of respondent No. 5/PP, learned counsel has argued that as regards the NOC from CGWA, the same was obtained by the answering respondent on 18.12.2017, annexed at pages 515 to 516 of the paper-book, which was valid upto 07.12.2019. Thereafter, NOC was obtained from CGWA on 08.12.2019, which was valid upto 07.12.2021 and thereafter also, subsequent permissions/NOCs were taken by the answering respondent, copies of which are provided to us, which are taken on record. Lastly, an application for renewal of NOC was moved on 18.01.2024, which is pending consideration, evidence of which is also annexed at page 641 of the paper-book, wherein the date of submission of application is shown as Page 17 of 20 13.08.2024. After having shown the status of NOCs, it is argued that in the Gazette Notification dated 24.09.2020 of the Department of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, issued by the Ministry of Jal Shakti, it is recorded at point No.11.0 under the head "Renewal of No Objection Certificate" in sub-clause (vi) that, "if the application for renewal is submitted in time and the CGWA/the respective State/UT Authority is unable to process the application in time, No Objection Certificate shall be deemed to be extended till the date of renewal of No Objection Certificate". Having cited the above provision in the Notification and the application, which has been moved and is pending consideration before the Authority, it is urged that the same should be treated to have been extended under this deeming provision and it cannot be held that ground water extraction has been done illegally. Hence, the amount of EDC proposed to be levied from respondent No.5, to the tune of Rs. 26,73,600/- does not hold good.
11. This argument made on behalf of respondent No.5/PP is found to be tenable by us because it is verified from the record that these documents are there on record.
12. Now the next argument made by the learned counsel for the applicants is with respect to Consent to Operate (CTO) as to whether the same is required for running of mobile stone crusher unit. The Joint Committee, at point No.5.1.6 of its Report, has reported that the same was being operated without CTO, which is rebutted by the learned counsel for respondent No.5 by saying that no separate consent is required because CTO is already granted by the MPCB, which is annexed at pages 484 to 493 of the paper-book, which is dated 21.10.2016, which is renewed from time to time subsequently. This document (CTO) indicates that it is for mining of Bauxite Ore including mobile crushing and screening activity for maximum quantity of 8,00,000 MT/A.
13. We, at this stage, also enquired from the learned counsel for MPCB as to why there was necessity of Consent to Operate, to which he responded Page 18 of 20 that MPCB was not a member of the Joint Committee and according to him, the Consent to Operate was already granted to the Project Proponent. He also drew our attention to page 489 of the paper-book, which is Consent to Operate dated 26.11.2019, which was extended from time to time. At page 494 of the paper-book, there is renewal of consent issued on 07.12.2021 which was valid upto 30.04.2024 and after that also, same has been renewed on the applications made by the Project Proponent and it is extended on 31.07.2024, which is valid upto 30.04.2027 (annexed at page 503 onwards of the paper-book).
14. In view of above details of Consent to Operate granted and extended from time to time, we cannot accept the Joint Committee's recommendation in this regard that the Consent to Operate was not obtained by the Project Proponent for running the stone crusher.
15. The Joint Committee has also given, at point 7.1.2 of its report the details of operational days during last five years, in tabular form, as follows:
Year Number of days
Transportation Plantation and other work
and Mining
2019-20 199 100
2020-21 Nil 102
2021-22 Nil 110
2022-23 192 110
2023-24 191 110
Total 582 532
1114
The above details show the number of days of violation with respect to transportation and mining to be 582 and for plantation and other work to be 532 and total days counted as 1114 for calculation of environmental damage compensation (EDC) on these counts.
Page 19 of 20
16. But we find that it is recorded in the Joint Committee report, at point No.5.5.2 that the plantation has already been carried out in 9.26 Ha area at the rate of 1100 to 1200 number of trees per Ha and it is informed that total 19,098 number of trees had been planted by the Project Proponent as on 31.03.2023.
17. The above figure of the tree plantation having been done shows that the Project Proponent has planted sufficient number of trees and lot of time is required to complete the remaining plantation. We cannot hold respondent No.5/Project Proponent to be liable for EDC on that count as well.
18. As regards alleged violation with regard to transportation, due to which there is damage to public roads and bridge, we are of the view that the same is not falling under our domain as that does not relate to the environment. Therefore, EDC on that count is also not found tenable.
19. In view of above discussion, we do not find any violation to have been committed by respondent No.5 - Project Proponent in this case. In view thereof, this Original Application deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.
20. No order as to costs.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM January 30, 2025 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.74/2024 (WZ) npj Page 20 of 20