National Green Tribunal
A Balasubramanian vs Ministry Of Environment Forest And ... on 21 January, 2025
Item No.1:-
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2025.
(Through Video Conference)
Original Application No. 154 of 2021 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
A. Balasubramanian
Thokkalikkadu Village,
Pattukkottai Taluk,
Thanjavur District - 614 701.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
1) Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary
Ministry of Environment and Forests
(Forest Conservation Division)
Government of India,
3rd Floor, Prithvi Wing,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh, New Delhi - 110 003.
2) State of Tamil Nadu
The Secretary to Government,
Environment and Forest Department,
Chennai - 600 009.
3) The Commissioner of Geology and Mining
Alandur Road, Guindy Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
4) The Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Kamarajar Promenade,
PWD Estate, Chepauk, Triplicane,
Public Works Department,
Chennai - 600 005.
5) The District Collector
Office of the Collectorate,
AVP Azhagammal Nagar,
Thanjavur District.
6) The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
Mount Salai, Guindy - 600 032.
7) The Tahsildar
Office of Tahsildar
Pattukkottai Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
Page 1 of 8
8) The Executive Engineer
Public Works Department
(Water Resources Department)
Mining and Monitoring Division,
Thanjavur District.
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Mr. S. Kamalesh Kannan.
For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1.
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R2 to R5, R7 & R8.
Mrs. Madhuri Donti Reddy for R6.
Judgment Reserved on: 13th December, 2024.
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGEMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member.
1. The applicant, who claims to be a public-spirited person, is seeking direction to the respondent authorities to take immediate measures to assess the damages caused on account of illegal quarrying operations carried out by the Project Proponent/8th Respondent viz., Public Works Department (Water Resources Department), based on the Environmental Clearance issued on 06.08.2018 by the District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) - Thanjavur and take appropriate legal action.
2. The issue relates to mining activity carried out by the 8th Respondent in Sy. Nos.8 and 9 of Chinna Avudayar Kovil Village, Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District.
Page 2 of 83. It is not in dispute that the Project Proponent had obtained the necessary documents, including the Environmental Clearance from the DEIAA. However, his grievance is that the authorities did not properly monitor the conditions of the Environmental Clearance.
4. The Environmental Clearance was issued on 06.08.2018 to the 8th Respondent for sand quarrying in Sy. Nos.8 and 9 of Chinna Avudayar Kovil Village in a location inside the Agniyar River. The quantity consented was 54,000 M3 and to a maximum depth of 1 Meter below the ground level. Though the applicant had raised objections that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was not done before the issuance of the Environmental Clearance, admittedly the Environmental Clearance has not been challenged. He only points out that the Project Proponent had violated the Environmental Clearance conditions.
5. According to him, the quarrying was carried on from February 2020 to February 2021, but the uncontrolled mining had severely damaged the area and affected the natural flow pattern of the river. The other allegation is that the mining was done even in the area where there was water stagnation.
6. So, on the grounds of excessive mining and causing damages to the environment by violating the Environmental Clearance conditions, the application has been filed for taking appropriate action against the Project Proponent.
7. This Tribunal constituted a Joint Committee on 30.07.2021 comprising of the officers from the (i) Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), (ii) State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) - Tamil Nadu, (iii) Department of Geology and Mining and (iv) Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) to inspect the area in question, report the violations and the actions taken in that regard.
8. Based on the proposal submitted by the Public Works Department (WRD), Mining and Monitoring Division, Thanjavur dated 14.07.2018, the DEIAA - Thanjavur accorded Environmental Clearance on 06.08.2018 for the sand quarrying in Sy. Nos.8 and 9, having an extent of 3 Hectares located in Chinna Page 3 of 8 Avudayar Kovil Village, Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The Environmental Clearance approved a quantity of 54,000 M3 in the lease area of 3 Hectares for a period of three years in the Agniyar River from the date of execution of the mining permission granting authority. The District Collector - Thanjavur, vide Proceedings dated 10.02.2020, accorded permission to commence the new bullock carts sand quarry. The mining plan of the proposal was approved by the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining on 12.07.2018. The Consent to Operate was obtained from the TNPCB on 15.11.2018, which was valid till 31.03.2022. The sand mining quarry was commenced on 14.03.2020 and completed on 02.02.2021.
9. The Joint Committee, in the presence of the applicant and the Project Proponent, inspected the subject area in accordance with the Terms of Reference issued. The Joint Committee found that the total sand excavated is 53,674 M3 against the sanctioned quantity of 54,000 M3. The total revenue created by this quarry is Rs.93,53,464/-. The Joint Committee heard the Project Proponent, submissions made by the local people, bullock cart owners and also of the applicant herein and observed that there were violations of the Environmental Clearance conditions by the Project Proponent by not obtaining the No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), no mining closure activity, earthen bunds and barbed wire fencing around the quarry lease area have not been made, etc.
10. During the visit by the Joint Committee, there was flow in the Agniyar River in the southern part of the mine lease area and thus, the area mined beyond the boundary, if any, could not be ascertained. It was observed that the mining was carried out at a depth of 1.6 Meters against the maximum permitted depth of 1 Meter, the quantity of sand extracted exceeded the sanctioned capacity and the area of mining also extended beyond the approved mine lease area. Accordingly, the sand extracted from the additional area having an extent of 2,724.79 Sq. Meters with an estimated quantity of 6,053.44 M3 has been achieved beyond the approved mine lease area and quantity. However, it is recorded that the mine lease area and the increased depth of Page 4 of 8 excavation observed in the lease area had occurred due to the washing of flood. The Joint Committee could not arrive at any conclusion to state whether the Project Proponent had done any instream sand mining.
11. Regarding the damages caused to the environment and river ecology, it is stated that since the sand quarry is located on the river bed, which frequently receives water from the upstream during the rainy season, to arrive at the actual impact on the groundwater level and the quality in respect of the alleged sand quarry are not feasible, as no micro-level baseline data is available. The duration of the project operation was only for 11 months and the project activity had already been completed when the Joint Committee visited the site in dispute and the transportation of the sand was only by bullock carts.
12. Regarding the damages caused to the trees, the Joint Committee was unclear about the exact number of damaged or fallen trees. Based on their observations, the Joint Committee had arrived at the environmental compensation of Rs.16,90,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs and Ninety Thousand only). Additionally, it is stated that for the excess production achieved beyond the approved mine lease area, the Project Proponent is liable for the environmental compensation. However, the Joint Committee could not be specific about the area and quantity where there was exceedance.
13. The above-referred Joint Committee report was objected to by the 8th Respondent. The first objection to the statement is that the Project Proponent had not obtained NOC from the NBWL. It is stated that the latitude and longitude were clearly mentioned in the mining proposal, wherein there was no mention about the reserve forest located within a 10 Km radius of the above-said sand quarry site. The Thamarankottai Reserve Forest located nearly 7.26 Km from the Chinna Avudayar Kovil sand quarry was notified as Point Calimere Wildlife Sanctuary vide MoEF&CC Notification in S.O. 411 (E) dated 23.01.2021, which is after the date of commencement of the quarry. The sand quarry was operated only by the Water Resources Department and not by Page 5 of 8 any other private agency. Hence, getting clearance from the NBWL will not arise for the subject sand quarry.
14. Regarding the allegation of mining done near the road, it was stated that the Chinna Avudayar Kovil sand quarry was located in the Agniyar River bed, which is more than 50 Meters away from the river bank. The revenue record shows that there was no pathway/road in S.F. Nos.7, 8, 9, 12 and 20 of Chinna Avudayar Kovil Village, during the monsoon period. The villagers used the river bed for grazing cattle. Therefore, the allegation that the mining was done near the road is objectionable.
15. The next objection raised by the Water Resources Department is that the CTO was obtained from the TNPCB on 15.11.2018. One of the conditions was to have a boundary stone laid in the sand quarry area, which was done even before obtaining the CTO. The CTO itself was issued by the TNPCB only after verification of the same. As the quarry operation came to an end on 02.02.2021 and the Joint Committee inspected only on 11.10.2021, the absence of the boundary stones cannot be attributed to the Project Proponent.
16. Similarly, the quantity mentioned by the Joint Committee also does not exceed the quantity exhausted by the Water Resources Department in the mining plan. The permitted depth beyond the bed level of 1 Meter is unacceptable, as the Joint Committee failed to fix the bed level from the standard benchmark and did not ascertain the bed level from the mining plan. The Joint Committee taking the present level of the riverbed is unacceptable, as the Joint Committee had not considered the recent deposit erosion of the riverbed in the recent flood and rainfall. As the sand quarry operation was very transparent, as the availability of the sand can be seen on the Tamil Nadu Sand website by the public, the allegations made by the Joint Committee are denied by the Water Resources Department.
17. It is also stated that the details of the bullock carts, their owners, phone numbers, booking reference and sand quantity transported are maintained by the Project Proponent and no permit was issued from 03.02.2021. Finally, the Water Page 6 of 8 Resources Department had stated that when the mining activity was stopped as early as on 02.02.2021, the Joint Committee stated that some extent of mining beyond the lease area after eight months of time without even conducting a local enquiry or gathering evidence regarding the same cannot be accepted by any stretch of imagination.
18. The 6th Respondent (TNPCB) also filed their report, stating that the permitted quantity was 54,000 M3 for three years over an extent of 3 Hectares and the CTO was valid till 31.03.2022. The mining lease was obtained on 11.03.2020 and the activity was commenced on 14.03.2020 and the quarry was stopped on 02.02.2021. The TNPCB has specifically stated that the Water Resources Department had mined 53,863 M3 of sand, which is well within the approved quantity of 54,000 M3 and hence, the renewal of consent of the Board does not arise.
19. The learned counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu had filed a report dated 05.09.2023 stating that there were several writ petitions pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench, including a challenge to the mining plan dated 10.02.2020, which relates to the sand quarry in Agniyar River, Chinna Avudayar Kovil, Pattukkottai Taluk.
20. As the lease period as well as the validity of the Environmental Clearance is over and the permitted quantity of sand is already mined, only the violations (if any) have to be addressed, as prayed by the applicant. The application itself is filed after the period of the lease and the Environmental Clearance period is over. Admittedly, the Joint Committee, constituted by this Tribunal, has inspected the area in dispute only after the passage of eight months. Those writ petitions, which were filed based on similar allegations, are disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court, which includes the subject area also. The Joint Committee appointed by this Tribunal has found certain things and arrived at conclusions, including quantifying the environmental compensation for the damages.
Page 7 of 821. The Project Proponent is none other than the Water Resources Department (WRD) itself. It is for the Department of Geology and Mining to verify and be satisfied that there was no violation of any kind. If there was any such violation, including the excess mining and exceedance in the area mined, the Department of Geology and Mining (Respondent No.3) is directed to take appropriate action and levy the compensation, if any.
22. In view of the above directions, the Original Application [O.A. No.154 of 2021 (SZ)] is disposed of.
Sd/-
Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No O.A. No.154/2021 (SZ) 21st January, 2025. Mn.
Page 8 of 8