National Green Tribunal
Narendrasinh Baldevsinh Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 9 April, 2021
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Item No. 01 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(By Video Conferencing)
Appeal No. 59/2020(WZ)
(I.A. No. 15/2021)
Narendrasinh Baldevsinh Rathod & Anr. Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 09.04.2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant: Ms. Aastha Mehta, Advocate
ORDER
1. This appeal has been preferred against minutes of the meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) of State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Gujarat recommending rejection of grant of Environmental Clearance (EC) for mining by the appellants. Present is second round after the matter was earlier remanded by the Tribunal to SEIAA in appeal against cancellation of EC on the ground that lease for mining was within prohibited distance from habitation.
2. The appellants sought EC for sand mining close to human habitation. EC was granted earlier but was cancelled as the area was within prohibited distance from the human habitation - a weekend home at Aluva Hills near Gandhinagar, in violation of the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and 2020. Against such 1 cancellation, the appellant preferred Appeal Nos. 3 to 7 of 2020 which were dealt with by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2020. The Tribunal considered the issue in the light of the Precautionary principle and adverse environmental impact on air, water, soil and bio-diversity.
Tribunal referred to the Guidelines of 2016 and 2020 and Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 and need for safer distance from habitation for undertaking mining.
3. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to SEIAA to consider whether mining in the present case could be allowed. Accordingly, the SEAC considered the matter as follows:-
"1. Letter of SEIAA vide No. SEIAA/GUJ/GEN- 76(NGT)/1380/2020 DTD 05.11.2020 to implement directives of Honorable National Green Tribunal in O.A No. 85/2019, 86/2019, 87/2019, 88/2019, 89/2019..
The consultant on behalf of PP submitted that
1. There are only 4 to 5 scattered farm houses in the whole area of about 60,000 sq m and he requested the committee not to consider these scattered houses as continuous human habitation. Moreover he also submitted that out of the total 6 leases these scattered houses are located only in the areas of 3 leases.
2. There is no information sought about the human habitation in Form-1 and therefore he did not agree with the ground/stand taken by the earlier committee about the concealment of the facts for rejecting the Environmental Clearance (EC).
3. He drew attention of the committee towards the clauses no. 6.0 of points no. 83 of the judgment dated 30.09.2020 by Honorable National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A No. 85/2019, 86/2019, 87/2019, 88/2019, 89/2019, which is produced as below:-
6.0 Conclusion:
In view of avialble information, following minimum distance criteria may be considered for permitting stone quarrying by SPCB:
In view of available information, following minimum distance criteria may be considered for permitting stone quarrying by SPCBs:
2
Mining Type Minimum Distance Locations
A. When 100m Residential/Public
Blasting is building, inhabited sites,
not involved Protected monuments,
B. When 200m** Heritage sites,
Blasting is National/State Highway,
involved. District roads, Public
roads, Railway line/area,
Ropeway or Ropeway
trestle or station, Bridges,
Dams, Reservoirs, River,
Canals, or Lakes or Tanks,
or any other B. Locations
to be considered by States.
**Note: The regulations for danger zone (500m) prescribed by Directorate general of Mines Safety also have to be complied compulsorily and necessary measures should be taken to minimise the impact on environment.
However, if any state is already having stringent criteria than the above for minor mineral mining (i.e. more prescribed distances than the above), the same shall be applicable."
He further contended that the above distance criteria are for the stone quarrying and not for sand mining projects.
The Committee perused the Hon. NGT order dated 30.09.2020 in context with the matter/proposals under considerations and found that-
1. The scattered houses registered with the Gram Panchayat are using all the common amenities like road, power supply etc. extended in the Gram Panchayat area. Moreover, the committee appreciated that the impact on the environment and the extent of ecological damage has to be anticipated on case to case basis based on the merits and demerits of the proposals.
The area in and around the "Aluva Hills" is appearing to be vegetative hilly ravine area in the goggle/satellite image and is susceptible to erosion. The committee is also of the view that it is immaterial to think whether the people are residing/living continuously in the scattered houses or not. Therefore, the scattered houses falling in the respective lease areas cannot be ignored and has to be essentially taken into consideration for implementing minimum distance criteria during the appraisal of sand mining proposals seeking EC.
2. The committee also perused the directions at point no 84 of the Hon. NGT Judgment dated 30.09.2020 stating "Appeals are allowed and the order impugned area set aside. The matter is remanded back to the SEIAA to consider the matter afresh and after giving opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved, dispose of the application in accordance with law. The policy as laid down by the CPCB and approved by this Tribunal referred above are taken to be account and be adopted". The committee also noted that the aforementioned distance criteria laid down by CPCB is also endorsed by Hon. National Green Tribunal in its judgment dated 30.06.2020. Therefore, under the circumstances, the committee unanimously decided that the distance criteria 3 of 100 m mentioned for 'when blasting is not involved' as mentioned in the aforementioned Hon. NGT judgment is to applied in case of sand mining proposals seeking EC.
3. The committee reviewed the historical background of the matter and the also noted the joint inspection carried out on 05.02.2019 by RO, GPCB & district geologist and received by SEAC on 05/03/2019.
4. As per the joint inspection report, following leases fall in cluster and exist within 500 meter distance from the nearest human habitation:
Sr. List of leases Lease S.No. Vill Ta Nearest Rate of mining River Details of No. falling under Area Human EC the cluster habitati (Name of on as Lease Holder) per the joint inspecti on report
1. Sabarmati 9.99 Sabamati Rajpur Gandhi Aluva 7,88,221 MTPA Sabarma SEIAA Majurka Ha Nadipattpai nagar Hills 160 ti /GUJ/EC/1( madarsah kari ki S NO 64 meter a)/1158/201 Mandli limited ne lagu 8 dated 30 October 2018 2 Narendra Sinh 2.15 Sabamati Alua Gandhi Alua: 10 5000 MTPA Sabarma SEIAA/GUJ/ B Rathod Ha Nadipattpai nagar meter ti EC/1(a)/769 ki S NO /2015 dated 119, 123 Ne 27 March 2015 3 Kanjibhai 1,38 Sabarmati Rajpur Gandhi Alua 5000 MTPA Sabarma SEIAA/GUJ/ Devjibhai Ha Riverbed S nagar Hills: ti EC/1(a)?777 Rabari NO 64 147 ?2015 dated meter 27 March 2015 4 Vishniji Panaji 0.81 Sabarmati Kalol Gandhi Alua 5000 MTPA Sabarma SEIAA/GUJ/ Vanzara HA Riverbed S nagar Hills: 10 Sabarmati ti EC/1(a)/776 NO 335 Meter /2015 dated 27 March 2015
5 Narendra Sinh 2.00 Sabar,ato Alua, Gandhi Alua 1, 69, 800 MTPA Sabarma DEIAA/GNR/ B Rathod Ha Mado[att[aol Mansa nagar Hills; 10 ti EC/1(a)/B2/ o S MP 335 meter 2018 dated Nelagu 28 Nov 2018 6 Narendra Sinh 2.00 Sabamati Alua, Gandhi Alua 5000 MTPA Sabarma SEIAA/GUJ/ B Rathod Ha Nadipatt S Kalol nagar Hills : ti EC/1(a)/791 NO 134 to 672 /2015 dated 136 meter 27 March Sadravil: 2015 317 meter
5. The committee considered the minimum distance reported in the aforementioned joint inspection report dated 05.02.2019 and also noted the mention of list of leases of the lease holders falling under and forming the cluster situation.
6. The Committee also reiterated the directions at point no 84 of the Hon. NGT Judgment dated 30.09.2020 stating "......to consider the matter afresh and after giving opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved, dispose of the application in accordance with law. The policy as laid down by the CPCB and approved by this Tribunal referred above are taken to be account and be adopted". Keeping in view of the Hon. NGT direction, the Committee noted that proposal reviewed today attracts the provision of clause 4 no 2 (i) of the OM dated 12.12.2018 issued by MoEF&CC which is produced as below:
"(i) Providing for EIA, EMP and therefore, Public Consultation for all the areas from 5 to 25 ha falling member Category B-2 at par with Category B-1 by SEAC/SEIAA as well as for cluster situation wherever it is not provided;"
7. Accordingly, the committee unanimously decided to issue Terms of Reference (TOR) including Public Hearing for the cluster formed by the leases (at Sr. No. 1, 3 and 6 of above table) which are at a distance more than 100 m from the nearest human habitation. Whereas, for the leases (at sr. No. 2, 4 and 5 of above table) which are at a distance less than 100m from the nearest human habitation, the earlier stand taken by the SEAC to recommend for cancellation of EC remains unchanged."
4. Learned counsel Ms. Aastha Mehta submitted that recommendation of SEAC is uncalled for. Mining should not be prohibited upto 100 meters from habitation but only upto 50 meters.
5. We find two difficulties in the way of the appellants. First, Appeal under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is maintainable only against a final grant or refusal of EC and not against recommendations of SEAC. Second, in view of the Precautionary principle, even if two views are possible, the view which is safer for the environment has to be preferred. SEAC, on due consideration recommended that mining is not conducive to the environment upto 100 meters from habitation. Even if under the State Rules, prohibition is for lesser distance, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, having regard to adverse impact on environment, there is no bar to longer distance being insisted by the SEAC.
6. Thus, both on account of the maintainability as well as merits, we do not find any ground to interfere with the recommendations of the SEAC.
5The appeal is dismissed.
In view of order in the main matter, I.A. No. 15/2021 also stands disposed of.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Brijesh Sethi, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM April 9, 2021 Appeal No. 59/2020(WZ) A 6