National Green Tribunal
Rajjan Pandey vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 July, 2023
Item No.1 (Court No. 2)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI.
(Through Physical Hearing with Hybrid VC Option)
Original Application No.193/2022
In the Matter of:-
1. Mr. Rajjan Pandey
Nahari Village, Nareni
Banda-210129, U.P. ..Applicant
VERSUS
1. State of Uttar Pradesh
Through Chief Secretary
Government of Uttar Pradesh
101, 'B' Block, Lok Bhawan,
U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow - 226001
Email Address: [email protected]
2. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board,
Building No. TC-12V
Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar
Lucknow-226 010, U.P.
Email Address: [email protected]
3. Central Pollution Control Board
Parivesh Bhawan, east Arjun Nagar, Delhi-110032
Email: [email protected]
4. Department of Mines and Geology, Uttar Pradesh
Raja, Khanij Bhawan 27/8, Ram Mohan Rai Marg
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226001
Email:[email protected]
5. Department of Environment, State of Uttar Pradesh
Office of the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests (PCCF)
17, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow, U.P.-226001
Email: [email protected]
6. Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department
96, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Raj Bhavan Colony,
The Mall Avenue, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226001
Email: [email protected] /
[email protected]
7. Ministry of Mines
Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
2
New Delhi - 110001
Email: [email protected]
8. District Magistrate, Banda
District Magistrate Office, Collectorate
Banda-210001, U.P.
Email: [email protected]
9. Smt Jasmit Kaur Malhotra
W/o Shri Rasmeet Singh Malhotra
Gata No. 218
(Khand No. 1)
10. Smt Jasmit Kaur Malhotra
W/o Shri. Rasmeet Singh Malhotra
Gata No. 218
(Khand No. 2)
11. Smt Amrit Kaur
W/o Shri Ajit Singh Malhotra
Gata No. 587 व588
(Khand No. 8)
12. M/s Jai Maa Sharda Traders- Shri Ram Milan
S/o Shri Ramgopal
Gata No. 587
(Khand No. 1)
13. Shri Mujibuddin Siddiqui
S/o Shri Jamiruddin Siddiqui
Gata No. 501
14. M/s S R Innovation L L P Pro- Shri Surrender Puniya,
Gata No. 587
(Khand No. 07)
15. Smt Amrit Kaur
W/o Shri Ajit Singh Malhotra
Gata No. 587
(Khand No. 05)
16. M/s S S Granite Partner Shri Atique Ahmed
Gata No. 309
17. M/s S R Innovation L L P Pro-Shri Surrender Puniya,
Gata No. 587
(Khand No. 02)
18. M/s Harshit Enterprises Partner Shri Harshit Singh
Gata No. 45 ...Respondents
O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
3
Counsel for the applicant
Mr. Rahul Choudhary, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Pradeep Misra, Advocate for respondent no. 2 (through VC).
Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocate for respondent no. 4.
Mr. Gi.Gi. C. George, Advocate for respondents no. 5 and 7.
Mr. Mayank Pandey, Advocate for respondents no. 9 to 11, 13 to18.
Present:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER.
Reserved on : 01.05.2023
Date of Judgment: 27.07.2023
Application under the provisions of the National Green Tribunal, 2010.
JUDGMENT
BY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. The applicant-Rajjan Pandey has filed the present application under the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 complaining about illegal mining, crushing and blasting in the hills of Village Nahari, Gata no. 156,218,309, 501, 587, 588, 589 and 601 and hills of Village Khalari, Gata No. 54,144,145, District Banda, Uttar Pradesh in violation of the environmental norms. The applicant has submitted that illegal mining and blasting is destroying the scenic beauty of the hills, damaging the temples situated there and causing air and water pollution in the surrounding area adversely affecting the agriculture and endangering lives of nearby villagers and their cattle. The applicant has further submitted that because of illegal mining and blasting, houses of the villagers have been damaged and water of the pond became poisonous due to which many cattle have been died. O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
42. Vide order dated 10.03.2022, this Tribunal constituted a Joint Committee comprising of State PCB, Director Mining and Geological Department, DFO and District Magistrate of District Banda (Uttar Pradesh) and directed the same to submit factual and action taken report.
3. In compliance thereof, the Joint Committee inspected the mining sites in question on 30.03.2022 and submitted factual and action taken report vide email dated 06.04.2022.
4. In its report the Joint Committee has mentioned that at the time of inspection mining work was not going on and the villagers informed that mining work was not done for the last two months. The Joint Committee found boulders and stones on site leased out to M/s Harshit Enterprises.
The Joint Committee has also submitted that applicant Mr. Rajjan Pandey and other villagers demanded that in mining leases sanctioned in Village Nahari and Khalari blasting may not be carried out without permission of concerned department regarding which requisites instructions have been obtained from Director Mines Safety, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh and issued to all concerned for carrying out blasting in the mines as per rules and guidelines issued. The Joint Committee has further submitted that the mining sites leased are not in the form of forest and no pond was located near such leased sites in Village Khilari.
There were some small size ponds in village Nahari in which rain water was found collected but the water was not contaminated. Some children were found taking bath in the ponds and cattle were also observed in the ponds. No industrial units is located nearby and no industrial effluents and sewage is being discharged in the said ponds. The villagers have stated that no animal had died due to drinking pond water. All the leased mining sites are more than 50 meters away from the abadi as required by O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
5the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021. Revenue of Rs. 3,28,66,700/- and employment is being generated by 10 leased mining sites. In view of requirements of minor minerals for the public construction works, generating revenue and regulation and development of minor minerals, it would not be appropriate to cancel the mining leases.
5. On going through the report of the Joint Committee, we noticed that the grievances of the applicant and other residents had not been specifically addressed. Also the questions of compliance with environmental norms and environmental clearance conditions imposed by SEIAA had not been gone into by the Joint Committee. The Joint Committee was mandatorily required by reference order to submit report regarding these aspects. In view of the fact that at the time of inspection by it, mining work was not being carried on, it was considered appropriate that the Joint Committee visits the mining sites in question again when the mining work is being done. Vide order dated 13.07.2022, the Joint Committee was reconstituted by including representatives of CPCB and SEIAA and directed to visit the mining sites in question, look into the grievances of the applicant pointwise, verify the facts regarding compliance with environmental norms and EC conditions by the Project Proponent and take appropriate remedial action as may be required by following due process of law and furnish Factual and Action Taken Report accordingly.
6. Vide order dated 04.11.2022 time was granted for filing of the report of the Joint Committee and personal appearance of the District Magistrate, Banda (Uttar Pradesh), concerned DFO and Official duly authorized by Director, Mines and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh on the next date of hearing physically or through VC was ordered. O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
67. In compliance there of the report of the Joint Committee has been filed by Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Regional Officer, UPPCB vide letter dated 15.12.2022 through email dated 16.12.2022. The relevant part of the report is reproduced below:-
"Joint Committee Report in the Hon'ble NGT matter of Original Application No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Applicant Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s) X X X X Accordingly, the following members have been nominated by the concerned departments for the said committee, Shri Rajendra D. Patil, Scientist D, CPCB regional Directorate, Lucknow Dr. D.P. Singh, Member UP-SEAC 2 (Representative UP - SEIAA) Shri Rajendra Prasad, Regional Officer, UPPCB, Banda Shri Ajay Kumar Yadav, Senior Mine Officer, Geological and Mining Department, Prayagraj Shri Rajat Verma, SDM, Naraini, District -Banda.
Shri Sanjay Agarwal, District Forest Officer, Banda. The following additional members have been nominated by the District Magistrate, Banda Shri Ved Prakash Shukla, Surveyor, Geological and Mining Department, Banda.
Shri Sukhendra Singh, Mine Inspector, Geological and Mining Department, Banda.
1. The constituted committee has conducted its first meeting on 06.09.2022 and also carried out the field survey on 20.09.2022. During the first field survey, the committee felt the necessity for carrying out the drone survey of the mining areas as no active excavation pits were found in these mining leases.
2. The committee also interacted with the applicant, Mr. Rajjan Pandey through virtual meeting on 11.11.2022 and requested him to attend the second field survey visit. Accordingly, on 15.11.2022 the committee along with the applicant and his representative conducted the visit of all the mining areas in question. Similarly, on the same day the drone survey of the mining lease areas was conducted under the supervision of Joint committee.
3. During both the above visits, the mining operations were found closed in all the mines except M/s Harshit Enterprises. The villagers informed that these operations are closed since some time.
O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
74. During the first field visit, the representatives of the lease holders informed to the committee that the mining operations were not commenced by them since obtaining the Environmental Clearances for production of Boulders/Gitte. And to ascertain their claim the committee asked to conduct the drone survey in presence of the committee members and provide the images of the lease area so that the extent of excavation, if done any can be checked accordingly.
5. Whereas, during this second visit the representative of lease holders painted the different picture about the excavation and informed to the committee that they are constantly mining the materials throughout the year.
6. However, during the field visit only some traces of active excavation have been found in the lease areas of M/s Harshit Enterprises and M/s S. S. Granite.
7. The committee also verified the Google Earth images of these mining lease areas of last few years, and also compared it with the images captured during the drone survey. Except in the mining area of namely M/s Harshit Enterprises and M/s S. S. Granite, the active excavation pits were not clearly visible in any of the allotted lease areas. The Project details and the compiled drone survey images and Google Earth Images are attached at Annexure 2 & 3.
8. It has been informed by the project proponents that they have mostly removed the loose stone/boulders projected above the land surface by manually breaking them into the pieces. For the purpose as such earth excavation work has not been required.
9. As per the mining department, the eMM11 is to be furnished by the lessee to the vehicles carrying mineral out of the Mining Area. The vehicle driver has to carry a printed copy of the form during his journey to the destination. The delivery has to happen within the time stated in the eMM11 form. The production reported based on the eMM11 is given at Annexure
4.
10. Weighing bridge for measuring the amount of material extracted is not provided at any of the mining site. And, it has been informed that the eMM11 for the stones/boulders are being generated on the basis of the volumetric measurements. The reported volume of the transport vehicles is considered for measuring the volume of the material. The eMM11 form is generated based on the self-submission of the data by the lessees which is randomly cross verified by the mining department.
11. The committee also not found any stone crusher in the nearby area to associate with these mines. As per the project proponents, the excavated material is either sold in loose or transported to the crushers located in the other areas of the district.
O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
812. The committee approached the State Groundwater Authority. As per the data submitted by the department for the period of 2020-2022 (Annexure 5), the groundwater level in Nahari village lies in the range of 3.10 - 7.77 m BGL. However, the ultimate permitted depth of the mining mentioned in the Environmental Clearance is 6m. Thus, considering the 3.10 m groundwater level, the permitted depth is not in accordance with the prevailing regulations.
13. The committee thoroughly interacted with the applicant and his representatives and also visited the point of concerns raised in the application.
13.1. During the visit the committee found illegal mining pits near the mine lease area of Smt. Amrit Kaur, Gata No. 587 (Khand No.08) and M/s S. S. Granite, Nahari, Gata. The blasting holes were also seen in the lease area of Smt. Amrit Kaur, Gata No. 587 (Khand No.08) and illegal mining pits situated near it. The aerial distance of the village of the applicant from the area wherein blasting holes are found is at a distance of around 210 m. And the possibility of vibrations due the blasting at nearby houses of villagers cannot be ruled out.
13.2. A pond in the excavated area near lease of Smt. Jasmit Kaur Malhotra, Gata No. 218 (Khand No. 01) & Smt. Jasmit Kaur Malhotra, Gata No. 218 (Khand No. 02) is existed. It was informed that the said area was excavated during the previous lease period and kept as it is without reclamation.
13.3. Based on the observations made by the committee during the first visit, the Mining Department has issued a notice for the illegal mining on 18.10.2022 to M/s Jai Maa Sharda Traders and Amrit Kour khand -5.
13.4. The two lease areas allotted to Smt. Jasmit Kaur Malhotra are adjacent to the pond, which is used mainly by the Cattles. In case of operation of these mines, there is possibility that recharge point of the pond will get disturbed as well as the pond will get polluted through the surface runoff water from these mining areas. However, at present no such impacts are visually seen.
13.5. The committee approached to the concerned Government Medical Officer, to verify the health impact by these mines, his report is attached at Annexure 6. As per the report of Medical Officer, no symptom of the health impact due to these mining activities has been reported.
13.6. The Primary School, Udaipurva is located at approx. 84 m from M/s Jai Maa Sharda Traders, Gata No. 587 (Khand No.
01). Similarly, the public road is passing through the said mining lease area.
13.7. The agricultural lands are surrounded by most of these mining lease areas and the mining activities in such close vicinity can adversely impact the crop yield in these areas. O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
9Similarly, the boulder stones can be thrown into these crops if the blasting operations are carried out in these mine areas.
13.8. The lease allotment was done only based on environmental clearance. And none of the mining projects had obtained the Consent under Water & Air Acts before starting the mining operations. However, after first visit of the committee all the mines have applied for the Consent and eight of them have now valid consent from UPPCB.
14. None of the project proponent has either obtained the approach road through village/agriculture land. For some of the mining areas no approach road is available except agricultural land which may be required to be taken on lease, if owner of land gives consent.
15. The details of the activities carried out by these mining projects under CSR/CER are not available with mining department. Neither such activities are found at ground during the visit.
16. The condition of progressive mine with 6m bench has been mentioned in the Environmental clearance and approval accorded on the mining plan. However, on ground no such bench/progressive mining operations were found in any of the mining project lease area.
17. Finding and recommendations:
17.1. The SEIAA can be asked to amend/review the Environmental Clearances issued to these mining projects considering 17.1.1. Reported shallow ground water table level (around 3 m BGL) in the area.
17.1.2. Residential and agricultural areas located in the closed proximity.
17.1.3. Mining projects having no approach road or with inadequate width of kachha village road.
17.1.4. The reclamation was not done as per mining completion plan in the previous lease.
17.1.5. Natural pond /water body located near lease area. 17.2. The Mining department can be asked to cross verify the quantity of production reported in emm11 form and actual excavation carried out by them. Similarly, the lessees can be asked to install/develop the measuring mechanism at the exit of the lease area.
17.3. The mining operations should not be allowed without valid consents from UPPCB under Water and Air Acts.
O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
1017.4. The mining operations should not be allowed without valid permission for the approach roads.
17.5. Considering the residential areas and agricultural lands located in the close proximity, the blasting operations should not be allowed.
17.6. The stringent action should be initiated against the illegal mining.
17.7. The blasting outside the lease area is the case of illegal handling of explosives and should be punished/penalized under the concerned prevailing rules.
17.8. The project proponent can be asked to strictly comply with the conditions prescribed through the Environmental Clearance and Consents."
8. Ms. Deepa Ranjan, District Magistrate, Banda, Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Divisional Forest Officer, Banda, Mr. Arjun Kumar, Mines Officer, Banda and Mr. Ajay Kumar Yadav, Mining Officer, Prayagraj duly authorized by the Director, Mines and Geology, Uttar Pradesh had appeared before this Tribunal through VC and we had interacted with them.
9. Vide order dated 03.01.2023, notices were ordered to be issued to respondents no. 1 to 18.
10. Pursuant to notice, reply has been filed by respondent no. 2- UPPCB vide email dated 31.01.2023. Report has been filed by respondent no. -8-District Magistrate, Banda vide email dated 06.02.2023. Replies have been filed by respondent no. 7 vide email dated 10.02.23, respondents no. 9 to 11 and 13 to 18 vide email dated 09.02.2023 and respondent no. 12 vide email dated 23.02.2023.
11. The relevant part of the reply of respondent no. 2-UPPCB is reproduced below:-
"Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board response in compliance of order dated 03.01.2023 passed by Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in the matter of O.A O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 11
No. 193/2022, Rajjan Pandy Vs. State o Uttar Pradesh and others.
X X X X
2. That it is submitted that with reference to the complaint by applicant Shri Rajjan Pandey, Hon'ble National Green Tribunal passed an order on 13.07.2022. In compliance of the order, joint committee constituted by Hon'ble National Green Tribunal has submitted its report 15.12.2022.
3. That it is submitted that as per the report, out of 10 mining lease holders, only 08 mining lease holders had obtained valid CTO and the CTO applications of 02 mining lease holder was under process, but at present all 10 mining lease holders have obtained CTO.
4. That it is submitted that the lease allotment was done only on the basis of Environmental Clearance and none of the mining lease holders had obtained the CTO under water & air Acts before starting the operation of mining. UPPCB has issued Show Cause Notices vide letter dated 23.01.2023 for imposing the Environmental Compensation for the period when these mining leases had been operating without CTO against all 10 mining lease holders. The copies of show cause notices are attached herewith and marked as Annexure No.-1."
12. The relevant part of the report of respondent no. -8-District Magistrate, Banda dated 04.02.2023 addressed to Registrar General, NGT is reproduced below.
"X X X X X X ek0 jk"Vªh; gfjr U;k;kf/kdj.k esa ;ksftr mijksDr vks0,0 ua0&193@2022 jTtu ik.Ms; cuke m0iz0 jkT; o vU; esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 03-01-2023 }kjk lEcfU/kr leLr iV~Vk/kkjdksa dks viuk i{k izLrqr djus gsrq ftykf/kdkjh ckank ds ek/;e ls uksfVl rkfeyk djk;s tkus dh vis{kk dh x;h Fkh] ftlds Øe esa dk;kZy; i= la0&349@[kfut&30 ckank fnukad 07-01-2023 ¼layXud&01½ }kjk bZesy@iathÑr Mkd ds ek/;e ls lEcfU/kr [kuu iV~Vk/kkjdksa dks lwfpr fd;k x;kA mDr ds vfrfjDr xfBr desVh }kjk izLrqr fjiksVZ esa vafdr fVIi.kh@Recommendations ds vk/kkj ij fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh x;h] ftldk fooj.k fuEuor gS % 1- izLrqr fjiksVZ esa vafdr [email protected] During the visit the committee found illegal mining pits near the mine area of Smt. Amrit Kaur, Gata No. 587 (Khand No. 08) and M/s S.S. Granite, Nahari, Gata. The blasting holes were also O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
12seen in the lease area of Smt. Amrit Kaur, Gata No. 587 (Khand No. 08) and illegal mining pits situated near it. The aerial distance of the village of the applicant from the area wherein blasting holes are found is at a distance of around 210 m. And the possibility of vibrations due the blasting at nearby houses of villgers cannot be ruled out.
desVh }kjk izLrqr mijksDr fVIi.kh ds Øe esa dk;kZy; i= la0&351@[kfut&30 ckank fnukad 07-01-2023 ¼layXud&02½ }kjk [kku fujh{kd] ckank dks iz'uxr izdj.k esa gq;s voS/k [kuu ds lEcU/k esa lafyIr voS/k [kuu dÙkkZvksa ds fo:) izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djk;s tkus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA mDr ds Øe esa [kku fujh{kd ckank }kjk fnukad 10-01-2023 dks Fkkuk ujSuh ¼ckank½ esa eq0v0la0&0003 o"kZ 2023 ¼layXud&03½ ntZ djkdj vko';d dk;Zokgh dh x;hA 2- izLrqr fjiksVZ esa vafdr fVIi.kh@Recomendations -13.2- A pond in the excavated area near lease of Smt. Jasmit Kaur Malhotra, Gata No. 218 (Khand No. 01) & Smt. Jasmit Kaur Malhotra, Gata No. 218 (Khand No. 02) is existed. It was informed that the said area was excavated during the previous lease period and kept as it is without reclamation. 17.1.4.- The reclamation was not done as per mining completion plan in the previous lease. 3- desVh }kjk izLrqr mijksDr fVIi.kh ds Øe esa dk;kZy; i= la0&348@[kfut&30 ckank fnukad 07-01-2023 ¼layXud&04½ }kjk pond dks fu;ekuqlkj reclamation djkus gsrq xkVk la0&218] [k.M la0&01 o 02 ds iV~Vk/kkjd Jherh tlehr dkSj eYgks=k dks funsZf'kr fd;k x;k] ftlds Øe esa iV~Vk/kkfjdk dk izkFkZuk&i= fnukad 27-01-2023 ¼layXud&06½ izkIr gqvk] ftlesa eq[; :i ls mfYyf[kr gS fd ^^mijksDr Reclamation dk ge viuk rF; j[krs gq, ;g fyf[kr esa nsrs gSa fd pond dk fuekZ.k djhc 10 ls 12 o"kZ iwoZ 'kkldh; Hkwfe ij xzke iapk;r ds funsZ'ku esa fd;k x;k gS ftlds dqN Hkkx esa tkuojksa dks ikuh ihus ds fy, iDdk cuk;k x;k gSA Pond ds fuekZ.k vkSj gekjh yht dh LohÑfr@fu"iknu ds dbZ o"kks± dk vUrj gSA Pond dk fuekZ.k iwoZ esa gqvk gS] tks fd [kuu }kjk ugha fd;k x;k gSA Reclamation esa iwoZ o mijkUr esa fdlh rjg ds QksVksxzkQdh Hkh vko';drk ugha gSA** mDr ds Øe esa ,d izkFkZuk&i= fnukad jfgr ¼layXud&06½ xzke iz/kku ugjh] fo0[k0 ujSuh ¼ckank½ dk Hkh izkIr gqvk] ftlesa Hkh mfYyf[kr gS fd ^^izkFkhZ ds xzke iapk;r xzke&ugjh] rglhy ujSuh ds xkVk la[;k 218 ds ikl cus rkykc dk fuekZ.k djhc 10 ls 12 o"kZ iwoZ 'kkldh; Hkwfe ij xzke iapk;r ds funsZ'kkuqlkj cuk;k x;k Fkk] ftlds dqN Hkkx esa tkuojksa dks ikuh ihus ds fy, iDdk cuk;k x;k gSA rkykc ds fuekZ.k vkSj mDr xkVk la[;k esa LohÑr [kuu iV~Vs ls dbZ o"kks± dk vUrj gSA rkykc dk fuekZ.k iwoZ esa gqvk Fkk] tks fd [kuu }kjk ugha fd;k x;k gSA ;fn rkykc dk Hkjko fd;k tkrk gS rks xzkeoklh dks dkQh leL;kvksa dk lkeuk djuk iM+sxk rFkk mijksDr rkykc ls tkuoj ugkrs gSa o xzkeoklh dks dkQh leL;kvksa dk lkeuk djuk iM+sxk rFkk mijksDr rkykc ls tkuoj ugkrs gSa o xzkeoklh Hkh vius futh mi;ksx gsrq ikuh ys tkrs gSaA vr% mijksDr rkykc dk Hkjko u djkus dh Ñik djsaA** O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
133- izLrqr fjiksVZ esa vafdr fVIi.kh@ Recommendations -- 14- None of the project proponent has either obtained permission or signed MOU for the approach road through village/agriculture land. For some of the mining areas no approach road is available except agricultural land which may be required to be taken on lease, if owner of land gives consent. 17.4- The mining operations should not be allowed without valid permission for the approach roads.
desVh }kjk izLrqr mijksDr fVIi.kh ds Øe esa dk;kZy; i= la0&350@[kfut&30 ckank fnukad 07-01-2023 ¼layXud&07½ }kjk leLr iV~Vk/kkjd ¼10½ dks vius&vius {ks= ls ifjogu ekxZ esa iM+us okys fdlkuks dh Hkwfe ;fn dksbZ gS] rks mlds lEcU/k esa fdlkuks ls yh x;h lgefr dh izfr miyC/k djkus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k lkFk gh miftykf/kdkjh ujSuh dks ;g funsZf'kr fd;k x;k fd iz'uxr xzke ugjh o [kykjh esa fLFkr 10 [kuu iV~Vksa ds lEcU/k esa izR;sd [kuu iV~Vk ds ifjogu ekxZ esa ;fn fdlku dh dksbZ Hkwfe iM+rh gS rks iV~Vk/kkjd }kjk fdlku ls yh x;h lgefr dk ijh{k.k djrs gq;s vk[;k miyC/k djk;s tkus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA ftlds Øe esa miftykf/kdkjh ujSuh ds i= la0&400@vk'kq0 fnukad 30-01-2023 ¼layXud&08½ }kjk leLr 10 [kuu iV~Vk/kkjd ds ifjogu ekxZ esa iM+us okys ekxZ esa T;knkrj Hkwfe ljdkjh xkVk la[;k gS ,oa ftu iV~Vk/kkjdksa ds ifjogu ekxZ esa Ñ"kdksa dh Hkwfe dk mi;ksx gks jgk gS mu fdlkuks dk lgefr i= iV~Vk/kkjd ds ikl gSA 4- izLrqr fjiksVZ esa vafdr fVIi.kh@Recommendations -- 15- The details of the activities carried out by these mining projects under CSR/CER arc not available with mining department. Neither such activities are found at ground during the visit desVh }kjk izLrqr mijksDr fVIi.kh ds Øe esa dk;kZy; i= la0&320@[kfut&30 ckank fnukad 05-01-2023 ¼layXud&09½ }kjk miftykf/kdkjh ujSuh dh v/;{krk esa miftykf/kdkjh ujSuh] {ks=h; vf/kdkjh m0iz0 iznw"k.k fu;a=.k cksMZ ckank ,oa [kku vf/kdkjh@[kku fujh{kd ckank dks xzke&ugjh o [kykjh ds 10 [kuu iV~Vk/kkjdksa }kjk i;kZoj.k LoPNrk izek.k&i= esa CSR/CER/EMP gsrq vafdr /kujkf'k ds lEcU/k esa iV~Vk/kkjdksa ds lkFk cSBd djrs gq;s dk;Z ;kstuk rS;kj dj iV~Vk/kkjdksa ls dk;Z djkrs gq;s vk[;k miyC/k djk;s tkus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k] ftlds Øe esa fnukad 05-01-2023 dks xzke&ugjh o [kykjh fLFkr mijksDr [kuu iV~Vk/kkjdksa ds lkFk cSBd djrs gq;s cSBd dk dk;Zo`Rr dk;kZy; i= la0&352 fnukad 07-01-2023 ¼layXud&10½ }kjk fuxZr fd;k x;kA desVh }kjk izLrqr dk;Zo`Rr ds Øe esa fu;ekuqlkj CSR/CER/EMP gsrq vafdr /kujkf'k ds lkis{k dk;Z djk;k tk jgk gS] ftldk foLr`r fooj.k vyx ls layXu gSA ¼layXud&11½ 5- izLrqr fjiksVZ esa vafdr fVIi.kh@Recommendations -- 17.2 - The Mining department can be asked to cross verify the quantity of production reported in emm11 form and actual excavation carried out by them. Similarly, the lessees can be asked to install/develop the measuring mechanism at the exit of the lease area.
O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
14desVh }kjk izLrqr mijksDr fVIi.kh ds Øe esa dk;kZy; i= la0&347@[kfut&30 ckank fnukad 07-01-2023 ¼layXud&12½ }kjk miftykf/kdkjh ujSuh] {ks=h; vf/kdkjh m0iz0 iznw"k.k fu;a=.k cksMZ ckank o [kku vf/kdkjh@[kku fujh{kd ckank dh la;qDr Vhe dk xBu djrs gq;s iqu% iV~Vk {ks=ksa ls mi[kfut fxV~Vh@cksYMj ds [kuu dk lR;kiu djus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA xfBr desVh }kjk viuh vk[;k fnukad 19-01-2023 ¼layXud&13½ }kjk viuh vk[;k izLrqr dh x;h] ftlesa eq[; :i ls mfYyf[kr gS fd ^^desVh }kjk iz'uxr 10 [kuu iV~Vks dk iqu% fujh{k.k fd;k x;k] ftlesa ik;k x;k fd mDr {ks=ksa esa T;knkrj Hkkx esa cksYMj o cM+s&cM+s pV~Vku ds :i esa ekStwn iRFkjksa dks rksM+dj <ksdk ¼Mk;esa'uy cksYMj½ ds QkeZ esa ifjogu djrs gq;s foØ; fd;k tkrk gS] ftldk lR;kiu ifjogu izi=ksa ds lkis{k gksrk gSA**
13. The respondent no. 7 has submitted in its reply that the applicant has not made any reference/allegation against Respondent no. 7 and the issues raked by the applicant are totally under the domain of the State Government. Respondent no. 7 has no role to play in the current issues Respondent no. 7 is only a proforma party and not being a necessary part may be deleted from the array of parties.
14. The relevant part of the replies by respondents no. and 9 to 11, 13 to 18 is reproduced below:-
"REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NO. 9 TO 11 AND 13 TO 18 X X X X PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:
No illegal mining is being carried out.
3. It is humbly submitted that the Applicant herein has preferred the present original application on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The Applicant has failed to annex any photograph or any supporting evidence which indicates that the illegal mining has been carried out.
4. In fact, the Joint Committee Report of 6.4.2022 has dealt point-wise with every allegation made by the Applicant and found all of them to be baseless and untenable. It is pertinent to note that the Joint Committee prepared the report after physically visiting the concerned areas with the Applicants.
O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
155. The answering respondents are not carrying out any illegal mining and as such, no allegations of illegal mining have been labelled against the Respondents herein either by the Joint Committee report submitted vide email dated 06.04.2022 or the report submitted by Joint Committee vide dated 15.12.2022.
6. The Respondents are conducting mining in terms of Environmental Clearance granted to them in accordance with the law. The mining sites are open and subject to regular inspection by mining authorities.
No blasting is done for the mining of Stone quarries.
7. It is humbly submitted that the allegations of illegal blasting and its consequence thereof the villagers' homes have been destroyed, the loss of cattle lives, contamination of pond water and destruction of the boundary wall raised by the government are absolutely baseless and misleading. The applicant has failed to place on record in order to substantiate any of these allegations.
8. Further, the contention that the mining operations are carried out near the vicinity of the rural settlement and its consequence thereof the villagers facing health problems is based on conjectures and surmises. In this regard, it is pertinent to point out the Para 13.5 of the Joint Committee Inspection Report dated 15.12.2022, where conclusive finding on the basis of the report of the Government Medical Officer is given that no symptom of the health impact due to these mining activities has been reported.
9. It is submitted here that the respondents herein are carrying out the mining operations manually and as such no blasting or stone crushers are being operated for the mining operation.
CSR/CER has been done by the answering respondents:
10. It is humbly submitted that the report dated 15.12.2022 submitted by the Joint Committee constituted by this Hon'ble Court in the present case pointed out in clause 15 that the details of the activities carried out by these mining projects under CSR/CER are not available with the mining department and neither such activities are found at the ground during the visit.
11. In pursuance of the finding of the Joint Committee report dated 15.12.2022, the meeting was convened on 07.01.2023 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Naraini in which the various stakeholders of the mining leases also participated. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Naraini directed the Block Education Officer, Naraini and M.O.I.C., Naraini to provide the details of the schools/colleges situated near the mining area which are deprived of the requisite budget for the development of infrastructure from the concerned department. The presiding officer directed the mining lease holders to carry out the work of development under the CSR/CER.
O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
16Copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 07.01.2023 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. R-2
12. In furtherance of the meeting held on 07.01.2023, the Respondents herein have carried out the various development work under the CSR/CER in the schools/colleges situated near the vicinity of the mining leases.
A true copy of the work carried out by the respondents herein under CSR/CER is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. R-3 Allegations of mining projects having no approach road or kaccha village road having inadequate mining
13. It is recommended in the Joint Inspection Committee report dated 15.12.2022 that the SEIAA can amend/review the Environmental Clearance issued to the mining projects considering that the mining projects have no approach road or there are roads with inadequate width of the kachha village road. That the Applicant has alleged that mining lease holders are damaging the crops of the villagers in the adjoining areas of the mining leases in the absence of an approach road.
14. It is humbly submitted that the finding of the Joint Inspection Committee is factually incorrect. All the mining sites of the Respondent are either accessible by a Pakka road or where required the Respondents have entered into an agreement with farmers/owners to use access to their land. The Tehsiladar Nariani has also verified the abovementioned facts and submitted a site inspection report in this regard. A true copy of the maps indicating the approach road towards the mining leases is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. R-4 A true copy of the site Inspection report conducted by the Tehsildar, Nairaini on 31.01.2023 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. R-5 A true copy of the rent agreement entered into by the Respondents herein and the farmers is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. R-6.
A true copy of the letters addressed to the District Magistrate (Mining Department), Banda informing about the MOU or consent letter to approach the mining area by the leaseholders is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. R-7.
15. It is submitted that the concern relating to the shallow ground water table raised in the Joint Inspection Report is also misplaced. It is pertinent to note here that the Respondent is conducting mining manually on hills. There is no real and imminent danger to the groundwater in the area. In fact, the Respondents' excavations may not even reach ground level by the time the tenure of the lease is over.
16. The concern relating to reclamation cannot be addressed by the Respondents. The reclamation has to be claimed from the earlier mining projects.
O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
1717. Further, the concern relating to illegal mining pits raised in Para 13.1 and 13.3 of the Report is also misplaced and incorrect. It needs to be clarified that the area in which illegal mining pits were found was in Gata No. 587 Khand 9 and not in Gata No. 587 Khand 8, which belongs to one of the Respondents. Further, these illegal mining pits cannot be attributed to the Respondent as it has only indulged in manual mining.
18. It is humbly submitted that the Respondents have obtained valid consent from UPPCB under Water and Air Acts. This fact is confirmed by the Joint Committee at Para 13 of the Inspection Report dated 15.12.2022
19. Lastly, most importantly, it is submitted that the Joint Committee wrongly recommends at Para 17.5 that considering the residential areas and agricultural lands are located in close proximity, blasting operations should not be allowed. Firstly, the basis of the recommendation is incorrect, the mining projects of the Respondents are not located near the residential and agricultural lands.
20. Secondly, this recommendation of the Joint Inspection Committee is untenable in law as it will amount to completed ban on mining through blasting operation. It is humbly submitted that the stone mining through blasting operation is acknowledged and allowed in law. The stone mining is regulated under Mines Act, 1952. The Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961, made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 57 of the Mines, Act, 1952 regulates the permission for blasting for mining operations.
21. The regulation puts in place a stringent procedure for obtaining permission for blasting for mining purposes. The regulates mandates that the prior permission for blasting will have to be obtained from Directorate General of Mines and Safety [DGMS]. The conditions which mining entity is subjected to depends upon the distance from the permanent building or structure.
22. It is thus submitted that prevailing law contemplates allows mining through blasting operations subject such conditions as prescribed by DGMS.
Para-wise reply to OA:
23. Insofar as the contents of Para 1 of the OA relating to the loss of crops are concerned, the contents of Para 7 are being reiterated. However, the rest of the averments are categorically denied in light of the finding of the joint committee report.
24. The contents of Para 2 of the OA are false and misleading and hence denied. In reply thereto, it is submitted that no harm has been caused to any temple and no finding to that effect has been placed by the joint committee report. O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
1825. The contents of Para 3 of the OA are false and misleading and hence denied. In reply thereto, it is submitted that no finding to that effect has been placed by the joint committee report.
26. The averments made in Para 4 of the OA are false and misleading and hence denied. In reply thereto, it is submitted that no finding to that effect has been placed by the joint committee report. Further, reliance is placed on clause 13.5 of the finding of the joint committee report.
27. The averments made in Para 5, 6 and 7 of the OA are false and misleading and hence denied. In reply thereto, it is submitted that no finding to that effect has been placed by the joint committee report.
28. The averments made in Para 8 and 9 of the OA are false and misleading and hence denied. Insofar as the contents relating to the blasting and operation of stone crushers are concerned, the contents of para 6 and 7 of this reply are reiterated for the sake of brevity.
29. The averments made in Para 10 to 17 do not relate to answering the respondents. However, the averments made with respect to illegal mining and blasting are categorically denied."
15. The relevant part of the reply field by respondent no. 12 is reproduced below:-
"Reply on behalf of respondent no. 12.
X X X X X
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:
No illegal mining is being carried out.
3. It is humbly submitted that the Applicant herein has preferred the present original application on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The Applicant has failed to annex any photograph or any supporting evidence which indicates that the illegal mining has been carried out.
4. In fact, the Joint Committee Report of 6.4.2022 has dealt point-wise with every allegation made by the Applicant and found all of them to be baseless and untenable. It is pertinent to note that the Joint Committee prepared the report after physically visiting the concerned areas with the Applicants.
5. The answering respondents are not carrying out any illegal mining and as such, no allegations of illegal mining have been labelled against the Respondents herein either by the Joint Committee report submitted vide email dated 06.04.2022 or the report submitted by Joint Committee vide dated 15.12.2022.
O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 19
6. It is pertinent to note that any allegation of illegal mining on the Respondent are on the face of it false and baseless as no mining is being conducted by it since November 2022 till date pursuant to the direction by the State Government. The Respondent has deposited the penalty imposed by the mining department through its notice dated 18.10.2022. A copy of the proof of depositing the penalty amount is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1.
7. The Respondents are conducting mining in terms of Environmental Clearance granted to them in accordance with the law. The mining sites are open and subject to regular inspection by mining authorities.
No blasting is done for the mining of Stone quarries.
8. It is humbly submitted that the allegations of illegal blasting and its consequence thereof the villagers' homes have been destroyed, the loss of cattle lives, contamination of pond water and destruction of the boundary wall raised by the government are absolutely baseless and misleading. The applicant has failed to place on record any evidence in order to substantiate any of these allegations.
9. Further, the contention that the mining operations are carried out near the vicinity of the rural settlement and its consequence thereof the villagers facing health problems is based on conjectures and surmises. In this regard, it is pertinent to point out the Para 13.5 of the Joint Committee Inspection Report dated 15.12.2022, where conclusive finding on the basis of the report of the Government Medical Officer is given that no symptom of the health impact due to these mining activities has been reported.
10. It is submitted here that the respondents herein are carrying out the mining operations manually and as such no blasting or stone crushers are being operated for the mining operation. Further no mining is being conducted by the Respondent since November 2022 till date pursuant to the direction by the State Government.
CSR/CER has been done by the answering respondents:
11. It is humbly submitted that the report dated 15.12.2022 submitted by the Joint Committee constituted by this Hon'ble Court in the present case pointed out in clause 15 that the details of the activities carried out by these mining projects under CSR/CER are not available with the mining department and neither such activities are found at the ground during the visit.
12. In pursuance of the finding of the Joint Committee report dated 15.12.2022, the meeting was convened on 07.01.2023 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Naraini in which the various stakeholders of the mining leases also participated. The Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Naraini directed the Block Education Officer, Naraini and M.O.I.C., Naraini to provide the details of O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
20the schools/colleges situated near the mining area which are deprived of the requisite budget for the development of infrastructure from the concerned department. The presiding officer directed the mining lease holders to carry out the work of development under the CSR/CER.
Copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 07.01.2023 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. R-2
13. In furtherance of the meeting held on 07.01.2023, the Respondents herein have carried out the various development work under the CSR/CER in the schools/colleges situated near the vicinity of the mining leases. It has initiated the repair work in a government school in Ghaziabad, and has constructed a toilet for disabled at village khalari.
Allegations of mining projects having no approach road or kaccha village road having inadequate mining
14. It is recommended in the Joint Inspection Committee report dated 15.12.2022 that the SEIAA can amend/review the Environmental Clearance issued to the mining projects considering that the mining projects have no approach road or there are roads with inadequate width of the kachha village road. That the Applicant has alleged that mining lease holders are damaging the crops of the villagers in the adjoining areas of the mining leases in the absence of an approach road.
15. It is humbly submitted that the finding of the Joint Inspection Committee is factually incorrect. The mining site of the Respondent is accessible by a Pakka road which runs in front of the mining site. This fact is clear from the picture of Gata 587 which is annexed to the Joint Committee Report. The Tehsiladar Nariani has also verified the abovementioned facts and submitted a site inspection report in this regard.
A true copy of the maps indicating the approach road towards the mining leases is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. R-3 A true copy of the site Inspection report conducted by the Tehsildar, Nairaini on 31.01.2023 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. R-4 No school near mining site of the Respondent
16. It is humbly submitted that the Joint Committed in its Report dated 15.12.2022 has wrongly concluded that the Primary School Udaipurva is located at a distance of 84 meters from mining site of Respondent which is Gata No. 587. It is humbly submitted that the school is located atleast at a distance of 200 metres away from Gata No. 587. It is clear that no school is located in the vicinity of Gata No. 587, this can be seen clearly in the picture of Gata No. 507(Khand 1) annexed by the Joint Committee Report itself.
17. Further, the public road passes in front of the Respondent and not through it. The mining site does not adjoin O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
21any village or a farm. This is clear from the picture annexed to the Joint Committee Report.
18. It is submitted that the concern relating to the shallow ground water table raised in the Joint Inspection Report is also misplaced. It is pertinent to note here that the Respondent is conducting mining manually on hills. There is no real and imminent danger to the groundwater in the area. In fact, the Respondents' excavations may not even reach ground level by the time the tenure of the lease is over.
19. The concern relating to reclamation cannot be addressed by the Respondents. The reclamation has to be claimed from the earlier mining projects.
20. Further, the concern relating to illegal mining pits raised in Para 13.1 and 13.3 of the Report is also misplaced and incorrect. These illegal mining pits cannot be attributed to the Respondent as it has only indulged in manual mining. Further, it is pertinent to note that any allegation of illegal mining on the Respondent are on the face of it false and baseless as no mining is being conducted by it since November 2022 till date pursuant to the direction by the State Government.
21. It is humbly submitted that the Respondents have obtained valid consent from UPPCB under Water and Air Acts. This fact is confirmed by the Joint Committee at Para 13 of the Inspection Report dated 15.12.2022
22. Lastly, most importantly, it is submitted that the Joint Committee wrongly recommends at Para 17.5 that considering the residential areas and agricultural lands are located in close proximity, blasting operations should not be allowed. Firstly, the basis of the recommendation is incorrect, the mining projects of the Respondents are not located near the residential and agricultural lands.
23. Secondly, this recommendation of the Joint Inspection Committee is untenable in law as it will amount to completed ban on mining through blasting operation. It is humbly submitted that the stone mining through blasting operation is acknowledged and allowed in law. The stone mining is regulated under Mines Act, 1952. The Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961, made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 57 of the Mines, Act, 1952 regulates the permission for blasting for mining operations.
24. The regulation puts in place a stringent procedure for obtaining permission for blasting for mining purposes. The regulates mandates that the prior permission for blasting will have to be obtained from Directorate General of Mines and Safety [DGMS]. The conditions which mining entity is subjected to depends upon the distance from the permanent building or structure.
O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
2225. It is thus submitted that prevailing law contemplates allows mining through blasting operations subject such conditions as prescribed by DGMS.
Para-wise reply to OA:
26. Insofar as the contents of Para 1 of the OA relating to the loss of crops are concerned, the contents of Para 7 are being reiterated. However, the rest of the averments are categorically denied in light of the finding of the joint committee report.
27. The contents of Para 2 of the OA are false and misleading and hence denied. In reply thereto, it is submitted that no harm has been caused to any temple and no finding to that effect has been placed by the joint committee report.
28. The contents of Para 3 of the OA are false and misleading and hence denied. In reply thereto, it is submitted that no finding to that effect has been placed by the joint committee report.
29. The averments made in Para 4 of the OA are false and misleading and hence denied. In reply thereto, it is submitted that no finding to that effect has been placed by the joint committee report. Further, reliance is placed on clause 13.5 of the finding of the joint committee report.
30. The averments made in Para 5, 6 and 7 of the OA are false and misleading and hence denied. In reply thereto, it is submitted that no finding to that effect has been placed by the joint committee report.
31. The averments made in Para 8 and 9 of the OA are false and misleading and hence denied. Insofar as the contents relating to the blasting and operation of stone crushers are concerned, the contents of para 6 and 7 of this reply are reiterated for the sake of brevity.
32. The averments made in Para 10 to 17 do not relate to answering the respondents. However, the averments made with respect to illegal mining and blasting are categorically denied."
16. Vide order dated 24.02.2023, the Joint Committee was directed to undertake visit to the site in question again and verify the factual position regarding the grievances in the application and compliance with EC and CTE/CTO consent conditions by each of the Project Proponent respectively and submit its report within two months and the applicant sought time to file rejoinder to the replies filed by the Project Proponent. O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
2317. In compliance thereof Report of the Joint Committee has been filed by Chief Environmental Officer, Circle-2, UPPCB, Lucknow vide email dated 27.04.2023. The relevant part of the report of the Joint Committee is reproduced below:-
"Joint Committee Report in the Hon'ble NGT matter of Original Application No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Applicant Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s) X X X X Accordingly, the following committee members have been nominated by the concerned departments for the said committee, Shri Rajendra D. Patil, Scientist D, CPCB regional Directorate, Lucknow.
Dr. D.P. Singh, Member UP-SEAC 2 (Representative UP - SEIAA).
Shri Rajendra Prasad, Regional Officer, UPPCB, Banda. Shri Rallapalli Jagat Sai, Joint Magistrate/SDM, Naraini, District -Banda.
Shri Sanjay Agarwal, District Forest Officer, Banda. Shri Anant Kumar Singh, Senior Mine Officer, Geology and Mining Department, Regional Office Lucknow. Shri Prashant Yadav, Mine Inspector, Geology and Mining Department, Banda.
Shri Manoj Kumar, Surveyor, Geology and Mining Department, Banda.
1. The constituted committee has carried out the field survey on 03.04.2023 of the following ten mines.
M/s Harshit Enterprises, Gata No. 45, Village- Khalari, Tahsil-Naraini, Distt-Banda M/s Sh. Mujibuddin Siddqui, Gata No. 501, Village- Khalari, Tahsil-Naraini, Distt-Banda M/s S S Granite, Gata No. 309, Village- Nahari, Tahsil- Naraini, Distt- Banda M/s Smt. Jasmit Kaur Malhotra, Gata No. 218 (Khand No-01), Village- Nahari, Tahsil-Naraini, Distt- Banda M/s Smt. Jasmit Kaur Malhotra, Gata No. 218 (Khand No-02), Village- Nahari, Tahsil-Naraini, Distt- Banda M/s Jai Maa Sharda Traders, Gata No. 587 (Khand No-
01), Village- Nahari, Tahsil-Naraini, Distt- Banda M/s S R Innovation LLP, Gata No. 587 (Khand No-02), Village- Nahari, Tahsil-Naraini, Distt- Banda M/s S R Innovation, Gata No. 587 (Khand No-07), Village- Nahari, Tahsil-Naraini, Distt- Banda M/s Smt. Amrit Kaur, Gata No. 587 (Khand No-05), Village- Nahari, Tahsil-Naraini, Distt- Banda O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
24 M/s Smt. Amrit Kaur, Gata No. 587, 588 (Khand No-08), Village- Nahari, Tahsil- Naraini, Distt- Banda The mine wise details are attached at Annexure -- 01.
2. From the details given at the annexure it reveals that 2.1. Residential area is located 20 m from M/s Jai Maa Sharda Traders and 100 m from M/s S S Granite. Except for two mining sites, remaining all the lease areas are located within 500 m from the nearest residential area. As per the Mining office the lease is allotted beyond 50 m from habitant area.
2.2. The Primary School, Udaipurva is located at approx. 84 m from M/s Jai Maa Sharda Traders, Gata No. 587 (Khand No.
01).
2.3. One mine M/s Jai Maa Sharda Traders is in adjacent to the public road. As per the provision of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules-2021, mining activity cannot be allowed up to 50 m from the public road.
2.4. Two mines, M/s Smt. Jasmit Kaur Malhotra, Khand No. 01, Naraini/Nahari and M/s Smt. Jasmit Kaur Malhotra, Khand No. 02, Naraini/Nahari are in adajacent to the one pond. And all ten mines are within 05 KM from this pond.
2.5. One open excavated pit is located near the mining sites located at Gata No 578. It was informed that the said pit was created due to the mining activities conducted in past by other proponents. The surface water gets collected in this pit during the rainy season.
3. According to regulations set forth by the mining department, lessees must provide eMM11 forms to vehicles transporting minerals out of the mining area. The driver of the vehicle must carry a printed copy of the form during transportation, and delivery must be completed within the timeframe indicated on the eMM11 form. The lessees are responsible for submitting the necessary data for generating the eMM11 form, and the mining department conducts random cross-verification. The production data reported on the eMM11 form can be found in Annexure 02.
4. It should be noted that a weighing bridge for measuring extracted materials is not currently available at any of the mining sites. As a result, the eMM11 form for stones and boulders is generated based on volumetric measurements, with the reported volume of transport vehicles used to determine the volume of materials being transported.
5. Except the random checks by the mining department, no other automatic mechanism is in place to verify the amount of material being extracted and transported by the lessee. Considering the constraints of the staff in the mining office, the frequent verification cannot be expected. The committee also desired to obtain the data about such verification being carried out by the mining department and action taken if any with O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
25respect to these 10 mining sites. However, mine specific data is not available with mining office.
6. Excavated areas are found in 08 mine except in the mine areas of M/s Sh. Mujibuddin Siddqui, Naraini/Nahari and M/s Jai Maa Sharda Traders, Naraini/Nahari. However, as per the EMM 11 records, around 3,388 m3 quantity has been excavated by M/sSh. Mujibuddin Siddqui, Naraini/Nahari and around 9,022 m3 quantity has been excavated by M/s Jai Maa Sharda Traders, Naraini/Nahari. Though during the earlier visit it was informed by the lease representatives that they have mainly removed the loose stone, However as such there are no traces of any excavation found at the site, and hence the quantity reported is questionable.
7. During the previous visit of the committee, no stone crusher was found established/operational near these lease areas. Then it was told to the committee that the excavated material is either sold in loose or transported to the crushers located in the other areas of the district. However, during the present visit, one stone crusher was found established adjacent to M/s Harshit Enterprises, Gata No. 45, Naraini/Nahari.
7.1. The stone crusher is established by M/s Baghel Infra. The unit has recently obtained Consent to Establish (CTE) from UPPCB on March 23, 2023.
7.2. It was informed that the material extracted from the adjacent mine M/s Harshit Enterprises have been taken by them for trial purpose. And the trial of the said stone crusher has been started immediately after obtaining CTE.
7.3. Considerable quantity of crushed stone is found near this stone crusher. However, no records were available at site to verify the amount of material being crushed by them.
7.4. Similarly, M/s Harshit Enterprises have given the extracted quantity to the said stone crusher without generating required EMM 11 form. Thus, the mine does not have any authorized records regarding the amount of material transported to the said stone crusher.
7.5. It is evident from the field condition that the said stone crusher must have been established even before obtaining CTE from UPPCB. And they must have started their operations in the name of trial either before obtaining CTE or immediately after CTE without any permission from UPPCB.
8. In addition to the observation submitted through previous report, following is the status of compliance of the major conditions mentioned in the EC/consent/mining lease is as given below 8.1. The funds earmarked for environmental protection measures shall be kept in separate account and shall not be diverted for other purpose. Year wise expenditure shall be O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
26reported to the MoEF, Gol, Lucknow, and State. Pollution Control Board None of the mine have provided the details about the funds earmarked for environmental protection measures to UPPCB.
8.2. Sprinkling of water on haul roads to control dust will be ensured by the project proponent During the visit, arrangement for sprinkling of water on haul roads to control dust was not found in any of the mine 8.3. Maintenance of village roads used for transportation of minerals are to be done by the company regularly at its own expenses. The roads shall be black topped.
None of the village road near these mining sites have been maintained and black topped by the proponents.
8.4. Green belt development shall be carried out considering CPCB guidelines including selection of plant species and in consultation with the local DFO / Agriculture Department. Herbs and shrubs shall also form a part of afforestation program besides tree plantation. The company shall involve local people for plantation program. Details of year wise afforestation program including rehabilitation of mined out area shall be submitted to the Regional Office, MoEF&CC. Gol, Lucknow every year.
The proposal for tree plantation and green belt development has been mentioned in the Environmental Management plans submitted by these mines. However, to date, no related activity has been initiated on the ground by any of the mines.
8.5. Appropriate arrangement for shelter and drinking water for the mining workers must be ensured at the mining site. Arrangement for shelter and drinking water has not been provided by any mine.
8.6. Rain water harvesting shall be undertaken to recharge the ground water source.
No related activity found in these mines.
8.7. Ground and surface water, if any in and near the core zone (within 5.0 km of the lease) shall be regularly monitored for contamination and depletion due to mining activity and records maintained. The monitoring data shall be submitted to the Regional Office, MoEF, Gol, Lucknow and U P Pollution Control Board regularly. Further, monitoring points shall be located between the mine and drainage in the direction of flow of ground water shall be set up and records maintained. Committee found One pond/lake located within 5 KM from these mines. The monitoring of this pond/lake has not carried out by any of the mine.
8.8. Fugitive dust generation shall be controlled. Fugitive dust emission shall be regularly monitored at locations of nearest O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
27human habitation {including schools and other public amenities located nearest to sources of dust generation as applicable} and records submitted to the Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Gol, Lucknow and U.P. Pollution Control Board regularly.
No such reports have been submitted to UPPCB.
8.9. Corporate Environmental Responsibility (CER) shall be by the project proponent and the details of the various heads of expenditure to be submitted as per the guidelines provided in the recent CER notification No. 22. 65/2017-IA.Ill dated 01/05/2018. Work to be executed with installation of five hand pumps of drinking water, solar light in villages of streets, construction of two numbers of toilets at the primary school with name displayed and address and details of beneficiary and gram Pradhan along with phone number, photographs should be submitted to Directorate as well as to the district magistrate / Chief Development officers.
As informed, some of the activities have been carried out by these mines under CER. The details given by the mining office is given at Annexure - 03.
8.10. Transportation of minerals shall be dor e by covering the trucks with tarpaulin or other suitable mechanism so that no spillage of mineral/dust takes place.
During any visit of the committee, transportation was not found at the site. Hence, the status could not be verified However, in general, it has been observed no such covering is being used during transportation.
8.11. Hydro geological study of the area shall be reviewed by the project proponent annually. In case adverse effect on ground water quality and quantity is observed mining shall be stopped and resumed only after mitigating steps to contain any adverse impact on ground water is implemented. No such study has been carried out by these mines.
8.12. The following conditions are mentioned about blasting 8.12.1. Controlled blasting techniques with sequential blasting shall be adopted.
The blasting shall be carried out in the day time only.
8.12.2. Blast vibrations study shall be conducted and an observation report submitted to the regional office, MoE&CC, Gol, Lucknow and UPPCB within six months. The report shall also include measures for prevention of blasting associated impact on nearby houses and agricultural fields.
8.12.3. The blasting will be done only after getting the permission from the Mining Department.
The blast vibration study reports have not been submitted by any of the mine to UPPCB. And as informed by the mining department, the mines are not obtaining approval for blasting from them.
O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
288.13. The mining would be restricted to unsaturated zone only above the phreatic water table and will not intersect the ground water table at any point of time. As per the data of groundwater department for the period of 2020-2022, the groundwater level in Nahri village lies in the range of 3.10 -- 777 m 861. As the excavation is mainly on the hill terrains, no such groundwater intersection has been observed at site.
8.14. The condition of progressive mine with 6m bench has been mentioned in the Environment Clearance and mining lease document. However, on ground no such bench/progressive mining operations were found in any of the mining project lease area.
9. Finding and recommendations:
9 1. The mining department can be asked to restrict the mining activities in those mines wherein the required minimum distance criteria is not meeting.
9.2. Project proponent in coordination with mining department can be asked to develop a mechanism to verify the amount of material being extracted and transported by them. 9.3. UPPCB can be asked to take necessary action against the stone crusher (M/s Baghel Infra) for carrying out trial production without approval from UPPCB.
9.4. Mining office can be asked take necessary action against M/s Harshit Enterprises for transferring the mine material to M/s Baghel Infra without generating required eMM11 form. 9.5. The project proponent can be asked to strictly comply with the conditions prescribed in the Environmental Clearance/ consent/ mining lease allotment letter and submit the status to the concerned authorities regularly."
18. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents and also gone through the averments made in the application, observations in the reports of the Joint Committee and submissions made in replies/responses filed by the respondents.
19. Banda District in Uttar Pradesh is part of Vindhyan Plateau having irregular uplands with outcrops of rocks intermingling with low lands.
The Baghe in River traverse the District from South-West to North-East, Ken in the east and Yamuna to the North. The District is poor in ground water and also does not possess major lakes.
O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
2920. The District is rich in Minerals and the leased areas of villages Nahari and Khalari form moderate to high slopes, stony topography, isolated small hills which is waste/barren land. The area is dominated by boulders and in situ outcrops of Bundelkhand Granite. The Barren hills and undulated terrains are devoid of soil cover and represent only morrum on the top of the deposit with no vegetation. The agricultural land is limited due to topography of the area and about 50% is unirrigated. The industries and other avenues of employments /livelihoods are lacking in the area. The Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India has named Banda as one of the 250 most Backward Districts out of 640 Districts of the country and is covered under Backward Regions Grants Fund (BRGF) Programme. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that scientific mining continues in the leased areas in accordance with environmental norms.
21. The Joint Committee has in its report filed vide dated 27.04.2023 made detailed observations regarding compliance of the EC conditions and environmental norms and recorded its findings and made specific recommendations. No specific objections have been filed against the report of the Joint Committee. We accept the report given by the Joint Committee and direct that the findings and recommendations contained in para no.9 thereof be duly complied with by the Department of Mines and Geology and UPPCB in time bound manner. The Director Mines and Geology, Uttar Pradesh is also directed to ensure installation of weighment bridge by the mining lease holders.
22. Keeping in view the ground realities and to ensure Sustainable Mining Operations, livelihoods and ecologically Sustainable Development O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
30in the area, we also direct the concerned Departments/Instrumentalities of the State to ensure strict compliance of the following directions:
a. The Mining operation should be strictly in the sanctioned/demarcated/earmarked areas within boundary pillars determined/fixed by Revenue & Mining Department at the time of Sanctioning lease using GPS coordinates. The Department of Mines & Revenue should evolve proper monitoring mechanism in this regard to ensure prevention of illegal mining or mining in non-sanctioned prohibited Areas;
b. The Blasting can only be undertaken by suitable/permissible explosives with due permission/approval of Chief Controller of Explosive and after following all necessary rules, regulations and procedure required for the purpose. All the precautions suggested in MMR 1961, specially as specified from regulations 162 to 168 must be strictly adhered;
c. The requisite precautionary measures be undertaken by the mine lease holders to prevent any untoward incidence in the Mining Leases close to the habitation;
d. The lease areas forms moderate to high slopes, stony
topography and isolated small hills known as
Wasteland/Barren land. The water table in the hillocks are deep and does not include seasonal perennial drainage. Inspite of this, mining drainage need to be implemented to ensure that it does not carry particulate materials generated from mining to natural streams /waterbody or agricultural land. According to the report of Ground Water Department O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 31
dated 19.10.2022, the Peizometer for measuring ground water level has been installed only in the plain area of Nahari village wherein, the level of ground water recorded is 7.7 metre in year 2021 & 7.1 metre in 2022 during post monsoon periods. The hillocks located at high altitude, where mining will be undertaken have ground water in deep aquifer in view of altitude, topography & geo-hydrology of the hills. The water table though deep on the hillocks where mining is undertaken, monitoring of ground water on regular internals as precautionary measure need to be ensured by Ground Water Department of U.P. Government so that, there should not be any adverse impact/ interception of ground water during mining operation; and e. The approach road of the concerned villages be improved and the vehicles carrying mined minerals be covered with tarpaulin to prevent fugitive dust emission during transportation.
23. It may be observed here that UPPCB has in its response filed vide email dated 27.01.2023 mentioned that as per the report, out of 10 mining lease holders, only 08 mining lease holders had obtained valid CTO and the CTO application of 02 mining lease holders was under
process, but at present all 10 mining lease holders have obtained CTO. UPPCB has further mentioned that the lease allotment was done only on the basis of Environmental Clearance and none of the mining lease holders had obtained the CTO under Water and Air Acts before starting the operation of mining. UPPCB has issued show cause notices vide letter dated 23.01.2023 for imposing the environmental compensation for O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 32 the period when these mining lease had been operating without CTO against all 10 mining lease holders.
24. Environmental compensation is a policy instrument for the protection of the environment which works on the Polluter Pays Principle.
This Tribunal through its various judgments empowered CPCB to lay down the methodology to assess and recover compensation for damage to the environment and utilize such amount in terms of an action plan for protection of the environment and the methodologies so laid down have also been approved by this Tribunal in terms of orders passed in various cases. Imposition of environmental compensation is intended to serve two fold objectives of working as an effective deterrent for preventing violation in future while providing the wherewithal to meet the cost of remedial measures to remediate environmental damage caused by past violations so as to ensure protection/restoration of the environment.
Overall objective of imposition of environmental compensation is also to develop self-sense of responsibility amongst the Project Proponents towards the environment and to make defaulters realize their mistakes and to motivate them to take remedial measures. While the methodology of assessment of imposition and recovery of environmental compensation plays an important role in protection/restoration of environment but the same cannot be allowed to be misused as an instrument of intimidation of the concerned Project Proponent for ulterior motives or as cover up shield to inaction by concerned authorities allowing the Project Proponent to pay and pollute. It may be observed here that SPCB/UTPCC is an active participants in the process of grant of environmental clearance and due to having the requisite information regarding grant of environmental clearance to the projects, SPCB/UTPCC has to proactively persuade and facilitate the Project Proponents to commence operation O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
33after obtaining requisite consents under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. For effective discharge of its duties of protection/restoration of environment SPCB/UTPCC is expected to carry out requisite inspections/monitoring for ensuring that the Project Proponents do not commence their operation without requisite consents.
In the eventuality of the Project Proponents commencing and continuing operation of their projects without obtaining requisite consents, even the concerned SPCB/UTPCC would be accountable and liable to pay environmental compensation for damage caused to the environment due to its inaction/negligence/collusion. SPCB/UTPCC cannot sleep over for years and wake up when this Tribunal seeks reports and then issue show cause notices for imposition of environmental compensation counting the previous years of past violations for calculating heavy amounts of environmental compensation which remains either unrecovered or unutilized. Such prevalent methodology of assessment, imposition and recovery of amount of environmental compensation without any utilization serves no useful purpose.
25. In the present case, as per report of the Joint Committee filed on 06.04.2022 out of 10 mining lease holders 08 mining lease holders are stated to have obtained valid CTO while the CTO application of 02 mining lease holders were stated to be under process and admittedly at present all 10 mining lease holders have obtained CTO. The Joint Committee has in its report filed vide email dated 06.04.2022 also mentioned that there was no damage due to blasting and no air and noise pollution. The Joint Committee has in its last report filed vide email dated 27.04.2023 mentioned that there were no traces of excavation found at the site and the quantity reported was questionable. The Joint Committee has in its O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
34report filed vide email dated 27.04.2023 also observed that the Mine lease holders have not carried out /undertaken any illegal mining in the area. The very basis for issuance of show cause notices is contradicted and negated by the facts and observations made by the Joint Committee in its reports. However, so far as the observations made by the Joint Committee in its report regarding transferring of mine material by M/s Harshit Enterprises to M/s Baghal Infra without generating required eMM11 form and M/s Bahal Infra commenced operation without obtaining CTO are concerned, UPPCB is directed to take appropriate action for imposing Environmental Compensation (EC) on stone crusher M/s Baghal Infra and mine lease holder M/s Harshit Enterprises for the actual days of violations in accordance with law.
26. The UP-SEIAA, while according EC has clearly allocated budget under CSR and EMP activities for each of the Mining Lease holders. We consider it appropriate and accordingly direct that the budget earmarked under above heads be deposited by the Project Proponents in the ring fenced account with District Magistrate under "District Environment Committee (DEC)" and spent strictly in accordance with the directions of the District Level Task Force.
27. The Joint Committee has mentioned in its report filed vide email dated 27.04.2023 that some of the Corporate Environmental Responsibility activities have been carried out by the mining lease holders as per details given by the Mining Office in annexure- 03. In annexure-03 the activates to be undertaken have been mentioned but we consider it appropriate and accordingly direct that the funds to be deposited by Mining Lease Holders in the DEC be invested/incurred for Environmental Management, Nature Conservation and Community Development activities in Banda District in the area where Mining O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
35activities are taking places and such activities related to Environmental Management, Nature Conservation and Community Development required to be undertaken/implemented in the field may include the following:
i. Afforestation programme with native tree species be undertaken in the common property resources (CPRs) in the villages Nahari and Khalari of the District. The Revenue, Panchayat and Forest Departments may plan this activity with emphasis on People's Participation. The plantation to be carried out be geo-tagged. The identification of land be made by DM and CDO and the same be entrusted to Forest Department for the plantation. The shelter belts be developed on the periphery of mining leased area with fast growing tree species in 2 to 3 layers for the prevention and control of dust emission. The adjoining hills be protected by launching special drive of Reforestation/Rehabilitation. Interpretation Centre for Cultural and Nature Conservation may also be setup. The DFO may prepare and submit Action Plan with details of trees to be planted, time line and budgetary provision and DM may provide funds from the amount deposited by the Mining Lease Holders on receipt of the proposal from DFO;
ii. Mass Awareness Programme be launched involving Colleges, Schools, Voluntary Agencies, Civil Societies, Public representatives for Conservation and Management of the Environment. Eco-clubs may also be constituted in the Colleges/Schools/Panchayats. The work may be undertaken by the District Education Officer (DEO) of District Banda and O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 36
necessary funds may be provided for this purpose by DM from the amount deposited by the Mining Lease Holders on receipt of the proposal from DEO;
iii. Solar powered LED street lights may be provided in the Nahari and Khalari villages. The same may be linked in convergence of schemes of non-conventional sources of energy of the Centre and State and may be implemented by the department to be identified by the DM;
iv. Soil and Water Conservation works may be implemented in the areas by the Departments of Soil and Water Conservation and Panchayati Raj. The work may be undertaken by converging similar schemes of the Centre and State. The DM may decide the modalities for implementation of the Scheme; v. The Wetlands, Lakes and Ponds including Pits created by past mining activities in the District may be rehabilitated. The DM, DFO, CDO and Mining Department may evolve the schemes and identify departments for execution of the work; vi. Some schools in the District may be developed as Digital School using CSR fund with implementation of the scheme by the CDO and District Education Officer (DEO); and vii. The Mobile Dispensary/Ambulance equipped with necessary medicines, doctor & para Medical Staffs may be made available from the fund for extending Medical facilities in the areas having no or poor Health care facilities in the District including Mine workers. The work may be implemented by CMO in consultation with DM.
O. A. No. 193/2022 Rajjan Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 37
28. We also direct that a Monitoring Committee be constituted by the by DM under his Chairmanship with CMO, DFO, CDO, DEO and concerned Officers from the Departments of Mines and Geology, Ground water, Soil and Water Conservation, Pollution Control Board as Members for Monitoring and Assessment of implementation of Environmental Management and Social Development Programmes on Quarterly basis.
29. The application is disposed of with the directions as mentioned above while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
30. A copy of this order be sent by email to the applicant for information and the respondents for requisite compliance.
Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM July 27, 2023 AG