National Green Tribunal
Phinto Pa vs Union Of India on 12 January, 2021
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan
Item No. 02:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 10 of 2021 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Phinto P. A
Thrissur District and another.
...Applicant(s)
Verses
The Union of India and others.
....Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 12.01.2021.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Sri. Harish Vasudevan
For Respondent(s): Sri. E.K. Kumaresan for R2 to R5
ORDER
1. The grievance in this application is regarding the granting of mining lease in a land which was originally a reserve forest, and which was later transferred to the Revenue Department for non-forest purposes by the Forest Department under 1 Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for the purpose of agriculture and patta has been granted to the local people for doing agricultural activities in Survey Nos. 1270/4, 1270/5, 1270/7, 1270/8, 1271/2, 1271/3, 1271/4, 1273/1, 1273/2 and 1272/1 of Kodassery Village in Chalakkudy Taluk, Thrissur District. However, it is alleged that they are carrying mining activities in the said area without obtaining necessary further clearance from the Forest Department under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for this purpose.
2. The 6th respondent had obtained mining lease from the authorities and also obtaining environmental clearance for the purpose of conducting the mining activity suppressing the material facts.
3. According to the applicant, the activities will have to be treated as in violation of the Kerala Land Assignment (Regulation Occupation of Forest Lands to 01.01.1977) Special Rules, 1993 and also the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Forest Department has not granted any 'No Objection Certificate' for this purpose. But in spite of this such illegal activities are being done.
4. He had relied on the decision reported in (Mahindra Holiday Resorts India Limited Vs State of Kerala and others) in 2019 (2) 2 KLT 978, and also (One Earth One Life Vs MoEF & others) reported in 2018 (4) KHC 827 in support of his case. So the applicant filed this application seeking the following reliefs:-
1) Restrain the 6th respondent from conducting any mining operations in Sy Nos 1270/4, 1270/5, 1270/7. 1270/8, 1271/2, 1271/3, 1271/4, 1273/1, 1273/2, 1272/1 of Kodassery village in Chalakkudy Taluk without obtaining clearance/permission under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;
2) Declare that the Annexure A2 and A3 are inoperative till the 6th Respondent is obtaining a prior Forest Clearance as per Section, 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for using forest land for mining activity.
3) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to 5 to ensure that no mining is conducted in Sy Nos. 1270/4, 1270/5, 1270/7, 1270/8, 1271/2, 1271/3, 1271/4, 1273/1, 1273/2, 1272/1 of Kodassery village in Challakkudy Taluk in violation of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act.
4) When the matter came up for hearing for admission today through Video Conference, Sri. Harish Vasudevan represented the counsel for the applicant. Sri. E. K. Kumaresan represented the respondents 2 to 5.
5) On going through the allegations in the application we are satisfied that there arises a substantial question of environment which requires the interference of this Tribunal for resolving the issue. So the matter is admitted 3
6) Issue notice to respondents. The applicant is directed to take steps to serve notice on the respondents by Registered post with acknowledgement due, e-mail and also dusthi if possible and produce proof of service by filing an affidavit as per rules.
7) The applicant is also directed to serve a copy of the application along with the documents produced to the standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5 within a week and produce proof of such service by filing proper affidavit as per rules.
8) The applicant is also directed to produce necessary requisites along with postal cover and the necessary postal stamps before this Tribunal within a week, so as to enable this Tribunal to send notice to all the respondents through Tribunal, to ensure service on them so as to enable this Tribunal to proceed against them, if they did not appear in their absence in accordance with law.
9) In order to ascertain the genuineness of the allegations and also the violations mentioned, we feel it appropriate to appoint a joint committee comprising of (1) The District Collector, Thrissur District or a Senior Officer not below the rank of Sub Divisional Magistrate or Assistant Collector as deputed by the District Collector (2) a Senior Officer from 4 Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) Integrated Regional Office, Bangalore (3) The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force or a Senior Officer deputed by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force), not below the rank of Chief Conservator of Forest (4) a senior Officer deputed by the Director of Mining and Geology (5) The Divisional Forest Officer, Challakudy, Thrissur District, Kerala (6) a Senior Officer from Kerala State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to inspect the area in question and submit a factual as well as action taken report, if there is any violations found.
10) The committee is directed to consider the question as to whether the conversion of forest land for non-forest purpose was given for a specific purpose of agriculture alone and whether there was any violation committed by the project proponent, for getting the mining lease by suppressing this fact and whether the authorities have considered the scope of conversion of forest land for other than the purpose for which it has been granted originally under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and whether these facts have been considered by the authorities before granting environmental clearance and 5 also before issuing the mining lease in favour of the project proponent and if there is any violation found, what is the action proposed to be taken by the respective authorities against the project proponent including imposition of environmental compensation for alleged illegal acts committed.
11) The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force), Thiruvananthapuram will be the nodal agency for co-ordination and for providing necessary logistics for this purpose.
12) The applicant is also directed to submit a set of papers to the members of the committee within a week, so as to avoid the delay in submitting the report.
13) The committee is also directed to conduct the inspection and submit the report taking into consideration the importance of the issue involved in the case without delay to this Tribunal on or before 12.02.2021, by e-filing in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hard copies to be produced as per rules.
14) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the members of the committee as well as the official respondent's immediately through e-mail, so as to enable 6 them to comply with the direction and for filing their independent response to the allegations made in the application and also for filing their independent report as directed by this Tribunal.
15) For appearance of parties and consideration of report and also for filing of pleadings, post on 12.02.2021.
..................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) .................................E.M. ( Shri. Saibal Dasgupta) O. A. No.10/2021, (SZ) 12th January, 2021. Sr. 7