National Green Tribunal
D. Damodara Raju vs 1. M/S Sai Lakshmi Balaji ... on 1 May, 2025
Author: Satyagopal Korlapati
Bench: Satyagopal Korlapati
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Thursday the 1st day of May, 2025.
Original Application No. 247 of 2021 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
1. D. Damodara Raju,
S/o D. Venkatrama Raju, aged 47 years,
P.V. Puram, Village, Sathyavedu Mandal,
Chittoor District, A.P.
2. D. Vanamma,
W/o D. Venkatrama Raju, aged 63 years,
P.V. Puram, Village, Sathyavedu Mandal,
Chittoor District, A.P.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
1. M/s Sai Lakshmi Balaji Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,
Located Near Chamarthi Kandriga, S.T. Colony,
P.V. Puram Panchayathi, Sathyavedumandal,
Chittoor District, A.P. its registered addrss is Vignana Nagar,
Varadaiahpalem Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. A.P.
2. Tirumuru Damodara Reddy,
S/o Gopal Reddy aged 52 years,
Managing Director,
Vignana Nagar, Varadaiahpalem Village and Mandal,
Chittoor District, A.P.
3. Deputy Director,
Mines and Geology, 586, Bound Street,
Greamspet, Chittoor District, Chittoor, A.P.
4. Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board,
Rep by its Member Secretary,
Zonal Office: Kurnool, 1st Floor,
Shankar Shopping Complex,
Krishna Nagar Main Road,
Kurnool- 518002.
5. Environmental Engineer,
O/o Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board,
Regional Office, N.T. Road, Balaji Colony,
Tirupati- 517 502.
6. The Dy. Executive Engineer,
Irrigation, Sathyavedu, Chittoor District,
Govt Hospital Road, Karcheri Street, Sulurpetta.
7. The Dy. Executive Engineer,
1
Roads & Buildings, Nagari, Chittoor District,
8. The District Collector,
Collectors Office, Chittoor, A.P.
9. The Chairman,
State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
D.No. 33-26-14D/2, Near Sun Rise Hospital, Pushpa Hotel Center,
Chalamavery Street, Kasthuribai Pet, Vijayavada- 520010.
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Mr. Devaraj and Mr. M. Jayachandra Raju.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Nikhil represented Mr. Gautam S Raman
for R1, R2.
Mrs. Madhuri Donti Reddy for R3 to R6 & R8.
Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for MoEF&CC
Reserved on : 31st January, 2025.
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. The application is filed by the applicants challenging the continued mining operations by the 1st and 2nd respondents in P.V. Puram Village, Sathyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The applicants are residents and farmers from P.V. Puram Village, who are being directly affected by the mining operations carried out by the private respondents. According to them, the mining activities have been conducted in blatant violation of the conditions stipulated in the environmental clearances, consent orders and other statutory permissions granted by the respondent authorities. As the authorities failed to enforce these conditions, it has resulted 2 in environmental degradation, crop loss and adverse health and financial impacts on the applicants and also on the general public.
3. The application is filed on multiple grounds which are as follows:
(i) 1st and 2nd respondent have not complied with the mandatory conditions prescribed under the Environmental Clearances, Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate leading to widespread environmental damage and loss to farmers.
(ii) The Company had not developed 05m green belt, outer boundary, in the 50m buffer zone around the mining lease area and the crusher unit. The failure to develop the green belt has not been enforced by the authorities.
(iii) There is lack of pollution control measures as the respondents have failed to construct garland drains and siltation ponds to prevent soil erosion and sediment runoff from the mining site, leading to contamination of water resources.
(iv) The project proponent has destroyed the water resources as it has significant damage to irrigation channels located on the southwest, east and south sides of the mining area, depriving local farmers of crucial irrigation facilities.
(v) The existing mud road ought to have been converted into a tar road connecting the mining area to the nearest main road. Additionally, protective screens of 10m height on eastern side of the mining area to protect agricultural lands from dust due to the mining activity was not done.
It is alleged that due to the failure to erect protective screens, a 12 years-old girl from the Scheduled Tribe community slipped into an abandoned mining pit and lost life.
(vi) The respondent is also used explosives for blasting, despite the close proximity to the residential area, posing serious risks to human life and property.
3
(vii) The project proponent had encroached upon Government and private land also unlawfully in Sy. Nos. 141/5, 140/2, 140/6, 140/14 and 140/15.
(viii) There is installation of crusher unit, which is un-approved and the same is without requisite permission from the competent authority.
(ix) Finally, there is unauthorised dumping of wastage outside the quarry lease area which is not permitted and no retention wall has been erected to prevent erosion during rainfall.
4. A Joint Committee was appointed by this Tribunal to find out Whether:
A. The conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance as well as consent orders were strictly adhere to by the respondents 1 and 2.
B. The pollution control mechanism provided are sufficient to address the issue of pollution, if not what is the mitigating measures.
C. Necessary buffer zone/safety zone, Garland drains were provided.
D. Excess mining has been done, air and water pollution caused by the respondents.
5. The Joint Committee had filed a report dated 12.09.2023. Originally, the 2nd respondent, Thiru T. Damodara Reddy was granted the quarry lease for road metal and building stone on 22.12.2011 for an extent of 4.569 ha., for a period of 10 years i.e. upto 22.12.2021. Later the lease was transferred on 16.12.2021 by the authorities from the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent, M/s Sai Lakshmi Balaji Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
6. The 1st respondent had obtained the Environmental Clearance and subsequent consent for establishment, Consent for Operation 4 which is valid up to 31.01.2022 for mining of Recovery Aggregate- 17,096.22 cum/year and mining of Rock sand-2011.32 cum/year in an area of 4.569 ha.
7. The Joint Committee identified several violations by the project proponent which includes lack of pollution control measures as no retention walls at the dump sites, inadequate stabilization of worked out slopes, absence of garland drains for storm water management and missing graded roads were erected by the project proponent.
8. Secondly, while compensatory green belt was created over 06 acres, the required 7.5m buffer plantation around the lease area was not developed. Regarding the water management, mining seepage water was being discharged into a natural drain instead of being utilised within the site.
9. The Joint Committee also found that within the lease, the project proponent has exceeded the permissible limits by extracting 5,34,708 cubic meters of road metal. Additionally, 70,971 cubic meters road metals were illegally mined from the patta lands belonging to the 2nd respondent. The project proponent had not maintained quarry benches as per the approved mining plan and waste dumping was found outside designated areas on private land owned by lease holders.
10. The Joint Committee also found that there were violations of the Environmental Clearance conditions. The MoEF&CC, IRO, Vijayawada confirmed that mining extended beyond the lease 5 boundary over 4,682 sqm with an excess extraction of 75,158 cubic meters of rock mass. The other violations identified by the MoEF&CC are:
(i) Failure to develop a 7.5m green buffer zone and tree plantations as required.
(ii) Unauthorised overburden dumping without aprovals.
(iii) Incomplete retaining walls for dump stability based on rainfall data.
(iv) Lack of environmental impact assessment from a recognised institute.
(v) Non-submission of compliance reports, details of environmental protection expenditures and Corporate Environmental Responsibility expenditures to the authorities.
11. The Joint Committee also assessed the Environmental Compensation for the illegal extraction of 1,12,737 tonnes of building stone and the penalty was calculated at Rs. 67,64,220/- applying risk and deterrence factors. The final Environmental Compensation was determined at Rs. 1,04,84,541/-
12. The said Joint Committee report was objected to by respondents 1 and 2. According to them, the dust level and water quality within the mining pity remains within the permissible limits as confirmed by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board. It is contended that the Joint Committee report has levied Environmental damage based only on pollution and dust level. Though, the project proponent had admitted certain minor non-compliances such as 6 delayed construction of retention walls, it was asserted by them that the mine lower elevation prevents the emissions from affecting the surrounding areas. They also stated that the retention walls have been constructed.
13. So far as the excess mining is concerned, particularly, extraction of 70,971 Cbm from the patta land and 1,12,737 tonnes from the outside approved limits, it is contended that the classification of the land in Sy. No. 141/1 as belonging to the 2 nd respondent is not correct. Instead, the Sy. No. 141/1 belongs to the 1st respondent while the Sy. No. 141/2 belongs to the Government. The Government of Andhra Pradesh had granted a Noc on 20.02.2019 permitting quarrying on these lands. The alleged excess mining is still under review, where the show-cause notice was issued on 16.03.2023 for which reply had already been given by the 1st respondent.
14. There was another Joint Committee report dated 20.11.2024 filed after the joint inspection and survey on various dates viz. 18.12.2023, 08.01.2024, 17.01.2024, 05.03.2024, 08.04.2024, 08.05.2024 and 23.07.2024. The said report has stated that the mining lease expired on 23.10.2023 and no mining was observed at the time of inspection on 23.07.2023. Dispatch permits indicated that mining was conducted within permitted limits post violations. The Joint Committee did not record any new instances of excess mining.
15. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board had filed an inspection report dated 04.03.2022. It is stated that the 1 st 7 respondent obtained Environmental Clearance, Consent for Establishment and Consent for Operation for mining recovery aggregate of 17,096.22 M3/year and rock sand of 2011.32 M3/year over an area of 4.569 ha. Subsequently, the unit also secured an expansion approval increasing the mining capacity to 2,13,439 M3/year with the Consent for Operation valid up to 30.11.2025.
16. Upon inspection conducted by Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board on 12.02.2022. Several instances of non-compliances of the Consent for Operation conditions were identified which are as follows:
(i) No retention walls were constructed at the base of the dumps, increasing the risk of soil erosion.
(ii) No slope stabilization measures taken by developing shrubs or grass species to stabilize the worked-out slopes.
(iii) Over burden material was stored outside the lease area without a protective garland drain around the dump.
(iv) The mining unit has not provided graded roads as required.
(v) There was inadequate development of green belt along the mining area, while compensatory green belt was developed over 06 acres within the lease area.
(vi) The seepage water from mining pits was discharged into the natural drain instead of being reused or appropriately managed within the site.
17. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board also conducted ambient air quality monitoring near the mining area and tested the 8 water samples from the mining pits. The results indicated that emissions were found to be within the permissible limits prescribed by the Central Pollution Control Board. The water samples were also within the CPCB standards with no parameter exceeding the stipulated threshold.
18. The Pollution Control Board also had filed a report dated 12.01.2023 in which it is reported that the project proponent holds Environmental Clearance and related consents for mining 2,13,439 M3/annum of road metal and building stone and 2,011.32 M3/year of rock sand over 4.569 ha. The officials of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board reinspected the site on 19.11.2023 and also conducted the air and water quality tests. Both air and water quality were found to be within the CPCB standards. After the corrective measures, the compliance status was given as follows:
(i) Retention walls constructed at the dump foot.
(ii) 500 saplings planted in vacant and boundary areas.
(iii) Overburden dump removed and garland drains provided.
(iv) Graded internal roads developed. (v) Plantation program undertaken with 500 saplings. (vi) Seepage water now utilized for green belt development.
19. The Mining and Geology Department, who is the 3rd respondent, in its report has stated that the quarry lease was granted for 11.29 acres in P.V. Puram for 10 years. Initial Environmental Clearance granted in 2013 was for the production capacity of 17,096.22 M3/annum. In 2020, Environmental Clearance was issued for expansion, increasing the capacity to 9 2,13,439 M3/annum. The crusher unit had obtained the Consent for Establishment and expanded it in 2020.
20. The Mining and Geology has confirmed that the crusher is more than 500 m from Chamarthy Kandriga ST Colony. In 2019, a penalty was imposed for extracting 429 M3 of road metal road outside the lease area. The lessee also paid the penalty of Rs.
6,71,600/- A mineral dealer license was also issued in 2019 which is valid for 20 years i.e. allowing operations until 2039.
21. The 9th respondent, SEIAA, also had confirmed about the original Environmental Clearance under B2 category and subsequent expansion on 21.02.2020. The SEIAA has stated that the public hearing was not required as the mining lease area was under 25 ha. The specific condition to develop a green belt with tall, native trees along the lease boundary and other conditions are not followed by the project proponent and the Pollution Control Board is responsible for monitoring the same.
Point:
22. The applicants have moved this Tribunal for the in action on the part of the regulatory authorities to enforce those conditions imposed by them in the approvals and clearances granted which has resulted in severe environmental degradation and adverse health and financial impacts not only on the applicants but also on the Joint Committee.
10
23. As per the above referred details of the reports filed by the Joint Committee and the individual authorities the project proponents have violated the conditions imposed. However, the applicants had filed his objections to the report of the Joint Committee alleging that the same is silent about the action taken against the lease holder. The applicants also objected to the average depth which was taken as 16m by the Committee whereas it is about 40 to 50m which can be easily ascertained. Even regarding the quantity of 5,43,708 CBM of road metal excavated over and above the permitted quantity, the compensation arrived at by the Mining and Geology Department is less.
24. The applicant has also stated that the mango garden in the name of the applicant and his family members is located within 130m from the crusher unit and due to the dust flow, there was decline of crop yield from his garden which has to be ascertained by the Committee which is not been done. From the pleadings it is verified that there is no claim for compensation and court fees is also not paid for compensation as the NGT Rules and regulations.
25. There was another objection filed by the applicant that the Joint Committee has not reported about the compliance for the violations. In this regard, the final report of the Joint Committee dated 19.11.2024 specifically states that the lease holder has excavated and transported a quantity of 5,34,708 Cbm of road metal within their lease area unlawfully. The lease holder was also found to encroached outside the lease area and excavated and transported 70,971Cbm of road metal illegally. 11
26. Hence, the Joint Committee was once again directed to inspect the site to find out whether the project proponent had already mined more than 05 times the permitted quantity for which the fine has already been levied and whether the project proponent is now mining only within the permitted quantity or in excess. Secondly, if excess quantity is mined, whether penalty is levied and to report whether the Departments are following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause Vs. Union of India-(2018) 5 SCC 1.
27. So, in the report dated 19.11.2024, it is stated that the project proponent had mined within the permitted quantity only as the validity of the Environmental Clearance expired as early as on 23.07.2024. A demand notice was also issued on 18.05.2024 levying the penalty. The Mining and Geology Department also had raised a demand notice for the excess quantity and levied penalty for the excess extraction.
28. Aggrieved by the same, the project proponent had filed a revision before the Government for which decision is awaited. Other penalties were also levied as per the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and amendments thereon.
29. The Joint Committee has specifically given in a table the volume of extraction done by the project proponent from 08.05.2013 to 07.05.2023. As per the date of inception, the permitted quantity is 1,22,920 Cbm but the Joint Committee observed that an excess of 5,34,708 was extracted. The show- cause notice was issued by the Mines Department on 16.03.2023 and a reply was received on 12 19.04.2023 contending that he has supplied the metal aggregate to the contractors for utilisation of various government works and the sub-contractors have given the consent for supply of the aggregate to various government works for the quantity of 1,33,168 Cbm.
30. Since the reply was unsatisfactory, the Mines and Geology Department had issued a demand notice to the lessee and directed to pay an amount of Rs. 48,95,35,007/-. The above referred sum was for the period of 07 years and 05 months. As the project proponent had obtained an expansion of Environmental Clearance for another 03 years and 08 months. Regarding the Environmental Clearance for expansion the Joint Committee has found that the total quantity covered is within the permitted quantity.
31. From the above particulars, it is evident that the Joint Committee has confirmed the previous violations related to excess mining and environmental non-compliances which are substantial and that as per the current status the mining operations have ceased and no on-going violation persist. Since, the Environmental Clearance for the project expired on 23.10.2023 no new extraction activities were recorded during the inspection. For the previous instances of over extraction and encroachment beyond the lease area, the project proponent had paid penalties for excess mining and regulatory action are under review. The Joint Committee also has found that the environmental measures including retention walls, green belt development and drainage system found partially implemented all though not in accordance with approved mining plans.
13
32. As on date the mining lease is no longer in operation in view of the validity of the Environmental Clearance. The authorities should focus on ensuring proper site closure including restoration of affected area. The authorities are also directed to enforce the penalties already imposed as there are no on-going violations.
33. In that view of the matter, the application cane be closed on a regulatory stand point subject to compliance with all outstanding financial and environmental obligation.
34. Therefore, we pass the following directions:
(i) The Mining and Geology Department is directed to recover the penalty amount assessed by the Joint Committee.
(ii) The Mining and Geology Department and the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board are directed that the affected area is restored to its original position.
(iii) The Government of Andhra Pradesh is also directed to pass the orders on the revision at the earliest.
35. In view of the above, the Original Application is disposed of.
............................................................J.M. (Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana) .......................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No O.A. No.247/2021(SZ) 1st May, 2025. (AM) 14