National Green Tribunal
Ramachandrababu vs Union Of India on 9 August, 2023
Author: Satyagopal Korlapati
Bench: Satyagopal Korlapati
Item No. 04:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Appeal No. 10 of 2023 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
1. Ramachandrababu,
S/o Bhagavandass,
No. 32, Pradhana Street,
193, Vettur Village,
Madhurandhagam Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
...Appellant
Versus
1. The Union of India,
Rep by its Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh road,
New Delhi- 110003.
2. The Member Secretary,
State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority,
3rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai,
No.1, Jeenis road,
Saidapet, Chennai- 600050.
3. The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
No. 76, Mount Salai,
Guindy,
Chennai- 600032.
4. The Commissioner,
Department of Geology and Mines,
Alandur road,
Guindy Insitutional area,
Sipco Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai- 600032
5. The Assistant Director,
Department of Mines and Geology,
Collectorate Building,
Chengalpet- 603001.
6. The District Collector,
Chengalpet,
Chengalpet District.
7. The District Revenue Officer,
Chengalpet,
Chengalpet District.
1
8. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurantakam,
Chengalpet District.
9. The Tahsildar,
Madurantakam Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
10. The Revenue Inspector,
Onampakkam,
Madurantakam Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
11. E. Muthukrishnan,
S/o. Elumalai,
No. 68, Nellur Village,
Street 69, Tirukalikundram,
Kancheepuram District.
...Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 9th August, 2023.
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER For Applicant(s): Mr. R. Rajarajan, Mr. Dillikumar and Mr. M. Manohar.
For Respondent(s): NA
Order
1. The above appeal is filed challenging the Environmental Clearance granted in favour of the 11th respondent for setting up a rough stone and quarry unit in survey numbers mentioned in the appeal.
The quarry extent is 4.53.5 ha., in Vettur District, Madhurandhagam, Chengalpet District.
2. The case of the appellant is that he is the owner of the adjacent agricultural lands and carrying on agricultural activity. There was no access to the Sy. Nos. 207 and 208, therefore, an agreement was entered into for a common passage for the purpose of carrying agricultural produce by vehicles. The vendor of the 11 th respondent was also a party to the said agreement. Now the 11 th 2 respondent is setting up a stone quarry and crusher unit in his land which is located within 150m radius from the village lake. All the surrounding areas are fertile agricultural land.
3. Coming to know that the 11th respondent was preparing for setting up a quarry, the appellant had approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing two writ petitions in W.P. No. 5577 of 2022 and W.P. No. 34476 of 2022 for a mandamus forbearing the official respondents from granting any stone quarry license to the 11th respondent, herein without hearing the writ petitioner, who is the appellant, herein and the said writ petition is pending.
4. The primordial objection of the appellant is that the representation sent by this appellant dated 11.10.2022 to the 2nd respondent was not considered before granting the Environmental Clearance. Further, it is stated that there is habitation in existence within 300m radius which is a bar for grant of Environmental Clearance for setting up a quarry.
5. It is also mentioned that Vettur Eri which is situated within 130m radius from the proposed site could be polluted if the quarry operation commenced. Therefore, the Environmental Clearance ought not to have been granted as the lake water is the only source of drinking water for the entire village. It is also stated that there is another existing crusher unit called VVN Blue Metal which is situated within the radius of 950m from the proposed site.
6. In this regard, the appellant has produced village map, FMB and also the Google Earth Map. However, he was not able to establish the fact that the Environmental Clearance for the quarry is granted for a site which is within the prohibited distance for habitation, agricultural land and water bodies.
3
7. The agreement between the appellant and the vendor of the 11 th respondent regarding the usage of the common passage, it was contended that it should be used exclusively for carrying the agricultural produce only. However, reading of the said agreement would show that it was agreed to permit bullock cart, cattles, tractors, lorries and any other vehicle used for transportation.
8. When the agreement is worded in that manner, the appellant cannot have any objection for the 11th respondent to carry the quarried material. Besides another writ petition referred above, namely, W.P. No. 34476 of 2022 is filed for a mandamus forbearing the respondents, therein, to treat the private pathway as a common pathway for commercial use for the purpose to carry quarried stones etc., and the said writ petition is also pending.
9. The District Collector has filed a counter in the said writ petition quoting the common passage agreement stating that the common passage can be used even for any other purpose by plying all vehicles. The District Collector also has mentioned in the counter that the Vettur Periya Eri is situated 138m from the proposed crushing unit and submitted that as per the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959. 50m safety distance is enough for the grant of quarry lease. It is also stated that there is no habitation within 30m from the area applied for grant of quarry lease. The house of the appellant also exists in a distance of 190m from the lease area without the approval of the Director of Town and Country Planning (DTCP). There is yet another house built in Sy. No.204/1 which is also without the approval of the DTCP and is 300m away from the proposed quarry/crusher unit.
10. The counter of the District Collector filed, therein, which is produced by the appellant also mentions that there are no LT or 4 HT lines passing through the area and there is no place of religious worship, archaeologically important place, burial ground etc. The so called water body, namely, Vettur Periya Eri is situated 138m away from the proposed crushing unit.
11. The Environmental Clearance also had imposed condition that the project proponent shall erect fencing all around the boundary of the proposed area with gates for entry/exist before the commencement of the operation and shall furnish the photographs/map showing the same before obtaining the 'Consent to Operate' from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. The project proponent has not yet commenced his operations as he is awaiting the 'Consent to Operate' from Pollution Control Board.
12. In the Environmental Clearance itself necessary conditions have been imposed regarding the noise and vibration. The pollution alleged by the appellant will be dealt with by the Pollution Control Board while they issue the 'Consent to Operate'.
13. As no other ground is made out by the appellant for setting aside the Environmental Clearance, the appeal is dismissed.
............................................................J.M. (Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana) .......................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) Appeal No.10/2023(SZ) 9th August, 2023. (AM) 5