National Green Tribunal
Krishna Marathe vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2022
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
Original Application No. 17/2020(WZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Krishna Marathe
House No. 1204, At Post-Redikanyal,
Taluka Vengurla, District - Sindhudurg,
Maharashtra - 416 570.
2. Rajan Bapu Redkar
C/o Purushottam Marathe
House No. 1204, At Post Redi Kanyal,
Taluka Vengurla, District- Sindhudurg,
Maharashtra- 416 570.
3. Ramesh Sajo Gauns
House No. 1724, Pajwada,
Bicholim, North Goa - 403 504.
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi- 110 003.
2. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board
Through the Member Secretary,
Kalpataru Point, 3rd & 4th floor,
Sion Matunga Scheme, Road No. 8,
Mumbai- 400 022.
3. Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority
The Member Secretary
Annex Building, 2nd floor, Room No. 217,
Mantralaya, Environment Department,
Mumbai.
4. Director of Geology & Mining,
Government of Maharashtra
The Dy. Director,
Udyog Bhavan, Nagalapark,
Kolhapur- 416 003.
5. District Collector,
Sindhudurg,
Sindhudurgnagari, Oras,
Maharashtra - 416 812.
Page 1 of 70
6. M/s Gogte Minerals
Through its Director,
146, TilakWadi, Belgaum,
Karnataka- 560 006.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for the Applicant(s):
Applicant(s) : Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent(s):
Respondent(s) : Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R-2 & 3
Ms. Swati Pandit, Advocate for R-5
Mr. Yashraj S. Deora, Advocate for R-6
PRESENT:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 15.07.2022
Pronounced on : 02.08.2022
JUDGMENT
1. This application is moved under Section 14 and Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 raising the issue that Respondent No. 6-M/s Gogte Minerals has been carried out mining of iron ore in violation of Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions causing huge damage to ecology and environment in the area of 94.7060 hectares which is approximately 600 mtrs. away from the Arabian Sea. The mining lease is granted in respect of Survey Nos. 51, 52, 57, 58, 60, 34, 26, 28, 33, 50, 24, 32, 59, 9, 48, 47, 46, 53 and 234 in the Village Redi of District Sindhudurg in the State of Maharashtra. The Respondent No. 6 had been granted Environmental Clearance (EC) vide letter dated 22.04.2010 by the Respondent No. 1/MoEF&CC for mining of iron Page 2 of 70 ore over an extent of 94.7060 ha. for 0.368 Millon Tonnes Per Annum (MTPA) at Village Redi, Taluka Vengurla, District Sindhudurg, Maharashtra which is at a distance of about 700 meters away from Shiroda creek and 1.6 km away from Terekhol creek and approximately 600 mtrs. away from the Arabian Sea. From among the conditions which were imposed while granting Environmental Clearance (EC), the following conditions have been violated by the Respondent No. 6:
"i) Top soil shall be stacked properly with adequate protection measures at earmarked sites and used for reclamation and rehabilitation of the mined out areas".
......
"vi) No two pits shall be simultaneously worked. After exhausting the first mine pit and before starting mining operations in the next pit, reclamation and plantation works in the exhausted pit shall be completed so as to ensure that reclamation, forest cover and vegetation are visible during the first year of mining operations in the next pit. This process shall be followed till the last pit is exhausted. Adequate rehabilitation of mined pit shall be completed before any new ore body is worked. "
......
vii) The ground water quality shall be monitored regularly to check the ingress of sea water by having observation wells around the ML area along the sea cost.
......
(viii) Monitoring of surface and ground water quality within 5.0 km of the lease shall be regularly conducted and records maintained and data submitted to the regional office of the Ministry regularly. Further, monitoring points shall be located between the mine and drainage in the direction of flow of ground water and records maintained.
......
(xii) Measures for prevention and control of soil erosion and management of silt shall be undertaken. Protection of dumps against erosion shall be carried out with geo textile matting or other suitable material and thick plantations of native trees and Shrubs shall be carried out at the dump slopes. Dumps shall be protected by retaining walls.
......
Page 3 of 70
(xiv) Land-use pattern of the nearby villages shall be studied, including identification of common property resources available for conversion into productive land. Action plan for abatement and compensation for damage to agricultural land/common property and (if any) in the nearby villages, due to mining activity shall be submitted to the Regional office of the Ministry within six months before start of mining. Annual status of implementation of the plan and expenditure thereon shall be reported to the Regional Office of the Ministry. .....
(x) Trenches/garland drains shall be constructed at foot of dumps and coco filters installed at regular intervals to arrest silt from being carried to water bodies. Adequate number of Check Dams and Gully Plugs shall be constructed across seasonal perennial nallahs (if any) flowing through the ML area and silts...De-silting at regular intervals shall be carried out.
2. With respect to the violation of specific condition no. 1, it is submitted that the top soil has not been stacked properly within the mining lease area as the soil was required to be stacked for the purpose of reclamation and rehabilitation of mined out area, which has not been done. In the past also, such top soil has not been used for reclamation and rehabilitation of the mined out areas, rather has been dumped illegally in the Arabian Sea. The Respondent No. 6 is one of the two companies which are carrying out mining operations for more than six decades at Redi and Kanyal Villages and it is evident by the letters of District Collector, Talathi, Sub-Divisional Officer and District Inspector of Land Survey, Sindhudurg that Respondent No. 6 is dumping mining material outside the leased area. As a result of which, land was found to be formed which was allotted Survey number by the District Collector, Sindhudurg, The said dumping is done outside the permissible area which is evident from the letter dated 15.01.2019 written by the Dy. Controller of Mines to Respondent No. 6, in which, it is recorded that the waste dumping approved in Page 4 of 70 2018-19 in North Situ area has not been commenced so far and instead waste dumping is continued to be carried out in East of Pit No. 203 at Survey No. 50(old 184) by increasing its dimensions. As per the Environment Plan Maps created by M/s NIMCO, there is dumping taking place and dumps existed outside the Mining Lease Area which is a direct and unequivocal violation of the EC conditions and the Mining Lease Agreement. The Applicant has obtained relevant maps through RTI from Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) in order to substantiate his allegation. The Respondent No. 6 continues to enjoy the right to mine over the said land till 11.01.2056 and the land which has been created because of illegal dumping made by him, has been given Survey No. 58.
3. With respect to the violation of condition no. (vi) of the Environmental Clearance (EC) pertaining to working of pits, it is submitted that as per Environmental Clearance (EC) condition „no two pits were to be simultaneously worked‟ and that it was mandated that Respondent No. 6 would exhaust the first mine pit before starting mining operations in the next pit and that there would be reclamation and plantation works in the exhausted pit and that forest cover and vegetation be visible from the first year of mining operations in the second pit. The said condition has been simultaneously violated which is evident from the half yearly compliance report dated 26.05.2018 submitted by the Respondent No. 6 for the period of October 2017 to March 2018 which notes that „out of the four pits within the mining lease, one is water logged, two are temporary backfilled and only one mine is in Page 5 of 70 operation and it falls under Survey No. 51/1, 51/2, 51/3, 51/4, 51/5, 51/6, 51/7A, 51/7B, 52/1, 26/2, 26/3, 26/7, 58/1‟. The Respondent No. 6 has contended to mislead the authorities by passing off the multiple mine pits located in the above mentioned survey numbers as one mine pit, in order to skirt the mandates of Environmental Clearance (EC). It is evident upon examination of maps and report of the Talathi of Kanyal Village that new Survey No. 51 is in Revenue Village Mahartalewadi is the same as Old Survey No. 203 and New Survey No. 26, is the same as Old Survey No. 235 in the Revenue Village Kanyal. Therefore, there are two distinct pits which are being said to be one pit in operation. It is evident from various aerial and satellite imagery that there are 6 pits which are being kept open simultaneously which is not only the violation of EC but also in activity in the teeth of Judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India given in Goa Foundation v. Union of India in which it was declared that "(ii) dumping of minerals outside the leased area of the mining leases is not permissible under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder;"
4. With respect to the violation of the condition of monitoring of ground water quality, it is submitted that the unfettered illegal mining of Respondent No. 6 has resulted in pollution of ground water. The MoEF&CC monitored the mines operated by Respondent No. 6 on 24.09.2009 and gave Monitoring Report which states that „ground water quality not yet submitted to Central Ground Water Authority and Regional Director, Central Ground Water Board‟ in violation of specific condition no. (vii). The Page 6 of 70 Monitoring Report of 2009 is the last submitted monitoring report which means that the Respondent No. 6 has not adhered to the EC conditions which provided for a periodic monitoring and the same has been substantiated by obtaining RTI reply by the Applicant on 07.08.2019 wherein monitoring report of 2009 is said to be the last monitoring done and which also states that „no site visit/monitoring was conducted since then by MoEF&CC, Regional Office, Nagpur‟.
5. With respect to groundwater contamination, it is evident from the scientific analysis done by the Applicant from the Directorate of Health Services, Environmental and Pollution Wing Goa dated 03.06.2019, wherein it was found that the well water, analysed from Village Kanyal (Redi) from well situated in property' bearing Survey No. 47, "does not conform to the standards prescribed for drinking water" and that "the water therefore cannot be used for human consumption". The Respondent No. 6 has attempted to mislead the authorities, submitting that in six monthly compliance report dated 26.05.2018 wherein the Respondent No.6 submits that the „groundwater monitoring is regularly carried out in 4 nos. of wells located in the study area, all the parameters are well within the permissible limits of drinking water standards of IS 10500 standards‟.
6. With respect to the violation regarding soil erosion, it is submitted that specific condition no. (xii) which mandated measures to be taken by Respondent No. 6 for prevention and control of soil erosion and management of silt, it is submitted that such Page 7 of 70 condition specifically provided for "geo textile matting or other suitable material and thick plantations of native trees and shrubs shall be carried out at the dump slopes. Dumps shall be protected by retaining walls" but it has been violated. In compliance report of 2018, the Respondent No.6 states that 'Garland drains are provided along the slopes to arrest surface run off material. Further, to control the wash off retention walls, embankments are provided. The matured dumps are appropriately vegetated to control the surface run off‟, the said report incorrectly states that the condition of construction of garland drains has been complied with because a letter dated 31.05.2018 is written by Dy. Controller of Mines addressed to the M/s Gogate Minerals to bring to the notice of Respondent No.6 regarding various violations of the provisions of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 in respect of Iron Ore mine and it is recorded that the authority notes "to check wash-off from dump at Pit No. 235, retention wall, garland drain, embankment etc. as approved along the periphery of the dump, has not been constructed." The said violation is punishable under Rule 62 of MCDR, 2017 and that there is also actual photographic evidence that proves that there are neither garland drains constructed as claimed by Respondent No.6 nor any garland drains constructed or thick plantation of trees etc. has been done on the dumped slopes.
7. With respect to the specific Condition (xiv) providing for an Action Plan for abatement and compensation for damage to agricultural land/common property land due to mining activity Page 8 of 70 within six months, it is submitted that no such Action Plan has been prepared by the Respondents which is evident from compliance report of the Respondent No.6 of the year 2018. This violation has led to death of several coconut trees which died as a result of severely depleted groundwater table, as has been concluded in the letter of the Taluka Agricultural Officer dated 23.09.2016 and letter of Collector, Sindhudurg dated 30.08.2017.
8. It is further submitted that the unrestrained and unmonitored mining which is going on had adverse impact on the water that was being consumed by the villagers of the said locality on daily basis, as there is no alternative drinking water. The water that was being supplied from the open mining pits through taps to the nearby villages, was analysed by the District Public Health Laboratory and in the „Report on Chemical Examination of Water for Drinking Purposes‟ dated 18.07.2018, the water was found „hazy with brownish particles having turbidity more than its permissible limits of 5.0 NTO‟ and also contained chlorides, total Hardness & Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) more than their desirable limits of 250.0 ppm,200.0 ppm & 500.0 ppm respectively‟. The report by the same authority dated 04.05.2018 with respect to the tap water of Village Redi, notes that the sample contained chlorides, Total Hardness and TDS above their desirable limits. Similar results were given pursuant to analysis vide report by the same authority dated 06.06.2018 after analysing the tap water from Redi Village. All this clearly establishes that drinking water supply to the Villagers, is not potable as it contains dangerously Page 9 of 70 high quantities of TDS and Chlorides. This contamination is caused due to the mining activities polluting the groundwater which is evident from letter dated 10.06.2019 of Village Panchayat, Redi written to the Collector, Sindhudurg and thereafter Resolution was passed by Village Panchayat Redi in its meeting held on 31.05.2018 in this regard. The well water which was got analysed by the Applicant, situated in Survey No. 47, from the Director of Health Services, Environmental Clearance and Pollution Wing, Goa dated 03.06.2019, it was found that „it does not conform to the standards prescribed for drinking water.‟
9. According to Section 17 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the Respondent No. 6 is directly liable under the principle of „No Fault Liability‟ as a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity has resulted in the contamination of drinking water for the villagers and the Arabian sea causing serious harm to the marine eco-systems in and around the mining area, hence Respondent No. 6 should be held liable to pay compensation. Therefore, it is prayed that Respondent No. 6 be not allowed to carry out mining in the above mentioned area; be directed to restore the area where illegal waste has been dumped, to its original condition and to carry out reclamation of open pits; be directed to restore the condition of ground water to its original condition and damages and compensation, be directed to be paid by the Respondent. Reply affidavit dated 21.08.2021 of Respondent No. 6 Reply of allegations pertaining to soil stacked and illegal dumping into the Arabian Sea Page 10 of 70
10. It is submitted that pursuant to the reclamation of land from Arabian Sea in early 1980s by answering respondent and another lessee viz., New India Mining Corporation (NIMCO), the land was given survey no.15 in revenue village of Redi and the land reclaimed by NIMCO, in addition to Sy. No 15, was given survey no.58 in revenue village of Kanyal. These numbers were given in the year 1991 by the revenue authorities. The reclamation was completed by the answering Respondent prior to 1990 and thereafter after about three decades, present application has been filed by the Applicant which is with tremendous delay hence barred by limitation. The Applicant himself has admitted vide letter dated 18/10/1991 that the new land had already been created when said letter was issued in 1991, while grant of EC was only on 22/04/2010. Therefore, it is evident that there was no violation of specific condition no.(i) of the EC as alleged.
11. Further, it is submitted that there was no EC requirement prior to 27/01/1994 when the first EIA Notification came to be issued, despite that the Applicant has relied upon the alleged Maps of the year 2006 and 2013. In fact, the reclamation of the land from the Arabian Sea was undertaken somewhere in the year 1974, pursuant to obtaining permission from local authorities and dumping thereafter was stopped in the year 1988. This reclamation of the land was undertaken both by the answering respondent and the other company M/s. NIMCO. The land created by NIMCO was to the extent of 29.92 Hec. which was later on assigned survey no.58 in Village Kanyal, while the land created Page 11 of 70 partly by the answering respondent and NIMCO, was assigned new survey no. 15 having an area of 3.86 Hectares in Redi Village. Post 1990, there was no reclamation undertaken. The afforestation work was undertaken on the said new land and at present, 33.78 Hectares of the area has thick vegetation with maximum age of trees being 22 to 25 years old and the entire area is under the ownership and possession of the Forest Department. With respect to proving that there was no further reclamation, Google Maps of the years 2006, 2013 and 2020 of both Survey numbers 15 and 58 have been annexed showing no further reclamation or dumping. The Applicant has sought to rely upon Environment Management Plan, in order to falsely suggest that the land was created only in the year 2013. But they have not deliberately placed on record the Order dated 21/04/1993 which belied the allegations of the Applicants as the survey numbers had already been granted in the year 1993. Mere failure to update the Maps cannot result in a conclusion that the land was created in the year 2013. Moreover, the said Map for the Environmental Clearance appears to be a Map submitted by M/s. NIMCO and not by the answering Respondent as the same bears the name of NIMCO with a stamp of Indian Bureau of Mines(IBM). The dumps which were reflected as M/s. Gogte dumps (Respondent No. 6), are actually part of survey no.15 of Redi Village created prior to 1990, over which thick forest exists now.
12. Further, it is submitted that another dump shown as "dump of Gogte" at the top of the map actually falls within the Page 12 of 70 mining lease of M/s. Gogte Minerals/R-6. The Respondent No. 6 has superimposed the mining lease on the said Map of the Environmental Management Plan which clearly projects the boundaries of the leases of M/s. Gogte Minerals and of M/s. NIMCO, which would make it evident that the dump is within the mining lease of answering Respondent and not outside. The Applicant, while taking the modified mining scheme of NIMCO, which shows NIMCO mine with 60 mtrs. limit line and a 500 mtrs. limit line in terms of IBM guidelines, for preparation of the environment management plan, it appears, has taken these limit lines as the boundary of the answering respondent‟s mine, alleging erroneously that dump is outside the lease area. The Applicant has falsely relied upon letter dated 15.01.2019, in order to establish that the answering respondent was dumping top soil or mining waste outside the lease area because the said letter clearly shows that the observations pertain to dumping at survey no. 50 and that the said survey number forms part and parcel of the mining lease of the answering Respondent and the same is evident from para III of the Application. Also, pursuant to the said letter dated 15.01.2019, the answering Respondent submitted its explanation to Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) which was pleased to approve the modified Mining Plan submitted by the answering Respondent, whereunder the increased dimensions of the dump at East of pit-203 at survey no. 50 has been duly approved on 31/03/2020. Therefore, all the dumps after the grant of Environmental Clearance dated 22/04/2010 has been maintained strictly as per the approved Mining Plan and no violation of the EC Page 13 of 70 condition can be held to have been made pertaining to stacking of top soil at earmarked sites within the mining lease area. In fact, the area was already broken up and had more rock formation. There was scanty soil which was unfertile, as such there has been no top soil generated post the grant of EC in the year 2010. The said fact was also brought to the notice of MoEF&CC in EIA-EMP Report for the grant of Environmental Clearance in the year 2010 by the answering Respondent. The condition no. 1 of EC is understood for maintaining of dumps of overburden generated during mining activity and such dumps are being stacked properly with adequate protection measures at earmarked sites and will be used for reclamation and rehabilitation of the mined out areas when the time comes.
Reply as to the allegation relating to simultaneous working of pits
13. In this regard, it is submitted that the Applicant has erroneously sought to place reliance on half yearly compliance report dated 26/05/2018 submitted by the answering Respondent to MoEF&CC. It is clearly stated in the said report that there is only one working pit in operation namely i.e. Pit no.203 which was operated by the answering Respondent pursuant to EC dated 22/04/2010 and over a period of time, the same expanded and at present, the said pit is located over new survey nos. 26(part), 51, 52, 58 and 57.
14. In the past also, the Applicant submitted complaints before different forums such as MPCB and MoEF&CC but the allegations Page 14 of 70 were found erroneous pursuant to on-site inspections undertaken by MoEF&CC as well as MPCB. In this regard, the Report dated 17/04/2020 of MoEF&CC and Report dated 08/01/2020 of MPCB were prepared from which it is evident that there is only one working pit i.e., 203 found at site which reports were deliberately not produced by the Applicant. This Tribunal had also appointed a Committee to submit a report which has recorded at item 2 (a) that only one pit is being worked i.e Pit No.203. In the half yearly Environmental Clearance compliance report submitted to MoEF&CC, only one pit is shown operational and that the details of pits which had been created sometime prior to 1990, i.e. much prior to the EC regime introduced in 1994 and the grant of EC dated 22/04/2010, were provided in the said compliance report only for complete disclosure of facts. It is evident from the compliance report that the other two pits were back filled and as such only one pit (i.e Pit 203) was worked by the answering respondent. So far as the Mauli Pit falling within Mining Lease area is concerned, which is located over 3.5 ha., where mining had been undertaken prior to 1990, the said Pit has been stabilised with plantation in accordance with accepted practice which facts have also been affirmed by the Committee constituted by this Tribunal. There are trees with an average age span of 18 to 20 years which itself reflects that mining has been suspended in the said pit for a long time. The said pit also falls within the CRZ which came to be defined for the first time, in the year 1991. For this, reliance is placed by answering Respondent upon study conducted and report prepared by Dr. Uttam Dethe which reflects Page 15 of 70 that no mining has been undertaken in the said area and that the mining pit has been rehabilitated and stabilised. After its stabilisation and reclamation, the said pit came to be used as a water reservoir for almost three decades now. Further, the Applicants have wrongly placed reliance on the Monitoring Report of 2009, in order to establish that as a result of mining operation by Respondent No. 6 pollution has taken place of the ground water, in violation of condition nos. 7 & 8 of Environmental Clearance and for this, they have relied on analysis Report dated 03/06/2019 based upon a sample collected by the Applicant no. I and alleged that the well water was found not potable. It is submitted in this regard that a perusal of the said report would indicate that the place from which the sample was collected, is not disclosed. The Applicant no. I is shown as resident of Bicholim, Goa as opposed to being a resident of Redi Village, which is in Maharashtra and that he has falsely averred that he resides in the area close to the Mine as the Bicholim is more than 50 km away from the Mine in question. Regarding the sample of well water, it is doubtful, as the source of the same is not known.
15. It is further submitted that MPCB has been regularly collecting samples from a well belonging to Ramkrishna Kanyakar situated in survey no.51 of Kanyal Village, which is close to survey no. 47, Village Kanyal and the results have shown that the findings were within permissible limits. The National Institute of Hydrology (NIH), Ministry of Jal Shakti, RD & GR, Government of India also monitored 35 wells situated around the mining lease Page 16 of 70 area and their results also indicate that the quality of the groundwater is within permissible limits. The NIH interim report in para 4.5 has found as follows;
"Mining operation and acid drainage can affect ground water quality. However, it is commonly necessary to place an impermeable barrier at the base of the tailing pond to prevent acidic drainage seepage. Older tailing ponds that were constructed without impermeable bases have generated acidic drainage that causes groundwater contamination. However, the iron ore or the waste do not contain any leachable toxic elements or heavy metals, there shall be no pollution of water and there is no tailing pond in the mining lease."
16. Further, it is submitted that the Applicants have sought to rely upon a Monitoring Report of the year 2009 of MoEF&CC and has submitted that the answering Respondent has not submitted the ground water quality report, but the Applicants have failed to disclose that the said Monitoring Report was with respect to a completely different Mining Lease, which is not subject matter of the present Application. As is evident from the averment in para 13 of the application, the monitoring was conducted on 24/09/2009 and as such could not be referable to the EC dated 22/04/2010 which was granted subsequently. The monitoring was conducted with regard to lease known as Redi Iron Ore Mine (Block II), which lease expired in 2010 and has not been renewed since then. The said Block has already been rehabilitated in accordance with the approved Final Mine Closure Plan. It is apparent that the Applicant has sought to raise a stale issue and intertwine it with the working of the present lease which is completely different and separate from the lease regarding which the monitoring report has been submitted. The EC conditions Page 17 of 70 contained in clearance dated 22/04/2010 are referable to only Block I, regarding which the answering Respondent has established 2 sites with piezometers for ground water table monitoring and has also established 6 ground water and 4 surface water quality monitoring stations and is carrying out monitoring as per MoEF&CC and CPCB guidelines. All samples which are being collected, are monitored through the MoEF&CC recognised and NABL accredited laboratory. Besides that, the answering respondent has requested the Regional Centre of National Institute of Hydrology (NIH), Ministry of Jal Shakti RD & GR, Government of India to undertake a Hydro Geological Study spanning 4 seasons, in and around the Redi Iron Ore Mine and the said Institute has submitted the interim report. The ground water level and quality was studied at 26 locations and it concluded as follows:-
" i. The present observation taken during the Season Monsoon and Post monsoon 2019 did not show any significant change in water levels.
ii. The study indicated that, there is no sea water intrusion as observed through water quality parameters.
iii. From the preliminary investigation, it is found that there is no direct impact on water levels and ground water quality due to mining.
iv. The estimation of seawater intrusion using Ghyben Herzberg formula indicated that there is no intrusion of seawater in the study area up to 400m to 500m.
v. From the conceptual modelling it is understood that there is no threat of contamination under defined hydrological conditions."
17. The Expert Committee appointed by this Tribunal also considered the Reports of samples collected by MPCB to conclude that the water quality was being continuously monitored and a Page 18 of 70 perusal of the said Reports clearly reflects that the answering Respondent has been monitoring the ground water and that there was no contamination found as alleged by the Applicant. Allegation as to soil erosion
18. With regard to this, it is submitted that the allegations of the Applicant that Environmental Clearance conditions nos. (x) and (xii) which have been quoted above in paragraph no. 1, have been violated, is absolutely false because the measures adopted by the answering respondent regarding soil erosion such as afforestation, geotextile, retaining wall, trenches/garland drains, check dams, settling ponds and silt arrestors have already been put in place.
19. Regarding afforestation, it is brought on record by him that as many as 84046 saplings have been planted on dump slopes of old mining pit an area of 13.3 hectares in Survey no. 50 which clearly reflects the thick vegetation over dump slopes to arrest any soil erosion which is also evident from the photographs and the extract of the study report prepared by Dr. Uttam Dethe.
20. Regarding Geotextile, it is submitted that the answering respondent has utilized Geotextile matting to stabilise an area of over 2.708 hectares by using leguminous grass seeds on Geotextile cover for further stabilisation.
21. Regarding retaining wall, it is submitted that the answering Respondent has built Retaining Walls having 1 meter height and 1.5 meter width at the toe of the dumps. At present, there is a Page 19 of 70 retaining wall of about 1.5 km. of length at the active dump, located in survey no. 50. He has also constructed laterite bund/embankment of a total length of 1698 meters at the toe of the dumps.
22. Regarding Trenches/Garland drains, it is submitted by the answering Respondent that the Trenches/Garland drains are provided at the stages and at the toe of the dumps and wherever required, trenches/drains are covered with silapulin to protect the soil erosion and the total length of trenches/garland drains provided at various locations within the Mine area would be approximately 2660 meters.
23. Regarding Check dams, settling ponds and silt arrestors, it is submitted that the answering Respondent has provided 8 settling ponds with a total capacity of 13244 m3 which protected the stone pitching with concrete and series of silt arrestors, constructed next to the settling ponds. The coco filters are placed all along the silt arrestors to trap the fine particles. In order to substantiate the above stated steps, photographs have been annexed.
24. Further, it is submitted that the Applicants have placed reliance upon letter dated 31/05/2018 by Dy. Collector of Mines to allege that the condition no.(x) of the Environmental Clearance was not followed. In this regard, it is submitted that in the year 2018, there were 02 active dumps and condition no. (x) was duly complied with. However, a portion of the dump at pit no.235 did Page 20 of 70 not have the retention wall, which situation was remedied immediately with due notice to IBM on 13/07/2018. Therefore, it is stated that one instance of 2018 cannot be taken to conclude that the answering Respondent did not comply with the EC condition. More so the allegation pertains to the year 2018 while the present Application filed in the year 2020.
25. Further, it is submitted that the Applicants have placed reliance upon few photographs to allege that there were no garland drains put in place. Regarding this, it is submitted that a perusal of the said photographs would merely reflect the mining pits during monsoon season only as rain water gets collected in the mining pit. Moreover, the Applicant has not mentioned as to when these photographs were taken. When the Expert Committee visited the mining site it found that conditions nos.(x) and (xii) were duly complied with. Further, it is submitted that the allegation that no construction of garland drains or retaining walls or plantation of native trees is done, it is submitted that the allegation presented by the answering respondent clearly shows that said photographs rather than showing the dumps within the lease area, have been taken of the beach along the Arabian Sea or of the shoreline which admittedly are not the dumps. The dumps as mentioned in the Environmental Clearance dated 22/04/2010 are the dumps within the mining lease area around which garland drains have been provided and plantation also has been undertaken over passive dump slopes which is evident from the photographs annexed by the answering respondent.
Page 21 of 70
26. With regard to allegations relating to action plan, it is submitted that the Applicants have sought to place reliance upon letters issued in 2016 and 2017 by the Taluka Agricultural Officer and Collector, Sindhudurg District, which have been written without any information of hearing to the answering Respondent, based only on the claim of certain persons without any specific evidence. The said contentions are absolutely false. The Action Plan in terms of specific condition (xiv) was submitted by the answering Respondent on 15/06/2011. The allegations pertaining to depletion of ground water is also without any factual or scientific basis. In fact, the ground water table in the said region is 5m. msl. As per the details available with NIH and in terms of the Mining Plan, the water table was found to be at 5 msl in the year 1996 i.e. much before the mining activity was undertaken in the region. The answering Respondent started mining activities in the year 2010 when the ground water table was at 5m.msl and at present, as per the data available from National Institute of Hydrology (NIH) and as per regular monitoring the ground water table is still at 5 msl. A mere comparison of the ground water table over the given years clearly would show that there has been no adverse impact of mining on ground water table. The answering Respondent has undertaken steps to recharge the ground water table and uses the entire lease area as a catchment area and diverts all rain water to the mining pit where water is collected for the entire duration of the monsoon period which itself helps in recharging the ground water table. Apart from the main mining pit, the answering Respondent also diverts water into the Mauli pit Page 22 of 70 which is used as a water reservoir which too recharges the groundwater table. The answering Respondent at its own cost has set up a water treatment plant to treat the water from pit no 138 which thereafter is supplied to Redi Village, though there is no responsibility laid upon the answering Respondent under law to supply the water to the village at large. The said process is being done on humanitarian ground accepting Corporate Social Responsibility principles. The answering Respondent has incurred cost upward of Rs. 15 crores in the installation of water treatment plant and supply of water.
27. With regard to the coconut trees in the region having died during the year 2016 due to various illness, including Rhinoceros beetle, the red palm weevil and fungal infection like Bud Rot and Ganoderma Lucidumwilt, it is submitted the answering Respondent has paid compensation to some farmers. False claims were raised alleging that due to non-supply of irrigation water, villagers/farmers could not undertake cultivation of paddy, coconut, chilly and horticulture crops, regarding which 7/12 extracts have been annexed. Several complaints are said to have been received relating to adverse impact on cultivation of paddy, mango, coconut crops etc. and they are stated to be frivolous as the water was being supplied continuously.
ALLEGATIONS AS TO EFFECT OF MINING ACTIVITIES ON GROUND WATER AND REPLY THERETO
28. Reply to allegations regarding ill-effect of mining activity on ground water would contain that answering Respondent has been Page 23 of 70 treating water at its own cost before it be supplied to the overhead tank of the Village Panchayat. Frequent tests are done of the samples taken from output of the water treatment plant which are sent to the Government accredited laboratories including the District Public Health Laboratory, Oros, Sindhudurg and the Directorate of Health Services, Government of Goa. A chart indicating the results of samples collected on various dates and tested by the aforesaid labs has been given which shows that the water supplied is found potable and absolutely fit for human consumption.
29. Further, it is submitted that the reports being relied upon of the year 2018, would depend upon the nature of the hygiene maintained in the overhead tanks of the individual from whose premises the tap water was collected, the quality and age of plumbing. It is evident that from the very same laboratory, i.e. Directorate of Health Services, Panaji, Goa, in the months of May 2018, June 2018 and July 2018, Report has provided on the samples collected at the WTP of Redi Village, wherein all parameters are within desirable limits. Therefore, the allegation of the Applicant that the quality of ground water got polluted due to the mining activity, is without any factual or scientific basis, rather is based merely on conjectures and surmises. The documents which are annexed from the side of the Applicant do not prove that the pollution is caused by the mining activity or the contamination of ground water is due to the mining activity, in fact after perusal of the said documents, it would emerge that Page 24 of 70 those documents were released on the premise that there had been intrusion of sea water in the mining lease area. Though it has already been submitted that in terms of study undertaken by NIH, there has been no intrusion of seawater, nor is the water in the mining area brackish. The answering Respondent in fact requested the Village Panchayat members to freely communicate with the scientists from NIH to have their fears allayed pertaining to intrusion of sea water. Pursuant to the detailed discussions between the Panchayat members and the scientists of NIH, the Village Panchayat has passed Resolution dated 24/03/2021, accepting that there was no such intrusion of sea water and that the previous resolution had been passed based upon limited information supplied by certain persons.
Averments pertaining to no fault liability
30. With respect to averments pertaining to no fault liability, it is submitted that principle of No Fault Liability at best would be applicable in the event of an accident and at the present case, there was no accident occurred which would attract the said principle. It is submitted that the applications needs to be dismissed.
Submission dated 11.09.2020 on behalf of MPCB/Respondent No. 2
31. It is submitted that a joint committee was constituted under the orders of this Tribunal comprising representative of MoEF&CC, Govt. of India, representative of CPCB, representative of MCZMA and MPCB. In compliance of order dated 10.07.2020, Page 25 of 70 the Committee has submitted its report and the same has been annexed with the said submission which is to the following effect:-
Sr Condition of EC 1 Specific condition no. (i) of the EC, "Topsoil shall be stacked properly with adequate protection measures at earmarked sites and used for reclamation and rehabilitation of the mined-out areas".
Allegation of the Committee Observations Applicant a Topsoil has not been stacked properly within The committee noted that the the mining lease area Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) and has not been used approved the mining plan for reclamation and vide letter dated 27.07.2007, rehabilitation of the wherein it is mentioned that mined-out areas, but there won't be any has been dumped generation of Topsoil during illegally into the the Mining Activities. Copy of Arabian Sea. the relevant pages of approved mining plan attached asAnnexure-2 Further, the EIA-EMP report submitted by the Respondent no.6 company for grant of EC also clearly mentioned that there is no topsoil generation/stacking during the Mining Activities Environmental clearance for the project has been granted in 2010.During the site inspection, it was observed that the lease area was found rich in hard laterite cover and hence no occurrence of Top Soil. And therefore, there are no topsoil stacks observed.
b Mining waste material Committee noted the letter
has been dumped dated 15.1.2019of the Dy.
outside the mining Controller of Mines
lease area and it is addressed to M/s Gogte
evident from the letter Minerals. Committee noted
dated 15.1.2019 of Dy. that the said letter mentions
Controller of Mines a change in dumping
location and does not
mention the dumping outside
the lease area. Committee
during the site inspection
observed that dumping of the
mine waste is within the
permissible mining lease
area of 94.706 Ha. The
mining lease area is
demarcated with boundary
pillars (with latitude and
longitude).
c The dumping is still During the site inspection,
being done by the the committee did not find
company outside the fresh dumping of mine waste
permissible area outside the Mining Lease
area.
d The new land has been The committee visited the
Page 26 of 70
formed by the dumping said old dumpsites formed
of the mining waste. along the coast. It is noted
The new land has been that dumping was done at
allotted survey nos by the site from the year1974.
the District Collector, During the site inspection,
Sindhudurg. A letter local villagers informed that
dated 18.12.1992 of dumping of mine waste on
District Inspector, Land the said old dump sites were
survey reported to stopped prior to the year
District Collector 1990. Letter from Sarpanch mentions the creation of village Redi attached as of the new land. Annexure-3. At present, the said dumpsites bear survey no. 15 & 58. These sites are stabilized with plantation.
Presently, old dump sites land belongs to the Forest Department of Government of Maharashtra. Committee during the site inspection observed the Board of the Forest Department mentioning that survey no.
15(village Redi) and survey no. 58 (village Kanyal) belong to Forest Department, GoM.
There was no ongoing dumping observed on the said old dump sites. Copy of photographs of the display board attached as Annexure-
42 Specific condition no. vi) of the EC:
"No two pits shall be simultaneously worked. After exhausting the first mine pit and before starting mining operations in the next pit, reclamation and plantation work in the exhausted pit shall be completed so as to ensure that reclamation, forest cover, and vegetation are visible during the first year of mining operations in the next pit. This process shall be followed till the last pit is exhausted. Adequate rehabilitation of mined pit shall be completed before any new ore body is worked"
Allegation of the Committee Observations Applicant a The applicant has Mining activities are carried alleged the violation of out in One pit only, namely the above said pit no.203.
Environmental The second pit (Mauli Pit over Clearance condition 3.5 ha.) falls in the CRZ area and it is evidenced from and is located at around the compliance report 1km from the ongoing dated 26.5.2018 mining operation. The said submitted by Mauli pit was closed in 1990 Respondent No. 6 and currently it is a water (Company). The reservoir and water from this Compliance Report of reservoir is used for 2018 notes that out of irrigation by the villagers.
the four pits within the The pit was stabilized with
mining lease, one is dense plantation in and
water logged, two are around the periphery of the
temporary backfilled, pit.
and only one mine is in These pits are mentioned in
operation. the Approved Mining Plan.
Copy of the relevant page
from the Approved Mining
Plan is attached asAnnexure-
5
Page 27 of 70
3 Specific condition no. (vii) of the EC:
"The ground water quality shall be monitored regularly to check the ingress of sea water by having observation wells around the Mining lease area along these a coast"
Specific condition no. viii) of the EC:
"Monitoring of surface and ground water quality within 5.0 km of the lease shall be regularly conducted and records maintained, and data submitted to the regional office of the Ministry regularly. Further monitoring points shall be located between the mine and, drainage in the direction of flow of ground water and records maintained"
a Allegation of the Committee Observations Applicant The applicant has Committee noted that there alleged that there is is a report Regional Centre of ground water National Institute of contamination due to Hydrology (NIH) (Ministry of mining operations as Jal Shakti, RD& GR, Govt. of evident from scientific India) about the analysis done by the hydrogeological studies (for Applicant through 4 seasons starting from Directorate of Health monsoon 2019) in and Services, Environmental around the Redi Iron Ore and Pollution Wing Goa Mine.
dated 03.06.2019, from The NIH institute submitted well situated in the interim report of the property bearing survey above studies. The level and no. 47 at village Kanyal quality of ground water at (Redi). A per the said 26 locations had been analysis, the water studied during monsoon and sample does not post-monsoon of 2019. As per conform to the the interim report dated standards prescribed 7.2.2020 of NIH:
for drinking water The present observation took during the Season Monsoon and Post monsoon 2019 did not show any significant change in water levels.
The study indicated that there is no sea water intrusion as observed through water quality parameters.
From the preliminary
investigation, it is found
that there is no direct
impact on water levels and
groundwater quality due to
mining.
The estimation of seawater
intrusion using the Ghyben
Herzberg formula indicated
that there is no intrusion of
seawater in the study area
up to 400m to 500m.
From conceptual modelling,
it is understood that there
is no threat of
contamination under
defined hydrological
conditions.
Page 28 of 70
Copy of the conclusion of
the said interim report
dated 7.2.2020 of the NIH
of Ministry of Jal Shakti,
RD & GR, Govt. of India is
enclosed as Annexure-6
Committee also noted that
The applicant further ground water and surface
alleged that drinking water are being monitored at
water is not potable, as 6 and 4 locations
evidenced from report respectively through
dated 18.7.2018 of MoEF&CC recognized
District public Health laboratory by the Respondent
Laboratory and letter No. 6 company. Copy of the
dated10.6.2019 by the latest report is attached as
village panchayat, Annexure-7
Redi.
MPCB also monitors pit water
discharge and water samples
of adjacent wells. Copy of the
tabulated analysis results is
attached as Annexure-8
It was noted that the pH of
the well water is low. Mining
representative informed that
study is being carried out by
the National Institute of
Hydrology, (NIH). Letter
justifying the reduction of pH
given by NIH is attached as
Annexure-9.
Committee during the site
inspection observed that
there is a Water Treatment
plant near to old Mine Pit
(Block II). It is informed that
accumulated water from the
mining pits is treated in the
WTP and after treatment, it
is supplied to villagers for
drinking purposes.
After the treatment, the
treated water is pumped to
the overhead tank belongs to
Gram Panchayat. Gram
Panchayat supplies the
water to the village for
drinking. During the
inspection, it was observed
that the treated water is
being analyzed on daily
basis by the WTP, and
records are maintained.
In addition to this water
treatment plant also get
analyze the treated water
sample once in a month
through Public Health
Laboratory, Oras, Sindhdurg,
Govt. of Maharashtra. The
reports mention that the
water is POTABLE (Biological
and Chemical parameters). A
sample copy of the latest
Page 29 of 70
report is attached as
Annexure-10.
Committee noted that the
MPCB has collected the
sample on 15.9.2020 from
the Water Treatment Plant
(WTP) of M/s Gogte Minerals
at Village Redi. Report ofthe
MPCB dated 17.9.2020 is
attached asAnnexure-11.
Committee during the site
inspection collected three
water samples for portability
test. 1. Shri Devi Mauli Water
Treatment Plant (WTP)
installed by M/s Gogte
Minerals at village Redi for
supply of drinking water to
the villagers. 2. Tap water at
a house of Redi village
supplied by Water treatment
plant. 3. Open well water of
Shri. Mangesh Kamat,
Village Kanyal, Redi situated
in Survey No.33. The said
samples submitted to the
Public Health Laboratory,
Oras, Sindhdurg, Govt.of
Maharashtra on 22/10/2020
for portability test. The
result of these samples are
received on 18/11/2020 and
the same states that all the
three samples of water are
potable. Copy of the report
obtained from the Public
Health Laboratory is
attached as Annexure-12.
The applicant has Committee noted that the
alleged that MoEF&CC present application is about
monitored the mines the mining area of 94.706
operated by the Ha for which EC was granted
Respondent as on in the year 2010 of the Ms
24..9.2009 and the Gogte Minerals. MoEF&CC,
monitoring report of the New Delhi monitoring report
MoEF stated that of 24.9.2009 pertains to
Ground water quality another mining block no. 2
not submitted to located outside the above
Central Ground water said mining lease area of
Board, 94.706 Ha. Final Mine
Closure Plan for block 2 was
approved by the Indian
Bureau of Mines and has
been implemented. This pit
acts as a water reservoir as
approved in the Final Mine
Closure Plan. The water
treatment plant is installed
adjacent to this water
reservoir. This Pit is
rehabilitated with dense
plantation.
4 Specific condition no. xii) of the EC:
"Measures for prevention and control of soil erosion and management of silt shall be undertaken. Protection of dumps against erosion shall be carried out with Page 30 of 70 geotextile matting or other suitable material and thick plantations of native trees and shrubs shall be carried out at the dump slopes. Dumps shall be protected by retaining walls"
Allegation of the Committee Observations Applicant 5 Applicant has alleged Committee during the site that, to check wash-off inspection observed that from dump at Pit No. passive dumps over an area 235, retention wall, of 5.10 ha. Has been garland drain, stabilized with geotextile embankment etc. as matting. Plantation of 84046 approved along the no. saplings have been periphery of the dump carried over the passive has not been dumps. Retaining walls have constructed. been provided at the toe of the active dumps. Currently, mining operation at pit no.
203 is temporarily stopped due to rains for which garland drains have been provided.
Respondent no.6 has informed that the retaining wall and garland drain was constructed and the same was reported to the Indian Bureau of Mines. The same has been verified by the committee. Copy of the reply sent to IBM dated 13-07-2018 is attached as Annexure-13.
5 Specific condition no. xiv) of the EC: "Land-use pattern of the nearby villages shall be studied, including identification of common property resources available for conversion into productive land. Action plan for abatement and compensation for damage to agricultural land/common property land (if any) in the nearby villages, due to mining activity shall be submitted to the Regional office of the Ministry within six months before start of mining. Annual status of implementation of the plan and expenditure" thereon shall be reported to the Regional Office of the Ministry.
Allegation of the Committee Observations Applicant The applicant has Committee noted that the PP alleged violation of the submitted the Action Plan for above condition abatement and compensation for damage to agricultural and/common property land due to mining activity to the Ministry prepared vide letter dated 15.06.2011. A copy is attached asAnnexure-14.
6 Specific condition no. x) of EC:
"Trenches/garland drains shall be constructed at foot of dumps and coco filters installed at regular intervals to arrest silt from being carried to water bodies. Adequate number of Check Dams and Gully Plugs shall be constructed across seasonal/perennial nallahs (if any) flowing through the mining lease area and de-
silting at regular intervals shall be carried out"
a Allegation of the Committee Observations Applicant The applicant has The committee observed that alleged the violation of Garland drain has been the above condition provided at the toe of the Page 31 of 70 dumps. During the visit, the representative informed that the garland drain of 2660 meters, 3numbers of check dams and coco filter have been provided and also informed that the desilting of garland drains is being carried out regularly. All the surface runoff from the dumps, catchment area within the mining lease area is diverted and collected at the pit under operation (Pit no, 203).
7 Other Allegations The applicant has The committee was informed alleged dumping of the that dumping of the mine mine wastes in the waste was started in the Arabain Sea and year1974 along the coast degradation of the and stopped before1990.
coastal environment. Local villagers during the
site inspection also informed
that dumping was stopped in
the year 1990. There is a
village sarpanch letter
supporting the same.
At present, the said dump
sites bear survey no. 15 &
58. These sites are stabilized
with plantation. Presently,
old dump sites land belongs
to the Forest Department of
Government of Maharashtra.
Committee during the site
inspection observed the
Board of the Forest
Department mentioning that
survey no. 15 (village Redi)
and survey no. 58 (village
Kanyal) belong to Forest
Department, GoM. There was
no ongoing dumping observed
on the said old dumpsites,
during the site visit.
The committee observed that
based on the coastal land
use map, the MCZMA vide
letter bearing no. CRZ 2009/
CR 73/ TC 3dated 6.1.2010
allowed the Redi Iron Ore
Mine lease (Block 1) for
94.706 Ha at village Redi,
Taluka Vengurla, District
Sindhudurg, under CRZ
Notification, 1991 for
carrying out iron ore mining
activities subject to the
condition that:
"The mining activities should
not be carried out on CRZ
affected area i.e. survey no.
32new ( 234 old)"
At present, the CZMP of
Sindhudrug District under
Page 32 of 70
CRZ Notification, 2011 is
approved in the year 2019 by
the MoEF&CC, New Delhi
Said Approved CZMP is
superimposed on the google
image, as per which, current
mining activities (at present
temporarily stopped due to
rains) of M/s Gogte Minerals
are situated outside the CRZ
area.
Part of Survey no. 32 and a
small part of survey 28 falls
under the CRZ area, as per
above said the approved
CZMP under CRZ
Notification, 2011 finalized
in the year 2019.The
committee observed no
mining activity being carried
out in survey no. 32 and
Survey no. 28.
The applicant claims As per the s per the Interim
that the death of Report submitted by the
several coconut trees National Institute of
which have died as a Hydrology, the institute
result of a severely found that there is no direct
depleted groundwater impact on water levels and
table, which found that groundwater quality due to
several numbers of mining. The conclusion of the
coconut trees have died report is attached.
because of severe
depletion of The report carried out by an
groundwater levels. Agriculture expert appointed
by the Respondent No.
Suggests that the death of
coconut trees are affecting
the productivity and life of
coconuts. Shortage of water
is not cause of death of the
coconut palm. Their
mortality is linked to the
Rhinoceros Beetle, the Red
Palm Weevil and fungal
infections like bud rot and
Ganodermalucidum wilt.
Copy of the report is
attached as Annexure-15.
Affidavit-in-reply dated 19.08.2021 on behalf of applicant no.1
32. In response to inspection report of the committee, it is submitted that the Committee has merely relied upon the documents and information supplied by Respondent No. 6 on all the points raised by the Applicant and has not provided any independent assessment and appraisal of the situation. It has Page 33 of 70 accepted the statements and submissions of the Respondent No. 6 at their face value and failed to assess the contentions of the Applicants. The Committee has wrongly relied on two documents viz., the IBM Approved Mining Plan letter dated 27.07.2007 and the EIA-EMP Report submitted by the Respondent No. 6, in order to ascertain whether there has been compliance of Specific Condition (i) of the Environmental Clearance (EC) pertaining to soil management and has ignored the violation noted in the letter dated 15.01.2019 of the Dy. Controller of Mines which clearly indicated that continuing dumping was going on. The Committee further failed to observe that the specific condition (i) which says that top soil is to be stacked only at the earmarked sites and should be used for reclamation/rehabilitation of mined out areas has not been fulfilled and that simply dumping of top soil and mining waste within the mining lease is not sufficient for compliance of the said condition.
33. Further, it is submitted that the observation of the committee that "the lease area was found rich in hard laterite cover and hence no occurrence of top soil, is untrue because the agricultural activities are taking place within the lease area on Sy. Nos. 34, 35, and 60 in Village Kanyal, Taluka Vengurla, District Sindhudurg. The Committee failed to observe, such agricultural lands required fertile soil and cannot grow with hard laterite cover area.
34. With respect of simultaneous operation of pits, it is submitted that Respondent No. 6 has admitted that there is Page 34 of 70 simultaneous operation of multiple pits as was mentioned in Compliance Repot of 2018 and has failed to reclaim and rehabilitate any mined out pits in the prescribed manner, as is evident from the committee's observations. Rather Respondent No. 6 unilaterally decided to use mined out pits as water reservoirs, despite no provisions being there in the EC conditions for that. The Pit No.203 has merged with the existing mined out pit operated by M/s New India Mining Corporation and currently both were used as water reservoirs, thereby further impeding the prospects of rehabilitation/reclamation/plantation of forest cover and vegetation. The Respondent No. 6 is not only collecting water in the mined out pits, but at the same is using to supply water to the rural area for drinking purposes of the villagers. The said treated water is highly contaminated which is re-supplied to taps in the Village Redi and has been analysed by the Directorate of Health Services, Govt. of Goa. Water sample of the said water was found to contain dangerously high quantities of Chlorides and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and the said water was not conforming to the drinking water standards. As per the analysis report dated 24.07.2018. Multiple pits located in Survey No. 51, in village Mahartalewadi and Survey No.26 in revenue village Kanyal, are being simultaneously operated as per the Compliance Report of 2018. The Committee has observed with respect to specific Conditions (vii) and (viii) that they were not complied with in the prescribed manner which pertains to monitoring of ground water quality as well as of surface water. No regular monitoring of groundwater quality by establishing wells along the Sea coast, has Page 35 of 70 been done. No data is submitted by the Respondent No. 6 to the Regional Office of MoEF&CC, however, the observations made by the Committee are that there are several errors apparent on the face of the record.
35. The NIH Report has not been substantially appraised or studied by the Committee which observed that "Chloride is an indicator in detecting the contamination of water or intrusion of saltwater into ground water. The chloride concentration varies between 8.93 mg/l and 358.42 mg/l." Despite such observation, Report does not identify that the acceptable limits for drinking water as per the BIS Norms is 250 mg/l. Therefore any water sample containing chloride beyond the prescribed limits is deleterious to human health. The analysis of MPCB annexed with the Committee Report cannot be relied on as the same has not uniformly analysed the water samples. MPCB had arbitrarily analysed the water samples as there are no proper, uniform and reliable parameters which have been analysed for all water samples. MPCB failed to analyse the amount of Chloride, Sulphates, TDS, Electrical Conductivity, Fluoride, Dissolved Oxygen, Zinc, etc. and such other toxic elements on numerous occasions. Such improper and incomplete analysis cannot be relied on particularly, in view of the fact under information obtained by Applicant under RTI. MPCB informed that it has not collected any water samples from the entire District of Sindhudurg.
Page 36 of 70
36. Further, it is submitted that Applicant has obtained several laboratory reports from the Directorate of Health Services, Government of Goa, wherein samples of Pit Water from Pit No. 203 and 138 as well as Reject Water and Outlet Cartridge filter water from Water Treatment Plant have been analysed from the period of 10.02.2017-23.06.2020. Several such laboratory reports clearly indicate that the water samples contained excessive Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Hardness, Calcium, Electrical Conductivity, Chlorides and Magnesium which make the water unfit for human consumption. The contaminated water is leading to local well water and tap water which gets contaminated, as is evident from the reports dated 03.06.2019, 10.06.2020 of Directorate of Health Services and reports dated 05.05.2018 and 19.06.2019' of Public Health Laboratory, Sindhudurg. The water Treatment Plant‟s reject water and water from cartridge filter outlet is highly toxic which is being released by Respondent No. 6 into the nearby lands and water bodies such as the Shiroda creek, which leads to the Arabian sea, causing damage to the local marine ecosystem. Even the tap water being provided from the Water Treatment Plant to the village Redi, is found contaminated. The Gram Panchayat of Village Redi wrote complaints to Respondent No. 6 about the poor and toxic quality of water being supplied vide letters dated 03.11.2016, 25.01.2019 and 01.02.2020. The Applicant has recovered well water sample from some open wells of Shri Mangesh Kamat and several others which were found not conforming to the prescribed standard of drinking water. The committee has not factored the analysis of ground Page 37 of 70 water samples annexed by the Applicant and failed to seek justification from Respondent No. 6 regarding contamination found in ground water.
37. It is further submitted that even if it be assumed that the present condition is not one where ground and surface water contamination is occurring, it is beyond doubt that the Respondent No. 6 has caused severe ground and surface water contamination in the past, for which he is liable to pay environmental compensation on the basis of Principle of „Polluter Pays‟.
38. Regarding soil erosion, it is submitted that the Committee has failed to observe the non-compliance of "thick plantation of native trees and shrubs" on the dump slopes as no such thick plantation has been done by the Respondent No. 6. The observation made by the Committee that 84046 saplings were found planted, would amount to mean that the Respondent No. 6 failed to comply with the above Specific Condition (xii), as after 7 years of grant of EC, the Respondent No. 6 has been able now to carry out plantation on the dump slopes.
39. Regarding action plan for abatement and compensation for damage, it is submitted that the Committee has failed to consider the specific Condition (xiv) mandating reporting to MoEF&CC of Annual status of implementation of Action Plan for Abatement and compensation for damage to the agricultural land/common property land due to mining activity. Because the Committee has Page 38 of 70 merely noted that the Respondent No. 6 has submitted Action Plan dated 15.06.2011, but failed to comment on the fulfilment of requirement of submission of Annual Status of implementation of Action Plan. Numerous local villagers and farmers on account of facing damage to their agricultural crops on related lands owing to the various discharges of effluents resulting from mining activities, had written previously to Respondent No. 6 about the damage but to no avail. It is appearing from the record that neither Respondent No.6 has submitted any annual status for the past several years nor has it compensated any local villagers and farmers for the loss of agricultural land due to mining activities. Large quantities of debris and mud are being released by Respondent No. 6 since 18.06.2020 into agricultural lands located on Sy. Nos. 34, 36, 44, 39 and 49 of Village Mouje Mhartale and Sy. Nos. 32, 36 and 49 of Village Mouje Huda causing several damages to the farmers land and also resulting in pollution. Therefore, it is prayed that a fresh inspection be directed to carry out by the Committee or in the alternative, specific response be obtained with respect to the non-compliances pointed out above by the Applicant.
Affidavit-in-reply dated 05.10.2021 on behalf of Respondent No. 6 against the affidavit of Respondent No. 1 raising objections against the committee report;
40. The Committee has taken cognizance of official documents at the time of making inspection and after being satisfied about the authenticity, they have been relied upon. The Applicant has failed to show that any of the documents supplied by the Page 39 of 70 answering Respondent were not authentic. The Environmental Clearance was obviously granted almost 3 years after the approval of Mining Plan by IBM on 27/07/2007, wherein it has been recorded that there would be no generation of top soil during the mining activities. Similarly, the EIA-EMP Report submitted to MoEF&CC before the grant of EC also reiterated that there would be no top soil generation or stacking during the mining activities. Both the documents being prior to the grant of EC, necessarily gained importance as they truly reflect the correct factual position even before the grant of EC. The Applicant had to show the top soil actually existed in the Mine and the same was being actually generated during mining activities. The Applicant has not challenged the findings of the Committee on this point. Now, he wants to shift his stand and allege that top soil continues to exist in the mine lease area which cannot be allowed because he must have approached the Tribunal with a definite case in terms of the provision and the Section 14 of the NGT Act. The mining of the leased area commenced in the year 1970s. So far as the present case is concerned, it arises out of allegations pertaining to non- compliance of EC condition. EC was granted only on 22/04/2010, as such the applicant has to first establish that after 2010, the answering respondent has not maintained the top soil as required, in which he miserably failed. The majority of the lease area was utilized for mining activities much prior to the EIA regime as well as much prior to the grant of EC. The Applicant has alleged that on Survey Nos. 34, 35 and 60, agricultural activities are being done which is possible only if fertile soil is there as opposed to it Page 40 of 70 hard laterite cover is available. The said contention of the Applicant that the Survey Nos. 34 and 35 are being used for agricultural activity is false because survey found to reflect the said area reserved for mining and no crops have been grown therein for more than four decades. The Form 7/12 maintained under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Act reflects under Form 12 the usage of the land and if crops are grown, the details thereof.
41. Further, it is submitted that Survey No. 60 in Village Kanya 1, possession of which has never been taken still continues to be with the original owner, has been growing cashew trees which are possible to be grown, even if, there is hard laterite soil, provided sufficient water and irrigation facilities are provided. Moreover the availability of top soil in 5% area of the total lease area cannot suggest the top soil in the entire 94.706 Hectares of lease. The Applicant is able to provide details of only 0.21 Hectares where an orchard is maintained and no details of any other area have been provided. When the said area would be required for mining purposes, the top soil, if any, will be stacked in accordance with the condition in the EC. However, when no top soil has been generated owing to the geology of the majority of the area, the said condition in the EC cannot be said to be violated. Further, para 2(d) of the inspection report is based on a site inspection carried out by IBM on 13/07/2021 under the provisions of Mineral Conservation and Development Regulations which also reflects that no top soil is being generated in the lease area. IBM is an expert body and would know better the difference between top soil Page 41 of 70 and hard laterite. The Respondent No. 6 has reiterated the earlier version too there being only one working pit on which mining work is going on and the said pit is Pit No. 203. The IBM has also observed in its report on 13/07/2021 that there was only one pit, is in operation in accordance with the Plan, the same being Pit No.
203. It is denied that the said Pit was being used as a water reservoir along with the pits which exist in the expired lease of one M/s NIMCO. The Pit No. 203 alone falls within the mining lease area of the Respondent No. 6 which is being worked presently and cannot be used as a water reservoir. The Applicant has sought to create confusion by saying that Pit No. 203 was being used as water reservoir with Mauli Pit which was created prior to 1990. In fact, the two Pits are located at a distance of one kilometer from each other. During monsoon season, when mining is suspended in Pit No. 203 and the rain water run-off in the Mine, the same is diverted into the Pit to help recharge ground water through percolation. After monsoon season, the water collected is supplied to the villagers only for irrigation purposes. The said pit was not being used to supply drinking water to the residents of near-by villages. Any water which is being supplied to the villagers for drinking purposes is from an old pit in Block No. II wherein the answering Respondent has set up a water treatment plant. In the event, any water from the pit in the present lease is required to be supplied for drinking purpose, the said water is diverted to the old pit No. 138/Block No. II where the answering Respondent has a Water Treatment Plant. The Pit No. 138 in Block No. II does not fall within the present lease in question and the same is part of an Page 42 of 70 old mining lease worked by the answering Respondent which has already been rehabilitated and a final Mine Closure Plan was approved by IBM and fully implemented by the answering Respondent. The said old lease under Block II is not a subject matter of the present lease. In fact, no action by the answering Respondent has impeded any prospects of rehabilitation/reclamation/plantation as alleged by the Applicant.
42. It is further submitted that the rehabilitation of the mined out pits does not entail 100% backfilling so as to restore the surface level to its original position as it was before mining was undertaken. The purpose of rehabilitation and reclamation of a mined out pits is to restore the flora and to stabilize the slopes with plantation to avoid collapse of Mine benches. Benches are provided to avoid accidents involving either humans or animals. The stabilization of the benches is done through maintaining benches of a particular width and height and undertaking plantation on such benches to stabilize them. These steps are taken after backfilling to the extent possible. The Applicant has chosen to place on record the report dated 24/07/2018 pertaining to sample collected from the tap at the village, however, has not placed on record the Report of the sample collected on the same day at the Water Treatment Plant analyzed by the same Directorate of Health Services, Government of Goa which clearly shows that the treated water was within the permissible limits and was potable. The answering respondent can only control the quality of water being supplied to the Village at its own supply Page 43 of 70 point. Once the said water reaches the village, various factors come into play which would impact the quality of water. The difference in quality is due to the hygiene and cleanliness standards of overhead tanks of the individual from whose premises, the tap water was collected, the quality and age of the plumbing i.e. use of metal pipes as well as the quality of the pipes from the overhead village tank to the supply point. The answering Respondent, in order to solve this issue, had offered to change the pipeline in the village at its own cost which was appreciated and accepted by the Village Panchayat and accordingly the Respondent has decided to get the pipelines changed with certain costs to the Respondents and accordingly supplied 210 meters of pipeline on 01/04/2021 to the Village Panchayat which is in the process of replacing the old pipelines. The answering Respondent has also undertook to clean the overhead tank of Primary Health Centre, Redi and which was cleaned on 29/10/2020. The survey numbers which are part of Pit No. 203, fall within two villages. As per allegation of the Applicant which is on the face of it erroneous because mining pit does not get divided into different number of pits merely because it transcends various survey numbers falling in different villages. Admittedly, the mining lease of the answering Respondent is a contiguous block of 94.706 ha. situated in revenue land in Revenue Village Kanyale, Revenue Village Bomdojichiwadi and Mharthale. Admittedly, survey no. 51 is in revenue Village Mharthale which is adjoining to survey no.26 of Village Kanyale. This clearly shows that the Pit No.203 is one pit standing over various adjoining survey number and upon physical Page 44 of 70 inspection by the various authorities, the Pit No.203 has been found to be one pit in operation.
43. Further, it is submitted that the compliance of specific conditions (vii) and (viii) of the EC with regard to Ground Water and Surface Water monitoring, the answering Respondent has been complying with these conditions by monitoring and collecting samples from 6 wells on a quarterly basis. The Reports of the samples analyzed through MoEF&CC recognized laboratories is also supplied to MoEF&CC on a regular basis which clearly shows that there was no ingress of sea water. The answering Respondent also approached the Regional Centre of National Institute of Hydrology (NIH) a Government Body to undertake an independent hydrological study around the Redi Iron Ore Mine and to check for ingress of sea water, if any. The NIH after undertaking a detailed study spanning over 4 seasons, starting from monsoon 2019 and detailed scientific report which shows that after studying 26 locations, it found that there has been no intrusion of sea water apart from the fact that there has been no impact on quality of the ground water or the water level due to mining. The objective of Condition (vii) is to ensure preventive steps to be taken in the event of any ingress of sea water. The answering Respondent has been monitoring the wells and an additional independent study by an independent Government body was also undertaken. With regard to Condition No.(viii), the answering Respondent has been collecting 4 samples of surface water from sources which are within 5 kilometres of the lease, which include a nallah, lake, Page 45 of 70 spring water, etc. A sample is collected on monthly basis and analysed by MoEF&CC recognized laboratory and the result shows that the water quality is within permissible limits. Similarly, ground water quality is also monitored through above mentioned 6 wells which are also within the 5 kilometre radius of the lease. The answering Respondent has now increased the number of wells from which samples are collected to, 35 in number. The answering Respondent monitors both the level of ground water as well as the quality of ground water in the wells and the information is duly submitted to MoEF&CC regularly. Out of the 6 wells and 4 surface locations, 2 wells and 3 surface water sources are located between the Mine and drainage in the direction of flow of ground water. All samples analyzed by Government accredited labs show that the quality of water is within parameters and that there is no adverse impact by mining. The relevant portion of the Half Yearly EC compliance report submitted on 25/05/2021, is quoted herein below:-
"Regular monitoring of surface and ground water within 5 Km of lease area is conducted. The Lessee has established the 6 nos. of ground water quality and 4 nos. of surface water quality monitoring stations. The selection of the monitoring station is done considering the mine and drainage in the direction of flow of ground water. The google image showing the locations of ground water and surface water monitoring stations is enclosed as Annexure 4. The reports are regularly submitted to the MoEFCC, its Regional Office, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Central Pollution Control Board. The copies of the latest Surface water Quality monitoring conducted from October 2020 and March 2021 is enclosed as Annexure
7. As per the analysis reports the parameters are within the prescribed permissible limits. In addition to this, as mentioned above at para no. (vii), as a part of the hydrogeological studies being conducted through Page 46 of 70 NIH, wells located within the 10 km radius of the Mining Lease area are being monitored regularly".
44. NIH is a Government body and the Report prepared by it would be treated as independent report by an expert body on the issue of hydrological studies. The Applicant is seeking to gain advantage out of a typographical error in the Report of NIH. The Chloride concentration found in NIH varies between 8.93 mg/l to 238mg/L, which is evident from pg.26 of the Report. That however, at pg. 23 of the Report, there is a typographical error where instead of 238 mg/l, 358 mg/l has been mentioned. The answering Respondent sought an opinion of NIH vide its letter dated 20.03.2020 and the NIH gave its reply dated 05.05.2020 and clarified the said issue, acknowledging that there is a typographical error at pg. 23. NIH has indicated that the second interim report would be made available in about two weeks‟ time.
45. MPCB has been regularly conducting inspections which are evident from the Reports annexed by the answering Respondent. It is now settled law that a reply under RTI which may be contrary to the records by itself, cannot be taken to be the gospel truth. The Applicant, who wants the Tribunal to believe in a particular fact/ situation, has to prove the same by cogent evidence in which he has failed to do so. He is seeking to whitewash all the laboratory results which have already been placed on record from Government accredited laboratories wherein all parameters have been analysed and have been found to be within the prescribed limits.
Page 47 of 70
46. On the other hand, answering respondents usually collect samples from 3 sources, namely, raw water source (Pit No.138 or
203), treated water from the Water Treatment Plant and reject water pursuant to treatment. On certain occasions, samples are also taken from the cartridge filter outlet at the Water Treatment Plant to ensure effectiveness of the Plant and the said samples are usually taken on the same date. The answering Respondent has placed reports of the samples which have been conveniently concealed by the Applicant and these reports clearly belie the case set up by the Applicant. The treated water clearly shows that the same was found potable which was supplied to the Village after treatment. The raw water would necessarily have high range of dissolved solids as it is run off rain water which is channelled to the reservoirs. It is a known fact that the rain water over open land would necessarily carry mud and other impurities with it while flowing. Therefore, the allegation that the dissolved solids make the water toxic is merely an attempt to prejudice this Tribunal by suppressing the relevant material. It is denied that the water from cartridge filter outlet is at all discharged from the Plant, let alone in any nearby land or water bodies. The only discharge from the Water Treatment Plant is the reject water, which is also utilized for dust suppression in the Mine lease area as well as for supporting the plantation on the dumps, both activities being part and parcel of the EC conditions. Up to 70% of such reject water is utilized and only 30% is discharged into the Shiroda creek in accordance with the permissions granted to the answering Respondent under the relevant Acts and the said Page 48 of 70 permissions have not been challenged by the Applicant. The letters written by the Gram Panchayat dated 25/01/2020 and 01/02/2020 have been duly replied by the answering respondent while letter dated 01/11/2016 was never received by the answering Respondent. Pursuant to the letter dated 01/02/2020, the answering Respondent invited Members of the Panchayat so that the water samples from the Treatment Plant could be taken in their presence. Pursuant to such request samples were collected on 06/02/2020 from the Water Treatment Plant in the presence of Panchayat Members and the result was found to say that it was found within the prescribed limit by the Government accredited laboratory. The Village Panchayat is in the process of changing the pipelines. As regards the samples of the Applicant, the same were neither collected in the presence of answering respondent nor is there any evidence to show that the Applicants subsequently sent the same samples as collected and that they were not tampered with, therefore, it is highly doubtful and it is quite possible that they may have been manufactured by the Applicant, in order to file the present complaint. The samples from the same well were collected by the Committee as appointed by this Tribunal and then the sample was found within prescribed parameters. Therefore, the principle of "Polluter Pays" is not attracted in the present case.
47. The Applicant has made a false statement that there are no plantations on the dump slopes. The photographs of survey no.58 of Kanyale Village do not pertain to the answering Respondent's Page 49 of 70 lease. The dumps are of two kinds, namely, (a) active dumps and
(b) dead dumps. Insofar as the former is concerned, it consists of those dumps where dumping activity is in accordance with the Mining Plan and provisions of MMDR Act is still continuing and it is yet to reach its full potential. On the other hand, the dead dumps are those dumps where no further dumping activity can take place. The plantation is generally undertaken over dead dumps along with other prevention of soil erosion measures as well as on slopes of active dumps which are no longer going to be disturbed and are not required for any further dumping. Insofar as active dumps/slopes are concerned the same are managed through geo-textiling followed with leguminous grass cover and/or silpaulin covers along with other measures for prevention of soil erosion. So far as the present lease is concerned, the eastern slope of dump at survey no.50 is completely stabilized and rehabilitated by growing various trees, the minimum height of which is 6 feet and the maximum is 40 feet. A study got conducted and it showed that over this particular dump close to 45000 no. of saplings have been grown and that the plantations varies from 0.5 to 7 years. As per Study, a total number of 50953 trees were found on the said dump and 1874 shrubs were also found. These trees were 12 to 14 years old which establishes that plantation has been undertaken from time to time. One of the allegations of the Applicant is that these samplings were planted rather recently, which is wrong because the planted sampling are now full-grown trees and it is an on-going activity and in the last year, an additional 14386 saplings have been planted. The answering Page 50 of 70 respondent started enriching the area by replacing the acacia trees with local fruit bearing trees.
48. As regards action plan for abatement and compensation for damages, it is stated by the answering respondent that the terms of EC specific condition no. (xiv) already stands submitted to the relevant authority on 15/06/2011.
49. Further, it is submitted that the answering respondent has taken all the precautions as prescribed and all the run-off rain water within the lease area is successfully being diverted to the mining pit and has undertaken various measures for prevention of soil erosion.
50. Lastly, it is submitted that since the inspection made by the Committee is not to the liking of the Applicant, the same does not give him right to seek fresh inspection because that would be never ending process and prayed that the applicant‟s prayer needs to be dismissed with cost.
Affidavit dated 25.11.2021 of Respondent No.3/Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority(MCZMA)
51. In this affidavit, it is submitted that dumping of the mine wastes started in the year 1974 along the coast and stopped before 1990 which was informed by the villagers, there is a village Sarpanch letter also which is supporting the same. At present, the said dump site bears survey no. 15 & 58. These sites are stabilized with plantation. Presently, old dump sites‟ land belongs to the Forest Department of Government of Maharashtra. The Page 51 of 70 Committee during the site inspection observed the Board of the Forest Department mentioning that survey no. 15 (village Redi) and survey no. 58 (Village Kanyal) belong to Forest Department, GoM. There was no ongoing dumping observed on the said old dump sites, during the site visit. The Committee observed that based on the coastal land use map, the MCZMA vide letter dated 06.01.2010 allowed the Redi Iron Ore Mine lease (Block 1) for 94.706 Ha at village Redi, Taluka Vengurla, District Sindhudurg, under CRZ Notification, 1991 for carrying out iron ore mining activities subject to the conditions that "The mining activities should not be carried out on CRZ affected area i.e. survey no. 32 new (234 old)."
52. Further, it is submitted that committee noted that Mining activities are carried out in one pit only, namely pit no. 203. The second pit (Mauli Pit over 3.5 ha.) falls in the CRZ area and is located at around 1 km from the ongoing mining operation. The said Mauli pit was closed in 1990 and currently, it is a water reservoir and water from this reservoir is used for irrigation by the Villagers. The pit was stabilized with dense plantation in and around the periphery of the pit. At present, the CZMP of the Sindhdurg District under CRZ Notification, 2011 is approved in the year 2019 by the MoEF&CC, New Delhi. The said approved CZMP is superimposed on google image, as per which, current mining activities (stopped due to rains) of Respondent No. 6 are situated outside CRZ area. Part of Survey no. 32 and small part of survey no. 28 fall under CRZ, as per said approved CZMP Page 52 of 70 under CRZ Notification, 2011 finalized in the year 2019. The committee observed that no mining activity is being carried out in survey no. 32 and Survey no. 28.
53. We have heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant and Respondent No. 6 who alone have mainly argued in this case and perused the record.
54. On the basis of the above mentioned pleadings, following issues may be framed for consideration:-
(1). Whether Respondent No. 6/Project Proponent has not stacked properly with adequate measures the top soil at the earmarked site to be used for reclamation and rehabilitation of the mined out areas?
(2). Whether the Project Proponent has simultaneously worked two pits in violation of the condition no. (vi) of the Environmental Clearance?
(3). Whether Respondent No. 6 has monitored regularly to check the ingress of the sea water by having observation wells around the mining area along the sea coast?
(4). Whether Project Proponent is monitoring surface water within 5 km of lease area and maintaining its data to be submitted to the Regional Office of Ministry regularly?
Further better monitoring points have been located between the mine and drainage in the direction of flow of ground water and the record is maintained.
Page 53 of 70 (5). Whether the Project Proponent has taken measures for prevention and control of soil erosion and management of silt ?
(6). Whether Project Proponent has made action plan for abatement and compensation for damage to the agricultural land/common property land (if any) in the nearby villages, due to mining activity and the same has been submitted to the Regional Office of the Ministry within 06(six) months as directed as per condition no.
(xiv) of the Environmental Clearance?
(7). Whether Project Proponent has erected Trenches/Garland drains at the foot of dumps and coco- filters installed at regular intervals to arrest silt from being carried to water bodies?
(8). Further whether adequate numbers of Check Dams and Gully Plugs have been constructed across seasonal perennial nallahs, flowing through the mine lease area and silts and de-silting at regular intervals, has been carried out by the Project Proponent as provided in condition no. (x) of the Environmental Clearance? (9). Whether mining operations have resulted in ground water pollution?
(10). Whether any agricultural land/crop has been damaged because of mining operations ?
Page 54 of 70
55. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant has argued as follows:-
The top soil has not been stacked properly within the mining lease area. In the past such top soil has not been used for reclamation and rehabilitation of the mined out areas, but has been dumped illegally into the Arabian Sea. In support of this allegation the Applicant has submitted letter dated 15.01.2019 written by Dy. Controller of Mines to Respondent No. 6 which clearly states -
"ii)...waste dumping approved in 2018-19 in North situ area and East of Pit No. 203 has not been commenced so far.
Instead, waste dumping continues to be carried out in the East of Pit-203 at S.No. SO(old 184) by increasing its dimensions."
Respondent No.6 has continually dumped the mining waste material into the Arabian Sea from the Redi and Kanyal Village. The newly created and regularized lands are evident upon a comparison of maps dated 2006 and maps dated 2013 which clearly show the newly created lands and the newly given Survey No. 58 to these lands.
While there is distinct and specific condition in the EC which states that 'no two pits shall be simultaneously worked' whereas in the half yearly 'Compliance Report' dated 26.05.2018 submitted by the Respondent No.6 for the period October 2017 to March 2018 states that 'out of the four pits within the mining lease/ one is water logged two are temporary backfilled and only one mine is in operation and it falls under Survey No. 51/1, 51/2, 51/3, 51/4, 51/5 51/, 51/7A, 51/7B, 52/1, 26/2, 26/3, 26/7, 58/1. As per the maps and reports of the Talathi of Kanyal Village, new Survey No. 51 in revenue village Mahartalewadi is the same as Old Survey No. 203, and New Survey No.26 is the same as Old Survey No. 235 in revenue village Page 55 of 70 Kanyal. Therefore, there are two distinct pits which are being passed off as one operational pit.
The unfettered and illegal mining done by the Respondent No.6 has resulted in pollution of groundwater. As per water analysis done by the Applicant from the Directorate of Health Services, Environmental and Pollution Wing Goa dated 3.06.2019, wherein it was found that the well water, analysed from Village Kanyal (Redi) from well situated in property bearing Survey No. 47, "does not conform to the standards prescribed for drinking water" and that "the water therefore cannot be used for human consumption". It is therefore evident that there is definite contamination of ground water caused due to the activities of mining being carried out by the R-6.
There has also been a contravention of the Specific Condition (xii) which provided for measures to be taken for prevention and control of soil erosion and management of silt. It is submitted that such condition specifically provided for "geo textile matting or other suitable material and thick plantations of native trees and shrubs shall be carried out at the dump slopes. Dumps shall be protected by retaining walls."
It is evident from Letter bearing No. MAH/SDG/Fe-6/Goa dated 31.05.2018 written by Dy. Controller of Mines to M/s Gogate Minerals to bring to the notice of Respondent No.6 various violations of provisions of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 in respect of Iron Ore mine operated by Respondent No.6, wherein the authority notes:
(iv) "To check wash-off from dump at Pit No. 235, retention wall, garland drain, embankment etc. as approved along the periphery of the dump has not been constructed."
The mining activities as undertaken by the Respondents has led to death of several coconut trees which have died as Page 56 of 70 a result of severely depleted groundwater table, such being a direct result of the uncontrolled, unabated, and unconscionable mining that is being done. Such is the conclusion of the letter of the Taluka Agricultural Officer bearing no. TAOV /Tech/NN/1186/2016 dated 23.09.2016 and letter written by Collector Sindhudurg District bearing no. 3903/20/2017 Coll-Gen dated 30.08.201.
The unrestrained and unmonitored mining has had adverse impact on the water that is being consumed on a daily basis by the villagers located in revenue villages Kanyal, Mahartale, and Huda nearby as there is no alternative drinking water. The water that is being supplied from the open mining pits through taps to the nearby villages was analysed by the District Public Health Laboratory. The Report on Chemical Examination of Water for Drinking Purposes' dated 18.07.18 examining such water in Redi village states that the water samples as procured are 'hazy with brownish particles having turbidity more than its permissible limits of 5.0 NTO' and 'also contains chlorides, total Hardness & Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) more than their desirable limits of 250.0 ppm, 200.0 ppm & 500.0 ppm respectively'. Furthermore, the Report by the same authority dated 4.05.18 which analysed the tap water in Redi village, notes that that the sample contains chlorides, Total Hardness and TDS above their desirable limits. Similar results were analysed vide report by the same authority dated 6.06.18 which analysed the tap water from Redi village. The contamination is caused due to the mining activities which have polluted the groundwater.
56. From the side of Respondent No. 6 in rebuttal, following argument has been done:
The reclamation of land from the Arabian Sea was carried out in the early 1980s by him and New India Mining Page 57 of 70 Corporation (NIMCO). In the year 1991, the reclaimed land was given survey no.15 in revenue village of Redi and survey no.58 in revenue village of Kanyal. Thus, the said reclamation was completed prior to 1990 i.e. almost three decades before the filing of the present application. No further reclamation was undertaken post the year 1990. As the EC was granted on 22/04/2010, there cannot be violation of specific condition no. (i) of the EC as being alleged.
The survey no. 50 where overburden is dumped forms part and parcel of the mining lease. Pursuant to the letter dated 15/01/2019 R-6 submitted its explanation to Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM). Thereafter, IBM was pleased to approve the modified Mining Plan whereunder the increased dimensions of the dump at East of pit-203 at survey no.50 has been duly approved on 31/03/2020.
In terms of the Mining Plan as mining is undertaken in a single pit i.e. 203, the same expands over a period of time and as of present the said pit is located over new survey nos. 26(part), 51, 52, 58 and 57.
Insofar as the Mauli Pit falling within Mining Lease area is concerned, which is located over 3.5 ha. where mining had been undertaken prior to 1990, the said Pit has been stabilised in accordance with accepted practice. R-6 has undertaken plantation on the periphery of the pit as well as on the benches to stabilise the slopes of the pit. At present, there are trees with an average age span of 18 to 20 years. After mining was suspended in the Mauli pit sometime in 1990 and after stabilisation and reclamation of the said pit, the same came to be used as a water reservoir and has been used as such for almost three decades now.
National Institute of Hydrology (NIH), Ministry of Jal Shakti RD & GR, Government of India, has also monitored 35 wells Page 58 of 70 situated around the mining lease area and their results also indicate that the quality of the ground water is within permissible limits. Para 4.5 of the NIH Interim Report reads as under:
"4.5 GROUNDWATER QUALITY Mining operation and acid drainage can affect groundwater quality. However, it is commonly necessary to place an impermeable barrier at the base of the tailing pond to prevent acidic drainage seepage. Older tailing ponds that were constructed without impermeable bases have generated acidic drainage that causes groundwater contamination. However, the iron ore or the waste do not contain any leachable toxic elements or heavy metals, there shall be no pollution of water and there is no tailing pond in the mining lease."
Insofar as the present Mining Lease of Redi Iron Ore Mine (Block I) is concerned, the answering Respondent has established 2 sites with piezometers for ground water table monitoring and has also established 6 ground water and 4 surface water quality monitoring stations. The answering Respondent is carrying out monitoring as per MoEF&CC and CPCB guidelines. All samples which are being collected are monitored through the external MoEF&CC recognised and NABL accredited laboratory.
As per interim report of Hydro Geological Study spanning 4 seasons, in and around the Redi Iron Ore Mine submitted by Regional Centre of National Instih1te of Hydrology (NIH), Ministry of Jal Shakti RD & GR, the ground water level and quality was studied at 26 locations. Pursuant to undertaking a detailed study, the Report has concluded as under:
" i) The present observation taken during the Season Monsoon and Post monsoon 2019 did not show any significant change in water levels.
ii) The study indicated that, there is no sea water intrusion as observed through water quality parameters.Page 59 of 70
iii) From, the preliminary investigation it is found that there is no direct impact on water levels and groundwater quality due to mining.
iv) The estimation of seawater intrusion using Ghyben Herzherg formula indicated that there is no intrusion of seawater in the study area upto 400m to 500m.
v) From the conceptual modelling it is understood that there is no threat of contamination under defined hydrological conditions.
There are 5 dumps in total within the mining lease. Out of the aforesaid dumps, 4 are active dumps and 1 dump has been stabilised and plantation undertaken for rehabilitation with 84046 saplings on dump slopes and old mining pit. Geotextile matting has been used to stabilise an area of over 2.708 hectares. Leguminous grass seeds are used on Geotextile cover for further stabilisation. Retaining Walls having 01 meter height and 1.5 meter width at the toe of the dumps have been built. At present, there is a retaining wall of around 1.5 km. length at the active dump, located in survey no.50. Trenches/Garland drains have been provided at the stages and at the toe of the dumps. Three check dams have been provided at the appropriate places to arrest the silt. 8 settling ponds with a total capacity of 13244 m3 have been provided. The answering respondent on his own cost has set up a water treatment plant to treat the water from pit No 138 which is then supplied to Redi Village as CSR. The answering respondent continuously tests the output samples of water from its treatment plants and samples are also sent to the Government accredited laboratories including the District Public Health Laboratory, Oros, Sindhudurg and the Directorate of Health Services, Government of Goa results or samples collected on various dates and tested by the said Government laboratories which clearly show that all parameters are within desirable limits. Page 60 of 70
57. Discussion/analysis and findings;
Issue No. 1 : According to this, we have to see as to whether any violation has been committed by the Project Proponent in respect of stacking of top soil with adequate protection measures at earmarked sites and regarding its use for reclamation and rehabilitation of the mined out areas. In this regard, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant has drawn attention of us to the letter dated 15.01.2019 of the Dy. Controller of Mines which contains violations of the provisions of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 in respect of Redi Iron Ore mine (Block-I) by the Project Proponent over an area of 94.7060 hectares in Sindhudurg District in the State of Maharashtra. In this letter, attention was drawn to clause (ii) in the table given therein which is quoted herein below:
"ii)...waste dumping approved in 2018-19 in North situ area and East of Pit No. 203 has not been commenced so far. Instead, waste dumping continues to be carried out in the East of Pit-203 at S.No. 50(old 184) by increasing its dimensions."
Having drawn attention to this, it has been vehemently argued that it clearly suggests that dumping of waste was being done by the Project Proponent outside the mining area. We are not in agreement with the said arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant because vide letter dated 31/03/2020 written by Deputy Controller of Mines and Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), Goa, a modified mining plan has been approved wherein a permission was accorded that Page 61 of 70 during 2020-2021 the waste generated will be accommodated on the dump to the east of 203 Pit. Nowhere has it come on record that the area to the east of Pit No. 203, is outside the lease area. Even the joint committee in its report has noted that the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) approved the plan vide their letter dated 27/07/2007 wherein it is mentioned that there won‟t be any generation of top soil during mining activities. It is further mentioned therein that EIA-EMP Report submitted by the Project Proponent for the grant of EC also clearly mentioned that there is no top soil generation or stacking during the mining activities. The Environmental Clearance for the project has been granted in 2010. During the site inspection, it was observed that the lease area was rich and hard laterite cover, therefore, no topsoil stacks were observed. It is also recorded in the said report by the Committee that the dumping of mine waste was also being done within the mining lease area and not beyond it. Therefore, the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant that there was violation being done of this condition, does not hold water and his version that the committee did not take independent view, rather proceeded on whatever documents were shown to it by the PP, in consultation with them, does not commend to us to conclude that the Committee was biased against the Applicant.
Page 62 of 70 Issue No. 2: As per this point, we have to decide as to whether the PP has committed any violation of the condition no. (vi) of the EC by operating two pits simultaneously. In this regard, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant has argued that the Respondent No. 6/PP has itself admitted that there is simultaneous operation of multiple pits which is reflected from the compliance repot filed by them of the year 2018.
Further, it is argued that the Respondent No. 6 has unilaterally decided to use mined out pits as water reservoirs, without there being any such provision in EC. The Pit No. 203 has mixed with the existing mined out pit operated by M/s New India Mining Corporation and both were used as water reservoirs.
The Applicant has further submitted that the Respondent No. 6 has misled the authority by passing off multiple pits located at Survey Nos. 51/1, 51/2, 51/3, 51/4, 51/5, 51/6, 51/7A, 51/7B, 52/1, 26/2, 26/3, 26/7, 58/1‟ as one mine pit. Survey no. 51 is located in Revenue Village Mahartalewadi and Survey No. 26 is located in Revenue Village Kanyal and are being operated simultaneously which is evident by the compliance report of 2018.
To the contrary, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 has argued that Pit No. 203 falls within the mining lease area which is spread over several survey numbers and is contiguous block of 94.706 ha. situated in Revenue Village Page 63 of 70 Kanyale, Bomdojichiwadi and Mharthale. There is no reservoir in Pit No. 203 as mining work is being done only in this Pit. The Pit No. 138 lies in Block No. II which has already been rehabilitated and a final Mine Closure Plan was approved by IBM and the same is not a subject matter of the present lease.
It is further argued that while submitting compliance report in 2018, it was submitted that there were four pits within the mining lease, out of which one pit is water logged from which the water is being supplied to the villagers for agricultural purposes. The rest two pits were temporarily backfilled and only one mine pit was in operation. These four pits were mentioned only with a view to giving overall picture for the sake of clarity and that it was specifically stated by them that there was only one pit no. 203 which was operated by them.
We find that the Committee which had visited the spot also found that the mining activities were being carried out in only one pit i.e. Pit No. 203. The second pit (Mauli Pit over 3.5 hec.) falls in CRZ area which is located at around 1 km from the on-going mining operation. The said Mauli Pit is closed in the year 1990 and currently was being used as water reservoir and from there the water was being supplied for irrigation to the villagers. The said pit was established with dense plantation around the periphery of the pit. The said pits are approved in mining plan.
Page 64 of 70 In view of the above observations in the committee report, we do not have any reason to dis-believe this report and are of the view that no two pits are simultaneously being worked in the mining lease area and the argument in this regard of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant does not stand supported with the evidence on record.
Issue Nos. 3, 4 & 9: The condition nos. (vii) & (viii) of the EC say that the ground water quality shall be monitored regularly to check the ingress of sea water and also monitoring shall be done of surface and ground water quality within 5 kms of the lease area regularly. We have to see whether violations of these two terms and conditions have been done by the Respondent No. 6? Also, it is to be seen whether there is any pollution of ground water? Regarding the violation of these two conditions of EC, the Applicant in their reply affidavit dated 23/08/2021 in paras 18 to 39, have given details of their arguments saying that the Committee report has not fairly appreciated the NIH report which noted that Chloride which is an indicator of contamination of water, was found varying between 8.93 mg/l and 358.42 mg/l and that even MPCB has failed to analyse the amount of Chloride, Sulphates, TDS, Electrical Conductivity, Fluoride, Dissolved Oxygen, Zinc, etc. on numerous occasions and reference is also made regarding Gram Panchayat of Village Redi having written to Respondent No. 6 regarding toxicity in the quality of water and lastly, it is submitted that at least it may be assumed that even if the present conditions are not Page 65 of 70 found contaminated, of the ground and surface water but it is beyond doubt that the Respondent No. 6 has caused severe contamination of ground and surface water in the past and he is, therefore, liable to pay environmental compensation. As against this, the Respondent No. 6 has given reply in its affidavit dated 06.10.2021 in paras 11 to 24, explaining each and every objections which have been raised and emphasising that there was no contamination found in the surface and ground water by MPCB nor by NIH and that a large number of water analysis reports have been annexed from pages 907 to 962 of the paper book as also from pages 976 to 977 which do indicate that the water tested, was found within permissible limit and as against it, the report which have been relied upon by the Applicant side which are annexed at page 86 and from pages 101 to 106 regarding analysis of water samples having been found, not up to the standard, the said reports are assailed on the ground that these were not to be believed as the sample collected for the said analysis, was by the Applicant himself, therefore, from where the same was collected, is not clear. A fair amount of doubt has been raised with regard to the said reports being in respect of said samples of water being from the mining lease area. We have gone through the voluminous record which has been brought on record with respect to the analysis of water reports and find that the reports which have been annexed by the Respondent No. 6 are of different dates of the samples from the place in question and they all Page 66 of 70 are found within limits. The same also gets substantiated by the joint committee report, quoted above which does indicate that all the samples of water were found potable. We have no reason to dis-believe the said opinion given by the Learned Committee Members.
In view of above, we find that there is no substance in the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant with respect to the breach, said to be committed by the Respondent No. 6, of the terms and condition nos. (vii) and
(viii) of the EC nor do we find any ground water pollution. Issue Nos. 5, 7 & 8:- With regard to measures for prevention and control of soil erosion and connected with it, is the direction that the trenches/garland drains etc. shall be constructed at the foot of the dumps, which terms and conditions are said by the Applicant, to have been violated by the Respondent No. 6. Also we have to see whether any check dams have been constituted.
In this regard, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant has argued that the Respondent No. 6 has not done thick plantation of native trees and shrubs which were to be carried out at the dump slopes, which has resulted in continuous soil erosion. As against it, the Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 6 has argued that in active dumps/slopes, geo-textiling has been done followed with leguminous grass cover and/or silpaulin covers for prevention of soil erosion. In the present lease, the eastern Page 67 of 70 slope of dump at survey no.50 is completely stabilized and rehabilitated by growing various trees which have attained height of 6 feet at the minimum and 40 feet at the maximum. A study had also been conducted wherein it had been shown that over the dump, approximately 45000 numbers of saplings have been grown between 0.5 to 7 years and the study found that the trees were of the age between 12 to 14 years. Therefore, they cannot be said to have been recently planted because they show that they are fully grown trees. Therefore, adequate steps have been taken by the Respondent No. 6 in respect of preventing soil erosion. Issue No. 6: As regards condition no. (xiv) of the EC being violated which pertains to the fact that a study shall be conducted of land-use pattern of the nearby villages, including identification of common property resources available for conversion into productive land. An action plan shall be prepared for abatement and compensation for damage to agricultural land/common property land (if any) in the nearby villages, which was supposed to be submitted within 06(six) months from the start of the mining. In this regard, it is submitted by the Respondent No.6 that no violation of this condition is made by him, rather an action plan on the same term and condition has been submitted to the relevant authority on 15.06.2011. Regarding check dams applicant has made no arguments, therefore, we find no Page 68 of 70 infraction of any terms and conditions of EC in this regard in view of the finding of joint committee report. Issue No. 10: This issue pertains to whether any agricultural land/crop has been damaged due to mining operations. In this regard from the side of the Applicant, a letter was written by Taluka and Agricultural Officer addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sawantwadi, District Sindhudurg, dated 23.09.2016 saying that coconut plantation farmers from several surrounding villages have cited that coconut plants have died as a result of the mining company not having released water and due to the water having got reduced in the wells in the surrounding area. The survey of loss of coconut trees is in progress by agricultural assistant which shall be submitted. This letter is of the year 2016 but we do apprehend that due to deep mining, it is quite likely that the water of the adjoining wells and areas may have got depleted, adversely affecting the crop in surrounding area. This area needs study by the concerned authorities so that no loss is suffered by the residents of the said locality. As of now, we cannot give any finding that a particular quantum of loss has taken place for lack of evidence but we deem it fit that a committee be constituted comprising of Agricultural Officer of Vengurla (District- Sindhudurg), District Magistrate of Sindhudurg, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) (one member) and one member from National Institute of Hydrology which Page 69 of 70 shall conduct study on this point and ascertain whether any loss/damage is occurring on account of the said mining activity in the said/nearby areas. MPCB will coordinate the work of the Committee. If it is found that the mining activity being undertaken by the Respondent No. 6, is adversely impacting the water table in the nearby places which is in turn affecting the agricultural crop/vegetation/trees etc., the Committee would suggest appropriate remedial measures, which shall be implemented by Respondent No. 6 at his cost within a reasonable time limit not exceeding three months. Report will be submitted by the Committee to the Registrar of this Tribunal within 04(four) months who shall place the same before us in chamber.
58. With the above observations, in view of the joint committee report, we do not find any further directions to be issued in the present case and dispose of this matter.
Accordingly, Original Application No.17/2020(WZ) stands disposed of.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM August 02, 2022 Original Application No. 17/2020(WZ) P.kr Page 70 of 70