National Green Tribunal
M/S Mahishmati Ret Company vs The District Collector on 12 June, 2020
Item Nos. 01 & 02 (Through VC-Bhopal)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Appeal No.09/2018(CZ)
(M.A. Nos.70/2018 & 71/2018)
And
Appeal No.10/2018(CZ)
(M.A. Nos.72/2018 & 73/2018)
M/s. Maheshamati Ret Company Pvt. Ltd. Appellant(s)
Versus
DEIAA, Seoni & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 12.06.2020
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAWAN SINGH GARBYAL, EXPERT MEMBER
For Appellant(s) Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate
ORDER
A....(i) Appeal No. 09/2018, (ii) Misc. Application No. 70/2018 and (iii) Misc. Application No.71/2018 B....(i) Appeal no. 10/2018, (ii) Misc. Application No. 72/2018 and (iii) Misc. Application No.73/2018
1. Common question of law and fact are involved in these two appeals. The order of DEIAA dated 15.02.2018 and 23.03.2018 have been challenged. Both these appeals have been heard together and are being decided by a common order. From perusal of records, following points emerges: 1
(i) District Environment Impact Assessment Authority has been authorized under the rules to issue EC in accordance with law.
(ii) DEIAA in its meeting as narrated decided to issue order.
(iii) The order is within the jurisdiction of the authority.
(iv) There is no patent illegality in considering the issue of orders.
(v) There seems no violation of any Environmental Laws.
(vi) While passing the order, DEIAA has directed the lease holders to follow the guidelines and also directed to follow 31 plus 19 directions to maintain Environmental Laws.
(vii) The appeal is belated and barred by time.
(viii) The appellant has prayed to issue order in favour of himself but failed to explain how in case of issue of EC in his favour, Environmental Rules be followed.
(ix) Appeal has been filed in business and commercial rivalry, when the respondents stopped purchasing the sand from the appellant.
(x) The mineral under question as stated was being used for road construction/public purposes.
(xi) The validity of grant of consent as directed in the appeal in favour of respondent no. 2 in appeal no.
09/2018 with regard to validity of grant of consent to operate under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and 2 Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 21 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 was upto 28.02.2019 and has to be renewed before expiry of consent validity. Similarly in appeal no. 10/2018, the validity of consent was upto 28.02.2019.
(xii) If two options are available and anyone of them is adopted then that cannot be said to be erroneous unless it is not proved otherwise.
(xiii) Discretion once utilized cannot be further interfered with for better administration.
(xiv) Nothing has been seen to violate the Environmental Rules.
(xv) The appellant has submitted that there was connivance between the respondents but nothing has been explained as to what was the ground of connivance and how there is connivance between the authorities including Collector of the District.
2. "The Appellant is carrying out the business of sand mining from Khasra No. 1 after obtaining all the requisite permissions from the competent authorities and one M/s. Ganon Dunkerley and Company Pvt. Ltd. has been allotted the work of construction of CC Road by Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation which subsequently sublet the work to the Respondent No. 2.
3. When the work of construction of road was started, the Respondent No. 2 had been taking sand from the Appellant 3 but on 25.08.2017, Respondent No. 2 applied for grant of sand mining lease on Khasra No. 655 situated at Gram Panchayat, Sakri, Tehsil Kevlari, District Seoni. The reason stated in the letter dated 25.08.2017 addressed to the Mining Officer, District Seoni, is shortage of sand in the area, Respondent No. 2 may be allowed to excavate sand from Khasra No.655."
4. Subsequently vide letter dated 15.02.2018, the Respondent No. 1 accorded Environment Clearance in favour of Respondent No.2 for excavation of 40,000 cubic meter of Sand per year over Khasra No. 655 situated at Village Sakri, Tehsil Kevlari, District Seoni.
5. "In interim relief it is prayed to issue direction to the Respondent No. 2 to not start mining operation over Khasra No. 655, Village Sakri, Tehsil Kevlari, District Seoni and an interim relief may be granted in favour of the Appellant."
6. Grounds taken to condonation of delay as stated is that Respondent No.2 had been taking material from the Appellant from the date of inception of the Road Work but after 13.04.2018, the Respondent No.2 stopped taking material from the Appellant, subsequent to which the Appellant started procuring information and resultantly obtained documents under RTI Act.
7. "In Appeal No. 10/2018, it is prayed to stop mining operation over Khasra No. 265, Village Sakri, Tehsil Kevlari, District Seoni"
4
8. For condonation of delay, grounds taken for condonation as stated is that respondent no. 2 has been taking material from the appellant from the date of inception of the road work but after 13.04.2018, the respondent no. 2 stopped taking material from the appellant subsequent to which the appellant starting procuring information and resultantly obtained documents under RTI Act. Now, if we discuss the points raised in the appeal, we found that there is no substantial ground to interfere in the appeal and further the appeal has been filed in a very belated stage.
9. It is desirable to quote relevant paras of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006, which read as follows:
"32. The natural resources are valuable assets of the State. It isthe primary duty of the State to conserve the natural resources for our future generation. The citizens must be in a position to enjoy the resources without causing damage to the environment and the ecology. There must be an institutional framework and enforcement mechanism to prevent illegal and excess quarrying.
33. The mining should be undertaken by the State without any adverse impact on the environment. The State alone is responsible for this sorry state of affairs. There is no proper mechanism to check the illegal quarrying and the excess sand mining. The authorities who are given the mandate to operate the sand quarry are not at all concerned with the environment and ecology. They are conducting mining activities in collusion with the mining mafia and looting the natural wealth.
34. The River sand is an essential raw material for construction activity. The cost of construction nowadays depends upon very much on the cost of sand. The State for supply of sand to the people at affordable rate ought to have quarried the River sand judiciously and in compliance with the environmental norms and without causing destruction of Rivers. There is no dispute that depletion of sand in the stream bed would result in 5 deepening of rivers and it would have a cascading effect on the environment. Therefore, a balance has to be struck taking into account the need to preserve the ecology and the need for quarrying River Sand for the economic development of the State."
"2. Requirements of prior Environmental Clearance (EC):- The following projects or activities shall require prior environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory authority, which shall hereinafter referred to be as the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests for matters falling under Category 'A' in the Schedule and at State level the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for matters falling under Category 'B' in the said Schedule, before any construction work, or preparation of land by the project management except for securing the land, is started on the project or activity:
(i) All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification;
(ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification with addition of capacity beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector, that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold limits given in the Schedule, after expansion or modernization;
(iii) Any change in product - mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in Schedule beyond the specified range."
"5. Screening, Scoping and Appraisal Committees:-
The same Expert Appraisal Committees (EACs) at the Central Government and SEACs (hereinafter referred to as the (EAC) and (SEAC) at the State or the Union territory level shall screen, scope and appraise projects or activities in Category 'A' and Category 'B' respectively.
EAC and SEAC's shall meet at least once every month.
(a) The composition of the EAC shall be as given in Appendix VI. The SEAC at the State or the Union territory level shall be constituted by the Central Government in consultation with the concerned State Government or the Union territory Administration with identical composition;
(b) The Central Government may, with the prior concurrence of the concerned State Governments or the Union territory Administrations, constitutes one SEAC for 6 more than one State or Union territory for reasons of administrative convenience and cost;
(c) The EAC and SEAC shall be reconstituted after every three years;
(d) The authorised members of the EAC and SEAC, concerned, may inspect any site(s) connected with the project or activity in respect of which the prior environmental clearance is sought, for the purposes of screening or scoping or appraisal, with prior notice of at least seven days to the applicant, who shall provide necessary facilities for the inspection;
(e) The EAC and SEACs shall function on the principle of collective responsibility. The Chairperson shall endeavour to reach a consensus in each case, and if consensus cannot be reached, the view of the majority shall prevail."
"7. Stages in the Prior Environmental Clearance (EC) Process for New Projects:-
7(i) .........
7(ii). Prior Environmental Clearance (EC) process for Expansion or Modernization or Change of product mix in existing projects:
All applications seeking prior environmental clearance for expansion with increase in the production capacity beyond the capacity for which prior environmental clearance has been granted under this notification or with increase in either lease area or production capacity in the case of mining projects or for the modernization of an existing unit with increase in the total production capacity beyond the threshold limit prescribed in the Schedule to this notification through change in process and or technology or involving a change in the product - mix shall be made in Form I and they shall be considered by the concerned Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee within sixty days, who will decide on the due diligence necessary including preparation of EIA and public consultations and the application shall be appraised accordingly for grant of environmental clearance."
"8. Grant or Rejection of Prior Environmental Clearance (EC):
(i) The regulatory authority shall consider the recommendations of the EAC or SEAC concerned and convey its decision to the applicant within forty five days of the receipt of the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned or in other words within one hundred and five days of the receipt of the final 7 Environment Impact Assessment Report, and where Environment Impact Assessment is not required, within one hundred and five days of the receipt of the complete application with requisite documents, except as provided below.
(ii) The regulatory authority shall normally accept the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned. In cases where it disagrees with the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned, the regulatory authority shall request reconsideration by the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned within forty five days of the receipt of the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned while stating the reasons for the disagreement. An intimation of this decision shall be simultaneously conveyed to the applicant. The Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned, in turn, shall consider the observations of the regulatory authority and furnish its views on the same within a further period of sixty days. The decision of the regulatory authority after considering the views of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned shall be final and conveyed to the applicant by the regulatory authority concerned within the next thirty days.
(iii) In the event that the decision of the regulatory authority is not communicated to the applicant within the period specified in sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) above, as applicable, the applicant may proceed as if the environment clearance sought for has been granted or denied by the regulatory authority in terms of the final recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned.
(iv) On expiry of the period specified for decision by the regulatory authority under paragraph (i) and (ii) above, as applicable, the decision of the regulatory authority, and the final recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned shall be public documents.
(v) Clearances from other regulatory bodies or authorities shall not be required prior to receipt of applications for prior environmental clearance of projects or activities, or screening, or scoping, or appraisal, or decision by the regulatory authority concerned, unless any of these is 8 sequentially dependent on such clearance either due to a requirement of law, or for necessary technical reasons.
(vi) Deliberate concealment and/or submission of false or misleading information or data which is material to screening or scoping or appraisal or decision on the application shall make the application liable for rejection, and cancellation of prior environmental clearance granted on that basis. Rejection of an application or cancellation of a prior environmental clearance already granted, on such ground, shall be decided by the regulatory authority, after giving a personal hearing to the applicant, and following the principles of natural justice.
9. Validity of Environmental Clearance (EC):
The "Validity of Environmental Clearance" is meant the period from which a prior environmental clearance is granted by the regulatory authority, or may be presumed by the applicant to have been granted under sub paragraph (iv) of paragraph 7 above, to the start of production operations by the project or activity, or completion of all construction operations in case of construction projects (item 8 of the Schedule), to which the application for prior environmental clearance refers. The prior environmental clearance granted for a project or activity shall be valid for a period of ten years in the case of River Valley projects (item 1(c) of the Schedule), project life as estimated by Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee subject to a maximum of thirty years for mining projects and five years in the case of all other projects and activities. However, in the case of Area Development projects and Townships [item 8(b)], the validity period shall be limited only to such activities as may be the responsibility of the applicant as a developer. This period of validity may be extended by the regulatory authority concerned by a maximum period of five years provided an application is made to the regulatory authority by the applicant within the validity period, together with an updated Form 1, and Supplementary Form 1A, for Construction projects or activities (item 8 of the Schedule). In this regard the regulatory authority may also consult the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee as the case may be."
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [1997 (1) Supreme Court Cases 388] made it clear that if there is a law made by the State legislature, the 9 Courts can serve as an instrument of determining legislative intent in the exercise of its powers of judicial review:
"35. We are fully aware that the issues presented in this case illustrate the classic struggle between those members of the public who would preserve our rivers, forests, parks and open lands in their pristine purity and those charged with administrative responsibilities who, under the pressures of the changing needs of an increasingly complex society, find it necessary to encroach to some extent upon open lands heretofore considered inviolate to change. The resolution of this conflict in any given case is for the legislature and not the Courts. If there is a law made by Parliament or the State Legislatures the courts can serve as an instrument of determining legislative intent in the exercise of its powers of judicial review under the constitution."
11. Sand mining contributes to construction of buildings, infrastructure development, it helps in extracting minerals and provides both economic and social benefits. Even though-intensive sand mining with disregard to environmental protection erodes these gains and creates a series of environmental problems. The regulatory agenda prepared for sand mining is passive and these make enforcement difficult and complicated. Lack of clear guidelines for dealing with sand mining operations coupled with inability of the regulatory authorities' results in unscrupulous sand mining activities and environmental degradation.
Even though the government ha implemented steps to stop illegal sand mining and produce an alternative by 10 supplying manufacturing of sand ,yet there is still illegal and mining happening.
Sand is an important economic resource and also a source of silica for making sodium silicate, a chemical compound used for manufacture of both common and optical glasses. The economic aspect of sand are not confined to it value as raw material. Besides is economic importance, sand also constitutes an important biotic component in aquatic ecosystem like rivers. sand mining is an activity referring to the process of the actual removal of sand from the rivers, riverbeds and beaches. Depletion of sand in the streambed and along coastal areas causes the deepening of rivers and estuaries, and the enlargement of river mouths and coastal in let. Any volume of sand exported from the streambeds and coastal areas is a very big loss to the system . The sand mining effects the adjourning ground water system and the uses that local people make from the river. The main aspect is that i the destruction of aquatic and riparian habitat through large changes in the channel morphonology and it also includes bed degradation and bed coarsening. Further all species require specific habitat conditions to ensure long-term survival. Native species in streams are uniquely adapted to the habitat conditions that existed before humans began large-scale alterations. These have caused major habitat disruptions that favoured some species over others and 11 caused overall declines in biological diversity and productivity. In most streams and rivers, habitat o quality is strongly linked to the stability of channel bed and banks. Unstable stream channels are inhospitable to most aquatic species.
12. Factors that increase or decrease sediment supplies often destabilize bed and banks and result in dramatic channel readjustments. For example, human activities that accelerate stream bank erosion, such as riparian forest clearing or in-stream mining, cause stream banks to become net sources of sediment that often have severe consequences for aquatic species. Anthropogenic activities that artificially lower stream bed elevation cause bed instabilities that result in a net release of sediment in the local vicinity. Unstable sediments simplify and, therefore, degrade stream habitats for many aquatic species. Few species benefit from these effects."
13. In the case of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administrative and Ors. MANU/SC/0189/2001 : (2001) 3 SCC 635 the Apex Court has held as follows:
18. ...It is well settled that the Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render the policy unconstitutional. However, if the policy cannot be faulted on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it 12 would hurt business interests of a party, does not justify invalidating of the policy.
The Supreme Court has categorically stated that the Courts cannot interference with Government Policies on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom of the soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review. Courts cannot act as appellant authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of the policy. Nor or Courts advisor to the executive on matters of policy with the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy.....is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of citizens or is oppose to provisions of the Constitution or oppose to any statutory provisions or is manifestly arbitrary.
The contention as raised by the Learned Counsel for the applicant that the policy violates the basic guidelines formulated for the matter in Sand Mining, thus in no way depicts any picture or any ground to show that the above guidelines or the rules, in any way, interferes the fundamental right of the Citizen or any way violates the provisions of the Constitution or in any way made in violation of any law.
14. In S.N. Sumathi vs State Of Tamil Nadu, (v) 2011 (1) SCC 640 (Bajaj Hindustan limited vs Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Limited and another), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
39. We should not be understood to have meant that the judiciary should never interfere with administrative decisions. However, such interference should be only within narrow limits e.g., when there is clear violation of the statute or a constitutional provision, or there is arbitrariness in the Wednesbury sense. It is the administrators and legislators who are entitled to frame politics and take such administrative decisions as they think necessary in the public interest. The Court should not 13 ordinarily interfere with policy decisions, unless clearly illegal.
24. When there is no violation of the provisions of the statute or of a constitutional provision or in the absence of arbitrariness, the Court should not interfere with the administrative decisions. It is the administrators and legislature, who are entitled to frame policy and entitled to take decisions as they think necessary in the public interest.
15. In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., AIR 1998 SC 1703 :
W.A.Nos.1341 & 1375 of 2013 (1998 AIR SCW 1480 : 1998 Lab IC 1555), this Court while examining the State policy fixing the rates for reimbursement of medical expenses to the government servants held : ".........When Government forms its policy, it is based on a number of circumstances on facts, law including constraints based on its resources. It is also based on expert opinion. It would be dangerous if court is asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on facts set out on affidavits. The court would dissuade itself from entering into this realm which belongs to the executive. It is within this matrix that it is to be seen whether the new policy violates Article 21 when it restricts reimbursement on account of its financial constraints.
16. In the case of Km. Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra) the Apex Court has held that Article 14 of the Constitution of India applies also to matters of governmental policy and if the policy or any action of the government, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness it would be unconstitutional.
"25. In the case of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administrative and Ors. MANU/SC/0189/2001 : (2001) 3 SCC 635 the Apex Court has held as follows:
18. ...It is well settled that the Courts, in exercise of their 14 power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render the policy unconstitutional. However, if the policy cannot be faulted on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it would hurt business interests of a party, does not justify invalidating the policy....
26. In the aforesaid paragraph the Apex Court has further held that the Courts are not expected to express their opinion as to whether at a particular point of time or in a particular situation any such policy should have been adopted or not. It is best left to the discretion of the State."
17. In the case of Ms. Aruna Roy and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 368, the Apex Court has held as follows:
´96. ...It is ultimately for Parliament to take a decision on the National Education Policy one way or the other. It is not the province of the Court to decide on the good or bad points of an education policy. The Court's limited jurisdiction to intervene in implementation of a policy is only if it is found to be against any statute or the Constitution...
It has further held in paragraph 97 of said Report as follows:
It cannot, however, compel that a particular practice or tradition followed in framing and implementing the policy, must be adhered to. The Court has to keep in mind the above limitations on its jurisdiction and power. It is true that if a policy framed in the field of education or other fields runs counter to the constitutional provisions or the philosophy behind those provisions, this Court must, as part of its constitution duty, interdict such policy."
18. In the case of Union of India and Anr. v. International Trading Co. and Anr. MANU/SC/0392/2003 : (2003) 5 SCC 437 the Apex Court has held as follows:15
15. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammeled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give impression that it was so done arbitrarily on by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the state, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heart beat of fair play.
Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reasons, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness.
19. In the case of Delhi Development Authority and Anr. v. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats and Ors. MANU/SC/0202/2008 : (2008) 2 SCC 672, the Apex Court has held as follows:
An executive order termed as a policy decision is not beyond the pale of judicial review. Whereas the superior courts may not interfere with the nitty gritties of the policy, or substitute one by the other but it will not be correct to contend that the court shall like its judicial hands off, when a plea is raised that the impugned decision is a policy decision. Interference therewith on the part of the superior court would not be without jurisdiction as it is subject to judicial review.16
20. Broadly, a policy decision is subject to judicial review on the following grounds:
(a) if it is unconstitutional;
(b) if it is dehors the provisions of the Act and the Regulations; (c) if the delegate has acted beyond its power of delegation; (d) if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a larger policy.
21. In the case of Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0811/2009 : (2009) 7 SCC 561, the Apex Court has held as follows:
In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow its own policy. Often a change in Government may result in the shift in focus or change in economic policies. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or malafide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the court.
22. It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a Petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. Wisdom and advisability of economic policy are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. In matters relating to economic issues the Government has, while taking a decision, right to "trial and error" as long as both trial and error are bona fide 17 and within the limits of the authority. For testing the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is Parliament and not the courts.
From the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, it is clear that a Court can interfere in a policy decision of the Parliament/State Legislatures/Governments if any of the following conditions exist:
(I) If the policy fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional.
(II) The change in policy must be made fairly and should not give impression that it was so done arbitrarily on any ulterior intention.
(III) The policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. (IV) If the policy is found to be against any statute or the Constitution or runs counter to the philosophy behind these provisions.
(V) It is dehors the provisions of the Act or Legislations.
(VI) If the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation.
23. On the above grounds, though we do not find anything to interfere in the appeal but we deem it just and proper, reasonable and necessary to direct the Principal Secretary, Mines and Director, Mines to strictly follow the guidelines issued from MoEF in 2016 and January, 2020 and if there is violation of any rules, strict action should be taken against the defaulting officials and State PCB to regularly 18 monitor and in case of any violation of Environmental Rules, necessary and reasonable EC be enforced.
24. The Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rohit Sharma has further intimated that the client is not interested in further proceedings and the appeals may be decided with directions to follow guidelines.
With these observations, since we do not find any cogent reason to sustain the appeal. Thus, both the appeals are dismissed. A copy of the order be also kept on the record of other appeal. Both the appeals are decided accordingly. Consign to records.
Justice Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Satyawan Singh Garbyal, EM SN & JG 19