National Green Tribunal
Ashok G vs State Of Karnataka Rep. By Its ... on 6 March, 2020
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan
Item No.8:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 271 of 2017 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
G. Ashok and Ors.
... Applicant(s)
WITH
State of Karnataka,
Bangalore and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 06.03.2020.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): M/s. Shajan Varghese.
For Respondent(s): M/s. R. Thirunavukarasu for R3.
M/s. G.R. Balakumar
For T.S. Gopalan & Co. for R11.
1
ORDER
1. The grievance in this application is regarding the illegal operation of quarry and crusher by respondents No.10 & 11. It is alleged in the application that respondents No.10 & 11 are private persons who are running a quarry cum crushing each in residential address shown in the application and they are carrying on mining/quarrying of building stone and crushing of the same using mechanized crushers into smaller ballasts. They were doing the works since 2008 and 2010 respectively. The quarrying activities of the nature carried out by the respondents No.10 & 11 are governed by the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and it is being regulated by the sixth respondent department. The persons applying for such mining permission have to make applications to the Competent Authority and such persons after complying with the various conditions including those under the relevant environmental laws are given lease of land for specific period by the sixth respondent where such quarrying/mining activities is being carried out.
2. The persons who want to undertake crushing activity of such materials/rocks, quarried/mined are issued license by the second respondent under the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (Act 8 of 2012 as 2 amended under Act 64 of 2013) upon necessary application being made and upon such persons complying with the various conditions laid down under the said Act as well as those under the relevant environmental laws. Prior to this there were no specific laws regulating the running of crusher units in the State of Karnataka.
3. Survey Nos.3, 11, 95, 120, 121, 129 and 136 (Parts) of Andinje Village totally measuring about 16 acres was notified by the second respondent by proposal dated 28.09.2012 as SAFER Zones in terms of Section 6 of Act No.8/2012 (Prior to its amendment by Act No.64/2013) completely overlooking the fact that the applicants and other persons are having their agricultural lands and dwelling houses nearby. In fact the various objections raised by the villagers including the written objection dated 23.02.2012 to the second respondent and 18.03.2012 to the fifth respondent were completely over looked. Thereafter the third respondent Board issued a Certificate dated 12.10.2012 under section 6 (5) of the said Act No.8/2012 certifying the above said extent of land to be safer zone.
4. Applicants and others filed objection to the fourth respondent on 15.10.2012 to reject the proposal of the second and third 3 respondent certifying the said area in Andinje Village as Safer Zone in terms of Section 6 of the said Act No.8/2012.
5. In the meantime, the second respondent issued a Notification dated 12.10.2012 as Notification No.MMC: Crusher:125/2011-12 dated 12.10.2012 notifying 9 safer zones including the above said lands in Andinje Village which was published in the Gazette on 18.10.2012.
6. On the strength of the above, respondents No.10 & 11 made applications for license for quarrying and crushing of building stones on 16.10.2012 and 22.12.2012 respectively and secured licenses and have started operations of mining/quarrying as well as crushing activity of building stone in the lands in the applicant's village by setting up quarrying and crushing units respectively on site.
7. The applicants filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as W.P. No.58903/2013. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the Karnataka Regulation Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (Act 8 of 2012) came to be amended by the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crusher (Amendment) Act, 2013 (Act 64 of 2013). Hence, the above Writ Petition was disposed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as withdrawn by its order dated 4 26.06.2014 granting liberty to the applicants therein to approach the Hon'ble High Court or such other authority as advised.
8. The proceedings of the District Stone Crushers Control Committee, the Notifications and orders passed by the respondent authorities granting permission to the private respondents No.10 & 11 are in violation of the principles of natural justice.
9. The action of the respondents No.2 & 3 in relaxing the conditions required to be followed under the statue is against the intent of the legislature and beyond the scope of their powers. The District Stone Crushers Control Committee does not have exclusive power to deviate the provisions of law under the guise of relaxation of conditions traceable under Section 6(4) of the Karnataka Act No.8/2012. The case on hand is not an exceptional case where provisions of Section 6(4) of the Act could be made applicable. The exceptions in this case have been made without any reasons and just to favour the private respondents No.10 & 11 illegally. This is against the decision rendered by this Tribunal and affirmed by the Apex Court reported in 1999 (3) Kar. LJ 651.
10. On account of the operation of the crusher and quarrying activities by respondents No.10 & 11 huge sound pollution is being caused. They are even using the blasting during night 5 affecting the peaceful life of the people of the locality. The people in the locality are scared and the children fear of being hit by stones. Though complaints and representations have been made no fruitful action has been taken. So, the applicant filed this application seeking the following reliefs:-
(a) To call for the records of the respondents No.1 to 9, pertaining to the No Objections Certificates, Permissions, Licenses, Leases granted by them to the respondents No.10 & 11 permitting them to operating Quarrying and Stone crushing activities in Andinje Village of Dakshina Kannada District of Karnataka and set aside the same and
(b) Consequently pass an order declaring that respondents No.10 & 11 are not entitled to operate their quarrying and stone crushing units in Andinje Village of Dakshina Kannada District of Karnataka and
(c) Consequently to grant a mandatory injunction restraining respondents No.10 & 11 from operating their quarrying and stone crushing units in Andinje Village of Dakshina Kannada District of Karnataka and
(d) To pass any such order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
11. Eleventh respondent filed their counter statement contending that he was issued with licence for crusher by order dated 10.12.2014 and the quarry lease on 14.07.2016. This 6 application was filed in the month of November 2017 which is beyond time. The eleventh respondent filed an application for quarry licence in building stone in land bearing Sy. NO.95/1P1 of Andinje Village, Belthangadi Taluk in Dakshina Kannada District of Karnataka State. The Deputy Director, Mines & Geology accorded sanction and a lease deed was executed on 06.08.2008. Thereafter he invested huge amount for establishment of the unit. Road in the village was repaired and sheds were constructed for the workers and the quarrying work started. In the year 2012, the applicant No.2 and others filed a Writ Petition No.801/2012 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka complaining about the pollution generated by the operation of the crusher and the quarry and later it was disposed of on 03.10.2012 recording the statement of the respondent No.11 that the crusher will run only in the safer zone to be established evidence by Annexure -1.
12. Respondent No.11 filed an application for a licence to quarry in building stone in Sy. No.95/1P1 of Andinje Village. A detailed report was filed and the quarry lease was issued on 14.07.2016 for a period of ten years from 06.08.2013. The respondent No.11 filed application seeking license for installation of a crusher in the safer zone and it was issued by the second respondent on 10.12.2014. The crusher was installed in 7 Sy.No.121/1B and 121/2 of Andinje Village, Belthangadi Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District in Karnataka. The land is declared as safer zone under the provisions of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crusher Act, 2011. The safer zone is declared under Sec. 6 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011. The State has declared the safer zone after following the conditions required to declare the safer zone and the license was issued to respondent No.11 for the stone crusher with conditions. They are carrying out the activity by complying with the condition.
13. According to the eleventh respondent, there is no illegality in grating the lease and licence and there is no pollution caused on account of the operation of the unit. The allegation that the village is situated in Western Ghats and it is included in the Kasturi Rangan Committee Report is not correct. They prayed for dismissal of the application.
14. Tenth respondent filed a written statement more or less in tune with the contention of the eleventh respondent stating that he was granted licence for crusher as per Order dated 10.12.2014 and the quarry lease was executed on 14.07.2016 and the application is not maintainable as barred by limitation. It was declared as safer zone. Thereafter they made an application on 27.02.2013 to the Regional Office, Mangalore for grant of consent 8 to set up new jelly crusher of capacity of 80 TPD and Hot Mix Plant of capacity of 60 TPH in declared safer zone in Sy. No.3/2, 8, 11, 17, 18 of Nelligeri, Andinje Village, Belthangadi Taluk, D.K. District. After inspection by the Pollution Control Board officials, they issued Consent For Establishment (CFE) in terms of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crusher Ordinance 2011 dated 25.08.2011 for a period of three years which was valid up to 10.01.2016 after the respondent had complied with the various criteria and Rules as laid down by the Air and Water Act and after obtaining necessary licenses and clearances from the relevant statutory agencies. He was taking all steps to prevent pollution and there is no possibility any pollution caused on account of the operation of the unit. The allegation that the license was granted against the dictum laid down by the Apex Court reported in 1999 (3) Kar. LJ 651. So, prayed for dismissal of the application.
15. Third respondent filed a reply statement contending that the application is not maintainable. Respondents No.10 & 11 are carrying on the business of mining, quarrying and crushing activities. Eleventh respondent obtained consent as per proceedings No.11/PCB/EO(MNG)CFO 2015-16/727 dated 04.07.2015 for operation of the stone crusher unit located in Sy. No. 121/1B, 121/2 of Andinje Village, Belthangady Taluk, 9 Dakshina Kannada District which is valid upto 31.03.2019. The CFO was granted subject to certain terms and conditions. The distance criteria was discussed by the District Stone Crusher Regulation Committee, Dakshina Kannada District as per the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 and Form B1 was issued as per the Committee recommendations. Thereafter consent to operate was renewed. The inspection observation for the conditions stipulated under Section 6a-(2)(1-3) and 6a-(2)(4) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers (Amendment) Rules 2013 area as follows:
a. Primary Crusher - covered with GI Sheet b. Jaw Crusher - covered with GI Sheet c. Vibratory screen - covered with GI Sheet d. Enclosed Banker is provided for uploading the materials hence telescope chute not required e. Crusher authorities have provided water sprinkling system at crusher point f. Crusher authorities have taken up plantations in and around the crusher unit g. Provided 15 feet GI sheet compound wall on 3 sides as per rule. The inspection reported dated 19.12.2017 is attached herewith as annexure III.
10
There is no environmental hazards as claimed by the applicants and constantly monitoring the said units.
16. Others respondents did not file any counter.
17. It is seen from the Order produced by the eleventh respondent along with his counter of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.801/2012 (GM-MM-S) dated 03.10.2012 that the dictum laid down in the decision reported in Obayya Pujary and others Vs. The Member Secretary, Karnataka 1993 (3) KLJ 651 which has been upheld by the Apex Court which covers crushing of stones as well as quarrying/mining activities, that order applies only to crushing of stones, by identification of safer zone. Therefore, the contention that there is a prohibition of quarrying activity is not sustainable. Further it was noted in the order that the lease granted permitting to run till 06.08.2013 has been cancelled by the Deputy Director (Mines) and appropriate action is likely to be taken to assail the same. So, the Writ Petition was disposed of by recording the undertaken given by the first respondent therein that he will not carry out the crushing of stone activities except in safer zone. In so far as quarrying licence is concerned, it stands cancelled and subject to its restoration or the respondent No.1 being granted a renewal or a 11 fresh licence, no quarrying can be pursued and thereafter, the present licence and lease has been granted.
18. Before going into the merits of the case and its maintainability regarding the cancellation of the licence or lease, we feel it appropriate to get a present status of the operation of the mining/quarrying operation by respondents No.10 and 11 in the disputed areas. So, we appoint a Joint Committee comprising of District Collector, Dhakshina Kannada District, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, a senior officer from Department of Mines and Geology, Regional office of Ministry of Environment, Forest (MoEF), Bangalore to inspect the area in question and submit a status report as to whether the citing criteria has been complied with by the units, whether they are having all the requisite permission and license and clearances under the respective regulation of laws of the State of Karnataka, whether the pollution control mechanism have been provided and whether they are in order, whether there is any violation in the operation of quarries including undertaking blasting, whether there is any pollution caused on account of the operation of the unit particularly in respect of air and noise to the neighbouring villages where the applicants are residing and whether sufficient green belt has been provided to avoid dust pollution and sound 12 pollution and is there any violation of excess mining/quarrying done by the respondents No.10 & 11 and if so, was any action taken including imposition of environmental compensation and submit a factual and action taken report to this Tribunal through e-mail at [email protected] within a period of two months.
19. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board will be the nodal agency for co-ordination and for providing all necessary logistics for this purpose.
20. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned authorities immediately by e-mail so as to enable them to comply with the direction.
21. For consideration of report, post on 21.05.2020.
.....................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) .................................E.M. (Shri. Saibal Dasgupta) O.A. No.271/2017 06th March, 2020.
Mn.
13