National Green Tribunal
P.B. Suresh Babu S/O. Bhaskaran vs Sudheer Sukumaran S/O. Mount Salai ... on 20 February, 2020
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan
1
Item No.16
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
O.A.No.205 of 2016 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
P.B. Suresh Babu,
Athirumkal P.O, Koodal Village,
Pathanamthitta District
Kerala .. Applicant
Vs.
1.Sudheer Sukumaran
Director, M/s. Aswathy Granites Pvt. Ltd.,
Padmalayam, Murinjakal P.O
Pathanamthitta District
Kerala.
2. M/s. Aswathy Granites Pvt. Ltd.,
Padmalayam, Murinjakal P.O
Pathanamthitta District
Kerala.
3. Kerala State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Pallimukku, Pettah P.O. Thiruvananthapuram.
4. Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Ernakulam.
5. Directorate of Mining & Geology,
Thiruvananthapuram.
6. Kalanjoor Grama Panchayat rep .by its Secretary
7. MoEF & CC, rep. by its Principal Secretary, New Delhi
8. Directorate of Environment & Climate Change,
2
Thiruvananthapuram.
9. District Collector,
Pathanamthitta ... Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 20.2.2020
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER
For applicant : Nil
For Respondent(s) : . Mrs. Vidyalakshmi Vipin for R3
Mr. E.K. Kumaresan
Mr. G. Prabhu
Mr. John Alexander for R5, R8 & R9
Mrs. Nivedita S. Menon
Mrs. Rema Smrithi V.K (KSPCB)
ORDER
The above application has been filed seeking the following relief:
"declare that the instant quarry project owned by the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to have been included in the category A or B2, as the case may be, in view of the EIA Notification, 2006 and Annexure - A2 notification.
Declare that the Annexures A-3 clearance and Annexures A4 series of permits are liable to be cancelled in view of the non-compliance of the conditions appended therewith, by the respondents 1 and 2.
Direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take corrective measures in a time bound manner for restoring the properties damaged due to their unscientific and illegal mining and quarrying." 3
2. It is alleged in the petition that respondents 1 and 2 are conducting quarrying activities for the last several years in Survey Nos.111/3, 112/4, 111/4, 111/5, 113/2, 112/5, 112/1-1,, 112/1-2, 112/8-1, 112/8-2, 112/8-3, 112/2 and 112/7 of Kodal Village.Pathnamthitta District, Kerala State. They are quarrying 5,64,000 MT per annum. Though they have obtained Environment Clearance, evidenced by Annexurse-A1, they are violating the terms and their operation involves mining extraction and beneficiation of granite building stones. In the case of beneficiation, Environment Clearance will have to be granted by MoEF & CC, treating this as category A, and not by SEIAA, treating as category B. On account of the operation, great impact has been caused to the neighbouring property and there is violation of siting criteria as well. There is noise pollution caused on account of the operation of quarry and there is no mechanism provided to suppress noise as well. Though complaints have been made, no action has been taken. So he was compelled to file the above application.
3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed their counter, denying the allegations and also contending that they are operating the quarry in accordance with law, after obtaining necessary clearance. The authorities have given directions to fill the excavated pits with soil and these directions have all along been obeyed. They are only quarrying as per the conditions and there is no beneficiation process and as such the authority was justified in treating it as category B and issuinig Environment Clearance. So they prayed for dismissal of the application.
4. Fourth respondent filed counter contending that they have obtained necessary "consent to operate" and they are conducting operation in accordance with norms.
5. Fifth respondent filed counter contending that necessary permissions have been granted and lease has been executed and they are conducting the same in accordance with Rules. There is no violation.
4
6. Respondents 8 and 9 also filed counter more or less adopting the contentions of fifth respondent.
7. The joint committee inspection report was filed, as directed by this Tribunal by order dated 8.9.2016 which reads as follows:
"Accordingly, joint inspection was made on 30th September, 2016 to M/s. Aswathy Granites Pvt. Ltd., Koodal Village, Pathanamthitta District, Kerala by the following team:
Shri E. Thirunavukkarasu, Scientist "D" Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Southern Regional Office, Bangalore.
Shri Alexander George, Environmental Engineer, District Office, Pathanamthitta, Kerala Pollution Control Board.
Shri Praveen Thampi, Assistant Engineer, Kerala Pollution Control Board. Shri Sudheer Sukumar, Managing Director represented the unit. Shri Suresh Babu, the petitioner was also joined during the visit.
Environmental Clearance: The unit has obtained Environment from SEIAA, Kerala vide 147/SEIAA/EC4/2748/2013 dated 10.8.2015 for mining in Sy no.111/3pt, 110/8, 112/4, 111/4pt, 111/5pt, 113/2, 112/5, 112/1-1, 112/1-2, 112/8-1, 112/8-2, 112/8-3, 112/2 and 112/7 in Koodal Village.
In general, all the conditions stipulated in the EC have been complied with by the unit. However, two of the general conditions attached to the EC such as (ii) establishment of „Environmental Monitoring Cell" and -providing mates to reduce fly rock blast have not been complied. The detailed compliance status of EC is placed at Annexure - I. 5 Consent order: The unit has consent no.QCO/PTA/172/R1/2015 dated 25.4.2015 for Sy.no.12/8-1 with validity upto 30.6.2017, consent no.QCO/PTA/173/R1/2015 dated 25.4.2015 for Sy.no.112/8-2 with validity upto 30.6.2017 & consent no.QCO/PTA/162/R1/2015 dated 15.6.2015 for Sy.no.111/4 with validity upto 31.12.2017. They also had consent no.QCO/PTA/146/R2/2015 dated 15.6.2015 for Sy.no.111/3 with validity upto 31.12.2017 but quarrying in this Sy.no had been completed and hence no mining activities were observed in this Sy.no. The validity of consent issued to Sy.no.110/8, 112/4 has expired and mining was not one in these areas.
The unit has submitted a fresh application for consent incorporating all the sy.nos mentioned in the Environmental Clearance.
Monitoring of noise & ambient air quality: During the inspection noise & ambient air quality monitoring were conducted. Monitoring location on the lay out plan is attached at Annexure - 11 (ambient air quality is measured at about 40 - 50 m from the quarry site as the power connection was not available to locate the machineries at proper location. The monitoring reports are attached at Annexure - III. The dust level (PM10) has exceeded the permissible limits of 100 ug/m3. The sound level is within the permissible limit at the boundary. But there are no residences (except one own house) within 100 m of quarry boundary. Hence, the impact of noise or dust on humans is not significant. The machineries are seen more than the consented numbers. Only three Excavators with breakers and 5 jack hammers re consented for the three Sy.Nos together. However, he following machineries were observed at the time of inspection.
Excavator with breaker - 3 nos Excavator with bucket - 3 nos Tractor with breaker - 4 nos 6 JCB -1 no Box compressor - 1 no It is observed that the unit has complied with all the other conditions of the consent of the Board.
Observation: The petitioner‟s property comprising rubber plantation is located adjacent to the quarry site bearing Sy.nos.112/8-2, 112/8-3, 112/1-2 & 112/4. Of these, mining was being carried out in Sy.no.112/8-2. A small farm is also located in his property, but it is more than 200 from the mining area. It is observed that there are no residences within 100 radius of the present mining area. There exists a temple at more than 100 m from the quarrying area. According to the petitioner, earlier, there were instances of run off with soil sliding towards his land . The PP later on has made proper structure with stones at the boundary in R.S.No.111/4 and filled with soil so as to prevent further runoff into the land of petitioner. The R.S.no.112/8-2 and part of 112/8-1 are just about 10 m from the land boundary of the petitioner, on low level. If adequate precautions are not taken, then it is possible that this soil slides to the petitioner‟s property and may cause damage to his property. And rock debris may strike and cause damage to the rubber plantation in the petitioner‟s property PP has therefore been advised to carry out the following‟ To remove the top soil at present near the petitioners property and to make proper structure/pertaining wall at these points to prevent run off/soil sliding. To provide proper mats/screens to sufficient height to prevent fly rock debris during blasting. This needs to be carried out prior to commencement of blasting/mining at the lands bearing these two survey numbers.
7To reduce the drills per blast than the normal so as to reduce the impact. The village road has been damaged at few places and hence the project proponent was asked to repair the damaged parts of the village road. PP has informed that they have helped the authority in the past for laying the road by providing aggregates however has agreed to repair the damaged parts properly.
Conclusion: The unit has complied with all the conditions of EC except two of the general conditions attached to the EC such as )ii) establishment of Environmental Monitoring Cell and providing mates to reduce fly rock blast. The unit similarly complied with all the conditions of consent order except in terms of number of machineries. Since the petitioner‟s land is just adjacent to the active mine site, the unit need to take further precautionary measures as listed under para 5 (iii) above."
There is no representation for the petitioner. The report shows that there was no violation.
8. Fourth respondent filed current status report which reads as follows:
"It is humbly submitted that joint report was filed by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the 4th and the 7th respondent respectively. Further to this, inspection was conducted on 25.9.2019 and 19.2.2020 and observed that quarrying in sy.no.112/8-1, 112/8-2, 112/4 as observed during the joint inspection on 30.9.206 has been completed and quarrying has been shifted to sy.no.112/1-1, 112./1-2, 112/4 and 112/5. During the joint inspection quarrying was in the area adjacent to the property of the applicant. Now it is shifted to more than 50 m from the boundary of the petitioner‟s property. It is humbly submitted that the application for renewal of consent was considered and renewed upto 9.8.2020. The validity of the Environment Clearance is also upto 9.8.2020. True copy of the consent to operate renewal issued by the Board is attached as Annexure R-1. All the survey numbers of the Environment Clearance has been included in the consent. The 8 present survey numbers include the following: 110/8, 111/3pt, 111/4pt, 111/5pt, 112/1-1, 112/1- 2, 112/2, 112/7, 112/4, 112/5, 112/8-1, 112/8-2, 112/8-3, 113/2. The machinery for the entire quarrying area includes the following: (1) Excavator with bucket - 7 nos. 130 hp each (2) Excavator with breaker - 3 nos -130 Hp each (3) Box Compressor - 4 nos. 86 HP (4) tractor with compressor - 4 nos - 86 Hp each.
The applicant is having a farm in his property and the distance of the farm is seen as more than 200 m from the quarrying area. It is also observed that there is a temple situated at more than 100m from mining area. It is observed that the quarry site is surrounded by plantations on all side without any residential buildings within 100 m of the quarry boundary. It is respectfully submitted that the functioning of the quarry is as per rules. There is no violation of norms. As of now there seems to be no danger to the property of the applicant. Dated this the 19th day of February, 2020"
That shows now the quarrying operation has been shifted to a distance of 100 meters from the boundary of the petitioner and no violations were found by the regulating authority and respondents 1 and 2 are having necessary "consent" and Environment Clearance for carrying out the quarrying operations. There is no beneficiation process involved, as alleged by the petitioner.
9. So under these circumstances, there is nothing survives in the matter and since the quarrying operation has been shifted to 200 meters from the boundary of the petitioner property, it appears that he is not interested in prosecuting the matter and that was the reason why he did not appear before this Tribunal today. So accepti ng the current status report of the fourth respondent, the petition can be closed.
9
10. Accordingly the petition is closed with liberty for the petitioner to come to this Tribunal if there is any further violation, causing any pollution due to the operation of respondents 1 and 2 quarry. Further, we direct the Pollution Control Board to make necessary periodical inspection to find out whether the quarrying is being conducted by respondents 1 and 2 in accordance with law and in terms of Environment Clearance and "consent to operate" granted. With the above direction and observation the petition is disposed of. No costs.
.......... ...............................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) .........................................E.M. (Saibal Dasgupta) O.A.205/2016 20.2.2020 kkr