National Green Tribunal
Pritto Francis vs The State Environmental Impact ... on 10 April, 2024
Author: K. Satyagopal
Bench: K. Satyagopal
Item No.02:-
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2024.
(Through Video Conference)
Appeal No.13 of 2024 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF
Pritto Francis (Managing Partner)
M/s. Green Sand Granites
1/409, Mannur Post,
Mannur Village, Pollachi Taluk,
Coimbatore District - 642 005.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1) The Chairman
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
Rep. by its Member Secretary
3rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,
Chennai - 600 015.
2) The Chairman
State Expert Appraisal Committee
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
Rep. by its Member Secretary
3rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,
Chennai - 600 015.
3) The District Collector
Coimbatore
Coimbatore District.
4) The Assistant Director
Department of Geology and Mining
Collectorate, Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
...Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s): M/s. N. Shanmugaselvam, M. Venkadeshan,
R. Nilavazhagan, H. Priyanka.
For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1 & R2.
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R3 & R4.
Page 1 of 10
Judgment Reserved on: 19th March, 2024.
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGEMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member.
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of Respondent No.1/ State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority - Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as 'SEIAA - Tamil Nadu') rejecting the grant of Environmental Clearance for the project of rough stone and gravel mining.
2. The appellant submits that his application to the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Coimbatore for a grant of lease to quarry rough stone and gravel in his patta land bearing S.F. No.208/1(P) measuring an extent of 2.07.0 Hectares located in Ramapattinam Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District for a period of five years under Rule 19 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'TNMMC Rules') was considered by the authorities and his application for grant of lease was recommended by the Sub Collector, Pollachi after inspection and conducting a detailed enquiry with the public and the Village Administrative Officer (VAO), Ramapattinam Village, since there was no objection from the public for grant of lease and no objectionable structures are situated within the prescribed distance from the applied area.
3. The said area was also inspected by the Assistant Geologist and Special Revenue Inspector (Mines), Office of the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Coimbatore. On the strength of the recommendations of the Tahsildar dated 01.03.2023, Sub Collector, Pollachi dated 28.04.2023 and Page 2 of 10 Assistant Geologist (Mines), Office of the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Coimbatore, the Competent Authority viz., the Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Coimbatore granted the lease for a period of five years vide Letter in R.C. No.254/Mines/2022 dated 24.05.2023. As per the conditions imposed, he submitted an application to the SEIAA - Tamil Nadu for issuance of Environmental Clearance for the project for quarrying rough stone and gravel to an extent of 2.07.00 Ha. in his patta lands with prescribed fees and documents.
4. The said proposal was examined in the 401st Meeting of the State Expert Appraisal Committee - Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as 'SEAC - Tamil Nadu') held on 16.08.2023 and the SEAC - Tamil Nadu noted the following:-
"1. The project proponent, Mr. Pritto Francis (Managing Partner) of M/s. Green Sand Granites has applied for Environmental Clearance for the Proposed Rough Stone and Gravel lease over an extent of 2.07.0 Ha (Patta Land) at S.F. Nos.208/1 (Part) of Ramapattinam Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu.
2. The project/activity is covered under Category "B2"
of Item 1 (a) "Mining of Minerals Projects" of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006."
5. The members of the SEAC - Tamil Nadu have examined the KML file uploaded and decided not to recommend the proposal for the following reasons:-
"i) The proposed site is a fresh area.
ii) The proposed project area is surrounded by numerous coconut trees and farms on all sides.
iii) A crusher and two other quarries are already operating near the proposed project area and hence the commencement of one more quarry (current proposal) operation in the area will lead to excessive dust and noise pollution load disrupting the existing environmental settings."Page 3 of 10
6. The said recommendation of the SEAC - Tamil Nadu was examined in the 652nd Meeting of the SEIAA - Tamil Nadu held on 07.09.2023 and after discussions, the authorities have accepted the decision of the SEAC - Tamil Nadu and rejected the proposal. The said decision was communicated to the Project Proponent by the Member Secretary, SEIAA - Tamil Nadu vide Letter No.SEIAA-TN/F.No.10129/2023 dated 07.09.2023.
7. The appellant challenges the said rejection order on the following grounds:-
(i) The reasons attributed by the SEAC - Tamil Nadu for not recommending the issuance of the Environmental Clearance are not correct and are against the provisions of the TNMMC Rules.
(ii) Both the SEAC and SEIAA - Tamil Nadu have failed to note that the rough stone quarry in S.F. Nos.206/1A1 (P) and 207/1C of the same village was under operation upto 21.11.2023 based on the Environmental Clearance issued by the District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA)
- Coimbatore dated 04.10.2018 and now the license is expired. One of the reasons assigned for rejection "The proposed project area is surrounded by numerous coconut trees and farms on all sides" was equally applicable when the Environmental Clearance was processed by the District Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC) - Coimbatore. However, without considering the fact that a similar project was in operation till recently, for which, the Environmental Clearance was granted by the DEIAA - Coimbatore, the rejection of the appellant's application for the grant of Environmental Clearance is not correct and unjustifiable and hence, the rejection order needs to be set aside.
(iii) Rules 36 (1) and 36 (1-A) (a) of the TNMMC Rules stipulate safety distance to the permanent structures, inhabited areas, NH/SH, water bodies, archaeological Page 4 of 10 monuments, etc. No safety distance is attributed to the coconut trees and farms, except 7.5 Meters to the adjacent patta lands. It was also contended that the mining of rough stone and gravel would help in the construction of road sector projects and buildings and augment the revenue of the State.
(iv) The appellant had invested a huge amount in purchasing the patta land for quarrying purposes and spent substantial money for obtaining various reports, mining plan, etc. and the decision of the SEAC and SEIAA - Tamil Nadu has created a financial crisis to the appellant. It was also contended that such a decision would create artificial unemployment in the local area and create artificial demand for the supply of rough stone and processed minerals to the road sector / construction sector industries, impacting the interest of the public and nation, which calls for setting aside the decision of the SEAC/SEIAA
- Tamil Nadu.
8. The SEIAA and SEAC - Tamil Nadu who is Respondent No.1 and 2 filed its counter affidavit stating that the project proponent Mr. Pritto Francis (Managing Partner) of M/s. Green Sand Granites has applied to the SEIAA - Tamil Nadu seeking prior Environmental Clearance for the project/activity covered under Category "B2" of Item 1 (a) "Mining Projects" of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006 for the proposed rough stone quarry and gravel lease over an extent of 2.07.0 Ha (Patta land) at S.F. Nos.208/1 (Part) of Ramapattinam Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu vide Online Proposal No.SIA/TN/MIN/432865/2023 dated 10.06.2023. The proposal was appraised in the 401 st Meeting of the SEAC - Tamil Nadu held on 16.08.2023. The Proponent, Mr. Pritto Francis appeared before the committee with his EIA Co- ordinator for appraisal. During the deliberations and from the KML file uploaded in the PARIVESH Portal, the Committee observed that "(i) The proposed site is a fresh area, (ii) The Page 5 of 10 proposed project area is surrounded by numerous coconut trees and farms on all sides and (iii) A crusher and two other quarries are already operating near the proposed project area and hence the commencement of one more quarry (current proposal) operation in the area will lead to excessive dust and noise pollution load disrupting the existing environmental settings". In view of the above, the Committee decided not to recommend the proposal for a grant of Environmental Clearance. Subsequently, the subject was placed before the Authority (SEIAA-TN) in its 652nd Meeting held on 07.09.2023. In view of the above, the Authority, after discussions, accepted the decision of SEAC, rejecting the proposal and decided to request the Member Secretary, SEIAA - Tamil Nadu to grant a rejection letter to the proponent as per the 401st SEAC Minutes. Further, the Authority decided to close and record this proposal.
9. The District Collector - Coimbatore (Respondent No.3) also filed a report, wherein it is stated that the appellant made an application dated 15.03.2022 for a grant of quarrying lease for rough stone and gravel, over an extent of 3.85.0 Ha. in patta land comprised in Sy. No.208/1(P) of Ramapattinam Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District for a period of 5 years. Subsequently, the appellant made a request to restrict the applied area to 2.07.0 Hectares on 05.09.2022.
10. The Sub Collector, Pollachi vide Rc. No.956/2022/A2 dated 28.04.2023 furnished the report stating that no objection was received from the villagers on the A1 notice published on 25.03.2022. However, objections were received from Sakthivel and three others stating that their agricultural lands are situated near the applied area and grant of quarry lease would affect their farmlands. The Sub Collector has further reported that the lands of the objection petitioners are situated at a distance ranging from 122 to 250 Meters from the proposed quarry site, wherein coconut and teak plantations are cultivated. He has further stated there are no habitations, approved layouts and natham lands within 300 meters from the applied area. Further, the lands are not covered under the Lands Ceiling Acts, there are no buildings and places of worship in the applied area, no water Page 6 of 10 course poramboke lands, canals within 50 meters and no historical monuments and valuable trees are noticed in the said lands. Finally, the Sub Collector, Pollachi recommended for grant of a quarry lease in favour of the appellant.
11. On receipt of the report from the Sub Collector, the Assistant Geologist, Department of Geology and Mining, Coimbatore inspected the subject field and submitted the technical report on 17.05.2023 recommending for grant of quarry lease for rough stone and gravel in the subject area. Based on the recommendation of the Sub Collector, Pollachi and the Assistant Geologist, the appellant was directed to submit the Mining Plan for approval of Environmental Clearance from the SEIAA for the grant of quarry lease as per Rules 41 and 42 of the TNMMC Rules, 1959 vide Rc. No.254/Mines/2022 dated 24.05.2023. In response to the above, the appellant submitted the Mining Plan and the same was approved by the Assistant Director vide Rc. No.254/Mines/2022 dated 06.06.2023.
12. The appellant's application which was submitted to the SEIAA - Tamil Nadu was examined and based on the recommendation of the SEAC - Tamil Nadu, the proposal for the grant of Environmental Clearance was rejected recording the reasons for rejection and communicated to the appellant vide Letter No.SEIAA-TN/F.No.10129/2023 dated 07.09.2023.
13. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondents.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated that the rejection order is unjustifiable and in violation of the existing provisions of the TNMMC Rules and that he was not given an opportunity to offer an explanation for the observation of the SEAC - Tamil Nadu.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the SEAC/SEIAA - Tamil Nadu has stated that the SEAC - Tamil Nadu has decided not to recommend the proposal for the reasons recorded in the minutes of the meeting in order to prevent likely excessive dust Page 7 of 10 and noise pollution in the area since already a crusher and two other quarries are operating near the proposed project site.
16. The learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.3 and 4 stated that the clearances accorded by them are based on the field inspection and enquiry and as per the guidelines in force and the application for Environmental Clearance was rejected by the SEAC - Tamil Nadu for the reasons recorded in the impugned order.
17. A perusal of the Minutes of the Meeting (401st Meeting) of the SEAC - Tamil Nadu reveals that the proposal was not recommended for the grant of Environmental Clearance for three reasons as noted below:-
(i) The proposed site is a fresh area, this observation will have to be treated as a general observation since the provision by which mining in a fresh area is prohibited is not indicated in the order.
(ii) Though the SEAC - Tamil Nadu has recorded that the proposed project area is surrounded by numerous coconut trees and farms on all sides, the SEAC -
Tamil Nadu has not indicated the distance of the coconut trees and farms from the proposed area and whether the said distance is in violation of the siting criteria if any.
(iii) The third reason is that a crusher and two other quarries are already operating near the proposed project area and that the commencement of operations by one more quarry in the said area will lead to excessive dust and noise pollution load, disrupting the existing environmental settings. However, the distance of the crusher and two other quarries to the proposed project have not been indicated and the order has not spelt out whether there is any violation of siting criteria which necessitates rejection of the proposal.
Page 8 of 1018. What is surprising is that SEAC - Tamil Nadu has come to the conclusion based on the scrutiny of the KML file uploaded in the Parivesh Portal that the grant of Environmental Clearance for this project can cause damage to the coconut trees and farms and will lead to excessive dust and noise pollution in the area.
19. Though we appreciate the concern of the SEAC - Tamil Nadu members that the presence of coconut trees and farms and the existence of a crusher and two other quarries may lead to severe pollution in the area, the conclusion which was arrived at merely based on the observation of the KML file submitted by the appellant in the Parivesh Portal is patently unjustifiable.
20. Normally, when the members have an apprehension that the project is likely to cause environmental damage, it is their bounden duty either to get the area inspected or call for further particulars from the Project Proponent to arrive at the exact distances of the coconut trees and farms as well as the crusher and quarries to the project site to examine whether the siting criteria have been violated or deviation from the existing guideline in force.
21. The SEAC - Tamil Nadu have failed in discharge of their duty by coming to the conclusion without inspection and passing an order without detailing the violations and deviations from the existing statutory provisions/ guidelines issued by the authorities of the MoEF&CC or by the State Government.
22. It is also surprising to note that the SEIAA - Tamil Nadu, which is supposed to scrutinize the recommendation of the SEAC - Tamil Nadu and refer back to them if the recommendations are not backed by valid/detailed reasons, has simply endorsed the recommendations without seeking information from the SEAC - Tamil Nadu on what basis the project proposal does not fulfil the requirement of securing the Environmental Clearance.
Page 9 of 1023. Since the recommendations of the SEAC - Tamil Nadu as well as the rejection order of the SEIAA - Tamil Nadu have not spelt out the exact violations of the statutory provisions/ guidelines/ rules, the impugned rejection order has to be set aside.
24. In the result, the appeal [Appeal No.13 of 2024 (SZ)] is allowed and the impugned rejection order dated 07.09.2023 of the SEIAA - Tamil Nadu is set aside and remanded back to the SEIAA - Tamil Nadu for reconsidering the proposal following the principles of natural justice and pass a speaking order with reference to the statutory provisions and guidelines in force.
Sd/-
Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No Appeal No.13/2024 (SZ) 10th April, 2024. Mn.
Page 10 of 10