National Green Tribunal
Daljeet Singh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board on 1 November, 2021
Item No. 05 (Court No. 2)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
(By Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 251/2021
(I.A. No. 189/2021)
Daljeet Singh & Anr. Applicant
Versus
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 01.11.2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate
Respondent: Ms. Pallavi Pratap, Advocate for M/s Shakumbari Mines, R-6
ORDER
1. This is an application filed under Section 14 and 18 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 raising a grievance that respondent 6, M/s Shakumbari Mines is carrying on with the mining activities in riverbed of Yamuna in District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh without having any consent to operate and therefore, entire activities are illegal and causing pollution to the environment and liable for cancellation of EC granted to the said Proponent, besides Environmental Compensation etc.
2. The facts stated in the application show that respondent 6 was granted EC by SEIAA, UP on 13.01.2021 permitting mining at Gata No. 228, Village Badauli, Tehsil Unn, District Shamli in river Yamuna. 1
3. Respondent 6, after grant of the said EC, commenced mining operations. It was one of the conditions in EC that no mining operation shall be carried out without obtaining other requisite statutory consent/permission/NOC. In the present case, Project Proponent could not have proceeded with the mining activities without obtaining consent under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 from State PCB. In this case, no such consent was obtained and instead Project Proponent started mining operations illegally.
4. Learned Counsel for applicant also pointed out that the application for grant of consent to operate under Section 25/26 of Water Act, 1974 as amended from time to time has been rejected by State PCB vide order dated 11.10.2021. A copy of the order has been placed before us today itself and we find that three reasons have been given in the said order for rejection of the application, and the said reasons are:
"1. District Mines Officer, Shamli has been informed vide their letter dated 30.09.2021 that in the past, 117561 cubic meters of sand has been mined by the unit in a total of 112 days. The sand mining has been done by the unit without obtaining CTE/CTO from the State Board.
2. Industry has not obtained CTO for the earlier mining.
3. Industry has not submit the satisfactory compliance of the Environmental Clearance."
5. Project Proponent, M/s Shakumbari Mines is represented through Counsel namely, Ms. Pallavi Pratap, though, we have not issued notice and the matter has been listed today for admission but since respondent 6 is represented though Counsel, we have entertained and heard her also. She admits that respondent 6 started mining proceedings after receiving EC on 13.01.2021 and for some time, mining activities were carried out 2 though there was no consent issued to Project Proponent by State PCB under the provisions of Water Act and Air Act. She further stated that the mining activities, however, have been stopped by Project Proponent since June, 2021 and she seeks time to file response/reply on behalf of the Project Proponent.
6. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the applicant and also the stand taken by Project Proponent through Counsel. In our view, apparently Project Proponent has violated statutory environmental laws and a prima facie case has been made out giving rise to a substantial question relating to environment in regard to implementation of statutes under the Schedule to NGT Act, 2010.
7. Issue Notice to respondents 1 to 5 and 7 by email. We also give liberty to the applicant to serve a copy of the application upon all the Respondents except respondent 6, personally and file affidavit of service within three weeks. Since respondent 6 is already represented through Counsel, no further notice need be issued.
8. All the respondents may file their replies/response within one month after receipt of notice.
9. Further, we are informed that a similar issue has been raised in respect to the same proponent, though relating to other leases and the matter was considered by this Tribunal on 28.10.2021 in O.A. No. 249/2021, Daljeet Singh & Anr. vs. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Ors. In our view, this matter may also be heard along with above OA. Connect this matter with O.A. No. 249/2021.
3
10. In the meantime, we direct District Magistrate, Shamli and State PCB to ensure that respondent 6 does not carry out any mining activities without having a statutory consent/permission/NOC, until further orders.
List for further consideration on 27.01.2022.
A copy of this order be forwarded to District Magistrate, Shamli and State PCB by e-mail for compliance.
Sudhir Agarwal, JM Brijesh Sethi, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM November 01, 2021 Original Application No. 251/2021 (I.A. No. 189/2021) SN 4