Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. A common question of law and fact has been raised in all these appeals thus are being decided by a common order.

2. Challenge in all these appeals is the order granting the Environmental Clearance (EC) or transfer of EC in violation of procedure established by law and that while transferring the EC the provision under Clause XI of the EIA Notification 2006 were not followed.

A. Brief facts:

Case set out by the appellants is that Madhya Pradesh Sand Mining Rules, 2019 were introduced on 30th August, 2019 by the State of Madhya Pradesh wherein every districts, it was required to have its own contractor or a group of contractors to carry out sand excavation from the declared and demarcated sand queries. Thereafter in the month of October 2019 the notice inviting tenders were floated by the state of Madhya Pradesh in 43 districts of Madhya Pradesh and after acceptance of the technical bid and financial bid, the group contractors/successful tenders were appointed for these 43 districts. Under rule 12 of the Sand Mining policy of 2019, the statutory permissions/formalities for each sand quarry of the group were required to be obtained by the successful tender after which the sand mining operations were to be started in the state of Madhya Pradesh. The statutory permissions include mining plan, environment clearance, consent from the board etc.

3. For grant of fresh environment clearance and the transfer of existing environment clearance, applications were made by the successful tenders before MPSEIAA, which is a body constituted solely for the purposes of considering the environment clearance as per the EIA notification issued by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. After an application for grant of fresh environment clearance portal for transfer of the existing environmental clearance is made to MPSEIAA, MPSEAC is required to carry out technical scrutiny of the applications. After the recommendations from the appraisal committee of MPSEAC, the application for EC is referred back to MPSEIAA, which shall have the final authority of granting or rejecting the environment clearance. It becomes pertinent to mention here that the minutes of meeting of MPSEAC and MPSEIAA are available online on the web portal of MPSEIAA and that on analyzing the minutes of meeting and comparing the same with the information of sand quarries mentioned in the tender document, it was realized that out of 409 environmental clearances granted by MPSEIAA to the successful tenderers for excavation of sand from their respective sand quarries, there are discrepancies in 222 number of environmental clearances.

IV. Whether the mining can be permitted in excess of the area (Khasra and rakba) more than mentioned in the tender documents or in environment clearance.

V. Whether the mining can be permitted in excess of the quantity mentioned in the tender document.

VI. The quantity of sand which has already been excavated over a sand quarry which was belonging to the previous lease holder has not been subtracted while transferring the environment clearance in favour of the successful tender.

30. In light of the settled proposition of law in Goa Foundation vs. Union of India 2014 (6) SCC 738 before transferring EC, environmental status of the sand quarry has to be ascertained. Transfer of EC without taking the environmental considerations into account is brazen breach of law and abetment of destructive practices of sand mining.

The issue is decided accordingly.

Issue 3, 4 and 5

31. The contention of the Applicant/Appellants are that there are discrepancies in the quantity of sand mining sand quarry mentioned in the tender document and that is different in the Environment clearance granted for the specific quarry and the area (Khasra and Rakba) of the sand quarry mentioned in tender document is different in the Environmental Clearance granted for that specific sand quarries and that quantity over which environmental clearance is granted for a specific sand quarry is much above the quantity for which tender was floated over that specific sand quarry. The applicant in Original application No. 96 of 2020 has attached list A-1 (Para-4) which shows the discrepancies in number of mines and list annexure A-3 (Para-5) which shows that excess EC was granted as compared to NIT and there are certain number of mines for which EC was not granted. The list contains 33 numbers including the details of the districts and no detailed reply has been submitted by the MPSEIAA. During the course of hearing of Original Application this Tribunal constituted Committee of Expert members of State Authorities and after examination of some of the records they have filed a detailed chart in which it was found that there were discrepancies in the area of the lease mine and also in the quantity to be excavated. The list attached with the Joint Committee Report (F) shows mismatch not only the area but also in the quantity of sand to be excavated. Considering the discrepancies mentioned in the NIT and the EC granted the state has taken its decision to cancel the contract and a list has been submitted with the detail of 31 appeals/matter (Para 16, 18) relating to district Chhatarpur, Hosangabad and Panna where the lease has been cancelled or handed over and thus it is said that the appeal in these matters are infructuous. Though on the grounds mentioned above, the appeals no. Appeal No. 25/2021, Appeal No. 27/2021, Appeal No. 31/2021, Appeal No. 37/2021, Appeal No. 60/2021, Appeal No. 49/2021, Appeal No. 48/2021, Appeal No. 30/2021, Appeal No. 42/2021, Appeal No. 39/2021, Appeal No. 45/2021, Appeal No. 69/2021, Appeal No. 29/2021, Appeal No. 50/2021, Appeal No. 36/2021, Appeal No. 41/2021, Appeal No. 35/2021, Appeal No. 32/2021, Appeal No. 02/2021, Appeal No. 05/2021, Appeal No. 38/2021, Appeal No. 34/2021, Appeal No. 33/2021, Appeal No. 03/2021, Appeal No. 04/2021, Appeal No. 51/2021, Appeal No. 53/2021, Appeal No. 57/2021 Appeal No. 54/2021, Appeal No. 64/2021, Appeal No. 55/2021 stands disposed of as being infructuous but the points for determination that there is mismatch in the production capacity mentioned in the Notice inviting Tender and the Environmental Clearance and the quantity of sand quarry mentioned in the tender document is different in the Environmental Clearance granted for specific sand quarry and there is Khasra and rakba which were not made clear and there is change in the Khasra no. and also the quantity of the sand mining and all these mining lease where there is change of Khasra no. and increase in the quantity to be excavated are in violation of environmental rules, intended to defeat or defraud the provisions of environmental rules. We direct the MPSEIAA and MPSEAC to refrain themselves from issuing any further EC without actually carrying out the Environment Impact Assessment of the sand quarry and carry out the technical scrutiny of the same.