Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Petitioner is presently operating a granite quarry in the property located in survey nos 575/1-3-6-2 and 581/1-5-7 of the Konni Thazham Village after obtaining all necessary licenses from the concerned authorities including 'Environmental Clearance' (EC) issued by 1 st respondent and has been running the said quarry under the name and style 'Chengalathu Quarry Industries'. The EC originally granted was extended as per Ext.P1 which is valid till 27.12.2024. But a perusal of Ext.P1 would show that the EC has been granted for an area of 3.1473 hectares in survey nos 575/1-3-6- 2 and 581/1-5-7 of the Konni Thazham Village though originally EC has been granted for a larger area. On 30.11.2020, the petitioner submitted an online application in the prescribed manner before the 1st respondent seeking EC for expansion of quarry to an extent of 0.9900 hectares under 'B2' Category within the above said larger area for which the EC was originally granted. Along with the application, necessary documents including Ext.P2 certificate were produced. Ext.P2 certificate would show that three quarries are functioning within 500 metres of the quarry project now applied for by the petitioner. The issue was considered by the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (hereinafter referred to as "SEAC") in its 136th Meeting and a perusal of Ext.P3 minutes of the said meeting revealed that SEAC has recommended for issuance of EC. Petitioner submits that before taking a decision as per Ext.P3, SEAC has earlier sought details regarding the cluster situation from the petitioner as is evident from Ext.P3(a) minutes of the 124 th Meeting and the said details were furnished by the petitioner as per Ext.P3(b). Ext.P3 decision of the SEAC was considered by the 1st respondent State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred to as "SEIAA" in its meeting on 27th and 28th January 2023. Ext.P4 minutes of the said meeting would show that the 1st respondent has arrived at a conclusion that (i). the proposal attracts cluster condition; (ii). the proponent has to apply for Terms of Reference (ToR) for the expansion project since it attracts cluster condition; (iii). to submit a Single Mine Plan for the lease areas;

and (iv). to produce Certified Compliance Report (CCR) from IRO, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India (MoEF&CC). Accordingly, the application submitted by the petitioner was again placed before SEAC. Petitioner submits that the aspects pointed out in Exhibit P4 is legally untenable and are quite contrary to the Notifications evidenced by Exts.P5 and P6 issued by the MoEF&CC. As per Ext.P5, the cluster condition will arise only with respect to the lease granted on or after 09.09.2013. Ext.P6 would show that no Single Mine Plan is required for an area of less than 5 hectares. Petitioner contends that 0.90 hectares of lease area covered under Lease No.843/2011- 12/516/M3/12/DMG dated 06.03.2012 and 2.10 hectares of lease area covered under Lease No.68/2012- 13/2664/M3/12/DMG dated 27.04.2012 referred to in Ext.P2 cannot be counted for the purpose of 'cluster condition'. Petitioner would further submit that the total area in respect of EC originally granted on 31.10.2013 is for 4.8493 hectares. Therefore, relying on paragraph 6 of Appendix XI read with paragraph 5 of the Note to Appendix XI of EIA Notification, 2006 it is contended that these areas cannot be counted for calculating cluster area. It is further submitted that the quarry project of the petitioner is only a "B2" category project having less than 5 hectares of lease area and as per Paragraph 7(II)(2)(ii) of EIA Notification, 2006, no Scoping/ToR is required. There is also no requirement for any 'Public Hearing' as per paragraph 7(III)(3)(f) of EIA Notification, 2006 and for the said reason, 'Single Mine Plan' is not required and Area Specific Mine Plan alone would suffice. Petitioner further contended that necessary CCR from MoEF&CC is obtained as is evident from Ext.P7. Pointing out all these aspects, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation before the 1st respondent requesting them to reconsider Ext.P4 in the light of Exts.P5, P6 and P7. Petitioner would further submit that based on Ext.P4 decision of the 1 st respondent the SEAC in its 139th meeting resolved to entrust to one Smt.Beena Govindan to prepare a consolidated note on various aspects of the application submitted by the petitioner as per Ext.P9 decision. In the 141 st meeting of SEAC, the application submitted by the petitioner was considered and the petitioner was directed to submit CCR and comprehensive EMP as per Ext.P10 decision. Later on the document produced by the petitioner in terms of Ext.P10 was considered by the SEAC in its 144th meeting and the petitioner was further asked to integrate comprehensive EMP and CCR/CER as per Ext.P11 decision. After considering all these in the 147 th meeting of SEAC evidenced by Ext.P12 minutes they decided to recommend to the 1 st respondent to grant EC to the petitioner. But the 1 st respondent in its 131st meeting without referring to Exts.P9 to P12 directed that the petitioner has to apply for ToR as is evident from Ext.P13 minutes. It is aggrieved by the same petitioner has approached this Court. Petitioner submits that the decision as is evident from Ext.P13 has been taken on a wrong understanding of the judgment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in Satendra Pandey v. Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change & Another, (O.A.No.186 of 2016).

4. Heard the rival contentions of both sides.

5. The main contention of the petitioner is that the original application was only seeking EC for the expansion of a quarry to an area of 0.9900 hectares under "B2" category within an area for which EC has already been granted as per Ext P1. By Ext.P4, SEIAA considered the request of the petitioner and directed SEAC to reconsider the recommendation of its 136th meeting regarding the issuance of EC and also to verify the applicability of NGT order. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue regarding cluster condition will not arise in the present case. Based on Ext.P2 certificate it is contended that lease for 0.90 hectares of land was issued on 06.03.2012 and as regards 2.10 hectares of land, the lease was granted on 27.04.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on paragraph 6 of Appendix XI of EIA notification would contend that a cluster will be formed when the distance between the peripheries of one lease is less than 500 metres from the periphery of other lease which shall be applicable to mine leases or quarry licences granted on and after 09.09.2013 and therefore two of the leases granted was prior to the said cut off date, those leases cannot be treated for considering that a cluster has been formed. Yet another contention raised by the petitioner is that by Ext.P12, the SEAC has recommended for grant of EC to the petitioner after conducting a thorough study through an expert and on finding that two of the leases were granted prior to the cut- off date and the proposed quarry will not attract cluster condition. It is contended that it is after remitting the matter once to SEAC for reconsideration that Ext.P12 decision was taken to recommend for grant of EC. Without adverting to the recommendation of the SEAC, solely based on the judgment of the NGT in Satendra Pandey's case cited supra and on finding that there are few other quarries within 500-metre radius, all together the area will be more than 5 hectares, resulting in a cluster situation. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent failed in not following the SEAC recommendation in favour of the petitioner and that no valid reasons have been stated to overturn the said recommendation. Petitioner would further submit that even in Satendra Pandey's case, Appendix XI of EIA notification has not been interfered with and going by paragraph 6 of Appendix XI, the leases existing prior to the cut off date cannot be taken into consideration for forming a cluster situation. Though in Satendra Pandey's case, the NGT has held that public consultation for areas from 5 to 25 hectares falling under Category B2 to be in par with Category B1 as well as for cluster situation wherever it is not provided. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent would contend that whenever there is a cluster situation, all the criteria as directed in Ext.P13 decision will have to be followed. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Section 8 of the EIA notification 2006 would submit that the regulatory authority, the 1st respondent shall normally accept the recommendations of SEAC and in case it disagrees with the recommendation, the matter has to be remitted back stating the reason for disagreement and after considering the views expressed by the SEIAA after the remand, a decision has to be taken by the 1s respondent which shall be final. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India, (2019) 15 SCC 401 would submit that SEAC is an expert body and the reason stated by the SEAC constitutes a live link between its processes and the outcome of its adjudicatory function. On the strength of the same, it is contended that if the 1 st respondent takes a contrary view rejecting the expert report of SEAC, then reasons should have been assigned for discarding the specific recommendations of SEAC. Yet another contention raised by the petitioner is that going by Ext.P2, period of lease granted on 06.03.2012 has already expired and in the said circumstance there is no cluster condition now and the project has to be considered as one under B2 category with an area less than 5 hectares. The SEAC has considered the application submitted by the petitioner and recommended for grant of EC. SEAC is an expert body and the reason stated by the SEAC constitutes a live link between its processes and the outcome of its adjudicatory function as held by the Apex Court in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar's case cited supra. A perusal of Ext.P13 would reveal that no reasons have been stated to take a different view to overlook the well-considered recommendation of an expert body. This court is of the opinion that if the 1st respondent takes a decision contrary to the recommendation of SEAC, they ought to have stated cogent reasons in Ext.P13 as to why the recommendation of the expert body cannot be accepted. Further, the specific contention of the petitioner and the recommendation of SEAC that there is no formation of any cluster situation going by paragraph 6 of Appendix XI of EIA notification and that the NGT in Satendra Pandey's case has not invalidated Appendix XI of EIA notification has not been properly considered while taking Ext.P13 decision. Yet another crucial aspect to be considered is the expiry of a lease mentioned in Ext.P2 certificate which was granted on 06.03.2012, whereby making the extent of land, admittedly below 5 hectares.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE cks APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8820/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE BEARING NO.

                        77/SEIAA/KL/172/2013 DATED 28-12-2019
Exhibit P2              TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE BEARING
                        NO. 943/DOPTA/M/2019 DATED 07-04-2022
                        ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3              TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
                        MINUTES OF THE 136TH MEETING OF SEAC
Exhibit P3(a)           TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
                        MINUTES OF THE 124TH MEETING OF SEAC
Exhibit P3(b)           TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 18-
                        04-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
                        BEFORE THE SEAC THOUGH 1ST RESPONDENT
                        (WITHOUT ANNEXURE)
Exhibit P4              TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
                        MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE 1ST
                        RESPONDENT ON 27&28 JANUARY, 2023
Exhibit P5              TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
                        NOTIFICATION BEARING SO NO. 2269(E)
                        DATED 01-07-2016 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY
                        OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE
                        CHANGE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Exhibit P6              TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
                        NOTIFICATION BEARING SO NO. 3977(E)
                        DATED 14-08-2018 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY
                        OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE
                        CHANGE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Exhibit P7              TRUE COPY OF THE E-FILE BEARING NO.
                        12.1/SEIAA/2013-14/16/KER/1351 DATED
                        24-02-2023 ISSUED BY THE IRO OF MOEF
                        &CC
Exhibit P8              TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
                        08-03-2023  SUBMITTED  BY   PETITIONER



                        BEFORE THE    1ST   RESPONDENT   (WITHOUT
                        ENCLOSURES)
Exhibit P9              TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
                        MINUTES OF THE 139TH MEETING OF SEAC
Exhibit P10             TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
                        MINUTES OF THE 141ST MEETING OF SEAC
Exhibit P11             TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
                        MINUTES OF THE 144TH MEETING OF SEAC
Exhibit P12             TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
                        MINUTES OF THE 147TH MEETING OF SEAC
Exhibit P13             TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
                        MINUTES OF THE 131ST MEETING OF 1ST
                        RESPONDENT - SEIAA
Exhibit P14             True copy of the sketch approved by the
                        District Geologist appended with the
                        mining plan submitted before the 1st
                        respondent