Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The appellants would further add that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (C ) Nos. 19628-19629 of 2009 has observed that the quarrying of river sand, it is true, is an important economic activity in the country with river sand forming crucial raw material for the infrastructural development and for the construction industry but excessive in-stream sand and gravel mining causes the degradation of rivers. In-stream mining lowers the stream bottom of rivers which may lead to bank erosion. Depletion of sand in the stream bed and along coastal areas cause deepening of rivers which may result in the destruction of aquatic and riparian habitats as well. Extraction of alluvial material as already mentioned from within or near a stream bed has a direct impact on the stream's physical habitat and characteristics. It is highly necessary to have an effective framework of mining plan which will take care of environmental issues and also evolve a long term rational and sustainable use of natural resources base and also the bio-assessment protocol. Sand mining may have an adverse effect on bio- diversity as loss of habitat caused by sand mining will affect various species, flora and fauna and it may also destabilize the soil structure of river banks and often leave isolated islands. Taking note of those technical, scientific and environmental aspects the MoEF issued various recommendations in March 2010 followed by the model rules in 2010 framed by the Ministry of Mines which have to be given effect to, inculcating the spirit of Articles 48A, 21A(g) read with Article 21 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Apex Court went on further to order that the leases of minor mineral including their renewal for an area of less than 5 ha be granted by the State Governments/Union Territories only after getting EC from the MoEF. That being so, the 2 nd respondent without any rationale, has classified the projects in the absence of any guidelines from the MoEF The impugned clearances have been granted without consideration of any relevant factors and without considering the extent of environmental damage that will result as a consequence of such mining in the area.

21. The sand mining operation by the 4th Respondent department has not affected the ground water and the statement that it leads to water scarcity is a farfetched imaginary statement and the 2nd respondent has not granted any lenience to this respondent and in fact all the required rules and regulations have been followed. Further, the 2nd respondent SEIAA has given EC for sand quarry with all effort to protect the environmental and ecological balance by getting all the required data through State Level Expert Appraisal Committee and after taking into consideration the merits and demerits and it is also to be considered that the sand is important raw material for infrastructure development of the State and people will get the sand at affordable price. The respondent would reiterate that based on the orders of the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in its orders dated 03/8/2012 in W.P. (MD) No.4699 of 2012 and batch cases, necessary applications were made to the 2nd respondent and after having following the procedure in accordance with law, the ECs were granted. In case the appellants had any grievance, they could have challenged the orders in the writ petition or at least at the time of processing the application. However, the appellants chose to remain silent and suddenly woke up and to prove that the above appeal is motivated and filed at the instigation of interested parties.

26. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Deepak Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others reported in AIR 2012, SC 1386, the counsel would submit that quarrying of river sand is an important economic activity in the country with river sand forming a crucial raw material for infrastructural development and for the construction industry, but the excessive in-stream sand and gravel mining causes degradation of rivers and sand mining might have an adverse effect on bio-diversity as loss of habitat caused by sand mining will effect various species and flora and fauna and it might also destabilize the soil structure of river banks and often leaves isolated islands. The counsel also took the Tribunal to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in M.K. Janardhanam vs. The District Collector (Contempt Application No. 561 of 2001 in W.P.No. 985 of 2000) speaking about illicit quarrying of sand in Thiruvallur District. The effect of excessive, illegal quarrying without proper assessment of the risks and impact would have adverse effects on the ecosystem. And thus while granting licenses the local people should be taken into confidence. They should be allowed to air their views and raise objections. But, in the instant case public objections were not even considered while granting the impugned clearances. Indiscriminate sand mining without assessing the carrying capacity of the area and the environment and without a holistic and comprehensive assessment of the impact of mining is contrary to the Principles of Sustained Development and Precautionary Principles. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Research Foundation for Science Technology and Natural Resources Policy vs. Union of India (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 852), has reaffirmed the 'Precautionary Principle' and 'Polluters-Pay' principles are part of the concept of Sustainable Development. The applications of those principles are well settled and they govern the law in our country as is clear from Articles 47, 48-A and 51-A (g) of the Constitution of India. The above concepts are already imbibed in various environmental statutes including the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short ' EPA,1986). The learned counsel would further submit that the grant of ECs by the 2nd respondent to 4th respondent is against the Principles of Inter- generational Equity and Sustainable Development and also against the Public Trust Doctrine. . In order to substantiate his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions:

The concept of 'sustainable development' finds support in various decisions of the Court in 1995 (3) SCC 363 [State of H.P. v. Ganesh Wood Products]; 1997 (2) SCC 653 [M.C.Mehta v. Union of India]; 2002 (10) SCC 664 [Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India] and (2006) 3 SCC 549 [Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and others].

50. We need to balance between economic and social needs on the one hand with environmental consideration on the other hand. Sand is required for construction of houses to the poor, implementation of welfare schemes and infrastructure development activities. If the sand quarry operation is to be stopped abruptly, the developmental activities and implementation of various welfare schemes of the Government would come to a stand-still. In the State of Tamil Nadu, sand quarry operations are being carried out by the Public Works Department, perhaps with a bonafide impression that environmental clearance is not necessitated in view of the unique feature that Public Works Department itself is operating the sand quarries. Sufficient time is to be granted to the State Government/Public Works Department to approach the Authorities for obtaining mandated environmental clearance and in the mean while, we are of the considered view that certain sand quarries as indicated infra are to be continued to be operated for a period of three months. "