Disposed

Jayashri Rajebhosale v. State of Goa

NGT15 Dec 2020Original Application No. 482/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal examined reports on illegal laterite mining in Goa. It found authorities failed to enforce laws and assessed compensation as inadequate. The Court directed the State PCB to reimburse the applicant's survey costs, formed a joint committee to reconcile mining figures, and ordered area restoration within three months.

What did the court decide?

State PCB directed to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to applicant for expenses; Joint Committee to reconcile figures and order restoration within three months.

Jayashri Rajebhosale vs State of Goa — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2020)

¶1

Item No. 03

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 482/2018 (M.A. No. 181/2018) (Earlier O.A. No. 37/2014 (WZ))

¶5

(With reports dated 17.03.2020, 09.10.2020 & 12.10.2020)

¶6

Jayashri Rajebhosale Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Goa & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 15.12.2020

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SATYAWAN SINGH GARBYAL, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

For Applicant: Mr. Parag Rao, Advocate For Respondent: Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Advocate for GSPCB

¶12

Ms. Fawia M. Mesquita, Advocate for R-1 to 6 Ms. Shilpa Pratap, Advocate for R-7 to 12 & 14

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This application seeks remedial action against illegal laterite stone mining activities in Village Maulinguem (N) in Goa and other consequential directions.

¶15

Averments in the application are that the Applicant is the co-owner of the land and made a complaint to the Director of Mines against illegal mining. The requisite Environmental Clearance was not obtained in terms of the MoEF&CC Notification dated 18.05.2012. The Deputy Collector issued show cause notice for stopping of the mining. Illegal mining was found by the Vigilance Department on 23.04.2013 which led

¶16

¶17

to issue of show cause notices and claim for recovery of Rs. 5,08,200/under the Goa, Daman and Diu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1985.

¶18

The application was filed before this Tribunal on 03.04.2014. Notices were issued to the opposite parties including the State of Goa, the Director of Mining, the Goa SEIAA, private individuals who are said to be engaged in mining, the Collector, the SP and the Sarpanch.

¶19

On 31.07.2014, the Tribunal noted that the machinery for mining was confiscated. Vide order dated 28.10.2014, the Tribunal observed that the illegally mined material may be confiscated. Further direction was issued on 04.12.2014 to estimate the value of the mined material and to recover penalty as per Rules. On 27.02.2015, National Institute of Technology (NIT), Goa was directed to give an estimate of the illegal mining. On 17.04.2015, similar direction was issued to the NIT, Karnataka, Surathkal.

¶20

Reply was filed by the Director of Mines on 05.12.2014 to the effect that a team inspected the site of illegal extraction of mines on 20.11.2013.

¶21

An additional affidavit was filed by the applicant on 01.12.2015 with a report of the NIT, Surathkal, Mangalore dated 13.10.2015. The applicant claims to have paid Rs. 1,14,000/- to the NIT for the work undertaken. The result in the report was as follows:-

¶22

“RESULTS

¶23

Details of estimation of volume of excavation from each cluster of pits (Annexure-II) are given in this report. As observed in the field, there were extensive alteration and change in land topography due to removal of laterite stones in this area. In some locations a huge dump waste is also evidenced near the pits (Annexure-III). The quantification of laterite stone extracted based on the standard size of stones is given below:

¶24

¶25

The total volume of extraction of laterite = 56149.162 m³

¶26

Volume after considering average wastage of 15 % = 47726.787 m³ (based on nature of rock)

¶27

Volume of each laterite brick =35 cm x 30 cm x 16 cm =0.0168 m³ Number of laterite stones excavated =2840880”

¶28

It was further stated that rate adopted by the Mining Department was Rs. 11 per stone and thus the compensation should be more than Rs. 3 crores i.e. Rs. 3,23,63,155/- and penalty should be 10 times as per Rule 63 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1985.

¶29

The individual private respondents filed a written submission on 17.02.2016 that the mining was started 40 years back outside the village for which all the co-owners are equally responsible. The private respondents were ancestors of Royal family of the village. Further affidavit has been filed on 01.12.2018 by the private respondents that the extent of illegal mining and valuation have been disputed.

¶30

The Applicant also filed Miscellaneous Application No. 181/2018 with the grievance that illegal mining was still going on. Raid was organized on 19.10.2018 and power tiller was detained on account of illegal mining and report dated 19.10.2018 was made by the Department of mining on this aspect. The penalty liable to be recovered in terms of orders dated 07.03.2017 and 20.04.2017 is Rs. 2.68 crores, which is not being effected, on account of collusion.

¶31

On 20.10.2019, the Tribunal reviewed the matter and directed a Committee of the SEIAA, the State PCB and the District Magistrate to inspect the area and file an updated status report.

¶32

¶33

Accordingly, the Goa State PCB filed its report on 17.03.2020 annexing the inspection report dated 11.11.2019 concluding as follows:-

¶34

“Conclusion and Recommendation:

¶35

1. From the office record, it was found that the quarry is operating without consent of the Board.

¶36

2. Since there is an evidence of laterite stone extraction and no permission has been obtained from GSPCB, it is proposed to issue directions under Polluter Pay Principle for operating without consent of the board.

¶37

3. This inspection report may be forwarded to the Office of the Dy. Collector, Bicholim Goa for reference and for taking necessary action.

¶38

4. This inspection report may be forwarded to the Directorate of Mines and Geology to take necessary action against the laterite stone quarries located at Ona Village and Curchirem Village of Bicholim Taluka.”

¶39

The report further mentions that order dated 08.01.2020 under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 have been passed which have been annexed, requiring the quarry operators to deposit Rs. 25,000/- for the damage.

¶40

On 12.10.2020, the Tribunal noted that from the record illegal mining was patent and the authorities had failed to enforce the Rule of Law. The assessment of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation was inadequate.

¶41

As per report of the Goa State PCB based on inspection on 09.10.2020, it is stated that the number of stones extracted is 822023 and as per NIT, Surathkal, the extent of extract excavation is 2840880. The conclusions and recommendations in the said report are quoted below:-

¶42

¶43

“Conclusion and Recommendation:

¶44

1. At the time of inspection of laterite stone quarries at Maulinguem, no active quarrying operations were observed.

¶45

2. It was observed that the laterite stone quarry pits have not been backfilled/reclaimed and were partially filled with water. Also scattered growth of vegetation was observed in the quarry pits.

¶46

3. As per the Directorate of Mines & Geology the number of laterite stones extracted from quarries is approximately 8,22,023 nos. and as per the survey conducted by NITK Surathkal the number of laterite stones extracted from quarries is approximately 28,40,880 nos.. Hence in order to assess the actual extraction of laterite stones a fresh survey may be undertaken through mining department of Goa Engineering College to identify the actual quantity of extraction of laterite stones and to ascertain environmental Compensation.

¶47

4. The area in question should be Bio-fenced immediately and to be backfilled.”

¶48

The report of the Goa SEIAA filed on 12.10.2020 is as follows:-

¶49

“ However there are approximately 44 pits in these Survey Numbers with average height of pit ranging from 0.5 mts to 3 mts. In Survey Number 70/4 partly backfilling has been carried out and also plantation has been carried out. It is evident that extraction of laterite has been carried out in all the Survey Numbers mentioned above earlier.

¶50

This extraction of laterite stones has been carried out earlier is without obtaining prior Environmental Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority.

¶51

The site requires to be restored to its original by carrying out backfilling. The necessary The Google images and the photographs at the site are annexed herewith.”

¶52

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel

¶53

for the applicant submitted that the report of the NIT, Surathkal should be the basis for proceeding further. Compensation for illegal mining should be as per Rules. He further points out that he has paid fees for the work executed by the NIT appointed by this Tribunal. He has raised

¶54

¶55

the issue in public interest to enforce the law to check illegal mining and needs to be atleast reimbursed the costs incurred.

¶56

Learned Counsel for the State PCB also fairly stated that the said report should be accepted. She, however, suggests that a fresh evaluation be made in view of conflicting figures of the extent of mining. Learned Counsel for the private respondents submitted that extraction has been carried out by labour class and nobody is in the position to pay the amount of compensation sought to be recovered.

¶57

From the above, we find that the authorities failed to check illegal mining and remedial measures must now be taken expeditiously. The fee paid to NIT by the applicant and other expenses incurred should be reimbursed by the Goa State PCB as compliance of law is the responsibility of the Goa State PCB. The study was undertaken under the orders of this Tribunal. The applicant cannot be required to bear that cost. The State PCB may thus pay an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to cover the amount of fees paid by the applicant as well as the other expenses incurred by the applicant in pursuing these proceedings within one month.

¶58

In view of patent illegal extraction of laterite stone, even without environmental clearance, joint Committee of the State PCB, the SEIAA and the District Magistrate (with the State PCB as the nodal agency) need to review the entire proceedings and, after reconciling the figures of the illegal mining, ought to take further action in accordance with the law, within three months. The applicant will be at liberty to make the representation to the State PCB within one month from today.

¶59

¶60

The application will stand disposed of accordingly along with the pending Miscellaneous applications, if any.

¶61

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP

¶62

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Dr. S.S. Garbyal, EM

¶63

Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM

¶64

December 15, 2020 Original Application No. 482/2018 (M.A. No. 181/2018) (Earlier O.A. No. 37/2014 (WZ)) SN

¶65

Jayashri Rajebhosale v. State of Goa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayashri Rajebhosale v. State of Goa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devineni Rajasekhar vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its Principal Secretary to Government Industries & Commerce (Mines) Departmentn

Tirumalasetti Srinivass/O Tirumalasetti Rambabu vs 1. Government of India Rep by Its Secretary

Bombay Environment Action Group vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Praveen Kumar Singh vs Damodar Valley Corporation

Sudhir Singh Rana vs .

Chandra Bhal Singh vs Union of India

Residents of Antrikishkanball 3G vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Ashish Rohildas Shinde vs Lonavala Municipal Council

Ramdevbhai Samatbhai Sanjva vs State of Gujarat

Bombay Environment Action Group vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Bombay Environment Action Group vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Mr. Ram Baban Borkar vs Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra

Dillip Kumar Samantaray vs State of Odisha

Court on Its Own Motion vs State of Karnataka