Quashed

Pramod v. State of Uttar Pradesh

NGT11 Mar 2022Appeal No. 23/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal quashed an Environmental Clearance granted by SEIAA, UP for sand mining on the Yamuna riverbed. The Tribunal held the clearance illegal as the Statutory Condition of a one-year validity period and the requirement for a replenishment study were not fulfilled per sand mining guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Environmental Clearance quashed; mining already conducted declared illegal; consequences to be determined by SEIAA and State PCB.

Pramod vs State of Uttar Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2022)

¶1

(Court No.01)

¶2

Item No. 07

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

(By Video Conferencing)

Appeal No. 23/2021

Pramod Appellant

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

Date of hearing: 11.03.2022

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶12

Applicant: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate

¶13

Respondent: Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocate for UPPCB

¶14

Mr. Neeraj Jain, Advocate for M/s Shanti Enterprises

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This appeal has been preferred against order dated 17.09.2021 granting Environmental Clearance (EC) by SEIAA, U.P. for Sand/Bajri/Boulder mining from Yamuna riverbed at Gata No. 1/1/1, Laat No. 38, village Nuniyari Aehatmal, Tehsil Behat, Saharanpur, U.P. - M/s. Shanti Enterprises, Area-24.29 ha.

¶17

Main contention in support of the appeal is that requisite replenishment study has not been conducted before grant of EC which was required under the law, as held by this Tribunal vide order dated 06.04.2021 in OA No. 90/2020, Pramod v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. filed by the appellant. The appellant has also relied upon Chapter 5 of the Sand Mining Guidelines, 2020 issued by MoEF&CC to the effect that

¶18

¶19

sand mining can be permitted only after conducting replenishment study. The appellant has also raised issue of validity of Cluster Certificate dated 16.09.2020, absence of permission for extracting ground water, Consent to Establish from the State PCB under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, mining being permitted within the river and absence of due diligence about the background of project proponent (PP).

¶20

Vide order dated 21.10.2021, this Tribunal sought a response on the above issue from the PP and the SEIAA, UP.

¶21

In pursuance of above, the response has been filed by SEIAA, UP as well as Respondent No. 11 - PP. The stand of SEIAA, UP filed on 10.03.2022 acknowledges that no replenishment study has been undertaken even though this aspect was considered while granting EC. Once there was no replenishment study there could not be EC as per Sand Mining Guidelines, 2020 issued by the MoEF&CC under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Relevant extract from the response of the SEIAA is reproduced below:-

¶22

“ 8. Subsequently, the case was considered in 482th SEIAA Meeting 12.08.2021 wherein, SEIAA agreed with the recommendation of the SEAC meeting dated 09.07.2021 to grant EC along with all the general and specific conditions to the title proposal, It become necessary to mention here that SEIAA also stipulated the following specific conditions:

¶23

1. DSR lacks in replenishment study thus SEIAA decided to grant EC for a period of one year only. Project proponent should submit replenishment study, duly approved by the competent authority, for extension of EC beyond one year .

¶24

2. Directions/suggestions given during public hearing and commitment made by the project proponent should be strictly complied.

¶25

3. A certificate from Forest Department shall be obtained that no forest land is involved and if forest land is involved the project proponent shall obtain the forest

¶26

¶27

clearance and permission of Central and State Government as per law under the provisions of Forest (conservation) Act, 1980 and submit before the start of work.

¶28

4. The mining lease holders shall, after ceasing mining operations, undertake re-grassing the mining area and any other area which may have been disturbed due to their mining activities and restore the land to a condition which is fit for growth of fodder, flora fauna etc.

¶29

5. Three tier green shelter belt of 7.5m width should be developed on the periphery of mine lease area. Local and native species should be planted in consultation with Forest/Horticulture Department/Agriculture University.

¶30

6. If the proposed project is situated in notified area of ground water extraction, where creation of new wells for ground water extraction is not allowed, requirement of fresh water shall be met from alternate water sources other than ground water or legally valid source and permission from the competent authority shall be obtained to use it.

¶31

Concerned copy of minutes, dated: 12.08.2021 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.05.

¶32

9. Further, SEIAA, vide letter no. 193/Parya/SEIAA/62665850/2021 dated: 17.09.2021 issued Environment Clearance for the proposed project. Concerned copy of Environment Clearance letter, dated: 17.09.2021 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 06.”

¶33

The stand of the PP in a tabular form is as follows:-

¶34

“ *Observations/* *response*	*Response* of *Answering*
*sought* in *order* *dated* *21.10.2021*	*Respondent as it was on the* *date* of *Hon’ble* *Tribunal’s* *observations*
*1. Chapter 5 of the Sand* *Mining* *Guidelines,* *2020* *issued by MoEF&CC mandate* *that River bed sand mining* be *permitted* *only* *after* *conducting a replenishment* *study as per the procedure* *prescribed* *therein.* No *replenishment* *study* *has* *been* *conducted* on *River* *Yamuna* in *District* *Saharanpur till date.*	*1. The EC has been issued in* *favour of respondent only for* *1 year with Specific Condition* *–cluster 1 thereof read as* *under:-* *“DSR* *lacks* in *replenishment* *study* *thus* *SEIAA decided to grant EC for* *a period of one year only. PP* *should submit replenishment* *study, duly approved by the* *competent* *authority,* *for* *extension of EC beyond one* *year”.*
	*2.Further,* *SEIAA* in *compliance to Chief Secretary* *letter dated 09.09.2021 in* *compliance* to *NGT* *order* *dated* _26.02.2021 _ in _OA _

¶35

¶36

	*360/2015 has already passed* *resolution* *that* *“due* to *uncertainty and to avoid any* *critical condition SEIAA is* *granting* EC *only* *for* *one* *year.”* *3. Further, State of UP in M.A.* *No.* *36/2021* 86 *M.A.* *No.* *37/2021 has already updated* *NGT that "study is underway* *and will be completed soon* *and mining will be allowed* *consistent* *therewith"* *copy* *annexed as Annexure G.* *4. The project proponent has* *conducted* *replenishment* *study as per the T&C of EC* *and* *submitted* to *SEIAA,* *District Magistrate and DGM* *which is pending review.*
2. That previously also Environmental Clearance was	The allegation is baseless and not-related to Respondent.
issued in respect of the same mining site at village Nuniyari District, Saharanpur. That environmental clearance was challenged before this Hon’ble Tribunal in Appeal No. 258/2018 (Sunil Kumar v. State of UP & Ors.) where vide order dated 29.03.2019, the Tribunal recorded the submission of the State that it would recall the Environmental clearance. This aspect has been completely ignored by UP SEIAA.	1. The recalled EC belonged to previous lease holder. The recalled EC has not been transferred. The lease in favour of previous lease holder was also cancelled by DM Saharanpur. 2. Thereafter, lease was published afresh for e-auction on by District Administration Saharanpur and Respondent was found capable fulfilling all the requirements hence, eventually granted LoI being the highest bidder.
	3. The Respondent has secured fresh EC by SEIAA, UP as per the provisions of EIA Notification-2006 (as amended).
3. Cluster Certificate dt. 16.09.2020 is false since:	1. The allegation is outrightly baseless made without regard to actual site position Further
a. It says that no lot exists	. , appellant herein is no expert in
within 500 meters when in fact	the field and there is plausible
Lot No. 37, Village Naniyari is	field and there is plausible
djt	whatsoever to refer his
aacen.	p imaination based on his
b. Certificate falsely states that	g delusional thought process.
no EC had earlier been issued
for this Lot when in fact EC had earlier been issued.	2. It is innately laughable to _even _ imagine that maps

¶37

¶38

	prepared by appellant (as stated in para ‘E’ at pg. 15) should be relied or preferred instead of official maps prepared by Government. 3. The cluster certificate has been issued as per the format approved by SEIAA, UP. Which clearly states that there is no lease approved in terms of Lol and neither is under operation with 500 meter periphery of lease belonging to Respondent.
	4. The Lot No. 37 is non- operation and is under possession of State Government which has not been allocated to any lease holder. 5. The project has been appraised by SEIAA, UP under B1 Category. 6. The definition of cluster is amply clear in EIA Notification- 2006 (and subsequent amendments).
4. No permission obtained for extraction of ground water. The EC itself states that 15,782 litres of water/day is required for mining operations. (refer to Sr. No. 27 of the EC)	The allegation is completely baseless and mis-leading. 1. The Respondent has not commenced mining operation as on the date of filing appeal. However, certain clarifications have been issued by the concerned authorities, thereafter and those would be adhered to fully. 2. The Respondent secured EC on 17.09.2021 and the lease deed has been duly executed in favour of the answering respondent. 3. The Respondent has already obtained all the requisite permissions (CTE & CTO) under Air & Water Acts and so also assent of Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) and did not start mining. The necessary permission are annexed with the instant reply.
	4. The Respondent _further _

¶39

¶40

	submits that since the project is under the notified area of groundWater extraction, it shall explore alternate valid source of water demand through hiring tankers. which would also generate employment of local villagers in consultation with concerned Gram Pradhan.
5. No consent to operate obtained from the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board	The answering respondent has already secured all the required permissions from UPPCB and CGWA (Annexure-E,D & F) and despite that it did not commenced mining operation.
6. River Yamuna flows right through the centre of the mining area. It is submitted that while mining is permitted on the river bed but no mining area can contain a portion of the River itself.	1. It is submitted that the course (drainage pattern) of river Yamuna has a fluctuating tendency in Behat Tehsil of Saharanpur due to its peculiar geo-morphological conditions. the river keeps shifting season by season and is spread into small, big channels while it flows. 2. The dry river bed itself becomes part of entire action water channel in monsoon season when replenishment occurs. 3. The mining shall be done in dry river bed as per the provisions of approved Mining Plan, SSMG- 2016 Guidelines, EMSM-2020 Guidelines and General Condition Clause No. 6 & Specific Condition Clause No. 55.
7. No due diligence conducted by U.P. SEIAA on the background of project proponent. Mr. Rajeev Bhatia, Partner of the Project proponent, is a habitual defaulter and his earlier sand mining operations at Village Rehna, District Saharanpur conducted through his brother were stopped pursuant to order dt. 06.04.2021 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 09/2020	1. The allegation is malicious, made out of spite, fabricated and baseless and is non-environmental subject. Further, apart from the infantile nature of allegation and deduction sought by appellant, it is trite that no person can be held responsible for an action of his family member. 2. Moreover, the character certificates of Respondents were duly scrutinized and validated during evaluation of e-tender by district administration. ”

¶41

From the above it remains undisputed that EC has been granted without replenishment study which is sought to be defended that the

¶42

¶43

same is only for one year to be extended only if replenishment study is completed before that.

¶44

Learned counsel for the PP instead of focusing on the point of effect of absence of replenishment study, which is mandatory under norms, sought to argue on locus and bonafides of the appellant which are not relevant in view of patent illegality in EC granted in favour of PP.

¶45

Accordingly the impugned EC will stand quashed without prejudice to fresh EC being granted after following due process of law. The mining already conducted is illegal and consequences of such illegality may be appropriately determined and enforced by the SEIAA, UP and State PCB, after hearing the PP, within one month from today.

¶46

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶47

A copy of this order be forwarded to the SEIAA, UP and State PCB by e-mail for compliance.

¶48

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP

¶49

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶50

Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶51

March 11, 2022 Appeal No. 23/2021 A

¶52

Pramod v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Budhsen Rathour vs Union of India

Ramesh Agarwal vs Union of India through Its Secretary

Tejas S Rao vs State of Karnataka

Rafikan vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation

Ankush Arora vs Chandigarh Pollution Control Committee

Ramiro Mascarenhas vs State of Goa

M/S Manisha Construction Co. vs Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Gregorio Judy Fernandes Alias Bruno Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Anish vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

News Item Published in the Tribune Dated 22.02.2022 Titled "7 Killed in Blast at Firecrackers Factory in Himachal Una" vs

Satish Chander Singh vs Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board

Behari Lal Chaturvedi vs Ministry of Jal Shakti

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 18/2022 in Original Application No. 46/2018 of Nuggehalli Jayasimha vs Government of NCT of Delhi Urban Development

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 19/2022 in Original Application No. 46/2018 of Nuggehalli Jayasimha vs Government of NCT of Delhi Urban Development