Dismissed

Ramakant Kourav v. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Mpseiaa) through Secretary

NGT28 Mar 2022Appeal No. 74/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two appeals against transfers of Environmental Clearances for sand quarries in Madhya Pradesh. The single bench held that per Goa Foundation, the prohibition distance is governed by the ESZ notification, not the 10 km General Condition, and thus the ECs are valid.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals were disposed of; no ground was made out to interfere with the impugned Environmental Clearances.

Ramakant Kourav vs Madhya Pradesh State Environment… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2022)

¶1

Item Nos. 04 & 05

¶2

(Court No. 1)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SPECIAL BENCH

¶4

(By Video Conferencing)

¶5

Appeal No.74/2021 (CZ) WITH Appeal No.75/2021 (CZ)

¶6

Ramakant Kourav Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) Respondent

¶9

Date of hearing: 28.03.2022

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Appellant: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate

¶12

Respondent(s): Mr. Sachin K. Verma, Advocate for State of MP Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Advocate for MP PCB

¶13

ORDER

¶14

These appeals have been preferred against two identical orders of State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), M.P. transferring Environmental Clearance (EC) in favour of M/s Dhanlaxmi Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Ward No. 16, Civil Line, Kalika Nagar, Babai Road, Dist.- Hosangabad (MP)-461001. Order dated 14.10.2020 is in respect of Murgakheda Sand Quarry in an area of 5.00 ha. (1,47,000 cum/year) at Village – Murgakheda, Tehsil – Narsinghpur, DistrictNarsinghpur (MP), subject matter of Appeal No. 74/2021 (CZ) while order

¶15

¶16

dated 12.03.2020 is in respect of River Sand Quarry (opencast Manual Method) in an area of 7.00 ha. (2,06,000 cum/year) at Khasra No. 1/1 at Village – Ghatpipariya, Tehsil – Narsinghpur, District-Narsinghpur (MP), in Appeal No. 75/2021(CZ).

¶17

Common contention against both the impugned orders is that the EC which has been now transferred itself is illegal, being within 10 kms of Wildlife Sanctuary. In such case, under General Condition appended to the EIA notification dated 14.9.2006, EC could not be granted without requisite clearance from the National Board of Wildlife. Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) Notification is dated 26.09.2017 which is after the original EC granted in 2016.

¶18

Stand of the MP SEIAA is that in view of Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & Ors.¹ , there is no prohibition for mining activity within 10 kms distance and prohibited distance is governed by the ESZ notification. On the date when initially EC was granted, draft proposal for demarcating ESZ in respect of the Sanctuary in question had already been submitted. It is further stated that ‘General Condition’ of EIA Notification dated 14.9.2006 is not applicable since the mining lease area is less than 25 ha. Even though as per Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.² , EC is required even for area less than 25 ha, the same is de hors notification dated 14.9.2006.

¶19

We have given due consideration to the issue. In view of judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goa Foundation, supra, prohibition area is as per ESZ notification and not 10 kms, as contended. General condition is not applicable to the present case. Thus, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned EC. However, it is made clear that in

¶20

1 2014 (6) SCC 590

¶21

2 (2012) 4 SCC 629

¶22

¶23

case of violation of any environmental norms, it will be open to any aggrieved party to take remedy in accordance with law.

¶24

The Appeals are disposed of.

¶25

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP

S.K. Singh, JM

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM

¶30

Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶31

March 28, 2022 Appeal No.74/2021 (CZ) WITH Appeal No.75/2021 (CZ) DV

¶32

Ramakant Kourav v. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Mpseiaa) through Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant Kourav v. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Mpseiaa) through Secretary

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

M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Bisalpur District- Pilibhit Uttar Pradesh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Gajraula Hasanpur Amroha Uttar Pradesh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Puranpur District- Pilibhit Uttar Pradesh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Shekhupur District Badaun Uttar Pradesh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

A P Environ Technologies vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Jama Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India

Sri Reji Kuriakose S/O Kuriakose vs State Environemental Impact Assessment Aurthority Kerala Rep by Its Member Secretary

Ramakant Kourav S/O Rudrabhansingh Kaurav vs Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa)

Jayshri Gayatri Food Products Private Limited through Director Kishan Modi Son of Shri Rajendra Prasad Modi vs M.P Pollution Control Board