136. The observations in Satendra Pandey vs. MoEF&CC & Another (supra) case were in respect to the protection of appraisal under EIA 2006 which was dispensed with in respect to the mining leases of small areas i.e., 0 to 5 hectares and 5 to 25 hectares though distinction was negated by Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana (supra) case. Therefore, with regard to the appraisal of Environment Impact Assessment, Tribunal found that proper procedure was not being observed hence grant of EC particularly when DEIAAs did not contain experts for such appraisal, was not in accordance with the letters and spirit of the directions passed by Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana (supra) but to read the said judgment to hold that the amendment notification dated 15.01.2016 became a nullity to some extent or partly, in our view, is something reading in the judgment which is not there. However, later a clear order has been passed on 11.12.2018 in Execution Application No. 55/2018 (supra) and, therefore, if any EC is granted by DEIAA PAN India after 11.12.2018, the same cannot be said to legal and will not hold good but ECs granted upto 11.12.2018 by DEIAA per se will not become illegal. However, to make ECs consistent with the provisions of EIA 2006 read with judgment of Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana (supra) and Satendra Pandey vs. MoEF&CC & Another (supra) , it would require appraisal in accordance with the procedure prescribed in EIA 2006 as amended from to time from SEIAA of the concerned State/Union Territory and in the light of the result of such reappraisal, mining activities may or may not be allowed to continue.
