Dismissed

Pasupuleti Suresh Babu v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT4 Sept 2024Appeal No. 27/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal challenging MoEF&CC's Environmental Clearance for M/s. Deccan Cements Limited alleged to violate forest clearance reclamation conditions and required wood-based restoration. The Tribunal held officials were justified in permitting water body conversion for groundwater storage and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pasupuleti Suresh Babu vs Ministry of Environment… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No.2:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 04^th day of September, 2024.

¶4

(Through Video Conference)

¶5

Appeal No.27 of 2023 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF

¶7

Pasupuleti Suresh Babu

¶8

M/35 years, S/o. Shivaramakrishna, D.No.4-139, Vajinepalli Village, Chintalapalem Mandal, Suryapet District, Telangana State – 508 246.

¶9

…Appellant(s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

1. The Government of India

¶12

Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Impact Assessment Division, 3^rd Floor, Vayu Wing, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi – 110 003.

¶13

2. The Inspector General Integrated Regional Office, (MoEF&CC) Aranya Bhavan, Opp. Reserve Bank of India, Hyderabad, Telangana State – 500 004.

¶14

3. The Special Chief Secretary to Government Department of Environment, Forests, Science & Technology, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad – 500 004.

¶15

4. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Telangana (Head of Forests), Arnya Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 004.

¶16

5. The District Collector Suryapet District, Telangana – 508 213.

¶17

6. The District Forest Officer Suryapet District, Telangana State – 508 213.

¶18

7. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology Suryapet District, Telangana State – 508 213.

¶19

Page 1 of 13

¶20

8. M/s. Deccan Cements Limited

¶21

Rep. by its Chairman/Managing Director, 6-3-666/B, Somajiguda, Opp. NIMS Hospital, Telangana, Hyderabad – 500 082.

¶22

…Respondent(s)

¶23

For Appellant (s): Mr. Pasupuleti Suresh Babu (Party-in-Person)

¶24

For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1. Mr. Mohammed Aathic represented Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali for R2 to R7. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Sr. Adv. a/w. Mr. P.J. Rishikesh, Mr. P.J. Sri Ganesh & Ms. Ami V. Kataria for R8.

¶25

Judgment Reserved on: 08^th August, 2024.

¶26

CORAM :

¶27

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶28

HON’BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶29

JUDGEMENT

¶30

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member.

¶31

1. The appeal filed by Mr. Pasupuleti Suresh Babu seeks a direction to quash the Environmental Clearance dated 19.06.2023 granted by the 1^st Respondent viz., Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change ( MoEF&CC ) to the 8^th Respondent viz., M/s. Deccan Cements Limited, in view of the violations of the conditions imposed while granting the Stage – I Forest Clearance to the 8^th Respondent.

¶32

2. It is contended by the appellant that the Stage – I Forest Clearance and Stage – II Forest Clearance were granted to the 8^th Respondent during the years 2011 and 2013 respectively for limestone mining operations. The Stage – II Forest Clearance was obtained for an area having an extent of 183.11 Hectares situated in the Saidulnama Reserve Forest with a condition, as stated below:-

¶33

Page 2 of 13

¶34

―(i) The State Government shall ensure reclamation of the forest land located in their existing mine. Mining in the forest land proposed for diversion shall be allowed only after the work for reclamation of the mined out area in the existing mine is initiated and the State Forest Department shall monitor the progress of the reclamation works.‖

¶35

3. It is alleged that the 8^th Respondent grossly violated the above condition and did not take any measures for reclamation of the mined out area in their existing mines even to date. Further, the Forest Department is said to have failed in its duty in monitoring the reclamation works.

¶36

4. The appellant has also contended that though Clause (xxi) of the Stage – I Forest Clearance was violated, Stage – II Forest Clearance was granted to the 8^th Respondent on 13.09.2013. Even in the Stage – II Forest Clearance, a condition was imposed in Clause (xx), as stated supra.

¶37

5. The appellant also alleged that during the year 2007, prior Environmental Clearance for the production of limestone having a capacity of 0.3 MTPA in Mine-III lease area of 183.11 Hectares was granted even though the conditions imposed at the time of granting initial permission for mining in the Mine-III area were not complied with. Moreover, the impugned Environmental Clearance vide No.EC23A001TG110250 dated 19.06.2023 was granted for expansion of production capacity of the Mine-III lease area, though documents produced by the 8^th Respondent had misleading particulars and have not complied with the important conditions imposed by the FAC & FC Division, New Delhi.

¶38

6. The appellant further alleged that the Environmental Clearance issued by the MoEF&CC is totally against the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Stage - I & II Forest Clearances‘ conditions. It is also alleged that in spite of representations made, officials have failed to note down the visible violations of the 8^th Respondent in the Mine-III lease area and issued the certificate dated 05.12.2022, suppressing material violations, which was the basis for issuance of the

¶39

Page 3 of 13

¶40

impugned Environmental Clearance for enhancing the production capacity.

¶41

7. The 8^th Respondent, in their counter affidavit,

¶42

has placed the following facts for consideration:-

¶43

―9. With regard to Mining Lease -I: (ML1)

¶44

a. The mining lease-1 comprises of 22.55 ha of forest land. MoEF&CC vide its letter dated 25.09.1991 accorded final approval for renewal of mining lease in favour of the 8th Respondent for a period of 10 years.

¶45

b. It is stated that the forest land was handed over back to the forest Department during the year 2000 after completion of mining and reclamation. The 8th Respondent after carrying out mining and reclamation had handed over the forest land to the State Forest Department in the year 2000. As per Indian Bureau of Mines, Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India, approved mining plan, reclamation of the mined-out area had to be done for part of the area by way of backfilling and rest of the area left as it is to serve as a water reservoir for pisciculture.

¶46

c. It is stated that this Respondent has done the reclamation work i.e. 8.5 ha is maintained as water body, 6.5 ha has been backfilled and planted up and the remaining 7.55 ha is unbroken. Around the mine, planting of Pongamia species was done.

¶47

10. With regard to Mining Lease -II: (ML 2)

¶48

a. Mining Lease -2 was granted over an area of 73.93 ha by the state Government. MoEF& CC vide its letter dated 07.01.1997 accorded in-principle approval and vide letter dated 23.02.1998 accorded final approval for diversion of 73.93 ha of forest land for limestone mining lease in favour of the 8th Respondent.

¶49

b. Mining activity is under progress in this lease currently.

¶50

c. That as on today, out of 73.93 ha of land, in approximately 9 ha of land, mining activity has been completed and the same is retained as a water body and the water body area is demarcated by way of small earthen bund and with RCC Pillars.

¶51

Hence the reclamation activity is executed in accordance with the IBM approved mining plan.

¶52

11. With regard to Mining Lease -III: (ML 3):

¶53

a. Mining Lease -3 was granted over an extent of 183.11 ha by the State Government. MoEF&CC vide its Letter dated 21.02.2012 accorded in-principle approval and vide its Letter dated 13.09.2013 accorded Final Approval for diversion of 183.11 ha of forest land in favour of the 8th Respondent for limestone mining in compartment No. 26 & 27, Saidulanama RF.

¶54

b. The mining activity is currently under progress.

¶55

It is stated that this Respondent has done reclamation of mine areas and there has been no breach whatsoever. All the conditions imposed for Stage — I Clearance, viz., Clause xxi, & Stage — II Clearance, viz., Clause xx, has been complied with and there is no breach in this regard as alleged by the Appellant.‖

¶56

Page 4 of 13

¶57

8. The 8^th Respondent reiterated that all the conditions imposed along with Stage-I & II Forest Clearance, including Clause (xxi) and Clause (xx) of the Stage-I & II Forest Clearance respectively were complied with and they have started mining activity in ML-III only after initiation of reclamation in ML-II. It was also stated that part of the mined out area is converted into a water body and part of the area is backfilled in ML-I only as per the mining plan approval accorded by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Ministry of Mines, Government of India. The said area was handed over to the State Forest Department in the year 2000. The condition of initiation of reclamation as mentioned in Stage –I and Stage-II of Forest Clearance conditions of ML -III are with respect to the existing mine i.e. ML-II and not the abandoned and handed over mine i.e. ML-I. The appellant, in order to mislead the Tribunal, had produced the monitoring report of ML–I, though the question of initiation of reclamation in ML-I does not arise in the conditions stipulated in the Forest Clearance granted for ML-III in the year 2013, as the ML-I was already handed over to the Forest Department way back in the year 2000.

¶58

9. It is further submitted that the application dated 21.10.2022 for Environmental Clearance for increasing production capacity in ML-III lease area was subject to a public hearing and the proposal was critically examined and the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), in its 11^th Meeting held on 01^st & 2^nd March 2023, recommended for issuance of the Environmental Clearance and the same was accorded by imposing several terms and conditions and measures for safeguarding the environment. It was reiterated that the 8^th Respondent has abided by all the statutory requirements and various conditions imposed while carrying out its mining activities and has also taken all steps required towards compensatory afforestation in favour of the Forest Department as and when directed by the authorities.

¶59

10. The 8^th Respondent further contends that the mining activity is still in progress in ML-II area and hence, the guidelines of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court are not applicable at the current stage. However, they have planted 20,000 saplings in the ML-II

¶60

Page 5 of 13

¶61

area to fulfil the requirement of a peripheral greenbelt. In addition, they have planted about 55,000 saplings in the periphery of the cement plant and ML-III.

¶62

11. Only after complying with the conditions imposed in Stage-I Forest Clearance, the Project Proponent requested the authorities to grant Stage – II Forest Clearance. The compliance report was examined and verified by the Special Chief Secretary to Government, State of Telangana before recommending for the issuance of Stage-II Forest Clearance to the Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Hyderabad and only after verification by the authorities, the Stage-II Forest Clearance was issued on 15.03.2023. For the reasons stated above, the Project Proponent prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.

¶63

12. The MoEF&CC has filed its counter , wherein it is stated the proposal of increasing production capacity in the MineIII lease area and expansion of Limestone Production in ML-3 of the 8^th Respondent was first considered during the 6^th EAC Meeting held during 9^th - 11^th November 2022, wherein the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) after detailed deliberation deferred the proposal. Thereafter, the proposal was again considered in the 11^th EAC Meeting held during 1^st – 2^nd March 2023, and EAC recommended the proposal and the MoEF&CC accorded the Environmental Clearance dated 19.06.2023, by imposing certain terms & conditions and environmental safeguards measures. The MoEF&CC, vide letter dated 13.09.2013, has granted Stage II Forest Clearance for the diversion of 183.11 hectares of Forest land in favour of M/s.Deccan Cement Ltd., Hyderabad for their limestone mining project located in Compartment No.26 & 27 of Saidulnama Reserved Forest of Nalgonda Forest Division in Nalgonda District with the condition at Clause (xx) viz., "initiation of reclamation of forest land" . This mine is represented as Mining Lease-III (MLIII).

¶64

13. It is further stated that the specific condition No. (xx) imposed in the Stage-II Forest Clearance approval granted for the diversion of 183.11 ha forest land for the ML-III in favour of M/s. Deccan Cements Limited read as "mining in the forest

¶65

Page 6 of 13

¶66

land proposed for diversion shall be allowed only after the work for reclamation of the mined-out area in their existing mine is initiated and the State Forest Department shall monitor the progress of reclamation works".

¶67

14. The MoEF&CC confirms that the 8^th Respondent has initiated the reclamation activity in ML-I and ML-II before starting mining activity in ML-III. It is also stated that appropriate safeguards and conditions were imposed by the MoEF&CC while granting the Environmental Clearance and that the authorities of the MoEF&CC have regularly monitored the compliance of the conditions stipulated in the Environmental Clearance from the commencement till the completion of all the projects. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the Environmental Clearance dated 19.06.2023 was granted without proper scrutiny and in violation of various environmental statutes is false and without any basis.

¶68

15. The 6^th Respondent has filed a counter on his and on behalf of Respondents No.3, 4 and 5 . The contention of the appellant that the State Forest Department has totally failed to monitor the reclamation work in the existing mines operated by the 8^th Respondent is denied and stated that the reclamation work is being monitored continuously. In fact, in one of their monitoring reports dated 04.07.2016, in respect of ML-III, certain omissions were noticed in the implementation of the reclamation of the land, which are as follows:-

¶69

―(a) The reclamation plan as stipulated in the FC conditions has not been carried out properly and also the mine has not been closed properly as per the IBM approved mine closure plan. Proper sloping has not been provided to mined out area.

¶70

(b) The plantation carried out as part of reclamation work has been found unsatisfactory. The General Manager, Deccan Cements, present during the inspection has informed that since all the dug- up material are exhausted by the company, enough material is not available for carrying out the reclamation. Hence UA may be instructed to bring out fresh soil from outside and carry out the reclamation work properly.

¶71

(c) The lime stone material is dug up from the rocky portions up to a depth of 10 to 20 meters resulting in creation of large water body.

¶72

The UA, in consultation with Divisional Forest Officer, Nalgonda may be asked to carry out pisciculture in the stored water.‖

¶73

Page 7 of 13

¶74

16. However, during the inspection of the Forest Department dated 20.05.2023, the following reclamation initiations were observed:-

¶75

―a) Mining Lease - I: Extent of Forest area involved is 22.50 Ha in Compt.No.27, Saidulnama RF, Huzurabad Range, Suryapet District.

¶76

Stage-II (final) forest clearance was granted vide GoAP, EFS&T (For.I) Dept. Go.Ms.No.298, Dt.02.11.1991. Forest land was handed over back to the Forest Department on 23.12.2000 after completion of mining.

¶77

The following are the observations made during the field inspection:

¶78

i. There is no mining activity in ML-I

¶79

ii. Out of 22.5 ha leased out forest area, part of the area i.e., 6.50 ha was back filled and planting carried out with Kanuga, Seema thangedu etc., and lot of prosophis growth come up in the filled area.

¶80

iii. An extent of 8.5 ha of mined out area has been converted into water body.

¶81

iv. As per mining plan the user agency is supposed to do pisciculture, boating etc., but presently no such activity is taken up as they are non-forestry activities.

¶82

v. Out of 22.50 ha of Mining lease area, no mining activities has been taken up in 7.5 ha area and kept unopened.

¶83

vi. It is further respectfully submitted that a Joint Committee appointed by the Hon‘ble Green Tribunal, Chennai in connection with the O.A. No. 33 of 2016 reported that

¶84

a. MoEF&CC (IA Division) ) in F.No.: 22-34/2018-IA.III, Dt: 16.01.2020 pursuance to the orders of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court dt.08.01.2020 in W.P.(Civil)No.114 of 2014, directed the Authorities to include the following additional condition in the EC already granted to mining projects and to be granted henceforth:

¶85

―The mining lease holder shall, after ceasing mining operations, under 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.‖

¶86

b. As per the IBM approved mining plan of Mine Lease - I, part of the area is back filled and part of the area is kept as a water body for storage of the rain water. The project proponent has handed over the ML-1 area to the Forest Department on 23.12.2000.

¶87

c. The ML-1 area has already been closed as per the IBM approved mining plan and handed over to the Forest Department on 23.12.2000. Hence, this condition may not be applicable to ML-I.

¶88

The OA No.33 of 2016 has been disposed off by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (NGT), Chennai with directions.

¶89

b) Mining Lease - II - Extent of Forest area involved is 73.93 Ha in Compt.No.27, Saidulnama RF, Huzurabad Range, Suryapet District.

¶90

Stage-II (final) forest clearance was granted vide G.O. Ms.51. EFS&T (For.I) Dept., Dt.05.05.1998, a period of (20) years. Deemed extension has been granted by the State Government in GoTS, EFS&T (For.I) Dept. G.O. Ms.No.41 EFS&T (For.l) Dept., Dt.15.09.2021 upto 08.02.2050.

¶91

During the site inspection of ML-II, it is noticed that the following reclamation of land initiated:

¶92

i. Mining activity is under progress in this mining lease area.

¶93

Page 8 of 13

¶94

ii. About 9.0 ha of lease area in which mining activity is completed is retained as water body and the water body area is demarcated by way of small earthen bund and with RCC pillars.

¶95

iii. Mining lease is boundary demarcated with chain link

¶96

fencing and boundary walls.

¶97

iv. Along the lease periphery, around 7 to 10m width is maintained as a safety zone and forestry tree species such as Jitregi, Kanuga, Neem are planted and are being irrigated by using drip irrigation system.

¶98

v. The State Forest Department is monitoring the implementation of the reclamation plan as per progressive mine closure plan by the project proponent i.e., M/s Deccan Cements Ltd.

¶99

vi. The mine lease of ML-2 have expected life for a period upto 2050.

¶100

vii. In the Mining Plan and Progressive Mine Closure Plan of ML-2, it is recorded that, the following methods will be implemented, as it was done in the ML-I.

¶101

The entire mined out pit covering 61.576 ha (at the end of all the mining operations in the area) will be converted into a water body as there is no backfilling material is available in the lease or generated during the course of mining operations.

¶102

All benches will be dressed up for any loose overhangs and stabilize before discontinuing the mining operations.

¶103

Plantation will be carried out all along the lease periphery buffer zone of 7.5m and approach roads.

¶104

Plantation will also be taken up on the top benches. Garland drains will be made all around the lease area.

¶105

No permanent structure will be constructed within the lease as stipulated by MoEF&CC. Hence, no buildings or structures will be leftover at the time of closure.

¶106

As on today, out of 73.93 ha of land, in approximately 9 ha of land, mining activity has been completed by project proponent and the same is retained as a water body and the water body area is demarcated by way of small earthen bund and with RCC Pillars.

¶107

Hence the reclamation activity is carrying out in accordance with the IBM approved mining plan.

¶108

c) Mining Lease-III - Extent of forest Area involved: 183.11 Ha

¶109

Stage-II (final) forest clearance was accorded vide G.O.Ms.No.85, EFS&T(For-I) Dept.,09.10.2013. Opened on 23.03.2015 (vide User agency Lr.Dt.23.03.2015 addressed to C.G & IBM, Nagpur)

¶110

i. Currently mining activity is under progress.

¶111

ii. ML-III mining activity was started after initiation of reclamation of other mines (i.e., ML-I & ML-II) by M/s. DCL. As per Form-C (notices of initiation of opening of mine) under R-22 (1), 22 (2), 25 & 49 of MCDR, 1988 by user agency to the CG, IBM, Nagpur.

¶112

iii. The mining lease has been monitored from time to time by the field officials and reclamation work in ML-2 is already initiated (creation of water body and planting along periphery) and also reclamation water body back filling and planting has been work like creation taken up in ML-I by the user agency as per reclamation plan and handed over to Forest Department Dt.26.12.2000.

¶113

iv. The mine lease of ML-3 have expected life for a period upto 2063.‖

¶114

Page 9 of 13

¶115

17. Therefore, the allegation made by the appellant on non-initiation of reclamation of plan and non-monitoring by the Forest Department is false. It is stated further that the Project Proponent paid an amount of Rs.5,75,89,921/- as per MoEF&CC towards compensatory afforestation and also paid a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/- towards cost and erection of boundary pillars throughout the boundary line of Saidulnama Reserve Forest on 12.08.2021. The Project Proponent identified CA land in nearby area called ‗Charakonda‘ to an extent of 8.98 Hectares and handed over the same to the Forest Department. The Wildlife Mitigation Plan was also initiated and Rs.80,00,000/ - was also deposited towards Wildlife Mitigation measures. So, they prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶116

18. The Department of Mines and Geology (Respondent No.7) has filed its report , wherein it is stated that they have inspected the ML-I, ML-II and ML-III of the 8^th Respondent. With regard to the clearance and status of the MLI, ML-II and ML-III, they furnished the following table:-

¶117

Sl. No.	Mining Lease	Extent of forest land	Stage – I	Stage – II	State Govt. G.O.		Remarks
1	ML-1	22.5 Ha.	23.05. 1991	25.09. 1991	02.11. 1991	Forest over depart year comple and re	land was to the ment dur 2000 tion of clamation.	handed forest ing the after mining
2	ML-2	73.93 Ha.	07.01. 1997	23.02. 1998	05.05. 1998 & 15.09. 2021	Mining About into w 2014 progre closure	under p 9 Ha. co ater body as pe ssive plan.	rogress. nverted during r the mine
3	ML-3	183.11 Ha.	21.02. 2012	13.09. 2013	09.10. 2013	Mining Mining comme 23.03.	under p nced 2015	rogress. activity w.e.f

¶118

19. It is reported that the forest land in ML-I is handed over back to the Forest Department after completion of mining and reclamation. In respect of ML-II, about 9 Hectares is converted into water body during 2014 as per the progressive mine closure plan. In respect of ML-III, the mining activity is under progress.

¶119

Page 10 of 13

¶120

20. The issues that arise for consideration on the above pleadings are:-

¶121

(i) Whether there is any violation of conditions of the Stage – I and Stage – II Forest Clearances by the Project Proponent (Respondent No.8)?

¶122

(ii) Whether the impugned Environmental Clearance is liable to be set aside?

¶123

21. Though initially the appellant filed an appeal through their counsel, later the vakalat was withdrawn. Heard the appellant, Mr. Pasupuleti Suresh Babu, who appeared in person, and also the learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents.

¶124

Issues No.(i) & (ii):-

¶125

22. During the hearing, the appellant has contended that the Environmental Clearance issued is illegal since as per the conditions i.e. only after complying with the conditions imposed in Stage-I & II Forest Clearances, the prior Environmental Clearance for enhancing the production capacity should have been granted. He also stated that instead of reclaiming the mined area as per the conditions imposed in the Stage – I & II Forest Clearance, the Project Proponent has allowed part of the mined area for storage of water rather than filling up the mined area and restoring the forest cover as per the conditions imposed in the Forest Clearances.

¶126

23. The appellant‘s main contention is the non-fulfilment of the conditions imposed while granting the Stage - I & II Forest Clearance. It was also contended by the appellant that a pond had been created instead of re-filling the same for growing trees. Though the appellant himself admitted that the pond has started attracting avian fauna, he contended that the said area is very close to the Krishna River and therefore, there is no need for the formation of the pond and cited Condition No.(39) under

¶127

Page 11 of 13

¶128

Standard Conditions which stipulates that “the mining lease holder shall after ceasing mining operations, undertake regressing the mining area and any other area which may have been disturbed due to other mining activities and restore the land to a condition which is fit to growth of fodder, flora, fauna, etc.” and he reiterated that the conditions imposed have not been fulfilled.

¶129

24. The learned counsels appearing for the official respondents viz., the MoEF&CC and State Forest Department have categorically stated that the allegations made by the appellant are false and that the 8^th Respondent has followed all the conditions imposed while granting the Stage - I & II Forest Clearance. It was also contended that though the appellant cited Condition No.(39), the appellant failed to notice that the Condition No.(40) empowers the Ministry or any other competent authority to alter/modify the above conditions or stipulate any further condition in the interest of environmental protection. It was stated further that necessary approvals have been obtained from the Competent Authority and as per the mining plan approval accorded by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Ministry of Mines, Government of India, an extent of 8.5 Hectares of mined out area has been converted into a water body and moreover, the forest land of ML-I was handed over back to the Forest Department on 23.12.2000 after completion of mining.

¶130

25. The learned Senior Advocate, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, appearing for the 8^th Respondent stated that the allegations are frivolous and based on false assumptions without any basis. The learned Senior Advocate also contended that the reports of the official respondents clearly spell out that the 8^th Respondent has fulfilled all the conditions imposed and has not committed any violations.

¶131

26. From the reports of the official respondents, as stated supra, it is clear that all the conditions imposed in Stage – I and II Forest Clearance have been fulfilled and there are no violations of the conditions imposed. Even the conversion of part of the mined out area into a water body has been done with necessary approvals.

¶132

Page 12 of 13

¶133

27. The argument of the appellant that the water body in the impugned area is not required since the area is very close to the Krishna River is unacceptable, which also reveals that the appellant has no full appreciation of the value of the water resources.

¶134

28. In fact, though for several years the mined out area was being backfilled and trees were grown, in recent years considering the importance of the water resources and the need for augmenting the groundwater aquifers, the mined out areas are being converted into water storage structures which can also act as drinking water sources for habitations. It will also create a new ecosystem altogether, attracting a wide variety of fauna, besides meeting the drinking water needs of the existing fauna in the area. These water resources will also be helpful for the State Forest Department for growing trees in the degraded patches of the forest area. Therefore, we appreciate the authorities concerned for permitting the conversion of at least part of the mined out area as a water body.

¶135

29. In view of the reasons stated above, the appeal [Appeal No.27 of 2023 (SZ)] is dismissed as it is devoid of merits.

¶136

Sd/Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶137

Sd/Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM

¶138

Internet – Yes/No All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

¶139

Appeal No.27/2023 (SZ) 04^th September, 2024. Mn.

¶140

Page 13 of 13

Pasupuleti Suresh Babu v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pasupuleti Suresh Babu v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rowghat Sangharsh Samiti through Banshi Lal Dugga vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Netram Golhani vs Chife Muncipial Council Offcer

Ms Slaughter House Nagar Nigam Saharanpur vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Pravinsingh Arjun Shedgaonkar vs the Goa State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa)

Prasanjeet Singh Sankhla vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority through Chairman

J.Sathyan Praveen vs the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Tamil Nadu Seiaa Tn

Chirag Electronics vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

M/S Shri Ram Stone Crusher through Its Proprietor Shri. Rajendra Tamrakar vs Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Abhilash vs the Chief Secretary

G Venkatesan vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

G Venkatesan vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board