Allowed

Thiru. R.Surya v. the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority

NGT30 Jan 2024Appeal No. 33/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal allowed appeals against the rejection of environmental clearance proposals for mining rough stone and gravel. The Court set aside the impugned orders, holding that rejection based on pollution caused by existing quarries was arbitrary without imposing rectifiable conditions like blacktopped roads.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection orders set aside and remitted to SEIAA to examine mandate for blacktopped/concretized roads before afresh consideration.

Thiru. R.Surya vs the State Environmental Impact Assessment… — Service and Employment | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No.2 & 3:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2024.

¶4

(Through Video Conference)

¶5

Appeal No.33 of 2023 (SZ) AND

¶6

Appeal No.34 of 2023 (SZ)

¶7

IN THE MATTER OF

¶8

Appeal No.33 of 2023 (SZ)

¶9

R. Surya

¶10

S/o. Ramasamy, RKG Complex, Ramesh Nagar, 2^nd Cross Street, West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.

¶11

…Appellant(s)

¶12

Versus

¶13

1) State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)

¶14

Rep. by its Member Secretary 3^rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶15

2) State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) Rep. by its Chairman, 3^rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶16

...Respondent(s)

¶17

Appeal No.34 of 2023 (SZ)

¶18

M/s. Sri Sai Infrastructures

¶19

Rep. by its Partner Mr. D. Kumar, No.18, G4, Buckmar Flats, 15^th Cross Street, New Colony, Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044.

¶20

…Appellant(s)

¶21

Versus

¶22

1) State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)

¶23

Rep. by its Member Secretary 3^rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶24

Page 1 of 13

¶25

2) State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC)

¶26

Rep. by its Chairman, 3^rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶27

...Respondent(s)

¶28

(In both cases)

¶29

For Appellant(s): M/s. S. Saravanan, P. Kokila, R. Suresh, K. Mokshavathy, B. Girija and E. Karthikeyan.

¶30

For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1 & R2.

¶31

Judgment Reserved on: 11^th January, 2024.

¶32

CORAM :

¶33

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶34

JUDGEMENT

¶35

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member.

¶36

1. As the issues raised in the above appeals [Appeal Nos.33 of 2023 (SZ) and 34 of 2023 (SZ)] are similar in nature, both were taken up together for consideration.

¶37

Appeal No.33 of 2023 (SZ):

¶38

2. This appeal [Appeal No.33 of 2023 (SZ)] is directed against the rejection of the appellant’s proposal for grant of Environmental Clearance by the 1^st Respondent / State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority – Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEIAA – Tamil Nadu’ ) for mining rough stone and gravel vide its Letter No.SEIAATN/F.No.8695/2021 dated 29.09.2023.

¶39

3. The rough stone and gravel is a minor mineral as defined under Section 3 (e) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to

¶40

Page 2 of 13

¶41

as ‘ MMDR Act, 1957 ’) , for which, the State Government is the Competent Authority to grant quarry lease both in poramboke and patta lands as per the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘TNMMC Rules, 1959’ ) . Apart from obtaining permission/approval from the Government under the MMDR Act, 1957 and TNMMC Rules, 1959 for mining of minerals between 5 Hectare and 50 Hectare is categorized as a ‘B’ Category project, for which, the Project Proponent has to obtain prior Environmental Clearance.

¶42

4. The appellant is the owner of the land having an extent of 5.20 Acres (2.10.50 Hectares) in Sy. No.718 & 720 of Magaral B Village, Walajabad Taluk, Kancheepuram District applied for the rough stone and gravel quarry and obtained approval and the Precise Area Communication dated 20.08.2019. Thereafter, the appellant had to obtain the mining plan approval from the District Collector and the Environmental Clearance from the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu. As there were other quarries located within a 500 Meters radius of the subject quarry, the Assistant Director – Department of Geology and Mining issued a Cluster Certificate dated 23.11.2020. The Mining Plan was prepared as per the guidelines and got the approval on 23.11.2020. The appellant also made an application in Form – I and Form - IM along with other requisites for issuance of Terms of Reference (ToR) for Environmental Clearance under the ‘B1’ Category.

¶43

5. It is stated that though the extent is less than 5 Hectares, to be categorized as ‘B2’ Category, since there were other quarries located within a 500 Meter radius, the subject quarry was to be categorized as ‘B1’ Category. The proposal of the appellant was considered by the 2^nd Respondent / State Expert Appraisal Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEAC – Tamil Nadu’ ) on 08.10.2021 and had recommended the proposal for the grant of ToR with public hearing along with other conditions. Later, the same was placed before the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu on 24^th & 25^th January 2022, and the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu accepted the recommendations of the SEAC – Tamil Nadu and decided to issue the ToR along with a public hearing under cluster for undertaking a Combined Environmental Impact Assessment Study. Subsequently, the ToR was issued on

¶44

Page 3 of 13

¶45

31.01.2022, based on which, the appellant had engaged Geotechnical Mining Solutions, an approved NABET Agency, who in turn had conducted a detailed EIA Study and other studies as sought for in the ToR. The Final EIA Study report was submitted on 24.11.2022 to the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu. The public hearing was also conducted in the manner known to law.

¶46

6. After compliance, the appellant submitted an application for a grant of prior Environmental Clearance on 21.11.2022 which was placed in 351^st Meeting of the SEAC – Tamil Nadu meeting held on 03.02.2023. It was observed that there was a public complaint received and the subject proposal was deferred and directed the Project Proponent/Appellant to carry out a Comprehensive Study on the details of the school, mode of transport of mined stones and standard operating procedure indicating the time schedule of proposed blasting operation.

¶47

7. Later, the subject proposal was placed in the 596^th Meeting of the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu held on 22^nd & 23^rd February 2023 which accepted the decision of the SEAC – Tamil Nadu and directed the appellant to comply with the same. In pursuance of the same, the appellant also conducted a Comprehensive Study and furnished the report with a detailed reply on 10.03.2023. It was placed before the SEAC – Tamil Nadu, which in its meeting held on 04.05.2023 decided not to recommend the subject proposal for reasons that a number of quarries and crushers were located, besides the window of the school on the roadside had to be kept closed and the entry gate of the school had to be shifted to the backside. However, before the rejection, the appellant was not given an opportunity to explain. The recommendation of the SEAC – Tamil Nadu was accepted by the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu and rejected the proposal on 26.05.2023.

¶48

8. As there was no communication from the respondents with respect to the final order of rejection, the appellant sent a detailed representation on 22.06.2023 to reconsider the decision taken in the meetings based on the minutes of the SEAC – Tamil Nadu. The Member Secretary of the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu had issued a communication dated

¶49

Page 4 of 13

¶50

13.07.2023, in his individual capacity, without placing the above representation before the Competent Committee of the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu or any discussions in this regard and has erroneously stated that the proposal has been rejected by the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu in its 622^nd Meeting held on 26.05.2023 stating that the rejected proposal will not be reconsidered for appraisal.

¶51

9. Thereafter, pursuant to the direction issued by this Tribunal vide Order dated 20.09.2023 in Appeal No.14 of 2023 (SZ) , the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu has communicated the impugned rejection order vide its communication dated 29.09.2023, which was received by the appellant on 09.10.2023.

¶52

Appeal No.34 of 2023 (SZ):

¶53

10. Similarly, this appeal [Appeal No.34 of 2023 (SZ)] is directed against the rejection of the appellant’s proposal for grant of Environmental Clearance by the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu for mining rough stone and gravel vide its Letter No.SEIAATN/F.No.8667/2021 dated 29.09.2023

¶54

11. The appellant is the owner of the land having an extent of 6.78 Acres (2.64.50 Hectares) in Sy. Nos.728/2, 728/3, 728/4, 728/5, 728/6, 728/7, 728/8, 728/9, 728/10, 728/11, 728/12, 728/13, 728/14, 728/15, 728/16, 728/17 & 728/18 of Magaral B Village, Walajabad Taluk, Kancheepuram District applied for the rough stone and gravel quarry and obtained approval and the Precise Area Communication dated 09.12.2020. Thereafter, the appellant had to obtain the mining plan approval from the District Collector and the Environmental Clearance from the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu. As there were other quarries located within a 500 Meters radius of the subject quarry, the Assistant Director – Department of Geology and Mining issued a Cluster Certificate dated 16.12.2020. The Mining Plan was prepared as per the guidelines and got the approval on 16.12.2020. The appellant also made an application in Form – I and Form - IM along with other requisites for issuance of Terms of Reference (ToR) for Environmental Clearance under the ‘B1’ Category.

¶55

Page 5 of 13

¶56

12. It is stated that though the extent is less than 5 Hectares, to be categorized as ‘B2’ Category, since there were other quarries located within a 500 Meter radius, the subject quarry was to be categorized as ‘B1’ Category. The proposal of the appellant was considered by the SEAC – Tamil Nadu on 24.02.2022 and had recommended the proposal for the grant of ToR with public hearing along with other conditions. Later, the same was placed before the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu on 16.03.2022 and the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu accepted the recommendations of the SEAC – Tamil Nadu and decided to issue the ToR along with a public hearing under cluster for undertaking a Combined Environmental Impact Assessment Study. Subsequently, the ToR was issued on 17.03.2022, based on which, the appellant had engaged Geotechnical Mining Solutions, an approved NABET Agency, who in turn had conducted a detailed EIA Study and other studies as sought for in the ToR. The Final EIA Study report was submitted on 24.11.2022 to the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu. The public hearing was also conducted in the manner known to law.

¶57

13. After compliance, the appellant submitted an application for a grant of prior Environmental Clearance on 01.02.2023 which was placed in 351^st Meeting of the SEAC – Tamil Nadu meeting held on 03.02.2023. It was observed that there was a public complaint received and the subject proposal was deferred and directed the Project Proponent/Appellant to carry out a Comprehensive Study on the details of the school, mode of transport of mined stones and standard operating procedure indicating the time schedule of proposed blasting operation.

¶58

14. Later, the subject proposal was placed in the 596^th Meeting of the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu held on 22^nd & 23^rd February 2023 which accepted the decision of the SEAC – Tamil Nadu and directed the appellant to comply with the same. In pursuance of the same, the appellant also conducted a Comprehensive Study and furnished the report with a detailed reply on 10.03.2023. It was placed before the SEAC – Tamil Nadu, which in its meeting held on 30.03.2023, decided to defer the proposal and to place the same in any of the forthcoming SEAC’s meeting. Thereafter,

¶59

Page 6 of 13

¶60

it was placed in the 369^th Meeting of the SEAC – Tamil Nadu held on 20.04.2023 and it was decided not to recommend the subject proposal for reasons that a number of quarries and crushers were located, besides the window of the school on the roadside had to be kept closed and the entry gate of the school had to be shifted to the backside. However, before the rejection, the appellant was not given an opportunity to explain. The recommendation of the SEAC – Tamil Nadu was accepted by the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu and rejected the proposal on 10.05.2023.

¶61

15. As there was no communication from the respondents with respect to the final order of rejection, the appellant sent a detailed representation on 22.06.2023 to reconsider the decision taken in the meetings based on the minutes of the SEAC – Tamil Nadu. The Member Secretary of the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu had issued a communication dated 13.07.2023, in his individual capacity, without placing the above representation before the Competent Committee of the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu or any discussions in this regard and has erroneously stated that the proposal has been rejected by the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu in its 616^th Meeting held on 10.05.2023 stating that the rejected proposal will not be reconsidered for appraisal.

¶62

16. Thereafter, pursuant to the direction issued by this Tribunal vide Order dated 20.09.2023 in Appeal No.15 of 2023 (SZ) , the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu has communicated the impugned rejection order vide its communication dated 29.09.2023, which was received by the appellant on 09.10.2023.

¶63

17. The observations made in the impugned communication, in both the appeals are the same, which are as follows:-

¶64

(i) There were high number of public objections registered against the proposed quarry from the villagers regarding the impact of mining and transportation of quarried minerals.

¶65

(ii) The Panchayat Union Primary School is located in the haul road leading to the proposed quarry

¶66

Page 7 of 13

¶67

foreseeing the school to shut doors and windows in order to reduce the dust and noise environment.

¶68

(iii) The roads were poorly managed by the existing quarry operators and

¶69

(iv) The existing quarries located adjacent to the proposed quarry are operating huge number of trucks resulting in creation of crowded truck movement in the road leading to the village so as to create a dangerous situation for the pedestrians and other vehicle operators.

¶70

18. On the above observations, the Online Proposal dated 21.11.2022 of the appellant in Appeal No.33 of 2023 (SZ) and the Online Proposal dated 19.11.2022 of the appellant in Appeal No.34 of 2023 (SZ) was rejected and the file was closed.

¶71

19. Now, the appellant in both the appeals viz., Appeal Nos.33 of 2023 (SZ) and 34 of 2023 (SZ) had challenged the impugned rejection order primarily contending that

¶72

(i) The rejection was based on the grounds that were not brought to the notice of the appellant at the time of discussion.

¶73

(ii) Even presuming that these are all the defects, they are only curable and they could be rectified by the Project Proponent, if additional conditions are being imposed.

¶74

(iii) The Minutes of the SEAC – Tamil Nadu to reject the Environmental Clearance is contrary to the ToR issued.

¶75

(iv) The observations of the SEAC – Tamil Nadu were merely on assumption without any basis and without making any site or field inspection to come to the conclusion that the subject quarry is not fit to operate.

¶76

Page 8 of 13

¶77

(v) The Comprehensive Study and its report with a reply dated 10.03.2023 of the appellant was not considered by the SEAC – Tamil Nadu.

¶78

20. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed the counter

¶79

affidavit, after repeating the factual details of the project, stating that due to the presence of a number of quarries and crushers, the area has been subjected to the heavy load of pollution from the point sources and fugitive emissions due to transportation of mined minerals have led to the deterioration of roads. As the windows and doors of the school on the roadside had to be closed to prevent dust from affecting the health of the students, the entry gate of the school had to be shifted to the backside for the same reason. As allowing more mines in this area will be detrimental to the environment and health of the people, it was decided not to recommend the Environmental Clearance for the proposed quarry project.

¶80

21. From the above pleadings, it can be seen that

¶81

21.1 There were public objections that have been registered against the proposed quarry from the villagers with respect to the impact of mining and transportation of the quarried materials. This is a new quarry, for which, a proposal was submitted for obtaining Environmental Clearance. The public objections have been received by the authorities due to the pollution caused by the existing operators and not because of the project proponent who is yet to commence his activity.

¶82

21.2 There is a Panchayat Union Primary School which is severely affected due to the movement of large loaded trucks from the existing quarries which had forced the school to shut down the doors and windows and shift the main door to the rear side. Even this reason cannot be attributed to the appellant, as the decision of the school to close down the windows and

¶83

Page 9 of 13

¶84

doors was due to the pollution caused by the already existing mining operators and crusher units.

¶85

21.3 The roads are very poorly managed by the existing quarry operators resulting in the creation of pot holes, etc. Moreover, the representation of the Project Proponent that they will use a road which is different from the road leading towards the school was also not examined and considered.

¶86

21.4 The existing quarries which are operating a huge number of trucks causing dangerous situations for the pedestrian and vehicle operators.

¶87

22. All the above-referred grounds for rejection of the proposal were a result of the existing quarries and nothing can be attributed to the appellant who is yet to commence his operations. If for the above-mentioned reasons for which the proposal was rejected, it is not known whether the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu has taken any action on the existing operators or issued any additional conditions to bring down the pollution mentioned in all the above four grounds for rejection. If the existing operators are causing pollution, due to which the public school has to keep its doors and windows closed even during working hours, it is the duty of the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu to come in aid of the school to keep it pollution free for the children. When there is a cluster of quarry and crushing units in operation, undoubtedly the movement of heavy vehicles would be there which would endanger the life of the pedestrian particularly when there are no proper roads. If one ponders over the grounds for rejection of the proposal, everything revolves around the pollution that is caused by the existing quarries due to mining operations, transportation of quarried minerals, the dust caused due to poorly managed roads and the lack of proper roads resulting in a grave situation for the pedestrian and the other vehicle operators. The other reasons may be the fugitive emissions, etc. which basically are only from the mining operations.

¶88

Page 10 of 13

¶89

23. When mining is an important industrial sector that is also allied to another industrial sector viz., Crusher units, they substantially emit fugitive dust not only due to operations but also due to transportation of the mined minerals which poses a health hazard not only to the persons involved in the operation but also to the public in general living around these areas.

¶90

24. It is to be noted that the growth of the infrastructure is leading to an increase in demand for mining and crushing which is a raw material for the infrastructure industry. When there are more quarries and crushers, maintaining the Ambient Air Quality becomes more challenging. For maintaining the Ambient Air Quality in these areas, the guidelines prescribed in this regard by the regulatory bodies viz., SEIAA and SPCB have to be strictly followed and enforced. While the crushing units emit more fugitive dust, the mining operations also equally contribute to the same atleast due to the transportation with poor road conditions.

¶91

25. While the matter was being heard, it was questioned whether there is any guideline for quarry operators in terms of laying a blacktopped / concretized road on the approach road and inside the mining area, the answer is in the negative.

¶92

26. A perusal of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) Guidelines regarding the crusher units go to show that in Clause 5.1 ‘General Measures’ , the roads are to be provided with metalled/concrete topping within the premises. Ramps and the entire ground area inside the premises should also be metalled. Besides, in the source of emission near the unloading of raw material for storage, unloading of raw material into the hopper, etc., the water sprinkling with adequately designed nozzle should be provided during the raw materials unloading, water sprinkling should be provided on approach roads and crushed material should be taken in a completely closed vehicle with GI/MS sheets on top and atleast three sides completely from the ground level. One side should have the provision of a movable sheet/door for movement/maintenance. This depends upon the primary crusher and secondary crushing. Several of the pollution control measures were issued by the CPCB in this

¶93

Page 11 of 13

¶94

regard. If the mining activities also cause the same kind of pollution particularly when they are operating in clusters, it would be appropriate for the Pollution Control Board, be it State Pollution Control Boards or Central Pollution Control Board, to issue appropriate and suitable directions in this regard to control the dust pollution.

¶95

27. In this regard, it would be appropriate for the State Pollution Control Boards to ensure that the area within the premises and outside the premises viz., approach road to the main road be blacktopped/concretized depending upon the number of loaded trucks travelling on them, particularly when there is a cluster of mining operations.

¶96

28. Even in the instant case, the rejection is based only on the ground of pollution. As observed earlier, this is an industry that cannot be stopped, as it supports the other industries. Then how best the operations can be permitted if otherwise everything is in order except the pollution as has been stated in the impugned order. Instead of rejecting the proposal on these grounds, it would be appropriate for the authorities to introduce the control measures in bringing down the pollution like making it mandatory for the mining operator to have a blacktopped/concretized road. If a good quality blacktopped road or concretized road had been recommended either for the present case or to the existing quarries, all four reasons for rejecting the proposal would have been addressed. If it is a concrete road, the question of deterioration of the road may not arise for fairly a long time. These kinds of permanent roads would not only bring down pollution but also be useful to the people living around that area and also the carbon footprint will be reduced, as the transporting vehicles will have better fuel efficiency.

¶97

29. Having not considered the above aspects and having rejected the proposal in a mechanical manner, citing a ground that can be easily rectified, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and remitted back to the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu for fresh consideration on merits and detailed examination.

¶98

Page 12 of 13

¶99

30. In the result,

¶100

(I) The impugned rejection order passed by the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu vide its Letter No.SEIAATN/F.No.8695/2021 dated 29.09.2023 which is under challenge in Appeal No.33 of 2023 (SZ) and the impugned rejection order passed by the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu vide its Letter No.SEIAATN/F.No.8667/2021 dated 29.09.2023 which is under challenge in Appeal No.34 of 2023 (SZ) are set aside and remitted back to the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu to examine the following direction along with other aspects:-

¶101

Whether the mining operators can be imposed with the condition of laying a blacktopped/ concretized road on the approach roads and ensuring proper maintenance.

¶102

(II) After examining the above direction, the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu may consider the appellant’s application afresh without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order, within a period of 4 (Four) weeks.

¶103

Sd/Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶104

Sd/Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM

¶105

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

¶106

Appeal No.33/2023 (SZ) & Appeal No.34/2023 (SZ) 30^th January, 2024. Mn.

¶107

Page 13 of 13

Thiru. R.Surya v. the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thiru. R.Surya v. the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Colmar Beach Resort through Its Managing Director Ats Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Ishhita Foundation through Ms Pragya Singh Alias Vanshika Singh vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

J Sathyan Praveen vs the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Tamil Nadu (Seiaa-Tn)

Shoukkath Ali vs Seiaa

The Commissioner Kayalpattinam Municipality vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

M/S.Stone Trust Enterprises vs Seiaa

K S Thanikachalam vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Tamilnadu

Francisco Jose vs the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority through Its Member Secretary

Shoukkath Ali vs Seiaa

Marothi Veeravenkata Ganeswararao vs the Chairman Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board

J Sathyan Praveen vs the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Tamil Nadu (Seiaa-Tn)

Meenava Thanthai Kr Selvaraj Kumar Meenavar Nala Sangam vs State of Tamilnadu

M/S. Sri Sai Infrastructures vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority - Tamil Nadu

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 17/2023 in Original Application No. 8/2016 of R.Ravimaran S/O Ramachandram vs Union of India Rep by Its Secertary the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change