Allowed

M/S.Stone Trust Enterprises v. Seiaa

NGT6 Feb 2024Appeal No. 38/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT Southern Zone allowed the appellant's appeal against the rejection of an environmental clearance for a black granite quarry. The court expunged the disparaging term 'dishonest' used by the authority, remitted the matter for fresh consideration after granting an opportunity for personal hearing, and directed the authority not to rely on past decisions. The order disposed of the appeal and q

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 13.12.2022 was set aside, the term 'dishonest' was expunged, and the matter was remitted to SEIAA for fresh consideration after an opportunity of personal hearing.

M/S.Stone Trust Enterprises vs Seiaa — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶2

Tuesday the 6^th day of February, 2023.

¶3

Appeal No.38 of 2023 (SZ) (Through Video Conference)

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF

¶5

M/s. Stone Trust Enterprises,

¶6

Rep by its Partner Mr. K.P. Mithun Kumar, 7/4, 8th street, Nandanam Extension, Chennai- 600 035.

¶7

...Appellant(s)
Versus

¶8

State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA).
Rep by its Member Secretary,
3rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015.
2. State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC),
Rep by its Chairman,
3rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015.
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Mrs. P. Kokila, Mrs. K. Priyanka, Mrs. B.
Girija and Mrs. K. Mokshavathy.
For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1 & R2.

¶9

Judgment Reserved on: 30^th January, 2024.

¶10

CORAM :

¶11

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

¶12

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana , Judicial Member

¶13

The appeal is directed against the order of rejection of the proposal made by the appellant, herein, for quarrying black granite in his patta land measuring an extent of 3.03.0 ha in S.F. Nos. 22/1,

¶14

¶15

23/1, 2, 24/7, 8, 25/1 and 25/2 of Semmedu Village, Vikravandi Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶16

The appellant had filed an application in Form-IM for obtaining the prior Environmental Clearance for the above-referred area under ‘B2’ category on 25.06.2019 which was given a file no. 6873. The said proposal was placed during the 136^th meeting of the SEAC on 21.09.2019. The SEAC decided not to recommend for issuance of Environmental Clearance for the project as the project site was next to a water tank (without mentioning the distance at which it is located) and the project will adversely impact the storage capacity of the tank affecting the irrigation and livelihood of the local people of the downstream. Hence, SEAC decided not to recommend.

¶17

As the project was not recommended the appellant once again applied for the same project on 15.02.2022 and the proposal was given file no. 9040. The SEAC has recommended in its 281^st meeting held on 03.06.2022. When it was placed before the SEIAA on 01.07.2022 it was referred back by the authorities for the reasons stated therein. While the matter was pending consideration before the SEAC, the appellant, herein, requested for the withdrawal of the application and made a request. Therefore, reappraisal was not done by the Committee or SEAC. In the meanwhile, the project proponent had done 08 numbers of hydrogeological studies. As the appellant had decided to withdraw the proposal, the SEIAA on 03.12.2022 sent a communication stating “ This is to inform that your request for withdrawal of EC

¶18

¶19

has been rejected by the SEIAA and henceforth, your application will be treated as withdrawn ”.

¶20

Once again the project proponent/appellant had made the 3^rd online proposal on 13.12.2022 for the third time which was given file no. 9641. As the proposal was not considered within time, the appellant sent a request on 10.03.2023 to SEAC and requested the authorities to reconsider their application and consider issuance of Environmental Clearance. As there was delay in processing the appellant’s file no. 9641 dated 13.12.2022 and the reminder dated 10.03.2023, the appellant had filed a W.P. No. 17246 of 2023 for mandamus to consider the proposal in file no. 9641 for grant of the Environmental Clearance to the appellant. The said writ petition was disposed of on 12.06.2023 directing the SEIAA to consider the petitioner’s application on merits within the period of 03 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶21

In compliance with the direction passed in the W.P No. 17246 of 2023 the proposal was placed in 636^th meeting of SEIAA and the same was forwarded to SEAC to consider the proposal as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court. Thereafter the matter was placed in the meeting of the SEAC held on 25.08.2023. The SEAC noted that already decision has been taken by the previous committee in its 136^th meeting on 21.09.2019. In the said meeting it was decided as follows:

¶22

“After the detailed presentation and perusal of the details furnished by the proponent, the SEAC decided to not recommended for issue of Environmental Clearance the proposal since the project site is abetting the water tank which has large capacity and the project will adversely impact the storage capacity of the tank and thereby affecting the irrigation and

¶23

¶24

livelihood of the local people of the downstream. Hence, SEAC collectively decided that the project is not recommended.”

¶25

Now after direction received from the Hon’ble High Court to

¶26

consider the proposal no. 9641 the authority has held that

¶27

“the Hon’ble High Court had directed the authority to consider the application freshly filed. SEAC carefully examined the case and decided that the PP WAS DISHONEST in not to disclose the earlier decision of the authority to deny Environmental Clearance to his proposal based on the recommendation of SEAC. Now again the PP has made fresh application for the same proposal, albeit disclosing the history. None of the parameters based on which the EC was denied has changed. Further, reopening already decided cases based on fresh applications would be inappropriate and would lead to PPs filing fresh applications repeatedly till EC is granted. SEAC, therefore, decided that there would be no change in the recommendation already made.”

¶28

The authority after discussion accepted the decision of SEAC, rejected the proposal and requested the Member Secretary, SEIAA, Tamil Nadu to grant rejection letter to proponent as per 404th SEAC minutes.

¶29

The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the word ‘dishonest’ used by the respondent against the appellant in the impugned order is a disparaging remark which is irrelevant to process the Environmental Clearance application. The respondent has employed the word ‘dishonest’ for not disclosing the earlier decision of the authority to deny the Environmental

¶30

Clearance to the proposal made by the appellant.

¶31

It is to be seen that the first proposal made on 25.06.2019 was not recommended by the SEAC then the second proposal dated 15.02.2022 has not come to the logical conclusion as there was no response from the authorities till date. Therefore, the appellant had made the third proposal on 13.12.2022. In the meanwhile, the second proposal was sought to be withdrawn by the appellant

¶32

¶33

which was also permitted by the SEIAA. It is to be noted that the appellant had carried out the comprehensive and detailed studies for the project and also had obtained NoC as required.

¶34

According to the appellant, Environmental Clearance was never rejected to the project for file no. 6873 which is the first application made on 25.06.2019 as there was no communication received till today. Regarding the second application made on 15.02.2022 in file no. 9040 it was withdrawn with the permission of the authority. The project proponent had not received any communication till today with respect to the file no. 6873. While so the authority cannot make the remark that the appellant is dishonest in not disclosing the authority’s decision as it may be factually incorrect. The Learned Counsel, therefore, prayed that terming project proponent as ‘dishonest’ would amount to bringing a great disrepute to the project proponent’s firm as this is the first project for the appellant and prayed for expunging the same.

¶35

The order refusing to recommend the project on the file no. 6873 was not communicated to the project proponent not only within time but even till today amounts denial of right to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant was forced to make another application with additional inputs after the impact studies. The very same SEAC appreciated and recommended the project for Environmental Clearance in their 281st meeting in file no. 9040. As there was no communication, the appellant withdrew the proposal and made a fresh proposal in which the impugned order is passed merely stating the decision taken by the prevision committee in its 136th meeting held on 21.09.2019.

¶36

¶37

Further, it is also wrong for the 1st respondent to state that it is reopening of the already decided case by filing a fresh application. Time and again it has been held that every fresh application has to be dealt with independently on its merits and the question of reopening or reconsidering does not arise. Therefore the apprehension expressed by the respondent in its impugned order that reopening of the already decided cases based on fresh applications would be inappropriate and would lead to the project proponents filing fresh applications repeatedly till Environmental Clearance is granted is incorrect. There is no prohibition for project proponent to make fresh applications after rectifying the defects, if the earlier applications were not considered and recommended. Admittedly, the rejection orders are not communicated to the project proponent within time. It is reiterated that every time a fresh proposal is filed, the authorities have to independently consider and deal with them.

¶38

As per EIA Notification, 2006, Stage-IV is appraisal which means the detailed scrutiny by the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee of the application and other documents like the final EIA report etc., for the grant of Environmental Clearance. The said appraisal is to be made by the SEAC concerned in a transparent manner in the proceedings to which applicant shall be invited for furnishing necessary clarifications in person or through an authorised representative.

¶39

In the instant case, even if there were any doubts, the SEAC ought to have communicated to the appellant and discussed the same.

¶40

¶41

However without doing so, the impugned order is passed and naming the appellant as ‘dishonest’ is biased, unreasonable and unfounded. Such an approach of the SEIAA is unwarranted. Hence, the usage of the word ‘dishonest’ in the impugned order is specifically expunged.

¶42

As the impugned order has been passed based on the decision taken by the previous committee in its 136th meeting held on 21.09.2019 apparently there is no appraisal done afresh based on the proposal dated 13.12.2022. Therefore, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2022 passed by SEIAA and the same is remitted back to SEIAA for fresh consideration of the proposal no. 9641 dated 13.12.2022 afresh after according an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant within a period of 04 weeks without influenced by any of the comments made in this order.

¶43

............................................................J.M.
(Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana)
.......................................E.M.
(Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati)
Internet – Yes/No
All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

¶44

Appeal No.38/2023(SZ) 6th February, 2024.(AM)

¶45

¶46

Before the National Green Tribunal Southern Zone (Chennai)

¶47

Appeal No. 38 of 2022(SZ)
M/s Stone Trust Enterprises
Vs.
SEIAA & Ors.
Appeal No. 38/2023(SZ)
6th February ,2024. (AM)

¶48

M/S.Stone Trust Enterprises v. Seiaa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Stone Trust Enterprises v. Seiaa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner Kayalpattinam Municipality vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

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

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

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

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

M/S. Aranco a Registered Partnership Firm (Wrongly Identified as Unit-Ii of Sree Rama Engineering & Constructions or Teja Reddy Crushers) vs the Telangana State Pollution Control Board Zonal Office Hyderabad

Prafulla Samatara vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Anjum vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

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

The Commissioner Kayalpattinam Municipality vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

S. Paul Raj S/O Mr.Silvester vs the Commissioner

Raveendra Babu vs Union of India

K S Thanikachalam vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Tamilnadu

P Kesavan vs the District Collector Karur District