Dismissed

Om Pal and Ors. vs

NGT5 Aug 2024IA No. 860/2023 in Original Application No. 160/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NGT held mining lease and CTO valid only up to EC expiry date. Directed recovery of unauthorized environmental compensation by State, imposed costs/compensation for non-compliance, and issued directions for future monitoring and machinery standards.

What did the court decide?

Mining lease/CTO validity restricted to EC expiry; costs levied on proponent and State; directions for monitoring, machinery guidelines, and recovery of environmental compensation by State.

Om Pal and Ors. vs — Mining and Natural Resources | NGT (2024)

(Court

No. 2)

Item No. 01

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶5

(Through Physical Hearing with Hybrid VC Option)

¶6

Original Application No.160/2022 (I.A. No. 860/2023 & I.A. No. 75/2023)

¶7

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶8

1. Om Pal and others,

¶9

Residents of Village Pachayra, Tehsil Loni, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. …Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

1. State of Uttar Pradesh,

¶12

Through Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, 101, 'B' Block, Lok Bhawan, U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow – 226001. Email: [email protected].

¶13

2. The Director,

¶14

Directorate of Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh, Raja, Khanij Bhawan 27/8, Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226001. Email: [email protected].

¶15

3. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board,

¶16

Building No. TC-12V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226 010, U.P. Email: [email protected].

¶17

4. District Magistrate, Ghaziabad,

¶18

Office of the District Magistrate, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad-201001, U.P. Email: [email protected].

¶19

5. Mr. Mumtaz Ali,

¶20

S/o Mr. Fakir Mohammad, Resident of Mohammadabad, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, (Project Proponent). …Respondents

¶21

Counsel for the Applicants:

¶22

Mr. S. P. Singh Senior Advocate alongwith applicant.

¶23

O.A.No.160/2022

¶24

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶25

-2-

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶27

Mr. Bhanwar Singh Jadon, Mr. Chetan Jadon and Mr. Hardik Saxena, Advocates for respondent no. 1-State of U.P.

¶28

Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocate for respondent no. 2- Mining Department.

¶29

Mr. Utkarsh Tripathi Mining Officer.

¶30

Mr. Pradeep Misra and Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocates for respondent no. 3- UPPCB.

¶31

Mr. R. P. Mehrorta Senior Advocate with Ms. Pallavi Pratap, Ms. Muskan Jain and Mr. Apoorv Srivastava, Advocates for respondent no. 5.

¶32

PRESENT:

¶33

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶34

Judgment Reserved on:- 13.03.2024 Judgment pronounced on :- 05.08.2024

¶35

Application is registered based on a complaint received by post.

¶36

Judgment

¶37

PRONOUNCED BY: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JM

¶38

Mr. Ompal and other residents of Village Pachayra, Tehsil Loni, District Ghaziabad have sent by post the present letter petition, which has been treated and registered as original application.

¶39

The applicants have complained in the letter petition about illegal sand mining at Khasra no. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 37, 38 etc. in river bed of River Yamuna in village Pachayra Khand-1, Tehsil Loni, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh by contractor Mr. Mumtaz Ali in violation of environmental norms.

¶40

The relevant part of the letter petition enumerating grievances of the applicants reads as under:

¶41

“ िवषय- ाम पचायरा ख -1 म बालू खननं पटटेदार ारा भू ामीओं की िबना िल खत सहमित मुआवजा िदये िबना तथा शासनादेशों , पया वरण

¶42

O.A.No.160/2022

¶43

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶44

-3-

¶45

ता भाव की शत /िनयमों / ीकृित आदेश/पटटा अनुब की शत तथा मा० ायालय एन०जी०टी० की शत का सरेआम उ ंघन कर ितब त पौकलैन मशीनों ारा ीकृत े से बाहर , यमुना नदी तल से नीचे 15-20 फुट गहराई खुदाई कर भारी मा ा म अवैध खनन कर रा सरकार को राज की भारी ित प ँचाने के संबंध म ।

¶46

X X X X

¶47

िनवेदन यह है िक आपके ारा / िजलािधकारी महोदय ारा ाम पचायरा म खसरा न र 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 37 , 38 आिद म बालू खनन का पटटा िदया गया है आपके ारा िदये गये अनुउपयु बालू खनन हेतु मुमताज अली ठेकेदार को जो बालू खनन हेतु िदया गया है िपछले वष उ ठेकेदार ने िबना िकसानों की सहमित के ही जबरन खनन शु कर िदया ाथ गणो की भूिम ाम पचायरा व िद ी देश की सीमा के गांवो से लगती है जहाँ होम िडपाट मे भारत सरकार वष 1884 के िनयम व शासनादेश व खनन िवभाग की रपोट के अनुसार दोनों देशो की सीमा यमुना नदी की गहराई धारा को माना गया है उ ठेकेदार मुमताज अली िपछले वष शासनादेश , ता माण प , पटटा अनुब की शत , िसंचाई िवभाग , व मा० ायालय एन०जी०टी० की शत का लगातार उ ंघन करते ितब त पौकलैन मशीनों ारा ीकृत के बाहर िसचाई िवभाग की ितब त सीमा 600 मीटर के अ र के खसरा न र/ े म भारी मा ा म अवैध खनन िकया गया था िजस पर खनन िवभाग / राज िवभाग ारा भारी मा ा म अवैध खनन थलीय जांच रपोट / राय ी की वसूली की काय वाही की गयी।

¶48

उ ठेकेदार ारा उ बडी-बडी पौकलैन मशीनों ारा यमुना नदी के िकनारों को काटकर 15-20 फुट गहराई तक खुदाई कर अवैध खनन िकया गया था। िजससे यमुना नदी अपनी मु धारा से हटकर उ र देश की तरफ ितब त सीमा 600 मीटर के अ र आ गयी िजससे उ र देश की भू ािमयों की भूिम यमुना पार िद ी की तरफ चली गयी िजसकी िशकायते हम भू ािमयों ने कई बार की थी पर ु ठेकेदार की िमलीभगत सांठ गांठ से कोई काय वाही नहीं ई।

¶49

िफर अब माह अ ुबर 2021 के बाद पुनः उ ठेकेदार िबना िकसानों की िल खत सहमित के ही खनन काय शु कर रहा है उ ठेकेदार ने यमुना नदी की धारा को मोड कर/अव कर िद ी देश की तरफ कर िदया है िजससे कभी भी उ० ० सरकार व िद ी सरकार व हम भू ामी म टकराव उ हो सकता है।

¶50

यह भी अवगत कराना है िक िक उ ीकृत े अिधकतर जल म है ीकृत े म आपके ारा अंिकत 3,23,600 घन मीटर बालू उपल ही नहीं है। उ ठेकेदार शासनादेशों , प ा अनुबंध की शत पया वरण व मा ायालय एन०जी०टी० की शत का पूरा पूरा उलंघन कर ीकृत े से बाहर तथा यमुना नदी की मु धारा को काटते ए ितबंिधत े म बडी बडी पोपलेन मशीनों से िदन-रात 24 घ े पुनः यमुना नदी के जल र/तल से नीचे 15-20 फुट गहराई तक भारी मा ा म अवैध िकया जायेगा जो पूण प से अवैध खनन की ेणी होगा।

¶51

पुनः यह भी अवगत कराना है िक उ ीकृत े म ना तो िपलर / सीमा है न ही कैमरे है। उ ठेकेदार ारा बालू के खाली व भरे ट कों को धम कांटे पर िबना तुलाई के ही ओवरलोड भरकर लगभग 25 घनमीटर की बालू भरकर िदन रात 24 घ े बेची जाती है। जो रव ा पच एम०एम० 11 म लगभग 12 घनमीटर ही अंिकत

¶52

O.A.No.160/2022

¶53

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶54

-4-

¶55

कर दशा या जाता है। धम कांटे की वजन की कोई पच नहीं दी जाती है। केवल धम कांटा िदखावे के िलये ही रखा है। मु प से अवगत कराना है िक हम भू ािमयों / ामवािसयों की भूिम म ीकृत े म तथा ीकृत े के बाहर बडीबडी पोपलेन मशीनों (जो नीचे खुदाई करती है) िदन रात 24 घ े को चलाने से रोकने के िलए जो पया वरण/ मा ायालय एन०जी०टी० / ीकृती आदेश / प ा अनुबंध की शत तथा िसंचाई िवभाग की शत का उ ंघन करने का कारण बनती है। यह मशीने लोडर नहीं है ब 40 फुट नीचे यमुना नदी तल की गहराई म खुदाई कर यमुना नदी की धारा को बदलकर प ी भूिम की कटाई कर जनहािन , पशुहािन , भूिमहािन , जीवहािन आिद को ित प ँचाती है। िजससे माह अ ुबर म मशीन से खुदाई करने से ए ग े म एक की डुबकर मौत हो गयी थी।

¶56

अतः ीमान जी से सानुरोध ाथ ना है िक ाम पचायरा म ख 1 म भू ािमयों को मुआवजा / िल खत सहमित के उपरा ही खनन की अनुमित / ओ०टी०पी० दी जाये तथा ीकृत आदेश / पटटा आदेश की शतों पया वरण ता माण प , मा० ायालय , एन०जी०टी० महोदय तथा िसंचाई िवभाग की शत का उ ंघन न हो सके इसके िलए ितबंिधत पोपलेन मशीनों को चलाने से रोकने की कृपा कर । तािक जनहािन , पशुहािन , भूिमहािन , जीव ज ु की हािन तथा उ० ०- िद ी देश की सीमा िववाद उ न हो सके तथा भूिम िद ी देश की सीमा म न चली जाए। ”

¶57

In view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the application, this Tribunal, vide order dated 10.03.2022 , constituted a Joint Committee comprising of Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) and District Magistrate-Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and directed the same to look into the grievances of the applicant and submit factual and action taken report within three months. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-

¶58

“ Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, it appears necessary to ascertain the factual position in the matter through a Joint Committee of the State PCB, and District MagistrateGhaziabad (Uttar Pradesh). The State PCB will be the Nodal agency for coordination and compliance. The Joint Committee may meet within four weeks and undertake site visit and look into the grievance of the applicant. Factual and action taken report may be furnished within three months by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.”

¶59

In compliance thereof, the Joint Committee inspected the site on 04.04.2022 . Compliance Report alongwith Joint Inspection Report of the Joint Committee was filed by Regional Officer, UPPCB, Ghaziabad vide email dated

¶60

O.A.No.160/2022

¶61

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶62

-5-

¶63

25.05.2022 . The relevant part of the compliance report reads as under:

¶64

“Report of the Joint Committee submitted in compliance to Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, New Delhi Order dated 10-03-2022 in OA No-160/2022 Ompal & Ors. Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

¶65

X X X X

¶66

During inspection it was informed by the representative of Mining department that sand mining permission has been granted in favour of Late Shri Fakir Mohammad resident- Mohammadabad, District-Jyotiba Phule Nagar- 244235 for a period of 05 years for total area of 16.183 in gata number 8m, 9m, 10m, 11m, 12m, 13m, 17m, 18m, 19m, 20m, 21m, 22m, 25m, 26m. of village Pachayra block-1 , 27m, 30m, 37m, 38m, 39m, 40m, 41m, 53m, 54m, 55m, S6m, 57m, 237m, 238m, 239m, 240mm of villagePachayara khand-1, tehsil- Loni, Ghaziabad.

¶67

The joint team conducted the site inspection of the area in question in the presence of the complainant Shri Ompal to ascertain issues raised by the complainant with regards to degradation of environment and violation of environmental laws. Point-wise compliance status with respect to complaint is as follows: -

¶68

a. Complaint has been made by the complainant Shri Ompal that illegal sand mining is being done by the lessee Shri Mumtaz Ali in Khasra No. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 37 and 38.

¶69

It was observed by the Joint Committee that, the above mentioned Khasras come under the sanctioned lease area in favour of Mr. Mumtaz Ali. Mining work is being done by Mr. Mumtaz Ali in his approved area, which does not come under the category of illegal mining.

¶70

b. Complaint has been made by the complainant Mr Ompal that illegal sand mining is being done by Mr. Mumtaz Ali lessee in the mining area of village Pachayra Khand-1 by doing 15-20 feet deep pit -

¶71

It was noticed by the Joint Committee that a part of the sanctioned lease area is presently submerged and no pothole was found in the dry area.

¶72

c. Complaint has been made by the complainant that the work of mining and loading of sand is being done by the lessee by heavy machines -

¶73

It was noticed by the Joint Committee that the work of mining and loading of sand is being done by the excavator cum loading machine in the order of the Directorate's letter no. 414/M (Mining Policy)/2018 dated 21.06.2019 by the lessee.

¶74

d. Complain has been made by the complainant that due to mining by the lessee, the Yamuna River has shifted within a distance of 600 meters from the bandh- In

¶75

O.A.No.160/2022

¶76

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶77

-6-

¶78

relation to the above complaint, it is to be informed that on the basis of a joint investigation of Irrigation Department, Revenue Department and Mining Department at the time of lease settlement, the lease section has been formed as per the guidelines of the Irrigation Department. During the investigation by the joint team, it was noticed on the spot that the mining work was being done by the lessee within the same geo-coordinates in which mining permission is sanctioned. The boundary pillars of the approved mining lease are located in the same place 600 meters from the pusta of the Irrigation Department.

¶79

As per the Joint report, complaints made by the complainant is baseless, a copy of the Joint report along with relevant documents is annexed as Annexure-1 .

¶80

The relevant part of the Joint Inspection Report of the Joint Committee reads as under:-

¶81

“संयु जांच आ ा

¶82

मा० एन०जी०टी नई िद ी म योिजत OA No. 160/2022 Om Pal & Ors. Versus State of Uttar Praesh & Anr. म पा रत आदेश िदनांक 10.03.2022 , ारा उ० ० दूषण िनयं ण बोड तथा िजलािधकारी गािजयाबाद की संयु सिमित के मा म से बालू खनन प ा ाम पचायरा ख -1 के खसरा सं० 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 37 व 38 म अवैध बालू खनन की जांच िकये जाने के आदेश िदये गये। उ आदेश के अनुपालन म उ० ० दूषण िनयं ण बोड जनपद गािजयाबाद के ितिनिध के प म ी बी०के० िसंह , सहायक पया वरण अिभयंता , उ० ० दूषण िनयं ण बोड , गािजयाबाद तथा िजलािधकारी गािजयाबाद के आदेश िदनांक 15.03.2022 के ारा अपरिजलािधकारी (िव०/रा०) गािजयाबाद को नािमत िकया गया। काया लय अपरिजलािधकारी (िव०/रा०) गािजयाबाद के प सं० 2247/एन०जी०टी०-142/ओपन-160/2022 िदनांक 26.03.2022 , ारा िजला खनन अिधकारी , गािजयाबाद एवं तहसीलदार लोनी को उपरो आदेश के अनुपालन म बालू खनन प ा ाम पचायरा ख -1 म अवैध बालू खनन की जाँच के समय अपने अधीन थ ाफ एवं आव क अभलेखो सिहत उप थत रहने हेतु िनद िशत िकया गया।

¶83

िदनांक 04.04.2022 को अपरिजलािधकारी (िव०/रा०) गािजयाबाद , े खान अिधकारी गािजयाबाद , सहायक पया वरण अिभयंता , उ० ० दूषण िनयं ण बोड , गािजयाबाद , तहसीलदार लोनी , सव क े ीय काया लय गािजयाबाद , े ीय कानूनगो एवं े ीय लेखपाल ारा गत े का थलीय िनरी ण िशकायतकता ी ओमपाल की उप थित म िकया गया , िजसकी जांच आ ा िन वत् है-

¶84

जनपद गािजयाबाद के तहसील लोनी के अ ्रगत ाम पचायरा ख -1 के गाटा सं० 8िम० , 9िम० , 10िन0 , 11 िम० , 12 िम० , 13िन० , 17िम० , 18 , 19 , 20िम० , 21िम० , 22िम० , 25िम0 , 26िम0 , 27िम० , 30 िम० , 37िम० , 38िन० , 39िम० , 40 िम० , 41िम० , 53िम० , 54िम० , 55िम० , 56िम० , 57िम० , 237िम० , 238िम0 , 239 िम० , 240िन0 के रकबा 16.183 हे० म 05 वष की अविध के िलये बालू खनन ी मुमताज अली पु ० ी फकीर मौह द िनवासी- मौह दाबाद , जनपद- ोितबा फूले नगर- 244235 के प म ीकृत एवं संचािलत है।

¶85

O.A.No.160/2022

¶86

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶87

-7-

¶88

िशकायतकता ी ओमपाल ारा िशकायत की गयी है िक प ेधारक ी मुमताज अली ारा खसरा सं० 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 37 व 38 म 15-20 फीट गहरे गडढे करके अवैध बालू खनन िकया जा रहा है , साथ ही प ेधारक ारा भारी मशीनों ारा बालू खनन कर लोिडंग का काय िकया जा रहा है , िजसके कारण प ेधारक ारा खनन करने से यमुना नदी बंधे से 600 मीटर की दूरी के अ र िश हो गयी है।

¶89

उ िशकायत के स ंध म जांच के समय पाया गया िक उपरो उ खत खसरा सं० ी मुमताज अली के प म ीकृत प ा े के अ गत आते है। ी मुमताज अली ारा अपने ीकृत े म खनन काय िकया जा रहा है , जो अवैध खनन की ेणी म नहीं आता है। ीकृत प ा े का एक िह ा वत मान म जलम है एवं जो े सूखे म है उसम िकसी भी कार का गडढा नहीं पाया गया। भारी मशीनों के स ंध म गिठत टीम ने देखा िक जाँच के समय प ाधारक ारा िनदेशालय के प सं० 414/एम० (खनन नीित)/2018 िदनांक 21.06.2019 म उ े खत मशीन ारा काय िकया जा रहा है। (िनदेशालय के प िदनांक 21.06.2019 की छाया ित एवं उ० ० उपखिनज (प रहार) िनयमावली , 2021 के िनयम-35 की छाया ित संल है।)

¶90

उ िशकायत के स ंध म अवगत कराना है िक प ा व थापन के समय िसंचाई िवभाग , राज िवभाग एवं खनन िवभाग की संयु जांच के आधार पर िसंचाई िवभाग के गाईड लाईन के अनुसार की प ा ख बना है। संयु टीम ारा जांच के समय मौके पर देखा गया िक व थापन के समय जो िजयोकािड नेटस है , उसी िजयोकािड नेटस के अ र ही प ेधारक ारा खनन का काय िकया जा रहा है। िसंचाई िवभाग के पु ा से 600 मीटर के बाहर ही ीकृत खनन प े के सीमा यथा थान थत है।.

¶91

This Tribunal considered the Compliance Report and the Joint Inspection Report of the Joint Committee on 12.07.2022 and noticed the deficiencies therein and in view thereof by order of even date directed the Joint Committee to submit further factual and action taken report. The relevant part of order dated 12.07.2022 reads as under:-

¶92

“4. We have gone through the report. It is pertinent to observe that in the letter petition, the applicants had complained that the Project Proponent was illegally mining beyond permitted area and permitted depth by use of prohibited machines without written consent of the applicants and without payment of compensation to them in accordance with order passed by Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in W.P No. 3101 of 2010 titled Sripal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. The applicants have complained that pillars and cameras have not been installed and the sand mined is transported without weighing on any weighment bridge and without submitting weighment slip in over loaded trucks containing 25 cubic meters sand against ‘rawana parchi’ recording transported quantity as 12 cubic meters. The applicants have claimed that earlier the Project Proponent had illegally mined within prohibited area of 600 meters notified by Irrigation

¶93

O.A.No.160/2022

¶94

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶95

-8-

¶96

Department for which heavy penalty/royalty was recovered by Mining/Revenue Department. The applicants have mentioned that one person died in October 2021 due to drowning in the pit created by machine used for mining. Vide order dated 10.03.2022, this Tribunal had directed the Joint Committee to look into the grievances of the applicants but while submitting its report the Joint Committee has not looked into the allegations regarding alleged incident of illegal mining by the Project Proponent and recovery of penalty/royalty by Mining/Revenue Department, alleged incident of death of one person by drowning in the pit created by the machine used for mining and alleged requirement of written consent and payment of compensation under order of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad and non-compliance thereof by the Project Proponent. The Joint Committee had submitted in the report that pillars were installed and the Project Proponent was mining by using permitted machine within the permitted area ruling out illegal mining by the Project Proponent but the Joint Committee has not attached any document regarding the mining lease, photographs of the pillars, cameras and weighment bridge installed and also of the machines used by the Project Proponent. The Joint Committee has not mentioned the particulars of machines permitted to be used and actually used on the spot and has also not attached map showing tallying of geo-coordinates of the mining sites leased out with sites actually mined by the Joint Committee. 6. In these facts and circumstances, we consider it appropriate to direct the Joint Committee to look into these aspects and verify the factual position and take appropriate remedial action by following due process of law and submit further factual and action taken report.”

¶97

Pursuant thereto, the Joint Committee inspected the site on 03.11.2022 and submitted report vide email dated 11.11.2022 . The relevant part of the report reads as under:

¶98

“संयु जांच आ ा

¶99

कृपया मा० ायालय एन०जी०टी० नई िद ी म योिजत OA No.-160/2021 OM Pal & Ors. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh Anr. म पा रत आदेश िदनांक 12.07.2022 के अनुपालन म प ाधारक ी मुमताज अली पु ० ी फकीर मौह द िनवासी -मौह दाबाद, जनपदोितबा फूले नगर- 244235 के प म ीकृत उपखिनज बालू खनन प ा े जनपद गािजयाबाद के तहसील लोनी अ ग त ाम पचायरा ख -1 के गाटा सं० 8िम०, 9िम०, 10िन0, 11 िम०, 12 िम०, 13िम०, 17 िम०, 18. 19, 20िन0, 21िम०, 22िम०, 25िम०, 26 िम०, 27िम०, 30िम०, 37िम०, 38िम०, 39िम०, 40 िम०, 41 िम०, 53िम०, 54िम०, 55 िम०, 56 िम०, 57 िम०, 237िम0, 238 िम०, 239िम०, 240 िम० रकबा 16.183 है० मा ा 323600 घ०मी० ितवष प ा अविध िदनांक 14.10.2020 से 13.10.2025 तक की संयु जांच खान अिधकारी, गािजयाबाद एवं सहायक पया वरण अिभयंता, उ० ० दूषण िनयं ण बोड , गािजयाबाद के साथ िदनांक 03.11.2022 को की गयी। मा० ायालय एन०जी०टी० नई िद ी ारा पा रत आदेश िदनांक 12.07.2022 के अनुपालन म िब दुवार आ ा िन वत् है-

¶100

O.A.No.160/2022

¶101

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶102

-9-

¶103

थलीय जांच म उ प ा े म खनन काय बंद पाया गया। यहाँ यह अवगत कराना है िक मानसून स (िदनांक 01.07.2022 से 30.09.2022 तक) म खनन काय बंद हो गया था, जो वत मान म शु नहीं आ है। मानसून स म यमुना नदी म जल र बढ़ जाने एवं प ा े म माह 01 जुलाई, 2022 अथा त् िपछले 04 माह से ही खनन काय बंद होने के कारण प ा े के सीमािच िमट गये है। प ा े म खनन काय शु होने से पूव यह सुिनि त िकया जायेगा िक प ा े को िजयो कािड नेट के अनुसार व थत करते ये सीमा िब दु के िपलर और कैमरा पुनः लगाया जाये। ीकृत खनन प े का िजयो कािड नेट संल है। (संल क-1)

¶104

थलीय जांच म खनन प ा े से कुछ दूरी पर तौल मशीन Weighment Bridge लगा आ पाया गया, िजसके फोटो ा स संल है। खनन काय शु होने से पूव उ Weighment Bridge का केली ेशन कराया जाना आव क है। (संल क-2)

¶105

यािचकाकता ारा दायर यािचका म यह कथन िकया गया है िक प ाधारक ारा खनन काय से बने गड् ढे म िगरने से िकसी की मृ ु हो गयी थी। इस स ंध म यह अवगत कराना है िक इस कार की घटना की कोई सूचना कभी भी खान अिधकारी, गािजयाबाद के सं ान म नहीं आयी है। यािचकाकता ारा उ घटना के स ंध म सा सिहत िववरण भी ुत नहीं िकया गया है। उ के कारण यािचकाकता के कथन की पुि िकया जाना स व नहीं है।

¶106

यािचकाकता ारा मा० उ ायालय, इलाहाबाद ारा पा रत आदेश के म म Compensation िदलाये जाने का कथन िकया गया है। यहाँ यह अवगत कराना है िक यािचकाकता ारा मा० उ ायालय, इलाहाबाद ारा पा रत आदेश के म म Compensation िदलाये जाने हेतु िकसी कार का ावेदन खनन िवभाग, गािजयाबाद के काया लय म ुत नहीं िकया गया है। यािचकाकता ारा मा० उ ायालय, इलाहाबाद ारा पा रत आदेश के म म Compensation िदलाये जाने हेतु यिद कोई ावेदन ुत िकया जाता है तो उस पर िनयमानुसार काय वाही की जायेगी।

¶107

यािचकाकता ारा प ाधारक पर ितब त े म खनन िकये जाने व इस स मे िवभाग ारा पैना ी / राय ी वसूली िकये जाने के स म कथन िकया गया है, िजस स मे अवगत कराना है िक खनन प ा ीकृि क िदनांक 14.10.2020 के उपरा संयु टीम ारा 18.03.2021 को प ा े का थलीय िनरी ण िकया गया, िजसम प ाधारक ारा प ा े से बाहर पि म िदशा म खनन िकया जाना पाया गया था, िजसके म म प ाधारक ऊपर ० 69,07,160.00 की धनरािश पैना ी के प म अिधरोिपत की गयी है। इस स म प ाधारक ारा जारी नोिटस के िव मा० ायालय आयु , मेरठ म ल, मेरठ के सम वाद योिजत िकया गया। प ाधारक ारा योिजत वाद को मा० ायालय आयु , मेरठ म ल, मेरठ ारा बलहीन होने के कारण िनर कर िदया गया। प ाधारक पर आरोिपत पैना ी की धनरािश 0 69,07,160.00 को जमा करने हेतु पुनः नोिटस ेिषत िकया गया। वत मान मे उ रािश को वसूला नहीं गया है। वसूली काय वाही चिलत है। मा० रा ीय ह रत अिधकरण म आवेदन उपरा अथवा िनरी ण िदनांक 08.04.2022 म िकसी कार का अवैध खनन नही पाया गया है।

¶108

पूव की जांच आ ा िदनांक 08.04.2022 (संल क-३) के अनुसार िसंचाई िवभाग, राज िवभाग एवं खनन िवभाग की संयु जांच के आधार पर िसंचाई िवभाग के गाईडलाईन के अनुसार ही प ा ख बना है तथा प ाधारक ारा प ा सीमा े म खनन काय िकया गया है। वत मान म खनन प ा े म खनन काय बंद है। प ाधारक को ीकृत खनन अनुमित म मा 03 मी० गहराई तक खनन व उ० ० उपखिनज (प रहार) िनयमावली, 2021 म अनुम मशीनों ारा ही काय िकये जाने की अनुमित दी गयी है। प ाधारक ारा खनन काय शु करने पर यह सुिनि त िकया जायेगा िक िनयमानुसार वग कृत मशीन एवं गहराई के अनुसार प ा सीमा े के अ र खनन काय िकया जायेगा।

¶109

O.A.No.160/2022

¶110

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶111

-10-

¶112

प ा े की थलीय जांच िदनांक 03.11.2022 म प ा े की मौके पर िलये गये फोटो ा स संल ह । (संल क-4)”

¶113

In its report, the Joint Committee had mentioned that the mining work was lying closed during monsoon period from 01.07.2022 to 30.09.2022 and that environmental compensation of Rs. 69,07,160/- had been imposed on the project proponent and the proceedings for recovery thereof are pending. In its report the Joint Committee had also mentioned that no documents have been furnished by the applicant regarding the death of a person in the mining pit and non-compliance with the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

¶114

Vide order dated 16.11.2022 , this Tribunal impleaded State of Uttar Pradesh through the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh; the Director, Directorate of Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh; Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB); the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and the Project Proponent-Mr. Mumtaz Ali S/o Mr. Fakir Mohammad, resident of Mohammadabad, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar, Uttar Pradesh as respondents no. 1 to 5 and notices were ordered to be served on respondents.

¶115

By order dated 16.11.2022 the Project Proponent was restrained from carrying out any further mining from the mining site in question till further orders to the contrary. The relevant part of the order reads as under :

¶116

“11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the project proponent is alleged to have previously indulged in illegal mining for which environmental compensation has been imposed regarding which recovery proceeding are pending and the mandate of Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to apply inter alia precautionary and polluter pays principles, the project proponent is restrained from carrying out any further mining from the mining site in question till further orders to the contrary.

¶117

12. The District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad are directed to take all requisite steps for ensuring that no illegal mining take place in the mining site in question.”

¶118

O.A.No.160/2022

¶119

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶120

-11-

¶121

Additional Director, Directorate of Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh filed compliance report vide email dated 06.12.2022 that in compliance of the injunctive order passed by this Tribunal the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad had vide order dated 18.11.2022 prohibited mining by respondent no. 5 till further orders.

¶122

The Project Proponent filed Civil Appeal No. 8872/2022 titled Mumtaz Ali Vs. Ompal and Others before Hon’ble Supreme Court in which following interim order was passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.12.2022 :-

¶123

“The proceedings before the National Green Tribunal are re-listed on 08.12.2022. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the reports, which, he states, are in his favour. He submits that given these facts, the direction passed that the appellant should stop mining would cause immense prejudice to the appellant. Conditions can be imposed to ensure mining in accordance with rules, as the reports indicate that the appellant has been complying with the rules . ”

¶124

The Project Proponent filed I.A. No. 319/2022 for passing an order in compliance of the interim order dated 02.12.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court and allowing the project proponent to continue the mining in accordance with rules. I.A. No. 319/2022 was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 08.12.2022 and injunctive order dated 16.11.2022 was vacated and the project proponent was allowed to carry out the mining strictly in accordance with rules and in compliance with the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTE/CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-

¶125

“9. It is evident from the interim order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that conditions can be imposed to ensure mining in accordance with rules. The project proponent has represented before Hon’ble Supreme Court that the project proponent had been complying with the rules as reported by the Joint Committee constituted by the Tribunal. However, it is pertinent to observe that the Joint Committee and even UPPCB did not undertake comprehensive assessment and monitoring with regard to the compliance by the project proponent with the conditions imposed by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Uttar

¶126

O.A.No.160/2022

¶127

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶128

-12-

¶129

Pradesh (SEIAA) at the time of granting Environmental Clearance (EC) to the said project proponent, more particularly, conditions no. 15, 16, 19, 33, 34 and 46 which read as under:-

¶130

“ 15. Primary survey of flora and fauna shall be carried out and data shall be submitted to the RO, PCB and SEIAA within six months.

¶131

16. Hydro-geological study shall be carried out by a reputed organization/institute within six months and establish that mining in the said area will not adversely affect the ground water regime. The report shall be submitted to the RO, PCB and SEIAA within six months. In case adverse impact is observed/anticipated, mining shall not be carried out. X X X X 19. Green cover development shall be carried out following CPCB guidelines including selection of plant species and in consultation with the local DFO/Horticulture Officer. X X X X

¶132

33. Possibility for adopting nearest three villages shall be explored and details of civic amenities such as roads, drinking water etc. proposed to be provided at the project proponent’s expenses shall be submitted within 02 months from the date of issuance of Environment Clearance.

¶133

34. The funds earmarked for environmental protection measures should be kept in separate account and should not be diverted for other purpose. Year wise expenditure should be reported to the Ministry of Environment and Forests and its Regional Office located at Lucknow, SEIAA, U.P. and UPPCB… ”

¶134

10. Similarly, status of compliance by the project proponent with the consent conditions imposed at the time of grant of CTE/CTO by UPPCB has also not been verified properly. As per the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA, an environmental audit was required to be carried out annually during the operational phase of the mining and submitted to the SEIAA and the District Mining Officer was required to quarterly monitor the compliance of stipulated conditions. On being questioned, Mr. Sunny Kaushal, Mining Officer, Ghaziabad, who appeared before this Tribunal through VC, could not give any satisfactory answer regarding such annual audit and quarterly monitoring.

¶135

11. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Senior Advocate, appearing for the project proponent has submitted that the project proponent will ensure strict compliance with the conditions imposed by SEIAA and consent conditions by UPPCB and will also deposit, under protest, the amount of environmental compensation, in the eventuality of revision petition filed by the project proponent being decided against him, within 30 days of such decision, without prejudice to availing further remedies in accordance with law.

¶136

O.A.No.160/2022

¶137

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶138

-13-

¶139

12. In view of the interim order dated 02.12.2022 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and the undertaking given by learned Senior Counsel for the project proponent, I.A. No. 319/2022 is allowed and an injunctive order dated 16.11.2022 is vacated and the project proponent is allowed to carry out the mining strictly in accordance with rules and in compliance with the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTE/CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms.”

¶140

No affidavit regarding point- wise compliance of the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTE/CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms was filed by respondent no.5 within one month with the consequence that the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB did not verify the factual position and submit status report regarding compliance with the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTE/CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms within two months. On the other hand, I.A. No. 75/2023 was filed by respondent no. 5-Project Proponent on 10.03.2023 for placing on record the documents in compliance of order dated 08.12.2022 . I.A. No. 75/2023 was

¶141

allowed vide order dated 27.03.2023 and the documents mentioned therein were taken on record .

¶142

Joint Status report was filed by the AEE and RO, UPPCB, Ghaziabad and Senior Mining Officer, Ghaziabad vide email dated 24.03.2023 .

¶143

This Tribunal noticed the violations by respondent no. 5 and vide order dated 27.03.2023 directed respondent no. 5 to desist from carrying out any further mining activity in the mining site leased out to it. Environmental clearance if any granted by SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh to respondent no. 5 in respect of the above said mining site was also ordered to remain in abeyance till further orders to the contrary. Relevant part of order dated 27.03.2023 reads as under :

¶144

“11. We have gone through the compliance report filed by the Project Proponent and the joint status report filed on behalf of the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB. We find that

¶145

O.A.No.160/2022

¶146

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶147

-14-

¶148

our order has been observed more in breach than in compliance. Vide order dated 08.12.2022, we directed the Project Proponent to file compliance report within one month but the Project Proponent has filed I.A 75/2023 on 10.03.2023 after expiry of more than three months. Vide order dated 08.12.2022, the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB were directed to verify compliance status and file status reports within two months but the Joint Status Report has been filed on 24.03.2023 after expiry of more than three months. Vide order dated 16.11.2022 the Project Proponent was restrained from carrying out further mining against which the Project Proponent filed appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court by misrepresenting the facts regarding compliance with the environmental norms while relying upon the reports submitted by the Joint Committee before this Tribunal to be in his favour but as per the Joint Status Report now filed before this Tribunal there are serious environmental violations on the part of the Project Proponent who had not even obtained CTE/CTO from UPPCB prior to 05.01.2023. We find the present case to be a classical example of inaction/non- application of mind and also misrepresentation of facts before this Tribunal by the concerned State Authorities/the Joint Committee. In its report dated 25.05.2022, the Joint Committee did not mention the relevant facts regarding particulars of EC, validity period of the lease as well as grant of CTE/CTO by UPPCB and merely reported in well-crafted manner that there was no illegal mining. In its report filed vide email dated 11.11.2022, the Joint Committee mentioned that the lease was valid from 14.10.2020 to 13.10.2025 but did not mention the relevant facts regarding particulars of EC and also grant of CTE/CTO by UPPCB. It is stated before this Tribunal that the Project Proponent obtained CTO in January 2023 from UPPCB. There was serious violation of the environmental laws/norms as the Project Proponent commenced and carried out mining without obtaining CTE/CTO from the UPPCB which fact was completely ignored by the State Authorities for extraneous consideration. In the Joint Status Report now filed on behalf of the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB serious violations on the part of the Project Proponent have been mentioned but the Joint Status Report has been prepared and submitted after expiry of the EC and discontinuance of the mining and no justification has been given for not carrying out of requisite inspection for verification of the compliance status during continuance of the mining.

¶149

12. In the present case EC is stated to have been transferred in favour of the Project Proponent which was valid upto 31.01.2023 but lease dead was executed in favour of the Project Proponent which is valid from 14.10.2020 to 13.10.2025 and was not executed for period co-terminus with EC.

¶150

13. The Project Proponent is stated to have applied to SEIAA for grant of EC for further mining in terms of the lease dead but this Tribunal is not informed as to what is the present status thereof. 14. In view of the mandate in Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 requiring this Tribunal to apply precautionary principle and also the provisions made in Section 19 (4) (j) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 empowering this Tribunal to require any person to cease and desist from committing or causing any violation of any enactment specified in Schedule I thereof, respondent no. 5 is directed to desist from carrying out any further mining activity in the mining site leased out to it and environmental clearance if any granted by SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh to respondent no. 5

¶151

O.A.No.160/2022

¶152

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶153

-15-

¶154

in respect of the above said mining site shall also remain in abeyance till further orders to the contrary.

¶155

15. The District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad are also directed to take appropriate steps to ensure that no illegal mining takes place in the mining site in question.

¶156

16. List for further consideration on 26.04.2023. 17. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case, we also consider personal appearance of the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and the Member Secretary, UPPCB, before this Tribunal on the date fixed to be essential for assisting this Tribunal in just and proper adjudication of the questions involved in the case and they are accordingly directed to remain present before this Tribunal on that date.”

¶157

In compliance of above referred order, Ms. Roshan Jacob, Director, Mining and Geology, U.P. and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member Secretary, UPPCB appeared before this Tribunal through VC on 26.04.2023 and submitted that NoC/consent from UPPCB was not required by the Project Proponent for sand mining.

¶158

Vide order dated 26.04.2023 Ms. Roshan Jacob, Director, Mining and Geology, U.P. and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member Secretary, UPPCB were directed to file their detailed response affidavits with regard to their submission that consent from UPPCB was not required by the Project Proponent for sand mining. Respondent no. 5 was also directed to file his reply/response.

¶159

In compliance of order dated 26.04.2023 , affidavits were filed by the Member Secretary, UPPCB vide email dated 19.05.2023 and by the Director, Mining and Geology, U.P. vide email dated 22.05.2023 . In their affidavits the Member Secretary, UPPCB and the Director, Mining and Geology, U.P. also mentioned that no mining activity is taking place but the application of the Project Proponent for EC is pending.

¶160

Vide order dated 30.05.2023 this Tribunal noticed that the case also involves the question as to whether mining lease deed can be executed by the District Magistrate on behalf of the State beyond the validity period of EC

¶161

O.A.No.160/2022

¶162

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶163

-16-

¶164

granted by SEIAA and the parties were given opportunity to file their response in respect of the above said question if so desired.

¶165

Reply was filed by District Magistrate, Ghaziabad vide email dated

¶166

01.01.2024 . The relevant part of the reply is reproduced below:-

¶167

“ कृपया उपरो िवषयक जनपद गािजयाबाद के तहसील लोनी थत बालू खनन प ा ाम पचायरा ख -1 प ाधारक ी मुमताज अली के िव मा० ायालय रा ीय ह रत ािधकरण, नई िद ी म योिजत ओ०ए० नं० 160/2022, ओमपाल व अ बनाम उ० ० रा व अ म पा रत आदेश िदनांक 17.10.2023 का संदभ हण करने का क कर , िजसके काय कारी अंश िन वत् है :-

¶168

“1. Vide order dated 30.05.2023 this Tribunal directed filling of response regarding the aspect involved as to whether mining lease deed can be executed by the District Magistrate on behalf of the State beyond the validity period of EC granted by SEIAA. No response has been filed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

¶169

इस स ंध म बालू खनन प ा पचायरा ख -1 तहसील लोनी का िववरणिन वत् है -

¶170

1.इस काया लय के िव सं० 864 िदनांक 05.03.2020 ारा जनपद गािजयाबाद के तहसील लोनी थत बालू खनन े ाम पचायरा ख -1 गाटा सं० 8 िम०, 9िम०, 10 िम०, 11िम०, 12 िम०, 13िम०, 17 िम०, 18, 19, 20िम०, 21 िम0, 22िम०, 25 िम०, 26िम०, 27िम०, 30 िम०, 37िम०, 38 िम०, 39 िम०, 40 िम०, 41 िम०, 53िभ०, 54 िम०, 55िम०, 56िम०, 57िम०, 237िम०, 238 िम०, 239िम०, 240 िम० रकबा 16.183 हे० बालू मा ा 323600 घ०मी० ित वष को 05 वष की अविध हेतु बालू खनन प ा पर ीकृत िकये जाने के िलये ई-िनिवदा सह ई-नीलामी णाली के मा म से िव ािपत िकया गया।

¶171

2 उपरो िव के कम म ी मुमताज अली िनवासी मौह दाबाद पो िबजौरा ाितबा फूले नगर-244235 ारा उ तम बोली 0 206/- ित घनमीटर ुत की गयी, िजस पर ीकृित उपरा ी मुमताज अली के प म 05 वष य बालू खनन प ा ीकृत िकये जाने हेतु आशय प सं० 990 िदनांक 23.06.2020 जारी िकया गया।

¶172

ी मुमताज अली के प म िनग त आशय प की शत के अ ग त िनयत धनरािश जमा कराने के उपरा प ाधारक ारा ह ा रत पया वरण ता माण प सं० 293/पया /एस०ई०ए०सी०/3886/2018 िदनांक 10.09.2020 इस काया लय म ुत िकया गया। (संल क-1)

¶173

प ाधारक ारा ुत पया वरण ता माण प के संबंध म अवगत कराना है िक उ पया वरण ता माण प पूव प ाधारक ी गुरबाज िसंह पु ी मेजर िसंह िनवासीबी-6/1379, माड न कालोनी, जगधारी, िजला ह रयाणा के नाम ीकृत था, िजसकी प ा अविध िदनांक 01.02.2018 से िदनांक 31.01.2023 तक थी। प ाधारक ी गुरबाज िसंह ारा प ा िवलेख की शत का उ ंघन करने के कारण ीकृत बालू खनन प ा को त ालीन िजलािधकारी महोदया के आदेश िदनांक 30.03.2018 ारा िनर कर िदया गया।

¶174

रा रीय पया वरण समाघात िनधा रण ािधकरण, उ० ०, लखनऊ ारा ी गुरबाज िसंह के प म ीकृत पया वरण ता माण प िदनांक 12.01.2018 म उ खत सम शत को यथावत रखते ये ी मुमताज अली के प म पया वरण ता माण िदनांक 10.09.2020 ह ां रत िकया गया। (संल क-2)

¶175

O.A.No.160/2022

¶176

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶177

-17-

¶178

ी मुमताज अली ारा उ ह ांत रत पया वरण ता माण प (Transferred EC) को काया लय म ुत िकया गया, िजसके म म ी मुमताज अली के प म िदनांक 21.10.2020 को प ा िवलेख का िन ादन त ालीन िजलािधकारी ारा उ र देश उपखिनज (प रहार) िनयमावली, 1963 यथा संशोिधत िनयमावली, 2021 के िनयम- 35 (5) म िदये गये ािवधानों के अ ग त िकया गया। िनयम 35 (5) म िदये गये ािवधान िन वत् है

¶179

¶180

"िनयम 35-(5)- खनन प ा िवलेख का िन ादन, इस िनिम रा सरकार ारा अिधसूचना ारा ािधकृत अिधकारी ारा स क प से खनन योजना अनुमोिदत िकये जाने के उपरा और ावक के प म पया वरण अनापि माण प जारी िकये जाने के िदनांक से एक माह के भीतर िकया जायेगा। खनन संि या नदी तल खिनज के प ेदार हेतु त ाल एवं अ खिनजों के प ेदार ारा प ा िवलेख के िन ादन के िदनांक से 03 (तीन) माह के भीतर ार की जायेगी और प ेदार त ात् जानबूझकर कोई थगन िकये िबना ऐसी खनन संि याओं का संचालन, उिचत और द तापूण रीित से तथा कुशल कारीगर की भॉित करेगा:

¶181

ितबंध यह है िक सरकार ारा िविध संगत ढंग से या िकसी िविधक काय वाही के अनुसार खनन प ा/अनु ा प समा करने या प ा/अनु ा प धारक ारा अ प ण िकये जाने पर, ऐसे प ा/अनु ा प धारक के प म ीकृत पया वरणीय अनापि उस िविधक को अ रत की जा सकेगी, िजसके प म ऐसा प ा/अनु ा प उसकी वैधता अविध म तय िकया गया हो।"

¶182

उपरो के स ंध म प ाधारक ी मुमताज अली ारा पया वरण ता माण प की अविध समा होने के प ात् खनन प ा की ओ०टी०पी० िनदेशालय से बंद कर दी गयी है तथा प ाधारक ीकृत खनन े म खनन काय बंद कर िदया गया है। वत मान म प ाधारक ी मुमताज अली ारा पुनः पया वरण ता माण प ा िकये जाने हेतु आवेदन िकया जा चुका है, जो िवचाराधीन है।

¶183

अतः उपरो ानुसार आ ा सेवा म सादर ेिषत है। “

¶184

Vide order dated 30.05.2023 the Project Proponent was directed to file additional reply giving details of CSR/EMP activities carried out by the Project Proponent along with all supporting bills/receipt/documents and also to file copies of annual audit statement and CSR statements filed by him before Director, Mining and Geology, U.P.

¶185

However respondent no. 5-Project Proponent did not file any additional reply giving details of CSR/EMP activities carried out by the Project Proponent along with all supporting bills/receipt/documents and did not file copies of annual audit statement and CSR statements filed by him before Director, Mining and Geology, U.P.

¶186

In the course of interaction Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member Secretary, UPPCB mentioned that environmental compensation of Rs. 83,17,34,132/- was imposed out of which amount of Rs. 53,70,000/ - had been realized.

¶187

O.A.No.160/2022

¶188

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶189

-18-

¶190

Vide order dated 17.10.2023 this Tribunal sought response from the State of Uttar Pradesh as to why amount of environmental compensation imposed remains unrealized for very long periods even after receipt of the reference from the UPPCB for realization of the same and as to why the amount for remediation of environmental damage caused by the violators be not incurred by the State of Uttar Pradesh immediately on receipt of such references for remediation of the damage caused to the environment before the same results in irreversible damage to the ecology and bio-diversity. The amount so spent by the Uttar Pradesh may be recovered from the violators as arrears of land revenue in accordance with law.

¶191

In compliance thereof response was filed on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh vide email dated 10.01.2024 .

¶192

I.A. No. 860/2023 has been filed by respondent no. 5 for vacating the stay order dated 27.03.2023 . The relevant part of the IA is reproduced below:-

¶193

“1. That the applicant by means of present application is praying to Hon’ble Green Tribunal to vacate the order of stay dated 27.03.2023 directing the applicant to desist from carrying out any further mining activity in the mining site leased out to it. 2. That the O.A. 160/2022 was registered based on a complaint letter received by post in which the Hon’ble NGT passed a brief order and forming a Joint Committee, extract of the Order is below:-

¶194

“Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, it appears necessary to ascertain the factual position in the matter through a Joint Committee of the State PCB, and District MagistrateGhaziabad (Uttar Pradesh). The State PCB will be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance. The Joint Committee may meet within four weeks and undertake site visit and look into the grievance of the applicant. Factual and action taken report may be furnished within three months by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.” True copy of the order dated 10.03.2022 is annexed as Annexure A-1.

¶195

3. That the Hon’ble NGT vide order dated 16.11.2022, issued notices to the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh; the Director, Directorate of Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh; UPPCB; the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and the applicant was to restrain from carrying out

¶196

O.A.No.160/2022

¶197

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶198

-19-

¶199

any mining from the mining site in question till further orders to the contrary.

¶200

A true copy of order dated 16.11.2022 is annexed as Annexure A-2 .

¶201

4.That being aggrieved of Stay order dated 16.11.2022, the applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 8872/2022 titled as Mumtaz Ali Vs. Ompal & Ors. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 02.12.2022 the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following order:-

¶202

¶203

A true copy order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8872/2022 is annexed as Annexure A-3 .

¶204

5.That the applicant filed an I.A. No. 319/2022 for passing order in compliance with order of Hon’ble Supreme Court which the Hon’ble NGT allowed vide order dated 08.12.2022 vacated the injunctive order dated 16.11.2022 passing the following order:“12. In view of the interim order dated 02.12.2022 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and the undertaking given by learned Senior Counsel for the project proponent, I.A. No. 319/2022 is allowed and an injunctive order dated 16.11.2022 is vacated and the project proponent is allowed to carry out the mining strictly in accordance with rules and in compliance with the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTE/CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms.” And further directed the applicant:

¶205

“13. However, the project proponent to file an affidavit regarding point wise compliance of the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTE/CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms within one month by email at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR supported PDF and not in the form of Image PDF and the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB are directed to thereupon verify the factual position and submit status report regarding compliance with the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTE/CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms within two months by email at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR supported PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.” A true copy of the order dated 08.12.2022 is annexed as Annexure A-4 .

¶206

6.That the applicant filed an I.A. 75/2023 for placing on record the documents in compliance of order dated 08.12.2022 and the same was taken on record. That further the Joint Status report was also filed by the AEE and RO, UPPCB, Ghaziabad and Senior Mining Officer, Ghaziabad vide email dated 24.03.2023. That the Hon’ble NGT after going through the compliance observed that there were serious violation environmental laws/norms and that the applicant is carrying out mining without obtaining CTE/CTO from UPPCB. That the Joint Status

¶207

O.A.No.160/2022

¶208

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶209

-20-

¶210

Report contained serious infringements on the part of the Joint Committee and the Hon’ble NGT vide order dated 27.03.2023 in violation of enactment specified in Schedule I, again directed the applicant to desist from carrying out any mining activity in the mining site.

¶211

A true copy of order dated 27.03.2023 is annexed as Annexure A-5 .

¶212

7. That it is submitted that the Applicant has strictly abide with the directions imposed by the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal vide order dated 27.03.2023. In such situation for ends of justice it is necessary that the order of stay granted by this Hon’ble Court should be vacated.

¶213

8. That in such circumstances this application has been filed for vacating the order of stay. Unless the order of stay is vacated the applicant will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated. As such for ends of justice the order of stay may be vacated.

¶214

9. That this application filed by the Applicant for vacating the order of stay is filed bonafide.

¶215

10. That the Applicant is therefor approaching this Hon’ble Tribunal bringing the aforesaid facts to its notice and praying as under:

¶216

PRAYER

¶217

Wherefore it is most humbly prayed that your Lordships would graciously be pleased to:-

¶218

i. Vacate the stay order passed on 27.03.2023 in Original Application No. 160/2022 by this Hon’ble Court, and;

¶219

ii. Pass any other order or directions as deemed suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶220

Written Submissions/Reply to I.A. No. 860/2023 was filed by respondent no. 2-Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh vide email dated 11.03.2024 . In its reply respondent no. 2--Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh referred to the Joint Status Report regarding compliance of EC/consent conditions and environmental norms and prayed that this Tribunal may pass such order on above said I.A. No. 860/2023 as it may deem fit.

¶221

Reply to above said IA has been filed by respondent no. 3-UPPCB vide email dated 11.03.2024 . In its reply UPPCB referred to Joint Status Report where in environmental violations on the part of Project Proponent were observed and mentioned that the mining activity was carried out by the Project Proponent prior to 05.01.2023 without obtaining CTO from UPPCB but the Project Proponent had obtained CTO from UPPCB on 05.01.2023 which is valid from

¶222

O.A.No.160/2022

¶223

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶224

-21-

¶225

05.01.2023 to 31.12.2026 . In its reply UPPCB has also mentioned that environment compensation of Rs. 55,00,000/- (Fifty-Five Lakhs only) was imposed on project proponent vide letter No. H99983/C-1/Samanya1326/ParyaChatipurti/2023 dated 28.08.2023 for carrying mining activity without CTO. It was also mentioned in the reply that the Environmental Clearance for said land expired on 31.01.2023 and the Project Proponent stopped the mining activity since 31.01.2023 .

¶226

We have heard arguments addressed by learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record. In the course of hearing we have also interacted with the Officers who appeared before us physically or through VC in compliance with orders passed in this regard.

¶227

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has reiterated the submissions made in the Original Application.

¶228

Learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 5 has submitted that the Project Proponent carried out mining in accordance with EC and CTO conditions and in compliance with the environmental norms and also submitted the requisite returns and statements to the concerned authorities. Mining was stopped by the Project Proponent after expiry of the EC. Application of the Project Proponent for renewal of the EC is pending with UPSEIAA which is not being further processed by UPSEIAA due to injunctive order dated 27.03.2023 and the same may be vacated.

¶229

Learned Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 4 and learned Counsel for respondent no. 2 have submitted that respondent no. 5 violated EC and CTO conditions and also indulged in illegal mining. Mining is lying closed after expiry of the EC. Application for grant of EC is pending before UPSEIAA. This Tribunal may pass such orders as considered appropriate. Learned Counsel for respondent no. 3 has submitted that the Project Proponent violated EC/CTO

¶230

O.A.No.160/2022

¶231

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶232

-22-

¶233

conditions and environmental norms as mentioned in Joint Status Report and responses/reports filed by UPPCB. Mining activity was carried out by the Project Proponent prior to 05.01.2023 without obtaining CTO from UPPCB and the Project Proponent obtained CTO from UPPCB on 05.01.2023 . Environmental compensation of Rs. 55,00,000/- (Fifty-Five Lakhs only) was imposed on Project Proponent vide letter No. H99983/C-1/Samanya1326/ParyaChatipurti/2023 dated 28.08.2023 for carrying mining activity without CTO which is under challenge by the Project Proponent. The Environmental Clearance for the land leased out expired on 31.01.2023. Mining is lying closed after expiry of the EC. Application of respondent no. 4- Project Proponent for grant of EC is pending before UPSEIAA. This Tribunal may pass such orders as it deems fit.

¶234

On due consideration of the submissions made by learned Counsels for the parties and perusal of the material on record we are of the considered view that intervention by this Tribunal is warranted for issuance of the directions and for the reasons hereinafter mentioned.

¶235

It may be observed that in the letter petition applicants Ompal and other residents of Village Pachayra, Tehsil Loni, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh complained about following grievances:-

¶236

(i) the Project Proponent was illegally mining beyond permitted area;

¶237

(ii) the Project Proponent was illegally mining beyond permitted depth;

¶238

(iii) the Project Proponent was illegally mining by use of prohibited machinery;

¶239

(iv) the Project Proponent was illegally mining without written consent of the applicants and other land owners without payment of compensation to them in accordance with order passed by Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in W.P No. 3101 of 2010 titled Sripal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others;

¶240

O.A.No.160/2022

¶241

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶242

-23-

¶243

(v) pillars and cameras have not been installed;

¶244

(vi) the sand mined is transported without weighing on any weighment bridge and without submitting weighment slip;

¶245

(vii) the sand mined is transported in over loaded trucks containing 25 cubic meters sand against ‘rawana parchi’ recording transported quantity as 12 cubic meters;

¶246

(viii) the Project Proponent had illegally mined earlier for which heavy penalty/royalty was recovered by Mining/Revenue Department; and (ix) one person died in October 2021 due to drowning in the pit illegally created by use of prohibited machinery for mining.

¶247

Vide order dated 10.03.2022 , this Tribunal had directed the Joint Committee to look into the grievances of the applicants and to submit its factual and action taken report. Joint Inspection Report of the Joint Committee was filed by Regional Officer, UPPCB, Regional Office, Ghaziabad vide email dated 25.05.2022 . The relevant part of the report has been reproduced in earlier part of this judgment.

¶248

This Tribunal considered the report on 12.07.2022 . A perusal of the Report showed that while submitting its Report the Joint Committee did not look into the allegations regarding (i) alleged incident of illegal mining by the Project Proponent and recovery of penalty/royalty by Mining/Revenue Department, (ii) alleged incident of death of one person by drowning in the pit created by the machine used for mining and (iii) alleged non-compliance with respect to requirement of written consent and payment of compensation under orders of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad.

¶249

This Tribunal also noticed that the Joint Committee had submitted in the report that (i) pillars were installed and the (ii) Project Proponent was mining by using permitted machinery within the permitted area ruling out illegal mining by the Project Proponent but the Joint Committee has not attached any

¶250

O.A.No.160/2022

¶251

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶252

-24-

¶253

document regarding the mining lease, photographs of the pillars, cameras and weighment bridge installed and also of the machinery used by the Project Proponent. The Joint Committee has not mentioned the particulars of machinery permitted to be used and actually used on the spot and has also not attached map showing tallying of geo-coordinates of the mining sites leased out with sites actually mined by the Project Proponent.

¶254

Vide order dated 12.07.2022 , this Tribunal directed the Joint Committee to look into these aspects and verify the factual position and take appropriate remedial action by following due process of law and submit further factual and action taken report.

¶255

In compliance thereof the Joint Committee inspected the site on 03.11.2022 . Report of the Joint Committee was filed vide email dated 11.11.2022 . The relevant part of the report has been reproduced in earlier part of this Judgment.

¶256

In its report, the Joint Committee mentioned that the mining had been stopped due to inundation of the mining site by the river and had not recommenced and that environmental compensation of Rs. 69,07,160/- had been imposed on the Project Proponent for illegal mining and the proceedings for recovery thereof are pending. In its report the Joint Committee also mentioned that no documents have been furnished by the applicant regarding the death of a person in the mining pit and no application for payment of compensation in compliance with the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had been submitted.

¶257

Vide order dated 16.11.2022 , the Project Proponent was restrained from carrying out any further mining from the mining site in question till further orders to the contrary. The relevant part of the order reads as under:

¶258

“11..In view of the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the project proponent is alleged to have previously

¶259

O.A.No.160/2022

¶260

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶261

-25-

¶262

indulged in illegal mining for which environmental compensation has been imposed regarding which recovery proceeding are pending and the mandate of Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to apply inter alia precautionary and polluter pays principles, the project proponent is restrained from carrying out any further mining from the mining site in question till further orders to the contrary

¶263

12. The District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad are directed to take all requisite steps for ensuring that no illegal mining takes place in the mining site in question.”

¶264

The Project Proponent filed Civil Appeal No. 8872/2022 titled Mumtaz Ali Vs. Ompal and Others before Hon’ble Supreme Court and the following interim order was passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.12.2022 :-

¶265

“ The proceedings before the National Green Tribunal are re-listed on 08.12.2022. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the reports, which, he states, are in his favour. He submits that given these facts, the direction passed that the appellant should stop mining would cause immense prejudice to the appellant. Conditions can be imposed to ensure mining in accordance with rules, as the reports indicate that the appellant has been complying with the rules. ”

¶266

The Project Proponent filed I.A. No. 319/2022 for passing an order in compliance of the interim order dated 02.12.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court and allowing the Project Proponent to continue the mining in accordance with rules. Vide order dated 08.12.2022 I.A. No. 319/2022 was allowed and injunctive order dated 16.11.2022 was vacated and the Project Proponent was allowed to carry out the mining strictly in accordance with rules and in compliance with the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTE/CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms.

¶267

Accordingly, vide order dated 08.12.2022 , the Project Proponent was directed to file an affidavit regarding point-wise compliance of the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms within one month and the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB were directed to thereupon

¶268

O.A.No.160/2022

¶269

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶270

-26-

¶271

verify the factual position and submit status report regarding compliance with the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms within two months.

¶272

However, the Project Proponent did not file affidavit regarding point-wise compliance of the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms within one month as directed vide order dated 08.12.2022 . On the other hand, I.A. No. 75/2023 was filed by respondent no. 5-Project Proponent on 10.03.2023 for placing on record the documents in compliance of order dated 08.12.2022 . I.A. No. 75/2023 was allowed and the documents mentioned therein were taken on record.

¶273

Joint Status report was filed by the AEE and RO, UPPCB, Ghaziabad and Senior Mining Officer, Ghaziabad vide email dated 24.03.2023 highlighting violations by respondent no.5-Project Proponent of the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTO by UPPCB and the statutory environmental norms.

¶274

We have gone through the compliance report filed by the Project Proponent and the Joint Status Report filed on behalf of the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB. We find that our order was observed more in breach than in compliance. By order dated 08.12.2022 , we directed the Project Proponent to file compliance report within one month but the Project Proponent filed I.A. No. 75/2023 on 10.03.2023 . Similarly, by above mentioned order, the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB were directed to thereupon verify compliance status and file status reports within two months but the Joint Status Report has also been filed on 24.03.2023 .

¶275

O.A.No.160/2022

¶276

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶277

-27-

¶278

In the Joint Status Report filed on behalf of the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB it has been mentioned that in pursuance to order dated 08.12.2022 the above-mentioned order of this Tribunal, the Project Proponent did not provide copy of proof of submission of compliance status in this Tribunal and copy of additional affidavit dated 06.03.2023 was given in Mining Department, Ghaziabad on 16.03.2023 on which the officers of Mining Department, Ghaziabad and Regional Office, UPPCB, Ghaziabad carried out Joint Inspection of the mining site on 17.03.2023 to ascertain factual status with regard to compliance of conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance as claimed by the Project Proponent. No mining was being done on site at the time of inspection. Further mining was carried out only for a period of twenty days between 12.01.2023 to 31.01.2023 and was stopped thereafter as the Environment Clearance for said parcel of land expired on 31.01.2023 .

¶279

We find explanation furnished by the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB to be wholly unsatisfactory as in case of not filing of any such affidavit within the stipulated period the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB ought to have brought the fact of such non-compliance to the notice of this Tribunal and ought to have verified compliance status by periodical inspections.

¶280

Compliance of orders passed by this Tribunal cannot be left to the mercy of the project proponents and the concerned authorities. Such non-compliance with the orders passed by this Tribunal need to be visited with exemplary costs for non-compliance with order dated 08.12.2022 to maintain the sanctity thereof. Accordingly, respondent no. 5 is directed to deposit amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs only) as costs with the Member Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Legal Services Authority within one month. The amount of costs shall

¶281

O.A.No.160/2022

¶282

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶283

-28-

¶284

be utilized for providing legal aid to eligible persons from the State of Uttar Pradesh intending to approach this Tribunal for adjudication of civil cases involving substantial questions relating to environment arising out of implementation of the enactments specified in the first schedule to the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act 2010) . It is clarified that in case of failure of respondent no. 5 to deposit the amount of costs, the Member Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Legal Services Authority shall be entitled to recover the amount of costs by filing execution petition for execution of the order passed by this Tribunal before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions made in Section 25 of the NGT Act 2010.

¶285

Even though in the six monthly compliance report of stipulated conditions of environmental clearance for river bed sand/morrum mining filed by way of I.A. No. 12/2024 respondent no. 5-Project Proponent has claimed compliance of the conditions imposed at the time of grant of EC by SEIAA and CTO by UPPCB and the statutory/environmental norms but in the Joint Status Report Mr. Navneet Pandey, AEE, UPPCB, Ghaziabad, Mohd. Mahboob, Senior Mining Officer, Ghaziabad and Mr. Utsav Sharma, Regional Officer, UPPCB Regional Office, Ghaziabad, who verified the compliance status as claimed by respondent no. 5, have mentioned serious violations of the EC/CTO conditions and environmental norms by respondent no. 5. The relevant part of the joint status report is reproduced as under:

¶286

“COMPLIANCE OF STIPULATED GENERAL AND SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE

¶287

Part-A -General conditions:-

¶288

*Poi* nt *no.*	*General conditions as per* *Environment* *clearance issued*	*Compliance as per* PP	*Compliance on Site*

¶289

O.A.No.160/2022

¶290

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶291

-29-

¶292

1.	Thisenvironmental clearance is subject to allotment of mining lease in favour of project proponent by District Administration/Mining Department	The Mining lease documents are completely compatible with Environment Clearance document.	PP has stopped work on site since 31.01.2023 as mining lease cease to exist.
2. 3.	Forest clearance shall be taken by the proponent as necessary under law. Any change in mining area, khasra numbers, entailing capacity addition with change in process and or mining technology, modernization and scope of working shall again require prior Environmental Clearance as per the provisions of EIA, Notification, 2006 (as amended)	The land is non forest land. Already the Letter of intent was granted to us after getting NOC form forest department Agreed	Forest clearance is not applicable on present site. To be complied at the time of mining in the area. Mining to be done strictly in Khasra Numbers listed in LoI and EC.
4.	Precise mining area will be jointly demarcated at site by project proponent and officials of mining/Revenue department prior to starting of mining operations. Such site plan, duly verified by competent authority along- with copy of the Environmental Clearance letter will be displayed on a hoarding/board at the site. A copy of site plan will also be submitted to SEIAA within a period of 02 months	Agreed	*Neither Site plan nor* *copy of EC was* *displayed on site.*
5.	Mining and loading, shall be done only within day hours time.	Mining has been done in daytime only and single shift operation	Mining was found closed at the time of inspection.
6.	No mining shall be carried out in the safety zone of any bridge and/or embankment	Mining has had been done with due respect to mining guideline, No mining has been done in safety zone of any bridge and or embankment	Mining was found closed at the time of inspection.

¶293

O.A.No.160/2022

¶294

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶295

-30-

¶296

7.	It shall be ensure that standards related to ambient air quality/effluent as prescribed by the Ministry of Environment & Forests are strictly complied with Water sprinklers and other dust Control measures should he applied to take- care of dust generated during mining operation. Sprinkling of water on haul roads to control dust will be ensured by the project proponent	The environmen tal quality parameters are within standards specified by CPCB as evident form test reports already attached with this compliance report. Sprinkling of water has been regularly practiced on haul roads and loading/unl oading points during working period	Ambient standards are not met in entire District. Anti-smog gun was found installed on site at the time of inspection. Same was not in operation as mining was closed. No sprinkler tanker observed on- site. PP has annexed a photograph of sprinkler along with their response. Same needs to be verified at the time of operations.
8.	All necessary statutory clearances shall be obtained before start of mining operations. If this condition is violated, the clearance shall be automatically deemed to have been cancelled.	Agreed	*PP has obtained CTO* *from Board on* *05.01.2023 Thus, the* *said condition was* *violated as mining was* *started before* *obtaining CTO.*
9.	Parking of vehicles should not be made on public places.	There is limited movement of vehicles as the workers are from nearby villages they are using cycles but the employee coming through other vehicles has been instructed not to park near public places.	Very light vehicular movement observed in the area.
10.	No tree-felling will be done in the leased area, except only with the permission of Forest Department	The lease area is devoid of trees thus no cutting of trees has been done	No tree plantation observed in the mining lease area.
11.	It shall be ensure that excavation of miner mineral does not disturb or change the underlying soil characteristics of	The mining has been practiced as per the depth restricted in	No mining activity was observed at the time of inspection.

¶297

O.A.No.160/2022

¶298

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶299

-31-

¶300

	the river bed /basin, where mining is carried out.	Environmental clearance issued.
12. 13.	It shall be ensured that mining operation of Sand/Morram will not in any way disturb the, velocity and flow pattern of the river water significantly It shall be ensured that there is no fauna dependent on the river bed or areas close to mining for its nesting. A report on the same, vetted by the competent authority, shall be submitted to the RO, PCB and SEIAA within 02 months.	Mining has been done in river bed area no river stream channel disturbed, eventually no velocity and flow pattern of the river has been disturbed due mining No fauna dependent on river bed or areas close to the mining for its nesting has been reported in the lease area.	Mining was found closed at the time of inspection. *Compliance report* *vetted by competent* *authority not submitted* *in the concerned* *Regional Office of the* *State Board*
14.	Hydro geological study shall be carried out by a reputed organization/institute within six months and establish that mining in the said area will not adversely affect the ground water regime. The report shall be submitted to the RO, PCB and SEIAA within six months. In case adverse impact is observed /anticipated, mining shall not be carried out.	The Environmental clearance has been issued for mining upto ultimate depth of 3.0m.No ground water intersection has been done during mining.	*Hydro geological study* *report by competent* *organization/institute* *not submitted in the* *concerned Regional* *Office of the State* *Board*
15.	Adequate protection against dust and other environmental pollution due to mining shall be made so that the habitations (if any), close by the lease area are not adversely affected. The status of implementation of measures taken shall be reported to the RO, UPPCB and SEIAA and this activity should be completed before the start of sand	Adequate protection measures have been made to avoid further environmental pollution. There is no habitation on or close to the project site.	*Report not submitted in* *the concerned Regional* *Office of the State* *Board*
	mining.
16.	Need based assessment for the nearby villages shall be conducted to study economic measures which can help in improving the quality of life of economically weaker section of society. Income generating projects/tools such as development of fodder farm, fruit bearing orchards, vocational training etc. can form apart of suchprogramme.The	As per letter issued by gram Pradhan claiming that Under Corporate environment Responsibility programmes project has is stitching and distributed blankets to economically weakerpeople of	*Pictures dated* *04.01.2023 enclosed in* *the reply. No record of* *earlier activities with* *regards to socio-* *economic measures* *submitted.*

¶301

O.A.No.160/2022

¶302

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶303

-32-

¶304

17.	project proponent shall provide separate budget for community development activities and income generating programmes Green cover development shall be carried out following CPCB guidelines including selection of plant species and in consultation with the local DFO/Horticulture Officer.	village Pachayara (Gram Pradhan letter & pictures enclosed). Project proponent has planted 300 saplings at community land at different places in village pachayara. (Pictures enclosed and gram Pradhan letter also enclosed)	*Pictures dated* *04.01.2023 enclosed in* *the reply received.* *Considering the period* *of lease, no substantial* *plantation observed on* *site or in the area*.
18.	Separate stock piles shall be maintained for excavated top soil, if any, and the top soil should be utilized for green cover/treeplantation	The lease area is river bed, no topsoil cover in the lease area	No mining activity observed on site at the time of inspection.
19.	Dispensary facilities for first- aid shall be Provided at site.	Agreed	*Dispensary facility not* *provided on site.*
20	An Environmental Audit should be annually carried out during the operational phase and submitted to the SEIAA	agreed	*No record of audit* *report submitted.*
21.	The District Mining Officer should quarterly monitor compliance of the stipulated conditions. The project proponent will extend full cooperation to the District Mining Officer by furnishing the requisite data/Information/monitoring reports. In case of any violations of stipulated conditions the district Mining Officer will report to SEIAA.	Agreed	At present the under signed i.e. Mohd. Mahboob, Senior Mines officer has taken charge of district Ghaziabad from 21-02-2023 and even before then the concern mining activity has ceased due to expiration of E.C.
22.	The project proponent shall submit six monthly reports on the status of compliance of the stipulated environmental clearance conditions including results of monitored data (both in hard & soft copies, to the SEIAA, the District Officer and the respective Regional Office of the State Pollution Control Board by 1st June and 1st December every year.	Agreed,	*Six monthly reports on* *the status of compliance* *of the stipulated* *environmental* *clearance conditions* *including results of* *monitored data no* *submitted as required.*
23.	A copy of the clearance letter shall be sent by the proponent to concerned Panchayat, Zila Parisad/ Municipal Corporation and Urban local Body.	Agreed	*Proof of receipt not* *provided at the time of* *inspection nor given in* *compliance report.*

¶305

O.A.No.160/2022

¶306

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶307

-33-

¶308

24.	Transportation Of materials shall be done by covering the trucks / tractors with tarpaulin or other suitable mechanism to avoid fugitive emissions and spillage of mineral/dust.	Agreed	No mining observed on site. Can be verified when the site is in operation.
25	Waste water, from temporary habitation campus be properly collected & treated before discharging into water bodies the treated effluent should conform to the standards prescribed by MoEF/CPCB.	No temporary habitation proposed onsite, the labours hired are from nearby villages	No test report in this regards submitted.
26.	Measures shall be taken for control of noise level to the lands prescribed by CPCB	Agreed	No test report regarding same submitted during operation submitted.
27.	Special Measures shall be adopted to protect the nearby settlements from the impacts of mining activities maintenance of village roads through which transportation of minor minerals is to be undertaken, shall be carried out by the project proponent regularly at his own expenses.	Agreed	*No record regarding* *same submitted during* *operation submitted.*
28.	Measure for prevention & control of soil erosion and management of soil shall be undertaken. Protection of dumps against erosion, if any, shall be carried out with geo textile matting or other suitable material.	Agreed	No record or photographic evidence regarding same submitted.
29.	Project Proponent shall explore the possibility of using solar energy wherever possible.	Agreed	No solar panel observed on site.

¶309

O.A.No.160/2022

¶310

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶311

-34-

¶312

30.	Under corporate social responsibility a sum of 5% of the total project cost or total income whichever is higher is to be earmarked for total lease period. Its budget is to be separately maintained. CSR component shall be prepared based on need of local habitant. Income generating measures which can help in upliftment of poor section of society, consistent with the traditional skills of the people shall be identified. The programme can include activities such as development of fodder farm, fruit bearing orchards, free distribution of smokeless Chula etc.	As per letter issued by gram Pradhan claiming that Under Corporate environment Responsibility programmes project proponent has distributed stitching Machines and distributed blankets to Economically weaker people of village Pachayara (Gram Pradhan letter & Pictures enclosed). Project proponent has also got installed handpumps in village Pachayara (pictures enclosed)	*Detailed regarding work* *done under different* *heads, cost incurred* *and sustainability as* *well as quality of these* *works should be* *submitted by the PP.* *Also, same* *report work under* *heads, should be* *verified by competent* *authority and certificate* *with regards to* *completion of work be* *issued to PP.*
31.	Possibility for adopting nearest three villages shall be explored and details of civic amenities such as roads, drinking water etc proposed to be provided at the project proponent's expenses shall be submitted within 02 months from the date of issuance of Environment Clearance.	Agreed	*No record or* *photographic evidence* *regarding same* *submitted.*
32.	The funds earmarked for environmental protection measures should be kept in separate account and should not be diverted for other purpose year wise expenditure should be reported to the Ministry of Environment and Forests and its Regional Office located at Lucknow. SEIAA, U P and UPPCB	Agreed	*No report with regards* *to expenditure of funds* *earmarked for* *environmental* *protection submitted in* *Regional Office, UPPCB*.
33.	Action plan with respect to suggestion/improvement months	The suggestion made by public hearing panel and public has implemented.	Action Plan not submitted in Regional Office, UPPCB.
34.	Environmental clearance is subject to obtaining clearance under the Wild Life Protection, Act. 1972 from the competent authority, if applicable to this project.	Agreed	Not Required
35.	The proponent shall observe every 15 day for nesting of any turtle in the area. Based on the observations so made, if turtle	No nesting sites has been observed till date	Not observed.

¶313

O.A.No.160/2022

¶314

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶315

-35-

¶316

	nesting is observed, necessary safeguard measures shall be taken in consultation with the State Wildlife Department. For the purpose, awareness shall be created amongst the workers about the nesting sites so that such sites, if any, are identified by the workers during operations of the mine for taking required safeguard measures. In this regards, the safety, notified zone should be left so that the habitat/nesting area is undisturbed.
36.	The project proponent shall undertake adequate safeguard measures during extraction of river bed material and ensure that due to this activity the hydro geological regime of the surrounding area shall not be affected.	Adequate safeguard measures has been adopted, Mining has been done strictly in adherence to EC issued & no hydro geological regime of the Surrounding area has been affected.	No mining observed at the time of inspection. Needs to be verified during operation phase.
37.	The project proponent shall obtain necessary prior permission of the competent Authorities for withdrawal of requisite quantity of water (surface water and groundwater) required for the project. Appropriate mitigative measures shall be taken to prevent pollution of the river in consultation with the State	No ground water withdrawal of water done onsite the water requirement has been done by water tankers supplied form local vendors	No borewell observed on site. Needs to be verified during
38.	Pollution Control Board. It shall be ensured that there is no leakage of oil and grease in the river from the vehicles used for transportation	Agreed	operation phase. Mitigation Measure Plan not submitted in UPPCB.
39.	Vehicular emissions shall be kept under control and regularly monitored; the vehicles carrying the mineral shall not be overloaded.	Agreed, The vehicles used for transportation are PUC certified.	Needs to be verified during operation phase.
40.	Provision shall be made for the housing of construction labour within the site with all necessary infrastructure and facilities such as fuel for cooking, mobile toilets. mobile STD, safe drinking water, medical health cafe, creche etc (MoEF circular Dated 22.09. 2008 regarding stipulation of condition to	The labour has been hired from locals, no requirement of accommodation onsite thus no temporary hutment/constructi on has been done, however for daily workers bio- toilets provision has been	No labour was present on site. Small temporary hutment of 3-4 huts observed on site.

¶317

O.A.No.160/2022

¶318

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶319

-36-

¶320

	improve living conditions of construction labour at site)	made. Safe drinking water has had been provided by water tankers and first- aid kit has also been made available onsite
41.	Personnel working in dusty areas should wear protective respiratory devices and they should also be provided with adequate training and information on safety and health aspects. Occupational health surveillance program of the workers should be undertaken periodically to observe any contractions due to exposure to dust and take corrective measures, if needed	Agreed	Needs to be verified during operation phase.
42. 43. 44.	A copy of the clearance letter shall be sent by the proponent to concerned Panchayat, Zila Parishad/Municipal Corporation, Urban local Body and the local NGO, if any, from whom suggestions/representations, if any, were received while processing the proposal. The clearance letter shall also be put on the website of the Company by theproponent The environmental statement for each financial year ending 31st March in Form V as is mandated to be submitted by the project proponent to the concerned State Pollution Control Board as prescribed under the Environment (Protection) Rules. 1986, as amended subsequently, shall also be put on the website of the company along with the status of compliance of environmental clearance conditions and shall also be sent to the Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment and forests, Lucknow by e- mail The green cover development/tree plantation is to be done in an area equivalent to 20% of the total leased area either on river bank or along road side (Avenue Plantation)	Agreed Agreed Plantation has been done along approach road and community places in village pachayara, (pictures enclosed)	*Proof of receipt not* *submitted.* *Not submitted. No such plantation* *observed on site on the* *approach road.*

¶321

O.A.No.160/2022

¶322

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶323

-37-

¶324

45.	Debris from the river bed will be collected and stored at secured place and may be utilized for strengthen the embankment.	Agreed	No Mining activity was observed at the time of inspection.
46.	Safety measures to be taken for the safety of the People working at the mine lease area should be given, which would also include measure for treatment of bite of poisonous reptile/insect like snake.	Agreed	Needs to be verified during operation phase. On-site dispensary needs to be made operational.
47.	Periodical and Annual medical Checkup of workers as per Mines Act and they should be covered under ESI asper rule	Agreed	No record submitted.

¶325

Part B- Specific conditions

¶326

*Sl no.*	*Specificconditions as per* *environment clearance* *issued*	*Compliance as per* PP	*Compliance on Site*
01	Project proponent should ensure all sapling should survive any mortality will be replaced.	Agreed	Report with regards to mortality rate and replacement done thereof not submitted.
02	Site photographs should be submitted with date and time.	Site photographs enclosed	Camera was found Installed near weigh bridge but may not be Operational as there was no mining activity going on.
03	Provision for small cylinder to workers should be made for cooking.	Workers are from local villages, no cooking provision done onsite, workers have been carrying lunchbox with them	Needs to be verified During operation phase. On-site cooking provisions not available.

¶327

O.A.No.160/2022

¶328

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶329

-38-

¶330

04	The capacity of trucks/tractor for loading purpose will be in tonnes as per PWD and Transport Department applicable norms and standard fixed by the Government.	Trucks/tractors loading in tonnes as per Transport Department applicable norms and standard fixed by the Government.	Compliance report need to be submitted by PP along with vehicle details.
05	Provide suitable mask to the workers.	Agreed	Needs to be verified during operation phase.
06	Approach road kaccha is to be made motarable and tree saplings to be planted on both sides of the road	Approach road has been strengthened and plantation carried out	*Not complied.*
07	The project proponent shall in 2 years conduct detailed replenishment study duly authenticated by a QCI, NABET accredited consultant, and the District Mines Officer which shall form the basis for midterm review of conditions of Environmental Clearance	Agreed	*No such study has* *been* *undertaken* by *project* *proponent.*
08	Provision for two toilets and hand pumps should be made at mining site.	Provision of bio- toilets has been made onsite, and for drinking water facility water tankers has been made available (picture of water tanker enclosed)	Bio-toilets not observed on site as site closed since 30/01/2023.
09	Drinking water for workers would be provided by tankers.	Water tanker provision has been made onsite	Proof of purchase needs to be submitted.
10	Mining will be carried only according to the approved mining plan.	Mining is based on approved mining plan	No Mining activity was observed at the time of inspection.

¶331

O.A.No.160/2022

¶332

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶333

-39-

¶334

11	A buffer/safe tone shall be maintained from the habitation as per mining guidelines	Mining site is quite away from settlement & proper buffer zone has been maintained as per mining guideline	No Mining activity was observed at the of inspection.
12	Total Project Cost has been submitted as Rs. 1,10,36,850/-. A CSR plan with minimum Rs. 5,51,842/- work to be executed with installation of five hand pumps for drinking water, solar light in villages of streets, construction of two numbers of toilets at the primary school with name displayed and address and details of beneficiary and gram Pradhan along with phone number, photographs should be submitted to Directorate as well as to the District magistrate/Chief Development Officers, Ghaziabad, U.P.	Agreed	*Proof of receipt of Plan* *in Directorate as well as* *to the District* *magistrate/Chief* *Development Officers* *office not furnished*.
13	Detail of works under CSR which has to be executed as above is to be submitted with an affidavit to Directorate as well as to the District magistrate/Chief development officers, Ghaziabad, U.P.	Agreed	*Proof of receipt not* *furnished.*
14	Health/insurance card, Medical claim, regular health Checkup camps, facilities shall be provided to the regular/temporary/Contractu al or any base workers. Copy of receipt shall be produced to the Directorate of Environment along with the compliance report.	Health checkup camps being organized annually for health check up of workers	*Documentary and* *photographic evidence* *proof of such camps not* *furnished by PP*.

¶335

O.A.No.160/2022

¶336

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶337

-40-

¶338

15	The Environmental clearance will be co-terminus with the mining lease period.	Agreed	That the EC granted to the PP was transferred EC whose validity was co-terminus with the earlier lease deed granted to one Gurbaj Singh which has expired on 31-01-2023 hence making the EC void.
16	Project falling with in 10 KM area of Wild life Sanctuary is to obtain a clearance from National Board Wild life (NBWL) even if the eco Sensitive zone is not earmarked	Project site is not in eco-sensitive zone	Site not in notified eco- sensitive zone
17	Geo coordinates should be verified by Director. DGM/District Magistrate/ Regional Mining Officer/ NHAI and should be submitted SEIAA/SEAC, Secretariat as earliest	VerifiedGeo- coordinates by mining officer Ghaziabad has been submitted to SEIAA/SEAC, UP	*Has notbeen submitted*.
18	In case it has been found that the E.C. obtained by providing incorrect information, submitting that the distance between the two adjoining mines is greater than 500m and area is less than 25ha, but factually the distance is less than 500 m and the mine is located m cluster of area equal or more than 25ha, the E C issued will stand revoked	Agreed	Area in less than 25 Hac.
19	The project proponent shall in 2 years conduct detailed replenishment study duly authenticated by a OCI, NABET accredited consultant, and the District Mines Officer which shall form the basis for midterm review of conditions of Environmental Clearance.	Agreed	*No Such study has been* *conducted by Project* *proponent.*

¶339

O.A.No.160/2022

¶340

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶341

-41-

¶342

20	The mining work will be open- cast and exclusively manual. No mechanical work or drilling/blasting should be involved at any stage	Agreed	No Mining activity was observed at the time of inspection.
21	It shall be ensured that there shall be no mining of any type within 03 m or 10%, of the width which-ever is less, shall be left on both the banks of precise area to control and avoid erosion over river bank. The mining is confined to extraction of sand/moram from the river bank only	Mining has been done as per SSMG guideline 2016	No Mining activity was observed at the time of inspection.
22	The project proponent shall undertake adequate safeguard measures during extraction of river bank material and ensure that due to this activity the hydro- geological regime of the surrounding area shall not be affected	Mining depth is above ground water table. No intersection of ground water table done	No Mining activity was observed at the time of inspection.
23	The project proponent shall adhere to mining in conformity to plan submitted for the mine lease conditions and the Rules prescribed a this regard clearly showing the no work zone in the mine lease i.e. the distance from the bank of river to be left un- worked 'Non mining aerial, distance from the bridges etc. It shall be ensured that no mining shall be carried out during the monsoon season.	I strictly adhere to plan submitted for mining was and rules prescribed. No mining has been carried out in monsoon season	No Mining activity observed at the time of inspection.

¶343

O.A.No.160/2022

¶344

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶345

-42-

¶346

24	The project proponent shall ensure that wherever deployment of labour attracts the Mines Act, the provision thereof shall be strictly followed	I strictly adhere that applicable Mines Act, the provision thereof strictly followed	No Mining activity was observed at the time of inspection.
25	The project proponent will provide personal protective equipments (PPE) as required, also Provide adequate training and information on safety and health aspects Periodical medical examination of the workers engaged in the project shall be carried out and records maintained. For the purpose, schedule of health examination of the workers should be drawn and followed accordingly.	Personnel protective equipment’s has been provided to workers	Needs to be verified at the time of operation. Documentary/Photo graphic proof of same not furnished by PP.
26	The critical parameters such as PM 10, PM2.5, SO2 and NOx in the ambient air within the impact zone shall he monitored periodically. Further, quality of discharged water it any shall also be monitored [TDS, DO, PH, Fecal coliform & Total suspended solids (TSS)].	Environmental parameters has been monitored and reports are attached herewith	One time reporting does not meet requirement of EC. Routine reports need to be furnished by PP.
27	Effective safeguard measures such as regular water sprinkling shall be carried out in critical areas prone to air pollution and haying high levels of particulate matter such as loading and unloading point and all transfer points. Extensive water sprinkling shall be carried Out on haul roads.	, Regular water sprinkling carried out in critical areas prone to air pollution and having high levels of particulate matter (letter issued by Gram Pradhan Pachayara also claimed the same enclosed with)	Needs to be verified at the time of operation.
28	It should be ensured that the Ambient Air Quality/ parameters conform to the norms prescribed by the Central Pollution Control Board in this regard.	Ambient Air Quality/ parameters conform to the norms prescribed by the Central Pollution Control Board in this regard	Ambient standards are not met in the area due to external factors as well. Plan to mitigate air pollution sources at the time of operation needs to be furnished.

¶347

O.A.No.160/2022

¶348

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶349

-43-

¶350

29	The extended mining scheme Will be submitted by the Proponent before expiry of present mining plan.	Agreed	Mining Plan is yet to expired.
30	Four ambient air quality monitoring stations should be established in the core zone as well as in the buffer zone for monitoring PM 10, PM2.5, SO2 and NOx. location of the stations should be decided based on the meteorological data, topographical features and environmentally and ecologically sensitive targets and frequency of monitoring should be undertaken in consultation with the State Pollution Control Board	Agreed,Monitoring test reports enclosed	*Documentary/Photo* *graphic proof of* *same not furnished.* No *stations* *observed on site at* *the* *time* of *inspection.*
31	Common road for transportation of mineral is to be maintained collectively. Total cost will be shared/worked out on the basis of lease area among users	Agreed	being ensured by irrigation department.
32	Proponent will provide adequate sanitary facility in the form of mobile toilets to the labours engaged for the project work.	Agreed	No labour found on site as mining was closed. Need to be verified at the time of operation. No bio toilet was found on site.
33	Solid waste material with gutkha pouch, plastic bags, glasses etc to be generated during project activity will be separate, storage in bins and managed as per Solid Waste Management rules.	Agreed	No separate bin system found on site.
34	Green area/belt to be developed along haulage road in consultation of Gram Sabha/Panchayat	Agreed,Plantation has been done along approach road and community places in village Pachayara, (pictures enclosed)	*Not observed*
35	Natural/customary paths used by villagers should not be obstructed at any time by the activities Proposed under the project	Plantation has been Done along approach road and community places in village pachayara, (pictures enclosed)	Needs verification during operation phase.

¶351

O.A.No.160/2022

¶352

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶353

-44-

¶354

36	Digital processing of the entire lease area in the district using remote sensing technique should be done regular, once in three years for monitoring the change of river course by Directorate of Geology and Mining, Govt of Uttar Pradesh The record of such study to be maintained and report be submitted to Regional office of MoEF, SEIAA, U.P. and UPPCB.	Agreed	Report not submitted in Regional Office, UPPCB
37	A copy of clearance letter will Be marked to concerned Panchayat / local NGO, if any, From whom suggestion / representation has been received while processing the proposal. The clearance letter shall also be put on the website of the company.	Agreed	*Proof of receipt not* *furnished*
38	State Pollution Control Board Shall display a copy of the Clearance letter at the Regional office, District Industry Centre and Collector's office/Tehsildar's Office for 30 days.	Agreed	Copy furnished through SEIAA and put up on notice board of the Regional Office.
39	The project authorities shall advertise at least in two local newspapers widely circulated, one of which shall be in the vernacular language of the locality concerned, within 7 days of the issue of the clearance letter informing that the project has been accorded environmental clearance and a copy of the clearance letter is available with the State Pollution Control Board and also at web site of the SEIAA at http//www.seiaaup.in and a copy of the same shall be forwarded to the Regional Office of the Ministry located in Lucknow, CPCB, State PCB	Agreed	*Proof* of *advertisement not* *furnished.*
40	The MoEF/SEIAA or any other Competent authority may alter/modify the above conditions or stipulate any further condition in the interest of environment Protect,	Agreed	Need no comment

¶355

O.A.No.160/2022

¶356

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶357

-45-

¶358

41	Concealing factual data or submission of false/fabricated data and failure to comply with any of the conditions mentioned above may result in withdrawal of this clearance and attract action under the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.	Agreed	Need no comment
42	Any appeal against this environmental clearance Shall lie with the National Green Tribunal, if preferred, within a period of 30 days as prescribed under Section 11 of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997.	Agreed	Need no comment
43	Waste water from potable use be collected and reused for sprinkling.	Agreed	Need verification during operation phase. No such mechanism observed on site.
44	During the school opening and closing time vehicle movement will be restricted.	Agreed	Need verification during operation phase.
	You shall also ensure that the proposed site is not a Part of any no development zone as required/prescribed/identifie d under law. In case of violation, this permission shall automatically deem to be cancelled. Also, In the rent of any dispute on owners, or land use of the proposed site, this clearance shall automatically deem to be cancelled.	I assure that the project site is not located in no development zone	Present issue pertains to addition of Khasra in Mining Lease without obtaining NOC from the land owner, the applicant in present case.

¶359

O.A.No.160/2022

¶360

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶361

-46-

¶362

45	The above stipulated Conditions will be enforced inter-alia under the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the PubIic Liability Insurance Act, 1991 along-with their amendments and rules made there under and also any other orders passed by the Hon”ble Courts of law relating to the subject matter.	Agreed	Need no comment
46	the project proponent will have to submit approved plans and proposals incorporating the conditions specified in the Environmental Clearance within 03 months of issuance of this clearance. The SEIAA/MoEF reserves the right to revoke the environmental clearance, if conditions stipulated are not implemented to the satisfaction of SEIAA/MoEF. SEIAA may impose additional environmental conditions or modify the existing ones, if necessary.	Agreed	Need no comment
47	This is to request you to take further necessary action in matter as per provisions of Gazette Notification No. S.O. 1533(E) dated 14/09/2006, as amended and send regular compliance reports to the authority as prescribed in the aforesaid notification	Agreed	Need no comment

¶363

It is evident from the Joint Status Report that respondent no. 5-Project Proponent has not complied with material conditions imposed in EC issued by UPSEIAA and CTO granted by UPPCB which have been highlighted by us in

¶364

O.A.No.160/2022

¶365

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶366

-47-

¶367

the above table.

¶368

Specific conditions were imposed at the time of grant of EC for earmarking of 5 % of the total Project costs or total income whichever is higher towards CSR component and respondent no. 5 Project Proponent was directed to carry out the CSR activity as mentioned in EC issued by UPSEIAA and also CTO granted by UPPCB. Respondent no. 5-Project Proponent filed some photographs showing distribution of blanket and swing machines etc., but details regarding the CSR activities carried out and utilization of the budget amount earmarked for the same were not mentioned. The Project Proponent was directed to file additional reply giving details of CSR/EMP activities carried out by the Project Proponent along with all supporting bills/receipt/documents and also to file copies of annual audit statement and CSR statements filed by him before Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh. No reply has been filed the Project Proponent giving details of CSR/EMP activities carried out by the Project Proponent along with all supporting bills/receipt/documents and also copies of annual audit and CSR statements filed by him before Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh.

¶369

Condition was imposed on Respondent no. 5-Project Proponent that green cover development shall be carried out by following CPCB guidelines including selection of plant species and in consultation with the local DFO/Horticulture officer. The green cover development/tree plantation was to be done in an area equivalent to 20 % of the total leased area either on river bank or along road side (Avenue Plantation). Respondent no. 5-Project Proponent has claimed to have planted 300 saplings in community land in village Pachayra and to have carried out plantation along approach road and community places in village Pachayra and produced some photographs showing carring out of plantation by him but in the Report of the Joint Committee it has been

¶370

O.A.No.160/2022

¶371

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶372

-48-

¶373

mentioned that considering the period of lease no substantial plantation has been observed on site or in the area and no such plantation as claimed by respondent no. 5-Project Proponent was observed on site on the approach road.

¶374

We find the present case to be a glaring example of (i) non-compliance with the statutory provisions, EC and CTO conditions and environmental norms and also failure to discharge the statutory obligations on the part of the Project Proponent, (ii) willful avoidance of enquiry into the relevant facts, deliberate suppression of material facts and misrepresentation of relevant facts before this Tribunal by the Joint Committee and (iii) negligence, nonapplication of mind and inaction on the part of concerned State Authorities as evidenced by the following facts and circumstances:

¶375

(i) Vide order dated 16.11.2022, the Project Proponent was restrained from carrying out further mining against which the Project Proponent filed appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court by misrepresenting the facts regarding compliance with the environmental norms while relying upon the reports submitted by the Joint Committee before this Tribunal to be in his favour but as per the Joint Status Report subsequently filed before this Tribunal there are serious environmental violations on the part of the Project Proponent who had not even obtained CTE/CTO from UPPCB prior to 05.01.2023 .

¶376

(ii) In its report filed vide email dated 25.05.2022 , the Joint Committee did not mention the relevant facts regarding EC, validity period of the lease as well as grant of CTE/CTO by UPPCB and merely reported in well-crafted manner that there was no illegal mining without referring to earlier incident of illegal mining.

¶377

(iii) In its report filed vide email dated 11.11.2022 , the Joint Committee mentioned that the lease was valid from 14.10.2020 to 13.10.2025 but

¶378

O.A.No.160/2022

¶379

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶380

-49-

¶381

did not mention the relevant facts regarding EC and also grant of CTE/CTO by UPPCB.

¶382

(iv) There were serious violations of the environmental laws/norms and the Project Proponent commenced and carried out mining without obtaining CTE/CTO from the UPPCB which fact was completely ignored by the State Authorities for extraneous consideration.

¶383

(v) In the Joint Status Report now filed on behalf of the Director, Mining and Geology, State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB serious violations on the part of the Project Proponent have been mentioned but the Joint Status Report has been prepared and submitted after expiry of the EC and discontinuance of the mining and no justification has been given for not carrying out requisite inspections for verification of the compliance status during continuance of the mining.

¶384

(vi) In the present case EC is stated to have been transferred in favour of the Project Proponent which was valid upto 31.01.2023 but lease dead was executed in favour of the Project Proponent which is valid from 14.10.2020 to 13.10.2025 and was not executed for period coterminus with EC.

¶385

(vii) The Project Proponent is stated to have applied to SEIAA for grant of EC for further mining in the land in question leased out in his favour but this Tribunal is not informed as to what is the basis and purport thereof.

¶386

Ms. Roshan Jacob, Director, Mining and Geology, U.P. and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member Secretary, UPPCB, who appeared before this Tribunal through VC on 26.04.2023 submitted that NoC/consent from UPPCB was not required by the Project Proponent for sand mining. Ms. Roshan Jacob, Director, Mining and Geology, U.P. and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member Secretary, UPPCB were directed to file their detailed response affidavits in this regard. Respondent no. 5-Project Proponent was also directed to file his

¶387

O.A.No.160/2022

¶388

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶389

-50-

¶390

reply/response.

¶391

In compliance of order dated 26.04.2023 , Affidavits were filed by the Member Secretary, UPPCB vide email dated 19.05.2023 and by the Director, Mining and Geology, U.P. vide email dated 22.05.2023 but no reply/response was filed by respondent no.5.

¶392

In his affidavit the Member Secretary, UPPCB has submitted t hat pursuant to remarks made in the final List issued by CPCB on 07.03.2016 of Orange Category of Industrial Sectors, no categorization had been made by the MoEF&CC for excavation of sand from the river bed till date and sand mining is not covered in any of the categorization viz. Red/Orange/Green and White. Relevant part of the affidavit is reproduced below:

¶393

“ AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF MEMBER SECRETARY, UTTAR PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN PURSUANCE TO THE ORDER DATED 26.04.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

¶394

X X X X

¶395

3. That the Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.03.2023 directed the project proponent to desist from carrying out any further mining activity in the mining site till further orders and directed Director, Mining and Geology and Member Secretary, UPPCB to appear in person on the next dated fixed.

¶396

4. That as mentioned in the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal the State Board has given the consent to operate to the project proponent regarding the site in question for the period of 05.01.2023 to 31.12.2026. The copy of the order dated 05.01.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure-1 to this affidavit.

¶397

5. That in the final List issued by CPCB on 07.03.2016 of Orange Category of Industrial Sectors the following comment regarding "Excavation of sand from the river bed" has been mentioned. "There are specific remarks in respect of some of the industrial sectors. These sectors are either merged with other relevant sectors or deleted due to duplication /vague category. The details are as follows :-

¶398

*SI.* no	*Origin* *at SI.* No	*Industry Sector*	*Original* *Category*	*Remarks*
1	24	Excavation		Since such type of
		of sand form	0	activities cause
		the River

¶399

O.A.No.160/2022

¶400

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶401

-51-

¶402

Bed (excluding manual	ecological disturbances, the instructions issued by
excavation)	the Government from time to time be followed. To be categorized by MoEF&CC

¶403

6. That pursuant to remarks made in categorization of sector, uptill now no categorization has been made by the MoEF&CC for excavation of sand from the river bed, therefore, the sand mining is not covered in any of the categorization viz. Red/Orange/Green and White.

¶404

7 That further it is stated that the State Board has issued the Show Cause notice for imposition of Environmental Compensation for total 550 defaulter days {the period of 22.10.2020 to 01.05.2021 (192 defaulter days) and for 15.11.2021 to 07.11.2022 (358 defaulter days)}. The show cause notice regarding environmental compensation for the mining during the period in which activity progressed without CTE/CTO is issued @ of Rs. 10,000/- per day i.e. Environmental Compensation of Rs. 55,00,000/- vide letter dated 25.04.2023. The copy of the letter is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure no-2 to this affidavit.

¶405

8. That further it is stated that the show cause letter regarding the Environmental Compensation has been received by project proponent on 09.05.2023 as per Indian Postal Track Report, but till ate the project proponent has not replied to the show cause letter dated 25.04.2023.

¶406

9. That the project proponent himself closed down the mining activities. Presently no mining activity is in operation. The joint inspection report dated 19.04.2023, conducted by the joint committee of the mining officer and sub divisional magistrate, Loni is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.-3 to this affidavit. 10. That further in pursuance to the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal the inspection has been carried by the officials of the State Board on 18.05.2023 and during the inspection the mining found closed at site in question. A Copy of inspection report dated 18.05.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.-4 to this affidavit.”

¶407

In her affidavit the Director, Mining and Geology, U.P. also submitted that since no categorization has been made by the MoEF&CC for excavation of sand from the riverbed, therefore, the sand mining is not covered under the categorization of the industrial Sector and that in the said mining operations, neither anything is added to the water nor is anything released, so water or air does not get polluted. The relevant part of the affidavit is reproduced below:

¶408

“ Affidavit of Compliance.

¶409

X X X X

¶410

O.A.No.160/2022

¶411

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶412

-52-

¶413

3. That, regarding obtaining NoC/consent from UPPCB for sand mining, it is humbly submitted that For harmonization of Classification of Industries under Red/Orange/Green/White Categories CPCB vide letter dated 19.08.2015 forwarded a copy of draft document on revised concept of categorization of industrial sectors to all SPCBs, PCCs and concerned ministries. CPCB further issued modified directions to revise/prepare categories of industrial sector in Red, Orange, Green and White as per final report to all SPCBs/PCCs on 07.03.2016.

¶414

(i) That is further worthwhile to mention here that in compliance to the directions issued by CPCB, UPPCB in its meeting dated 29.03.2016 adopted the same categorizations of industries and issued letter dated 18.04.2016 to all concerned controlling officers of the UPPCB and Regional officers of the UPPCB to comply the same. A true copy of the letter dated 18.04.2016. That there are two additional notes in the list of Industrial Sectors mentioned in the final report and Note (ii) is being quoted as below;

¶415

_SI.No. _	*Origin* *at SI.* *No.*	*Industry Sector*	*Original* *Category*	*Remarks*
1	24	Excavation of sand form the River Bed (excluding manual excavation)	0	Since such type of activities cause ecological disturbances, the instructions issued by the Government from time to time be followed. To be categorized by MoEF&CC

¶416

(ii) That at Serial No. 1 which was originally at SI.No 24 regarding excavation of Sand from the riverbed (excluding manual excavation), it has been mentioned in remark column that such type of activities cause ecological disturbances, the instructions issued by the Government (MoEF&CC) from time be followed. So, excavation of Sand from the riverbed (excluding manual excavation) has to be categorized by MoEF&CC separately.

¶417

(iii) That pursuant to remarks made in categorization of sector up till now no categorization has been made by the MoEF&CC for excavation of sand from the riverbed therefore the

¶418

O.A.No.160/2022

¶419

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶420

-53-

¶421

sand mining is not covered under the categorization of the industrial Sector. It is also submitted that as per the MOEF&CC, EIA notification 2006, EC has been obtained in this particular case and also in case of sand mining across the state.

¶422

(iv) under the provision of Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981, Industries, which causes underground/surface water and Air pollution, requires CTE /CTO from concerning SPCB. But in the case of Sand Mining no fugitive emissions are released. It is to be mentioned that neither permanent structure of any kind is erected during the mining operations of Sand/Morrum situated in the river bed nor heavy machinery are used in the mining operations. In the said mining operations, neither anything is added to the water nor is anything released, so water or air does not get polluted.

¶423

This Tribunal has passed order dated 30.05.2023 in O.A No. 176/2022 titled as Aman Chaudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors that sand mining from river bed mandatorily requires CTE and CTO from SPCBs/PCCs and for reasons of gravity the detailed reasons and operative part of the order are not reproduced here which may be read as part of this Judgment.

¶424

It may also be observed here that in his affidavit the Member Secretary, UPPCB has taken contradictory stands as on the one hand affidavit filed by him implies that sand mining from river bed does not require CTE/CTO from UPPCB but on the other hand the same mentions the Project Proponent to be non-compliant on the ground that CTE/CTO had not been taken from UPPCB. Such contradiction by itself not only points out lack of transparency and accountability but also negates impartiality and integrity in the working of the UPPCB subjecting the same to serious doubt of being animated by ulterior motives and extraneous considerations. UPPCB has allowed river bed sand mining without obtaining of CTE and CTO under the pretext of noncategorization by MOEF&CC but at the same time proceeded to issue show cause notices for imposition of environmental compensation to and pass orders for imposition of environmental compensation on some of the project

¶425

O.A.No.160/2022

¶426

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶427

-54-

¶428

proponents on the ground of not obtaining of CTE/CTO by them without taking any action against the majority of the similarly placed project proponents for not obtaining of CTE/CTO by them and has not monitored compliance of conditions imposed by MOEF&CC or UPSEIAA and allowed riverbed sand mining to be carried out despite serious violations of the EC conditions which warranted cancellation of EC and mining leases.

¶429

In O.A. no. 360/2015 National Green Tribunal Bar Association Vs.

¶430

Virender Singh (State of Gujarat) this Tribunal vide order dated 26.02.2021 issued the following directions:-

¶431

“ Enforcement of Monitoring Mechanism and review by the Chief Secretary at State level and Secretary MoEF&CC at National level

¶432

27. We direct all the States/UTs to strictly follow the SSMG-2016 read with EMGSM-2020 reinforced by mechanism for preparation of DSRs (in terms of directions of this Tribunal dated 14.10.2020 in Pawan Kumar, supra and 04.11.2020 in Rupesh Pethe, supra), Environment Management Plans, replenishment studies, mine closure plans, grant of EC (in terms of direction dated 13.09.2018 in Satendra Pandey, supra), assessment and recovery of compensation (as per discussion in Para 25), seizure and release of vehicles involved in illegal mining (in terms of order dated 19.02.2020 in Mushtakeem, supra), other safeguards against violations, grievance redressal, accountability of the designated officers and periodical review at higher levels. As already noted, EMGSM-2020 contemplates extensive use of digital technology, including remote sensing.

¶433

28. We further direct that periodic inspection be conducted by a five-members Committee, headed and coordinated by the SEIAA and comprising CPCB (wherever it has regional office), State PCB and two expert members of SEAC dealing with the subject. Where CPCB regional office is not available, if MoEF&CC regional office is available, its Regional Officer will be included in the Committee. Where neither CPCB nor MoEF&CC regional office exists, Chairman, SEIAA will tie up with the nearest institution of repute such as IIT to nominate an expert for being included in the Committee. Such inspection must be conducted at least thrice for each lease i.e. after expiry of 25% the lease period, then after 50% of the period and finally six months before expiry of the lease period for midway correction and assessment of damage, if any. The reports of such inspections be acted upon and placed on

¶434

O.A.No.160/2022

¶435

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶436

-55-

¶437

website of the SEIAA. Every lessee, undertaking mining, must have an environment professional to facilitate sustainable mining in terms of the mining plan and environmental norms. This be overseen by the SEIAA. Environment Departments may also develop an appropriate mobile App for receiving and redressing the grievances against the sand mining, including connivance of the authorities and also a mechanism to fix accountability of the concerned officers. Recommendations of the Oversight Committee for the State of UP quoted earlier may be duly taken into account.

¶438

The mechanism must provide for review at the level of the Chief Secretary at least once in every quarter, in a meeting with all concerned Departments in the State. The Chief Secretary UP may ensure further action in the light of the report of the Oversight Committee.

¶439

Similarly, at National level, such review needs to be conducted atleast once in a year by the Secretary, Environment in coordination with the Secretaries Mining and Jalshakti Ministries the CPCB.

¶440

Publication of Annual Reports

¶441

29. We further direct all the States/UTs to publish their annual reports on the subject and such annual reports may be furnished to MoEF&CC by 30th April every year giving status till 31st March. First such report as on 31.03.2022 may be filed with the MoEF&CC by all he States/UTs on or before 30.04.2022. The report may also be simultaneously posted on the website of the Environment Department of the States/UTs. Based on such reports, MoEF&CC may consider supplementing its Guidelines from time to time. The MoEF&CC may prepare a consolidated report considering the reports from the States/UTs and publish its own report on the subject, preferably by 31st May every year.

¶442

Interaction at National Level

¶443

30. We direct the Secretary MoEF to convene a meeting in coordination with the CPCB and Mining and Jalshakti Ministries of Central Government and such other experts/individuals at National level and representatives of States within three months for interaction on the subject which may be followed by such meetings being convened by the Chief Secretaries in all States in next three months. Holding of such meetings will provide clarity on enforcement strategies and help protection of environment.”

¶444

In the present case there is nothing on record to show that any such periodical inspections were conducted and the reports of such inspections

¶445

O.A.No.160/2022

¶446

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶447

-56-

¶448

were acted upon and placed on website of UPSEIAA; any mobile application was developed as directed for receiving and redressing the grievances against the sand mining, including connivance of the authorities and also a mechanism to fix accountability of the concerned officers; any annual reports have been prepared, submitted and uploaded on website on the website of the Environment Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Under the EC conditions the District Mining Officer was required to quarterly monitor compliance of the stipulated conditions and to report violations to UPSEIAA. There is nothing to show such quarterly monitoring of compliance status and reporting of violations to UPSEIAA by the District Mining Officer. The Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh has also failed to ensure compliance with the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act 1957) and Rules framed under the same and the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 (SSMMG 2016) and the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 (EMGSM 2020) by making periodical inspections and verifying compliance with the same. No response giving the requisite details of periodical inspections for verification of the compliance status with respect to compliance with MMDR Act 1957, the SSMMG 2016 and EMGSM 2020 has been filed by the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh.

¶449

In the present case the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB have also failed to ensure compliance by respondent no.5 with EC/CTO conditions and allowed respondent no. 5 to carry out mining despite such noncompliance without taking any action for such non- compliance. We are of the considered view that by making periodical inspections for monitoring compliance status with respect to compliance of the EC and CTO consent conditions and environmental norms and by taking of remedial action on the basis thereof the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB

¶450

O.A.No.160/2022

¶451

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶452

-57-

¶453

would have prevented illegal mining and environmental violations and consequent environmental damage. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB are also liable for payment of environmental compensation for remediation of the environmental damage caused by respondent no. 5 Project Proponent which would have been prevented by periodical monitoring and taking of remedial action by them. However, by taking a lenient view the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB are directed to pay nominal amount of ₹ 1 Lakh each as environmental compensation. The amount of environmental compensation be deposited by the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB with the Central Pollution Control Board within one month. The amount of environmental compensation shall be utilized for restoration of environment in the affected area. It is clarified that in case of failure of the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB to deposit the amount of costs, the Member Secretary, CPCB shall be entitled to recover the amount of costs by filing execution petition for execution of the order passed by this Tribunal before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions made in section 25 of the NGT Act 2010.

¶454

EC was granted by UPSEIAA in favour of Gurbaj Singh s/o Major Singh resident of B6/1379, Modern Colony, Jagadhari, Haryana. As per Specific Condition no. 15 the environmental clearance was co-terminus with the mining lease period. Lease in favour of said Gurbaj Singh was valid from 01.02.2018 to 31.01.2023 . Lease in favour of said Gurbaj Singh was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad by order dated 30.03.2018 . Subsequently, EC was transferred in favour of respondent no.5-Mumtaz Ali on 10.09.2020 . Lease deed was executed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad in favour of respondent no.5-Mumtaz Ali on 21.10.2020 for period of five years with validity upto 20.10.2025 . UPPCB granted CTO to respondent no. 5 on

¶455

O.A.No.160/2022

¶456

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶457

-58-

¶458

05.01.2023 with validity upto 31.12.2026 .

¶459

Questions arise as to permissibility of execution of lease deed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad with validity upto 20.10.2025 beyond the period of EC which was to expire on 31.01.2023 and grant of CTO by UPPCB with validity upto 31.12.2026 beyond the period of EC which was to expire on

¶460

31.01.2023 and lease deed which was to expire on 20.10.2025 .

¶461

Opportunity was granted to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and UPPCB to file response in this regard.

¶462

Reply has been filed by District Magistrate, Ghaziabad vide email dated

¶463

01.01.2024 . The relevant part of the reply is reproduced below:-

¶464

¶465

¶466

इस स ंध म बालू खनन प ा पचायरा ख -1 तहसील लोनी का िववरणिन वत् है -

¶467

¶468

¶469

ी मुमताज अली के प म िनग त आशय प की शत के अ ग त िनयत धनरािश जमा कराने के उपरा प ाधारक ारा ह ा रत पया वरण ता माण प सं०

¶470

O.A.No.160/2022

¶471

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶472

-59-

¶473

293/पया /एस०ई०ए०सी०/3886/2018 िदनांक 10.09.2020 इस काया लय म ुत िकया गया। (संल क-1)

¶474

प ाधारक ारा ुत पया वरण ता माण प के संबंध म अवगत कराना है िक उ पया वरण ता माण प पूव प ाधारक ी गुरबाज िसंह पु ी मेजर िसंह िनवासीबी-6/1379, माड न कालोनी, जगधारी, िजला ह रयाणा के नाम ीकृत था, िजसकी प ा अविध िदनांक 01.02.2018 से िदनांक 31.01.2023 तक थी। प ाधारक ी गुरबाज िसंह ारा प ा िवलेख की शत का उ ंघन करने के कारण ीकृत बालू खनन प ा को त ालीन िजलािधकारी महोदया के आदेश िदनांक 30.03.2018 ारा िनर कर िदया गया।

¶475

रा रीय पया वरण समाघात िनधा रण ािधकरण, उ० ०, लखनऊ ारा ी गुरबाज िसंह के प म ीकृत पया वरण ता माण प िदनांक 12.01.2018 म उ खत सम शत को यथावत रखते ये ी मुमताज अली के प म पया वरण ता माण िदनांक 10.09.2020 ह ां रत िकया गया। (संल क-2)

¶476

ी मुमताज अली ारा उ ह ांत रत पया वरण ता माण प (Transferred EC) को काया लय म ुत िकया गया, िजसके म म ी मुमताज अली के प म िदनांक 21.10.2020 को प ा िवलेख का िन ादन त ालीन िजलािधकारी ारा उ र देश उपखिनज (प रहार) िनयमावली, 1963 यथा संशोिधत िनयमावली, 2021 के िनयम- 35 (5) म िदये गये ािवधानों के अ ग त िकया गया। िनयम 35 (5) म िदये गये ािवधान िन वत् है :-

¶477

¶478

¶479

उपरो के स ंध म प ाधारक ी मुमताज अली ारा पया वरण ता माण प की अविध समा होने के प ात् खनन प ा की ओ०टी०पी० िनदेशालय से बंद कर दी गयी है तथा प ाधारक ीकृत खनन े म खनन काय बंद कर िदया गया है। वत मान म प ाधारक ी मुमताज अली ारा पुनः पया वरण ता माण प ा िकये जाने हेतु आवेदन िकया जा चुका है, जो िवचाराधीन है।

¶480

अतः उपरो ानुसार आ ा सेवा म सादर ेिषत है। “

¶481

In his reply, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad has referred to Rule 35 (5) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The above said Rule permits execution of the lease deed in favor of the person, to whom EC is transferred, limited to the period of validity of the EC. Since the EC was valid upto 31.01.2023 , lease deed in favor of respondent no. 5-Project Proponent could be executed under the above said Rule for the period from 21.10.2020 to 31.01.2023 . No other statutory provision enabling execution

¶482

O.A.No.160/2022

¶483

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶484

-60-

¶485

of the lease deed for the period of five years extending beyond the validity period of transferred EC has been referred to in the response filed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and has been referred to or pointed out even during hearing of the arguments by learned Counsel for respondent no. 4- District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and by respondent no. 5-Project Proponent.

¶486

In the very nature of things CTE/CTO cannot be granted by SPCB/UTPCC beyond the period of EC and lease and CTE/CTO has to be coterminous with EC/Lease. UPPCB has also not referred to and pointed out any statutory provision or official memorandum justifying grant of CTO for period upto 31.12.2026 extending beyond the validity period of EC upto 31.01.2023 and validity period of lease upto 20.10.2025 .

¶487

Consequently, lease deed executed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad with validity upto 20.10.2025 extending to period beyond the validity period of EC upto 31.01.2023 and CTO granted by UPPCB with validity upto 31.12.2026 extending to period beyond the validity period of EC and also validity period of lease will be illegal and of no consequential effect to confer any validity beyond 31.01.2023 .

¶488

Member Secretary, UPPCB and the Director, Mining and Geology, U.P. have both stated that no mining activity is taking place but the application of the Project Proponent for EC clearance is stated to be pending.

¶489

This Tribunal vide order dated 27.03.2023 directed respondent no. 5- Project Proponent to desist from carrying out any further mining activity in the mining site leased out to it and environmental clearance if any granted by SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh to respondent no. 5-Project Proponent in respect of the above said mining site was ordered to remain in abeyance till further orders to the contrary. Relevant part of the order reads as under:

¶490

O.A.No.160/2022

¶491

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶492

-61-

¶493

“14. In view of the mandate in Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 requiring this Tribunal to apply precautionary principle and also the provisions made in Section 19 (4) (j) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 empowering this Tribunal to require any person to cease and desist from committing or causing any violation of any enactment specified in Schedule I thereof, respondent no. 5 is directed to desist from carrying out any further mining activity in the mining site leased out to it and environmental clearance if any granted by SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh to respondent no. 5 in respect of the above said mining site shall also remain in abeyance till further orders to the contrary.

¶494

15. The District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad are also directed to take appropriate steps to ensure that no illegal mining takes place in the mining site in question.”

¶495

It may be observed here that respondent no. 5 was served with a show cause notice bearing letter No. 1453/Kha. Anu. -Ghazi./2020-21 dated 05.02.2021 regarding illegal mining outside the lease area. The District Magistrate, Ghaziabad passed order dated 20.05.2021 directing the respondent no. 5 to deposit Rs. 69,07,160/- for illegal mining outside his lease area. Respondent no. 5 filed Appeal No. 764 of 2021 against order dated 20.05.2021 before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut under Rule 77 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 who vide order dated 16.02.2022 dismissed the appeal and upheld order dated 20.05.2021 . Respondent no. 5 filed Revision No. 20(R)/SM/2023 against order dated 16.02.2022 before the Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh under Rule 80 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 which was dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2023 . On 08.12.2022 Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Senior Advocate, appearing for the Project Proponent had submitted that the Project Proponent will ensure strict compliance with the conditions imposed by SEIAA and consent conditions by UPPCB and will also deposit, under protest, the amount of environmental compensation, in the eventuality of revision petition filed by the Project Proponent being decided against him, within 30 days of such decision, without prejudice to availing further remedies in accordance with law. Respondent

¶496

O.A.No.160/2022

¶497

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶498

-62-

¶499

no.5-Project Proponent has not produced any document to show deposit of the penalty amount in terms of the undertaking. On the other hand Respondent no.5-Project Proponent filed Writ Petition (C) No. 1843/2023 titled as Mumtaz Ali Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others against order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh, order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and order dated 20.05.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

¶500

It is also pertinent to mention here that show cause notice dated 25.04.2023 was issued to respondent no. 5 by UPPCB for imposition of environmental compensation of Rs. 55,00,000/- and pursuant to said show cause notice, order for imposition of environmental compensation of Rs. 55,00,000/- was passed by UPPCB on 28.08.2023 . Reference for realization of the amount of compensation was made to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad vide letter dated 21.09.2023 which remained pending. Respondent no.5Project Proponent filed Writ Petition (c) No. 10340/2023 titled as Mumtaj Ali Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others challenging order dated 28.08.2023 before Hon’ble Allahabad High Court which is pending.

¶501

In the course of hearing during interaction, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member Secretary, UPPCB mentioned that environmental compensation of Rs. 83,17,34,132/- had been imposed out of which amount of Rs. 53,70,000/- has been realized.

¶502

This Tribunal observed that environmental Compensation, which is imposed by the UPPCB in compliance with directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal for restoration of environment and remediation of environmental damage caused, remains unrealized and unutilized for long periods of time during which the environmental damage

¶503

O.A.No.160/2022

¶504

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶505

-63-

¶506

caused continues unabated which may become irreversible and sought response from the State of Uttar Pradesh as to why the amount for remediation of environmental damage caused by the violators be not incurred by the State of Uttar Pradesh immediately on receipt of such references for remediation of the damage caused to the environment before the same results in irreversible damage to the ecology and bio-diversity and the amount so spent by the Uttar Pradesh may be recovered from the violators as arrears of land revenue in accordance with law.

¶507

Reply has been filed by state of Uttar Pradesh vide email dated

¶508

10.01.2024 . The relevant part of the reply is reproduced below:-

¶509

“ RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, IN COMPLIANCE TO THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2023 PASSED BY HON'BLE NGT PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 160 OF 2022 IN RE: OM PAL & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UP & ORS . X X X X

¶510

2. That on 04.01.2024 a review meeting has been held under the Chairmanship of Additional Chief Secretary, Environment, Forest and Climate Change Department, Uttar Pradesh regarding the progress of compliance of directions passed by Hon'ble Tribunal. The true copy of Minutes of Meeting dated 04.01.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.-1 to this response.

¶511

3. That during the course of above meetings, the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, hereinafter referred as UPPCB, has informed that ₹ 86,60,00,948/- amount of environmental compensation has been imposed against the defaulter Mining Units in Uttar Pradesh, out of which ₹ 76,90,000/environmental compensation has been recovered/realized and for ₹ 30,38,45,716/- the respective mining units have taken stay from Hon'ble Supreme Court/Hon'ble High Court. For remaining amount ₹ 55,44,65,232/- of environmental compensation, UPPCB vide different letters has requested to concerned District Magistrates to recover/realize the amount of environmental compensation as a arrears of land revenue in accordance with law.

¶512

4. That it is pertinent to mention here that the UPPCB has imposed the Environmental Compensation in compliance to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal and also in pursuance to the order/direction passed by Commission for Air Quality

¶513

O.A.No.160/2022

¶514

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶515

-64-

¶516

Management (CAQM) and against for non-compliance of Environmental Laws.

¶517

5. That it is also informed by the officials of UPPCB that Environmental Compensation amounting of ₹ 58.14 Cr. has been recovered/realized from the defaulter units, in which ₹ 10.63 Cr. has been recovered in compliance of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal and ₹ 1.25 Cr. and ₹ 46.26 Cr. has been recovered in compliance to the order passed by Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) and for noncompliance of Environmental Laws, respectively.

¶518

6. That further, following decisions have been taken during the course of meeting dated 04.01.2024:

¶519

i. That the Environmental Compensation recovered in pursuance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal shall be utilized as per the Guideline prepared by the Central Pollution Control Board herein after referred as CPCB. The true copy of Guideline prepared by the CPCB for Utilization of Environmental Fund is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.-2 to this response.

¶520

ii. That the monthly progress report regarding the recovery of Environmental Compensation as arrears of Land Revenue by the concerned District Magistrates shall be furnished to the UPPCB and the same shall be compiled and forwarded to the State of UP by UPPCB on a prescribed format as mentioned in the Minutes of Meeting dated 04.01.2024, contained as annexure no.-2 to this response.

¶521

iii. That regarding to the recovery of the Environmental Compensation stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court, the UPPCB shall immediately move a Stay Vacation application before the concern courts through a panel of advocates.

¶522

iv. That for the speedy recovery of Environmental Compensation by the concerned District Magistrates the issue shall be requested to be included in the agenda of monthly progress meeting of District Magistrates/Commissioners under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary. UPPCB shall submit the proposal along with progress of recovery of Environmental Compensation to the Government.

¶523

v. That the Corpus Fund will be established with the amount of Environmental Compensation already recovered/realized by UPPCB for non-compliance of Environmental Laws as mentioned in para 5.

¶524

vi. That the Corpus Fund shall be utilized for the immediate remediation of environmental damages caused by the violators in accordance to the Guideline prepared by the CPCB for Utilization of Environmental Fund after decision to do so by a committee having following members;

¶525

a) Officer nominated by the Additional Chief Secretary, Environment, Forest and Climate Change Department, Uttar Pradesh not below the rank of Secretary (Chairman)

¶526

O.A.No.160/2022

¶527

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶528

-65-

¶529

b) Officer nominated by the Member Secretary, Central Pollution Control Board (Member) c) Member Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (Convener)

¶530

The aforesaid committee shall give financial approval to the action plan for remediation of environmental damages and the whole work shall be accomplished in accordance to the Guideline prepared by the CPCB for Utilization of Environmental Fund through Corpus Fund.

¶531

7. That it has been decided during the meeting that direction of Hon'ble NGT may be sought on above decisions.

¶532

Therefore, the response of the State of Uttar Pradesh is placed before this Hon'ble National Green Tribunal for perusal and kind consideration.

¶533

The Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh is directed to issue appropriate instructions within three months to all the concerned Revenue Officers to recover the amount of environmental compensation from the polluters as arrears of land revenue expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of receipt of reference from UPPCB for recovery thereof as arrears of land revenue. However, in cases in which amount of environmental compensation is not so recovered within the period of six months from the polluters and paid to UPPCB due to any negligence/inaction/un-reasonable delay on the part of the concerned Revenue Officers, it will be appropriate that the State of Uttar Pradesh bears the cost of restoration/protection of environment and thereafter recovers the same from the polluters.

¶534

In the application the applicants have made allegations that respondent no. 5-Project Proponent did not pay compensation to the applicants and other land owners in terms of order passed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 3101/2010 titled as Sripal Vs. State of U.P. & others. vide order dated 12.07.2022 the Joint Committee was directed to look into this aspect but the Joint Committee did not look into this aspect and merely submitted that the applicant did not submit any application for payment of compensation in terms of such order and if any such application is submitted

¶535

O.A.No.160/2022

¶536

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶537

-66-

¶538

appropriate action will be taken. A reference to revenue record pertaining to the land leased out for mining to respondent no.5-Project Proponent available on Uttar Pradesh Government website Bhulekh shows ownership of villagers and other persons on some of the khasra numbers thereof and question of their entitlement to payment of compensation arises in the present case.

¶539

Rule 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, which bars owner of land from putting any restriction on mining operation and entitles him to raise demand of compensation, reads as under:-

¶540

“ 67. No restriction etc. to be imposed by owner of land on mining operation except demand of compensation : (1) No person, who has right in any capacity on the land covered by a mining lease or mining permit, shall be entitled to impose any prohibition or restriction on the mining operations by the holder of such lease or permit of such land or to demand any sum by way of premium or royalty for the removal of minor mineral. Provided that such person shall be entitled to get annual compensation from the said holder of mining lease or permit for the use of surface of the land for mining operations, as may be agreed upon between them. (2) Where the holder of a mining lease or permit and the owner of the surface of the land could not agree upon the amount of annual compensation and a dispute arises in respect thereof, it shall be determined by the District Officer in such manner that: (a) in the case of agricultural land, the amount of annual compensation shall be worked out on the basis of the average annual net income from the cultivation of similar land for the past three years, and (b) In the case of nonagricultural land, the amount of annual compensation shall be worked out on the basis of average annual letting value of similar land for the previous three years,”

¶541

In view of above rule land owners/persons having right in any capacity on the land covered by the mining lease in favour of respondent no.5-Project Proponent will be entitled to get annual compensation from respondent no.5Project Proponent for the use of the surface of the land for mining operation as per agreement with respondent no. 5-Project Proponent or determination by the District Officer in accordance therewith.

¶542

The District Magistrate, Ghaziabad is directed to look into the aspect of entitlement of the applicants or other land owners/persons having any right

¶543

O.A.No.160/2022

¶544

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶545

-67-

¶546

in the land in question as per revenue record to payment of compensation in accordance with Rule 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and directions issued by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and to take appropriate action/pass appropriate order to ensure payment of compensation to such eligible persons in accordance with the above-said rule and directions issued by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court.

¶547

In the present case one of the grievances of the applicants is extraction of minor mineral by respondent no. 5 from mining lease area by use of impermissible heavy machinery.

¶548

This Tribunal vide interim order dated 23.12.2015 passed in O.A. No. 517 of 2015 titled as Sandeep Kumar V/s MoEF & CC, Gol and O.A. No. 550 of 2015 titled as Virender Kumar V/s MoEF & CC, Gol restrained all the riverbed contractors from carrying out mechanical mining in riverbed but subsequently in O.A. No. 44/2016 titled as Mushtakeem Vs. MoEF & CC & Ors relating to the method of mining in the riverbed (mechanical or nonmechanical) decided on 05.09.2018 all concerned riverbed contractors were allowed to undertake mining as per EC.

¶549

In O.A. No. 44/2016 titled as Mushtakeem Vs. MoEF & CC & Ors , MOEF&CC suggested that the excavators with bucket capacity of 1 cubic meter and maximum boom length of 3 meters should be used for river bed mining and flood plain mining and the excavators used for river bed mining and flood plain mining should be tyre mounted only.

¶550

However, it appears that no office memorandum has been issued by MOEF&CC and no guidelines have been issued by CPCB about the machinery which can be used and the machinery which cannot be used for river bed mining and also about the transport vehicles which can be used and the

¶551

O.A.No.160/2022

¶552

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶553

-68-

¶554

transport vehicles which cannot be used for transportation of mined minor mineral. As per current practice, the machinery and the transport vehicles as mentioned in Environment Management Plan are allowed to be used without any genuine assessment regarding the impact of such machinery and transport vehicles on river ecology and aquatic life and on approach roads and air pollution.

¶555

It may also be observed here that as per the largely prevalent current practice State Mining and Geology Departments approve manual and SemiMechanized mining as per Environment Management Plans submitted by the prospective mining lease/permit holders. In some States Excavator with bucket capacity of 1 cubic meter and maximum boom length of 3 meters is permitted for river bed mining and flood plain mining. In some States use of Poclain is permitted for loading/unloading of mined minor mineral. Invariably in original applications allegations are made regarding use of heavy machinery and heavy transport vehicles which are denied by concerned authorities and project proponents and even Joint Committees constituted by this Tribunal overlook the issue and do not collect relevant evidence for verifying the factual position. In the present case also in its report the Joint Committee has merely mentioned that respondent no. 5 is using machinery in accordance with letter dated 21.06.2019 issued by the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh without producing photographs of the machinery and vehicles used by respondent no.5.

¶556

The relevant part of the letter dated 21.06.2019 issued by the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh is reproduced below:-

¶557

“िवषय - उपखिनजबालू / मोंरमकेखननविनकासीम मशीनोंके योगकेसंबंधम । X X X X उपयु िवषयकेसंबंधम अवगतकरानाहैिकजगपदोंम नदीतलम उपल उपखिनजबालू / मोंरमके ीकृतखननप ा े ोंकाआक किनरी ण केदौरानयहत काशम आयाहैिकखननप ाधारगन ाराबालूखननएवं

¶558

O.A.No.160/2022

¶559

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶560

-69-

¶561

िनकासीम मानककेिवपरीतअ िधकभारीमशीनीया योगिकयाजारहाहै।वन पया वरणएवंजलवायुप रवत नमं ालयभारतसरकारनईिद ीकेिदशािनद शएवं मा०रा ीयह रतअिधकरण , नईिद ी ारापा रतिविभ आदेशोंम यह िकया गयाहैिकबालूखननम यु ए वेटरकमलोिडंगमशीनकी Boom Length तीन मीटरएवं Bucket Capacity एकघनमीटरसेअिधकनहोपर ुखननप ाधारकों ारा Poclain आिदक िनयोंकेभारीमशीनका योगकरअ िधकगहराईम बालू काखननिकयेजानेसेपया वरणएवंपा र थितकीपरकु भावपड़नेकीस ावना है।अिधकखननकेकारणबालूकीओवरलोिडंगकोबढ़ावािमलताहै।

¶562

अतःआपसेअपे ाहैिकनदीतलम बालूएवंमोंरमकेखननम मानकसे अिधक Boom Length केए वेटरकमलोिडंगमशीनका योगनहो , यहअपने रसेसुिनि तकरनेकाक कर ।“

¶563

As per current practice transport vehicles are also permitted by the Mining and Geology Departments. In the State of Uttar Pradesh a circular dated 03.06.2019 was issued by Directorate of Geology & Mining mentioning different loading capacities of trucks as summarized under: -

¶564

SL.No	Type of Vehicle	Defined Quantity	Quantity in Cubic meter
1	6 Tyre Truck	18500 Kgor 12.5 Ton	8.00
2	10 Tyre Truck	28000 Kgor 18 Ton	12.00
3	12Tyre Truck	35000 Kgor 24 Ton	16.00
4	14 Tyre Truck	42000 Kgor 30 Ton	20.00

¶565

MOEF&CC is directed to examine the issue and issue appropriate directions within three months in exercise of its powers under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 regarding the machinery which can be used and the machinery which cannot be used for river bed mining/flood plain mining and also regarding the transport vehicles which can be used and the transport vehicles which cannot be used for transportation of mined minor minerals.

¶566

I.A. No. 860/2023 has been filed by respondent no. 5 for vacation of the stay order dated 27.03.2023 . The relevant part of above said I.A. has been reproduced in earlier part of this Judgment.

¶567

Replies have been filed by respondent no. 2-Director, Mines and Geology,

¶568

O.A.No.160/2022

¶569

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶570

-70-

¶571

Uttar Pradesh and respondent no. 3-UPPCB vide separate emails dated 11.03.2024 .

¶572

In Civil Appeal No. 3611/2020 titled as Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India vide order dated 10.11.2021 held that in accordance with the 2020 Guidelines, the DSR is required to be prepared before auction/e-auction/ grant of Mining lease by Mining Department or department dealing with mining activity in the respective States.

¶573

In Anjani Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2017 SCC Online NGT 979 this Tribunal vide its Judgment dated 08.12.2017 held that a District Survey Report (DSR) is a pre-requisite and condition precedent to the grant of any mining leases of sand and bajri.

¶574

It may be observed here that we have found in some cases coming before this Tribunal that the conditions imposed in EC issued by UPSEIAA and CTE/CTO granted by UPPCB are not complied with by the Project Proponents who also indulge in illegal mining. Penalty imposed for illegal mining and environmental compensation imposed for violation of environmental norms are challenged by way of filing appeals/revisions or writ petitions before Hon’ble Allahabad High Court/Hon’ble Supreme Court decision of which may take long time. The defaulter Project Proponents continue with mining activities without remediating the violations and ensuring compliance with EC/CTE/CTO conditions and environmental norms. The Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh, UPSEIAA and UPPCB are directed to ensure compliance by the Project Proponents with EC/CTE/CTO conditions and environmental norms by way of requisite monitoring and periodical inspections and taking prompt action in respect of violations reported. It will be appropriate that the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh, UPSEIAA and UPPCB take into

¶575

O.A.No.160/2022

¶576

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶577

-71-

¶578

consideration past violations, non-compliance with EC/CTE/CTO conditions and environmental norms, non-payment of environmental compensation imposed and non-remediation of environmental damage caused before grant of any fresh EC or grant of fresh CTE/CTO or renewal thereof in favour of the defaulting Project Proponents in respect of the same or any other new Project.

¶579

UPSEIAA is directed to ensure that application for environmental clearance filed by respondent no.5-Project Proponent is considered in accordance with the SSMMG 2016 and EMGSM 2020 and directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal and also on the basis of DSR prepared and approved after following the prescribed procedure including conducting of requisite replenishment studies.

¶580

Interim order dated 27.03.2023 passed by this Tribunal to the effect that environmental clearance if any granted by SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh to respondent no. 5 in respect of the above said mining site shall also remain in abeyance till further orders to the contrary is vacated and I.A. No. 860/2023 is allowed to that extent .

¶581

In view of the above discussion, the original application is disposed of with issuance of the following directions in exercise of the powers under Section 15 of the NGT Act 2010:-

¶582

(i) Respondent no. 5 is directed to deposit amount of ₹ 2 Lakhs as costs with the Member Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Legal Services Authority within one month for failure to file compliance affidavit within one month as directed by order dated 08.12.2022. The amount of costs shall be utilized for providing legal aid to eligible persons from the State of Uttar Pradesh intending to approach this Tribunal for adjudication of civil cases involving substantial questions relating to

¶583

O.A.No.160/2022

¶584

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶585

-72-

¶586

environment arising out of implementation of the enactments specified in the first schedule to the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It is clarified that in case of failure of respondent no. 5 to deposit the amount of costs, the Member Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Legal Services Authority shall be entitled to recover the amount of costs by filing execution petition for execution of the order passed by this Tribunal before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions made in Section 25 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

¶587

(ii) The Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and Member Secretary, UPPCB are directed to pay amount of ₹ 1 Lakh each as environmental compensation for failure to conduct periodical inspections and monitor compliance as per EC/CTE/CTO conditions and directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal. The amount of environmental compensation be deposited by the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB with the Central pollution control Board within one month. The amount of environmental compensation shall be utilized for restoration of environment in the affected area. It is clarified that in case of failure of the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and UPPCB to deposit the amount of costs, the Member Secretary, CPCB shall be entitled to recover the amount of costs by filing execution petition for execution of the order passed by this Tribunal before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions made in section 25 of the NGT Act 2010.

¶588

(iii) The Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh is directed to ensure that mining leased site is closed/reclaimed as per

¶589

O.A.No.160/2022

¶590

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶591

-73-

¶592

Environmental Management Plan and no illegal mining takes place in the same.

¶593

(iv) The Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh, UPSEIAA and UPPCB are directed to ensure compliance by the Project Proponents with EC/CTE/CTO conditions and environmental norms by way of requisite monitoring and periodical inspections and taking prompt action in respect of violations reported. The Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh, UPSEIAA and UPPCB are also directed to take into consideration past violations, non-compliance with EC/CTE/CTO conditions and environmental norms, non-payment of environmental compensation imposed and non-remediation of environmental damage caused before grant of any fresh EC or grant of fresh CTE/CTO or renewal thereof in favour of the defaulting Project Proponents in respect of the same or any other new Project.

¶594

(v) UPSEIAA is directed to ensure that application for environmental clearance filed by respondent no.5-Project Proponent, which is pending with it, is considered in accordance with the SSMMG 2016 and EMGSM 2020 and directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal and also on the basis of DSR prepared and approved after following the prescribed procedure including conducting of requisite replenishment studies.

¶595

(vi) The District Magistrate, Ghaziabad is directed to look into the aspect of entitlement of the applicants or other land owners/persons having any right in the land in question as per revenue record to payment of compensation in accordance with Rule 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and directions issued by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and to take appropriate action/pass

¶596

O.A.No.160/2022

¶597

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶598

-74-

¶599

appropriate order to ensure payment of compensation to such eligible persons in accordance with the above-said rule and directions issued by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court.

¶600

(vii) The Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh is directed to issue appropriate instructions within three months to all the concerned Revenue Officers to recover the amount of environmental compensation from the polluters as arrears of land revenue expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of receipt of reference from UPPCB for recovery thereof as arrears of land revenue. However, in cases in which amount of environmental compensation is not so recovered within the period of six months from the polluters and paid to UPPCB due to any negligence/inaction/un-reasonable delay on the part of the concerned Revenue Officers, it will be appropriate that the State of Uttar Pradesh bears the cost of restoration/protection of environment and thereafter recovers the same from the polluters.

¶601

(viii) MOEF&CC is directed to examine the matter regarding the machinery which can be used and the machinery which cannot be used for river bed mining/flood plain mining and also regarding the transport vehicles which can be used and the transport vehicles which cannot be used for transportation of mined minor minerals and issue appropriate directions in this regard in exercise of its powers under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 within three months.

¶602

Any person having any grievance may move this Tribunal for clarification/modification of this order and also for further directions in the matter.

¶603

O.A.No.160/2022

¶604

Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors

¶605

-75-

¶606

A copy of this Judgment be sent to the Secretary, MoEF & CC, the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Member Secretary, UPSEIAA, the Member Secretary, UPPCB, the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad by email for requisite compliance.

¶607

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶608

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶609

August 05^th , 2024 AG

Om Pal and Ors. vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Pal and Ors. vs

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

Narayan Sharma vs

Narayan Sharma vs

Narayan Sharma vs

Narayan Sharma vs

Restorehealth Medicare Private Limited vs Madhya Pradesh State Environment Assessment Authority (Mpseiaa) through the Member Secretary E-5 Paryavaran Parisar Bhawan Arera Colony Bhopal (M.P.)

Restorehealth Medicare Private Limited vs Madhya Pradesh State Environment Assessment Authority (Mpseiaa) through the Member Secretary E-5 Paryavaran Parisar Bhawan Arera Colony Bhopal (M.P.)

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

Vipin Nayyar vs Union of India

Prakash Yadav vs

Ram Keval vs

Ram Milan Sahani vs

Mr. Prabhakar Rai vs Union of India

Om Pal and Ors. vs

Manjeet Bhardwaj and Others vs