Allowed

Sevasetu v. the State Environment Impact Assessment

NGT12 Nov 2024IA No. 87/2024 in Appeal No. 12/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an environmental clearance for riverbed sand mining in Bihar, alleging no public hearing was held. The court noted the public did not attend the hearing. It quashed the clearance, directing a fresh public hearing to be conducted within two months.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the Environmental Clearance dated 10.08.2024 and direction to hold a fresh public hearing within two months.

Sevasetu vs the State Environment Impact Assessment — NGT (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Item No.03

¶2

Court No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶4

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶5

Appeal No.12/2024/EZ (I.A. No.87/2024/EZ & I.A. No.88/2024/EZ)

¶6

In the matter of:

¶7

1. “Sevasetu” a Non-governmental Organization, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, having it’s office at Arpana Bank Colony, Phase-2, new Bailey Road, Ram Jaipal Nagar, Danapur, Patna-801503, Represented by it’s Chairman viz. Nishant Kumar Ojha Son of Nirmal Kumar Ojha, “SEVASETU” a Non-governmental Organization, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, of Seva Setu, Ram Jaipal Road, Near Sakhi, Arpana Bank Colony, Phase-2, Dinapur-cum-Khagual, Patna, Bihar-801503;

¶8

2. Nishant Kumar Ojha, Son of Nirmal Kumar Ojha, Chairman, “SEVASETU” a Non-governmental Organization, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, of Seva Setu, Ram Jaipal Road, Near Sakhi, Arpana Bank Colony, Phase-2, Dinapur-cum-Khagual, Patna, Bihar-801503;

¶9

3. Dinapur-cum-Khagual, Patna, Bihar-801503

¶10

……..Appellant(s)

¶11

Versus

¶12

1. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Bihar Service through it’s Member Secretary, having it’s office at BELTRON Bhawan, 2^nd Floor, Shastri Nagar, Bailey Road, Patna-800023;

¶13

2. M/s Shivam Coke Pvt. Ltd. A company incorporated under the Companies Act, represented by it’s Director having it’s registered office at 6/19 A, Poddar Nagar, 1^st Floor, Post Office-Jodhapur Park, Police Station-Jadavpur, Kolkata, West Bengal, Pin Code-700068 and the working office at Bungalow No.06, Chanchani Colony, Near Hirak Point, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, Pin-826004;

¶14

3. The Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Represented by it’s Member Secretary, BELTRON Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna-800023

¶15

……..Respondent(s)

¶16

¶17

Date of hearing: 12.11.2024

¶18

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶19

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Paushali Banerjee, Advocate

¶20

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anamika Pandey, Adv. for R-1 (in Virtual Mode),

¶21

Mr. Somnath Roy Chowdhury, Adv. a/w Ms. Arpita Chowdhury, Adv. for R-2, Ms. Amrita Pandey, Adv. for R-3 (in Virtual Mode)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard Ms. Paushali Banerjee, learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Counsel for the Respondents.

¶24

The present Appeal No.12/2024/EZ has been filed seeking quashing of the Environmental Clearance dated 10.08.2024 granted by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Bihar in respect of the proposed mining activity of the Respondent No.2, M/s Shivam Coke Pvt. Ltd., project proponent of the mining project in the Rohtas Sand Ghat No.08 covering an area of 96.50 Ha., comprising within Khata No.783, 109, Khesra No. 3659 (P), Mouza – Darihat, Block – Dehri, District – Rohtas on Sone River.

¶25

The allegation of the Appellant is that the Respondent No.2, has been granted Environmental Clearance on 10.08.2024 in respect of proposed river bed sand mining project covering an area of 96.50 Ha. at Rohtas Sand Ghat No.08 on Sone River, District – Rohtas, State of Bihar without any Public Hearing being held.

¶26

It is stated that the mining plan of the Respondent No.2 was prepared on 19.05.2023 by “United Exploration India Private Limited”, an accredited agency by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Patna.

¶27

¶28

It is alleged that the application for Environmental Clearance was submitted by the Respondent No.2 before SEIAA after one year of approval of the mining plan, i.e., between 28.05.2024 and 29.05.2024.

¶29

The application/proposal was considered by State Environmental Appraisal Committee (SEAC) between 10.07.2024 and 23.07.2024 and referred to SEIAA, Bihar on 23.07.2024 and SEIAA granted EC on 10.08.2024. It is submitted that Public Hearing was conducted on 16.03.2024 and the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report was submitted by the Respondent No.2 on 15.06.2024.

¶30

It is alleged that the Environmental Clearance (EC) has been granted on the basis of the District Survey Report (DSR) but no replenishment study has been carried out so far in respect of the sand mining plot in question.

¶31

It is further alleged that as per the report published in the Hindustan Times on 02.09.2024, there has been a continuous decline in ground water level as well as the reservoirs which has led to a drinking water crisis in many areas of South Bihar, especially in Kaimur Plateau areas of Aurangabad, Rohtas and Kaimur District.

¶32

It is alleged that the summary of the report of the Central Ground Water Board dated May 2022 has reported that the sand mining activity in District – Rohtas is having an adverse impact on the ground water level; the allegation is that the report of the Central Ground Water Board with regard to District – Rohtas has not been taken into consideration during preparation of the District Survey Report (DSR) and therefore, the Environmental Clearance which is based on such a DSR is therefore liable to be set aside. It is also

¶33

¶34

alleged that no Environment Impact Assessment report or Environment Management Plan has been framed by the Respondent No.2, to meet the problem of alarming decrease of Ground Water Level in District – Rohtas due to the proposed sand mining activity qua the said mining plot being illegally operated by the Respondent No.2.

¶35

It is submitted, inter alia, that no Public Hearing was held which would be clear from the documents filed as Annexures-G and H and consequently the learned Counsel confines her submissions at this stage only to the issue of ‘non holding’ of Public Hearing.

¶36

The case of the Appellant as stated by Ms. Paushali Banerjee, learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the Public Hearing was not held prior to grant of Environmental Clearance dated 10.08.2024 by SEIAA, Bihar. Learned Counsel has referred to the document at page no.98 of the paper-book, Annexure-G, which in clear and unambiguous terms states that general public were not present during Public Hearing. The relevant exact of the document Annexure-G quotation reads as under:-

¶37

“ ----- आम जनता लोक-सुनवाई म� उप��त नही� �ए। ”

¶38

Learned Counsel further submits that the application for Environmental Clearance submitted on 28.05.2024 and 29.05.2024 would be obvious from the Annexure-H, page no.101 of the paperbook. This is not disputed by Mr. Somnath Roy Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2, M/s Shivam Coke Pvt. Ltd.

¶39

Ms. Anamika Pandey, learned Counsel appearing (in Virtual Mode) on behalf of the Respondent No.1, SEIAA, Bihar, however disputed the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant and has

¶40

¶41

placed before us the document at page no.375 of the paper-book, Annexure-F, which is the record of the proceedings dated 15.04.2024 and documents thereto filed (colly) along with English translations at page nos.376 and 377 (internal page nos.194 A and 194 B) of the paper-book. The English translation clearly mentions that “general public did not attend the public hearing” . This Report has been signed by the Regional Officer, Bihar State Pollution Control Board and Additional District Magistrate, Rohtas. Thus, the factual aspect of the matter is that Public Hearing though was held on but members of the public did not attend the Public Hearing.

¶42

Ms. Anamika Pandey, learned Counsel submits that as per the MoEF & CC Notification, 2006, second Public Hearing is not required and the SEIAA, Bihar could have proceeded to consider the documents on record taking the date of Public Hearing of 15.03.2024 to be final whether members of the public are present or not if proper notices of holding of the Public Hearing have been circulated.

¶43

Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) Notification 2006 provides for “Public Consultation” which defines the same as a “process by which the concerns of local affected persons and others who have plausible stake in the environmental impacts of the project or activity are ascertained with a view of taking into account all the material concerns in the project or activity design as appropriate”.

¶44

Public Consultation comprises of two components :-

¶45

(i) A public hearing at the site or in its close proximity – districtwise to be carried out in the manner prescribed in Appendix IV for ascertaining concerns of local affected persons; and

¶46

¶47

(ii) Procurement of written responses from persons concerned having a plausible stake in the environmental aspects surrounding the project.

¶48

The State Pollution Control Board or the Union Territory Pollution Control Committee (UTPCC) is charged with conducting the Public Hearing in the manner stipulated in Appendix-IV and forwarding the proceedings to the Regulatory Authority within 45 days of a request from the Applicant. It is provided that Public Hearing should be arranged in a “ systematic, time-bound and transparent manner ” to ensure the “ widest possible public participation at the project site(s)or in its close proximity district-wise ”.

¶49

In the present case, it has not been stated by the Respondents anywhere in their affidavit as to why the members of the local public did not appear in the Public Hearing held on 15.03.2024 or if they did not physically appear in the Public Hearing whether any written responses from persons having a plausible stake in the environmental aspects concerning the project was called for and whether any written responses were received.

¶50

We are of the view that Public Hearing being an essential ingredient for the grant of Environmental Clearance, at least one more effort should have been made and opportunity given by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board which conducts the Public Hearing to elicit the views of the public.

¶51

Mr. Somnath Roy Chowdhury, learned Counsel submits that the Respondent No.2 would have no objection if the impugned Environmental Clearance dated 10.08.2024 is remitted to the SEIAA, Bihar with a direction to conduct a fresh Public Hearing to elicit the views of the public.

¶52

¶53

Ms. Amrita Pandey, learned Counsel appearing (in Virtual Mode) on behalf of the Respondent No.3, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, submits that she has instructions to state that the Bihar State Pollution Control Board is adopting the affidavit of SEIAA, Bihar.

¶54

On a conspectus of facts, we, therefore, dispose of the present Appeal setting aside the impugned Environmental Clearance dated 10.08.2024 and direct the Bihar State Pollution Control Board to hold a fresh Public Hearing as per law giving adequate notice to members of the public to appear on a date to be decided by Bihar State Pollution Control Board, in consultation with District Magistrate, Rohtas.

¶55

We further direct that the Public Hearing shall be held not later than two months considering that one month notice has to be given to the parties for holding Public Hearing.

¶56

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶57

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

B. Amit Sthalekar, JM

¶59

….......................................... Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM

¶60

November 12 2024, Appeal No.12/2024/EZ (I.A. No.87/2024/EZ & I.A. No.88/2024/EZ) MN

¶61

Sevasetu v. the State Environment Impact Assessment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sevasetu v. the State Environment Impact Assessment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Subhash C Pandey vs Bhopal Municipal Corporation

Dr Subhash C Pandey vs Bhopal Municipal Corporation

Nannepaga Venkata Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Tejah Balantrapu vs Union of India Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

1. Chittaranjan Mahanta S/0- Mahendra Mahanta Aged About 42YEARS vs 1. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change

Moti Singh Shekhawat vs State of Rajasthan

Moti Singh Shekhawat vs State of Rajasthan

Haripriya Patel vs State of Odisha

Midnapore Cultural and Welfare Association vs West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Limited

Environmentwarrior vs West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Ankur Sharma vs Union of India

Sevasetu vs the State Environment Impact Assessment

Sevasetu vs the State Environment Impact Assessment

1. Chittaranjan Mahanta S/0- Mahendra Mahanta Aged About 42YEARS vs 1. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change