The National Green Tribunal Bench held that since no violation of EC conditions was found for the license holder and earlier penalty orders were set aside by the Supreme Court, no further action was required against any party. Two original applications were dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Item No. 04 & 05
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (Through Video Conferencing)
Original Application No.110/2014(CZ) (I.A.No.28/2024)
Sukhram Bhagel Applicant(s)
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)
WITH
Original Application No.100/2023(CZ) (O.A. No. 602/2018- PB)
M/s Individuals Applicant(s)
Vs.
Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing: 06.11.2024
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant (s): Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Adv. (in Item no. 5) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant M. Harne, Adv. Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Adv. (in Item no. 4) Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Adv. Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv.
ORDER
dated 17.07.2024 passed an order as follows :-
1
O.A. No. 110/2024(CZ) Sukhram Bhagel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. O.A. No. 100/2023(CZ) M/s Individuals Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
“An affidavit of the Mining Inspector has been filed (in O.A. No. 110/2014). The same is ordered to be taken on record. We have noticed the contents of the affidavit. However, we find from the Annexure-Al the documents of the PCB that they had issued notices to the Respondent Shri Vijendra Singh Tomar proprietor of M/s Shree Individual pointing out that these had been breaches of the EC conditions. In view of the breach of the EC conditions, we direct that the PCB issue notice for cancellation of the EC Air and Water consent of the M/s Shree Individual and also impose penalty. It is further directed that the PCB will refer the matter to SEIAA for the cancellation of EC and passing an order for recovery of the amount for loss caused to the environment.”
“Perused the order dated 17.07.2017. Though the appellant was not a party to the Original Application No.110 of 2014, a direction has been issued by the National Green Tribunal to the Pollution Control Board to issue notice for cancelation of Environmental Clearance as well as Air and water consent granted to the appellant and to impose penalty. We set aside the order only on the ground that without impleading the appellant as a party, a drastic action has been ordered to be taken against the appellant. Accordingly, the order dated 17.07.2017 is hereby set aside. Accordingly Original Application No.110/2014 is restored to the file of the aforesaid Tribunal. The Tribunal will hear the applicant in the said application and the present appellant. Thereafter the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
We make it clear if the Tribunal intends to pass any order against the appellant, the same shall not be passed
2
O.A. No. 110/2024(CZ) Sukhram Bhagel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. O.A. No. 100/2023(CZ) M/s Individuals Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
without impleading the appellant as a party to the restored application.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
All questions are left open to be decided by the Tribunal.”
2. The applicant was given mining lease for sand mining. Its highest bid was for Rs. 11, 50, 00, 000/- per annum for a quantity of 1,20,000 cubic meters at village Ruhera Tehsil Saveda District Datia, Survey no. 765,2222, admeasuring 8.00 hectares.
3. On 25.02.2017, the Regional office of MP PCB issued notice to the applicant purporting to be in compliance of the order of this Tribunal dated 05.09.2015, in original application No. 22/2015(CZ) – in the case of Balwan Singh Vs. State of MP & Ors. which reads as follows:
“Learned counsel Shri Shivendu Joshi appears on behalf of M/s Shri Individual and proprietor Shri Brijendra Singh Tomar. We direct that in accordance with our directions on 03.06.2016 and 04.08.2016 Mining Officer along with the Applicant as well as Shri Brijendra Singh Tomar, Proprietor M/s Shri Individual carry out the marking and fixing of pillars on the mining lease area of M/s Shri Individual and submit a report as to whether any mining
3
O.A. No. 110/2024(CZ) Sukhram Bhagel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. O.A. No. 100/2023(CZ) M/s Individuals Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
has carried out beyond the limits of the mining lease.”
4. It was mentioned that a Court Commissioner was appointed by this Tribunal who submitted an inspection report showing that mining was being done against the conditions of the Environmental Clearance (EC). The sand mining was being illegally done beyond the depth of 2 meters, it was being done without demarcation, it was being done by using heavy machines. Heavy vehicles were being used for sand mining. The applicant was warned to act according to the conditions of the EC, failing which action could be taken.
5. Neither the said notice, nor the inspection report relied upon therein were challenged by the applicant. However, Central Zonal Bench of this Tribunal, considered the affidavit of the Mining Officer to the effect that the applicant was committing breach of EC conditions. The Tribunal directed the MP PCB to issue notice for cancellation of the EC and also to impose penalty. Accordingly, MP PCB constituted a committee headed by Chairman of SEAC, requiring the committee to make an assessment for the penalty. The committee held a meeting on 05.12.2017 and decided to seek information regarding loss of royalty. Thereafter, the matter was again taken up on 06.12.2017 and it was held that for violation of four conditions, penalty has to be imposed @ Rs. 200 per cubic meter with reference to the quantity of sand excavated. It was noted that as per Government rate, the market price of the sand from 01.02.2017 to 27.02.2017 was Rs. 8,547.94 per cubic meter.
6. The calculation of penalty is as follows:
| Sr. No. |
Period | Quantity of Sand (in cubic meters) |
(Rate per cubic meter) |
Total Penalty (in Rs.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 01.02.16 to 31.01.17 |
1,20,000 | 200/- | 2,40,00,000/- |
4
O.A. No. 110/2024(CZ) Sukhram Bhagel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. O.A. No. 100/2023(CZ) M/s Individuals Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
| 2 | 01.02.17 to 27.02.17 |
8457.94 | 200/- | 17,09,588.00/- |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | penalty in Rs | . | _2,57,09,588.00/- _ |
7. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs. 2,57,09,588/- was imposed.
8. Though, we find that the application against the impugned order is not maintainable as challenge is to an administrative order which does not affect the environment, even on merits no ground has been made out to interfere with the impugned order.
9. The applicant had participated in the proceedings before the Tribunal. A spot inspection was done by the Court Commissioner. The violation of the EC were established which was conveyed to the applicant on 25.02.2017, which was never challenged. Quantum of penalty cannot be held to be excessive. Nor is it possible to say that the assessment of the penalty is in any manner arbitrary. The assessment has been made by a committee of five qualified persons in the field, by giving reasons. Thus, we do not find any merit in this Application and the same is dismissed.”
“The original application filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the National Green Tribunal on the ground that what is challenged is an administrative order.
We do not agree with the proposition as the action under challenge imposes penalty of more than 2.50 crores on the appellant. Only on this ground, we set aside the impugned order and remand the original Application No.602 of 2018 to the Tribunal which shall be heard in accordance with law.
Needless to add that while hearing the restored application, the Tribunal may take note of a separate order
5
O.A. No. 110/2024(CZ) Sukhram Bhagel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. O.A. No. 100/2023(CZ) M/s Individuals Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
passed today i.e on 21.07.2023 in Civil Appeal No.12024/2018.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
All questions are left open to be decided by the Tribunal.”
“In compliance the order both the Original Applications are restored (O.A. No. 602/2018-PB has been renumbered as 100/2023-CZ). Applicant of O.A. No. 110/2014 is directed to implead the appellant i.e M/s. Individual. Learned counsel for M/s Individual put up appearance and sought a short time to file the reply, which may be filed within two weeks.”
6
O.A. No. 110/2024(CZ) Sukhram Bhagel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. O.A. No. 100/2023(CZ) M/s Individuals Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
against the authorities concerned and to make a survey with regard to illegal extraction of sand in survey number noted in writ petition in Marghat of village Parrayach and advocate commissioner was appointed by this Tribunal for the purpose who filed report that demarcation of Khasra no. 765 and 2222 are proper on the field. Demarcation pillars constructions and fixation require technical input from mining official. No mechanical mining found inside Khasras during the inspection of the demarcated area or outside area of aforesaid leased khasras and no instream mining was evident during Inspection. No violation has been reported by the advocate Commissioner.
7
O.A. No. 110/2024(CZ) Sukhram Bhagel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. O.A. No. 100/2023(CZ) M/s Individuals Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
within the jurisdiction of another district as the area under question on other side in another district. Through perusal of the report and records it seems that there is no violation on the part of the Respondent no. 8 - M/s Individual and proceeding by the Regional Officer was wrongly initiated on the basis of wrong interpretation of the report of Advocate Commissioner.
Application No. 110/2014 are disposed of .
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM
Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM
06th November, 2024 O.A. No. 110/2014(CZ) O.A. No. 100/2023(CZ) PN
8
O.A. No. 110/2024(CZ) Sukhram Bhagel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. O.A. No. 100/2023(CZ) M/s Individuals Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal can impose environmental compensation for illegal mining when no violation has been found on the record.
Whether the petitioner applicant can be held liable for breaches of Environmental Clearance committed by a different licensee.
Whether the earlier orders imposing penalties and cancellation notices require interference in light of the current facts.
Sukhram Bhagel
State of Madhya Pradesh
M/s Individuals
Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board
Sheo Kumar Singh
Dr. Afroz Ahmad
As recorded by the court registry
An original application before a tribunal, most commonly a service dispute before the Central or a State Administrative Tribunal.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
