Disposed

Jafar Iquebal Middya Alias Jafar Ali Middya v. the West Bengal Pollution Control Board

NGT9 Aug 2024Original Application No. 106/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal examined violations of Environmental Clearance regarding sand mining in West Bengal. Despite finding no active mining machinery during inspection, it noted missing boundary pillars contrary to clearance conditions, allowing an inference of illegal mining. The court directed thePollution Control Board to compute environmental compensation against the project proponent. The applicant wa

What did the court decide?

Direction to the West Bengal Pollution Control Board to compute Environmental Compensation and Penalty against the Project Proponent after notice and hearing.

Jafar Iquebal Middya Alias Jafar Ali Middya vs the… — Mining and Natural Resources | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No.02

¶2

Court No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶4

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶5

Original Application No.106/2024/EZ

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

Jafar Iquebal Middya alias Jafar Ali Middya, Son of Anowar Ali Middya Of Nafardanga, Madanmohanpur, Post Office & Police Station – Sonamukhi, District – Bankura, West Bengal, Pin Code – 722207,

¶8

…. Applicant(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. The West Bengal Pollution Control Board,

¶11

Service through the Member Secretary, Having its office at Paribesh Bhawan, Plot No.10A, Block-LA, Sector-III, Bidhannagar,

¶12

Kolkata – 700106

¶13

2. The Department of Environment of West Bengal,

¶14

Service through the Additional Chief Secretary, Having its office at 5^th Floor, Pranisampad Bhawan, Block-LB-II, Salt Lake, Sector-III, Bidhannagar, Kolkata – 700106

¶15

3. The District Magistrate, Bankura,

¶16

Post Office & District - Bankura, Pin – 722101

¶17

4. The District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Post Office & District – Bankura, Pin – 722101

¶18

5. The Superintendent of Police, Bankura, Post Office & District - Bankura, Pin - 722101

¶19

6. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Sonamukhi, Post Office – Sonamukhi, District – Bankura, Pin – 722207

¶20

¶21

7. The Officer in Charge,

¶22

Sonamukhi Police Station, Post Office & Police Station - Sonamukhi, District - Bankura, Pin – 722207,

¶23

8. Samir Ghosh

¶24

Son of Subir Ghosh, Of Bitchkhara, P.S. – Khandokosh, District – Purba Bardhaman, Pin Code – 713142,

¶25

9. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), West Bengal, Prani Sampad Bhavan, 5th Floor, LB Block, Sector III, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700106,

¶26

…. Respondent(s)

¶27

Date of hearing: 09.08.2024 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶28

For Applicant(s) : None

¶29

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ayush Kumar Dadhich, Advocate for R-1, Mr. Rajib Ray, Advocate for R- 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Advocate for R-9

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Case called out. No one is present on behalf of the Applicant, although the names of Mr. Malay Bhattacharya and Ms. Sudipa Sengupta are printed in the cause-list as Counsel for the Applicant.

¶32

Neither Respondent No.8 is present nor any Counsel on his behalf is present. Affidavit of service has been filed which shows service upon the Respondent No.8.

¶33

This Original Application has been filed by the Applicant, alleging that residents of Nafardanga Madanmohanpur, P.O. & P.S.Sonamukhi, District-Bankura, West Bengal, are facing environmental hazards due to illegal and unlawful usage of sand mine by one Samir Ghosh son of Subir Ghosh of Bitchkhara, P.S.Khandokosh, District-Purba Burdhaman.

¶34

¶35

It is stated that the mining lease was granted by the District Magistrate, Bankura in favour of one Anil Kumar son of Rajeshwar Singh of Village-Jivrakhan Tola, P.O.-Byapur, P.S.-Maner, DistrictPatna, Bihar-801503, in respect of Sand Block in Plot No.367, in Mouza-Palshora, J.L. No.140, P.S.-Sonamukhi, DistrictBankukra, over an area of 11.10 acres, for a period of five years vide memo no.6790/1(2) dated 21.12.2016.

¶36

It is alleged that Samir Ghosh is no way connected with the aforesaid mining activities but he is doing illegal mining and extracting sand from the river bed of Damodar in a very clandestine manner using mechanical devices like JCB and Poclain machine from the southern part of the Damodar river.

¶37

It is further alleged that Samir Ghosh being a third party is mining without any permission or sanction by the Competent Authority. The Applicant and the villagers are facing severe environmental hazards as excessive mining of sand using mechanical devices has affected the regular course of river causing erosion and further depletion of sand in the river bed, deepening of river beds and widening of river mouths which increase the salinity of the water.

¶38

It is also alleged that the homes and livelihood of the villagers are adversely affected and they are afraid that any time the village may get flooded during monsoon if the situation continues.

¶39

At the time of admission, the Tribunal constituted a Committee comprising of the following Members:-

¶40

(i) Senior Scientist, West Bengal State Pollution Control Board;

¶41

(ii) Senior Scientist, SEIAA, West Bengal; and

¶42

(iii) District Magistrate, Bankura or his representative not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate.

¶43

¶44

The Committee was directed to visit the site in question and submit

¶45

its Report.

¶46

Accordingly, the District Magistrate, Bankura, Respondent No.3, has filed affidavit dated 04.07.2024 bringing on record the Inspection Report of the Committee constituted by the Tribunal inspection of which was carried out on 24.06.2024. The Inspection Report reads as under:-

¶47

“Report of the Committee Constituted by Hon’ble National Green Tribunal (Eastern Zone Bench), Kolkata by the order passed in 29.05.2024 in connection to OA No 106/2024/EZ

¶48

*Name & Address of the unit:*	Sand mining site at plot no. 367, Mouza- Palshora, JL No 140, PS- Sonamukhi, District- Bankura over an area of 11.10 acres on the river bed of Damodar.
*Name of the Committee* *members*	1. Dr. Vivek Dattatraya Bhasme, IAS, District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Bankura.
	2. Mr Arup Kumar Dey,
	Environmental Engineer & In- Charge, Durgapur Regional Office, West Bengal Pollution Board
	3. Dr. Rajarshi Chakraborty, Environment Officer, Environment Department
*Date of site visit:*	24/06/2024
*Time of Visit:*	01:30 pm-04:00 pm
*Person met during inspection:*	None from Project Proponent/Lessee side was present at the project site at the time of the field inspection.
*Nature of the area*	River bank
*Reference of inspection*	Order passed by Hon’ble National Green Tribunal (Eastern Zone Bench) on 29.05.2024 in connection to OA No 106/2024/EZ

¶49

¶50

About the Unit:

¶51

Letter of Intent was issued to Mr Anil Kumar by the office of the District Magistrate, Bankura on 21/12/2016.

¶52

Mr Anil Kumar has been granted Environmental Clearance (EC) by the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) on 08/03/2017.

¶53

Lease agreement between Mr. Anil Kumar and District Magistrate, Bankura was executed on 09/12/2020 and registered on 16/12/2020.

¶54

The geographical boundary points of the project site (as per EC granted) are as follows-

¶55

*Sl.*	*Boundary*	*Latitude*	*Longitude*
No	*Point*
1	A	23⁰19’29.18”N	87⁰31’22.95”E
2	B	23⁰19’27.69”N	87⁰31’27.02”E
3	C	23⁰19’17.09”N	87⁰31’20.21”E
4	D	23⁰19’19.10”N	87⁰31’16.53”E

¶56

Observation:

¶57

1. During field visit, no boundary pillars demarcating the lease area was found.

¶58

2. There was no mining activity at the time of the visit at the project site or in the vicinity of the project site.

¶59

3. No machinery for extraction of sand was found at the project site at the time of the visit.

¶60

4. No CCTV was found to be installed in the sand mining area.

¶61

5. No Display Board mentioning the name of the sand block, lease area and the lease holder’s name was found visible at the site.

¶62

6. The total quantity of sand which could be extracted as per the Environmental Clearance from DEIAA is 1,13,100 cum/year or 39,94,127 cft/year . The total permission for extraction of sand issued by the office of DL&LRO is as follows –

¶63

¶64

*Sl. No*	*Period*	*Extracted quantity*
		*of sand* *(cft)*
1	25/12/2020 to 24/12/2021	*50,000*
2	25/12/2021 to 24/12/2022	*21,35,000*
3	25/12/2022 to 24/12/2023	*22,00,000*
4	25/12/2023 to 24/06/2024	*32,00,000*

¶65

7. Traces of mining outside the leasehold area in the form of excavation were found but it could not be ascertained who did it as no one was present at the site.

¶66

Remarks:

¶67

The Ministry vide OM F. No. IA3-22/11/2023-IA.III (E208230) dated 28.04.2023, in compliance of order dated 07.12.2022 passed by Hon’ble NGT (Principal Bench) in OA 142 of 2022 had provided a window period of one for reappraisal of all Environmental Clearances (ECs) issued by DEIAAs from 15.01.2016 to 13.09.2018 by SEAC/SEIAA and grant of fresh ECs by SE3IAAs. Subsequently, the Ministry vide OM dated 15.03.24 extended the time period for reappraisal of ECs by DEIAAs by further period of 6 months till 27.10.2024.

¶68

In view of the above, the Project Proponent/Lessee is required to obtain fresh EC from SEIAA within 27.10.2024 and subsequently Consent from WBPCB.

¶69

Absence of boundary pillar may create difficulty for the Project Proponent/ Lessee as well as monitoring agencies to keep mining activity restricted to lease hold area. Therefore, the Project Proponent/ Lessee may be instructed to erect boundary pillars immediately and coordinates of the boundary pillars are to be certified by land department. The Project Proponent/ Lessee should restrict extraction of sand within the lease hold area as bounded by the certified boundary pillars.”

¶70

From the Inspection Report, it is seen that no one was present on behalf of the Project Proponent/Lessee at the time of site inspection. The Report discloses that Environmental Clearance had

¶71

¶72

been granted in respect of the sand mining site i.e., Plot No.367, Mouza-Palshora, JL No.140, P.S.-Sonamukhi, District-Bankura, over an area of 11.10 acres on the river bed of Damodar river i.e., the site in question, on 08.03.2017; the lease agreement was executed between one Shri Anil Kumar, Project Proponent, and the District Magistrate, Bankura, on 09.12.2020 and registered on 16.12.2020; the total area of sand which could be extracted from the sand bed as per the Environmental Clearance is 1,13,100 cum/year or 39,94,127 cft/year.

¶73

The Inspection Report further discloses that during field visit there were no demarcating boundary pillars; no machinery for extraction of sand was found at the Project site; no mining activity was being carried on at the Project site or in its vicinity; no CCTV was found to be installed in the sand mining area; no Display Board mentioning the name of the sand block, lease area and the lease holder’s name was found at the site; traces of mining outside the leasehold area in the form of excavation were found but the Report states that it could not be ascertained as to who did it, since no one was present at the site.

¶74

We are of the view that if the traces of sand mining were found beyond the leasehold area and no boundary pillars demarcating the lease area were present, there is nothing to preclude this Court from drawing an inference that illegal mining beyond the leasehold area was being carried out by the lessee in question.

¶75

The Inspection Report further mentions that the Ministry vide its Office Memorandum dated 28.04.2023 had provided a window period of one year for reappraisal of all Environmental Clearances issued by DEIAAs from 15.01.2016 to 13.09.2018 by SEAC/SEIAA

¶76

¶77

and grant of fresh Environmental Clearance by SEIAA in terms of the order of the National green Tribunal (Principal Bench) dated 07.12.2022 passed in Original Application No.142 of 2022. It is stated that subsequently the Ministry vide Office Memorandum dated 15.03.2024 extended the time period for reappraisal of Environmental Clearances till 27.10.2024. In this view of the matter, the Project Proponent/Lessee is required to obtain fresh Environmental Clearance from SEIAA by 27.10.2024 with statutory Consents from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board. The Committee has recommended that Project Proponent/Lessee shall erect boundary pillars immediately and coordinates of the boundary pillars be certified by the land department.

¶78

Para 6.4.2 of the Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020, issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, the Ministry of Mines in its Sand Mining Framework in para 1.2.13.1 under the head ‘Level 1- Reach/Stockyard level monitoring’ provides that ‘(a) Quantity of sand to be extracted from the reach should be based on the quantity of sand assessed in the reach by the Joint Inspection Team, (b) The lease boundary should be demarcated with geo-coordinates or geofencing to ensure that sand extraction is going on only within the permitted area’ .

¶79

Further, para 1.2.13.2 under the head ‘Level 2 – Transportation monitoring’ provides that “To make transportation monitoring effective and useful, all the sand carrying vehicles (tractors/trucks) should be registered with the department and GPS equipment should be installed in all the sand carrying vehicles. Weighbridges with CCTV should be installed at all the stockyards, active reaches to

¶80

¶81

ascertain the exact quantity of sand being transported in the vehicle. Check posts with CCTV cameras should be established near all major consumption centres to check if all the transporting vehicles are carrying a valid transport permit. The transport permit generated should contain the security features mentioned under Section 5.11 so that one permit cannot be re-used by generating photocopies of the permit’ .

¶82

Besides, Condition Nos.58 and 66 of the Environmental Clearance read as under:-

¶83

“……………..x……………..….x……………………….x………………….

¶84

58. Demarcation of the site of operation by construction of durable/Concrete pillars by using actual co-ordinates of altitude & longitude; latitude/longitude to be written on the body of the pillar itself;

¶85

…………………….x……………….x………….……..x…………..………

¶86

66. Videography of the work undertaken to restore the environment; CCTV camera to be installed at appropriate locations from the time to commencement of operation to cover manual liftin of sand & transportation process;”

¶87

The Inspection Report clearly records that the Project Proponent did not provide boundary pillars demarcating the leasehold area and there was no geo-fencing or demarcation with geo-coordinates to ensure that sand mining extraction is carried out only within the permitted area which is a clear violation of the Condition No.58 Environmental Clearance and besides, no CCTV was found installed in the mining area which also in violation of the Condition No.66 of the Environmental Clearance, copy of the Environmental Clearance has been filed at page nos.47 to 51 of the paper book.

¶88

The Project Proponent, Shri Anil Kumar, is not present before us nor was he impleaded in the present Original Application and

¶89

¶90

instead one Samir Ghosh was impleaded as Respondent No.8, although in the Original Application it is mentioned that mining lease for the area in question was granted in favour of Shri Anil Kumar. However, the allegation is that illegal and unlawful use of sand mine is being carried on by Samir Ghosh, Respondent No.8. The said Respondent has not filed any counter-affidavit till date, although notice had been sent to him by the office of the Tribunal and track consignment report also shows delivery of notice on him on 14.06.2024.

¶91

The affidavit of the District Magistrate, Bankura, is silent with regard to the allegations against the Respondent No.8 made in the Original Application. However, since the Inspection Team has found violations of Environmental Clearance by the Project Proponent, Shri Anil Kumar, we dispose of this Original Application with a direction to the West Bengal Pollution Control Board to compute Environmental Compensation and Penalty, if any, as per law against the Project Proponent after giving him adequate notice and an opportunity of being heard. Needless to say, the Project Proponent shall also be at liberty to pursue his remedies as may be available to him in law against any order of the Pollution Control Board.

¶92

I.As., if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶93

There shall be no order as costs.

¶94

B. Amit Sthalekar, JM

¶95

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

¶96

August 09, 2024, Original Application No.106/2024/EZ AK

¶97

Jafar Iquebal Middya Alias Jafar Ali Middya v. the West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jafar Iquebal Middya Alias Jafar Ali Middya v. the West Bengal Pollution Control Board

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

Thanendra Singh Rajput and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

News Item Titled "Rajasthan News "Avaidh Khanan Ke Khilaaf Pradeshvyapi Abhiyan Ke Tehet 24 Ton Avaidh Bajri Samaet Garnaet Zapt Jaanch Jaari Appearing in Amar Ujala Dated 28.01.2024 vs State of Rajasthan

Vipin Nayyar vs Union of India

Jayant Kumar vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Rajendra Sharma vs

Jagsir Singh vs

Sachin Kumar Jena vs State of Odisha

Shri Yogesh Harichandra Bhoier vs Ms Blue Jet Healthcare Ltd.

All India Anti Corruption Organization vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 17/2024 in Original Application No. 173/2017 of Rama Chandra Mahant S/O Puran Mahant vs M/S Serajuddin and Co. through Mines Manager Balda Block Iron Ore Mining Project

Smt Haripriya Patel vs State of Odisha

Pooja Phillo vs State of Odisha

Sachin Kumar Jena vs State of Odisha

Santoshpur Mitali Sangha vs State of West Bengal