Disposed

Sukhram Baghel S/O Shri Bnuddhe v. State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary

NGT6 Nov 2024Original Application No. 110/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal considered two original applications regarding alleged mining violations and penalty imposition. After noting that a prior Supreme Court order set aside previous penalties due to lack of impleadment and after reviewing inspection reports, the Tribunal found no violation. Consequently, it allowed the appeal regarding the penalty and disposed of the applications.

What did the court decide?

dismissal of both original applications and no environmental compensation or penalty imposed.

Sukhram Baghel S/O Shri Bnuddhe vs State of Madhya… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No. 04 & 05

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (Through Video Conferencing)

¶3

Original Application No.110/2014(CZ) (I.A.No.28/2024)

¶4

Sukhram Bhagel Applicant(s)

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

WITH

¶8

Original Application No.100/2023(CZ) (O.A. No. 602/2018- PB)

¶9

M/s Individuals Applicant(s)

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶12

Date of Hearing: 06.11.2024

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶14

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.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

In OA no. 21/2015 Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and O.A. no. 110/2014 Sukhram Bhagel Vs. State of M.P., this Tribunal vide order

¶17

dated 17.07.2024 passed an order as follows :-

¶18

¶19

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.

¶20

“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.”

¶21

Aggrieved by the order of this Tribunal dated 17.07.2017, the appellant moved an application vide Civil Appeal No. 12024/2018 before Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 21.07.2023, directed as follows :-

¶22

“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.

¶23

We make it clear if the Tribunal intends to pass any order against the appellant, the same shall not be passed

¶24

¶25

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.

¶26

without impleading the appellant as a party to the restored application.

¶27

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶28

All questions are left open to be decided by the Tribunal.”

¶29

In another application OA No. 602/2018 MA No. 1287/2018 was filed before this Tribunal for quashing the order dated 24.02.2018 whereby and whereunder mining lease was granted and there was some dispute with regard to measurement and imposition of penalty. The relevant portion of the order is quoted below :-

¶30

“This application seeks quashing of order dated 24.02.2018 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board, (MP PCB), Gwalior.

¶31

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.

¶32

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:

¶33

“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

¶34

¶35

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.

¶36

has carried out beyond the limits of the mining lease.”

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

6. The calculation of penalty is as follows:

¶40

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/-

¶41

¶42

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.

¶43

2	01.02.17 to 27.02.17	8457.94	200/-	17,09,588.00/-
Total	penalty in Rs	.		_2,57,09,588.00/- _

¶44

7. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs. 2,57,09,588/- was imposed.

¶45

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.

¶46

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.”

¶47

Aggrieved by the order, another Civil Appeal No. 11720/2018 was also filed and vide order dated 21.07.2023, it is directed:-

¶48

“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.

¶49

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.

¶50

Needless to add that while hearing the restored application, the Tribunal may take note of a separate order

¶51

¶52

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.

¶53

passed today i.e on 21.07.2023 in Civil Appeal No.12024/2018.

¶54

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶55

All questions are left open to be decided by the Tribunal.”

¶56

After the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India the matter was taken up by this Tribunal on 22.09.2023 and this Tribunal passed an order as follows :-

¶57

“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.”

¶58

Respondent no. 8 - M/s Individual was appellant in the appeal decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and filed the reply. The State PCB has also filed the reply and status report. We have gone through the records and heard the argument of learned counsel for the parties in OA No. 100/2023 which was originally OA No. 602/2018.

¶59

In OA No. 110/2014 the basis of the order dated 17.07.2017 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to this Tribunal.

¶60

Now, the question before this Tribunal is determination of violation and calculation of environmental compensation. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition is the Writ Petition No. 4604/2013 PIL which was filed before the High Court of M.P. in Gwalior Bench against respondent nos. 1 to 7 all state officials and the appellant M/s Individuals, respondent no. 8 in this petition was not party and was not given an opportunity of hearing and thus, the order was set aside and remitted to this Tribunal. The relief which was part of the petition was to take action

¶61

¶62

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.

¶63

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.

¶64

Contention for the learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 - M/s Individual was that he was a license holder of sand quarry of the area having requisite environmental clearance and for demarcation, OA No. 22/2015 was filed which was tied together since being identical issues.

¶65

Vide order dated 21.11.2016 OA No. 22/2015 was disposed of with the direction to carry out the mining in accordance with the EC condition but later on the basis of the report it was directed to take necessary actions in another case against the officials but instead of taking action against the wrong doer, the concerned Regional Officer issued notice against the M/s Individual - respondent no. 8 and after that the committee was constituted for calculating of the Environmental Compensation and there after the above noted environmental compensation was imposed on respondent no. 8, which was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the basis that the appellant was not party in that case. We have examined the statements recorded by the authorities concerned and found that there was no illegal mining and the statements are on record.

¶66

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 has submitted that the mining for which requisite EC was granted was on the other side of the river

¶67

¶68

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.

¶69

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.

¶70

Since, both the orders have been set aside by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India and at present no violation has been found and nothing have been narrated by the learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the State PCB, thus, no interference/further action is required by this Tribunal. Order imposing the environmental compensation has already been set aside by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In OA No. 110/2014 nothing was found against the project proponent – respondent no. 8 with regard to violation of any environmental rules. Thus, O.A. No. 110/2014 is dismissed. No order as to cost.

¶71

Accordingly, Original Application No. 100/2023 and Original

¶72

Application No. 110/2014 are disposed of .

¶73

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶74

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶75

06^th November, 2024 O.A. No. 110/2014(CZ) O.A. No. 100/2023(CZ) PN

¶76

¶77

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.

Sukhram Baghel S/O Shri Bnuddhe v. State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhram Baghel S/O Shri Bnuddhe v. State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghan Shyam vs Department of Revenue

Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi

Municipal Corporation vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Ankur Sharma vs Union of India

Swati vs

Mohid Shah vs

Gaurav Singhal vs

News Item Titled "Toxic Gas Leak Claims Two Lives at Gujarat Textile Factory" Appearing in the Millenium Post Dated 27.10.2024 vs

Ghan Shyam vs Department of Revenue

Nitin Saxena vs Urband Development and Housing Department

Nitin Saxena vs Urband Development and Housing Department

Sukhram Baghel S/O Shri Bnuddhe vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary

M/S Individual vs M.P Pollution Control Board

Namita Chaudhary vs District Collector Jaipur