Disposed

Ghan Shyam v. Department of Revenue

NGT5 Nov 2024Original Application No. 122/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal examined allegations of illegal mining and environmental violations at two mining leases in Rajasthan. After reviewing a site inspection report and departmental replies, the Court directed the State PCB to recover an environmental compensation of Rs. 14,06,000/- and issued guidelines on dust suppression, green belts, and blasting.

What did the court decide?

Directed State PCB to recover Rs. 14,06,000/- and issued directions for green belt, dust suppression, and controlled blasting.

Ghan Shyam vs Department of Revenue — NGT (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Item No. 5

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No.122/2024(CZ)

¶4

Ghan Shyam & Ors. Applicant (s) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶5

Date of Hearing: 05.11.2024

¶6

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

¶7

For Applicant (s): Mr. Lokendra Singh Kachhawa,Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. Mr Om Shankar Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Adv. for Mr. Shoeb Hasan Khan, Adv.

¶8

ORDER

¶9

The issue raised in this application is illegal allotment of mining lease which is recorded as Gair Mumkin Pahad at Bhoori Doongri, Village Hanutpura, Tehsil-Shahpura, District-Jaipur, Rajasthan. The mining operation are being carried out day and night in violation of environmental laws not only in the allotted area but also outside allotted lease area. It is further alleged that green area of the hill have been damaged with use of high explosives, heavy earth moving machines affecting the human life and health, flora and fauna of the area.

¶10

¶11

O A No.122/2024(CZ) Ghan Shyam & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors..

¶12

The matter was taken up by this Tribunal on 20.05.2024 and notices were issued to the respondents to submit the reply. A joint committee was constituted to visit the site and submit the factual and action taken report. In compliance of the order the members of the committee visited the site and submitted the report as follows :

¶13

“The Joint Committee visited the site on 09.07.2024 in presence of applicants (Ghan Shyam & some other stakeholder) and respondents.

¶14

The following observations were made during the field visit/inspection.

¶15

(i) That two mining leases (Mining Lease no. 164/2004 and 166/2004) have been allotted at Bhoori Dungri inVillage Hanutpura, Tehsil Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur-Rural by the department of Mines & Geology on 21.10.2009-164/04, 166/04(Present Lease Holder Sh. Sardaar Mal Jat). Validity of both mining leases is from 21.10.2009 to 20.10.2059

¶16

(ii) Representative of Department of Mines and Geology informed that the Mining leases were granted/allotted by the Mines Department after ensuring compliance of all the rules. Both mining leases having area 1.0 Hectare each.

¶17

(iii) Environmental Clearance was issued to the mines from DEIAA vide letter no DEIAA/JAIPUR/EC/2016/1495 dated 31.05.2016 for Mesonary Stone @92853 TPA for ML No. 164/2004 and @ 94292TPA for ML NO. 166/2004.

¶18

(iv) Lease holder has submitted application for re-appraisal of Environmental Clearance by SEIAA for both the mining leases.

¶19

(v) Consent to Operate (CTO) under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981 was issued to the both mining leases i.e ML No. 164/2004 &ML No. 166/2004. The consent to operate for ML no. 164/2004 granted on 11.05.2017 and was valid till 30.04.2022and consent to operate for ML no. 166/2004 granted on 23.01.2023 and is valid till31.05.2026.

¶20

(vi) The lease holder has provided the mine demarcation pillars and boards for both the mining leases (164/04 and 166/04).

¶21

(vii) During the site visit both the mines found nonoperational. As reported by the applicant, respondent and

¶22

¶23

O A No.122/2024(CZ) Ghan Shyam & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors..

¶24

representative of the mines department, the leases are non-operational from last approx. one month.

¶25

(viii) It was observed that the mine lease holder has not carried out plantation at the mining site as per EC condition.

¶26

(ix) Proper dust suppression system was not observed like water sprinkles, tankers etc.

¶27

(x) It was observed that adjoining to M.L. No. 164/2004 and 166/2004 the illegal mining was there. As informed by the representative of Department of Mines & Geology, 3150 MT mineral was illegally mined from this area, and Mines Department has already imposed penalty of Rs. 14,06,000/- on the lease holder. This penalty includes environmental compensation also.

¶28

(xi) The Joint Committee also visited to the house of the nearby resident i.e. Sh. Ramjilal and found no major cracks on the wall of house. The house is approx. 450 meters away from the mining lease.

¶29

(xii) There is no public place in 45 meters radius and no residential house in 100 meters radius of the mining lease as such effect on human life and health is not envisaged.

¶30

(xiii) Lease holder having permission from DGMS for safe mining in guidance of Sh. Laxmikant Seth, Mines Manager and Sh Narottam Lal Jaiman, Mining mate.

¶31

(xiv) Signs of Deep hole blasting by the unit were not found on the site.

¶32

(xv) Copy of Mauka Fard prepared by the Revenue Department attached

¶33

Conclusion and Recommendations:-

¶34

(i) Consent to Operate (CTO) under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981 was issued to the both mining lease i.e. 164/2004 & 166/2004. The consent to operate for ML no. 164/2004 granted on 11.05.2017 and was valid till 30.04.2022 The lease owner may get the expired consent renewed before restart the operation of ML No. 164/2004and comply with the consent conditions. Consent to operate for ML no. 166/2004 granted on 23.01.2023 and is valid till 31.05.2026.

¶35

(ii) No major cracks were found on the wall of house of nearby resident Sh. Ramjilal, Approx. 450 meters from the mining lease.

¶36

¶37

O A No.122/2024(CZ) Ghan Shyam & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors..

¶38

(iii) The mining lease holder should ensure that the green belt is developed in the area nearby mines and approach roads.

¶39

(iv) Dust Suppression system should be adopted in mining area during mining activities.

¶40

(v) Controlled Blasting should be done in proper scientific manner to minimize the blasting frequency.

¶41

(vi) Mining Department to have strict vigil to prohibit the illegal mining nearby mining leases allotted to the lessee.

¶42

(vii) Whenever mining activity gets started, monitoring of ambient Air Quality/Fugitive Emission and Noise monitoring of the mining area to be done by the lessee from the authorized MoEF&CC recognized Laboratory.

¶43

The contention of the applicant are that the respondent no. 7 is using heavy blasting without any permission and carried out the mining activities outside the allotted leased area in violation of environmental rules. In compliance of the notice respondent no. 3/Director General of Mines and Safety, Ajmer Region-I has submitted that the onus to ensure safety, health and welfare of workers employed in mines rests with the mine owner and agent (person, whether appointed as such or not, who acts or purports to act on behalf of the owner) of the mine, which is clearly laid down in Section 18( 1) of the Mines Act, 1952, which quotes that " The owner and agent of every mine shall each be responsible for making financial and other provisions and for taking such other steps as may be necessary for compliance with

¶44

the provisions of this Act, and the Regulations, les, bye-laws and

¶45

orders made there-under. "

¶46

Provision of Sections 18(4) of the Mines Act, 1952, further state that “

¶47

the owner, agent and manager of every mine shall each be responsible to see that all operations carried on in connection

¶48

with the mine are conducted in accordance with the provisions of

¶49

¶50

O A No.122/2024(CZ) Ghan Shyam & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors..

¶51

this Act, and of the Regulations, Rules, bye-laws and orders made there-under."

¶52

4 . The Regulation 106(2) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations 1961 stipulates that where in any mine or part it is proposed to work by a system of deep-hole blasting and/or with the help of heavy machinery for its digging, excavation and removal in such manner as would not permit of compliance with the requirement of sub-regulation (1) the owner, agent or manager shall, not less than 60 days he starting such work, give notice in writing of the method of working to the Chief Inspector and the Regional Inspector; and no such work shall he commenced or carried out except in accordance with such conditions as the Chief Inspector may specify by an order in writing.. Every such notice shall be in duplicate, and shall give the details of the method of working in the precaution that are proposed to be taken against the anger from falls of sides and material. It is categorically submitted that the Owner, Agent or Manager of Mining lease Nos. 164/2004 located near Village Hanutpura, Tehsil- 5hahpura, District-Jaipur, Rajasthan has not submitted notice to work by a system of deephole blasting and/or with the help of heavy machinery to this Di rectorate .

¶53

Directorate vide letter No. 51249691/NWZ/Ajmer Region 1/Perm./2023/256315 dated 20.7.2023, which is valid up-to five year(05) from the date of issue of the permission letter.

¶54

Blasting other than deephole Blasting may be conducted by the mine management complying with the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and the Metalliferious Mines Regulations, 1961 in particular complying provisions of Regulations 153-170 of the

¶55

¶56

O A No.122/2024(CZ) Ghan Shyam & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors..

¶57

Metalliferious Mines Regulations, 1961, related to Explosives and shot firing.

¶58

The reply was called from the State Pollution Control Board and in response to the above Learned Counsel for the State Pollution Control Board has submitted that two mining leases (Mining Lease no.164/2004 and 166/2004) have been allotted at Bhoori Dungri in Village Hanutpura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur –Rural by the department of Mines & Geology on 21.10.2009- 164/04 (Present Lease Holder Sh. Sardaar Mal. Jat.) validity of both mining lease is from 21.10.2009 to 20.10.2059. Representative of Department of Mines and Geology informed that the Mining leases were granted/allotted by the Mines Department after ensuring compliance of all the rules. Both mining leases having area 1.0 Hectare each. Environmental Clearance

¶59

was issued to the mines from DEIAA vide

¶60

letter no DEIAA/JAIPUR/EC/2016/1495 dated 31.05.2016 for Masonry Stone @92853 TPA for ML No. 164/2004 and @ 94292TPA for ML NO. 166/2004. Lease holder has submitted application for reappraisal of Environmental Clearance by SEIAA for both the mining leases. Consent to Operate (CTO) under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981 was issued to the both mining leases i.e. ML. No. 164/2004 & ML. No.166/2004. The consent to operate for ML. No. 164/2004 granted on 11.05.2017 and was valid till 30.04.2022and consent to operate for MI, no. 166/2004 granted on

¶61

¶62

O A No.122/2024(CZ) Ghan Shyam & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors..

¶63

23.01.2023 and is valid ti1131.05.2026. The lease holder has provided the mine demarcation pillars and boards for both the mining leases (164/04 and 166/04. During the site visit both the mines found nonoperational. As reported by the Applicant, Respondent and

¶64

representative of the mines department, the leases are nonoperational from last approx. one month. It was observed that the mine lease holder has not carried out plantation at the mining site as per EC condition. Proper dust suppression system was not observed like water sprinkles, tankers etc. It was observed that adjoining to M.L. No. 164/2004 and 166/2004 the illegal mining was there. As informed by the representative of Department of Mines & Geology, 3150 MT mineral was illegally mined from this area, and Mines Department has already imposed penalty of Rs. 14,06,000/- on the lease holder. This penalty includes environmental compensation also.

¶65

We have examined the report submitted by the Joint Committee and reply submitted by the State Pollution Control Board and found that the necessary actions have been taken by the State Pollution Control Board imposing penalty and environmental compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,06,000/-. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the report with regard to payment of above amount has not been mentioned by the Joint Committee. Since the issue of notice, calculation and realisation of environmental compensation is within the domain of State PCB thus the State PCB is directed to recover the amount according to rules.

¶66

¶67

O A No.122/2024(CZ) Ghan Shyam & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors..

¶68

With these observations the O.A. No. 122/2024 (CZ) stands disposed of accordingly.

¶69

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶70

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶71

5^th November 2024 O. A. No.122/2024(CZ) K

¶72

¶73

O A No.122/2024(CZ) Ghan Shyam & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors..

Ghan Shyam v. Department of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghan Shyam v. Department of Revenue

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

Jasmeet Singh Oberoi vs Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion

Mr. Nagesh Vinayak Dhamale vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Vikram Singh vs State of Haryana

Jasbir Singh vs NCT of Delhi

Ritesh Pandey vs

Galina Babaiteva vs

Serafat Khaifa Khan vs

Joy Philipose President Mannathoor Prakrethy Samrashana Samothi vs

Nitin Saxena vs Urband Development and Housing Department

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

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