Disposed

Bhavesh Arun Karekar v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT12 Nov 2024Original Application No. 165/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench considered an application alleging violations of Consent to Operate conditions by a mining company. Finding that the proponent had submitted compliance measures and mining was currently halted, the court deferred detailed verification to regulatory authorities.

What did the court decide?

MPCB directed to ensure all stated steps are implemented at the site upon recommencement of mining and to take action within one month of commencement.

Bhavesh Arun Karekar vs Ministry of Environment Forest… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

¶5

Original Application No.165/2024(WZ)

¶6

Bhavesh Arun Karekar & Ors.

¶7

…..Applicants Versus

¶8

MoEF&CC & Ors.

¶9

….Respondents

¶10

Date of hearing: 12.11.2024

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶12

Applicant : Ms. Supriya Dangare, Advocate along-with Applicant No.1 in-person Respondents : Mr. Vilas Jadhav, Advocate for R-3/MPCB Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate for R-5/PP

¶13

ORDER

¶14

In pursuance of our previous order dated 15.10.2024, applicant has filed an amended copy of the present Original Application, which is found to be defective by the Registry as per its report dated 12.11.2024, wherein it is recorded that the amendment has not been carried out properly as the learned counsel for applicants has not marked/highlighted the amended part nor has it been mentioned as per which order, the said amendment has been carried out. In this regard, we are of the view that this appears to be superficial objection, which is ignored and take this amended copy on record with a direction that a copy of the same be served upon all other parties through e-mail.

¶15

The main emphasis laid down by the applicants in the present Original Application is regarding violations of the terms and conditions stipulated in the EC dated 24.02.2016 issued in favour of the respondent

¶16

Page 1 of 8

¶17

No.5- M/s. Ashapura Minechem Ltd., which is annexed at page nos.147 to 154 of the paper book. Through amendment in the present Original Application by adding para no.14A, which is highlighted, learned counsel for applicant has mentioned in tabular form in Column- 2, the specific condition of the EC; their current status in Column- 3; and proof thereof in Column- 4, which are as follows:-

“

Page 2 of 8

Page 3 of 8

Page 4 of 8

Page 5 of 8

”

Page 6 of 8

A perusal of the above-mentioned chart would show that status does not show any major violation of the terms and conditions of the EC.

¶26

It is apparent from the perusal of reply affidavit dated 13.10.2024 of respondent No.3-MPCB that MPCB had issued Show Cause Notice dated 02.01.2024 to the respondent No.5’s industry for non-compliance of consent conditions. MPCB has also issued proposed direction under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Hazardous Waste (M.H. & T) Rules, 2008 to the respondent No.5. Thereafter, respondent No.5 has submitted its reply to the said Proposed Directions stating therein various steps taken by the industry, which are as follows:-

¶27

“

¶28

a. The reclamation of mined out pit is going on and this will be completed before the onset of monsoon and subsequently the backfilled area will be planted with local species .

¶29

b. We have made, proper dust suppression arrangements to spray the water in the mining, haul road, stocking area and loading & unloading area. The backfilled area is planted with cashew saplings and till date we have planted about 19,098 cashew saplings at this mine.

¶30

c. Mobile crushing unit is not in operation currently. The mining activity is carried out by using rock breakers in a small area and proper dust suppression arrangements are made.

¶31

d. We have provided 04 Nos of AAQM stations as per EC conditions and Air, Water, Noise and Soil monitoring is carried out in time.

¶32

e. As on 31/03/2023, 26.20 Ha land is backfilled and out of which 9.26 Ha is fully re habilitated and Reclamation and Rehabilitation is implemented as per approved Mining Plan and Progressive Mine Closure Plan by Indian Bureau of Mines.

¶33

f. Check dams are constructed to prevent surface run off during the monsoon season wherever required.

¶34

g. The vehicles engaged in ore transportation are having the valid PUC certificate and fully covered with tarpaulin to prevent air pollution.”

¶35

Page 7 of 8

¶36

It is apparent from the above-mentioned reply that whatever violations were found, regarding that steps have already been taken by the respondent No.5- Project Proponent. But whether they have been carried out at the site in question or not, for that visit is to be made by the MPCB. But it is made clear that since the mining activity has been stopped as of now and is likely to be commenced very soon, it would be appropriate for us to pass an order to that effect whenever mining activity is commenced by the respondent No.5. Thereafter, MPCB shall ensure that all the steps, which are stated to have been taken by the Project Proponent, have been actually carried out at the site in question and if any violations are found, MPCB shall take appropriate action against the respondent No.5 in accordance with the terms & conditions of the Consent to Operate. This compliance will be made by the MPCB within one month from the date of commencement of the mining activity. In case even thereafter, any grievance remains to the applicants, they may approach us in accordance with law.

¶37

With the above direction, we dispose of this application accordingly.

¶38

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶39

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶40

November 12, 2024 Original Application No.165/2024(WZ) P.Kr

¶41

Page 8 of 8

Bhavesh Arun Karekar v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavesh Arun Karekar v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Amit Kumar vs Union of India

Rakesh Ranjan vs Union of India

News Report Published in the Newspaper Named "Indian Express Daily News Paper Dated 4 February 2022 Kolkata Late City Edition Which Is About the Non Compliance of Ec Conditions by Kulda Coal Mine Odisha & Tamnar Thermal Plant Chattisgarh" vs Tamnar Power Plant

News Item Titled Sand Mining 20 Arrested 40 Big Boats Seized in Bihar Police Operation on Sone River Appearing in Www Downtoearth Org Dated 22 12 2023 vs Bihar State Pollution Control Board

Mehender Singh vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir

Moti Singh Shekhawat vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Singh Bradwal vs Union of India Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Mr Raghuvirsinh Hathibhai Jebalia vs Dhari Solar Park Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Bhagwan Pundalik Goje vs Radico Nv Distilleries Maharashtra Ltd.

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

Shrikant Bajirao Jadhav vs Grampanchayat Nerur Deulwada

Suo Motu Fissh Kill at Lingambudhi Lake in Mysuru vs Central Pollution Control Board Rep. by Its Chairman

Mr Nilesh Shitole vs Shree Cement Company