Disposed

Tribunal on Its Own Motion in the Matter of Letter Petition Received from K Veeraragavan Reg Rough Stone Mining Project v. the Chief Manager Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

NGT14 May 2024Original Application No. 192/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Following a suo motu application regarding rough stone mining within unsafe proximity to critical Power Grid Lines, the Tribunal examined reported distances and regulatory requirements. The court directed the Project Proponent and District Collector to obtain mandatory concurrence from Power Grid Corporation before the quarry lease is issued or operations commence. The application was disposed of

What did the court decide?

Directed Project Proponent to obtain Power Grid Corporation clearance before quarry lease; directed District Collector to ensure lease is issued only after such concurrence.

Tribunal on Its Own Motion in the Matter of Letter… — Mining and Natural Resources | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No.14:

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Tuesday, the 14^th day of May, 2024.

¶4

(Through Video Conference)

¶5

Original Application No.192 of 2023 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

Tribunal on its own motion SUO MOTU based on the letter petition dated 11.12.2023 regarding “Rough stone mining project within unsafe proximity to critical Power Grid Line”

¶8

WITH

¶9

1) The Chief Manager

¶10

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited 400 kW Sub Station, Pennalur, Sriperumbudur – 602 105.

¶11

2) The Member Secretary Southern Regional Power Committee 29, Race Course Road, Bengaluru – 560 009.

¶12

3) The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives A and D Wing, Block 1 – 8, 2^nd Floor, Shastri Bhavan, 26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.

¶13

4) State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

¶14

Tamil Nadu

¶15

Rep. by its Chairman 3^rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶16

5) The District Collector Kancheepuram District First Floor, Collectorate, Kancheepuram – 631 501.

¶17

6) Directorate of Geology and Mining

¶18

Rep. by its Director Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 032.

¶19

7) K. Kothandan

¶20

S/o. Kuppan, No.5, Alamelu Nagar, Old Perungalathur, Chennai – 600 063.

¶21

(R7 – Suo Motu impleaded by this Tribunal vide Order dated 05.03.2024)

¶22

...Respondent(s)

¶23

Page 1 of 5

¶24

For Applicant(s): Suo Motu by Court.

¶25

For Respondent(s): Mr. V. Kalyanaraman represented M/s. Aiyar & Dolia for R1. Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R4. Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R5 & R6. Mr. S. Kamalesh Kannan for R7.

¶26

CORAM :

¶27

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

1. The above case has been Suo Motu registered by this Tribunal based on the letter petition dated 11.12.2023 sent by one K. Veeraraghavan of Pazhayaseevaram Village, Walajabad Taluk, Kancheepuram District, wherein it is stated that through a local newspaper, he got the knowledge that mining permission and Environmental Clearance permission were issued for stone mining in Sy. Nos.225/1, 2, 8B, 241/3H, 3I, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 242/9 in Pazhayaseevaram Village, Walajabad Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶30

2. The letter petition further states that there is a 400 kW Power Grid Line passing which is at a distance of 10 Meters. While granting the mining permission, approval from the Power Grid Corporation was not obtained by the Project Proponent/7^th REspondent. Hence, the letter was sent seeking the intervention of this Tribunal to look into the issue of whether appropriate permissions have been obtained from the Power Grid Corporation.

¶31

3. Notices were issued to the respondents in this regard.

¶32

4. The District Collector – Kancheepuram District, who is the 5^th Respondent, has filed its report. The District Collector has quoted the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer which states that,

¶33

Page 2 of 5

¶34

“During the inspection, it reveals that the Power Grid Line is situated on the eastern side of the applied S.F. No.242/9, 225/8D and 225/8B at a distance of 17 Meters, 37 Meters and 25 Meters respectively. In this regard, the applicant has submitted an approved Mining Plan in which 50 Meter safety distance has been provided as per Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. In view of the above, the applicant has instructed that quarry operation should be carried out only after obtaining concurrence from the Power Grid Corporation and Environmental Clearance from the SEIAA will be submitted after receipt of the clearance from the SEIAA”.

¶35

5. As there was no quarry lease granted till today, there was no quarry operation. After quoting the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the District Collector goes on to say that the quarry leases are being granted only after the receipt of the Environmental Clearance. The Project Proponent viz., K.Kothandan has not yet submitted the Environmental Clearance and so far, no quarrying activity is commenced. The District Collector further stated that based on the condition imposed by the Special Team, the quarry lease will be granted in favour of K.Kothandan only after obtaining concurrence from the Power Grid Corporation in the subject area.

¶36

6. The 7^th Respondent who is the Project Proponent also had filed its counter admitting that there is a Power Grid Line of 400 kW passing on the eastern side of the impugned quarry site. The distance from the said 400 kW grid line is 17 Meters from Sy. No.242/9, 37 Meters from Sy. No.225/8D and 25 Meters from Sy. No.225/8B. According to the Project Proponent, the lease lands are within the norms leaving the required buffer from the High Tension Grid Line i.e. a distance of 50 Meters from the quarry boundary.

¶37

7. From the records filed by the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu (Respondent No.4), it is seen that on 07.11.2023, the Environmental Clearance was issued in favour of the Project Proponent/7^th Respondent.

¶38

Page 3 of 5

¶39

8. The learned counsel appearing for the Power Grid Corporation (Respondent No.1), though not filed any formal counter, brings to our knowledge about the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2023.

¶40

9. Clause 67 of the above Regulations is usefully extracted below:-

¶41

“67. General clearances: –

¶42

(1) For the purpose of computing the vertical clearance of an overhead line, the maximum sag of any conductor shall be calculated on the basis of the maximum sag in still air and the maximum temperature as specified under regulation 59 and computing any horizontal clearance of an overhead line the maximum deflection of any conductor shall be calculated on the basis of the wind pressure specified under regulation 59.

¶43

(2) No blasting for any purpose shall be done within three hundred metre from the boundary of a substation or from the electric supply lines of voltage exceeding 650 V or tower structure thereof without the written permission of the owner of such substation or electric supply lines or tower structures; and in case of mining lease hold area, without the written permission of the Electrical Inspector of mines.

¶44

(3) No cutting of soil within ten metre from the tower structure of 110 kV and above voltage level shall be permitted without the written permission of the owner of tower structure.

¶45

(4) No person shall construct brick kiln or other polluting units near the installations or transmission lines of 220 kV and above within a distance of 500 metre.”

¶46

10. The above terms specifically mandate that permission from the Power Grid Corporation is mandatory subject to the distances referred to above.

¶47

11. As already the District Collector – Kancheepuram had specifically stated that the quarry lease would be granted only after obtaining concurrence from the Power Grid Corporation in the subject area, it would be appropriate for the Project Proponent/7^th Respondent to obtain permission from the Power Grid Corporation before taking the quarry lease.

¶48

12. As the Project Proponent has already obtained the Environmental Clearance under the ‘B’ Category for mining minor mineral projects, we only direct the Project Proponent to obtain appropriate clearance from the Power Grid Corporation before getting a quarry lease.

¶49

Page 4 of 5

¶50

13. The District Collector – Kancheepuram is also directed to ensure that the Project Proponent/7^th Respondent obtains clearance from the Power Grid Corporation/1^st Respondent before the quarry lease is issued.

¶51

14. In view of the above directions, the Original Application [O.A. No.192 of 2023 (SZ)] is disposed of .

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM

¶56

O.A. No.192/2023(SZ) 14^th May, 2024. Mn.

¶57

Page 5 of 5

Tribunal on Its Own Motion in the Matter of Letter Petition Received from K Veeraragavan Reg Rough Stone Mining Project v. the Chief Manager Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tribunal on Its Own Motion in the Matter of Letter Petition Received from K Veeraragavan Reg Rough Stone Mining Project v. the Chief Manager Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

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

Nakul Kapoor vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

News Report Published in the Hindu Dated 28 08 2023 Titled Eight Killed in Blast at Illegal Fireworks Unit in West Bengal vs State of West Bengal

Hanuman Prasad Gupta vs

News Item Titled " Ret Mafiyaon Ne Kafar Dam Par Banaya Ret Parivahan Ka Rasta Prashashan Bekhabar" Appearing in Jantaserishta.Com Dated 04.03.2024 vs

News Item Titled "Balotra: Jodhpur Se Team Pahunchi Araba" Appearing in Balotra Patrika Dated 16.03.2024 vs

News Item Titled " Report on Water Bodies in Hyderabad Presents Grim Pictures: Hc" Appearing in the Hindu Dated 19.03.2024 vs

News Item Titled "Forest Fires Singe Eturnagaram & Amrabad Wildlife Sactuaries" Appearing in the Times of India Dated 26.03.2024 vs

Rajendra Tiwari vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Government of India

Palayam S vs the Tamilnadu Coastal Zone Management Authority

Pisati Indira Reddy vs Union of India

Suo Motu Illegal Stone Quarry in Vadipatti vs Directorate of Geology and Mining

P Indhumathi vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority - Tamil Nadu

Kasim Alayan vs the Water/Air Appellate Authority

Kasim Alayan vs the Water/Air Appellate Authority