Disposed

Kailash v. State of Rajasthan

NGT5 Sept 2024Original Application No. 27/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant challenged mining lease allotment citing environmental violations and non-compliance with safety norms. Tribunal examined committee reports, found mining closed since Jan 2023, and noted that respondent deposited required environmental compensation by Aug 2024.

What did the court decide?

The applicant's grievance is resolved upon deposit of environmental compensation and closure of mining operations. No further relief granted.

Kailash vs State of Rajasthan — Mining and Natural Resources | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No. 05

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application.27/2024 (CZ)

¶4

Kailash Applicant(s):

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Rajasthan & Ors . Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of Hearing: 05.09.2024

¶8

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

¶9

For Applicant (s):

¶10

For Respondent(s) :

¶11

Mr. Vaibhav Thakuria, Adv. Ms. Vanshika Dubey, Adv. Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Rishab Kumar, Adv. for Mr. Shoeb Hasan Khan, Adv.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The report of the Joint committee, reply by the Respondent no. 4, State PCB and compliance report by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control board are on record.

¶14

Heard the arguments and perused the record.

¶15

The grievance of the applicant is allotment of the mining lease No. 95/2010 dated 20.12.2012 to the respondent NO. 8, situated in khasra No. 97/1/1, rakba 3.98 mark ABCD is 1.00 Hectare, for mining Chejapathar and connected with hills and in the vicinity of it residential area is situated and hill is surrounded by the village Kala Khera, Dungar Faganwas, Panchayat Ladika Bas, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, via Ganeshwar, District Sikar, Rajasthan, on the following grounds

¶16

i. Distance criteria for the allotment of the mining lease from the residential area has not been followed.

¶17

¶18

O.A. No.27/2024 (CZ) Kailash vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶19

ii. Heavy blasting and running the crusher in the vicinity of the residential area and the forest area causing threat to life of human beings and wild animals.

¶20

iii. Encroachment of the forest area beyond the limit of the allotted area.

¶21

iv. As per specific condition in para no. 19 of District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Sikar order dated 06.06.2020 specifically mention in this order. “Regular water sprinkling should be carried out in critical areas prone to air pollution have levels of SPM and RSPM such as haul roads, Loading and unloading points and transfer points be ensured that the Ambient Air Quality parameters conform to the norms prescribed by the CPCI and para 21 specific here that Blasting operation should be carried out only during the daytime with safe blasting parameters.

¶22

However, by the respondent no. 8 defiance of the rules, heavy blasting is being done day and night and water from the ground has come out, causing considerable damage to the environment. v. That prior to allotment of aforesaid mining lease the concern authority survey the mining lease area and prepared the survey report as per which the distance of allotted mining lease no. 95/2010 to the respondent no. 8 is only 1 hector but at the time the area of by force is being encroached 30 mtrs. on eastern side by lease holder and the land allotted in lease is mined beyond land.

¶23

vi. Specific condition of boundary wall at the forest side has not been complied with by the project proponent.

¶24

vii.The respondent No.5 vide order dated 13.3.2018 issued direction for strictly complied with the conditions as prescribed in the Mines Act as well as Metalliferous Mines Regulations 1961 Point No. 1.1 to 1.4 of the said directions reads as under:

¶25

(1.1). No working shall be made or extended within 45 M of any building/ structure of permanent nature not belonging to owner of the mine without permission in writing from Directorate under Regulation 109 Metallferious mines, Regulations, 1961 this of,

¶26

¶27

O.A. No.27/2024 (CZ) Kailash vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶28

(1.2). No blasting shall be conducted in the mine within 100 m of structures and no deep hole blasting shall be conducted in the mine within 300 m of any structure/ building not belonging to owner of the mine. The area shaded in read where only short hole blasting will be carried out and the area shaded in blue where deep hold blasting will be carried out

¶29

(1.3). Blasting shall be conducted after ensuring that persons within 500 m radian distance from place of firing of shot holes have taken proper shelter. Blaster also takes adequate shelter

¶30

(1.4). Even jackhammer-drilled hole blasting within a danger zone of 300 m but beyond 100 m of public structures shall be regulated as below:

¶31

(a)The aggregate maximum charge in all the holes fired at one time shall not exceed two (2.0) kilograms or

¶32

(b) If blasting is done with the delay detonators or other means and delay is at least half a second between successive shots fired, the maximum charge shall not exceed two kilograms in each hole.

¶33

(c)Blasting with charge in excess of the above shall not be conducted without obtaining permission under Regulation 164 of Metalliferous mines Regulations 1961 in writing from this Directorate.

¶34

(d) To control flying fragments resulting out of blasting following additional precautions shall be taken

¶35

i. Blasting shall be done against a free face only.

¶36

ii. Moist sand or only such stemming material that is free from pebbles and stone chips shall be used from stemming of holes

¶37

iii. The area falling within a distance of 100 cm from the collar of each blast hole shall be cleaned of loose stones, drill, cuttings debris and other loose material.

¶38

iv. Shot holes shall be adequately muffled by laying wire net, types, rubber mats or old conveyor belting over the entire blasting area and by placing 40-50 Kg sand bags at every 3.0 m interval

¶39

viii. In Rajasthan, heavy crashers fall within the definition of 'industrial plants. For the purpose of doing trade activities, emitting air pollutant into the atmosphere. The aforesaid crashers have been allowed to run by the authority of the Mining 3

¶40

O.A. No.27/2024 (CZ) Kailash vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶41

Department in illegal manner and they are emitting air pollutant into the atmosphere. Hills are less than 300 Meters from the vicinity

¶42

Due to illegal operation of crushers there are violation of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and degradation of the environment and quality of life of inhabitants of the area.

¶43

The matter was taken up by this tribunal and committee was constituted with direction to submit the factual and action taken report. The members of the committee visited the site and submitted the report as follows:

¶44

a) “Earlier, 30/01/2023 departmental team has visited and mining was found closed. Thus, the mining work is closed from last one year no blasting work is being done in the mining lease area. The concrete wall has not been constructed towards the forest border. Thus, the department has issued letter number SA/NEEM/APR/KHP95/2010/1245 dated 30/01/2023 built on spot. For which the lessee vas ordered to build it on the spot.

¶45

b) The boundary line B-C of the mining lease is towards the forest boundary. Lessee has not carried out illegal mining outside the mining lease sanctioned area towards forest area. However, departmental team during Spot inspection dated 28/11/2016 of the mining lease has reported that 100.80 MT of mineral Chejastone was illegally mined outside the boundary line C-D of mining lease sanctioned area. Thus the Penalty Rs 35300/- through e- challan GRN 19997842 dated 06/12/2017 has been deposited by Lessee.

¶46

c) Mining work has been done in a mining pit by open cast method in the area. No benches were found in the said pit, whose size was found to be about 75 to 92 meter by 72 to 90 meter and 20 to 25 meter depth. Presently bottom of said pit was found filled with water. The mining work has not been carried out by making benches and slope as per the

¶47

¶48

O.A. No.27/2024 (CZ) Kailash vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶49

approved mining scheme on the spot. The bench is completely straight vertically at some place. Overhanging was also sound which in a violation of approved mining plan .

¶50

d) The topsoil coming out of the mine has not been stocked separately as per approved mining plan.

¶51

e) The debris coming out of the mine has not been dumped as per approved mining plan.

¶52

f) Arural road passes in the wear direction of the B-C line of the mining a whose distance from the mining lease boundary Line is about 40 meter. According Rule 28(1) (gcc)of RMMCR2017, mining operations are permitted at a distance of 10 meters from Rural road.

¶53

g) There is no populated area around the approved area of mining lease. The main population is of village kalikheda, about a kilometer away.

¶54

h) Lessee has not constructed garland drain, settling tanks, check dams around the dumping yard and mining pit.

¶55

i) Department vide letter dated 04/04/2014 has issued notice to the mines for non-complying the approved mining plan and other deficiencies reported in the inspection dated 01/04/2024.

¶56

j) The AME, Mines department vide letter dated 08/04/2024 has informed that lease holder has carried out total production 378094 ton from 2013 to 2024. The yearly production is not exceeded the production capacity mentioned in approved mining plan/scheme. Mining owner has not carried out mining in khasra no. 247 & 250, which is situated near boundary pillar A-B of mining lease.

¶57

¶58

O.A. No.27/2024 (CZ) Kailash vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶59

i. The District Conservator of Forest, Sikar has submitted factual report on dated 02/04/2024. The forest department has issued no objection certificate on dated 30/01/2012. The distance between the mining lease and forest is 42 meters. Boundary wall in between lease and forest land.

¶60

ii. The representative of Director General Mines and Safety (DGMS), Ajmer informed that the aforesaid mine has not registered with department. However, department vide letter no. 546 dated 27/03/2024 has directed mining owner, not to carry out mining operation till the appointment of mine manager, submit notice of opening in form-1 and obtain Labour identification number, after this apply online for registration with department.”

¶61

Vide order dated 16.04.2024 the State Pollution Control Board was directed to take action and to access the Environment Compensation and to proceed to realise. After the enactment of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 the scope of the activities of the board were widened and the State Board is engaged in implementation of the rules made under the Environment (Protection) Act,1986.

¶62

In light of the above order the show cause notice was issued to the respondent violator and an amount of Rs. 3,73,200/- was calculated as Environmental Compensation.

¶63

A further report was called and it is submitted that an amount of compensation aforesaid has been deposited by the respondent violator vide DD No. 001744 dated. 03.08.2024.

¶64

In view of the above facts and report of State PCB the actions have been taken by the State PCB and amount of EC has been realized and deposited in the relevant account. This amount of the EC will

¶65

¶66

O.A. No.27/2024 (CZ) Kailash vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶67

be utilised for the maintenance and up gradation of environmental matters. Nothing more survives in the matter. Thus, the O.A. No. 27/2024(CZ) stands disposed of.

¶68

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶69

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶70

5^th September 2024 O.A. No.27/2024 (CZ) K

¶71

¶72

O.A. No.27/2024 (CZ) Kailash vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Kailash v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Mohan Mishra vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Hassina Wajid (Sarpanch) vs State of Jammu & Kashmir

Tahir Hussain vs State of Rajasthan

Abhilash vs the Chief Secretary

News Item Titled "4 Die in Chhattisgarh Mine Collapse" Appearing in the Times of India Dated 28.02.2024 vs Chattisgarh Environment Conservation Board

Jitendra @ Raja Lilhare vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Nadeem Ahmad Dar vs

Deep Chandra vs Divisional Forest Officer-Nainital Forest Division

Hari Mohan Mishra vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Tahir Hussain vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Ram Vishnoi vs State of Rajasthan

News Item Titled "6 Killed 1 Injured in Chemical Factory Fire Near Jaipur" Appearing in News 18 Dated 23.03.2024 vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board

Prasanjeet Singh Sankhla vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority through Chairman

News Item Titled "4 Die in Chhattisgarh Mine Collapse" Appearing in the Times of India Dated 28.02.2024 vs Chattisgarh Environment Conservation Board