Disposed

Sampurna Nand v. Ashok Kumar Mishr

NGT13 Aug 2024Original Application No. 471/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of an original application regarding illegal mining by Ashok Kumar Mishr. The court noted that the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board had already imposed a closure order and environmental compensation. The Tribunal directed the District Magistrate to ensure compliance with the closure order and directed the recovery of compensation for environmental rejuvena

What did the court decide?

Direct District Magistrate and police to ensure compliance with the closure order; direct UPSCB to recover environmental compensation for environmental restoration.

Sampurna Nand vs Ashok Kumar Mishr — Mining and Natural Resources | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No.33

¶2

Court No. 2

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 471/2024

¶5

Sampurna Nand Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ashok Kumar Mishr Respondent

¶8

Date of hearing: 13.08.2024

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶10

sApplicant: None Respondents: Mr. Gi. Gi. C George, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 (through VC). Mr. Mukesh Verma and Ms. Vatsala Tripathi, Advocates for Respondent no. 3 – Director Mining(through VC). Mr. Pradeep Misra, Advocate for Respondent No. 4 (through VC). None for Respondent No. 1 Project Proponent

¶11

ORDER

¶12

An Original application (hereinafter referred to as ‘OA’ ) was registered on a letter petition dated 19.04.2022 sent by Sampurna Nand and received by Tribunal on 28.04.2022 in exercise of suo-moto jurisdiction in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of

¶13

Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha, (2022) 13 SCC 401. After scrutiny,

¶14

it was registered as OA 521/2022, Sampurna Nand vs. State of Uttar

¶15

Pradesh .

¶16

Complainant had stated that in villages Bhagoti Dei, Sonpur, Biyahur and Chakjata of Tehsil Chunar in District Mirzapur, in discriminate manner mining activities adopting blasting process without

¶17

¶18

any valid lease and blasting license are being carried out by mining mafias and they are causing threat to natural assets like boulder, patia, gitti etc., damage to environment and also creating health hazardous to local villagers. Due to rampant large scale illegal mining, entire area is covered with cloud of dust; blasting activities are resulting in severe vibrations in area like earthquake; damaging walls of the houses and endangering lives of villagers due to damages caused on account of blasting activities.

¶19

Tribunal entertained OA 521/2022 (supra) on 01.09.2022 and being prima-facie satisfied that substantial question relating to environmental has arisen out of the implementation of enactments specified in Schedule I to National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 found it appropriate to obtain a factual Report and for this purpose constituted a Joint Committee comprising representatives of Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Lucknow, (hereinafter referred to as ‘MoEF&CC’ ); Director, Directorate of Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPPCB’ ); and; District Magistrate, Mirzapur.

¶20

Joint Committee was directed to meet within two weeks, visit the site, look into the grievance of the applicant, associate with the applicant and representative of concerned project proponent, if any, verify factual position, take appropriate remedial action by following due process of law and submit Report within two months.

¶21

Pursuant to order dated 01.09.2022, Joint Committee submitted Report dated 03.02.2023 stating that there are 40 mining leases operating in four villages i.e., Bhagoti Dei, Sonpur, Biyahur and Chakjata. List of aforesaid 40 mining leases was given in the said Report. Committee also gave details of different proponents separately on the basis of the

¶22

¶23

observations made in the inspections conducted on 23^rd and 24^th November, 2022.

¶24

Observations made by Joint Committee in respect of respondent 1 are as under:

¶25

“ 2.9 M/s Ashok Kumar Mishra S/o Shjri Ramakant Mishra, Vill.Bhagautidei, Teh.- Chunar, Mirzapur.

¶26

a) The lease area of the mining lease is 1.01 Hectare or 2.50 Acres.

¶27

b) District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Mirzapur vide reference No. Parya/ DEAC/Sandstone/MZP/2016dated16.08.2016has issued Environmental Clearance for Sandstone (Boulder mining) at Arazi No. 180/2, Vill.-Bhagautidei, Teh.Chunar, Mirzapur.

¶28

c) The mine lease area is located between latitude N Pillar (A) 25⁰ 05’24.35”, (B) 25⁰ 02’38.55”, (C) 25⁰ 02’36.70”, (D) 25⁰ 02’36.61”and Longitude E Pillar (A) 82⁰ 58’41.51”, (B) 82⁰ 58’42.41”, (C) 82⁰ 58’42.47”, (D) 82⁰ 58’41.55”.

¶29

d) Mining Lease was granted on 26.08.2016 for period of 10 years which shall be expired on 25.08.2026

¶30

e) The proposed Annual production of Sandstone is 30,000 m³ /annum and as per report submitted by Mining Department, Mirzapur 1,65,833 m³ sand stone has been excavated till date.

¶31

f) As per available documents, the proponent has not obtained CTE/CTO from the State Pollution Control Board, however, notice has been sent vide reference no. G001870/OG-81/Mines/ Mzp/ 2022 dated 25.06.2022 and again vide letter no. G002479/OG81/Mines/2022 dated 03.12.2022.

¶32

g) As per available documents, the proponent has not obtained NOC for Ground water withdrawal from Ground water authority .

¶33

h) As per report submitted by Mining Department, Mirzapur, KML File of the concerned lease is available with the department.

¶34

i) Pillars at the each co-ordinates mentioned were not visible at the site.

¶35

j) There was no fencing around the periphery of the lease area.

¶36

k) The Ambient Air Quality Stations in the core zone as well as in the buffer zone have not been installed as per condition imposed in the EC granted by DEIAA.

¶37

l) The project proponent has not submitted half yearly compliance report of the EC granted by DEIAA.

¶38

m) Wind break consisting of adequate tiers of Plantation around the lease have not been raised.

¶39

n) Blast vibration Study report has not been submitted to the UPPCB. o) Ground water monitoring report for ground water in the core zone to monitor the depletion due to mining activity has not been submitted.

¶40

p) Slope of the mining bench and ultimate pit limit approved by Indian Bureau of Mines but the report has not been submitted.

¶41

¶42

q) There is no mechanism deployed to suppress the dust in and around the lease area during mining and transportation of the material.

¶43

r) The transportation path for the vehicular movement from the lease area to main road is muddy and uneven. Due to vehicular movement, the dust may affect the ecology of the area.

¶44

s) Weighing bridge has not been installed for weighing the amount of excavated materials

¶45

t) As per information provided by project proponent, the excavated material has been sold to nearby units for further processing.

¶46

u) During the field visit the Committee observed that the mining operation was closed.

¶47

As per facts mentioned above, Environmental Compensation may be levied for operating mines without CTO under Air and Water Act from date of starting of mine to till date, however, as per order dated- 29.04.2019 of Hon’ble NGT in O.A. No. 116/2014 Meera Shukla Vs. Municipal Corporation, Gorakhpur & Ors., Environmental Compensation has to be calculated upto 05 years for default. Accordingly, EC is being calculated for 05 years which has been as per CPCB guidelines using the following formula:-

¶48

EC= PI ×N×R× S×LF

¶49

Where, PI=Pollution Index,

¶50

N= No. of days from which the non-compliance has been observed

¶51

R = 250 (In Rs.)

¶52

S = Factor for scale of operation.

¶53

LF = Location Factor

¶54

In the present case,

¶55

PI=80 (Since mine lease has been categorized in Red Category)

¶56

N=1825 days

¶57

S=0.5 (Since mines lease has been categories in small scale).

¶58

LF=1 (Since it is situated in rural area)

¶59

Therefore,

¶60

EC = PI ×N×R× S×LF

¶61

= 80 x 1825 x 250 x 0.5 x 1

¶62

= Rs. 1,82,50,000.00

¶63

(Rupees One crore eighty two lakh fifty thousand only).”

¶64

Since Report showed that there were 40 mining leases of different

¶65

persons and contained observations separately in respect of all 40 lease holders, Tribunal found it appropriate to direct that separate OAs be

¶66

¶67

registered in respect of different lease holders and in respect of respondent 1, the present OA 471/2024 has been registered.

¶68

Opportunity was also granted to respondent-proponent who has submitted its reply.

¶69

The fact remains that violations of environmental laws are evident and, therefore, Tribunal required UPPCB to show as to what action has been taken in the matter.

¶70

The matter was examined by Tribunal on 17.10.2023 and it permitted the mining lease holder to file its responses regarding compliance with EC Condition including, CSR/CER and recommendations made by Joint Committee. UPPCB and District Magistrate, Mirzapur were also directed to file report verifying such compliance by mining lease holder.

¶71

Pursuant thereto, District Magistrate, Mirzapur has submitted Joint Committee Report dated 06.01.2024 giving status with regard to grant of CTO to respondent 1, as under:-

¶72

“ 9	मे० श्री अशोक कुमार ममश्र पुत्र श्री रमाकान्त ममश्र, मिवासी-ग्राम-मवहारा पोस्ट- पीला कोठी, थािा कोतवाली कवी, जिपद- मित्रकूट।	िुिार भगौतीदेई	^{180/2 2.5}	Yes (31.12.2027)	NA	NA ”

¶73

Further, on the basis of the facts found during field visit on 28.12.2023 to 30.12.2023, Joint Committee report on page 5057 in respect of respondent 1 has stated as under:-

¶74

“8.9. M/s Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra (Sand Stone) located at Arazi. No. 180/2, Lease Area 1.01 Ha, Village- Bhagautidei, TehsilChunar, District- Mirzapur.

¶75

¶76

a) The said mining lease is located at Arazi No. located Arazi. No. 180/2, Lease Area 1.01 Ha, Village- Bhagautidei, TehsilChunar, District- Mirzapur.

¶77

b) It seems that the above mining lease is in operational.

¶78

c) The mining project has established all pillars around lease area.

¶79

d) The mining project has partially established fencing around the whole periphery of the lease area.

¶80

e) The mining project has not installed Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station as per EC conditions .

¶81

f) The mining project has not established windbreak adequate tiers of plantation around the lease area .

¶82

g) Dust suppression mechanism has not installed by project.

¶83

h) Mobile septic tank arrangement has not established by project.

¶84

i) The mining lease have valid CTO dated 25.05.2023 issued by UPPCB.

¶85

j) Proponent of the said mining lease submitted compliance status of CSR/CER activities as per records available in mines office. This compliance status found satisfactory.

¶86

k) The detail about to compliance status of the all conditions imposed in Consent to Operate (CTO) issued by UPPCB, enclosed here with and marked as annexure no. 4.7.

¶87

Finding/Suggestion of the committee :

¶88

i. Concerned Department such as Mining and UPPCB shall issue direction/ initiate action as per law.

¶89

ii. UPPCB shall initiate impose environmental compensation against the lease mining project for non-complying/violation days (If any).”

¶90

Regional Officer, UPPCB, Sonebhadra has submitted a further status report dated 12.07.2024 filed vide email dated 14.07.2024 stating that in view of Joint Committee report dated 06.01.2024, a show cause notice dated 12.01.2024 was issued by UPPCB to respondent 1, to show cause as to why its mining activity at Gata No. 180/2, lease area 2.5 acres Village Vihara, Tehsil Chitrakoot, District Mirzapur be not closed and other

¶91

¶92

competent authority be not requested/directed to disconnect water and electricity supply, etc.

¶93

Later on, a closure order dated 19.02.2024 was passed by Chief Environment Officer, Circle-2, UPPCB directing respondent 1 to close mining activities forthwith.

¶94

Further, vide order dated 19.02.2024, environmental compensation of Rs. 20,30,000/-for past violation of environmental laws and norms was also imposed upon respondent 1 and it was required to deposit the same within one month.

¶95

Pursuant to the closure order dated 19.02.2024, District Magistrate, Mirzapur has also issued a consequential letter dated 04.03.2024 directing Mining Officer, Mirzapur to ensure compliance of the closure order passed by UPPCB on 19.02.2024 and take all steps for execution thereof.

¶96

Learned counsel appearing for respondent 1 stated at the Bar that though the order of closure and environmental compensation imposed upon it are appealable but it has not filed any appeal till date. He however states that Tribunal may leave it open to respondent 1 to avail such statutory remedy as available in law since punitive and prohibitory action has already been taken by UPPCB by issuing closure order and imposing environmental compensation for past violations upon respondent 1.

¶97

In view of above facts, we find that no further is necessary to be passed in this matter in view of above developments except of observing that District Magistrate, Mirzapur and Senior Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur shall ensure compliance of closure order until and unless any further order, otherwise, is passed by competent authority.

¶98

¶99

We also make it clear that this order shall not prejudice the statutory remedy available to respondent 1 against closure order as also order imposing environmental compensation and if any such remedy is availed, we hope and trust that the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made by this Tribunal in the present proceedings.

¶100

We also direct UPPCB that subject to order passed in appeal, if any, preferred by project proponent i.e. respondent 1, recovery of environmental compensation, if not already deposited, shall be made in accordance with law, expeditiously, and the amount of compensation after realization shall be utilized for rejuvenation/restoration/remediation of damaged environment in accordance with ‘District Environment Plan’, for the place in question, which shall be prepared by a Joint Committee comprising District Magistrate, Mirzapur, Regional Officer UPPCB, Sonebhadra and District Forest Officer, Mirzapur wherein District Magistrate shall be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance. The said Plan shall be prepared within one month and executed within three months after recovery of the environmental compensation, subject to any order passed otherwise in appeal, if any, preferred by respondent 1.

¶101

With the above observations/directions, this Original Application is disposed of.

¶102

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶103

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶104

August 13, 2024 Original Application No. 471/2024 AB

¶105

Sampurna Nand v. Ashok Kumar Mishr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sampurna Nand v. Ashok Kumar Mishr

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

Sanket Sahu vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Amit Kumar vs State of Rajasthan

Sohan Vir Singh vs Virender

Rajendra Sharma vs

Samarpal Singhgrewal and Other vs

Sunil Kumar Nigam vs

News Item Titled "Microplastic in West Bengal,S Digha and Odisha,S Puri Seawater at Alarming Levels" Appearing in the Times of India Dated 04.08.2024 vs

Ashish Sharma vs

Sohan Vir Singh vs Virender

Sohan Vir Singh vs Virender

Rajendra Sharma vs

Deepak Rai vs

Sampurna Nand vs J.A.M Marble and Mineral

Sampurna Nand vs Mo. Shah