Disposed

Shishram v. Vinod Kuasal

NGT2 Feb 2024Original Application No. 514/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal considered original applications alleging illegal mining, tree cutting, and school damage due to blasting in Haryana. Reviewing joint reports, the Court found illegal mining and tree cutting proven but blasting effects inconclusive. Orders directive issuance of Environmental Compensation and school repairs.

What did the court decide?

Directed HSPCB to conclude Environmental Compensation proceedings and the Project Proponent to repair the school building at their own cost.

Shishram vs Vinod Kuasal — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Court No. 1

¶2

Item Nos.10 & 11

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No.514/2023 Shishram Applicant Versus Vinod Kuasal Respondent WITH Original Application No.546/2023 Puran Singh Applicant Versus Vinod Sokhal Respondent

¶5

Date of hearing: 02.02.2024

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶7

Applicant: Mr. Humraz Bir Singh, Adv. for Applicants in OA 514/2023 & OA 546/2023

¶8

Respondent: Mr. Rahul Khurana, Adv. for HSPCB

¶9

Mr. Raghenth Basant, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Tripathi & Ms. Kaushitaki Sharma, Advs. for M/s Maa Santoshi Khanj Udyog Mr. Mohit Singhal, Adv. for CPCB (Through VC)

¶10

ORDER

¶11

In this Original Application, registered on the basis of the letter petition, allegation against the Project Proponent relates to illegal mining by cutting of trees and causing environmental hazards. Further allegation was that due to heavy blasting, residential houses were damaged and that there was a school located at the distance of about 200-250 mtrs. which was also effected by the mining. The Tribunal by order dated 23.08.2023 had directed the District Magistrate, Mahendragarh, Haryana and Haryana State PCB to submit the joint report.

¶12

¶13

The joint report was submitted on 27.10.2023 disclosing as under:-

¶14

“4. Divisional Forest Officer, Mahendragarh vide letter dated 25.10.2023 has intimated w.r.t. inspection dated 14.09.2023 that the lease area at Khasra No. 550 is covered surrounding from Aravali Plantation. As per the demarcation report of the revenue department dated 16.09.2023, the leaseholder has mined the 15,648 Sq.ft. of illegal mining surrounding the Khasra No. 550 and transpired that 161 numbers shrubs like muskat have illegally been damaged and accordingly Forest Offence Report (FOR) dated 02.10.2023 was prepared under section 32-33 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 and also granted sanction for filing prosecution case against offenders in the Special Environment Court at Faridabad. Copy of report along with relevant documents submitted by DFO, Mahendragarh are attached as Annexure-4 .

¶15

5. Mining Officer, Mines & Geology Department, Narnaul vide letter No. Mining/NNL/3432-34 dated 20.10.2023 ( Annexure5 ) has intimated the following status report in this matter: -

¶16

a) The constituted committee visited the mining lease area of Musnota Mines Khasra No. 550 along with Tehsildar Nangal Choudhary and field Kanungo on 14.09.2023. As per the demarcation report by field Kanungo on 16.09.2023, the leaseholder encroached the area of 15,648 sq. ft. in the Khasra No. 487 & 551 and Senior Surveyor, Surveyor (H.Q) Director, Mines and Geology Haryana, Panchkula again jointly surveyed/demarcated along with field Kanungo, Halka Patwari of village Musnota and Mining Inspector, Narnaul in the presence of representative of Project Proponent and Private Surveyor were also present on 05.10.2023. After the demarcation, it is found that the total excavation outside the lease /contract area i.e Khasra No. 487 & 551 is 15,648 Sq.ft.and the quantity of excavated mineral is 24,812.50 M.T. A demand notice is issued to the leaseholder of M/s Maa Santoshi Khanij Udyog of Musnota stone Mine vide memo no. MO/Narnaul/3369 dated 17.10.2023 to deposit the penalty, royalty and price of mineral illegally excavated minor mineral i.e Rs 42,28,125 ( Fourty Two lakh Twenty-Eight Thousand One hundred Twenty-five only) (Annexure-6 )

¶17

b) Mining officer, Narnaul has intimated that during the survey conducted from the Google Earth map, the complaints house at Dhani Jokhla Wali of Musnota Village was located at 693 meters from the place of working (Site of Blasting) in the Musnota Calcite Mine. Further, it was observed that another hutment/ camp of Dhani Maliya had 4 houses existing within 300 meters of the mine boundary that was closer to the mine than the complainant's houses. During the enquiry, the villagers of Dhani Maliyala stated that they had no

¶18

¶19

problem due to the blasting conducted in the Mine. During the inspection, it was found that primary school Dhani Maliyala existed within about 200 meters from the boundary mine and about 200-300 meters from the working place of machinery used for mining and also found that cracks are seen in the RCC beam on the door level of the school building, no any cracks found on other walls of the primary school and also seems that ceiling plaster is found defective due to construction material used in the school building.

¶20

6. Recently, a joint inspection was carried out in the presence of complainants of the said mining project by Deputy Director, DGMS Ghaziabad along with Mining Officer Narnaul on dated 01.09.2023 and conducted to examine the ground vibration by two rounds of blast and observed the values of induced ground vibrations recorded in seismography. The GPS Coordinates of the location of the Mini Super graph (Seismograph) and the location of the place of blasting of Mine were taken by the hand-held GPS instrument and the co-ordinates were Northing: 2752.96259'N & Easting: 7600.17948' E respectively. Director, Mines Safety, Ghaziabad sent an action taken report along with comments vide letter dated 13.10.2023 with direction to the management of Musnota Calcite mines regarding violation vide letter dated 03.10.2023 for rectification of contraventions observed during inspection and enquiry of the mine. Mine management was directed that no blasting other than the blasting specified in Regulation 164(16)(a) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations (MMR), 1961 shall be conducted within 300 m of such hutments/structures of permanent nature not belonging to the owner of the mine till controlled blasting permission under regulation 164(16)(a) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 is obtained from this Directorate in writing based on scientific study report from 'a reputed scientific agency. (A copy of a letter dated 13.10.2023 is attached as Annexure 7).

¶21

Conclusion: -

¶22

In view of the above facts, allegations w.r.t. to the effect of heavy blasting were not established as per the report submitted by the Deputy Director, DGMS, Ghaziabad and Mining Officer, Narnaul to a nearby residence :and school as mentioned above. However, the other allegations mentioned in the complaint w.r.t. illegal mining and cutting of trees as per the report submitted by DFO, Mahendragarh and Mining Officer, Narnaul were found correct and accordingly necessary action as mentioned above have already been taken by the concerned department under applicable laws/rules.”

¶23

The joint report states about the illegal mining by the Project proponent and the action initiated by the Mining Department for imposition of penalty, royalty and recovery of price of mineral illegally excavated to the extent of Rs. 42,28,125/-. The report further states that

¶24

¶25

cracks were found in the RCC beam on the door level of the school building and the sealing plaster was found to be defective. From the report, it cannot be clearly ascertained that the same was on account of the heavy blasting by the Project Proponent or on account of some structural defect. But the possibility of the school building being damaged on account of blasting cannot be ruled out.

¶26

Learned Counsel appearing for HSPCB has submitted that for the environmental damage caused on account of illegal mining, proceedings have been initiated against the Project Proponent- M/s Maa Santoshi Khanij Udyog and in that process, show cause notice has been issued and the reply has been considered and the amount of the EC will be finalized and recovered.

¶27

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Project Proponent has also informed that against the order of imposition of penalty by the Mining Department, Appeal has been preferred, which is under consideration. Learned Senior Counsel on instruction has fairly submitted that the Project proponent is ready to get the school building repair at its own cost without going into the issue relating to the cause for damage of the school building.

¶28

Since, appropriate action has already been initiated by the Haryana State PCB for imposition of EC and a fair statement has been made by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Project Proponent, for repairing the school building, hence, we dispose of the present OA by directing the HSPCB to conclude the proceeding relating to imposition of EC by following the principle of ‘Natural Justice’ and file action taken report before the Registrar General of the Tribunal within three months by e- mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/

¶29

¶30

OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF and if found necessary, the matter may be listed for consideration before the Bench.

¶31

In the connected OA No. 546/2023, similar allegation has been made and a similar report by the joint Committee has been filed. Therefore, the said OA is also disposed of on the same terms.

¶32

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶33

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶34

February 02, 2024 Original Application No.514/2023 & Original Application No.546/2023 SN.

¶35

Shishram v. Vinod Kuasal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shishram v. Vinod Kuasal

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

Jitendra Alias Raja Lilhare vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Kalu Ram Yadav vs State of Rajasthan

Rambha Devi vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

News Item Titled "Coimbatore,S Perur Lake: from Bird Sanctuary to a Fish Farm?" Appearing in Www.Birdcount.in Dated 16.12.2023 vs

News Item Titled "Sewage Stench Drives Students of Government School Out of Classroom in Karnataka,S Hallur" Appearing in the New Indian Express Dated 21.12.2023 vs

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

Hemlata Devi and Ors. vs

Anuj Sharma vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Bnp Singh vs Greater Noida Development Authority

News Item Titled "Coimbatore,S Perur Lake: from Bird Sanctuary to a Fish Farm?" Appearing in Www.Birdcount.in Dated 16.12.2023 vs

News Item Titled "Salt-Pan Encroachments in Rivers Caused Flood: Vilathikulam Residents" Appearing in the Express News Service Dated 28.12.2023 vs

News Item Titled "Who Cares About Construction Waste in Bengaluru?" Appearing in the Deccan Herald Dated 16.12.2023. vs

News Item Titled Effluent Seepage from Dump Yard Pollutes Drinking Water Sources" Appearing in the Times of India Dated 19.12.2023 vs

Babar Ali vs State of Uttar Pradesh