Disposed

Milind Thakre v. State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary (Forest)

NGT10 Sept 2024Original Application No. 96/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal reviewed a report by a technical committee concerning illegal operations of stone crushers. The court noted that while some objections were addressed, specific recommendations for environmental compliance were not fully met. The Tribunal directed the MPPCB to implement committee recommendations within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the MPPCB to implement committee recommendations strictly and fully within six months.

Milind Thakre vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Its… — Mining and Natural Resources | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No. 04

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No. 96/2024(CZ)

¶4

Milind Thakre Applicant (s)

¶5

Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.. Respondent(s)

¶6

Date of Hearing: 10.09.2024

¶7

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

¶8

For Applicant (s): Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant M. Harne, Adv. Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastav, Adv. Ms. Parul Bhadoria,Adv. with Mr. Pranjal Pandey, Adv. Mr. Alok Jain, RO, Mr. Shoeb Hasan Khan,Adv.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

Issue raised in this application is against illegal operation of Stone Crusher Units at villages Akola and Seoti, Tehsil- Kirnapur, DisttBalaghat (MP). Respondent No. 7, 8 and 9 PPs leaseholders of the stone crushers /quarries operating illegally and in violation of EC conditions, as per MPPCB norms in the above-mentioned villages of Kirnapur Tehsil, Balaghat. Respondent PPs have not installed foundational safety norms of erecting boundary walls and fencing their units, as well as have not taken any measures for plantation in nearby area of the mining plants.

¶11

The matter was taken by this Tribunal and committee consisting one representative of the Collector Balaghat and one representative

¶12

¶13

O.A. No. 96/2024

¶14

Milind Thakre vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶15

from the State PCB was constituted with direction to submit the

¶16

factual and action taken report.

¶17

In compliance of the order the members of the committee visited

¶18

the site and submitted the report as follows :

¶19

Basic Details of Mine & Stone Crusher of Shri Adil Khan Respondent No. 7”

¶20

Basic details of mine and stone crusher, as mentioned in the petition are as follows: -

¶21

Mine
S. No-	Particulars	Details
1	Details of Mining Lease Area	Occupier-Adil Khan Lease Area: - 1.62 Hectare Location: -Kh.No. 516, P.H.No.22, Village – Akola, Tehsil-Kirnapur, Balaghat
2	Environmental Clearance details	from DEIAA, Balaghat by letter No. 1069 dated 28/7/016 for capacity of 8550 Cubic Mtrs.
3	Consent from MPPCB	CCA-Renewal for capacity of 8550 Cubic Mtrs. With validity up to 31/01/2028
Stone	crusher
1	Consent from MPPCB	CCA-Renewal for capacity of 10800 M.T. With validity up to 31/12/2027
2	Details of crusher	Khasra no- 504/1,504/6,504/8,514/1 P.H. No22, Village – Akola, Tehsil-Kirnapur, Balaghat

¶22

Basic Details of Mine & Stone Crusher of Shri Samrat Sarswar “Respondent No. 8”

¶23

Mine

¶24

S. No-	Particulars	Details
1	Details of Mining Lease	Occupier- Samrat Sarswar
	Area	Lease Area: - 2.428 Hectare
		Location:-Kh.No. 516, area

¶25

¶26

O.A. No. 96/2024

¶27

Milind Thakre vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶28

		2.428hect., Village – Akola, Teh Kirnapur,Balaghat	sil-
2	Environmental Clearance details	from SEIAA by letter No.11849 dated 16/03/2016 for capacity 41093 Cu.Mt.	of
3	Consent from MPPCB	CCA-Renewal for capacit of 41093 Cu.Mt. With validity up 26/10/2024	y to
Stone	crusher
1	Consent from MPPCB	CCA-Renewal for capacit of 24000 M.T. With validity up 26/10/2024	y to
2	Details of crusher	Kh.No- 395,424/1,P.H.No.22,Vill Akola, Tehsil Kirnapur,Dist.Balaghat	age

¶29

Basic Details of Mine & Stone Crusher of Shri Ummedial

¶30

Rahangdale “Respondent No. 9”

¶31

Mine

¶32

S. No-	Particulars	Details
1	Details of Mining Lease Area	Occupier- Ummedlal Rahangdale Lease Area: - 1.0 Hectare Location: -Kh.No. 269, Village – Seoti, Tehsil-Kirnapur, Balaghat
2	Environmental Clearance details	from SEIAA by letter No.6551 dated 20/10/2015 for capacity of 41093 Cubic Mtrs.
3	Consent from MPPCB	CCA-Renewal for capacity of 5700 Cubic Mtrs. With validity up to 07/03/2026
Stone c	rusher
1	Consent from MPPCB	CCA-Renewal for capacity of 5700 Cubic

¶33

¶34

O.A. No. 96/2024

¶35

Milind Thakre vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶36

		Mtrs. With validity up to 07/03/2026
2	Details of crusher	Kh.No- 36/4,Area 0.299 hect.,Village Seoti, Tehsil Kirnapur, Dist. Balaghat

¶37

Site view description :- The Google Earth photograph shows the locations of the mining lease area and stone crushing units. It is clear from the image that the residential area is situated at least 500 meters away from the boundaries of the mines and stone Crushingunits. This distance complies with the Siting criteria set by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). Additionally, there is no water body within 1,000 meters of the site.There is no state highway or national highways within this distance either. Furthermore, there are no eco-sensitive areas near the mines or stone crusher units.

¶38

Specific issues raised in the petition and factual observations: -

¶39

Specific issues raised	Site Observation
Respo	ndent No. 7 (Shri Aadil Khan)
There is no fencing done at the mines in operation and the owner has not implemented any measures for erecting boundary wall in the crusher plants.	During the inspection, it was noted that the mine had fencing on side while on other side it is connected with the other mining lease areas. Munnare was also located at the boundaries of the mine. The project proponent (PP) had previously constructed a wind-breaking wall using GI sheets at the crusher site, which was present during the renewal of consent. However, this wall was demolished earlier this year due to heavy winds and storms. As a result, no wind-breaking wall was observed during the site inspection. Nonetheless, the PP has commenced construction work on a permanent windbreaking wall.
Mining Activities are being carried out in excess of the approved mining plan.	As per the mining data provided by district collectorate (Mining) Balaghat, mining activities are within the limits as provided under approved mining plan.
No plantation is done around the unit.	4 During inspection it was found that PP has carried out some plantationworkonthe

¶40

O.A. No. 96/2024

¶41

Milind Thakre vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶42

	premises of the stone crusher. Also, there was some plantation at the periphery of the miningsite.
Petitioner has alleged that respondent no. 7 is illegally operating stone crusher despite of the fact that the EC granted by DEIAA has become null & Void in light of the judgement of Hon’ble tribunal in the matter ofBrijendra Kumar mala Vs State of M.P. & Others. O.A. 36/2023.	MoEF&CC has further extended the timeline by 6 months till 27.10.2024 for all SEIAAs to re-appraise the ECs issued by DEIAAs from 15.01.2016 to 13.09.2018 in compliance of the Order dated 07.12.2022 passed by Hon’ble NGT (Principal Bench) in O.A. 142/2022 (Jayant Kumar Vs MoEF&CC) and other matters connected therewith. Subsequently, Respondent No. 7 having EC from DEIAA 1069/DEIAA/2016/14 dated 28.07.2016 has also applied for the re-appraisal of EC from SEIAA, which is pending before SEIAA. Thus, in light of above fact and OM of MoEF&CC it cannot be said that the respondent has operating Mine illegally. However, Board has issued closure directions to stone crusher under section ‘31 A’ of the Air (Prevention & control of pollution act) 1981 due to noncompliances found duringinspection.
Respondent No. 8 (Shr	i Samrat Singh Saraswar)
Petitioner has alleged that respondent No. 8 have violated Specific condition No.3 of the EC clearly and categorically by not fencing the entire area of mine and not developing a green belt of three rows all around the lease area.	During inspection it was found that PP has fenced mining area on one side of mine facing roadside and other sides of mine are sharing boundaries with other mining lease areas. PP has planted some trees around mining lease area
PP has not constructed boundary wall around the crusher plant	PP has constructed a permanent wind breaking wall on the road side of the crusher while on other three sides using GI sheets. Also, PP has carried out intense plantation on theperipheryof stone crusher.
Mining Activities are being carried out in excess of the approved mining plan.	As per the mining data provided by district collectorate (Mining) Balaghat, mining activities are within the limits as provided underapprovedmining plan.
Petitioner has alleged that No water is sprinkled onthe	During inspection water sprinkler system was found to be installed and operational.

¶43

¶44

O.A. No. 96/2024

¶45

Milind Thakre vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶46

approach road. Respondent No. 9 (Shri	Ummedilal Rahangdale)
Petitioner has alleged that respondent has furnished wrong and confounding facts/information for CTE/CTO approvals from the authorities.	During the inspection, representative of respondent no. 9 was present and produced the documents that were submitted during the issuance of the Consent to Establish (CTE) or Consent to Operate (CTO). It was
Petitioner has alleged that respondent No. 9 has violated Specific condition No. 3 & 9 of the EC which states that appropriate dense tree plantation and barricading shallbe carried out. Petitioner has alleged that respondent No. 9 have violated standard condition no.2 which states that “Mining will be carried out as per the mining plan. In case of any violation of the Mining Plan the environmental clearance given by SEIAA will stand cancelled.”	During inspection it was found that PP has fenced mining area only on one side of mine and PP has not developed a green belt as per the condition of EC, However PP has planted some trees around mining lease area. As per the mining data provided by district collectorate (Mining) Balaghat, mining activities are within the limits as provided under approved mining plan.
Petitioner has alleged that respondent No. 9 has violated standard condition No.3 which states that “regular water sprinkling shall be carried out in critical areas prone to air pollution and having high levels of particulate matter such as loading and unloading point and all	During inspection it was found that PP has not installed water sprinkler system

¶47

¶48

O.A. No. 96/2024

¶49

Milind Thakre vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶50

transfer points.”

¶51

Air Quality Monitoring conducted by MPPCB :-In compliance with

¶52

the Hon'ble NGT order dated 25/04/2024, the MPPCB conducted ambient air quality monitoring of all three stone crushers on 15/06/2024. The results were found to be within the limits prescribed under the EP Rules 1986 for stone crushing units. Analysis results are as follows:-

¶53

S.No.	Monitoring Point	SPM (in μg/m3)
		Analysis Result	Limits Prescribed under EP Rules,1986
1	Stone crusher Premises (Respondent No. 7)	287	600
2	Stone crusher Premises (Respondent No. 8)	462	600
3	Stone crusher Premises (Respondent No. 9)	230	600

¶54

Action taken by MPPCB :- In compliance with the Honourable National Green Tribunal (NGT) order dated 25.04.2024, the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB) has taken the following actions against the respondents: -

¶55

(i) The MPPCB has monitored the ambient air quality at the stone crushing units of Respondents No. 7, 8, and 9. The results of this monitoring are enclosed as Annexure 3.

¶56

(ii) The MPPCB has issued closure directives to the stone crusher of Respondents No. 7 (Shri Aadil Khan) due to non-compliance, as outlined in letter No. 729 dated 14/06/2024.

¶57

(iii) The MPPCB has issued closure directives to the stone crusher of Respondents No. 9 (Shri Ummedilal Rehangdale) due to noncompliance, as outlined in letter No. 727 dated 14/06/2024.

¶58

(iv) Proposal for Imposition of Environmental compensation on respondent No. 7 (Shri Aadil Khan) has been sent to Head Office by Letter No. 940 dated 05/07/2024. Copy is enclosed as Annexure-4.

¶59

(v) Proposal for Imposition of Environmental compensation on respondent No. 9 (Shri Ummedilal Rehangdale) has been sent to Head Office by Letter No. 939 dated 05/07/2024.

Recommendations

O.A. No. 96/2024

Milind Thakre vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶64

All the shortfalls as observed by the joint committee during the site visit must be rectified by the project proponents.

¶65

The conveyer belts must be covered by respondent no. 7 and respondent no. 9 in all three sides including top of the belt.

¶66

The screen must be covered by respondent no. 7 and respondent no 9 in the stone crusher.

¶67

Telescopic chute arrangements must be installed around the crushed stone stock piles of various sizes.

¶68

Revalidation of environmental clearance from SEIAA shall be obtained by respondent no. 7

¶69

Peripheral plantation was seen but the same needs to be further strengthened along the barrier zone for better dust mitigation.

¶70

Proper wind breaking wall of 15-20 feets height must be constructed for better management of dust pollution and the same needs to be strengthened all around the crusher area.

¶71

Proper water sprinkling system shall be installed by respondent no. 7 and respondent no.9 in the stone crusher area.

¶72

Thick plantation shall be made in the barrier zone of mining lease area and stone crusher boundary area.

¶73

Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 7 has file the reply and submitted that against the order passed in O.A. No. 36/2023 Civil Appeal has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and vide order dated 13.12.2023 in Civil Appeal Dairy No. 49608/2023 some interim directions have been issued by the Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted that respondent is persuing re-issuance of EC transfer SEIAA which is under consideration.

¶74

Learned Counsel for the MPPCB Ms. Parul Bhadoria has submitted that the actions by the authorities have finally taken. The closure directions has been issued to the defaulting units and in some of the matter the consent order have been withdrawn.

¶75

¶76

O.A. No. 96/2024

¶77

Milind Thakre vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶78

In view of the above report the proper actions have been taken by the authorities concerned. However, we direct that the recommendations submitted by the committee must be strictly observed with letter and spirit and MPPCB has to comply the recommendations submitted by the committee within a time frame within six months.

¶79

With these observations the O.A. No. 96/2024 (CZ) stands disposed of.

¶80

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶81

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶82

10^th September 2024 O.A. No. 96/2024 (CZ) K

¶83

¶84

O.A. No. 96/2024

¶85

Milind Thakre vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Milind Thakre v. State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary (Forest)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Milind Thakre v. State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary (Forest)

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

Vivek Verma vs

Khildev Singh Rawat vs

Satish Kumar vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Kaushalya Sharma vs Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority

News Item Titled Authorities Fail to Prevent Dumping of Construction & Demolition Waste in Pune Rivers Appearing in the Hindustan Times Dated 04.07.2024 vs the State of Maharashtra through Pune Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner

Shri Laxman Gayanu Kalugade vs Member Secretary Mpcb

News Item Titled Explosion Kills One Injures Six in ChhattisgarhS Bemetara Factory Blast" Appearing in the Deccan Herald Dated 25.05.2024 vs Chhattisgarh Pollution Control Board

Rakesh Khandelwal vs

Navendu Mishra vs Municipal Corporation of Seoni

Navendu Mishra vs Municipal Corporation of Seoni

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

News Item Titled "Rajasthan Mei Avaidh Khanan Ke 676 Thikane Chinhit Do Din Mei 500 Karyavahi" Appearing in Abhay India Dated 18.01.2024 vs State of Rajasthan

Sou Motu Action on the News Paper Article Pubshed in Rajasthan Patrika Balotra Edition on 16TH March 2024 Regarding Spreding of Chemical Water Effluent Relarsed by the Industries Rajasthan vs State of Rajasthan