This appeal challenged the rejection of quarrying applications citing environmental sensitivity near a dam. The NGT found the orders lacked reasoning and rejected mitigation measures, setting aside the rejections and remitting the files for reevaluation.
Rejection orders set aside; files remitted to SEAC to reevaluate applications with mitigation proposals and impose conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Wednesday the 8th day of January, 2025.
Appeal No. 14 of 2024(SZ) & Appeal No. 15 of 2024(SZ) & Appeal No. 16 of 2024(SZ) (Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
Appeal No. 14 and 15 of 2024
Tmt. U. Selvi,
w/o. S. Uthirasami,
5/56, O No. 2/190, Kuttakadu,
Rc Chettipatti Post, Palpakki,
Omalur, Salem- 636 455.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
Rep. By its Member Secretary,
3rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,
Chennai- 600 035.
2. State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC),
Rep by its Chairman,
3rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,
Chennai- 600 035.
...Respondent(s)
And
Appeal No. 16
S. Uthirasami,
S/o. Subramani,
5/56, O No. 2/190, Kuttakadu,
Rc Chettipatti Post, Palpakki,
Omalur, Salem- 636 455.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
3. State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
Rep. By its Member Secretary,
3rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,
Chennai- 600 035.
4. State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), Rep by its Chairman,
1
3rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai- 600 035.
...Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s):
Mrs. Rita Chandrasekar and Mr. V. Kalyanaraman (in all cases)
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Sai Sathya Jith for R1 and R2 (in all cases)
Judgment Reserved on: 12th December, 2024.
CORAM :
HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana , Judicial Member
table for easy reference:
| Aspect | Appeal 14/24 | Appeal 15/24 | Appeal 16/24 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellant | U. Selvi | U. Selvi | S. Uthirasami |
| Survey Number | 247/2 | 248/1, 248/2, 248/3 |
246/3 |
| Extent of Land | 0.93.0 ha. | 063.5 ha. | 1.21.50 ha. |
| EC application date |
03.12.2022 | 07.12.2022 | 03.12.2022 |
2
impugned order lacks adequate reasoning is discriminatory and violates procedural norms.
3
4
5
Thoppur Hill would interfere with natural drainage system and degrade the water quality downstream. That apart surplus run off from Amman Yeri flows into the Thoppaiyar Dam further increasing the area’s ecology sensitivity. Therefore, the SEIAA agreed with the conclusion of the SEAC and decided not to recommend the proposal for quarry.
extracted below:
“The Thoppaiyar Dam constructed during the year 1982-1987 and it is located in Sekkarapatti Village of Nallampalli Taluk in Dharmapuri District. The proposed rough stone quarries are situated at S.F. No. 246/3, S.F. No. 247/2, S.F. No. 248/1, 248/2 and 248/3 in Veppilai Village of Kadayampatti Taluk in Salem District. The aerial distance between the proposed quarry sites and water spread area of dam is 1.50 km. The aerial distance between the proposed quarry sites and Thoppaiyar Dam structure is 2.28 km.
The safety distance between the Dam and mining area is not specified in Dam documents but in general, the minimum distance from water body structures and mining area should be 500m as per G.O (MS). No. 244 Industries, Investment Promotion and Commerce (MMC.1) Department dated 14.12.2022. However, the mining operation near the water body and dam are not preferable for the over all integrity of the dam site. Also it is stated that necessary studies have to be conducted by the experts for this proposed site to evaluate the actual status. Based on the study report the decision may be taken whether the approval to be given or not.
Amman Taluk (Godupallam Tank) is under the control of Irrigation Section, Omalur, Stanley Sub Division, Mettur and Mettur Dam Division, Mettur of Water Resources Department. Hence the details of this tank are received from the concerned section and given here for kind information.
Extent of Amman Tank : 0.32 Sq.km Capacity of Amman Tank :15.44 Mc.ft
6
the dam structure. It is specifically stated that the safety distance between the dam and the mining area is not specified in dam documents but in general the minimum distance from water body structures and mining areas should be 500m as per G.O (MS). No. 244 Industries, Investment Promotion and Commerce (MMC.1) Department dated 14.12.2022. Even as per WRD a detailed expert study has to be conducted to assess the safety risk and environmental impacts before any clearance is granted. To be noted here in that neither the WRD nor the SEIAA have notified any area nearby a dam or a water body with specific distance that
are prohibited for doing mining activities.
7
8
during the rainy season, when there is flow of water from Thoppur Hill to Amman Yeri the pollution contemplated by the 1st respondent will not be there. Therefore, the SEIAA should have considered the mitigation measures and dust control measures by imposing additional conditions. Instead of doing so without independent application of mind, placing reliance only on the SEAC recommendation, the 1st respondent ought not to have rejected the proposal. Therefore, the order of rejections dated 20.12.2023 of 1st respondent are set aside and they are remitted back to the SEAC to reevaluate the applications taking into account the mitigation proposals suggested/offered by the appellants as well as mitigation measures imposed in general by SEAC/SEIAA in mining projects which may be near to water bodies even if they are beyond prohibited distances and pass appropriate orders after providing a fair chance of hearing to the appellants.
9
Before the National Green
Tribunal
Southern Zone (Chennai)
Appeal No. 14 of 2024(SZ)
&
Appeal No.15 of 2024(SZ)
&
Appeal No. 16 of 2024(SZ)
Tmt. Selvi
With
S. Uthirasami,
Vs.
SEIAA & Ors.
Appeal No. 14/2024(SZ)&
Appeal No. 15/2024(SZ)&
Appeal No. 16/2024(SZ)
8th January,2025. (AM)
10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of environmental clearance orders lacked adequate reasoning and independent evaluation by the SEIAA.
Whether the principle of Natural Justice was violated due to lack of opportunity for personal hearing.
Whether the appellants were entitled to reconsideration of proposals with mitigation measures instead of outright rejection.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
U. Selvi
S. Uthirasami
State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC)
Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Satyagopal Korlapati
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal before a tribunal against an order of a statutory authority.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
