Partly allowed

Uthirasami v. Seiaa

NGT8 Jan 2025Appeal No. 16/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal Southern Zone adjudicated three appeals challenging the rejection of Environmental Clearance for quarrying projects. The court set aside rejection orders deemed non-speaking and remitted the matter to the SEAC for re-evaluation, mandating consideration of mitigation measures to protect nearby water bodies and dams.

What did the court decide?

The rejection orders dated 20.12.2023 were set aside and remitted to the SEAC for re-evaluation of applications considering suggested mitigation proposals.

Uthirasami vs Seiaa — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶2

Wednesday the 8th day of January, 2025.

¶3

Appeal No. 14 of 2024(SZ) & Appeal No. 15 of 2024(SZ) & Appeal No. 16 of 2024(SZ) (Through Video Conference)

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF

¶5

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.

¶6

...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.

¶7

4. State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), Rep by its Chairman,

¶8

¶9

3rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai- 600 035.

¶10

...Respondent(s)

¶11

For Appellant(s):

¶12

Mrs. Rita Chandrasekar and Mr. V. Kalyanaraman (in all cases)

¶13

For Respondent(s):

¶14

Mr. Sai Sathya Jith for R1 and R2 (in all cases)

¶15

Judgment Reserved on: 12^th December, 2024.

¶16

CORAM :

¶17

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana , Judicial Member

¶20

The details of the appellants for which they are seeking quarry, the extent and the date of their applications are all furnished under the

¶21

table for easy reference:

¶22

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

¶23

These appeals are filed challenging the rejection of the Environmental Clearance for quarrying rough stone in the patta lands of the appellants in Veppilai Village, Kadayampatty Taluk, Salem District. The project is categorized under category ‘B2’ of the EIA Notification, 2006 requiring prior Environmental Clearance. As the Environmental Clearances sought for are rejected the appeals are filed assailing the same on the ground that the

¶24

¶25

impugned order lacks adequate reasoning is discriminatory and violates procedural norms.

¶26

The appellants had applied for quarry lease which was approved by the Department of Mining and Geology on 01.11.2022. subsequently the appellants had made applications for Environmental Clearance on 03.12.2022 and 07.12.2022 respectively. The SEAC decided to conduct a spot inspection and accordingly the same was done on 01.05.2023. The observations of the SEAC were reviewed in the SEAC meeting on 05.10.2023 and it was recommended to reject the Environmental Clearance due to the environmental concerns. The SEIAA upheld the recommendation of the SEAC on 20.12.2023 rejecting the Environmental Clearance on the ground of the environmental sensitivity.

¶27

The proposals for the Environmental Clearance were rejected based on the sub-committee observations that the quarries are located on Thoppaiyar Hills on eastern ghat hill range that runs in Dharmapuri District. The entire Thoppur Hill is a major watershed for the area which is otherwise a dry area. The water that run off the hill drains into an odai that feeds the Amman Yeri, a nearby lake which is key to all the agricultural activities in the area. Surplus from the Amman Yeri flows into the Thoppiar Dam, a crucial watershed that supports agricultural area and drinking water. The dust and residues from the quarry and the crusher located in the vicinity are likely to seep into the odai and eventually into the Amman Yeri.

¶28

¶29

The SEIAA in its reply also stated that based on the sub-committee reports and the documents furnished by the project proponent, considering the environmental setting of the proposed mining area the SEIAA decided to agree with the conclusion of the subcommittee and not to recommend grant of Environmental Clearance for the above referred projects. Accordingly, it was decided to reject the proposals as per the 413th meeting minutes.

¶30

The point which arises for consideration is whether the rejection order of the proposals for Environmental Clearance against the appellants are to be set aside?

¶31

The appellants, herein, have challenged the order of rejection firstly on the ground that the same is non-speaking order. It is the contention of the appellants that the rejection order lacks detailed reasoning and simply refers to the SEAC recommendations without independent evaluation by the SEIAA, which is the 1st respondent.

¶32

The appellants allege discrimination as the 1st respondent had granted Environmental Clearance on 05.12.2018 to one Ms. Jayakodi with reference to S.F. No. 380 in the Veppilai Village, Kadayampattty Taluk, Salem District when the said Thoppur Hill and the Amman Yeri were already in existence. It is argued that since the land is located in the mountain scape, during the rainy season, the rain water will be passing through the subject land to the odai located nearby. Therefore, there is no justification for the 1st respondent to reject the proposal citing the presence of Thoppur Hill and Amman yeri. It is argued that identical environmental condition should warrant consistent treatment.

¶33

¶34

The next ground raised by the appellants are of violation of Principle of Natural Justice. According to the appellants they should have been accorded an opportunity of personal hearing to address the concerns raised by the SEAC and SEIAA and present their case. The procedural lapse undermines the fairness of the decisionmaking process.

¶35

The appellants also pointed out the procedural delay in conducting the spot inspection. Though it was decided to do the same on 23.03.2023, the inspection was caused only on 01.05.2023. The decision of SEIAA was also communicated to the appellants beyond the stipulated timeline under the EIA Notification, 2006.

¶36

On the above raised grounds, the Learned Counsel appearing for SEIAA would respond stating that the Thoppur Hill serve as a major water shed for the region supplying the run off to Amman Yeri and Thoppiar Dam critical for the irrigation and drinking water in the otherwise dry area. Besides, the dust, residue and explosive residues from quarrying also could seep into the water streams affecting the water quality and long-term agricultural productivity.

¶37

The SEIAA further pointed out that the site is 0.94 km from the Amman Yeri and 2.78 km from the Thoppaiyar Dam. Therefore, the mining activities would disrupt the water drainage and reduce the dam utility for the local ecology and economy. The 1st respondent also had relied on the observation made by the SEAC which has stated that the quarry site is surrounded by luxuriant trees and are forming a green belt. Therefore, quarrying on

¶38

¶39

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.

¶40

During the argument the Learned Counsel appearing for the SEIAA produced a communication from the Executive Engineer, WRD to the Chief Engineer WRD dated 19.11.2024. This communication is based on the clarification sought for by SEIAA regarding the safety distance around the Thoppaiyar Dam for carrying out the mining activities. The relevant portion of the communication is usefully

¶41

extracted below:

¶42

“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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

Extent of Amman Tank : 0.32 Sq.km Capacity of Amman Tank :15.44 Mc.ft

¶46

From the above it can be seen that the WRD had reported that the site is 1.5 km from the dam water spread area and 2.28 km from

¶47

¶48

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

¶49

are prohibited for doing mining activities.

¶50

The SEAC has noted that proposed mining is unmined so far and Thoppaiyar Dam and Amman Yeri are located nearby to the proposed mining site. Therefore, after inspection it was concluded that the present site is highly sensitive environmental setting and availability of haul road for transportation, therefore, Environmental Clearance cannot be recommended. The said decision of the SEAC was not conveyed to the project proponents within a period of 45 days as mandated in the EIA Notification, 2006. The Thoppaiyar Dam and Amman Yeri have been in the existence and permission for quarry operations have been granted earlier in Sy. No. 380 and also in other adjacent survey numbers. The reasons furnished for rejection regarding the presence of water body was not considered while granting Environmental Clearance for Sy. No.380 which according to the appellants is violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India.

¶51

¶52

The communication dated 19.11.2024 produced by the 1st respondent admittedly is subsequent to the proceedings and during the pendency of the appeals. The said document also could not be of any relevance for the present facts of case as admittedly the studies are yet to be conducted by experts for mining operations near water body or dams. Therefore, when the actual status is not yet evaluated for the proposed site, the rejection by the SEIAA on the said ground is unacceptable.

¶53

In the light of the above facts, when there is no detailed reasoning for the rejection by SEIAA and also considering the existence of precedent like grant of Environmental Clearance to the nearby quarries particularly to one Ms. Jayakodi in Sy. No. 380 under similar environmental conditions, it would be appropriate that the 1st respondent reconsider all the three proposals.

¶54

We only herein to state that while concerns about environmental sensitivity and proximity to water bodies, particularly, dams are significant, there must be a balance with mitigation measures proposed by the appellants such as seasonal restriction and dust control or necessary additional conditions such as garland drains etc., to ensure the flow of rain water to the downstream water bodies along with silt detention traps may be imposed by SEAC to prevent pollution.

¶55

The appellants had specifically stated in the memorandum of appeal that there will be flow of water down the hill only during the rainy reason during which time it will not be possible to carry on the quarrying operations. When there is no quarrying operations

¶56

¶57

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.

¶58

With the above directions, the appeals are disposed of.
............................................................J.M.
(Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana)
.......................................E.M.
(Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati)
Internet – Yes/No
All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No
Appeal No.14/2024(SZ)&
Appeal No. 15/2024(SZ)&
Appeal No. 16/2024(SZ)
8th January, 2025.(AM)

¶59

¶60

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)

¶61

Uthirasami v. Seiaa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uthirasami v. Seiaa

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

Gold Star a Proprietorship Firm through Mr Prasad Betkar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

M/S Bajaj Sanjay Poultry Farm vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Rep by Its Chairman vs Sri Raamji Sand Blue Metals

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Rep by Its Chairman vs Sri Raamji Sand Blue Metals

Kulal Munindar Narendar Goud vs Union of India

Ratheesh Karattu vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Shchem Corporation vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board

Tahir Hussain vs State of Rajasthan

Kasim Alayan vs the Water/Air Appellate Authority

Kasim Alayan vs the Water/Air Appellate Authority

Selvi vs Seiaa