Disposed

Ushakumari.K. v. 1. Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change Represented by Its Deputy Director General of Forests

NGT16 Jul 2025Appeal No. 41/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT Southern Zone disposed of an appeal challenging the SEIAA Kerala's order revoking suspension of a granite quarry's environmental clearance. The court found the proponent had complied with technical studies and imposed strict additional blasting conditions, despite earlier violations of NONEL techniques.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of; suspension of environmental clearance was confirmed revoked subject to additional conditions; authority directed to impose penalties for past violations.

Ushakumari.K. vs 1. Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change Represented by Its Deputy Director General of Forests — NGT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Item No.2:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Wednesday, the 16^th day of July 2025.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Appeal No.41 of 2024 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF

¶7

Ushakumari K

¶8

Aged 53 years, W/o. Mohanakurup K.G., Building No.III/14, Ezhumattoor Panchayat, Shree Bhavan, Chalappally P.O., Mallappally Taluk, Pathanamthitta – 629 586.

¶9

…Appellant (s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

1) Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change

¶12

Rep. by its Deputy Director General of Forests (C),

¶13

Integrated Regional Office (SZ),

¶14

Kendriya Sadan, 4^th Floor, E & F Wings, 17^th Main Road, Koramangala II Block, Bangalore – 560 034.

¶15

2) State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority –

¶16

Kerala (SEIAA)

¶17

Rep. by its Member Secretary, KSRTC Bus Terminal Complex, Floor, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala – 695 004.

¶18

3) The Director

¶19

Department of Mining and Geology, Directorate of Mining and Geology, Kesavadasapuram, Pattom palace P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004.

¶20

4) Kerala State Pollution Control Board

¶21

Rep. by its Member Secretary, Head Office, Pattom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala – 695 004.

¶22

Page 1 of 10

¶23

5) C. Krishna Pillai

¶24

Aged 60 years, S/o. Chellappan Pillai, Meleth Lakshmi Bhavan, Thazhakkara P.O., Alapuzha – 689 586.

¶25

...Respondent(s)

¶26

For Appellant (s): M/s. P.B. Sahasranaman, S. Sai Sathya Jith & Md. Arshadullah Sheriff.

¶27

For Respondent(s): Dr. C.K. Syed Shaffi for R1. Mr. R. Ramesh Kumar represented Mr. G. Prabhu for R2. Mr. G. Vignesh represented Mr. E.K. Kumaresan for R3. Mrs. V.K. Rema Smrithi for R4. M/s. Enoch David Simon Joel, S. Sreedev, Ronu Jose, Leo Lukose & Karol Mathews Sebastian Alencherry for R5.

¶28

Judgment Reserved on: 09^th July, 2025.

¶29

CORAM :

¶30

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶31

HON’BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶32

J U D G E M E N T

¶33

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

¶34

1. Aggrieved by the order of revocation of suspension dated 17.02.2024 passed by the 2^nd Respondent/ State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority ( SEIAA ) - Kerala, the appellant has preferred the above appeal.

¶35

2. Respondent No.5 is operating a granite building stone quarry in an extent of 0.9705 Hectares of land in Ezhumattoor Village, Mallapally Taluk, Pathanamthitta, Kerala, based on the Environmental Clearance dated 20.07.2022. The said Environmental Clearance was granted on the basis of the lease deed dated 12.04.2022.

¶36

Page 2 of 10

¶37

3. One of the main conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance is that blasting should be done in a controlled manner using Non-Electrical ( NONEL ) technique, as specified by regulations of the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization ( PESO ). However, in utter disregard of the above condition, the 5^th Respondent had used electric detonators, which damaged several houses wherein cracks were developed in the wall due to vibrations. Hence, on 12.01.2023, the appellant had made a complaint to the SEIAA – Kerala to cancel the Environmental Clearance for violating the conditions. Based on the said complaint, the SEIAA – Kerala has suspended the Environmental Clearance granted to the 5^th Respondent, after which quarry operations were stopped.

¶38

4. Later, on 17.02.2024, the said suspension order was revoked by the SEIAA – Kerala by imposing additional conditions which included the usage of NONEL-based shock tube detonator for the initiation of blasting. The appellant challenges the revocation of the suspension order, alleging that 63 buildings are located within a 200-meter radius of the quarry site. The vibration caused by the quarrying activity has damaged the said buildings and the 5^th Respondent is bound to compensate the same.

¶39

5. According to the appellant, while revoking the suspension order, the SEIAA – Kerala had omitted to consider the fact that the 5^th Respondent has not taken steps to restore the conditions prior to the operations and to assess the damage caused to the ecology, to the appellant’s residence and other buildings in that area.

¶40

6. It was emphasized that having found that the 5^th Respondent was not following the NONEL technique, the Environmental Clearance should have been cancelled. However, the revocation of the suspension is allegedly bad and it is under challenge.

¶41

7. The original Environmental Clearance was granted on 20.07.2022 for a period of three years with specific and general conditions. Condition No.3 (xiii) states “In the wake of occurrence of large scale landslides in the State, as per the information

¶42

Page 3 of 10

¶43

provided by the Department of Mining and Geology, it is directed to use only NONEL (Non Electrical) technology for blasting to reduce the vibration of the ground, which is one of the causative factors that triggers landslides, formation of cracks in the surrounding buildings and disturbance to human and wildlife” .

¶44

8. Further, the general Condition No.26 specifically states “Blasting should be done in a controlled manner using NONEL technique as specified by the regulations of Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization (GOI) or any other concerned authorized agency. A licensed person should supervise/ control the blasting operations” .

¶45

9. As there was a breach of conditions, the appellant had made a complaint to the SEIAA – Kerala, which was considered in their 125^th Meeting held on 28^th & 29^th March 2023, wherein it was decided as follows:

¶46

(1) Suspend Environmental Clearance EC No.53/Q/2022 dated 20.07.2022 for 6 months as major non compliances of general conditions are observed.

¶47

(2) Project Proponent is directed to rectify/comply applicable EC conditions and the field observations within this period. (Furnish a copy of Inspection Report)

¶48

(3) There are 63 buildings within 200 m radius of the quarry as per the Survey Map certified by the Village Officer. Some of the houses were built directly on rock exposures. So the Project Proponent has to conduct vibration studies to evaluate the zone of influence and impact of blasting on the neighbourhood as suggested in Para (e) of OM No.Z-11013/57/2014-IA.II (M) dated 29.10.2014 of MoEF&CC by an agency of national repute.

¶49

(4) After receiving the rectification/compliance report and detailed vibration study report SEAC shall check the proposal and recommend on future functioning of the quarry with additional conditions if any. This may be done within one month after receipt of reports.

¶50

10. The Project Proponent (Respondent No.5), in its reply, has stated that the appellant had filed a complaint before the SEIAA – Kerala, alleging that the 5^th Respondent was using the electric detonator in violation of the Environmental Clearance conditions. Based on the same, the SEIAA – Kerala had conducted a field inspection and it was noted that some of the buildings within

¶51

Page 4 of 10

¶52

200 meters were built directly on rock exposures. Hence, the 5^th Respondent was directed to conduct a vibration study to evaluate the zone of influence and impact of blasting on the neighbourhood by an agency of national repute. As there are certain other noncompliances observed, the Environmental Clearance was suspended for a period of six months. A detailed study was conducted by the National Institute of Technology ( NIT ), Surathkal, particularly at the house of the appellant so as to observe the influence and impact of blasting. During the study, it was observed that no vibration was recorded at the house of the appellant. Based on the study, the suspension order was revoked, as the report had suggested certain blast configurations. While revoking the suspension order, additional conditions were imposed.

¶53

11. The Project Proponent further states that he had complied with all the said conditions mandated by the SEIAA – Kerala while revoking the suspension order. He has categorically stated that the NONEL technique is used for blasting, as mandated in the Environmental Clearance. He also referred to the study report of the NIT, Surathkal, wherein they have specifically touched upon the complaint given by the husband of the appellant.

¶54

12. As per the report of the NIT, the scientific study was carried out in the granite building stone quarry of the Project Proponent and it was observed that four blasts were conducted under controlled conditions. Blastholes of 35 mm diameter were used in the studies. Depth of blastholes was 5 feet in all blast rounds, with 0.9-meter burden and 0.91-meter spacing. The number of blastholes during the study varied from 10 to 30. All the blasts were initiated using NONEL-based shock tube detonators. The house on north west side belongs to the quarry owner and no one is living there. The highest Peak Particle Velocity ( PPV ) recorded was 1.2 mm/s at a distance of 75 meters in Blast No.4 and at a distance of 80 meters in Blast No.1. The second highest PPV value was 1.08 mm/s at a distance of 100 meters in Blast No.2. In all the other cases, the PPV values are less than 1 mm/s and no vibration was recorded during the studies conducted.

¶55

Page 5 of 10

¶56

13. Based on the ground vibration monitoring, it was found that all the PPV values are less than 5 mm/s, which is safe as per the DGMS Guidelines and no vibration was recorded beyond 140 Meters. In fact, all the structures are in front of the blast, so the propagation velocity is generally less on the front side. Therefore, it was concluded that the intensity of ground vibrations, noise and fly rock caused due to blasting operations carried out in the granite building stone quarry of the Project Proponent are within the permissible limits.

¶57

14. The SEIAA – Kerala (Respondent No.2) , in its report, has stated that based on the complaint of the appellant, the SEIAA – Kerala suspended the Environmental Clearance granted earlier for a period of six months. While so, the SEIAA - Kerala had directed the 5^th Respondent to make arrangements for conducting the vibration studies to evaluate the zone of influence and impact of blasting on the neighbourhood by the agency of national repute. Based on the study report submitted by the NIT, Surathkal, the SEIAA – Kerala revoked the suspension of the Environmental Clearance dated 17.02.2024.

¶58

15. The Department of Mining and Geology has filed a report, wherein it is stated that the District Office, Pathanamthitta issued the quarry permit to the Project Proponent on 10.05.2024 for extracting 11514.7 MT of granite after releasing the royalty. The said quarry permit is valid from 10.05.2024 to 09.05.2025. It is further stated that as per Rule 10 (f) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the distance criteria is 50 meters. The nearest house from the quarry is located at a distance of 74 meters and the house is owned by one Mr. Sasi Kuzhipathalil. The house of the appellant is located at a distance of 85 meters from the quarry. The revocation of the suspension was issued only based on the study report of the NIT, Surathkal with an additional 12 conditions. Therefore, there is no merit in the case of the appellant.

¶59

16. The question that arises for determination is whether the impugned order revoking the suspension is legally sustainable .

¶60

Page 6 of 10

¶61

17. The above appeal is filed under Section 16 (g) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The learned counsel appearing for the Project Proponent argued that the appeal under Section 16 (g) is maintainable only if the impugned order is passed under Section 16 (h) or 16 (i) i.e. either granting or refusing to grant the Environmental Clearance.

¶62

18. Admittedly, there is no challenge to the main Environmental Clearance granted to the Project Proponent. It is only the revocation of the suspension of Environmental Clearance that is under challenge. The challenge is based on the noncompliance with conditions or violation of Environmental Clearance conditions. In that case, an Original Application under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 can be filed for cancellation of Environmental Clearance instead of an appeal under Section 16 (g) of the Act. Nonetheless, a challenge is possible and the appellant is not without remedy. Therefore, the appeal is proceeded with to decide on the merits.

¶63

19. The Environmental Clearance in favour of the 5^th Respondent was issued on 20.07.2022 for the granite building stone quarry. Based on the complaint received from the appellant dated 12.01.2023, the suspension order was issued on 03.05.2023. The suspension order was issued for a period of six months on the basis that major non-compliances of the general conditions were observed. The Project Proponent was directed to rectify the conditions and field observations within that six-month period. There are about 63 buildings within a 200-meter radius of the quarry. Some of which are built directly on rock exposure. So, the Project Proponent was directed to conduct a vibration study to evaluate the zone of influence and impact of blasting on the neighbourhood.

¶64

20. After receiving the rectification report and detailed vibration study report, the State Expert Appraisal Committee ( SEAC ) – Kerala had re-examined the proposal and recommended the future functioning of the quarry. Having suffered the order of suspension, the vibration study was done through the NIT, Surathkal by the Project Proponent. Based on the said report and also having complied with the conditions, the Project Proponent

¶65

Page 7 of 10

¶66

sought for revocation of the suspension, which was considered in the 155^th Meeting of the SEAC – Kerala. Based on the vibration study report and the compliance report, the SEAC – Kerala recommended for revocation of the suspension order subject to certain additional specific conditions.

¶67

21. The SEIAA – Kerala, in its 137^th Meeting held on 29^th & 30^th January 2024, noticed that the vibration study report prepared by the NIT, Surathkal also recommended some suggestions for the operation of the quarry. The SEIAA – Kerala also imposed the following additional conditions:

¶68

“ 1. 32-35 mm diameter blast holes drilled with hand held Jackhammer drills to a maximum depth of 5 feet (1.51), each hole may be charged with 375 to 500 gm of explosive.

¶69

Burden x spacing pattern of 0.91 to 1.21 m (3 to 4 ft)

¶70

based on the required fragmentation.

¶71

NONEL based shock tube detonators may be used for initiation. Hole to hole delay can be 17 ms or 25 ms and accordingly row to row delay shall be 25 to 42 ms respectively.

¶72

If the distances between houses and the blast location is less than 150 m then number of holes to be reduced gradually and should not be more than 14.

¶73

Conduct the blasts under the supervision of at least second class mines manager certificate holder. Every blast should have a completely free space, all the small rock pieces to be cleared before drilling itself and blast area to be covered completely with sand bags with mesh or blasting mats. In order to reduce the intensity of ground vibrations as far as possible the structures should not be behind the blast.

¶74

Suggested blast layout may be used with the available NONEL intimation system with specific delay timing of 250/25 ms.

¶75

As there are rock and topsoil benches behind the houses towards the quarry the topsoil erosion may take place during rainy season irrespective of blasting also. So, it has to be observed periodically if any top soil movement towards the houses and corrective measures taken on priority.

¶76

Suggested Blast Configuration

¶77

Sl.	Parameters	Suggested Value
No.
1	Diameter of Blast hole (mm)	32 to 35
2	Burden (m)	0.91 to 1.21 (3 to 4 feet)
3	Spacing (m)	0.91 to 1.21 (3 to 4 feet)
4	Depth of Blast hole (m)	1.51 to 1.82 (5 to 6 feet)
5	No. of Blast holes	Maximum of 24
6	Explosive Charge/ Hole (gun)	375 to 500
7	Maximum Charge/ Delay (gm)	375 to 500
8	Total Charge/ Blast (kg)	10.0
9	Initiation System	NONEL based shock tube detonators
10	Initiation Pattern	Row by row or diagonal
11	Delay timing between any two blast holes	At least 8 ms
12	No. of rows	Maximum of 3

¶78

Page 8 of 10

¶79

All other rules and regulations imposed by various agencies like DGMS/Dept. of Mines and Geology/ any other relevant organization to be followed from time to time.

¶80

Place a temporary wall of 5m height along the boundary facing the nearby houses.

¶81

Periodic de-siltation of the drainage channel and the silt traps.

¶82

Enhancing the capacity of the garland drain if required.

¶83

Constitute a monitoring committee comprising representative of local residents, local ward member, Project Proponent and Mine Manager to monitor the implementation of the EC conditions and blasting. The committee shall meet once in 3 months. ”

¶84

22. Immediately after the revocation order was granted, the above appeal was filed. The appellant has not even waited to see whether the Project Proponent had complied with the additional conditions issued in the revocation order. The revocation order has added as many as twelve conditions for revoking the suspension.

¶85

23. Along with the report of the SEIAA – Kerala, the minutes of the 146^th Meeting held on 29^th & 30^th July 2024 was annexed. As per the minutes, the Technical Team of the SEIAA – Kerala along with the Expert Mine Engineer conducted the field inspection on 22.07.2024. Based on the field inspection report and proof of documents, the authority inferred that the Project Proponent is following the NONEL technique for blasting. The Project Proponent also complied with all the Environmental Clearance conditions, except that the garland drains and the drainage channels leading to the de-siltation tank were found not to be properly constructed to contain the silt. Planting of trees (greenbelt) as per the Environment Management Plan (EMP) started, but was not maintained properly. Topsoil and overburden are found more than the quantity projected in the mining plan and are being stacked in the designated dumping area. However, the retaining boulder wall is not constructed. Besides, the rainwater harvesting pond is not properly maintained.

¶86

24. For the above-referred non-compliances, the authority had granted a month’s time for the Project Proponent to file a compliance report. While so, once again a complaint was given by the appellant on 16.08.2024 and the same was considered along with the compliance report dated 29.08.2024 filed by the Project Proponent. As per the compliance report, the

¶87

Page 9 of 10

¶88

SEIAA – Kerala had observed that the Project Proponent had satisfactorily addressed all the directions.

¶89

25. From the above, it is evident that the Project Proponent had complied with all the conditions to substantiate the revocation order. The appellant has been constantly monitoring the activities of the 5^th Respondent and reporting to the authorities. If at all there are any other shortcomings, it is open to the appellant to report to the SEIAA – Kerala.

¶90

26. The only aspect that the SEIAA – Kerala has not considered is the penalty for the violations observed while quarry was in operation. Therefore, while confirming the impugned order revoking the suspension, it shall be open to the SEIAA–Kerala to impose and recover any penalty for past violations, if any, in the manner known to law.

¶91

27. With the above directions, the appeal [Appeal No.41 of 2024 (SZ)] is disposed of accordingly.

¶92

Sd/Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM

¶93

Internet – Yes/No All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

¶94

Appeal No.41/2024 (SZ) 16^th July, 2025. Mn.

¶95

Page 10 of 10

Ushakumari.K. v. 1. Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change Represented by Its Deputy Director General of Forests

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ushakumari.K. v. 1. Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change Represented by Its Deputy Director General of Forests

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

Mr Rama Ladu Govekar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Ms Chawla Engineering Works vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee and Anr.

Nakul Kumar Gupta vs Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board

Nakul Kumar Gupta vs Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board

M/S Tirupati Minerals through Its Proprietor Subham Dinesh Agrawal vs Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

R Kumar vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Tamil Nadu

Shri Krishna Virnodkar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Association for Bilnd and Leprosy Eradication Hospital Able Charities through Its President vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board through Its Chairman

K Koothaperumal vs District Collector

Sajimon Joseph Narakathingal House vs Chief Secretary Govt of Kerala

S Madhu vs Seiaa Tamilnadu

Dr. Pyarelal V.V vs State of Kerala

Parthiban J vs 1. the District Collector

Parthiban J vs 1. the District Collector