Partly allowed

M/S Gurukrupa Stone Quarry Works v. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

NGT8 Apr 2025IA No. 108/2025 in Appeal No. 77/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against SEIAA Gujarat's rejection of quarry Environmental Clearance due to violation of distance criteria in riverbed. Bench agreed with respondent that Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change must be impleaded to interpret re-appraisal procedures, directing impleadment and adjournment. Delay in appeal condoned.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No.108/2025(WZ) for condonation of delay allowed; Ministry of Environment impleaded with amended memo of parties directed to be filed within two days.

M/S Gurukrupa Stone Quarry Works vs State Environment… — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2025)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

APPEAL NO.77/2025(WZ) [EARLIER DIARY NO.270410500205-2025] I.A. No.108/2025(WZ)

¶6

Gurukrupa Stone Quarry Works

¶7

…..Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

¶10

….Respondent

¶11

Date of hearing: 08.04.2025

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶13

Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate Respondent : Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Advocate along-with

¶14

: Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Advocate along-with Ms. Manvi Damle, Advocate for SEIAA, Gujarat.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Appeal No.77/2025(WZ)

¶17

This appeal has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 01.01.2025 passed by the sole Respondent i.e. SEIAA, Gujarat rejecting the proposal of the appellant for Environmental Clearance (EC) for quarry works at District: Vadodara, State: Gujarat, on the ground that the lease area is situated in Mahi Riverbed, which is not found complying with the distance criteria prescribed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2020 in Original Application No.85/2019 (WZ).

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Govt. of India, vide OM dated 28.04.2023, had directed that all valid Environmental Clearances (ECs) issued by DEIAA between 15.01.2016 and 13.09.2018 shall be

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

reappraised, based on the 12 points checklist provided in the OM, through SEAC/SEIAA in compliance of the order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in Original Application No.142 of 2022. It was further directed therein that the Environmental Clearances (EC) granted by District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) from 15.01.2016 to 13.09.2018 would continue to be valid for one year as per the Ministry's OM dated 28.04.2023, subject to the compliance of the conditions prescribed therein. The timeline for re-appraisal was extended to 27.10.2024 by MoEF&CC vide OM dated 15.03.2024. Further, MoEF&CC has published the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for DEIAA proposals vide OM dated 15.01.2024, which mandated for dealing of DEIAA proposals through PARIVESH portal only. Further, MoEF&CC had directed, vide OM dated 07-05-2024, that continuance of mining all over India under mining leases executed on the basis of ECs granted by DEIAA after 13.09.2018 would be prohibited with the exception in respect of cases where ECs granted by DEIAA for such mining leases had been reappraised and found valid by SEIAA or fresh ECs have been granted by SEIAA. As per the SEAC MoM, while deliberating on satellite images, committee noted that lease area of the appellant was situated in Mahi Riverbed, which was not in compliance with the distance criteria prescribed by the Principal Bench of NGT vide order dated 30.09.2020 in O.A. NO.85/2019 (WZ); Sustainable Sand Mine Guideline of MOEF&CC, 2016; Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining issued by MoEFCC in January, 2020; MoEFCC letter vide no.6 60/2020 WLPart(1), dated 16.07.2020; MoEFCC OM vide no. 22-43/2018-IA.III, dated 08.08.2019 in accordance with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 04.08.2006 in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. UOI in W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995; Amended CRZ Notification 2011; MoEFCC Notification no. S.O. 1599(E), dated 25.06.2014 etc. Hence, it was directed by the SEIAA to reject the proposal of the appellant.

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the OMs, which have been issued subsequent to the date of issuance of EC by the DEIAA, have been taken into consideration, which suggest that the position of law, which changed subsequent to the date i.e. 09.08.2018, have been taken into consideration, while considering the matter of the appellant, which should not have been done, as the law which existed at the point of grant of EC by the SEIAA should have been considered.

¶23

Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant while passing the impugned order. Hence, there is a violation of the principle of natural justice as well in the case in hand.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Maulik Nanavati, representing sole respondent i.e. SEIAA, Gujarat, submits that the Judgment/Order passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in Original Application No.142 of 2022 directing for re-appraisal of all the ECs granted by SEIAA did not lay down any specific SOP, which was required to be followed, and it was not made clear in that order as to whether changed position of law would also be taken into consideration or not. He has also highlighted that even the DSR was not required earlier in mining cases, as the changed position makes it clear that the same should also be taken into consideration. So, this Tribunal has to decide larger question of law.

¶25

Moreover, learned counsel Mr. Maulik Nanavati has also pointed out that several OMs have been issued by the MoEF&CC pursuant to the order of NGT passed in Original Application No.142 of 2022 with respect to the procedure to be followed for appraisal/re-appraisal of the EC proposals, which would also be adversely impacted, in case this Tribunal expressed any opinion. Therefore, in his view, MoEF&CC should also be impleaded as one of the respondents in the present appeal.

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

We are in agreement with the above opinion of learned counsel Mr. Maulik Nanavati and in view of that, we direct learned counsel for the appellant to implead the MoEF&CC also as Respondent No.2 in the present appeal and place on record an amended memo of parties within two days. Thereafter, Registry shall issue notice to the newly impleaded respondent, returnable within four weeks.

¶28

Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 shall also file their detailed reply affidavit in the present appeal within four weeks.

¶29

I.A. No.108/2025(WZ)

¶30

Since the present appeal has been filed by the appellant with delay, condonation of which I.A. No.108/2025(WZ) has been moved, to which learned counsel for Respondent No.1- SEIAA has no objection to the delay being condoned, we allow this I.A. and condone the delay in filing the present appeal.

¶31

I.A. No.108/2025(WZ) stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

Registry is directed to list main matter for further consideration on

¶33

01.05.2025.

¶34

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶35

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶36

April 08, 2025 APPEAL NO.77/2025(WZ) I.A. No.108/2025(WZ) P.Kr

¶37

Page 4 of 4

M/S Gurukrupa Stone Quarry Works v. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Gurukrupa Stone Quarry Works v. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ia No. 254/2025 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 129/2024 of Birender Sangwan vs Ministry of Public Works Depatments

Bakir Ali Rangwala S O Haji Ghulam Ali vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary

Bakir Ali Rangwala S O Haji Ghulam Ali vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary

Bakir Ali Rangwala S O Haji Ghulam Ali vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary

Society for Protection of Culture Heritage Environment Traditions and Promotion of National Awareness (Regd.) Also Known as [Sp-Chetna] vs Union of India

Nitin Dhiman vs

Nitin Dhiman vs

Suddu vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Janardan Chandar Patil vs Union of India Department of Environment Forest and Wild Life through Secretary

Mr Satyaprakash Bastiram Sharma vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Vernon Rodrigues vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

M/S Gurukrupa Stone Quarry Works vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

M/S Gurukrupa Stone Quarry Works vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

M/S Gurukrupa Stone Quarry Works vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat