positioning (latitude and longitude) of their mining area and demonstrated that there is variation in the correct geographical coordinates of their leased area within which they are conducting mining and the geographical coordinates given in District Survey Report (DSR) while describing their lease area. The appellant has placed visual images of defined areas being markedly different when plotted on terrestrial maps/cadastral maps by feeding the geographical coordinates as stated in the mining plan. On the strength of pictorial material, the appellant has contended that the application of proximity criteria by the regulatory authority, even if the distance parameter of 200/100 meters is accepted as applicable and reasonable, would return erroneous results because of the mismatch in the geographical positioning or the location of their mining area. Therefore, a suggestion is given that suitable directions may be issued to District Geologist to again visit the mining area of the appellant and earmark the exact location of the mining area. The District Geologist may make suitable corrections, if so required, in the locational description of the mining areas. Post completion of this exercise by the District Geologist, the regulatory authority i.e. SEIAA and SEAC shall re-appraise the environmental clearances granted to the appellant by the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA).
