Disposed

Nadula Parirakshana Samiti v. Government of India

Telangana HC8 Oct 2012PIL/264/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed a PIL regarding illegal sand mining in Srikakulam District. It directed authorities to insert Supreme Court and SEIAA conditions into agreements with tenderers, enforce a monsoon mining ban, and impleaded the Pollution Control Board to monitor activities before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directing authorities to insert Supreme Court and SEIAA conditions into agreements, enforce a monsoon mining ban, implead Pollution Board, and grant permissions thereafter; petition disposed of.

Nadula Parirakshana Samiti Vs Government of India — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

Public Interest Litigation No.264 OF 2012

¶3

DATED:8.10.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Nadula Parirakshana Samithi

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And The Government of India Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and others.

¶8

…. Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶10

Public Interest Litigation No. 264 of 2012

¶11

Order: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶12

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

Assailing the notification dated 7.7.2012 issued by the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Srikakulam District, the 5^th respondent herein, proposing to lease out the right of quarrying for sand bearing areas of Srikakulam District, the petitioner filed the present petition.

¶14

The main grievance of the petitioner in this Public Interest Litigation is that by the impugned notification dated 7.7.2012, sand mining is being allowed to be continued by the respondent-authorities illegally in Srikakulam District, without following the notification issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi, the 1^st respondent herein and without following the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and also the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 18822 of 2011 and batch dated 26.4.2012.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the notification issued by the authorities on 7.7.2012 in respect of six reaches mentioned therein for leasing out the right of quarrying for the sand bearing areas of Nagavali and Vamsadhara rivers of Srikakulam District and submitted that in the said notification the authorities have clearly stated that the auction shall be conducted subject to fulfilment of conditions stipulated by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Approved Mining Plan, Consent of Operation, Consent of Establishment from A.P. Pollution Control Board. He further submitted that the State Government has not obtained any clearance from the 1^st respondent or the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority for conducting the proposed auction.

¶16

While opposing the petition, the Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Srikakulam, the 5^th respondent has filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the State Environmental Impact Analysis Authority (SEIAA) has already cleared 36 reaches in the State as on 31.5.2012 and directed the Director of Mines and Geology, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the 4^th respondent herein, to make the same available to the concerned Assistant Directors of Mines and Geology, without further delay for conducting the tender-cum-auction proceedings by the District Level Committees. The SEIAA also directed that the 4^th respondent to make available the required number of copies of the Environmental Mining Plans (EMPs) to the 5^th

¶17

respondent indicating the basic data for ensuring preparedness on the part of the District Level Sand Committees in finalizing draft notifications.

¶18

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out before us that it is not specifically mentioned in the notification dated 7.7.2012 that the conditions which have been imposed by the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana

¶19

& Others^[1] have also to be followed by the successful tendereres while entering into an agreement in respect of quarrying sand. Further more, the authorities have to follow the conditions stipulated by the SEIAA under the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Andhra Pradesh for each of the reaches mentioned therein.

¶20

However, in the instant case, since auction has already taken place pursuant to the said notification, we feel it appropriate to direct the respondent-authorities to insert all the conditions, which have been mentioned in the decision of the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar’s case cited supra as well as conditions stipulated by SEIAA for each of the reaches in the agreement, which the authorities are going to enter with the successful tenderers and while keeping in view the notification issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi, the 1^st respondent herein and the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. Thereafter, the authorities shall grant permission to all the successful tenderers for quarrying sand. Further, the authorities shall also specifically mention in the said

¶21

agreement about the monsoon period during which the successful tenderer is not allowed to mine the sand.

¶22

Since Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board is not made as a party to the present proceedings, we also implead it as a party to the present proceedings and direct it to monitor the mining activity on the part of the successful tenderers.

¶23

A copy of our order may be marked to the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board.

¶24

The Public Interest Litigation is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

_________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶26

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Date: 8.10.2012

¶27

pnb

¶28

[1] (2012) 4 SCC 629

Nadula Parirakshana Samiti v. Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadula Parirakshana Samiti v. Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Ch. Umesh Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gajjala Gopinath Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D. Veeraswamy Vs The Govt. of a.P, Revenue Department

Smt. N.Venkata Lakshm Vs The District Collector

Dr. P.V. Ramana Rao, Vs The Vice-Chancellor

Safdar Mirza Vs The Govt. of A.P Rept. by its Prl. Secretary

Kandadai Srinivasa Govinda Kumar S/o Kandadai Srirama Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by

Bharata Dharma Devatha Brahmachari Sri Sri Sri Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Batti Murali Singh, Vs The Syndicate Bank

V.Venkateswar Rao Vs The Government of Andhra pradesh

B.Tirupathi, Vs Fisheries Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd.

Palepu Suryanarayana Vs Rangaraya Medical College

Nadula Parirakshana Samiti, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pattana Pedala Sankshema Sangam, Vs The District Collector