Department Of Mines And Geology State Of ... vs State Leave Environment Impact ...

…. Respondent (s)

O R D E R

1. The subject matter of these Appeals is the order

passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New

Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the Tribunal’) dismissing the Appeals

filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated

09.04.2018 passed by the Respondent. The Review

Application filed by the Appellant was also dismissed by the

Tribunal. An application was preferred by the Appellant for

obtaining environmental clearance under Environment

Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006

1 (hereinafter, ‘the EIA Notification’) for mining minor minerals

(sand) in an area of 12.96 hectares from the river bed of

river Satluj in the revenue estate of village Heatewal, Tehsil

Jagraon, District Ludhiana. The Appellant submitted the

required documents including Form-I, pre-feasibility report,

proof of ownership of land, approved mining plan, No

Objection Certificate from the concerned District Forest

Officer, final District Survey Report and environmental

management plan.

2. The State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC)

considered the application submitted by the Appellant and

granted environmental clearance for carrying out mining of

minor minerals in the 12.96 hectares. By an order dated

03.05.2017, the environmental clearance was granted under

the provisions of EIA Notification, subject to certain

conditions that were mentioned therein.

3. The Appellant issued notices dated 03.05.2017 and

13.06.2017 notifying its intention to put up 102 minor

mineral mines for auction. On completion of the auction,

the Appellant applied to the Respondent for transfer of the

mining environmental clearances in favour of the successful

2 | Page bidders of the mining sites. The application filed for

transfer of the environmental clearance was taken up by the

Respondent in its 125th meeting held on 12.01.2018 in

respect of village Heatewal. It was found by the Respondent

that:

i. Many of the Khasra numbers are located in

stream, whereas at the time of filing application

for environmental clearance, all the Khasra

numbers were shown to be in the river bed of river

Satluj and away from the active channel.

ii. Some of the Khasra numbers being located in the

agricultural land prove that no replenishment may

be available.

4. In view of the above, the Respondent issued a notice to

the Appellant to show cause why the mining environmental

clearance granted earlier should not be revoked. The

Appellant submitted its explanation which was considered

by the Respondent after which an order dated 09.04.2018

was passed, revoking the environmental clearance granted

to the Appellant. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant filed

Appeals before the Tribunal which were dismissed. Review

3 | Page Applications filed by the Appellant were also dismissed by

the Tribunal.

5. The Tribunal observed that the cancellation of the

environmental clearance was preceded by spot inspection

by the Committee constituted by the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Jagraon on 12.12.2017. The Committee visited

the area on 13.12.2017 to verify the facts. The joint

demarcation report submitted by the said Committee

showed that:

i. Most of the land is under flood protection

‘Bundhs/Spurs’. Also, part of the land is adjoining

the flood protection ‘Bundh’.

ii. Part of the land being under private cultivation

proves that replenishment may not be available.

6. As the revocation of the environmental clearance was

on the basis of a joint demarcation report, the Tribunal

declined to interfere.

7. The learned counsel for the Respondent took us

through the basic information provided by the Appellant

while making an application for environmental clearance in

4 | Page which it was stated that the proposed mining lease area is a

part of the river bed of river Satluj and no agricultural land

was involved. He also referred to the pre-feasibility report in

which it was mentioned by the Appellant that the land was

situated in the river bed of the river Satluj and the proposed

activity was to take place in the dry part of the river bed and

hence there would be no change in the land used. It was

further mentioned in the said report that the excavated

material will get replenished in every monsoon season.

8. The revocation of the environmental clearance and

rejection of the application filed for transfer of the mining

environmental clearance is on the following grounds that:

i. Many of the Khasra numbers are located in

stream, whereas at the time of filing application

for environmental clearance, all the Khasra

numbers were shown to be in the river bed of river

Satluj and away from the active channel. The

General Manager-cum-Mining Officer, Ludhiana had

clearly marked the mining site as ‘Aks sajra’

showing Khasra numbers away from the active

5 | Page channel and stated that no instream mining is to be

involved.

ii. Some of the Khasra numbers being located in

agricultural land proves that no replenishment may

be available.

9. The Respondent came to the said conclusion relying on

the joint inspection report submitted by the Revenue

Department and Mining Department. The Respondent was

of the opinion that the appraisal of the application for

environmental clearance was on the basis of the information

furnished by the Appellant which was contrary to the ground

reality as found from the joint demarcation report.

10. After examining the material on record and the

submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for

the parties, there is no reason to interfere with the order

passed by the Tribunal. The order of revocation of the

environmental clearance is pursuant to the acceptance of

the report submitted by the Expert Committee constituted

by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon. The report shows

that the ground reality is different from what was projected

6 | Page by the Appellant in its application for grant of the

environmental clearance.

11. However, the dismissal of these Appeals shall not

preclude the Appellant from filing an application for

environmental clearance afresh which shall be considered

by the Respondent on its own merits.

12. For the aforementioned reasons, the Appeals are

dismissed.

..…................................J [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

..…................................J [HEMANT GUPTA] New Delhi, November 18, 2019

7 | Page