The National Green Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 16 permits aggrieved parties to challenge environmental clearances to ensure compliance with ecological protection standards.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

1. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Bargava Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, Ms.Anusha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for respondents 3 to 6, Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Kambampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the 7^th respondent.

I. Facts:

(i) Petitioner’s case:

2. The petitioner Sri Kumaraswamy Silica Mines Momidi Village, Chillakur Mandal SPSR Nellore District Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Managing Partner, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the National Green Tribunal, South Zone (NGTSZ), Chennai, dated 15.11.2021, in Appeal No.19 of 2020 (SZ) (B. Madan Kumar Reddy vs. Government of India and others), filed under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (in short, the NGT Act) filed by the present 7^th respondent, B.M. Reddy, Challenging the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted, to the present petitioner -7^th respondent in the Appeal, by the 1^st respondent-the Government of India represented by its Director, Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change, IA Division, New Delhi, vide proceedings No.F.No.23-238/2018-IA.II(v) dated 16.04.2020.

3. The petitioner firm is a partnership firm carrying on business of Silica sand mining. Mining lease was originally granted in the name of V. Rama Chandra Reddy on 24.05.1975 for an extent of Ac.512.01 cents in Sy.No.695/22 and 696 of Momidi Village, Chillakur Mandal SPSR Nellore District. The mining lease was executed on 04.09.1975 for a period of 20 years. It was later on transferred in favour of the petitioner's firm by executing, transfer of lease dated 01.07.1985. The lease period expired on 03.09.1995, and was renewed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for another 20 years from 03.09.1995 but for a reduced area of 338.39 acres in Sy.No.695/22 and 696.

4. The petitioner applied for E.C on 23.11.2013 to the 1^st respondent as per EIA Notification 2006. The proposal was examined by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), but the MOEF and CC 1^st respondent vide letter dated 21.04.2014 directed the petitioner to stop mining activity as the proposal was said to be in violation of EIA notification. The petitioner filed W.P.No.4490 of 2014 challenging the order dated 21.04.2014 which was disposed of vide order dated 06.06.2014, observing that the principles of natural justice were violated and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, and so, it was provided that, the petitioner shall submit a representation to MOEF & CC, setting out the explanation and the 1^st respondent was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner submitted the representation dated 03.07.2014 to the 1^st respondent inter alia submitting that the petitioner did not commit any violation of EIA notification and requested for issuance of Term of Reference (ToR).

5. In the meantime one Mallikarjuna Reddy filed O.A.No.96 of 2015 before the NGT against 48 Mining Units including against the petitioner raising the grievance that those units were operating minings without E.C. The petitioner put in appearance and took the stand that the petitioner had applied for the E.C which was pending consideration. It was also the stand that the mining of the petitioner was in operation since before the EIA notification of 1994 came into force and so there was no legal requirement to obtain the EC. The NGT vide common interim order dated 08.07.2015 directed the responden