Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 480
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL KOLKATA (EASTERN ZONE BENCH)
B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member, Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member
Bhumi Adhigrahan Visthapan Avam Punarwas Kisaan Samiti – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Original Application No.137/2023/EZ
For Applicant(s):Ms. Paushali Banerjee, Advocate
For Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Mr. Ashok Prasad, Mr. Surendra Kumar
Environmental clearance upheld despite initial false distance/sanctuary details in forest certificate, as errors corrected pre-grant, site verified 1.8 km outside notified 2 km ESZ, no wildlife clearance needed.
Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - EIA Notification, 2006 - Rule 8(vi) - Environmental Clearance - Sand mining project - Allegations of grant based on forged forest officer certificate denying wildlife sanctuary within 10 km, absence of wildlife clearance, and violation of eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) restrictions - Supreme Court orders on minimum 1 km ESZ around protected areas, mining prohibition within 1 km, and precedence of notified ESZ (up to 2 km) - Initial forest officer letter contained inaccuracies on plot number and sanctuary distance (900 m), later corrected to 1.8 km outside ESZ - Committee inspection confirmed no ongoing mining, no pollution, distance 1.7-1.8 km from sanctuary boundary, outside notified ESZ - Environmental Clearance held valid despite initial discrepancies, as clarifications obtained pre-grant and site outside ESZ. (Paras 2-12, 22-32, 39-43, 49)
(B) National Green Tribunal - Procedure - Preliminary objection to maintainability for relying on draft ESZ notification rejected, as final notification existed with similar 2 km extent, no intent to mislead. (Paras 35-38)
(C) Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 - No prior clearance needed where project outside ESZ/notified protected area per MoEF&CC guidelines and inter-state verifications. (Paras 44-46)
Facts of the case:
Applicant alleged illegal sand mining based on fraudulent environmental clearance obtained via false forest certificate, lacking wildlife clearance, causing pollution, and violating ESZ norms near interstate wildlife sanctuary separated by river. Respondents submitted affidavits, site inspection report confirming corrected distances, no violations, operations in abeyance pending consent renewal.
Findings of Court:
Initial documents had errors/typographical issues promptly rectified; project at 1.8 km from sanctuary, outside 2 km ESZ; no forgery conspiracy; no wildlife clearance required; no pollution or existential threat observed.
Issues: Validity of environmental clearance amid allegations of forged documents, ESZ violation, need for wildlife clearance, and proximity to protected area per Supreme Court mandates.
Ratio Decidendi: Environmental clearance valid where initial informational discrepancies corrected before grant, verified site outside notified ESZ via GPS/inter-state coordination, compliant with Supreme Court ESZ guidelines prioritizing notified wider buffers over 1 km minimum.
Result: Original Application disposed directing re-examination by authority; no costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. illegal sand mining allegations with forged documents (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. applicant's claims of forgery in ec process (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. supreme court esz and wildlife clearance directives (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. respondents' affidavits verifying site distance (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 5. rejection of maintainability preliminary objection (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 6. ec validity upheld due to site outside esz (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 7. committee report confirms no violations (Para 49) |
| 8. directions for seiaa re-examination (Para 50 , 51 , 52) |
ORDER
1. Ms. Paushali Banerjee, learned Counsel is present for the Applicant.
2. The Applicant in the present Original Application is alleging that unabated illegal sand mining is going on in Pachadumar Sand Mining Project of M/s Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (‘JSMDCL’ for short), Respondent No.4 herein. It is alleged that the Respondent No.4 has obtained Environmental Clearance on the strength of:-
(i) false Certificate of Divisional Forest Officer, Garhwa North and
(ii) is carrying on sand mining operation illegally without seeking Wildlife Clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL).
3. It is alleged that the sand mining activities of the Respondent No.4 has caused acute air and water pollution which is also causing an existential threat to the wildlife of Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary of Bihar and adjoining Jharkhand. It is also alleged that the illegal sand mining is situated at a distance of 900 meters from the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary in gross violation of the various orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to Eco Sensitive Zone. It is stated that the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary is situated in the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh and adjacent boundary of Jharkhand separated by river Son.
4. It is also stated that the portion of the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary falling within Uttar Pradesh has got its Eco Sensitive Zone notified as final but the portion of the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary falling within Bihar has published its draft Notification dated 28.01.2015 and final notification is still pending. It is stated that in furtherance of the sand mining policy and Rules, the Director of Mines, Jharkhand, intimated the Managing Director of Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Respondent No.4, a provisional list of 177 identified sand Ghats of Category-II spread over 19 districts of the State of Jharkhand for preliminary initiation of lawful process at the end of the Respondent No.4 vide its letter No.2649/M dated 21.11.2017. The Pachadumar Sand Ghat of Garhwa District is mentioned at G. Total No.68 of the aforesaid list.
5. It is stated that State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Jharkhand has granted Environmental Clearance in favour of the Respondent No.4 in its 59th Meeting dated 09.08.2018 at Para I/c. However, Para I/k of the same Minutes notes “Submission of forged documents by M/s JSMDC Ltd. regarding submission of forged documents of Divisional Forest Officer, Garhwa North Division, without his knowledge”.
6. It is also alleged that the Environmental Clearance dated 31.08.2018 clearly mentions that the same is subject to obtaining clearance under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, from the competent authority but M/s JSMDC, Respondent No.4, has till date not obtained any clearance from the National Board for Wildlife.
7. It is alleged that the sand mining is being carried on illegally at Plot No.2363(P) at Mouza – Pachadumar, Anchal – Ketar, Dist. – Garhwa, Jharkhand, area 20.24 ha. for which Consent has also been obtained from the State Board. It is also stated that the Applicant on coming to know about this illegality in February, 2022, has served notice to State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) dated 02.02.2022 with the prayer to cancel the Environmental Cle
