Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 136
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, VIJAY KULKARNI, JJ
RATHEESH KARATTU – Appellant
Versus
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE – Respondent
Appeal No. 43/2022 / CHENNAI
For the Petitioner: HARISH VASUDEVAN
For the Respondent:
Environmental Clearance upheld as compliance with regulations was established, and appellants' objections lacked substantial evidence.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 - Environmental Clearance - The appellants challenged the Environmental Clearance granted for quarrying granite, alleging misrepresentation and failure to adhere to guidelines regarding DSR and siting criteria. The court found no merit in the appeal, affirming the clearance based on compliance with existing regulations. (Paras 1-23)
(B) Cluster Certificate - The court ruled that the requirement for a cluster certificate did not apply as the total area of adjacent quarries did not exceed the threshold for cluster assessment. (Paras 6-7)
(C) Disaster Management Plan - The court noted that the project proponent's compliance with the State Disaster Management Plan was adequate, dismissing concerns over landslide risks as speculative. (Paras 10-12)
(D) Siting Criteria - The court held that the project complied with the distance criteria set forth in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, pending finalization of CPCB guidelines. (Paras 17-21) (E)
Findings of Court:
The Environmental Clearance was upheld as the appellants' objections lacked substantial evidence and the project adhered to relevant regulations. (Paras 22-23) (F)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the Environmental Clearance, adherence to DSR, cluster requirements, and compliance with disaster management and siting criteria. (G)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that compliance with existing regulations and the absence of substantial evidence to support the appellants' claims warranted the dismissal of the appeal. (H)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. The appellants have challenged the Environmental Clearance granted on 11.07.2022 to the 5th respondent for quarrying granite building stone. The 5th respondent, who is engaged in the business of quarrying and mining in Kannur District has obtained the impugned Environmental Clearance for an area of 1.4621 ha., in Re.Sy. No. 1/100, 1 and 9 of Tholambra Village.
2. It is alleged by the appellants that the 5th respondent had deliberately and purposely misrepresented the facts and wilfully suppressed the vital facts in the Form- I(M) application. The appellants have challenged the grant of Environmental Clearance widely on the following grounds:
2.1. DSR
2.1.1. According to the appellants any application for obtaining the Environmental Clearance must be processed only in accordance with the DSR. It is stated that there is no DSR prepared for the District of Kannur and the namesake DSR prepared in the year 2016 did not contain any scientific proper information that fulfil the criteria and intention of EIA Notification, 2006.
2.2. Cluster Certificate
2.2.1. The appellants relied on the certificate issued by the Geologist of Department of Mining and Geology, Kannur dated 17.07.2019 which states that two quarries are seen within 500m from the quarry of the project proponent, herein, therefore, there is a cluster when the distance between the one lease is less than 500m of the other lease. It is stated that as per clause IV of appendix-11, the individual leaseholders in clusters can use the Environmental Clearance granted for the clusters and the EIA and EMP shall be prepared for the entire cluster. Failure to do so by the project proponent vitiates the Environmental Clearance.
2.3. Impact of Disaster Management Plan
2.3.1. The area chosen for mining is situated in the moderate hazard zone and the 2nd respondent did not consider the hazard vulnerability maps and the provisions of the State Disaster Management Plan, 2016 while appraising the project of the 5th respondent. 2.4. Siting Criteria
2.4.1. The Central Pollution Control Board guidelines of 200m from residences is not considered by the 2nd respondent by pointing out the distance criteria for permitting stone quarrying as per the guidelines. So far as Kerala is concerned, when blasting is involved no mining within a range of 50 to 100m from the boundary line of residential buildings etc., can be permitted. When no blasting is involved 50 to 75m is prescribed as minimum distance. However, the CPCB had revised the same by prescribing 100m when blasting is not involved and 200m distance when blasting is involved.
3. So far as availability of DSR is concerned, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Ananthu Sunil vs. State of Kerala and ors. - W.P(c) No. 5209 of 2022 has already held that the certificate issued by the Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology can be considered which is based on the DSR of 2016 which is commonly applied in the State of Kerala. As the DSR of 2016 is permitted to be considered by SEIAA, Kerala by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala the objection cannot be sustained.
4. Besides in Satendra Pandey vs. MoEF&CC and Anr-(2018) SCC OnLine NGT 2388, it has been observed as follows:
“18. We also find that parameters for consideration while preparing District Mining Plan (DMP) and District Survey Report (DSR) are only for the purpose of ascertaining whether an area is fit for mining which are quite different from the parameters laid down for EIA. The consideration of the view point of the public by keeping DSR in public domain is not a substitute of Public Hearing for consideration of the view point of the public for EIA.”
5. Based on these judgements, already the Tribunal in Appeal No. 55 of 2022 - Lukose K T Alias Luka and ors. Vs. MoEF&CC and ors. has held that for the same District of Kannur, DSR of 2016 can be considered for the purpose of issuance of Environmental Clearance. Hence, this point is als
