ORDER

Introduction (cid:150) case of the Petitioner

1. This order will deal with Appeal No. 39/2022 and Original Application No. 702/2022. Common issue in both matters relates to violation of environmental norms in setting up and operation of M/s Balaji Stone Crusher, the project proponent (PP) at Khasra No. 1125 Ka and Ga, village Baluwala, Pargana Pachhwadoon, Tehsil Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, Uttrakhand in eco sensitive Doon Valley area.

2. While the Appeal is against order of the SEIAA, Uttarakhand dated 12.08.2021 granting EC for establishment of the stone crusher plant without considering impact on environment, particularly its location on the bed of Sheetla river, the OA seeks quashing of Notification dated 06.01.2020 issued by MoEF&CC, order dated 15.01.2021 passed by the Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board by which screening plants have been recategorized from (cid:145)red(cid:146) to (cid:145)orange(cid:146) category and siting criteria as per notifications of the Uttarakhand Government under the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act 1957 - Uttarakhand Stone Crusher, Screening Plant, Mobile Stone Crusher, Pulveriser Plant, Hot Mix Plant, Readymix Plant Anugya Niti, 2020 (2020 policy), replaced by Uttarakhand Stone Crusher, Screening Plant, Mobile Stone Crusher, Pulveriser Plant, Hot Mix Plant, Readymix Plant Anugya Niti, 2021 (2021 policy) with consequential directions against operation of stone crushers by virtue of said provisions. 3. Broadly case of the appellant/applicant (hereinafter petitioner) is that the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 30.8.1988 in Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P & Ors., (1989 Supp 1 SCC 504 dealt with the eco sensitiveness of the Doon Valley area and devastating effect of mining on its fragile ecology and prohibited mining therein, considering the stand of expert committees and the MoEF. Following the said judgment, the MoEF issued Notification dated 01.02.1989 declaring the area as eco sensitive zone under the EP Act and prohibiting and regulating activities therein. This had the effect of not permitting stone crushing activity. Inspite of this, without undertaking any scientific or expert assessment of the environmental impact on the Doon valley area, the said notification has been amended on 6.1.2020 which has the effect of permitting stone crushing activity against the spirit of judgment of Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court and against the concept of sustainable development. Challenge is also to CPCB order dated 07.03.2016 under Section 18(1)(b) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 changing stone crushing activity from red, which is prohibited in Doon valley area, to orange category.

4. EC has been challenged inter alia on the ground that it was granted even before license to operate the stone crusher and without conducting any environment impact assessment as required in terms of EIA notification dated 14.9.2006 read with notifications dated 1.2.1989 and 6.1.2020. There is no permission for extraction of ground water while the EC notes that water requirement will be met from bore-well. In Form-I, the application for EC, the project activity is stated to be (cid:145)building and construction project(cid:146) under Entry 8(a) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 while the EC mentions the project to be for stone crusher. EC is for 1.433 hectares while the stone crusher is on the area of 3.043 hectares. Director, Geology and Mining is father of Anuj Patrick, the project proponent (PP) and thus the EC/permission is vitiated by bias and conflict of interest.

Preliminary orders dated 27.9.2022 and 28.9.2022

5. Vide order dated 27.09.2022, considering the case of the appellant in the appeal, the Tribunal constituted a joint Committee of CPCB, State PCB and District Magistrate, Dehradun to ascertain the factual position with reference to the averments in the appeal. Vide order dated 28.09.2022, OA was directed to