SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

Item No. 03 & 04 (Court No. 1)

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SPECIAL BENCH (By Video Conferencing)

Original Application No. 53/2019 (WZ)

(I.A. No. 26/2021)

(With report dated 18.03.2021)

Dr. Vinay kumar Jathar Applicant Versus District Mining Officer- Ahmednagar & Ors. Respondent(s)

WITH Appeal No. 56/2020(WZ)

M/s. Shrigonda Stone Crusher Appellant Versus Maharashtra Pollution Control Board Respondent(s)

Date of hearing: 27.09.2021 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER Applicant: Mr. Asim Sarode, Advocate Respondent: Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for MPCB Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate for R-15,16,18,20,21,29&30 Appellant: Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate Respondent: Ms. Manasi Joshi, Adv. for MPCB

Advocates:
For the Petitioner: ASIM SARODE
For the Respondent:

ORDER

1. This order will dispose of in O.A. No. 53/2019 and Appeal No.

56/2020 as the same are inter connected.

O.A. No. 53/2019

2. The issue for consideration is the remedial action against illegal mining and stone crushing activities to the detriment of the environment in forest area and in Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of the Great Indian Bustard Wildlife Sanctuary in District Ahmednagar.

3. Vide order dated 26.09.2019, the Tribunal sought a factual and action taken report from the Collector, Ahmednagar, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Ahmednagar and the State PCB, after ascertaining facts and taking action in exercise of powers conferred on them as per law. 4. On 28.11.2019, the Tribunal considered the report. The report found that illegal stone crushing activities were taking place in the forest and the notified Eco-Sensitive Zone. The Tribunal directed further action taken report in terms of recovery of Environmental Compensation on ‘Polluter Pays’ principle and fixing of responsibilities of the concerned officers for collusion in defeating the law.

5. The matter was thereafter considered on 02.11.2020 in light of report of the Collector, Ahmednagar dated 28.08.2020 to the effect that show cause notice was issued and penalty was imposed for illegal mining by the Mining Department. The Tribunal observed that the penalty imposed by the Mining Department did not take care of the damage to the environment which has to be in addition to penalty under the Mining law.

The operative part of the order is reproduced below:

“4. Accordingly, report dated 28.08.2020 has been filed by the Collector, Ahmednagar. It is stated that the Collector has been authorized by the Under Secretary, Revenue Department of the State on 02.03.2020 to take action against officers of the said Department. Three officers were found involved in permitting illegal mining. Show cause notices were given to them under the relevant rules and after considering their replies, action has been taken against them. Minor minerals were found to have been illegally excavated. Notices were also issued to the quarry owners who did not submit any reply. The facts were verified and penalty was imposed on the land owners as follows:-

S. No. Gat No. Quantity excavated in brass Name of land owner Penalty imposed in Rs Order No. and DT.
1 108 1832 Satish Dattatray Vagaskar 1,37,40,000/- 656 19/08/2020
2 109,110 10091 Mathurabai Suryabhan Dange and Suraj Suryabhan Dange 7,56,82,500/- 657 19/08/2020
3 74/2 2199 Shivaji Sambhaji Jathar 1,64,92,500/- 658 19/08/2020
4 54 3180 Bhanusaheb Sahebrao Baykar 2,38,50,000/- 663 19/08/2020
5 160 10710 Dhiraj Suryabhan Dange 8,03,25,000/- 662 19/08/2020
6 22 3760 Radha Santosh Chavan 2,82,00,000/- 664 19/08/2020
7 270 1102 Pravin Bapu Vagaskar 82,65,000/- 666 19/08/2020

5. While the compensation was to be assessed and recovered as per norms been laid down by the CPCB, the order does not show compliance of the said norms. Penalty imposed is not a substitute for damage to the environment with reference to the cost of restitution, with deterrence element. The State PCB is expected to take action inter-alia under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 by initiating prosecution of the persons found engaged in illegal mining and recovery of compensation.

6. In view of the above, further action needs to be taken for calculation and recovery of appropriate amount of compensation and initiating prosecution by the State PCB. Having regard to the circumstances of serious violations, we direct constitution of a joint Committee comprising the Chief Wildlife Warden (PCCF), Wildlife, the Collector, Ahmednagar, the State PCB and the CPCB to deal with the matter. The penalty, if recovered, be taken into account by the joint Committee while fixing the quantum of compensation. The State PCB will be the n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top