Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1821
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapati, Expert Member
E.V. Sampath – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board – Respondent
Original Application No.12 of 2024 (SZ) | I.A. Nos.06 to 14 & 23 of 2024 (SZ)
For Applicant(s): M/s. A. Yogeshwaran, Poongkhulali. B, Iraiyanbu. P and Asfaq Ahmath.
For Respondent(s):Mr. P.S. Raman, Advocate General a/w. Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1. M/s. M. Nandha Kumar, K. Mukund Rao & V. Saran Raj – I.A. No.06/2024. Mr. K.S. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv. a/w. M/s. T. Hemalatha, R. Rajmohan & S. Deepika – I.A. Nos.07 to 11, 13 & 23/2024. Mr. G.M. Ananthakumar – I.A. No.12/2024. Mr. M.S. Krishnan, Sr. Adv. a/w. M/s. M.A. Abdul Wahab, R. Jagadeesan & S. Deenadayalan – I.A. No.14/2024.
Dispensation of inter-crusher distance upheld on expert advice favoring clusters for localized pollution control, but mandates carrying capacity studies, cumulative impact assessments, and stringent mitigation measures including green cover and dry dust systems.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Law - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Sections 17A and 19 - Stone crushing units - Siting criteria - Challenge to board proceeding dispensing with minimum 1 Km distance between new/proposed crushers - Board relied on expert report recommending dispensation to promote clusters for better pollution control - Tribunal holds dispensation valid but directs revision of guidelines with carrying capacity study, cumulative impact assessment, separate criteria for standalone and cluster units, concrete roads, dry dust systems, green cover preconditions, worker health protection, and enforcement mechanisms. (Paras 3, 4, 43, 56, 59)
(B) Principle of non-regression - Not violated where relaxation based on expert study and advanced pollution controls, balancing development needs with environmental protection through stringent measures. (Paras 32, 55)
(C) Pollution control - Fugitive dust emissions - Emphasis on clusters over dispersal to confine pollution for effective mitigation; greenbelts, wind-breaking walls, water sprinkling, and annual inspections mandatory. (Paras 31, 37, 52)
Facts of the case:
Applicant challenged board proceeding relaxing 1 Km inter-crusher distance criteria, citing arbitrary decision without scientific basis, potential mushrooming of units, and air pollution risks. Board defended on expert report findings that inter-distance less critical than distances to habitations/highways, favoring clusters. Multiple intervenors supported relaxation for M-sand production.
Findings of Court:
Original application disposed without quashing proceedings; TNPCB directed to frame new guidelines within 3 months incorporating studies on carrying capacity and cumulative impacts, enhanced pollution controls, and monitoring.
Issues: Validity of dispensing 1 Km distance criteria; adequacy of expert report; compliance with non-regression principle; need for cluster-specific siting norms and mitigation measures.
Ratio Decidendi: While upholding relaxation based on expert recommendations favoring clusters to localize and control dust pollution, Tribunal mandates comprehensive studies and strict preconditions like concrete roads, dry dust systems, pre-operational green cover, health camps, and enforcement to safeguard environment and public health.
Result: Original Application No.12 of 2024 (SZ) and I.As disposed with detailed directions to TNPCB; no quashing of impugned proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. history of tnpcb distance criteria for stone crushers. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. relaxation of 1km distance based on industry demands. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. tnpcb defends b.p.21 against maintainability challenges. (Para 14 , 16 , 25 , 26 , 28) |
| 4. applicant's challenge to premature neeri-based relaxation. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 31) |
| 5. health and environmental risks from stone crusher pollution. (Para 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 6. cpcb guidelines mandate strict pollution control measures. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 7. neeri report flaws necessitate revised siting criteria. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 8. need for cluster-specific criteria and enforcement measures. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 9. balancing m-sand promotion with environmental protection. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 10. directions for tnpcb to frame comprehensive guidelines. (Para 59) |
JUDGEMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. There is a spurt in demand of crushed stones in the last few years due to accelerated developmental activities that include the construction of roads, housing projects, buildings, bridges and railways. As a result, there is a demand for an increase in stone crushing units. This mechanical stone crushing is the source of dust and pollution. Required environmental guidelines have been formulated and are being enforced by different State Pollution Control Boards on the basis of guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to regulate air and noise pollution.
2. While so, the above Original Application is filed to quash the Board Proceeding (B.P.) No.21 dated 31.07.2019 of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), culminating in the Board Resolution dated 16.10.2023 so far it relates to dispensing with the minimum distance between crushers contained in Condition (1) which is 1 Km between new/proposed crushers as prescribed in B.P. No.4 dated 02.07.2004.
3. The application primarily relates to two of the Board Proceedings of the TNPCB, which are (i) B.P. No.4 dated 02.07.2004 and (ii) B.P. No.21 dated 31.07.2019. As per B.P. No.4 dated 02.07.2004, the distance criteria between two crushers must be 1 Km which was determined based on the ambient air quality service in the year 1992 vide B.P. No.609 dated 09.12.1992. Subsequently, the Board issued certain conditions vide B.P. No.48 dated 09.09.1998 based on the representations from various stone crushing industries in the State and considered the relaxation based on the CSIR - National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) report on dust emissions from stone crushing industries. Therefore, the Board laid down the new norms for the location of stone crushing industries in the State vide B.P. No.4 dated 02.07.2004. The Board fixed the norm that no new/proposed stone crusher should be located within 500 Metersof any National Highway or State Highway or inhabited site or places of public and religious importance. The new criteria as per Clause 2.2 prescribe a minimum distance between new and proposed stone crushers to be 1 Km to avoid dust pollution influence of one over the other. For the purpose of including the educational institutions and other public offices and places of religious importance, the Board issued B.P. No.55 dated 06.10.2005 replaced and amended the B.P. No.4 dated 02.07.2004. Therefore, the Board had provided a minimum distance of 1 Km between crushers to avoid dust pollution influence and the same was followed till B.P. No.21 dated 31.07.2019 was issued.
4. The B.P. No.21 dated 31.07.2019 came to be issued dispensing with the minimum distance of 1 Km between new/proposed crushers, as prescribed in B.P. No.4 dated 02.07.2004, which is now assailed by the applicant as arbitrary and illegal. The said distance criteria was dispensed with based on the representation from the stone crushers associations who wanted to go for expansion to manufacture
