Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1892
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 criteria upheld if backed by scientific studies favouring clusters with strict mitigation; mandates carrying capacity, cumulative impact assessments, and enhanced pollution controls like greenbelts, concrete roads for air quality protection. (38 words)
Headnote:(A) Environmental Law - Stone crushing units - Siting criteria - Challenge to board proceeding dispensing with minimum 1 Km distance between new/proposed crushers as prescribed in earlier proceeding - Board relied on expert report recommending dispensation to promote clusters over dispersal for better pollution control - Tribunal holds dispensation valid but directs separate siting criteria for standalone units and clusters, carrying capacity studies, cumulative impact assessment, concrete roads, dry dust collection, green cover preconditions, worker health protection, and review of proceeding within 3 months. (Paras 56, 59)
(B) Principle of non-regression - Does not prohibit relaxation of environmental standards if supported by scientific studies and enhanced mitigation measures ensuring ambient air quality compliance. (Para 32)
(C) Pollution control - Fugitive dust emissions from crushing, screening, material handling - Require strict adherence to guidelines including wind breaking walls, metalled roads, water sprinkling, greenbelts; clusters pose higher PM2.5/PM10 risks necessitating carrying capacity limits. (Paras 36-39)
Facts of the case:
Applicant challenged board proceeding relaxing 1 Km inter-crusher distance criteria based on expert report, claiming arbitrary relaxation violating non-regression and leading to mushrooming units with dust pollution; board defended on NEERI study findings that inter-distance less critical than distances to habitations/highways, favouring clusters for contained mitigation; multiple intervenors supported relaxation for M-sand production.
Findings of Court:
Original application disposed without quashing proceeding; TNPCB directed to frame new guidelines within 3 months incorporating cluster-specific carrying capacity, cumulative impact studies, concrete roads, dry dust systems, pre-operational greenbelts/wind walls, annual inspections, worker health camps, and actions on violations.
Issues: Whether dispensing 1 Km distance criteria arbitrary/illegal; adequacy of expert report; need for cluster safeguards including carrying capacity and cumulative impacts.
Ratio Decidendi: Relaxation upheld as supported by expert modeling showing emissions controllable within clusters via enhanced measures; separate criteria for standalone/cluster units mandatory; carrying capacity studies essential to limit units preventing PM drift beyond 2 Km; green cover, concrete roads, dry suppression preconditions critical for compliance.
Result: Original Application No.12 of 2024 (SZ) & I.A. Nos.06 to 14 & 23 of 2024 (SZ) disposed with directions to TNPCB; no costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. historical tnpcb distance norms for crushers (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 42) |
| 2. issuance and justification of bp no.21 relaxing 1km distance (Para 4 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 3. procedural history and maintainability challenges (Para 5 , 14 , 16 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. tribunal directions for revised siting criteria (Para 17 , 28 , 58 , 59) |
| 5. applicant's challenge to neeri report validity (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. dust pollution risks from crusher clusters (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 47 , 48) |
| 7. non-regression and m-sand policy balance (Para 32 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 8. cpcb guidelines for pollution control (Para 37 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 9. ngt directives on infrastructure and greenbelt (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 10. disposal of interlocutory applications (Para 60) |
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 M-Sand in addition to the existing consented production of blue metal jelly and new crushers can be permit
