Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2091
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, Asfaq Ahmath
For Respondent(s): Mr. P.S. Raman, Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith, M/s. M. Nandha Kumar, K. Mukund Rao, V. Saran Raj, Mr. K.S. Viswanathan, M/s. T. Hemalatha, R. Rajmohan, S. Deepika, Mr. G.M. Ananthakumar, Mr. M.S. Krishnan, M/s. M.A. Abdul Wahab, R. Jagadeesan, S. Deenadayalan
Dispensing inter-crusher distance criterion upheld if backed by expert studies favouring clusters with strict pollution controls; regulators directed to enforce carrying capacity studies, concrete roads, greenbelts, and health safeguards for fugitive dust mitigation.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Law - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Sections 17A and 19 - Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - Siting criteria for stone crushing units - Challenge to board proceeding dispensing with minimum 1 Km distance between new/proposed crushers - Earlier norms fixed based on expert studies to prevent dust pollution influence - Relaxation based on expert committee recommendations and final report concluding inter-distance not significant, favouring clusters to confine pollution - Principle of non-regression discussed but not applied to quash relaxation - Dust emissions (TSPM, RSPM, PM2.5, PM10) from crushing, screening, transport recognized as major fugitive pollutants causing health hazards - CPCB guidelines emphasize control measures, dedicated crusher zones for new units - Tribunal directs separate siting criteria for standalone and cluster units, carrying capacity studies, concrete roads, dry dust collection, greenbelts, worker health protection - No quashing of relaxation but enhanced safeguards mandated. (Paras 2-4, 12-14, 32-59)
(B) Judicial Review - Pollution Control Board Proceedings - Expert Reports - NEERI study recommending dispensation of distance criteria upheld despite sampling limitations (monsoon/winter periods) and lack of year-long data/cumulative cluster impact - Board resolution accepting report without detailed scrutiny noted, but policy decision on siting left to regulator with directions for review - Locus standi and limitation objections overruled considering environmental public interest. (Paras 16, 23, 47-48)
Facts of the case:
Applicant challenged board proceeding dispensing 1 Km inter-crusher distance criterion, alleging arbitrary relaxation violating pollution norms, non-regression principle, and lacking scientific basis. Respondent defended based on expert studies favouring clusters with pollution controls to meet construction material demand (M-sand/blue metal). Multiple intervenors supported relaxation.
Findings of Court:
Original application disposed without quashing proceedings; TNPCB directed to frame new guidelines within 3 months incorporating carrying capacity studies, cumulative impact assessments, stringent pollution controls (concrete roads, dry dust systems, pre-operative greenbelts/wind walls, annual inspections, health camps), dedicated zones, and cluster-specific norms.
Issues: Whether dispensing 1 Km distance criterion arbitrary/illegal; adequacy of expert report; need for cluster safeguards; compliance with non-regression and pollution control statutes.
Ratio Decidendi: Relaxation of inter-crusher distance valid if supported by expert recommendations favouring controlled clusters over dispersal; regulators must mandate comprehensive pollution mitigation, carrying capacity limits, and health protections to prevent fugitive dust/health impacts, ensuring ambient standards met.
Result: Original Application No.12 of 2024 (SZ) and I.As disposed with detailed directions to TNPCB; no quashing.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. history of tnpcb distance criteria for stone crushers. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. justification for relaxing 1km inter-crusher distance. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. maintainability objections on locus and limitation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. applicant's challenge to neeri report validity. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. tnpcb defense on limitation and expertise. (Para 25 , 26 , 28) |
| 6. analysis of neeri study methodology flaws. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. non-regression and pollution health impacts. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 8. cpcb guidelines for dust control measures. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 9. neeri report limitations and safety distances. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 10. recommendations for infrastructure and greenbelt. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 11. balancing m-sand promotion with environmental protection. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 12. directions for revised siting criteria and compliance. (Para 59) |
| 13. closure 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 r
