Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2366
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 minimum inter-crusher distance valid if supported by studies favoring clusters with strict pollution controls, carrying capacity assessments, and cumulative impact studies to ensure ambient standards.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Law - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Sections 17A and 19 - Stone crushing units - Siting criteria - Challenge to relaxation of minimum 1 Km distance between new/proposed crushers - Earlier norms fixed based on studies to prevent dust pollution influence - Relaxation dispensed with based on expert committee and study recommendations favoring clusters over dispersal to confine pollution - Study revealed emissions up to 2 Km but recommended dispensing distance between units if control measures adopted - Tribunal holds relaxation valid but directs separate siting criteria for standalone and cluster units, carrying capacity study, cumulative impact assessment, concrete roads, dry dust systems, green cover preconditions, worker health protection, and review of guidelines within 3 months. (Paras 2-4, 13, 43-47, 56, 59)
(B) Principle of Non-Regression - Not violated by relaxation where supported by scientific studies and enhanced pollution controls ensuring ambient standards met - Trade-off between river sand mining impacts and M-sand production for infrastructure favored with strict mitigation. (Paras 20, 32, 55)
(C) Pollution Control Guidelines - Mandatory adoption of wind breaking walls, metaled/concrete roads, water sprinkling, greenbelts, enclosed operations, covered transport - New units in dedicated zones - Emphasis on cluster carrying capacity over inter-unit distance to enable effective mitigation. (Paras 37-41, 59)
Facts of the case:
Application filed to quash board proceeding dispensing 1 Km inter-crusher distance criteria, challenged as arbitrary and leading to mushrooming units with heightened dust pollution. Prior norms upheld by high court; matter remitted post expert study acceptance. Multiple intervenors from crushing industry supported relaxation for M-sand expansion.
Findings of Court:
Original application disposed without quashing relaxation; TNPCB directed to frame new guidelines incorporating cluster-specific siting, carrying capacity studies, enhanced controls like concrete roads, dry dust systems, pre-operational green cover/wind walls, annual inspections, health camps, and violation actions.
Issues: Whether dispensing 1 Km distance criteria arbitrary/illegal violating non-regression; adequacy of expert study; need for cluster safeguards against cumulative dust/PM10/PM2.5 impacts.
Ratio Decidendi: Distance between crushers not governing factor; clustering preferable to dispersal for targeted mitigation; safe distances from habitations/highways maintained; studies show controls reduce emissions 50%; regulators must ensure carrying capacity, cumulative assessments, strict preconditions to protect environment/health.
Result: Original Application No.12 of 2024 (SZ) and I.As disposed with binding directions to TNPCB; no quashing of impugned proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. history of tnpcb distance criteria for stone crushers challenged. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. neeri study recommends dispensing 1km inter-crusher distance. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. tnpcb defends b.p.21 on limitation and locus standi grounds. (Para 14 , 16 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 4. applicant challenges neeri report as unscientific and regressive. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. stone crushers cause significant fugitive dust and health risks. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 6. cpcb guidelines mandate strict pollution control measures. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 7. neeri data shows pollution extends beyond 1km despite controls. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 8. need separate criteria for standalone vs cluster crushers. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 9. encourage m-sand clusters with enhanced environmental safeguards. (Para 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 10. direct tnpcb to frame cluster-specific siting guidelines. (Para 58 , 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 ass
