Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2452
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, Advocate General, Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith, M/s. M. Nandha Kumar, K. Mukund Rao, V. Saran Raj, Mr. K.S. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv., M/s. T. Hemalatha, R. Rajmohan, S. Deepika, Mr. G.M. Ananthakumar, Mr. M.S. Krishnan, Sr. Adv., M/s. M.A. Abdul Wahab, R. Jagadeesan, S. Deenadayalan
Dispensation of inter-crusher distance upheld if backed by expert studies favoring clustering for localized pollution control, subject to carrying capacity assessment, cumulative impact studies and stringent mitigation like greenbelts, concrete roads and dry dust systems.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Law - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Sections 17A and 19 - National Green Tribunal jurisdiction - Stone crushing units - Siting criteria - Challenge to relaxation of minimum 1 Km inter-crusher distance prescribed in earlier board proceeding (B.P. No.4 dated 02.07.2004) via B.P. No.21 dated 31.07.2019 and board resolution dated 16.10.2023 accepting expert report recommending dispensation - Relaxation upheld subject to stringent conditions including cluster-based carrying capacity study, cumulative impact assessment, concrete roads, dry dust collection, greenbelt precondition, worker health protection and dedicated siting criteria for standalone vs cluster units - Principle of non-regression not violated where backed by expert studies and enhanced mitigation measures - Dust pollution (PM10, PM2.5), fugitive emissions and noise from crushing operations recognized as significant health hazards requiring strict compliance with CPCB guidelines. (Paras 2-4, 17-59)
(B) Pollution Control - Expert Reports - Acceptance of recommendations from scientific bodies like NEERI mandatory only if reasoned; board must critically examine data on seasonal sampling limitations, cumulative cluster impacts and safe distances (upto 2 Km for TSPM/RSPM) before adoption - No quashing where decision promotes clustering over dispersal to confine pollution for effective mitigation. (Paras 30-47)
Facts of the case:
Application filed to quash board proceedings relaxing 1 Km minimum distance between stone crushers, citing arbitrary decision pre-dating full expert study, violation of non-regression and risk of mushrooming units exacerbating dust pollution; previously challenged before High Court which disposed with liberty to approach Tribunal post board's acceptance of expert report.
Findings of Court:
Original Application disposed without quashing relaxations; TNPCB directed to frame new guidelines within 3 months incorporating cluster carrying capacity, cumulative impact studies, concrete roads, dry dust systems, pre-consent greenbelts/wind walls, annual inspections, worker health camps and action on violations.
Issues: (1) Legality of dispensing 1 Km inter-crusher distance without adequate scientific basis and prior to complete study; (2) Violation of non-regression in environmental standards; (3) Adequacy of pollution controls for clusters amid M-sand demand.
Ratio Decidendi: Relaxation permissible if supported by expert recommendations favoring clustering to localize pollution for better control, provided enhanced mandatory measures address fugitive dust, health risks and carrying capacity; regulators must differentiate standalone/cluster siting, enforce preconditions like green cover and conduct year-round impact assessments.
Result: Original Application 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) |
| 2. tnpcb rationale for relaxing 1km inter-crusher distance (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. maintainability objections on locus standi and limitation (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. applicant's challenge to neeri report validity (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. tnpcb defense on limitation and expertise (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. neeri study methodology and distance analysis (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. non-regression principle and pollution impacts (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 8. cpcb guidelines for stone crusher pollution control (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 9. neeri report findings and safety distance concerns (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 10. need for cluster-specific siting criteria (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 11. balancing m-sand benefits with environmental protection (Para 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 12. directions for revised tnpcb guidelines and compliance (Para 58 , 59 , 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 c
