Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2798
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL KOLKATA (EASTERN ZONE BENCH)
B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member, Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member
Bhumi Adhigrahan Visthapan Avam Punarwas Kisaan Samiti – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Original Application No.137/2023/EZ
For Applicant(s): Ms. Paushali Banerjee
For Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Mr. Ashok Prasad, Mr. Surendra Kumar
Environmental clearance for mining valid if site verified beyond 1 km from wildlife sanctuary and outside notified ESZ, despite initial erroneous distance certificate corrected prior to grant; no wildlife clearance required.
Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - EIA Notification, 2006 - Rule 8(vi) - Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 - Environmental Clearance for sand mining - Allegations of forged forest officer certificate and false distance information from wildlife sanctuary - Clearance granted subject to wildlife clearance if required - Supreme Court orders on eco-sensitive zones (ESZs) mandating minimum 1 km buffer from protected areas, proscribing mining therein, with wider notified ESZs prevailing - Committee inspection finding site 1.8 km from sanctuary boundary, outside notified ESZ, no ongoing mining, no pollution threat - Forgery allegation held typographical error in plot number, corrected prior to clearance - No wildlife clearance needed as site outside ESZ and beyond 1 km. (Paras 5, 6, 9, 32, 40, 43, 47-49)
(B) NGT Procedure - Site inspection by committee comprising pollution board, district magistrate nominee, mining officer, SEIAA scientist, forest officer - Report to verify allegations, recommend penalties/remedies if violations found - Maintainability not affected by reliance on draft ESZ notification where final notification substantially similar and not disputed. (Paras 8, 36-38, 49)
Facts of the case:
Applicant alleged illegal sand mining based on environmental clearance obtained via forged forest certificate misstating distance to wildlife sanctuary at 900m (violating 1 km buffer) and absence of wildlife clearance, causing pollution and threat to sanctuary. Clearance issued relying on corrected certificate; respondents claimed site 1.8 km away, outside ESZ. Committee inspected site on 25.04.2024, found no operations, distance 1.7-1.8 km, no violations.
Findings of Court:
Environmental clearance valid; site outside ESZ and 1 km buffer; no forgery beyond corrected typographical error; no wildlife clearance required; no pollution or wildlife threat observed.
Issues: Validity of environmental clearance amid alleged forgery and proximity to wildlife sanctuary/ESZ; need for wildlife clearance; compliance with Supreme Court ESZ directives.
Ratio Decidendi: Clearance upheld where distance verified as 1.8 km beyond sanctuary and ESZ via GPS and inter-state forest officer confirmation; prior false statement overlooked as corrected; Supreme Court ESZ rules (1 km minimum or notified extent) not violated; SEIAA to re-examine specifics of local ESZ extent.
Result: Original Application disposed directing SEIAA to re-examine matter per observations; no costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of illegal sand mining with forged documents (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. committee inspection confirms no violations or mining activity (Para 8 , 9 , 46 , 49) |
| 3. applicant's claims of forgery in environmental clearance process (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. supreme court directives on esz and wildlife sanctuary buffers (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. respondents' evidence verifying site distance from esz (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. rejection of maintainability objection based on draft notification (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 7. ec valid as site outside esz per clarifications (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 48) |
| 8. direct seiaa to re-examine esz compliance (Para 52 , 53 , 54) |
ORDER
1. Ms. Paushali Banerjee, learned Counsel is present for the Applicant.
2. The Applicant in the present Original Application is alleging that unabated illegal sand mining is going on in Pachadumar Sand Mining Project of M/s Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (‘JSMDCL’ for short), Respondent No.4 herein. It is alleged that the Respondent No.4 has obtained Environmental Clearance on the strength of:-
(i) false Certificate of Divisional Forest Officer, Garhwa North and
(ii) is carrying on sand mining operation illegally without seeking Wildlife Clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL).
3. It is alleged that the sand mining activities of the Respondent No.4 has caused acute air and water pollution which is also causing an existential threat to the wildlife of Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary of Bihar and adjoining Jharkhand. It is also alleged that the illegal sand mining is situated at a distance of 900 meters from the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary in gross violation of the various orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to Eco Sensitive Zone. It is stated that the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary is situated in the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh and adjacent boundary of Jharkhand separated by river Son.
4. It is also stated that the portion of the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary falling within Uttar Pradesh has got its Eco Sensitive Zone notified as final but the portion of the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary falling within Bihar has published its draft Notification dated 28.01.2015 and final notification is still pending. It is stated that in furtherance of the sand mining policy and Rules, the Director of Mines, Jharkhand, intimated the Managing Director of Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Respondent No.4, a provisional list of 177 identified sand Ghats of Category-II spread over 19 districts of the State of Jharkhand for preliminary initiation of lawful process at the end of the Respondent No.4 vide its letter No.2649/M dated 21.11.2017. The Pachadumar Sand Ghat of Garhwa District is mentioned at G. Total No.68 of the aforesaid list.
5. It is stated that State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Jharkhand has granted Environmental Clearance in favour of the Respondent No.4 in its 59th Meeting dated 09.08.2018 at Para I/c. However, Para I/k of the same Minutes notes “Submission of forged documents by M/s JSMDC Ltd. regarding submission of forged documents of Divisional Forest Officer, Garhwa North Division, without his knowledge”.
6. It is also alleged that the Environmental Clearance dated 31.08.2018 clearly mentions that the same is subject to obtaining clearance under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, from the competent authority but M/s JSMDC, Respondent No.4, has till date not obtained any clearance from the National Board for Wildlife.
7. It is alleged that the sand mining is being carried on illegally at Plot No.2363(P) at Mouza – Pachadumar, Anchal – Ketar, Dist. – Garhwa, Jharkhand, area 20.24 ha. for which Consent has also been obtained from the State Board. It is also stated that the Applicant on coming to know about this illegality in February, 2022, has served notice to State Environment
