Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2920
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapati, Expert Member
Stone Trust Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) – Respondent
Appeal No.45 of 2024 (SZ)|I.A. Nos.65, 66 & 123 of 2024 (SZ)
For Appellant(s): Mr. S. Saravanan, P. Kokila, K. Priyanka, B. Girija, K. Mokshavathy
For Respondent(s): Mrs. P. Kavitha, Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith
Environmental clearances require fresh, evidence-based appraisal; rejections must cite specific legal/scientific grounds, not prior decisions.
Headnote:The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and EIA Notification, 2006 require environmental clearances to be granted on merits with scientific basis. The appellant sought EC for a 3.06 Ha black granite quarry abutting a water tank. Prior rejections were set aside by Tribunal for lack of fresh appraisal; fresh rejection cited impacts on tank storage, irrigation, catchment, pollution without evidence contradicting NOCs and studies. Court found SEIAA's reliance on prior views violated procedural fairness.
Issues: Whether rejection order dated 10.04.2024 violated Tribunal's directive for fresh consideration and EIA process. Ratio: Authorities must independently evaluate new applications with updated studies; rejections require legal/scientific justification, not past decisions or unsubstantiated concerns (paras 7, 22-30). Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside and matter remitted to SEIAA for fresh consideration with hearing within 6 weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of repeated ec applications and prior tribunal remand for fresh appraisal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. latest seac/seiaa rejection citing water tank impacts. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. appellant's arguments on compliance, studies, nocs. (Para 12 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. court evaluation finding seac concerns unsubstantiated. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. rejection arbitrary; remitted for fresh consideration. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGEMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. The above appeal is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 of the 2nd Respondent/State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) – Tamil Nadu (vide Letter No. SEIAA-TN/F.No.9641/2024), rejecting the proposal seeking Environmental Clearance for the proposed black granite (Dolerite) quarry over an extent of 3.06.0 Hectares in S.F. Nos.22/1, 23/1, 23/2, 24/7, 24/8, 25/1, and 25/2 of Semmedu Village, Vikravandi Taluk, Viluppuram District.
2. It is essential to review the background and prior proceedings that have led to this appeal before the Tribunal as a second round of litigation.
3. The appellant initially applied for a quarry lease for black granite under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession (TNMMC) Rules, 1959, with the District Collector - Villupuram. The District Collector and the Director of Geology and Mining recommended the proposal to the Industries Department, which issued a Precise Area Communication letter on 29.03.2019. This letter is said to have directed the appellant to submit an approved mining plan and secure an Environmental Clearance (EC).
4. According to the appellant, the Environmental Clearance application (File No. 6873) was filed on 25.06.2019 The appellant claims that during the 136th Meeting of the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) – Tamil Nadu on 21.09.2019, the SEAC insisted on a hydrogeological impact study due to the presence of a nearby waterbody and required a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Water Resources Department (WRD) and the District Collector. The appellant asserts that it secured the necessary reports from various authorities, including the University of Madras and the Geological Survey of India, which supported the feasibility of the project.
5. The appellant claims that due to miscommunication during the COVID-19 period, it withdrew the proposal under File No.6873 and mistakenly submitted a fresh application in the name of an individual instead of the firm. This second application was later withdrawn. A third application under File No.9040 was submitted in the appellant’s name. According to the appellant, during the 281st SEAC meeting on 03.06.2022, SEAC recommended the proposal for Environmental Clearance, but SEIAA referred it back for additional details, including a water contour map. The appellant states that the requested details were provided, but due to an alleged failure to disclose the history of previous proposals, in the 322nd Meeting on 19.10.2022, SEAC withdrew its earlier recommendation already made in the 281st Meeting held on 03.06.2022 and endorsed the decision taken by the previous committee in the 136th Meeting held on 21.09.2019.
6. The appellant further claims that after facing continued resistance, it filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras (W.P. No. 17246 of 2023), which directed SEIAA to consider the proposal (File No. 9641) on its merits within three months. Following this order, SEIAA referred the proposal back to SEAC, which in its 404th Meeting on 25.08.2023, noted that the appellant had previously failed to disclose the history of rejection. SEAC concluded that none of the parameters for rejection had changed and decided not to recommend the proposal. SEIAA asserts that it accepted SEAC’s recommendation and rejected the proposal during its 655th Meeting on 19.09.2023
7. The appellant then filed Appeal No. 38 of 2023 (SZ)before this Tri
