Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 3526

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

Advocates:
For Applicant(s): Ms. Paushali Banerjee
For Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Mr. Ashok Prasad, Mr. Surendra Kumar

Environmental clearance upheld despite initial clerical errors in forest certificate where site verified 1.8km from sanctuary outside notified ESZ; no wildlife clearance needed; mining prohibited within 1km buffer or ESZ per Supreme Court directives.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - EIA Notification, 2006 - Rule 8(vi) - Environmental Clearance - Sand mining project - Allegations of grant based on forged forest officer certificate denying proximity to wildlife sanctuary and failure to obtain wildlife clearance - Initial certificate stating 900m from forest and no sanctuary within 10km found erroneous; later clarified as 1.8km from sanctuary boundary, outside notified eco-sensitive zone - Supreme Court orders on eco-sensitive zones mandating minimum 1km buffer, modified for notified ESZs - No wildlife clearance required per MoEF&CC guidelines if outside ESZ and beyond 1km - Forgery limited to typographical plot error, promptly corrected - Clearance held valid subject to re-examination. (Paras 32, 40, 43, 44, 52)

(B) Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 - Eco-Sensitive Zone - Mining prohibition within 1km of sanctuary boundary or notified ESZ extent - Where ESZ notified beyond 1km, wider restriction applies - No mining permissible within sanctuary or 1km buffer unless compliant with 2011 Guidelines and 2022 OM - Preliminary objection on relying draft ESZ notification rejected as final notification substantially similar and not misleading. (Paras 18, 19, 38, 47, 51)

Facts of the case:
Applicant alleged illegal sand mining based on environmental clearance obtained via false forest certificate misstating distances to wildlife sanctuary and eco-sensitive zone, causing pollution and violating Supreme Court ESZ orders. Committee inspection found no active mining, site 1.8km from sanctuary outside ESZ, air quality compliant, no wildlife threat.

Findings of Court:
Environmental clearance valid; initial document errors clerical and rectified; site complies with ESZ distances and clearances; no wildlife clearance needed; allegations unsubstantiated by evidence.

Issues: Whether environmental clearance liable to revocation for alleged forgery and non-disclosure of sanctuary proximity; requirement of wildlife clearance; violation of ESZ mining prohibitions.

Ratio Decidendi: Clearance not vitiated by corrected clerical errors or supervening Supreme Court clarifications where site verified outside ESZ and 1km buffer; ESZ restrictions prevail per notified extent and guidelines; re-examination directed for precise boundary application.

Result: Original Application disposed directing re-examination by authority; no costs.

Table of Content
1. allegations of illegal sand mining with forged documents and missing wildlife clearance (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. tribunal constitutes site inspection committee (Para 8 , 9)
3. applicant's claims of forged dfo certificates and esz violations (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 16 , 17)
4. prior ngt order on similar jsmdc forgery in sundipur project (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. supreme court directives on esz minimum 1km buffer for sanctuaries (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 41 , 47 , 48)
6. respondents' affidavits confirm 1.8km distance from kaimur sanctuary (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
7. rejects objection on draft esz notification as non-misleading (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
8. plot error typographical, ec valid outside esz (Para 39 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 45)
9. committee report: no violations, mining inactive, outside esz (Para 49)
10. directs seiaa re-examination of esz applicability at garhwa (Para 50 , 51 , 52)

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 ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 3526

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL KOLKATA (EASTERN ZONE BENCH)B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member, Arun Kumar Verma, Expert MemberBhumi Adhigrahan Visthapan Avam Punarwas Kisaan Samiti – AppellantVersusState of Jharkhand – RespondentOriginal Application No.137/2023/EZ

Environmental clearance upheld despite initial clerical errors in forest certificate where site verified 1.8km from sanctuary outside notified ESZ; no wildlife clearance needed; mining prohibited within 1km buffer or ESZ per Supreme Court directives.

Cases Referred (1)

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