SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 4120

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapati, Expert Member
Shoukkath Ali – Appellant
Versus
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change – Respondent
Appeal No.43 of 2024 (SZ)|I.A. Nos.115 & 124 of 2024 (SZ)



Advocates:
For Appellant (s): Mr. Harish Vasudevan, Mr. Rajan Vishnuraj
For Respondent(s): Dr. Kuna Suryanarayana, Mr. G. Prabhu, Mr. R. Ramesh Kumar, M/s. Mathew & Mathews, Mr. Philip J. Vettickattu, Neenu Bernath, Saju S. Dominic

Environmental Clearance for blasting quarry kept in abeyance for non-compliance with CPCB's 200m minimum distance from habitations; mandates re-evaluation of distance criteria, hydrology, biodiversity despite prior site inspections.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - EIA Notification, 2006 - Environmental Clearance for granite building stone quarry - Challenge to grant of clearance alleging procedural violations, absence of District Survey Report, lack of hydrogeological study, no public hearing, and non-compliance with distance criteria - High Court directed consideration under 'violation' category per S.O. 804(E) dated 14.03.2017 and S.O. 1030(E) dated 08.03.2018 - CPCB guidelines post-NGT order mandate 200m minimum distance from residential buildings when blasting involved, revising prior State norms of 50-100m - Earlier application rejected due to pending guidelines; fresh application granted clearance despite nearest dwelling at 100.8m - Clearance kept in abeyance for re-evaluation of distance criteria, hydrological aspects, biodiversity impact, and appellant's objections. (Paras 17, 25-28, 41-44)

(B) District Survey Report - Not mandatory where preparation halted due to dissolution of DEIAA; prior DSR (2016) permissible per High Court directions - Serves to ascertain mining suitability, distinct from EIA parameters. (Paras 14, 31)

(C) Hydrogeological study and public hearing - Not vitiating where clearance imposes conditions for drainage systems, siltation ponds, groundwater monitoring, and site inspections address concerns; no cluster situation warranting public consultation. (Paras 33-35, 10)

Facts of the case:
Appellant challenged Environmental Clearance granted for quarrying in 1.8227 hectares involving blasting, claiming violations of EIA procedures, environmental risks like groundwater depletion, landslides, structural damage, absence of DSR and hydrogeological study, no public hearing, and inadequate distance from habitations. Authorities conducted site visits, noted mitigation measures, but applied pre-CPCB distance norms despite fresh application post-rejection of prior one.

Findings of Court:
Impugned clearance kept in abeyance; remitted to authorities for re-appraisal considering CPCB 200m distance criteria for blasting, channel protection, biodiversity, hearing to appellant; penalties for past violations if any; exercise within 3 months.

Issues: Compliance with CPCB distance guidelines for blasting quarries; validity sans DSR, hydrogeological study, public hearing; treatment as fresh vs violation application; environmental safeguards adequacy.

Ratio Decidendi: Environmental Clearance for blasting quarry invalid if ignoring CPCB-mandated 200m distance from residences; fresh applications post-rejection must strictly apply updated norms; comprehensive re-evaluation required for procedural lapses, hydrological/biodiversity impacts before final grant.

Result: Appeal allowed; clearance kept in abeyance and matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Table of Content
1. challenge to ec for quarry due to procedural violations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. alleged violations of eia notification and environmental risks. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. authorities' compliance with appraisal and inspections. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. project proponent denies violations, justifies dsr use. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. high court directions and prior rejection of proposal. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. cpcb distance criteria mandatory for blasting quarries. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
7. fresh application not bound by prior timelines or dsr. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
8. hydrogeological study and drainage conditions required. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
9. biodiversity impact and mitigation measures assessed. (Para 36 , 37 , 38)
10. ec kept in abeyance for re-evaluation per cpcb guidelines. (Para 43 , 44)
11. interlocutory applications closed. (Para 45)

JUDGMENT

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

1. The appeal is challenging the Environmental Clearance dated 01.07.2023 granted to the 5th Respondent for quarrying operations in Pulamanthole Village, Malappuram District, alleging procedural violations, environmental risks and impact on livelihoods due to the project.

2. The 5th Respondent originally had submitted an application for Environmental Clearance before the District Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) - Malappuram for the granite building stone quarry project for an extent of 1.8227 Hectares at Sy. No. 85 (pt).

3. The appellant herein filed a Writ Petition No.41905 of 2017 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, in which, the Hon’ble High Court vide its Judgement dated 11.04.2018 directed the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) - Kerala to consider the application and pass orders, therein, and to submit a copy before the Hon’ble High Court within 03 months from the date of receipt of files from the DEIAA. Accordingly, after the papers were forwarded from the DEIAA, the SEIAA – Kerala had considered the proposal and passed the impugned order.

4. According to the appellant, the application for Environmental Clearance applied by the 5th Respondent was beyond the time stipulated in S.O. 804 (E) dated 14.03.2017 and O.M. dated 30.05.2018. It is stated that pursuant to the interim order of the Hon’ble High Court on 11.04.2018, the Environmental Clearance was granted on 03.11.2021. The SEIAA – Kerala was aware of the complaints raised by the appellant against the project. However, the issues raised even in the Writ Petition were not considered by the SEIAA – Kerala before issuing Environmental Clearance. The SEIAA - Kerala has not considered the fact that no District Survey Report (DSR) was approved or prepared by the 2nd Respondent for the Malappuram District. There is no separate DSR for granite/building stone made or considered by the SEIAA – Kerala before granting Environmental Clearance. The impugned Environmental Clearance is in violation of EIA Notification, 2006 and its amendments.

5. It is alleged further that in the absence of the hydrogeological study and appraisal of the same by the SEAC – Kerala, the proposed project would affect water table in the appellant area once the mining operation commenced. Without the hydrogeological study being conducted, the Environmental Clearance ought not to have been issued. Thus, the appellant has alleged that SEAC – Kerala and SEIAA – Kerala failed to conduct a meaningful appraisal of the project. It is ascertained by the appellant that the authorities acted mechanically relying solely on the documents submitted by the Project Proponent without individual application of mind regarding the validity or comprehensiveness of the same.

6. It is also alleged that there was no public hearing thus depriving the stakeholders of the opportunity to voice their concerns. Specific concerns like ground water depletion, structural damage to nearby residences due to blasting and the lik

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top