Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 4312

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 for sand mining outside notified ESZ (2 km) and 1.8 km from wildlife sanctuary boundary; corrected typographical errors in forest certificates do not invalidate process; no wildlife clearance required.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - EIA Notification, 2006 - Rule 8(vi) - Environmental Clearance - Sand mining project - Allegations of forged forest officer certificate and false distance information from wildlife sanctuary - Environmental Clearance granted subject to wildlife clearance if required - Supreme Court orders on eco-sensitive zones (ESZs) mandating minimum 1 km buffer, with wider notified ESZ prevailing - Site verified at 1.8 km from sanctuary boundary, outside 2 km notified ESZ - Forgery allegation limited to typographical plot number error, promptly corrected - No wildlife clearance required as outside ESZ and beyond 1 km. (Paras 43, 50-52)

(B) Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 - ESZ Notifications - Mining prohibition within 1 km of protected areas or notified ESZ - Distance verification using GPS coordinates supersedes initial erroneous statements - Committee inspection confirms no ongoing mining, no pollution threat, compliance with clearances. (Paras 49, 52)

Facts of the case:
Applicant alleged illegal sand mining based on forged documents and proximity to wildlife sanctuary violating ESZ norms. Environmental Clearance issued relying on corrected forest officer letters stating site outside protected areas. Respondents submitted affidavits and joint inspection report confirming 1.8 km distance from sanctuary, no active operations, valid clearances.

Findings of Court:
Preliminary objection on maintainability using draft notification rejected as final notification existed with similar ESZ extent. Initial forest letter contained false non-existence claim but corrected; site outside ESZ. No illegality in Environmental Clearance.

Issues: Whether Environmental Clearance obtained through forgery and violated ESZ/wildlife clearance requirements; distance from sanctuary and need for NBWL clearance.

Ratio Decidendi: Environmental Clearance valid where site verified beyond 1 km from sanctuary and outside notified ESZ; typographical errors corrected prior to grant do not vitiate process; Supreme Court ESZ directions apply but wider notified ESZ governs; no wildlife clearance needed outside ESZ.

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

Table of Content
1. allegations of illegal sand mining with forged documents (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. tribunal constitutes inspection committee (Para 8 , 9)
3. applicant's claims of forgery in forest officer certificates (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 20)
4. supreme court directives on esz minimum 1km buffer (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. respondents affirm site outside esz at 1.8km distance (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
6. rejects preliminary objection on draft notification (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
7. validates ec as site complies with esz guidelines (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
8. committee report confirms no violations, no mining (Para 49)
9. directs seiaa re-examination of esz compliance (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 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 S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 4312

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 for sand mining outside notified ESZ (2 km) and 1.8 km from wildlife sanctuary boundary; corrected typographical errors in forest certificates do not invalidate process; no wildlife clearance required.

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