Shoukkath Ali vs Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 4430

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapat, 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)

Important Points

EC for blasting quarries quashed in abeyance for non-adherence to CPCB's 200m distance criterion from dwellings, mandating re-appraisal of hydrogeological, biodiversity risks despite fresh application post-prior rejection.

Subject

Environmental Law - Mining and Quarrying

Act Referred

EIA Notification, 2006: S.O.804(E), S.O.1030(E), S.O.3611(E), S.O.141(E)
Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: Sch.I, Sch.III

Headnote

(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - EIA Notification, 2006 - S.O. 804(E) dated 14.03.2017, S.O. 1030(E) dated 08.03.2018, S.O. 3611(E) dated 25.07.2018 - Environmental Clearance for granite building stone quarry - Challenge to EC granted post-rejection of prior application - High Court directed consideration under 'violation' category - Subsequent fresh application granted EC without strict adherence to violation timelines - Distance criteria revised by CPCB post-NGT directions: 100m (no blasting), 200m (blasting) from residential buildings - Nearest dwelling at 100.8m with blasting involved - Absence of approved District Survey Report (DSR) - Non-consideration of hydrogeological study, channel in site, biodiversity impact - EC kept in abeyance for re-evaluation. (Paras 17, 28, 40-44)

(B) District Survey Report (DSR) - Mandatory for minor mineral mining - No DSR prepared due to dissolution of DEIAA - Reliance on 2016 DSR upheld by High Court - DSR ascertains mining suitability, distinct from EIA parameters. (Paras 14, 31)

(C) Site Appraisal - Field inspections, sub-committee reports - Detection of channel requiring protection plan - Cluster certificate, biodiversity assessment - Imposition of conditions like garland drains, siltation ponds, NONEL blasting technology to mitigate risks. (Paras 10, 34-38)

Facts of the case:
Appeal challenging Environmental Clearance dated 01.07.2023 for quarrying in 1.8227 Ha - Alleged procedural lapses, violation of distance norms, groundwater depletion, livelihood impact - Prior application rejected per NGT order; fresh online application post-CPCB guidelines.

Findings of Court:
Impugned EC suffers from non-application of updated CPCB distance criteria (200m for blasting); inadequate scrutiny of hydrogeological, biodiversity aspects, site channel - Remitted for fresh appraisal with hearing.

Issues: Validity of EC sans DSR conformity, adherence to violation category timelines, compliance with CPCB distance norms for blasting, adequacy of hydrogeological/biodiversity studies, procedural fairness in appraisal.

Ratio Decidendi: Environmental Clearance for blasting quarries must strictly apply CPCB's 200m distance from dwellings; fresh applications post-rejection require rigorous re-appraisal under EIA norms, including site-specific risks like channels, biodiversity - Prior High Court directions on violation category persist in evaluation.

Result: Appeal allowed; EC kept in abeyance, remitted to SEIAA for re-evaluation within 3 months per CPCB guidelines; penalties for past violations open. (Para 44)

Advocates:
For Appellant(s): Mr. Harish Vasudevan, Mr. Rajan Vishnuraj
For Respondent(s): Dr. Kuna Suryanarayana for R1, Mr. G. Prabhu a/w Mr. R. Ramesh Kumar for R2 & R3, M/s. Mathew & Mathews Mr. Philip J. Vettickattu, Neenu Bernath and Saju S. Dominic for R5

Table of Content
1. appeal challenges ec for quarry due to violations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. appellant alleges procedural lapses and environmental risks. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. seiaa defends appraisal process and site inspections. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. proponent denies violations, cites compliance measures. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. high court directed seiaa consideration; prior rejection noted. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. cpcb guidelines mandate 200m distance for blasting. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 40 , 41)
7. fresh application; 2016 dsr acceptable per high court. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
8. hydrogeological conditions imposed; channel needs scrutiny. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
9. biodiversity and mitigation conditions examined. (Para 36 , 37 , 38)
10. distance shortfall violates cpcb norms. (Para 39 , 42 , 43)
11. ec kept in abeyance; remit for re-evaluation. (Para 44 , 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 5^th Respondent for quarrying operations in Pulamanthole Village, Malappuram District, alleging procedural violations, environmental risks and impact on livelihoods due to the project.

2. The 5^th 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 5^th 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 2^nd 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 likelihood of landslides owi