Environmental Clearances must align with Supreme Court directives to prevent degradation and require thorough reappraisal by SEIAA.

ORDER

1. In this original applicationOffice Memorandum (OM) dated 03.11.2023 and 15.03.2024 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) extending the validity of Environmental Clearance (EC) granted by the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) from 15.01.2016 to 13.09.2018 till 27.10.2024 have been impugned on the ground that these OMs run counter to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.P. State Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Brijendra Kumar Mala ,Civil Appeal Diary No. 49608/2023 order dated 13.12.2023 and the judgment of the Tribunal in Satendra Pandey v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and another, Jayant Kumar v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and another, Sharvesh Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

2. A further prayer has been made by the applicant to direct the MoEF&CC and State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) of all the States to permit only such mining leases originally issued by DEIAA that have been reappraised and granted fresh EC by EAC/SEIAA in compliance of the direction of the Tribunal in above judgments. The applicant has also prayed for the imposition of EC towards illegal mining and damage caused to the environment by the mining activities undertaken in pursuance of the ECs granted by the DEAC/DEIAA post 13.09.2018.

3. The pivotal issue raised in this OA by the applicant is that the NGT by order dated 13.09.2018 passed in the matter of Satendra Pandey v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change &Anr. in OA No. 186/2016 had held that the Notification dated 15.01.2016 amending the EIA Notification, 2006 and providing for the EC by DEIAA for ‘B-2’ Category, 0 to 25 ha without public consultation resulted into gross dilution of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2016 and contrivaned the judgment of Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana , (2012) 4 SCC 629 . The NGT in Satendra Pandey (supra) had directed that the procedure laid down by Notification dated 15.01.2016 be brought in consonance and in accordance with the direction passed in Deepak Kumar (supra) and that the Form-1M be made more comprehensive for areas 0 to 5 ha by dispensing with the requirement of public consultation to be evaluated by SEAC for recommendation of grant EC by SEIAA instead of DEAC/DEIAA.

4. The stand of the applicant is that the impugned OMs dated 15.03.2024 and 03.11.2023 extending the validity of EC granted by DEAC/DEIAA run counter to the above judgments of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court.

5. To examine the above issue, it would be relevant to trace out the background of the litigation and the judgments/orders passed by the NGT and Supreme Court from time to time on this issue after EIA Notification 2006.

6. The EIA Notification 2006 was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by the Environment (Protection) Act , 1986 read with Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, requiring prior EC for the projects from the concerned regulatory authorities enumerated in the schedule to the Notification. The EIA Notification also provides for the constitution of SEIAA under section 3 of the , 1986 and composition thereof. All the projects and activities were broadly categorized under Category ‘A’ and ‘B’.

7. The projects and activities included in Category ‘B’ in the schedule require prior EC from SEIAA based on the recommendation of the SEAC. In the original schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006 at Sr. No. 1(a)mining of minerals was included and only mining lease area of more than 5 ha was covered meaning thereby no prior