Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1345

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J, Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, ACJ
K. Mohan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Member Secretary State Environment Impact Assessment Authority – Respondent
Original Application No.113 of 2022 (SZ) | Original Application No.114 of 2022 (SZ) | Original Application No.115 of 2022 (SZ) | Original Application No.116 of 2022 (SZ) | Original Application No.117 of 2022 (SZ) | Original Application No.118 of 2022 (SZ)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates Mr. K. Venkata Subban & Mr. S. Mukunth
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1 & R6, Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R2 to R4, M/s. M.N. Balakrishnan, R. Kannan & Md. Yaqoobkafeel for R5
Mr. S. Prasanna, Mr. C. Sankar and Mr. P. Velumaniyan for R5
M/s. KNS Law Chambers, Kaushik N Sharma, J. Jeya Sabare Eswaran, E.M. Sachin & T. Kiran Rani for R4
M/s. N. Ponraj & C. Prabhu for R5

The court mandated strict compliance with environmental regulations and established that quarry operations must not resume without verifying adherence to all safety and ecological safeguards.

Headnote:(A) Environmental Protection Act, 1986 - Environmental Clearance and Mining Lease - Several Original Applications filed by individuals affected by quarrying activities in Coimbatore were heard together by the National Green Tribunal. The court emphasized on adherence to environmental regulations and safety norms. (Paras 1-2, 18)

(B) Compliance with Conditions - The Tribunal detailed violations regarding environmental safeguards, including lack of fencing, excessive mining, and non-compliance with safety norms. It mandated verification of compliance before resuming operations. (Paras 3-6, 12-20)

(C) Grounds for Appeal - Applicants alleged that quarrying violated environmental acts and posed risks to public safety without proper EIA procedures. Respondents denied allegations asserting compliance with regulations. (Paras 3-4, 10-11)

Facts of the case:
Multiple individuals filed petitions against quarry operators for exceeding permissions, failing to comply with environmental laws, and causing damage to land and water sources. Common concerns included excessive mining, lack of safety measures, and denial of local objections. (Paras 2-4)

Findings of Court:
The court held that quarrying operations must comply with all prescribed regulations and that no operation should resume until compliance was thoroughly verified by the appropriate authorities. (Paras 18.1-20)

Issues: The issues revolved around alleged violations of environmental laws, safety distance from public places, compliance with mining and environmental regulations, and the legitimacy of operations by various quarry operators. (Paras 2-9)

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that adherence to environmental standards is paramount and that past violations must be rectified before any further operations are permitted. The Tribunal also underscored the obligation of authorities to enforce compliance rigorously. (Paras 12-20)

Result: All Original Applications stand disposed of with directions for environmental compliance verification before recommencing quarry operations.

Table of Content
1. environmental violations by quarry operators. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. applications brought to tribunal for relief. (Para 4 , 5)
3. respondents deny allegations of environmental violations. (Para 6)
4. authority reports document non-compliance. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. environmental penalties imposed for non-compliance. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
6. recommendations to mitigate environmental impacts. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
7. directions for compliance and potential penalties. (Para 17 , 18)
8. case disposal and stipulations for future compliance. (Para 19 , 20)

COMMON JUDGEMENT

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

1. The above-captioned Original Applications [O.A. Nos.113 to 118 of 2022 (SZ)] are filed by separate individuals said to have been affected by quarrying and mining activities undertaken by private parties in violation of environmental regulations and the conditions imposed in the clearances/ permissions/ approvals granted.

2. Since the quarry lands are situated in Coimbatore district and all cases were filed by the same counsel, the matters were heard together.

3. The key averments from each Original Application are summarized as follows:-

O.A. No.113 of 2022 (SZ)
The State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) – Tamil Nadu granted Environmental Clearance (EC) to the 5th Respondent (V. Ranjith Kumar) for rough stone and gravel quarry over an extent of 1.03.5 Hectares at S.F. No. 179/A1B (Part), Pottaiyandipurambu Village, Kinathukadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District vide Letter dated 27.04.2021, following the lapse of the previous EC in 2013. Based on this, a quarry licence was issued on 28.07.2021 by the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, upon the recommendation of the Sub Collector, Pollachi, and the Assistant Geologist, with certification from SEIAA and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. The Applicant alleges that the EC was obtained through suppression and misrepresentation of facts. High-voltage underground electric lines supplying 8 villages were misrepresented as low-voltage to secure TNEB approval dated 30.04.2020 for relocation. Quarrying was conducted in violation of safety norms—within 8 meters of a public road and 10 meters of electric lines— while concealing the presence of the Harijan Colony (382 meters) and the Karupian Temple (491 meters). The 5th Respondent exceeded the approved quantity of 48,607 Cu.M of rough stones and 5,124 Cu.M of other material, used explosives excessively, and operated the quarry for up to 23 hours daily. Blasting activities damaged nearby agricultural lands, houses, and borewells, as highlighted in a complaint by the Coimbatore Farmers Sangam dated 29.04.2022. No green belt or noise barriers were installed, and the required 5-meter bench height was not maintained.
O.A. No.114 of 2022 (SZ)
The Department of Geology and Mining granted a mining lease to the 5th Respondent (V. Dileep) under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, which authorized the extraction of 524,980 Cu.M of ordinary stones from 20.11.2020 to 19.11.2025 and 34,092 Cu.M of gravel from 20.11.2020 to 19.11.2023, at S.F. Nos.728/2, 729/1, 729/2 and 729/3 of Sokkanur Village, Kinathukadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District admeasuring 2.78.5 Hectares, based on Environmental Clearance (EC) granted by SEIAA-TN dated 10.02.2020

O.A. No.113 of 2022 (SZ)

The State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) – Tamil Nadu granted Environmental Clearance (EC) to the 5th Respondent (V. Ranjith Kumar) for rough stone and gravel quarry over an extent of 1.03.5 Hectares at S.F. No. 179/A1B (Part), Pottaiyandipurambu Village, Kinathukadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District vide Letter dated 27.04.2021, following the lapse of the previous EC in 2013. Based on this, a quarry licence was issued on 28.07.2021 by the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, upon the recommendation of the Sub Collector, Pollachi, and the Assistant Geologist, with certification from SEIAA and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. The Applicant alleges that the EC was obtained through suppression and misrepresentation of facts. High-voltage underground electric lines supplying 8 villages were misrepresented as low-voltage to secure TNEB approval dated 30.04.2020 for relocation. Quarrying was conducted in violation of safety norms—within 8 meters of a public road and 10 meters of electric lines— while concealing the presence of the Harijan Colony (382 meters) and the Karupian Temple (491 meters). The 5th Respondent exceeded the approved quantity of 48,607 Cu.M of rough stones and 5,124 Cu.M of other material, used explosives excessively, and operated the quarry for up to 23 hours daily. Blasting activities damaged nearby agricultural lands, houses, and borewells, as highlighted in a complaint by the Coimbatore Farmers Sangam dated 29.04.2022. No green belt or noise barriers were installed, and the required 5-meter bench height was not maintained.

O.A. No.114 of 2022 (SZ)

The Department of Geology and Mining granted a mining lease to the 5th Respondent (V. Dileep) under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, which authorized the extraction of 524,980 Cu.M of ordinary stones from 20.11.2020 to 19.11.2025 and 34,092 Cu.M of gravel from 20.11.2020 to 19.11.2023, at S.F. Nos.728/2, 729/1, 729/2 and 729/3 of Sokkanur Village, Kinathukadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District admeasuring 2.78.5 Hectares, based on Environmental Clearance (EC) granted by SEIAA-TN dated 10.02.2020

and approval from the Pollution Control Board. However, the Applicant discovered that the EC and lease were obtained by suppressing material facts and misrepresentations. During a hearing on 20.02.2020, the Applicant objected, citing the proximity of his 4-hectare agricultural land in S.F.No.741 and potential harm from dust and chemical emissions, but authorities dismissed the concern citing procedural compliance. The 5th Respondent falsely claimed to have acquired No Objection Certificates from local residents. Quarrying activities impacted residences in S.F. Nos. 741/2B, 745/1B, 746/1A, and 726/1B—situated within 132 to 260 meters—as well as undiscl

and approval from the Pollution Control Board. However, the Applicant discovered that the EC and lease were obtained by suppressing material facts and misrepresentations. During a hearing on 20.02.2020, the Applicant objected, citing the proximity of his 4-hectare agricultural land in S.F.No.741 and potential harm from dust and chemical emissions, but authorities dismissed the concern citing procedural compliance. The 5th Respondent falsely claimed to have acquired No Objection Certificates from local residents. Quarrying activities impacted residences in S.F. Nos. 741/2B, 745/1B, 746/1A, and 726/1B—situated within 132 to 260 meters—as well as undiscl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1345

The court mandated strict compliance with environmental regulations and established that quarry operations must not resume without verifying adherence to all safety and ecological safeguards.

Cases Referred (1)