Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1478
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J, Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, ACJ
Ushakumari K – Appellant
Versus
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change – Respondent
Appeal No.41 of 2024 (SZ)
For the Appellants: M/s. P.B. Sahasranaman, S. Sai Sathya Jith, Md. Arshadullah Sheriff
For Respondents: Dr. C.K. Syed Shaffi, Mr. R. Ramesh Kumar, Mr. G. Vignesh, Mrs. V.K. Rema Smrithi, M/s. Enoch David Simon Joel, S. Sreedev, Ronu Jose, Leo Lukose, Karol Mathews Sebastian Alencherry
The National Green Tribunal confirmed that compliance with environmental regulatory conditions is essential for quarry operations, balancing industrial activities and community safety.
Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 16 - Environmental Clearance - The appeal arose from the revocation of the suspension of Environmental Clearance for quarry operating in violation of conditions set by SEIAA. The court considered the impact of quarrying activities on buildings within a 200-meter radius, emphasizing the need for compliance with specified blasting techniques to prevent harm to nearby structures. The appellant alleged damage due to vibrations caused by the quarrying, while the SEIAA revoked suspension based on a vibration study indicating compliance with permitted limits. (Paras 1-27)
(B) Compliance with Environmental Clearance - The court found that the appellant's concerns were not disregarded and that adequate studies were conducted to confirm the safety of blasting techniques used by the quarry. The decision rested on substantial compliance with regulatory conditions and monitoring mechanisms. Results of vibration studies indicated safe operations.
(C) The court confirmed the revocation but allowed for possible penalties for past non-compliance. Resulting in confirmation of the SEIAA's decision with directives for future monitoring.
(D) Parties involved include the appellant and five respondents, including the Ministry of Environment along with various environmental authorities. (E) The decision reiterates the significance of adherence to environmental safety protocols in industrial operations.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revocation of suspension order challenged based on environmental non-compliance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. conditions imposed in environmental clearance, focusing on blasting safety. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. compliance with vibration studies and additional safety conditions affirmed. (Para 12 , 13 , 20 , 22) |
| 4. the appeal's legitimacy concerning suspension revocation and community impact. (Para 16 , 18 , 25) |
| 5. final disposition of the appeal with guidance for future monitoring. (Para 27) |
JUDGEMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. Aggrieved by the order of revocation of suspension dated 17.02.2024 passed by the 2nd Respondent/ State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) - Kerala, the appellant has preferred the above appeal.
2. Respondent No.5 is operating a granite building stone quarry in an extent of 0.9705 Hectares of land in Ezhumattoor Village, Mallapally Taluk, Pathanamthitta, Kerala, based on the Environmental Clearance dated 20.07.2022. The said Environmental Clearance was granted on the basis of the lease deed dated 12.04.2022.
3. One of the main conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance is that blasting should be done in a controlled manner using Non-Electrical (NONEL) technique, as specified by regulations of the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO). However, in utter disregard of the above condition, the 5th Respondent had used electric detonators, which damaged several houses wherein cracks were developed in the wall due to vibrations. Hence, on 12.01.2023, the appellant had made a complaint to the SEIAA – Kerala to cancel the Environmental Clearance for violating the conditions. Based on the said complaint, the SEIAA – Kerala has suspended the Environmental Clearance granted to the 5th Respondent, after which quarry operations were stopped.
4. Later, on 17.02.2024, the said suspension order was revoked by the SEIAA – Kerala by imposing additional conditions which included the usage of NONEL-based shock tube detonator for the initiation of blasting. The appellant challenges the revocation of the suspension order, alleging that 63 buildings are located within a 200-meter radius of the quarry site. The vibration caused by the quarrying activity has damaged the said buildings and the 5th Respondent is bound to compensate the same.
5. According to the appellant, while revoking the suspension order, the SEIAA – Kerala had omitted to consider the fact that the 5th Respondent has not taken steps to restore the conditions prior to the operations and to assess the damage caused to the ecology, to the appellant’s residence and other buildings in that area.
6. It was emphasized that having found that the 5th Respondent was not following the NONEL technique, the Environmental Clearance should have been cancelled. However, the revocation of the suspension is allegedly bad and it is under challenge.
7. The original Environmental Clearance was granted on 20.07.2022 for a period of three years with specific and general conditions. Condition No.3 (xiii) states “In the wake of occurrence of large scale landslides in the State, as per the information provided by the Department of Mining and Geology, it is directed to use only NONEL (Non Electrical) technology for blasting to reduce the vibration of the ground, which is one of the causative factors that triggers landslides, formation of cracks in the surrounding buildings and disturbance to human and wildlife”.
8. Further, the general Condition No.26 specifically states “Blasting should be done in a controlled manner using NONEL technique as specified by the regulations of Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization (GOI) or any other concerned authorized agency. A licensed person should supervise/ control the blasting operations”.
9. As there was a breach of conditions, the appellant had made a complaint to the SEIAA – Kerala, which was considered in their 125th Meeting held on 28th & 29th March 20
