Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 5230
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapati, Expert Member
A. Selvaraj – Appellant
Versus
State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) – Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Appeal No.19 of 2024 (SZ)
For Appellant(s): Mr. G. Vignesh
For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1 & R2
Environmental clearance rejection must be based on scientific evidence and reasoned appraisal, not unsubstantiated ecological concerns.
Headnote:EIA Notification, 2006 governs Category ‘B2’ mining projects requiring prior Environmental Clearance. Appellant secured mining lease for rough stone quarry but faced rejection by SEAC/SEIAA citing topsoil removal, forest proximity, hill foot location, surrounding agriculture, and nearby structures. Tribunal found rejection arbitrary, lacking scientific evidence, site inspection, or consideration of submitted documents including VAO certificate and mining plan. Issue: Whether rejection order violates natural justice and EIA process. Ratio: Authorities must base decisions on empirical data, not generalized concerns; precautionary principle requires demonstrable risk; topsoil handling needs scientific appraisal of mitigation; unsubstantiated claims on forest buffer and runoff invalid without assessment (paras 15-26). Impugned rejection order set aside; matter remanded to SEIAA for fresh consideration with personal hearing within 8 weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of mining lease and ec application rejection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. seac/seiaa rejection reasons invoking precautionary principle. (Para 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 3. appellant's challenge to arbitrary rejection and violations. (Para 7 , 8 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. remand for reasoned fresh consideration with hearing. (Para 10 , 11 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. critique of unsubstantiated concerns lacking scientific evidence. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGEMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. The above appeal is filed by the Appellant, challenging the order of the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) – Tamil Nadu (Respondent No.1 herein), issued vide Letter No. SEIAA-TN/F.No.10150/2022 dated 11.09.2023, rejecting the Appellant’s proposal for Environmental Clearance for a proposed rough stone quarry over 2.00.0 Hectares in S.F. No. 692 (Part), Karuppur Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District. The impugned order was communicated to the appellant on 21.10.2023.
2. The Appellant, having emerged as the highest bidder in a government-conducted tender for 27 rough stone quarries in Tiruchirappalli District, was granted a five-year mining lease vide Roc. No.123/2016/Mines dated 17.05.2023 by the Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Tiruchirappalli. The lease permits the extraction of 85,050 m³ of rough stone and 11,340 m³ of topsoil over 2.00.0 Hectares of government land.
3. The Appellant further states that an application for prior Environmental Clearance was submitted on 16.06.2023 to the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu, under Category ‘B2’ of Item 1(a) “Mining of Minerals” of the EIA Notification, 2006 vide Proposal No. SIA/TN/MIN/433049/2023. All requisite documents including Form-1, Form-1M, the approved Mining Plan, and the Progressive Quarry Closure Plan were submitted. The Mining Plan, approved on 17.05.2023, stipulated environmental safeguards and allowed quarrying to a depth of 21 meter using a semi-mechanized open- cast method with a bench height and width of 05 meters and a slope of 80 degree.
4. It is further stated by the appellant that the groundwater table lies at 53 Meters in summer and 50 Meters during the rainy season. The site does not fall under any HACA Region or Coastal Regulation Zone, nor is it within 10 km of any interstate boundary, Western Ghats boundary, National Park, Wildlife Sanctuary, protected area, or eco-sensitive zone. A letter from the Assistant Director dated 17.05.2023 confirms the details of nearby existing, proposed, and abandoned quarries within 500 meter that would violate cluster guidelines. Moreover, the Karuppur Reddiyappatti Reserve Forest lies outside the prescribed distance criteria.
5. Despite the above, the application for Environmental Clearance was rejected by the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) – Tamil Nadu in its 402nd meeting held on 17.08.2023 and the following were observed:-
“1. From the approved mining plan furnished by the PP, it is seen that there is topsoil up to a depth of 1m and complete excavation of the topsoil will be detrimental to the local ecology as well as to the nearby agricultural lands.
2. Further, the proposed mine lease area is abutting the Karuppur Reddiyapatti Reserve Forest
3. The location forms foot of the hill and any mining activity in thick area will turn have implications for the water flow and surface runoff.
4. Besides, the proposed quarrying site is in elevated small hillock with agricultural activities being carried out all around.
5. There are few numbers of farm houses/structures within 300m.
The SEAC took note of the following:
"Mountains, forests, hills, hillocks and rivers are Nature’s gifts and it is the duty of the Government and the administration to ensure that they are preserved for future generations."
The Clause extracted from the 1972 Stockholm declaration adds that, "The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora
