Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 5473
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapati, Expert Member
E.V. Sampath – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board – Respondent
Original Application No.12 of 2024 (SZ) | I.A. Nos.06 to 14 & 23 of 2024 (SZ)
For Applicant(s): M/s. A. Yogeshwaran, Poongkhulali. B, Iraiyanbu. P, Asfaq Ahmath
For Respondent(s): Mr. P.S. Raman, Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith, M/s. M. Nandha Kumar, K. Mukund Rao, V. Saran Raj, Mr. K.S. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv., M/s. T. Hemalatha, R. Rajmohan, S. Deepika, Mr. G.M. Ananthakumar, Mr. M.S. Krishnan, Sr. Adv., M/s. M.A. Abdul Wahab, R. Jagadeesan, S. Deenadayalan
Dispensing inter-crusher distance criterion upheld with mandates for cluster carrying capacity studies, cumulative impact assessments, and stringent pollution controls like concrete roads, dry dust systems, and greenbelts to prevent fugitive emissions.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Law - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Sections 17A and 19 - Stone crushing units - Siting criteria - Challenge to board proceeding dispensing with minimum 1 Km distance between new/proposed crushers as prescribed in earlier proceeding - Based on expert committee and study reports recommending dispensation to promote clusters for better pollution control - Tribunal holds that while distance criteria between crushers may be relaxed subject to strict pollution control measures, board must frame new guidelines after carrying capacity and cumulative impact studies - Directions issued for concrete roads, dry dust collection, green cover, worker health protection, and dedicated zones for clusters. (Paras 3, 4, 43, 56, 59)
(B) Principle of Non-Regression - Does not prohibit relaxation of siting norms if supported by scientific studies and enhanced mitigation measures ensuring ambient air quality standards - Dispensal upheld but with mandatory review and additional safeguards against fugitive dust, PM10/PM2.5 emissions, and cluster impacts. (Paras 32, 47, 56)
Facts of the case:
Applicant challenged board proceeding dispensing with 1 Km inter-crusher distance criterion, alleging arbitrary relaxation leading to mushrooming units and increased dust pollution, violating non-regression and pollution control laws. Board defended on basis of expert studies showing clusters preferable for containment with advanced controls, amid demand for manufactured sand.
Findings of Court:
Original application disposed without quashing proceedings but with comprehensive directions to board for revised guidelines within 3 months, including separate siting criteria for standalone and cluster units, carrying capacity studies, concrete roads, dry dust systems, pre-operative greenbelts/wind walls, annual inspections, health camps, and action on violations.
Issues: Whether dispensing 1 Km distance criterion arbitrary/illegal without full scientific study; validity of expert recommendations favoring clusters; need for cumulative impact/carrying capacity assessments; adequacy of pollution controls for fugitive emissions in clusters.
Ratio Decidendi: Relaxation permissible if backed by studies, but mandates distinct criteria for standalone/cluster units, carrying capacity limits, year-round monitoring, enhanced mitigations like dry suppression and greenbelts to ensure standards met, prioritizing environment over unchecked proliferation.
Result: Original Application No.12 of 2024 (SZ) and I.As disposed with directions; no quashing but immediate review ordered.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. history of tnpcb distance criteria for stone crushers (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. tnpcb rationale for relaxing 1km inter-crusher distance (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. maintainability challenges on locus and limitation (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. applicant's challenge to neeri report validity (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. tnpcb defense on limitation and expertise (Para 25 , 26 , 28) |
| 6. health and environmental impacts of stone crushers (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 7. cpcb guidelines for pollution control measures (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 8. analysis of neeri report limitations (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 9. need for cluster-specific siting criteria (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 10. directions for revised guidelines and compliance (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
JUDGEMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. There is a spurt in demand of crushed stones in the last few years due to accelerated developmental activities that include the construction of roads, housing projects, buildings, bridges and railways. As a result, there is a demand for an increase in stone crushing units. This mechanical stone crushing is the source of dust and pollution. Required environmental guidelines have been formulated and are being enforced by different State Pollution Control Boards on the basis of guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to regulate air and noise pollution.
2. While so, the above Original Application is filed to quash the Board Proceeding (B.P.) No.21 dated 31.07.2019 of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), culminating in the Board Resolution dated 16.10.2023 so far it relates to dispensing with the minimum distance between crushers contained in Condition (1) which is 1 Km between new/proposed crushers as prescribed in B.P. No.4 dated 02.07.2004.
3. The application primarily relates to two of the Board Proceedings of the TNPCB, which are (i) B.P. No.4 dated 02.07.2004 and (ii) B.P. No.21 dated 31.07.2019. As per B.P. No.4 dated 02.07.2004, the distance criteria between two crushers must be 1 Km which was determined based on the ambient air quality service in the year 1992 vide B.P. No.609 dated 09.12.1992. Subsequently, the Board issued certain conditions vide B.P. No.48 dated 09.09.1998 based on the representations from various stone crushing industries in the State and considered the relaxation based on the CSIR - National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) report on dust emissions from stone crushing industries. Therefore, the Board laid down the new norms for the location of stone crushing industries in the State vide B.P. No.4 dated 02.07.2004. The Board fixed the norm that no new/proposed stone crusher should be located within 500 Metersof any National Highway or State Highway or inhabited site or places of public and religious importance. The new criteria as per Clause 2.2 prescribe a minimum distance between new and proposed stone crushers to be 1 Km to avoid dust pollution influence of one over the other. For the purpose of including the educational institutions and other public offices and places of religious importance, the Board issued B.P. No.55 dated 06.10.2005 replaced and amended the B.P. No.4 dated 02.07.2004. Therefore, the Board had provided a minimum distance of 1 Km between crushers to avoid dust pollution influence and the same was followed till B.P. No.21 dated 31.07.2019 was issued.
4. The B.P. No.21 dated 31.07.2019 came to be issued dispensing with the minimum distance of 1 Km between new/proposed crushers, as prescribed in B.P. No.4 dated 02.07.2004, which is now assailed by the applicant as arbitrary and illegal. The said distance criteria was dispensed with based on the representation from the stone crushers associations who wanted to go for expansion to manufacture M-Sand in addition to the existing consented production of blue metal jelly and new crush
