DHRUVA ENTERPRISES vs. C. SRINIVASULU

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3776 OF 2020 DHRUVA ENTERPRISES        ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS C. SRINIVASULU AND OTHERS    ...RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. The appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved th by the impugned judgment and order dated 17  January 2020, passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, thereby allowing the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and directing the Ministry of Environment & Forest and Climate Change to conduct Environment Impact Assessment Appraisal in terms of EIA Notification 2006, and subsequent amendments 1 thereunder   and   also   to   conduct   public   hearing   and   impose whatever conditions they may find necessary and appropriate for carrying out mining operation.  By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal has further directed suspension of the mining operations until the completion of the said exercise. 2. Facts in brief giving rise to filing of the present appeal are as under:­ th The appellant had applied on 28   July 2016 for Mining Lease for Quartz and Feldspar mining over 29 hectares of land in Sy. No. 330/1, Kalwakole Village, Peddakothapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, State of Telangana.  The total land in the   said   survey   number   was   109   Acres   and   08   Guntas (approximately 44 hectares), out of which the appellant had applied for 29 hectares.   In the application submitted by the appellant, it was stated that the nearest human habitation was Yenambetla, existing at a distance of about 1.6 km from the applied area.  It was further stated in the application that the 2 nearest water body was at a distance of 0.25 km named as Singotham Lake. 3. The application of the appellant was processed at various stages   including   the   Revenue   Divisional   Officer   (hereinafter referred to as the “RDO”), Nagarkurnool, Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Mahabubnagar and Director of Mines and Geology,   Hyderabad,   Government   of   Telangana.     Vide th communication   dated   7   September   2016,   the   Director   of Mines   and   Geology,   Hyderabad,   Government   of   Telangana informed the appellant that after careful examination of the proposal submitted by the appellant, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Mahabubnagar had recommended for grant of   Quarry   Lease   in   favour   of   the   appellant   for   Quartz   and Feldspar   over   an   area   of   24   hectares   in   Sy.   No.   330/1, Kalwakole   Village,   Peddakothapally   Mandal,   Mahabubnagar District, Telangana.   The appellant was directed to submit a Mining Plan approved by Joint Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad for the proposed area within a period of six months 3 from the date of the said communication.   The appellant was directed to submit Consent from the Telangana State Pollution Control Board and also Environmental Clearance (hereinafter referred to as “EC”) from the Ministry of Environment & Forest (hereinafter referred to as the “MoEF”) as per the Environment Impact Assessment Notification (hereinafter referred to as the th th “EIA  Notification 2006)  dated 14   September 2006 and 15 January 2016.   It was also stated in the said communication that if the appellant fails to submit the Approved Mining Plan within   the   stipulated   period,   it   will   be   presumed   that   the appellant was not interested in getting the Quarry Lease for the said   area   and   further   course   of   action   will   be   initiated   in accordance with law.  Thereafter, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Telangana (hereinafter referred to as the “SEIAA”) examined the said proposal in accordance with EIA Notification 2006 and the subsequent amendments thereof and exempted the same from the process of public hearing as the mining   lease   area   was   less   than   25   hectares.     The   SEIAA 4 th accorded   EC   on   11   April   2017,   with   specific   and   general conditions. 4. Challenging the same, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed an appeal under Section 16 read with Section 18(1) and Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) before the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai being Appeal No. 582 of 2017 (SZ), which was transferred to National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) being Appeal No. 24 of 2018, wherein a two­fold challenge was made by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3: first, that the area was reduced from 29 hectares to 24 hectares only in order to avoid the rigours of public hearing and second, that the Singotham Lake was in close proximity of the proposed mining area and as such, the EC granted, was not correct in law. In the said proceedings, the learned Tribunal had passed 5. th an interim order on 24  April 2018, thereby staying the order challenged   in   the   appeal.     Being   aggrieved   thereby,   the 5 appellant had approached this Court being Civil Appeal No. th 8130 of 2019.   This Court vide its order dated 8   November nd 2019, requested the learned Tribunal to hear the matter on 22 November   2019.     Accordingly,   the   learned   Tribunal   after hearing the counsel for the parties, found favour with both the grounds   raised   by   respondent   Nos.   1   to   3   and   allowed   the appeal   by   passing   the   order   as   aforesaid.     Being   aggrieved thereby, the appellant has approached this Court. 6. We   have   heard   Mr.   K.V.   Viswanathan,   learned   Senior Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant,   Mr.   Sandeep Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG appearing on behalf of respondent No.4­Union of India and Mr. Dhananjay Baijal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.9­State Pollution Control Board, Telangana. Mr. Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel submitted that 7. the   learned   Tribunal   has   grossly   erred   in   coming   to   the conclusion that the area was reduced by the appellant from 29 6 hectares to 24 hectares only in order to avoid the rigours of public hearing.  He submitted that the appellant had no role to play in such a reduction. As a matter of fact, the appellant had applied for an area admeasuring 29 hectares.  It was only the authorities which had reduced the area.  He further submitted that the ground with regard to Singotham Lake being in the close   proximity   to   the   proposed   mining   area,   is   also   totally erroneous.  The learned Senior Counsel, relying on the Google Maps as well as photographs, would submit that the distance between the proposed mining area and the Singotham Lake is 0.25 km.  It is therefore submitted that the said distance is in accordance with the requirements of law. 8. Mr. Viswanathan took us through various documents to show that while granting EC, the entire procedure required to be followed   under   EIA  Notification  2006   was  followed.   The proposal   underwent   scrutiny   at   various   stages   and   only thereafter, the SEIAA had granted EC in favour of the appellant. 7 9. Mr.  Sandeep Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that if the distance between the proposed mining area and the water body is more than 0.25 km,   the   said   respondents   would   not   have   any   objection   of permitting mining activities.  The learned counsel for the State as well as the State Pollution Control Board also supported the case of the appellant. 10. In view of the concession granted by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, we could have very well disposed of the appeal. However, since the issue involved is with regard to environment, we have considered the appeal on merits. 11. As   per   the   guidelines   framed   by   the   Government   of th Telangana   dated   19   January   2015,   for   land   admeasuring between 15 hectares to 30 hectares, the competent authority, for issue of ‘No Objection Certificate’ (hereinafter referred to as the “NOC”), for Mining Lease and Quarry Lease in respect of Government/Patta Lands, is with the RDO/Sub­Collector. After the application was made by the appellant for grant of Mining 8 Lease, a letter was addressed by the Assistant Director of Mines and   Geology,   Mahabubnagar   to   RDO,   Nagarkurnool, th Mahabubnagar on 28   July 2016.   Vide the said letter, the RDO was  instructed   to   consider   the  following   aspects  while issuing NOC:­ 1. “Extent of Land. 2. Classification of Land. 3. Proximity   to   Forest,   Tank,   Lake   or   Irrigation Source. 4. Proximity to habitation. 5. Whether mining will affect habitation. 6. Whether   mining   will   affect   agriculture   in neighbouring lands.” The RDO was required to submit its report within 30 days 12. from the date of receipt of the said letter.   It further appears th that on 6  August 2016, the Tahsildar, Peddakothapally, after personally inspecting the site along with the Assistant Revenue Inspector, Peddakothapally, submitted its report to RDO.  The relevant part of the said report reads thus:­  “In   view   of   the   above   myself   and   ARI   of Peddakothapally   Mandal   have   been   proceeded   to the Sy No. 330/1, and found that the said land Sy No. 330/1 of Kalwakole is a Govt. land (P.P) covered by hillrock to an extent of Ac 109.08 gts and there is no objection for allotting the said part of land to 9 M/s Dhruva Enterprises.   Further submitted that the Mandal surveyor has been prepared sketch and the extract of Khasra 1954­55, pahani for the year 2015­16   and   same   are   enclosed   herewith.     The detailed report is as follows:­

I,   therefore,   request   you   to   kindly   lease   may   be granted in favour of M/s Dhruva Enterprises, rep by S.   Venkateshwar   Rao   over   the   Sy   No.   330/1   an extent   109.08   gts   situated   within   the   limits   of Peddakothapally   mandal   is   feasible   to   lease   the land.” 10 13. After the report of the Tahsildar was received, the RDO, th Nagarkurnool   granted   ‘NOC’   vide   communication   dated   8 August 2016.   The relevant part of the said communication reads thus:­   “In this regard, the Tahsildar Peddakothapally has reported that the Sy. No. 330/1, and found that the said   land   Sy.   No.   330/1   of   Kalwakole   is   a Government   land   (P.P)   covered   by   hillrock   to   an extent of Ac. 109.08 gts and there is no objection for allotting   the   said   part   of   land   to   M/s   Dhruva Enterprises.     Further,   it   is   submitted   that   the Mandal Surveyor has been prepared sketch and the extract   of   Khasra   1954­55,   Pahani   for   the   year 2015­16   and   same   are   enclosed   here   with.     The detailed report is as follows:

11

Therefore,   the   Assistant   Director   of   Mines   & Geology, Mahaboobnagar is requested to grant lease permission in  favour   of  M/s  Dhruva  Enterprises, rep. by S. Venkateshwar Rao over the above Sy. No. to an extent of Ac. 109.08 gts situated within the limits   of   Kalwakole   Village   of   Peddakothapally Mandal as per rules.” th 14. Vide   communication   dated   7   September   2016,   the Director   of   Mines   and   Geology,   Hyderabad,   Government   of Telangana granted ‘in­principle’ approval for a Quarry Lease for Quartz and Feldspar over an extent of 24 hectares.  While doing so, the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad directed the appellant   to   submit   a   Mining   Plan   approved   by   the   Joint Director   of   Mines   and   Geology,   Hyderabad,   Government   of Telangana   within   six   months   from   the   date   of   issue   of   the notice.   It was also directed to submit the Consent from the State Pollution Control Board, Telangana and EC from MoEF, as   per   EIA   Notification   2006   and   subsequent   amendments 12 thereof.   The   relevant   part   of   the   said   communication   reads thus:­   “After careful examination of the proposals of the   Asst.   Director   of   Mines   &   Geology, Mahabubnagar in principle, it has been decided to grant a Quarry Lease for Quartz and Feldspar over an   extent   of   24.00   Hect.   in   Sy.   No.   330/1   of Kalwakole   Village,   Peddakothapally   Mandal, Mahabubnagar   District   in   favour   of   M/s   Dhruva Enterprises, Rep: by Sri S. Venkateshwar Rao for a period   of   20   years   subject   to   submission   of Approved Mining Plan within a period of (6) months from the date of issue of this notice as per Rule 12(5)(c)   of   T.S.   Minor   Mineral   Concession   Rules, 1966   alongwith   CFE   from   ESPCB   and Environmental Clearance from MoEF. However, the approved mining plan shall also reflect the restriction to be adopted by the applicant while   conducting   quarry   operations   due   to   the existence   of   structures,   like   temples   railway   line, roads, water bodies such as river, lake etc., and the stipulated distances as per the various Regulations prescribed   under   Mines   &   Metalliferous Regulations, 1961.  The safety measures to be taken are also to be incorporated.   In view of the above, M/s. Dhruva Enterprises, Rep:   by   Sri   S.   Venkateshwar   Rao   is   hereby requested to submit Mining Plan approved by Joint Director   of   Mines   &   Geology,   Hyderabad   for   the proposed precise area within a period of (6) months from the date of issue of this notice and also along with   the   Consent   for   Establishment   from   T.S. Pollution   Control   Board   and   Environmental Clearance   from   Ministry   of   Environment   and 13 Forests   as   per   Environment   Impact   Assessment Notification through S.O. 1533, dt: 14.09.2006 read with S.O. No. 141(E), dated 15.01.2016 to consider for grant of Quarry lease for Quartz and Feldspar in the subject area.  If the applicant fails to submit the Approved Mining Plan within the stipulated period, it   will   be   presumed   that   the   applicant   is   not interested   in   getting   the   Quarry   lease   over   the subject area and further course of action will be initiated   as   per   Rules.     A   copy   of   the   Surveyed sketch showing the precise area of 24.00 Hect. in Sy. No. 330/1 proposed for grant of Quarry Lease for   Quartz   and   Feldspar   in   the   subject   area   in favour of the applicant is enclosed herewith.” 15. Accordingly,   the   appellant   submitted   a   detailed   Mining th Plan on 20  October 2016.  The relevant part of the said Mining Plan reads thus:­   “(ii) Infrastructure and Communication: Water:     Sufficient   quantity   of   drinking   water   is available in the nearby villages from bore wells and opens wells. Electricity:   Electricity is available at a distance of about 800 m from the applied lease area. Rail   Head:     The   nearest   Railway   station   is Mahabubnagar   about   100   Km   from   the   applied Lease area. 14 River Head:   No river a located in the vicinity of the Lease area.  Singotam Lake is located at a distance of about 250 m from the applied area.   Numerous tanks and bore wells constitute the main source of water in the area. Communication:   Telephonic Communication, Post Office,   Bank,   is   available   in   Kalwakole   and Peddakothapally. Road:   Road to the quarry is accessible throughout the year.   Four­wheelers, two­wheelers, buses and autos ply on the road.” th 16. In the meeting held on 30   December 2016 of the State Expert   Appraisal   Committee   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the “SEAC”), the proposal of the appellant came to be considered. The   relevant  part  of   the   said   Minutes   of   the  Meeting   reads thus:­  

The representative of the project propone Sri Dr. S. Venkateshwar Rao; and Sri M. Venkatesh of M/s. Global   Enviro   Labs   &   Consultants,   Hyderabad attended and made a presentation before the SEAC. It is noted that the mine lease area is 24.00 Ha. which   is   less   than   25.0   Ha.     The   project   is 15 considered under B1 Category as per the guidelines of the MoEF & CC, GoI.  The proponent submitted Approved Mining Plan & EMP report. It is noted from the Notice dt. 07.09.2016 of DMG, Hyderabad that the proponent obtained in principle grant of quarry lease for a period of 20 years.  It is further noted that the quarry lease is not granted prior to 09.09.2013.  hence, it has to be ascertained whether any other Mines are located surrounding 500m   as   Cluster,   as   per   S.O.   2269(E),   dt. 01.07.2016 issued by the MoEF & CC, GoI. The   proponent   stated   that   there   are   no   mining activities existing within 500m from the periphery of project. The   nearest   village   to   the   proposed   site   is Yenambetla (V) which is existing at a distance of 1.6 Km and Singotham Lake exists at a distance of 0.25 Km from the boundary of the site.” 17. After a detailed discussion, the project was recommended for grant of EC.  Thereafter, the SEIAA, in its meeting held on th 11  April 2017, considered the said proposal and granted EC to the   project   of   the   appellant.     The   relevant   part   of   the   said Minutes of the Meeting reads thus:­  “I.  This has reference to your application submitted online   on   14.11.2016   (proposal   No. SIA/TG/MIN/60426/2016) received on 23.11.2016, seeking   Environment   Clearance   for   the   proposed Quartz & Feldspar Mine  in favour of  M/s. Dhruva Enterprises,   Sy.   Nos.   330/1,   Kalwakole   (V), 16 Peddakothapally (M), Mahabubnagar District .   It was   reported   that   the   nearest   human   habitation viz., Yenambetla (V) exists at a distance of about 1.6 Km from the mine lease area.  It was also reported that Singotham Lake which is existing at a distance of 0.25 Km from the mine lease area.  It was noted that the capital investment of the project is  Rs. 2.1 and maximum capacity of the project is as Crores   follows: Mining of Quartz – 4,05,842 TPA II.   It is a semi­mechanized opencast quarry.   The Blocks   are   cut   by   using   jack   hammer   drilling, wedge­cutting   and   excavation.     The   separated blocks are dressed manually.  It is reported that the life of the Mine is estimated as 18 years.  The total mine lease area is 24.00 Ha. III.  The proposal has been examined and processed in accordance with EIA Notification, 2006 and its amendments   thereof.     The   State   Level   Expert Appraisal   Committee   (SEAC)   examined   the application, in its meeting held on 30.12.2016 & 22.02.2017.    The project is considered under B2 category and exempted from the process of public hearing as the mining lease area is less than 25 Ha., as per provisions laid under EIA Notification, 2006 & its subsequent amendments.  Based on the information   furnished,   presentation   made   by   the proponent and the consultant M/s. Global Enviro Labs, Hyderabad; In­principle grant of quarry lease by the DMG, Hyderabad Notice Dt. 07.09.2016 for a period of 20 years; Approved Mining Plan; Lr. dt. 12.01.2017 of ADMG: Nagarkurnol informing that there   are   no   mines   surrounding   500   mtrs   as Cluster, the Committee considered the project and recommended   for   issue   of   EC.     The   State   Level 17 Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), in  its   meeting   held   on   14.03.2017   &  18.03.2017 examined   the   proposal   and   recommendations   of SEAC,   Telangana   for   issue   of   Environmental Clearance.     Accordingly,   after   discussions   in   the matter and considering the recommendations of the SEAC, Telangana,   the SEIAA,  Telangana hereby accords   prior   Environmental   Clearance   to   the project   as   mentioned   at   Para   no.   I   under   the provisions   of   EIA   Notification   2006   and   its subsequent   amendments   issued   under Environment   (Protection)   Act,   1986   subject   to implementation of the following specific and general conditions.” nd Thereafter,   vide   order   dated   22   April   2017,   the 18. Government of Telangana granted Quarry Lease for Quartz over an  extent   of   24.00   hectares   in  Sy.   No.   330/1   of   Kalwakole Village,   Peddakothapally   Mandal,   Nagarkurnool   (erstwhile Mahabubnagar) District in favour of the appellant. A perusal of the aforesaid documents would reveal that 19. the appellant, in fact, had applied for grant of Mining Lease for 29   hectares.     It   is,   however,   the   authorities   including   the Tahsildar, the RDO, Assistant Director of Mining and Geology, Mahabubnagar, who had recommended grant of Quarry Lease 18 over 24 hectares.  Insofar as the water body is concerned, the appellant, in his application as well as Mining Plan, has clearly mentioned that Singotham Lake is situated at a distance of 0.25 km.   While processing the proposal of the appellant, the Tahsildar and the Assistant Revenue Inspector of the concerned area have physically carried out the inspection.  Not only that, the  Assistant Director  of   Mines  and   Geology  had   personally th inspected the area on 11  August 2016, and the Surveyor had surveyed the applied area with the help of a GPS instrument.  It is also revealed from the record that the area of 24 hectares in Sy. No. 330/1, which consists a larger area, was earmarked after leaving the safety distance of 0.25 km from Singotham Lake.   In its report, the Surveyor had also reported that the demarcated area was not overlapping with the existing leases and there were no pending applications in that area. 20. It could thus be seen that prior to grant of ‘in­principle’ approval   by   the   Director   of   Mines   and   Geology,   Hyderabad, Government of Telangana, the proposed area was physically 19 inspected by the Tahsildar along with the Assistant Revenue Inspector.   The   Assistant   Director   of   Mines   and   Geology, Mahabubnagar   had   independently   inspected   the   area.     The area   was   surveyed   by   the   Official   Surveyor   with   the   GPS instrument and while earmarking the area, the distance of 0.25 km was also maintained. 21. After   ‘in­principle’   approval   was   granted,   the   appellant th submitted its Mining Plan on 20  October 2016.  The proposal th of the appellant was thereafter considered by the SEAC on 30 December   2016,   wherein   it   was   resolved   to   recommend  the proposal   of   the   appellant   for   grant   of   EC.     Thereafter,   the h SEIAA, in its meeting dated 11  April 2017, has granted its EC after considering all the aspects.  Thereafter, Quarry Lease has nd been granted in favour of the appellant on 22  April 2017.  22. It could thus be seen that the proposal of the appellant has undergone scrutiny at various stages.   Only after it was found that it was in conformity with the provisions of law, the ‘in­principle’   approval   and   EC   for   Quarry   Lease   had   been 20 granted.  Thereafter,  the  appellant has   submitted  his  Mining Plan which was again duly examined by various authorities. The proposal of the appellant was initially considered by SEAC and recommended for grant of EC.   Thereafter, SEIAA, after considering all the aspects has granted EC to the project of the appellant.  Only thereafter, the Quarry Lease had been granted in favour of the appellant.  23. Insofar as the finding of the learned Tribunal that the area was reduced to 24 hectares from 29 hectares only in order to avoid the rigours of public hearing, is totally erroneous.   The appellant had no role to play in the same. It is the authorities who   recommended   approval   in   respect   of   only   24   hectares. Insofar   as   the   mandatory   distance   from   the   water   body   is concerned,   the   authorities   upon   survey   had   found   that   the mandatory distance of 0.25 km is maintained. In this view of matter, we find that the learned Tribunal 24. has grossly erred in arriving at a finding that the appellant had reduced  the  area to  24  hectares  only  in order to  avoid  the 21 rigours of public hearing and further that there was no distance of   0.25   km   between   the   proposed   mining   area   and   the Singotham Lake. In   the   result,   the   appeal   succeeds   and   the   impugned 25. th judgment and order dated 17   January 2020, passed by the learned Tribunal is quashed and set aside.  No costs. …..…..….......................J.    [L. NAGESWARA RAO]     …….........................J. [B.R. GAVAI] ..…..….......................J.        [B.V. NAGARATHNA] NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 15, 2021. 22