caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Dhruva Enterprises vs C. Srinivasulu on 15 September, 2021Author: B.R. Gavai
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)
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved
by the impugned judgment and order dated 17 th 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:
The appellant had applied on 28 th 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
communication dated 7th 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
“EIA Notification 2006) dated 14 th September 2006 and 15th
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
accorded EC on 11th 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.
5. In the said proceedings, the learned Tribunal had passed
an interim order on 24th April 2018, thereby staying the order
challenged in the appeal. Being aggrieved thereby, the
5
appellant had approached this Court being Civil Appeal No.
8130 of 2019. This Court vide its order dated 8 th November
2019, requested the learned Tribunal to hear the matter on 22 nd
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.
7. Mr. Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel submitted that
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
Telangana dated 19th 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,
Mahabubnagar on 28th 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.”
12. The RDO was required to submit its report within 30 days
from the date of receipt of the said letter. It further appears
that on 6th 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:
1. Extent of Land : AC 109.08
gts.
2. Classification of Land : Govt. Land
(P.P)
3. Proximity to Forest, Tank, : The canal is
Lake of Irrigation Source situated 1.00
Km for away
from the said
Sy. No.
4. Proximity to habitation : There is no
habitation
nearby.
5. Whether mining will affect : Not affected
habitation to the
habitation
6. Whether mining will affect : No, not
agriculture in affecting to
neighbouring lands the
Agriculture
lands
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,
Nagarkurnool granted ‘NOC’ vide communication dated 8 th
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:
1.Extent of Land : Ac. 109.08
gts.
2. Classification of Land : Government
Land (P.P)
3. Proximity to Forest, Tank, : The canal is
Lake of Irrigation Source situated 1.00
KM for away
from the said
Sy. No.
4. Proximity to habitation : There is no
habitation
near by, but
existing 1
KM away.
5. Whether mining will affect : Not affected
habitation to the
11
habitation
6. Whether mining will affect : No,
agriculture in agriculture
neighbouring lands lands are
existing 500
Mts. Away
from the site.
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.”
14. Vide communication dated 7th 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
Plan on 20th 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.”
16. In the meeting held on 30th 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:
Agenda 24.00 Ha. Quartz and Feldspar Mine of
Item: M/s. Dhruva Enterprises, Sy. Nos. 01 330/1, Kalwakole (V), Peddakothapally
(M), Mahabubnagar District –
Environmental Clearance – Reg.
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
11th 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
Crores and maximum capacity of the project is as
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.”
18. Thereafter, vide order dated 22 nd April 2017, the
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.
19. A perusal of the aforesaid documents would reveal that
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
inspected the area on 11 th 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
submitted its Mining Plan on 20 th October 2016. The proposal
of the appellant was thereafter considered by the SEAC on 30 th
December 2016, wherein it was resolved to recommend the
proposal of the appellant for grant of EC. Thereafter, the
SEIAA, in its meeting dated 11h April 2017, has granted its EC
after considering all the aspects. Thereafter, Quarry Lease has
been granted in favour of the appellant on 22nd 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.
24. In this view of matter, we find that the learned Tribunal
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.
25. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the impugned
judgment and order dated 17th 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
Comments