AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—The Writ Petitions are filed seeking writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from carrying sand quarry operations
along the stretches of rivers of Cauvery and Kollidam, which runs through Karur, Trichy, Thanjavur, Thiruvarur and Nagapattinam Districts. Since
the issue involved in these Writ Petitions are with regard to sand mining in Cauvery River, all the Writ Petitions were heard together and disposed
of by this common Order.
The Petitioners allege violation of rules and regulations of Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The Petitioners allege excessive and unscientific
sand quarrying and that number of poclains are used for scooping the sand up to 10-15 feet depth and that pits are created in the middle of the
river and roads are also formed affecting the normal water course and also equality of the river stream.
Grievance of the Writ Petitioners is that excess sand mining in riverbeds and instream which cause damages to the river system and degradation
of good water quality. Writ Petitioners contend that for quarry operations including minor minerals, as per the Environmental Impact Notification
dated 14.09.2006, environmental clearance has to be obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Forests/State Level Impact Assessment
Authority, Chennai.
Respondents resist the Writ Petitions contending that in the State of Tamil Nadu, sand quarry operations are directly under the control of Public
Works Department and loading of sand to the vehicles directly from the riverbed are done under the strict supervision of Public Works
Department. Proposals are submitted to the District Collectors by the Public Works Department after studying the availability of sand, safe
quarrying, environmental aspects etc. Considering these aspects, the District Collectors grant permission to Public Works Department for sand
quarrying imposing strict conditions. Government is strictly enforcing the guidelines in respect of sand quarrying and Government have taken steps
to curb excessive and illicit sand quarry operations. According to Government, various benefits are gained due to sand quarrying just above the
bed level:- (i) by removal of sand dunes, free flow of water could be ensured thereby inundation in adjoining villages of Trichy, Ariyalur, Thanjavur
and Nagapattinam Districts can be avoided; (ii) flood carrying capacity of Kollidam will be restored; (iii) requirement of sand for public will be
fulfilled for day today construction and developmental activities implemented by the Government; and (iv) revenue of the Government is increased.
Regarding the plea of environment clearance, according to the Government, in the State of Tamil Nadu, as per G.O.Ms. No. 95 Industries
(MMC.I) Department dated 01.10.2003, sand quarry operations are being carried out by the Public Works Department. The said G.O.Ms. No.
95 dated 01.10.2003 has been upheld by the Madras High Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P. Krishnamoorthy and Others, and by the Hon''ble
Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. P. Krishnamurthy and Others, and since sand quarry operations are being carried in a
skillful and scientific manner under the supervision of Public Works Department, it is not necessary to obtain environmental clearance; for sand
quarry operations in the State of Tamil Nadu.
In order to appreciate the contention of parties, it is necessary to refer to the brief history of sand quarrying in the State of Tamil Nadu and
Policy and also the relevant Government Orders.
Background facts:-
Taking cognizance of the indiscriminate sand quarry in the river streams of Tamil Nadu, way back in 2002, High Court by an order dated
26.7.2002 in Contempt Application No.561 of 2001 arising out of Order dated 08.2.2000 in W.P. No. 985 of 2000 directed the State
Government to constitute a Committee of Experts consisting of Geologist, Environmentalist and Scientist to study the river and riverbeds in the
State with particular reference to the damage caused on account of indiscriminate and illicit sand quarrying. In compliance with the direction of
High Court, Government constituted a six member High Level Committee. The Committee in its report expressed the view that illicit and
haphazard sand mining has led to deepening of river beds, widening of the rivers, damage to civil structures, depletion of groundwater level,
degradation of ground water quality and damages to the river streams and reduction of biodiversity. Taking note of the observation and conclusion
of the High Level Committee, Government felt that there is an emergent need for frame work for regulation of sand quarrying in the State in public
interest. With a view to eliminate indiscriminate and unscientific sand quarrying and also to ensure uninterrupted availability of sand to the common
people at affordable price and also to augment the revenue of the State Government, the Government issued amendment introducing Rule 38-A of
the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, whereby all existing leases for quarrying sand in Government lands and permissions granted in
Ryotwari lands ceased to be effective with effect from 2.10.2003 and the right to quarry sand in the State vests with the Government. Government
had taken a policy decision to cancel all the sand quarry leases and to vest the same with the Government vide Rule 38-A of Tamil Nadu Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 in G.O.Ms. No. 95, Industries (MMC.I) Department dated 1.10.2003. From 2.10.2003, all the sand quarries in
the Government land areas are operated by the Public Works Department. In respect of patta land quarries, they were stopped from operation.
G.O.Ms. No. 95 dated 01.10.2003 and amended Rule 38-A was challenged in a batch of writ petitions and same was upheld by the Hon''ble
Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. P. Krishnamurthy and Others, Between 2003-2006 i.e. till G.O.Ms. No. 110, Public Works
Department dated 06.7.2006, based on the recommendations of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Organisation, Government issued various
Government Orders for operation of sand quarry in the recommended places.
G.O.Ms. No. 110, Public Works Department dated 06.7.2006:- In order to avoid delay and also ensure availability and supply of sand in an
orderly manner to the common public at affordable price, Government had given instructions for issuing of orders of permission to quarry by the
Public Works Department. The normal procedure for grant of sand quarry in areas are first identified by the Public Works Department and then
area is applied for grant. The application is processed by the concerned Assistant Director/Deputy Director of Geology and Mining Department.
Proposals are submitted to the District Collectors by the Public Works Department after studying the availability of sand, safe quarrying,
environmental aspects etc. Considering the availability of sand and other aspects, the District Collectors grant permission to Public Works
Department to quarry sand in a particular area and stipulating time frame as well as quantity of sand to be lifted.
Rules stipulated in Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959:-
Government issued certain Circular/Communication stating that sand quarry should be operated as per the Rules of Government in force by strictly
following the conditions for quarrying. While granting permission for sand quarry, conditions interalia imposed as per TN MMC Rules, 1959 and
other which read as under:-
No quarrying within a distance of 50 meters from a railway line, reservoir, canal or other public work such as public roads and buildings (this
can be relaxed by the Appropriate Authority). In respect of Village roads, 10 meters safety distances should be provided.
No quarrying within 500 meters radial distances from the location of any bridge water supply system, infiltration well or pumping installation of
any installation of any of the local bodies or Central or State Government Department or Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board load
works or any area identified for locating water supply schemes by any of the Government Departments. (Rule 36 of TN MMC Rules)
Shall carryout quarrying operations in a skilful, scientific and systematic manner keeping in view of proper safety of the labour, structure and the
public works located in the vicinity to preserve the environment and ecology of the area.
As per Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959 Rule 12(2)(1).
Pit shall be at a distance of atleast twice the height of the bund from the top of the bund and they shall not be more than one metre in depth (the
depth shall be less, if pits one metre deep are likely to expose porus strata)
Shall keep correct accounts showing productions and despatches. The above rules stipulated in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession
Rules should be judicially taken into account while undertaking Sand Quarrying. The above instructions were directed to be scrupulously followed
by the field level officers.
Use of Machineries/Poclains:- In G.O.Ms. No. 327, Industries Department dated 1.12.1997, the Government issued orders by introducing
sub-rule (6) to Rule 36-A of TN MMC Rules to the effect that no machinery shall be used for quarrying sand from river beds. The said rule was
introduced for the reason that private parties operating quarries were all non-technical people and do not possess the knowledge of theoretical bed
level and bed fall of the river and if they are allowed to use the machinery, the quarrying work will be done in an uncontrollable manner and more
than the allowable depth with a profit motive. As pointed out earlier, Rule 38-A was introduced under which the Public Works Department has
been entrusted with the task of operating sand quarries in the State. In view of the demand from the public and also to cater to the need, the
Government decided to amend Sub-rule (6) of Rule 36-A relating to the use of machinery for quarrying of sand in river beds with some conditions,
Government passed G.O.Ms. No. 19 Industries (MMC 1) dated 19.4.2004. Rule 36-A sub-rule (6) was substituted as under:
No machinery shall be used for quarrying sand from river beds, except with the permission of the Secretary to Government, Industries Department
or any other authority or Officer, as may be authorized by him in this behalf, who may grant such permission if use of such machinery will not be
detrimental to ecology.
Directions in Tamiraparani case - Taking cognizance of indiscriminate quarrying of river sand in Tamirabarani river, in W.P. No. 11182 of
2010 etc., (batch cases), by order dated 2.12.2010, extending the scope of directions for sand quarry operations in all the rivers in the State of
Tamil Nadu, in Para 86(f) of the Judgment, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (in which one of us was a Member - Justice R.Banumathi)
has directed that no poclains or heavy machinery shall be used in sand quarrying, which reads as under:
(f) No poclain or other heavy machinery shall be used for sand quarrying. It would be in order of the Government of Tamil Nadu exercises its
discretion in bringing the necessary amendment to Rule 36-A Sub-Rule (6) of TN MMC Rules, which permits use of machinery with permission of
authorised officer. We hope that the State will put in place the necessary amendment within six months to prevent use of machinery in sand
quarrying.
Subsequently, Review Petition was filed in M.P. No. 1 of 2011. By considering the difficulties expressed by the Government in ensuring
availability of sand quarry rivers at affordable cost, by the order dated 10.1.2011, Court modified the directions in Paragraph 86(f) granting
permission for use of minimum poclains not more than ""two poclains"" in each of the quarry sites. It was further directed that the poclains shall not
be used after 7.00 P.M. and before 6.00 A.M. Accordingly, Government also issued G.O.(D) No.67, Industries (MMC-I) Department, dated
11.03.2011 directing District Collectors to impose conditions restricting judicious use of minimum number of poclains and not more than two
poclains in each of the quarry sites (other than Palar and Tamiraparani rivers).
State Level Monitoring Committee for River Sand Quarry:- The Court also ordered to constitute a monitoring committee under the
Chairmanship of Retired High Court Judge for the purpose of monitoring adherence of the directions issued in the order dated 2.12.2010. In so far
as direction to constitute Committee under the Chairmanship of High Court Judge, for the purpose of monitoring adherence to the directions issued
in the Order dated 2.12.2010, even though Government issued G.O.(Ms.)No.79, Industries (MMC-I) Department, dated 11.03.2011, the same
is yet to be implemented. Expressing certain difficulties in implementation of the direction in constituting the State Level Monitoring Committee,
State Government Petition and the matter is pending consideration in W.P. No. 11562 of 2010 and batch cases.
Cauvery River:- Cauvery is an easterly flowing river of the Peninsular India that runs across three of the Southern Indian States i.e. Karnataka,
Tamil Nadu, Kerala and a Union Territory of Puducherry. The fourth largest river of Southern Region, begins its 800 km long journey from the
Western Ghats; traverses through Mysore plateau and finally forms a delta on the Eastern Coastline of the subcontinent before falling into the Bay
of Bengal. The point of origin of Cauvery, ""Talakaveri"" is in the Brahmagiri ranges of the Western Ghats at an elevation of 1341m. Geologically,
the basin forms a part of the South Indian Shield.
The Cauvery River originating from ""Thalai Cauvery"" enters Tamil Nadu through Dharmapuri District and further runs through the length of
Erode District. Its tributaries, Noyyal and Amaravathi joins Cauvery river in Karur District, before it reaches Trichy. Here, the Cauvery river
becomes wide, with a sandy bed and flows towards East, until its splits into two branches about 14 kilometres west from Trichy. The Northern
Branch of the river is called ""Kollidam"". ""Kollidam"" river is a major flood carrier branching from Cauvery at Upper Anaicut. Normally flood water
received in Cauvery is being surplus into ""Kollidam"" river at Upper Anaicut. The surplus water if any realised in river Cauvery will also be diverted
to ""Kollidam"", while the Southern Branch retains the name of ""Cauvery"" and goes Eastwards through Thanjavur, Thiruvarur and Nagapattinam
Districts, before its merger in Bay of Bengal. 60% of the total flow of the Cauvery is used for irrigation purpose, especially in Thanjavur District
around 4000 square miles of the delta regions are irrigated extensively from the water flow of Cauvery river. There are several lakh hectares of
cultivable lands depended on the water resource of Cauvery river. The basin is characterised with a unique forest with some of very distinct fauna
and flora and is home to many sanctuaries and National Parks. Further, the Cauvery river is a sacred one and has great significance in Hinduism
and various historical temples are situated along the banks of Cauvery river.
Sand quarry in Cauvery River:- Like in all other rivers in the State, Public Works Department is operating the sand quarries operations in
Cauvery river. It is stated that there are about 42 sand quarries operated in the river across five Districts viz., Karur, Tiruchi, Thanjavur, Thiruvarur
and Nagapattinam. Since details of survey number, area, extent and sand to be lifted from each quarry were not available in the Writ Petitions, by
various orders, we have directed District Collectors to file details/permission granted regarding the sand quarries. By the order dated 18.6.2012,
we have directed the District Collectors of Karur, Tiruchi, Thanjavur, Nagapattinam and Thiruvarur to file report regarding number of quarries
functioning. Accordingly, the District Collectors have filed the report giving details about the sand quarries operating in the respective Districts,
Sanction Orders, Date of Commencement of Sand Quarries.
The Details of the approved quarries as furnished by the District Collectors are as under:-
NAGAPATTINAM:
Sl. No Name of Taluk, Village SF Location Sanction Order No. Permitted Date of Quantity Remarks as
Quarry No. period andCommencementof sand per
quantity quarried inCollector''s
CuM report
1 MathirivelurSirkazhi Taluk Coleroon G.O.(3D) No. 39/PWD/ Dated Not 8-10-03 285136 Functioning
Mathirivelur River RB 07-10-03 mentioned
Village, SF. at Mile
No.782/1 87/0 to
88/0
2 Siddhamalli-Mayiladuthurai Coleroon G.O.Lr. No. 3418/I.Spl.2/2005- Not 22-04-05 22-04-05 Temporarily
I Taluk Sidhamalli River RB 2/ Dt.29-03-05 mentioned stopped
Village, SF. No. at Mile since
495/1 81/2 to 14.04.2012
81/5
3 Siddhamalli-Mayiladuthurai Coleroon Nagapattinam Collector Proc.No.Not Not mentioned To be
II Taluk Sidhamalli River RB RC.54/2010/ (Mines)/Dt.04-10- mentioned Started
Village, SF. No. at Mile 10
1/1, 1/31 81/2
4 SeePuliyur Mayiladuthurai Coleroon Nagapattinam Collector Proc.No.Not Not mentioned To be
Taluk, River RB RC.54/2010/ (Mines)/Dt 04-10- mentioned Started
Thiruchitrambalamat Mile 10
Village, SF. No. 174/3
5 Rajasuriyan-Mayiladuthurai Coleroon Nagapattinam Collector 530 Days 7/12/2007 266821 Temporarily
pettai Taluk, KadakkamRiver RB Proc.No.RC. 300000M3 stopped
village, SF.No. 1 at Mile 129/2007/(Mines)/Dt. 02-05-07 since
78/0 27.07.2010
6 Gopala- Mayiladuthurai Coleroon Nagapattinam Collector Not 19-05-08 80985 Temporarily
samudram Taluk, River RB Proc.No.RC. 707/2007/ mentioned stopped
Gopalasamudramat Mile (Mines)/Dated 24-12-07 since
Village, SF. No. 91/0 31.10.2009
10
7 Pappakudi Mayiladuthurai Coleroon Nagapattinam Collector 1520 Days10-03-10 330913 Temporarily
Taluk, River RB Proc.No.RC.31/2010/(Mines)/Dt.635000M3 stopped
Manalmedu at Mile 21-01-10 since
Village, SF. No. 177/1 29.02.2012
8 Panan- Sirkazhi Taluk, Coleroon Nagapattinam Collector 1520 Days15-03-10 118748 Functioning
gattangudi Agaraelathur River RB Proc.No.RC.54/2010/(Mines)/Dt.300000
Village, SF. No. at Mile 29.01.10 M3
495/1 83/4
9 Melavadi Sirkazhi Taluk Coleroon Nagapattinam Collector Not Not mentioned Not To be
VadarangamVedarengam River RB Proc.No.RC.54/2010/(Mines)/Dt.mentioned mentionedStarted
Village, at Mile 04-10-10
SF.No.321 86/3
10 Mudikan- Mayiladuthurai Coleroon Nagapattinam Collector Not 14-01-11 41750 Temporarily
danallur Taluk River RB Proc.No.RC.54/2010/(Mines)/Dt.mentioned stopped
Mudikandanallur Mile 76/5 04-10-10 since
Village SF. No. 17.03.2012
369
11 Kurichi Mayiladuthurai Coleroon Nagapattinam Collector Not 12-01-11 133612 Functioning
Taluk, Kuruchi River RB Proc.No.RC.54/2010/(Mines)/Dt.mentioned
Village, SF. No. at Mile 04-10-10
5/1 83/3
THANJAVUR
Sl. No.Name of the Village S.F. No. Extent in Location Collector''s Proceedings Period of Quantity
Hectares permission permitted
1 Koviladi Revenue S.F. No. 1A 27.00.0 Kollidam River Na.Ka.No.221/2011 (Mines)Not mentioned Not mentioned
village, Hectares Right Bed Mile dated 28.6.2011 in the order in the order
Thiruvaiyarutaluk 19/3 to 20/0
2 Vilangudi village, S.F. No. 1A 300000 squareKollidam River Na.Ka.No.97/2007 (Mines) Not mentioned Not mentioned
Thiruvaiyarutaluk meter Right Bed Mile dated 14.04.2007 in the order in the order
37/0
3 Veeramangudi village, S.F. No. 1 15.00.0 Kollidam Right Na.Ka.No.12/2012 (Mines) Not mentioned 50000 Unit
Papanasamtaluk Hectares Mile 40/0 (West)dated 6.4.2012 in the order
4 Govindanattu-cherry S.F. No. 291/A 13.50.0 Kollidam Right Na.Ka.No.322/2011 (Mines)Not mentioned 45000 Unit
Papanasam Taluk Hectares Mile 44/7(East) dated 6.4.2012 in the order
5 Pazhamarneri Village, S.F. No. 73/1 10.00.0 Kaveri River Na.Ka.No.198/2007 dated Not mentioned Not mentioned
Thiruvaiyar Taluk Hectares Poramboke 21.3.2007 in the order in the order
KARUR:
Sl. No.Name of the Taluk andS.F. No. Extent in G.O.No. & Date Collector''s Period of Quantity permitted
Village Hectares Proceeding permission
1 Karur Vangal 1499 Not mentioned G.O.3D No.39 PWD, Not mentioned Not mentioned inNot mentioned in
in the order the order the order
Dated 07.10.2003
2 Karur-Nerur 2596 Not mentioned P.W.D. Special Secretary Not mentioned Not mentioned inNot mentioned in
in the order Lr. No. 3151/WSPL/2005 the order the order
Dt.26.04.2005
3 Krishnarayapuram 10.00.0 District Collector, Karur Not mentioned Not mentioned inNot mentioned in
Sithalavadi 1 (Part) Proc.No.166/G&M/ 2006 the order the order
dated 20.03.2007
4 Krishnaraya-puram, 1 Not mentioned P.W.D., Special Secretary Not mentioned Not mentioned in45000 Unit
Sithalavadi in the order Lr. No. 36330/WSPL/ the order
2003-1, Dt.10.01.2004
5 Kulithalai 1 Not mentioned P.W.D., Special Secretary Not mentioned Not mentioned inNot mentioned in
Thimmachipu-ram in the order Lr. No. 36330/WSPL/ the order the order
2003-1, Dt.10.01.2004
6 Kulithalai Vathiyam 1 Not mentioned P.W.D., Special Secretary Not mentioned Not mentioned inNot mentioned in
in the order Lr. No. 36330/WSPL/ the order the order
2003-1, Dt.10.01.2004
7 Kulithalai Maruthur 1 Not mentioned G.O.3D No.39 P.W.D. Not mentioned Not mentioned inNot mentioned in
in the order Dated 07.10.2003 the order the order
TRICHY:
Sl. No.Taluk Village SF.No. Extent G.O./Collector''s Proceedings & Date Period of PermissionQuantum
permitted
1 Srirangam Killikoodu 81/1,2,3 (Bit I) 24.00.0 Rc.No.B.557/2011, dated 10.3.2012 10.3.2012 to 80,000 Cu.Meter
& (Bit II) 09.11.2012
2 Srirangam Uthamarseeli218(Part) 12.50.0 G.O.110(PWD) (CP2) Not mentioned Not mentioned
Dept.dt.06.7.2006
3 Lalgudi Ariyoor 240 (Bit 1) 36.00.0 Rc.No.A.816/2010, dt.02.12.2011 02.12.2011 to 33,600 Lorry
1.10.2012 loads
4 Lalgudi Kila Anbil 184(P) 45.00.0 G.O.110(PWD) (CP2) Dept. dated Not mentioned Not mentioned
06.7.2006
5 Musiri Musiri 248/1 Not Mentioned G.O.(3D)13PW (W.Spl.)Dept. Not mentioned Not mentioned
dt.22.3.2004
6 Thottiyam 299 Not Mentioned G.O.(3D)13PW (W.Spl.)Dept. Not mentioned Not mentioned
Thiruengoimalai dt.22.3.2004
7 Musiri Manamedu 61 (Bit I) & (Bit12.50.0 & Rc.No.638/2011, dt.10.4.2012 10.4.2012 to 1,25,000 &
II) 27.50.0 19.12.2012 2,75,000 Cu.
Meter
8 Musiri Evoor 436 (Bit I) & 16.50.0 & Rc.No.B/527/2011, dt.01.3.2012 01.3.2012 to 36,383 Lorry
(Bit II) 15.00.0 30.11.2012 Loads
9 Srirngam 202 (Bit I) & 11.00.0 & Rc.No.559/2011, dt.09.11.2012 10.3.2012 to 38,870 Lorry
Kondayampettai Bit (II) 16.00,0 09.11.2012 Loads
TIRUVARUR:
S.No. Name of Taluk Name of Village Name of quarry Remarks /p>
1 Valangaiman Mathur & Kandiyur Mathur & Kandiyur
2 Needamangalam Vasudevamangalam Vasudevamangalam
3 Valangaiman Thirukalambur Thirukalambur
4 Thirukalambur Thenkuvalaveli Thenkuvalaveli
As per the letter of the District Collector, Thiruvaur in R.C.No.206/(G&M)/2012 dated 10.07.2012, the said sand quarries were not functioning
during the year 2011-2012 and to till date.
Contentions:-
On behalf of Writ Petitioners, Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel and Learned Counsel Mr. T. Mohan raised the following contentions:-
Sand quarry permissions were granted by the respective District Collectors without application of mind and without taking into consideration of the
environmental impacts of sand mining like (i) physical; (ii) ecological stability of structures; (iii) course of river. There is unregulated sand mining
operations and sand mining is done beyond the permissible depth level (1 meter = 3 feet). Large quantities of sand are stored like mountains (25
feet) in the quarrying site. Roads to a width of 10 - 20 feet across the river is formed in zig-zag manner and the said roads are used for transporting
the sand through Taurus lorry etc. Even though permission is granted to use only two poclains, more poclains are used for quarrying the operation
in each site. Quarrying operations are carried out round the clock in violation of the conditions to operate between 6.00 A.M. and 7.00 P.M.
Placing reliance upon Deepak Kumar''s case, both the learned Senior Counsel Mr. M. Ajmal Khan and the Learned Counsel Mr. T. Mohan
submitted that as per EIA Notification, 2006 environmental clearance has to be obtained.
Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.8568 of 2012 submitted that sand quarry operation is
located very near to Vedasandur Drinking Water Scheme and if the quarry operation continues, the entire Drinking Water Scheme is in peril which
will have disastrous effects for the Drinking Water Scheme. In support of his contention, Learned Counsel also produced the photographs.
Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that no permission was obtained by the Government from the State Impact
Assessment Committee for sand mining. Learned Counsel would further submit that the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Deepak
Kumar''s case is applicable to the present case.
Main contention of Learned Counsel for Petitioners is that as per the Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006 for sand
quarry of an area more than five hectares, environment clearance has to be obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Forests/Environment
Impact Assessment Authority. Insofar as the licenses granted for sand quarry for an area of less than five hectare permission be granted only after
getting environmental clearance from MoEF. In support of their contention, reliance was also placed upon Deepak Kumar etc. Vs. State of
Haryana and Others etc.,
On behalf of Respondents 1 and 2, Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General made the following submissions:-
Kollidam"" being a flood water carrier, to maintain the flood water capacity of ""Kollidam"", and to maintain bed levels and to keep up ""Kollidam"",
sand dunes are to be removed and only then flood carrier capacity of ""Kollidam"" will be restored. Proposals are submitted to the District
Collectors by the Public Works Department, after studying the availability of sand, safe quarrying, environmental aspects etc. Before granting
permission, these aspects are considered by the District Collectors. In quarrying operations, there are no violation of rules and regulations of Tamil
Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules and quarrying operations are done in accordance with the rules and regulations of Minor Mineral
Concession Rules and also the directions issued by the Court. Government have taken effective steps to prevent illegal mining of sand and
transporting of sand to neighbouring States has largely been brought under the control. Quarrying work is carried out only in the permitted area and
within the permissible depth and only two poclains are used for quarrying. Pathways for transporting the sand has been formed inside the river
using sand and biodegradable materials and dry sugarcane leaf ( [ Brhif) for transportation of lorries.
In response to the contention that as per Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006, environmental clearance is required,
Mr. S. Venkatesh, learned Government Pleader has submitted that as per G.O.Ms. No. 95 Industries (MMC1) Department, dated 01.10.2003 in
the State of Tamil Nadu quarrying operation is done only by the Public Works Department and that unscientific quarry is totally eliminated in the
State and therefore, as per Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006, there is no need to obtain environmental clearance for
sand quarry operations in the State of Tamil Nadu.
Taking us through the reports of the District Collectors, Mr. K. Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that since the
Petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos.8131 and 8111 of 2012 were prevented from quarrying the sand, they filed the Writ Petitions. Learned Special
Government Pleader would further submit a Peace Committee was conducted in which the petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos.8131 and 8111 of 2012
were signatories. It was further submitted that the petitioners were earlier the beneficiaries of the sand mining and they are the rival party and as
such no public interest involved. Drawing our attention to the reports of the District Collectors, learned Special Government Pleader contended
that permission to quarry sand was granted by the District Collectors only based on the availability of sand and free flow of water in the river.
The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.8111 of 2012 had arranged for road roko on
02.03.2012 and the Tahsildar, Lalgudy Taluk convened a peace meeting on 01.03.2012. Contention of the Petitioner during the peace meeting
was that only local lorries should be allowed to ply vehicles and that heavy vehicles (Taurus) should not be allowed in the Anbil road and the same
was accepted in the peace meeting and passing of Taurus (heavy vehicle) through Anbil road was stopped immediately and in the said resolution of
meeting, the Petitioner accepted and signed. Learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that since the Petitioner had again
arranged for road roko and demanded not to allow other taluk vehicles into the Anbil quarry and he wanted to ply only Lalgudy taluk vehicles to
carry sand from the said quarry. Again peace meeting was convened on 14.05.2012 and it was resolved that the other taluk vehicles would be
stopped from 15.06.2012 and in this resolution also the Petitioner signed. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that since the
Petitioner and others kept blocking the traffic and also damaged the poclains, lorries etc., it was decided to form a temporary pathway along the
bank of Kollidam riverbed and that the same is only a temporary arrangement and the same cannot be classified as a road and there is no
environmental damages as alleged in the Petition.
Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006 and Environmental Clearance:- As per Environment Impact Assessment
Notification, 1994 and as per Schedule-I of the said Notification, 1994 mining project (major minerals) with leases more than five hectares
required environmental clearance from the 1st Respondent. As per Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 1994, only ""major minerals
required environmental clearance.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) and Clause (v) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986 read with Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and in supersession of the Notification, 1994,
MoEF introduced Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006. As per Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006,
mining of minerals (including minor minerals) require environmental clearance. As per the said Notification, there are two categories viz., ''A'' and
''B''. Category ''A'' consists of mining in an area of more than fifty hectares. Category ''B'' consists of mining in an area of less than fifty hectares.
Category ''B'' consists of two sub-categories viz., ''B1'' - less than fifty hectares and ''B2'' -five hectares or less.
Category ''A'' projects - more than fifty hectares mining of both major and minor minerals are considered at the Central level in MoEF and
required environmental clearance from MoEF and Union Government. While category ''B1'' projects i.e. less than fifty hectares, mining of both
major and minor minerals are considered by the respective State/Union Territory Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority notified by
MoEF under Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and mining requires environmental clearance from State Level Environment
Impact Assessment Authority. Insofar as category ''B2'' - less than five hectares, no clearance was then required. As per the Notification, mining
licence for less than five hectares, it does not require environmental clearance.
In Deepak Kumar etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Others etc., , the Hon''ble Supreme Court considered leases granted by the Government of
Haryana for minor minerals, boulders, gravel and sand quarries artificially dividing homogeneous areas into tracts of less than five hectares in order
to circumvent EIA Notification, 2006. Elaborately, referring to the recommendations of the Core Group for riverbed mining, in Paragraph (24), the
Hon''ble Supreme Court held that leases of minor mineral including their renewal for an area of less than five hectares be granted by the
States/Union Territories only after getting environmental clearance from MoEF.
Expressing concern over excess river sand quarrying and holding that it is necessary to have effective frame work of mining plan, in Deepak
Kumar''s case, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under:-
Quarrying of river sand, it is true, is an important economic activity in the country with river sand forming a crucial raw material for the
infrastructural development and for the construction industry but excessive in-stream sand and gravel mining causes the degradation of rivers. In-
stream mining lowers the stream bottom of rivers which may lead to bank erosion. Depletion of sand in the streambed and along coastal areas
causes the deepening of rivers which may result in destruction of aquatic and riparian habitats as well. Extraction of alluvial material as already
mentioned from within or near a streambed has a direct impact on the stream''s physical habitat characteristics.
We are of the considered view that it is highly necessary to have an effective framework of mining plan which will take care of all environmental
issues and also evolve a long term rational and sustainable use of natural resource base and also the bio-assessment protocol. Sand mining, it may
be noted, may have an adverse effect on bio-diversity as loss of habitat caused by sand mining will effect various species, flora and fauna and it
may also destabilize the soil structure of river banks and often leaves isolated islands. We find that, taking note of those technical, scientific and
environmental matters, MoEF, Government of India, issued various recommendations in March 2010 followed by the Model Rules, 2010 framed
by the Ministry of Mines which have to be given effect to, inculcating the spirit of Article 48A, Article 51A(g) read with Article 21 of the
Constitution.
The State of Haryana and various other States have not so far implemented the above recommendations of the MoEF or the guidelines issued
by the Ministry of Mines before issuing auction notices granting short term permits by way of auction of minor mineral boulders, gravel, sand etc.,
in the river beds and elsewhere of less than 5 hectares. We, therefore, direct to all the States, Union Territories, MoEF and the Ministry of Mines
to give effect to the recommendations made by MoEF in its report of March 2010 and the model guidelines framed by the Ministry of Mines,
within a period of six months from today and submit their compliance reports.
Central Government also should take steps to bring into force the Minor Minerals Conservation and Development Rules 2010 at the earliest.
State Governments and UTs also should take immediate steps to frame necessary rules u/s 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 taking into consideration the recommendations of MoEF in its Report of March 2010 and model guidelines framed by the
Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India. Communicate the copy of this order to the MoEF, Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi, Ministry of Water
Resources, Central Government Water Authority, the Chief Secretaries of the respective States and Union Territories, who would circulate this
order to the concerned Departments.
We, in the meanwhile, order that leases of minor mineral including their renewal for an area of less than five hectares be granted by the
States/Union Territories only after getting Page 43 environmental clearance from the MoEF. Ordered accordingly."" (underlining added) Thus as
per the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar''s case, in respect of lease of minor minerals including renewal for an area less
than five hectares be granted by the States/Union Territories only after getting environmental clearance from MoEF.
Directions of MoEF dated 18.05.2012 in compliance with the directions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar''s case:- In order to
ensure compliance of the order in Deepak Kumar''s case, MoEF issued Office Memorandum dated 18.05.2012 that as per the directions of the
Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar''s case, all mining projects of minor minerals including their renewal, irrespective of the size of the lease would
henceforth require prior environment clearance. The relevant portion of Office Memorandum of MoEF dated 18.05.2012 reads as under:-
In order to ensure compliance of the above referred order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 27.2.2012, it has now been decided that all
mining projects of minor minerals including their renewal, irrespective of the size of the lease would henceforth require prior environment clearance.
Mining projects with lease area up to less than 50 hectares including projects of minor mineral with lease area less than 5 hectares would be
treated as category ''B'' as defined in the EIA Notification, 2006 and will be considered by the respective SEIAAs notified by MoEF and following
the procedure prescribed under EIA Notification, 2006.
Re-contention: Environment Impact Assessment Notification,2006 is not applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu:- Mr. K. Chellapandian,
learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. S. Venkatesh, learned Government Pleader tried to persuade us that in view of the existing law
enacted by the State Government - Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, Rule 38-A and G.O.Ms. No. 95 Industries (MMC1)
Department dated 01.10.2003, all sand quarries in the State are operated by the Public Works Department and therefore, EIA Notification, 2006
is not applicable and environmental clearance from Ministry of Environment and Forests/State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority
(SEIAA) is not required. The learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Government Pleader would further contend that licence for
sand quarry is granted by the District Collectors to the Public Works Department only after studying the availability of sand, environmental aspects
and licenses are granted by imposing strict conditions that sand quarrying to be done without affecting the riverbeds and also imposing conditions
regarding the depth of sand to be quarried. It was further submitted that the validity of G.O.Ms. No. 95 Industries (MMC1) Department, dated
01.10.2003 was upheld by the Madras High Court State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P. Krishnamoorthy and Others, which was affirmed by the Hon''ble
Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. P. Krishnamurthy and Others, .
Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that Kollidam being a flood water carrier, to maintain the flood water capacity of Kollidam
and to maintain the bed levels and to keep up Kollidam, sand dunes are to be removed. It was further submitted that Kollidam is the major flood
water carrier and to maintain bed levels so as to keep up the Kollidam to discharge the designed capacity of (4.5 lakh cusecs) flood water by
removing sand dunes and at the same time, requirement of sand in construction and development activities will be fulfilled.
Learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Government Pleader drew the attention of the Court to the statistics of availability of
sand and sand quarries in the past and at present stated in the counter. The said details as narrated in the counter (W.P.(MD) No.4699 of 2012)
read as follows:-
The total length of the Kollidam 168.21 Km
Length covers under the jurisdiction of (Vettamangalam village to Mahindrapalli of Nagapattinam District) 50.01 Km
Area left for Ground water reaching and thereby drinking water recharging and thereby drinking water purpose recommended by TWAD
Board Mudigandanallur, Pappakudy, Siddhamalli, Vadarangam, Seepuliyur (Newly proposed)
Area left for Reserve forest =2.75 Sq.Km-(10x275M)
No. of places at which sand dunes identified and being identified and its total length 10 Places at an average length of 3.95 Km 39.50 Km says
40 Km
Quantity of sand dunes that affects Floor discharge 40 Km x 900 M x 2 M = 7,20,00,000 M3 7. Sand might be quarried 40 Km x 900 M x
1.00 = 3,60,00,000 M3
Qty so far quarried 21,60,540 M3
Qty may be utilized for quarrying purpose 3,38,39,460 M3
The learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Government Pleader further contended that State Government have taken stringent
actions in preventing illicit sand mining and number of vehicles have been seized and Rs.17.19 Crores have been collected as penalty amount for
the year 2011-2012 [up to May 2012]. It was further submitted that violations in this regard are being dealt with an iron hand and about 2087
Criminal Cases have been filed against the sand offenders and also Goondas Act have been invoked on four persons who indulged in illegal sand
quarrying. It was further submitted that State Government also constituted a District Committee headed by the District Collector and when the
sand quarry is operated by the Public Works Department and in the light of the strict conditions imposed for sand quarrying and in view of
stringent actions taken by the State Government and District Committee constituted at the District Levels, obtaining environmental clearance is not
necessary for the State of Tamil Nadu.
It was further submitted that whenever objections are received from the general public and request is made by the other departments like Tamil
Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, quarries have been stopped by the District Collector whenever occasion demanded so. The learned
Additional Advocate General and the learned Government Pleader drew the attention of the Court to such instances stopping the sand quarrying
operations in the places viz.,
(i) Tiruvaikavur in Kollidam river at Thirumandakudi village ,Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District;
(ii) Poovalur in Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District;
(iii) Mayanur in Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District;
(iv) Nerur at Karur Taluk, Karur District.
The learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Government Pleader made meticulous submission that making distinction between
quarry operations in the State of Tamil Nadu where sand quarries are operated by the Public Works Department, whereas in other States, sand
quarries are auctioned to private individuals and operated by private individuals.
Countering the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Government Pleader and placing reliance upon
Deepak Kumar''s case, Learned Counsels for Petitioners submitted that environmental clearance is necessary for the State of Tamil Nadu and that
Environment Impact Notification does not make any distinction between sand quarries operated by the individuals and the State. Learned
Counsels would further submit that in Tamiraparani case, the Court ordered to constitute a State Level Monitoring Committee and the same has
not been constituted/not functioning effectively due to non-cooperation of the State Government. It was further submitted that environmental
clearance from MoEF/SEIAA is mandated by EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 and no permission be granted for sand quarrying without
environmental clearance.
Even though sand quarries are operated by the Public Works Department, in Tamiraparani case [W.P.(MD) No.11182 of 2010 etc. Batch),
Court noticed that even though sand quarries were operated by the Public Works Department, the same was not done as per Tamil Nadu Minor
Mineral Concession Rules and as per the conditions of quarrying. It was also noticed that there was lack of skillful scientific mining. Even though
permission was granted for sand quarrying to a depth of one meter, in Tamiraparani case, it was noticed that in number of places, sand quarrying
was done beyond ten feet depth. Court appointed Expert Committee who inspected the quarry sites and filed its report. Upon analysis of the said
report and referring to unscientific and indiscriminate sand quarrying, in Tamiraparani case, the Court observed as under:-
.... We are afraid that either with or without the connivance of the Public Works Department, there was indiscriminate and heavy sand
quarrying beyond the extent for which the permission was granted resultantly causing devastation of the river.
Of course, after the judgment in Tamiraparani case, number of poclains engaged for sand quarrying is restricted to ""two"". Time of operation of
sand quarry is also now restricted. After Tamiraparani case, now stringent conditions are imposed for sand quarrying and violations are now said
to be being dealt with an iron hand.
Minerals other than ''minor minerals'' are governed by Sections to 13 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. While
Section 15, enables the State Governments to make rules in respect of the minor minerals. In exercise of the said provision, the Tamil Nadu Minor
Mineral Concession Rules were framed. As per Section 13(e) of MM (D&R) Act, 1957, ''minor minerals'' means building stones, gravel, ordinary
clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette declare to be a minor mineral. Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994 did not apply to the mining of minor
minerals.
It was noticed that proposals for mining of major minerals typically undergo environmental impact assessment and environmental clearance
procedure, but due attention has not been given to environmental aspects of mining of minor minerals. MoEF''s attention was drawn to several
instances across the country regarding damage of lakes, riverbeds and groundwater leading to drying up of water beds and causing water scarcity
on account of quarry/mining leases and mineral concessions granted under the Mineral Concession Rules framed by the State Governments u/s 15
of the MM (D&R) Act, 1957. MoEF noticed that less attention was given on environmental aspects of mining of minor minerals. Government of
India was receiving various reports regarding adverse impact on riverbeds and ground water due to quarrying/mining of minor minerals and sand.
Considering the potential environmental impacts of mining of minor minerals, Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006 was
passed applying EIA Notification to mining of minor minerals also.
In exercise of powers u/s 15 of MM (D&R) Act, 1957, State Government enacted TN MMC Rules. As pointed out earlier, from 01.10.2003
onwards quarrying of sand by private persons has been banned in the State of Tamil Nadu by introducing Rule 38-A of TN MMC Rules and the
same was taken over by the Public Works Department. Ever since 2003, the Public Works Department is quarrying and selling the same at the
quarry site. Since then the Government issued various Orders and imposed stringent conditions to control indiscriminate sand quarrying over
exploitation and illicit sand mining. Complying with the direction in Tamiraparani case, restricting the use of number of poclains to two, the
Government issued G.O.(D) No.67 Industries (MMC-1) Department dated 11.03.2011. Government also passed G.O.(Ms) No.32 Industries
(MMC2) Department dated 11.02.2011 introducing Rule 38-C imposing various restrictions regarding storage and transportation of sand. G.O.
(Ms) No.32 Industries (MMC2) dated 11.02.2011 introducing Rule 38-C came to be challenged in a batch of Writ Petitions. In the Principal
Seat, First Bench by common order dated 19.06.2012 in W.P. No. 14180 of 2011 etc. batch upheld Rule 38-C of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 1959 for the purpose of curbing illegal mining, such regulation in sale and transportation of sand is required. We also find force
in the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General. As pointed out earlier, illegal mining of sand and transporting to neighbouring States
has largely been brought under the control. 2087 Criminal Cases have been registered against the sand offenders and also Goondas Act has been
invoked on four persons. 6282 vehicles have been seized which were used for illegal mining. Rs.17.19 Crores have been collected as penalty
amount for the year 2011-2012.
Granting permission for quarrying, mining and removal of sand have serious environmental impact on the rivers and riverbeds. Sand quarrying
may have adverse effect of biodiversity. Even though the Public Works Department along with Geologist is said to study the availability of the sand
and also the environmental issues, it is not known whether the Public Works Department undertakes any study on the possible environmental
impact in the riverbeds or like river stability, environmental degradation. Collective environmental impact of sand mining is very significant. Hence,
there is necessity for proper environmental clearance by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority.
In Deepak Kumar''s case, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in extenso referred to the reference of Core Group and the recommendations made by
MoEF and the adverse impacts of sand mining on the side of rivers. In Paragraphs (8) and (9), expressing the need for environmental impact of
sand mining and the need for proper planning and sand management, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under:-
..... Sand mining on either side of the rivers, upstream and instream, is one of the causes for environmental degradation and also a threat to the
biodiversity. Over the alarming rate of unrestricted sand mining which damage the ecosystem of natural habitats of organisms living on the
riverbeds, affects fish breeding and migration, spells disaster for the conservation of many bird species, increases saline water in the rivers, etc.
Extraction of alluvial material from within or near a streambed has a direct impact on the stream''s physical habitat characteristics. These
characteristics include bed elevation, substrate composition and stability, instream roughness elements, depth, velocity, turbidity, sediment
transport, stream discharge and temperature. Altering these habitat characteristics can have deleterious impacts on both instream biota and the
associated riparian habitat. The demand for sand continues to increase day by day as building and construction of new infrastructures and
expansion of existing ones is continuous thereby placing immense pressure on the supply of the sand resource and hence mining activities are going
on legally and illegally without any restrictions. Lack of proper planning and sand management cause disturbance of marine ecosystem and also
upset the ability of natural marine processes to replenish the sand.
As per EIA Notification, 2006 issued by MoEF, all mining projects, irrespective of the mineral - major or minor to obtain prior environmental
clearance under the provisions thereof. As per EIA Notification, 2006 notified by MoEF and further Notification dated 18.05.2012, sand quarries
with lease area less than fifty hectares including sand quarries with an area less than five hectares are to obtain environmental clearance from State
Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Chennai-15. By perusal of EIA Notification, 2006, it is seen that Environment Impact
Assessment has several stages of considering the application having public discussion and impact of mining and also involves post environmental
clearance monitoring. Considering the larger environmental issues involved, we are of the view that notwithstanding that the sand quarries in the
State of Tamil Nadu operated by the State itself, for mining of sand which is a minor mineral, as per EIA Notification, 2006, environmental
clearance has to be obtained from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority.
Pending environmental clearance whether sand quarry operations are to be continued/operated:-
Obtaining environmental clearance is a long process. By perusal of EIA Notification, 2006 dated 14.09.2006, it is seen that it involves Page 56
various stages viz., (i) Screening; (ii) Scoping; (iii) Public Consultation; (iv) Appraisal; (v) Grant or Rejection of Prior Environmental Clearance;
and (vi) Post Environmental Clearance Monitoring. Considering the various stages involved in obtaining environmental clearance, we feel that it
would take atleast a minimum of two-three months for obtaining such environmental clearance.
When we direct the State Government to obtain environmental clearance for sand quarry operations, now the point falling for consideration is
whether the existing sand quarry operations are to be stopped.
River sand is a very important raw material for infrastructure development, construction activities including implementation of various welfare
schemes of the Government. In various decisions, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that balance between environmental protection and
developmental activities could only be maintained by strictly following the principles of ''sustainable development''. Right to environment is a
fundamental right; at the same time, right to development is also one. In N.D. Jayal and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the
Hon''ble Supreme Court held that ""concept of sustainable development is to be treated as integral part of life under Article 21 of Constitution of
India"". The concept of ''sustainable development'' finds support in various decisions of the Court in 1995 (3) SCC 363 [State of H.P. v. Ganesh
Wood Products]; 1997 (2) SCC 653 [M.C.Mehta v. Union of India]; M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and Intellectuals
Forum, Tirupathi Vs. State of A.P. and Others, .
We need to balance between economic and social needs on the one hand with environmental consideration on the other hand. Sand is required
for construction of houses to the poor, implementation of welfare schemes and infrastructure development activities. If the sand quarry operation is
to be stopped, abruptly, the developmental activities and implementation of various welfare schemes of the Government would come to a stand-
still. In the State of Tamil Nadu, sand quarry operations are being carried out by the Public Works Department, perhaps with a bonafide
impression that environmental clearance is not necessitated in view of the unique feature that Public Works Department itself is operating the sand
quarries. Sufficient time is to be granted to the State Government/Public Works Department to approach the Authorities for obtaining mandated
environmental clearance and in the mean while, we are of the considered view that certain sand quarries as indicated infra are to be continued to be
operated for a period of three months.
As per the earlier order in Tamiraparani case, two poclains were permitted for sand quarrying. As per the present permission, sand quarrying
is between 7.00 A.M. and 6.00 P.M. However, photographs were produced showing the engagement of more than two poclains and also sand
quarrying being carried beyond 6.00 P.M. in river Cauvery. In order to restrict sand quarry operation and also to ensure scientific sand mining, the
Public Works Department is directed to use ""poclains judiciously"" for sand quarry operations in river Cauvery. Sand quarrying operation is to be
carried out between 7.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. (Ten hours).
Let us now consider the sand quarries by grouping them:
A) old sand quarries in operation for more than five years;
B) sand quarries for which permission granted recently.
(i) sand quarries where permission was granted without mentioning the quantity of the sand to be removed;
(ii) permission granted by mentioning the quantity of the sand to be removed and also the period of operation of the sand quarry.
Quarries in operation for more than five years:- By perusal of the details of sand quarries furnished by the District Collectors, some of the sand
quarries are in operation for more than five years. Some of the quarries are operated from 2003. By perusal of the Government
Orders/Proceedings of the District Collectors, it is seen that sand quarries to be operated between one mile stone to another mile stone. In those
Proceedings granting sand quarry, neither the period of operation of sand quarries nor the sand to be lifted are mentioned. Regarding sand quarries
which are in operation for more than five years, no statistics is available as to the quantity of sand so far lifted. Likewise, no details are furnished as
to the continued replenishment of river sand in those quarries justifying continuation of sand quarry. It is pertinent to note that in these quarries
which are in operation for more than five years, Government Orders/Order of the District Collectors granting permission do not mention the
quantity of sand to be lifted. No statistics is available as to the quantity of sand to be lifted.
The following sand quarries which are in operation for more than five years are ordered to be stopped for the reasons:- (i) those quarries are in
operation for more than five years; (ii) quantity of sand to be lifted is not mentioned; and no statistics are forthcoming justifying their continued
operation:-
(I) In Nagapattinam District:
(1) Mathirivelur, (2) Siddhamalli-I
(II) In Thanjavur District:
(1) Vilangudi and (2) Pazhamarneri
(III) In Karur District:
(1) Vangal, (2) Nerur, (3) Sithalavadi, (4) Sithalavadi, (5) Thimmachipuram, (6) Vathiyam and (7) Maruthur.
(IV) In Trichy District:
(1) Uthamarseeli, (2) Kila Anbil, (3) Musiri and (4) Thiruengoimalai.
In case, if the Respondents feel that the sand quarries in the above places are to be continued, the Respondents are at liberty to approach the State
Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority for obtaining environmental clearance for continuing the operations.
As a measure of rehabilitation in the above sand quarries which are in operation for more than five years and now ordered to be stopped, the
Public Works Department is directed to immediately remove all the sheds put up in these quarries and remove all the equipments in these areas.
The Public Works Department is further directed to level all the roads/path ways to let the river assume its normal course without any artificial
obstruction to the extent possible. The Public Works Department is also directed that the sand piled along the quarried pits are to be re-dumped
or re-filled in the pits and restoring the river''s normal water course.
Recent quarries - yet to be started:-
In Nagapattinam District, even though permission was granted by the District Collector in Proceedings No.Rc.54/2010 (Mines) dated 04.10.2010
for quarrying operation in Siddhamalli-II, SeePuliyur and Melavadi Vadarangam, as is seen from the report of the District Collector, Nagapattinam
these quarries are yet to be started. In so far as, sand quarries viz., (1) Siddhamalli-II, (2) SeePuliyur and (3) Melavadi Vadarangam of
Nagapattinam District, the operation of sand quarries shall be started only after getting environmental clearance from the State Level Environment
Impact Assessment Authority.
Recent quarries - presently functioning:-
The following quarries are permitted to operate sand quarries for three months from the date of this order and its continuation is subject to the
order of environmental clearance from State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority.
In Trichy District:
(1) Killikoodu (S.F. No. 81/1, 2, 3 (Bit-I & Bit-II),
(2) Ariyoor (S.F. No. 240 (Bit-I),
(3) Manamedu (S.F. No. 61 (Bit-I & Bit-II),
(4) Evoor (S.F. No. 436 (Bit-I & Bit-II); and
(5) Kondayampettai (S.F. No. 202 (Bit-I & Bit-II)
In Nagapattinam District:
(1) Panangattangudi (S.F. No. 495/1); and
(2) Kurichi (S.F. No. 5/1)
In Thanjavur District:
(1) Koviladi Revenue Village (S.F. No. 1A)
(2) Veeramangudi (S.F. No. 1)
(3) Govindanattucherry (S.F. No. 291/A)
Permission to continue the sand quarry operation for a period of three months with the above condition, is subject to the environmental
clearance to be obtained from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority. The State Government/Public Works Department shall
file necessary application before the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority within a period of three weeks from the date of this
order. Any application filed by the State Government/Public Works Department seeking environmental clearance for sand quarrying operation, the
State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority is directed to consider the application and pass orders within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of the application from the State of Tamil Nadu/Public Works Department. Conclusion:-
In the result, all the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-
(a) Permission for fresh sand quarry operation in Cauvery river are to be granted by the State Government/Secretary Industries (MMC.I)
Department/District Collectors only after getting environmental clearance from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority as per
the Environment Impact Notification dated 14.09.2006 and further Office Memorandum of MoEF dated 18.05.2012.
(b) In respect of existing sand quarries, it is ordered as under:-
As per the District Collector''s report ""functioning"" Permitted to operate for three months and its continuation is subject to the order from SEIAA.
(c) Sand quarries are permitted to continue their operations for three months from the date of this order and their continuation is subject to the
order from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority.
(d) Sand quarries which are permitted to continue their operations mentioned in Column No.6 [Order of the Court dated 03.08.2012] with the
conditions already imposed by the District Collectors and further modified conditions as under:-
(i) Sand quarrying operation to be carried out between 7.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. (Ten hours).
(ii) The sites where quarrying is permitted to be continued, the Public Works Department is directed to demarcate the area by planting required
number of posts with red flags.
(iii) Wherever the sand quarry is permitted in the riverbed and roads are formed either temporarily or semi-permanently, the District
Collector/Public Works Department to ensure that the roads are formed only by laying of sugarcane leaves and biodegradable materials and if they
find any other gravels are used, the District Collector / Public Works Department is directed to remove the said roads immediately, so that the
course of the river is not affected and also directed to ensure that the roads are not running across the river, so as to create an artificial dam or
lake.
(iv) To ensure that the sand quarry is not operated beyond the said ten hours, the Public Works Department is directed to depute an Assistant
Engineer for each quarry site to ensure that sand quarry is done within the permissible limit.
(v) The Public Works Department is directed to file a report before the respective District Collector concerned showing the quantity of the sand
lifted as against the permitted quantity allowed to be lifted once in two weeks.
(e) Direction to the District Collectors: -
(i) The District Collectors are directed to ensure that the sand quarry operations are done within the permitted limits and in accordance with TN
MMC Rules and also the conditions imposed.
(ii) The District Collectors are further directed to visit the quarry site either personally, or by deputing an officer not lower than the rank of Revenue
Divisional Officer to each of the quarry sites periodically.
(f) Direction to the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority:-
On receipt of the application seeking for environmental clearance for sand quarrying operation from the State Government/Public Works
Department, the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority is directed to consider the application and pass orders within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of the application from the State of Tamil Nadu/Public Works Department.
In view of the order passed in the Writ Petitions, all the Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.