AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This order will deal with review applications no. 11 to 14/2023, against common order of this Tribunal dated 30.01.2023 in O.A. No. 442/2022 and O.A. No. 692/2023.
R.A. Nos. 11 and 12 /2023 have been filed in O.A. No. 442/2023 and O.A. No. 692/2023 respectively by the State of Uttarakhand and Director, Geology & Mining, Uttarakhand while R.A. No. 13 and 14 /2023 have been filed by Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited (GMVN) in O.A. No. 442/2023 and O.A. No. 692/2022 respectively. Substance of all the four review applications being same, they are being disposed of by this common order.
By order dated 30.01.2023, the Tribunal considered the grievance of violation of environmental norms in riverbed mining of sand, bazri and boulder at two locations at Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Mining was being undertaken by Vinod Negi and Manoj Joshi, under rights given by GMVN. It was alleged that apart from other illegalities, mining was in violation of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P & Ors., (1989) Supp 1 SCC 504.
The Tribunal sought a factual report from a joint Committee of the Regional Office, MoEF&CC at Dehradun, SEIAA, Uttarakhand, State PCB and District Magistrate, Dehradun.
Report dated 31.10.2022 filed by the Committee was that the Mining Department granted lease in favour of GMVN on 03.01.2017 for five years, followed by permission of National Board of Wildlife (NBWL) and consent by the State PCB.
According to the GMVN, it gave permissions to contractors -Mukesh Joshi and Vinod Negi following tender process by executing MoU. Common DSR was prepared by the District Administration as per Sustainable Sand Mining Notification dated 15.01.2016.
Questions framed by the Tribunal for consideration was as follows:-
“10. Questions for consideration are noted in earlier orders dated 19.7.2022 and 27.9.2022 reproduced in paras 3 and 4 above and have also emerged from the record during the hearing. It is validity of transfer of mining rights contractors Vinod Negi and Manoj Joshi respectively by MOU though EC is in favour of GMVN which could not be transferred without requisite permission in view of mandate of Para 11 of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006. Area is partly in Uttrakhand and partly in Himachal Pradesh but inter-state boundary and cluster procedure laid down in notification dated 15.1.2016 has not been followed. EC is by one State while mining is taking place in another State. In respect of lot No.21/2 there is no EC. Mining is in river bed contrary to sustainable mining norms. Notification dated 14.02.2022 issued by the MoEF&CC prohibits any industry, which includes mining in river floodplain. The same is reproduced below:-
“5. xxx ………………………..xxx………………………………xxx
"Industries shall not be located within the river flood plain corresponding to one in 25 years flood, as certified by concerned District Magistrate/Executive Engineer from state water resource Deptt. or any other officer authorised by State Govt. for this purpose."”
Thereafter, considering the material on record, the Tribunal has held:-
“14. We find from the record that the project falls in Doon Valley Eco-Sensitive Area (as per para 2 of Minutes of 21st Meeting of EAC dated 26-28th October, 2020) where mining was prohibited by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 30.8.1988 in Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P & Ors., (1989 Supp 1 SCC 504. Further, as per EC dated 17.08.2016, para 5, the project lies in the Doon Valley Aasan Wetland Conservation Reserve. The EC letter dated 17.08.2016 further shows that the site of mining is within the Yamuna river bed.
In view of above, it is safe to conclude that mining in lots 21/1, 21/2 and 21/3 is illegal. Transfer of mining rights by GMVN to Manoj Joshi and Vinod Negi are without transfer of EC, in violation of EIA notification dated 14.9.2006, issued under EP Act, 1986.
Accordingly, we allow these applications and direct closing of mining in above areas forthwith. Joint Committee of CPCB, State PCB and District Magistrate, Dehradun may assess and recover compensation on polluter pays principle for illegal mining, following due process which may be utilized for scientific closure of the mining activities as per Mine Closure Plan and other norms. We have noted that as per EC conditions for lot No. 21/1, 356 trucks per day with
10 tonnes of mined material (equal to 3560 tonnes per day) is allowed. Even if the value of mined material is taken at Rs. 1000 per ton, it will amount to Rs. 35 Lakhs per day for 3560 tonnes and roughly 100 crores per year. Data in respect of other lots has to be compiled. Actual figure may be worked out by the Committee. Since contractors to whom mining rights have been transferred by GMVN have not appeared and may also be affected, irrespective of their independent rights to contest the proceedings, we give them liberty to move this Tribunal, if they are so aggrieved. ”
In the review application, ground for review is that Environmental Clearance (EC) has already been granted in favour of GMVN, consent has been granted by State PCB and clearance has also been granted by NBWL. The project is to avoid flood by picking minor mineral from riverbed and also to generate revenue and employment.
We have considered the matter and find that the issue has also been considered by the Tribunal. The transfer of mining rights in favour of Vinod Negi and Manoj Joshi by the GMVN has been found to be contrary to para 11 of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006. EC granted in favour of GMVN could not be transferred to any third party. It has been further found that inter-boundary procedure laid down in Notification dated 15.01.2016 was not followed. EC could not be availed for two States. The mining in riverbed and flood plain was hit by Notification dated 14.02.2022 issued by the MoEF&CC. The Tribunal also noted the observations in the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 629 and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay (2014) 9 SCC 772 against permissibility of in-stream mining which results in serious damage to the environment the bottom of the rivers.
In view of above, we do not find any merit in review applications, which are dismissed.