AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S.S. Garbyal, (Expert Member)
This appeal has been filed by Lt. Gen. Satyevir Yadav (Retd) assailing environmental clearance granted by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Haryana (SEIAA) on 23.12.2016 to Shri Satish Kumar Garg, 22-A, Industrial Estate, Narnaul, Mahendergarh, Haryana, respondent no. 9 in this appeal for mining of minor minerals "Road Metal & Masonry Stone" over an area of 3.7275 Ha at village Mukundpura, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.
This appeal was filed under section 16 (4) read with Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 on 01.04.2017 i.e., after 98 days of environmental clearance. It has been stated that the present appeal is filed within 30 days from the date on which the appellant got the information about the grant of environmental clearance, through the written submissions of the respondent no. 9 in original application no. 148 of 2015. Hence, it is said that appeal is within period of limitation prescribed under law. The appellant has prayed that the environmental clearance dated 23.12.2016, issued to the respondent no. 9, be set aside.
It has been submitted that information with regard to grant of environmental clearance to respondent no. 9 was published in two (2) newspapers on 24.02.2017 but the copy of the same was not uploaded by SEIAA on its website. The Project Proponent and respondent no. 9 had published the environmental clearance, after approximately two (2) months, in the daily newspaper without uploading the environmental clearance on their website. The appellant submits that he learnt about the grant of environmental clearance only when written submissions dated 28.03.2017 were filed in the case where the present appellant was the applicant before this Tribunal, titled as Lt. Gen. Satyevir Yadav (Retd.) Vs. Union of India & Ors. (O.A No. 148/2015). It is the case of the appellant that commencement of limitation is to be reckoned and computed from the date when the impugned order of environmental clearance is put on the website. As the environmental clearance had not been uploaded till the filling of the present appeal on the website of the SEIAA, the question of delay does not arise.
The environmental clearance dated 23.12.2016 clearly states that it is for mining of minor minerals "Road Metal & Masonry Stone" over an area of 3.7275 at village Mukundpura, District Mahendergarh, Haryana, in Khasra no. 211/3/2 min and 81 min. The leased area had been granted by the Director General Mines & Geology Department for a period of 20 years i.e., from 20.07.1999 to 19.07.2019 for an area of 3.7275 Ha.
The Project Proponent is stated to have submitted copy of NOC from forest Department and there was no other mining lease in the vicinity of 500 mts. The SEAC had appraised this project under category 1 (a) as category B-1 Project as per the prevailing procedure at that time. The appellant has submitted that vide letter dated 24.02.2015, the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Mahendergarh Forest Division had refused to grant NOC to respondent no. 9 stating that Khasra No. 211/3/2 (Mining Area) is part of the Aravali Plantation Area and had directed to stop the mining activity.
It is the case of the appellant that in view of the order dated 18.03.2004 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition(c) no. 4677/1985, no mining activity could have been carried out in the area over which plantation has been raised under Aravali project by utilizing foreign funds. This matter had been taken up in the 143rd Meeting of SEAC where it was observed that Respondent no. 9- Project Proponent has not produced the NOC from the Forest Department but they had submitted a letter written by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Additional Advocate General which states that the land does not fall under Aravali Plantation Area. The SEIAA decided to grant environmental clearance based on the letter of the Additional Chief Secretary to the Additional Advocate General despite the fact that DFO had refused to grant NOC. Since the matter was under adjudication of this Tribunal in original application no. 148/2015, it was wrong on the part of the SEIAA to grant environmental clearance without waiting for the Judgment of this Tribunal in the original application. It has also been submitted that the environmental clearance was granted in violation of the guidelines provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors, (2011) 7 SSC 338, and, therefore, there was no application of mind by SEIAA while granting environmental clearance.
The SEIAA has submitted that agenda of its 98th Meeting dated 05.12.2016 was uploaded on 18.12.2016 on the portal and Minutes of the Meeting of SEIAA was uploaded on 18.12.2016. In the Meeting dated 05.12.2016, decision was taken to accord environmental clearance to the Project Proponent i.e., Respondent no. 9 and the decision to accord environmental clearance was uploaded on the portal on 18.12.2016 and, hence the decision to accord the environmental clearance came into public domain and to the knowledge of the appellant on 19.12.2016. Therefore, the present appeal is hopelessly barred by limitation.
As far as merit of the case is concerned, SEIAA has submitted that the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2006 does not prescribe for NOC from the Forest Department. However, Project Proponent may be asked to submit NOC from the Forest Department just to know the involvement of the forest land and the approval/clearance under Forest Conservation Act 1980, if any. They have stated that in respect of the land involved in this appeal, the Tribunal had already considered the submissions of the appellant in original application no. 148/2015 wherein a detailed Judgment dated 30.05.2017 was passed, holding that the land in question does not fall within the Aravali Plantation Area.
The Respondent no. 9-Project Proponent in their submissions have stated that the factum of grant of environmental clearance came to notice of the appellant through public notice dated 24.02.2017 published in the newspapers and the appellant was admittedly aware of the decision of SEIAA, in its Meeting dated 05.12.2016 to grant environmental clearance to respondent no. 9, vide Minutes of the Meeting which they had uploaded on their website on 19.12.2016. The respondent no. 9 has also relied upon the Judgment passed by the Tribunal on 30.05.2017 in original application no. 148/2015 holding that the land in question is "Gair Mumkin Pahar" which is not a part of any forest area nor it falls within the area of Aravali Plantation.
The present appellant had filed an application no. 148/2015 under section 14, 16, 18 (1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 wherein he had agitated against the encroachment on forest land, illegal mining and violations of environmental laws in land bearing Khasra No. 211/3/2 measuring 3.2275 Ha for which the Department of Mines, State of Haryana has granted lease under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 to respondent no. 9 in 1999 for a period of 20 years. While deciding the original application no. 148/2015 on 30.05.2017, this Tribunal had observed as below:
" i. In view of the case put up by the respective parties through their pleadings as well as the material placed on record and the aforesaid reasons/ discussion, the inevitable conclusion is that the present Original Application is devoid of merits. We have thoroughly considered the contentions raised by the parties, particularly, the respondent State and its authorities. Respondent no.9 has a valid mining lease granted by State of Haryana and he is carrying on mining activity after following the due procedure and obtaining requisite clearances/consents under the relevant laws. The private respondent has been granted the Environmental Clearance by SEIAA and consent under both, Water Act of 1974 as well as Air Act of 1981. The applicant has subsequently challenged the Environment Clearance dated 23/12/2016 by way of appeal (08/2017) and the same is pending before the Tribunal. The material on record including inspection/investigation reports submitted by the respondent Government Authorities after inspection of the site and also the report filed in compliance of order of this Tribunal dated 19.06.2015 (in M.A No. 634/2015), leaves no room for doubt that respondent no.9 has not encroached on the adjoining lands. The applicant has failed to establish that respondent no.9 has been carrying on illegal mining on khasra no. 212/2 and khasra no. 214/2/2/1.
ii. Therefore, there is no reason for closure of all mining activities of respondent no.9 in village Mukandpura, for want of Environmental Clearance under EIA Notification, 2006 or consent under the Water Act of 1974 or consent under the Air Act of 1981 or for any other reason. He is not carrying on any illegal mining in the adjoining areas or in the forest land. The prayers made by the applicant for causing loss to the environment/ecology or direction for restoring, reforestation and reclamation of the entire area needs to be rejected. So far as prayer no. (j) with regard to all such mines illegally operating in State of Haryana is concerned, the same is not sustainable as being beyond the scope of the present Original Application and cannot be entertained in absence of the concerned violators not being a party to this application and it would also amount to misjoinder of cause of action which is not permissible in an application under the NGT Act, 2010 and the rules made thereunder.
iii. Consequently this Original Application deserves to be rejected and it is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to cost."
In view of the fact that the earlier application i.e., original application no. 148/2015 filed by the present appellant was already under adjudication at the time of grant of environmental clearance on 23.12.2016, it is difficult to accept the submission of the appellant that he came to know about the environmental clearance only at the time of filing of the short submissions in said original application.
We, therefore, hold that the present appellant did have knowledge of the environmental clearance dated 23.12.2016 much earlier, as the decision to grant environmental clearance was already taken in the Meeting of SEIAA held on 05.12.2016 and the minutes were uploaded on 19.12.2016 itself. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is barred by limitation and beyond 90 days for which the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, as per the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Moreover the fact of the matter is that the grievance of the appellant was the subject matter of original application no. 148/2015 wherein a detailed judgement was passed on 30.05.2017 which was dismissed being devoid of merits.
In view of the fact that this Tribunal had already held that the mining lease area in Khasra no. 211/3/2 in Mukundpura, Narnaul District Mahendergarh is not a part of Aravali Plantation Area and, therefore, the appeal is devoid of any substance. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
As the main Appeal No. 08/2017 is dismissed, the M.A. No. 414 of 2017& I.A. No. 154/2019 do not survive for consideration and the same are also dismissed with no order as to cost.