AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These Applications have gained access to this Tribunal under the provisions of Section 14 read with Section 18(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The Applicants are engaged in stone quarrying activities at their respective lands in Taluka Chandgad, district Kolhapur. Each stone mining activity of the respective Applicant is of 2ha area.
The Applicants submit that they have submitted their proposal for grant of Environmental Clearance (EC) as per provisions of the Environmental Clearance Regulations, 2006 (For short 'EC Regulations') to Respondent No.2 i.e. the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) through the Collector, Kolhapur, which was fully received by SEAC in the month of December, 2012. The grievance of the Applicants is specific and according to their submissions, the Govt. of India has placed certain restrictions on grant of EC, w.e.f 17.4.2013, in consonance of the report of Dr. Kasturirangan Committee related to the Western Ghats. The Applicants submit that their Applications initially were considered by the Committee in its 64th Meeting in January, 2013 and it was decided to ask the District Mining Officer (DMO) to submit Applications after due compliance. Thereafter, the proposals were again considered in the 67th Meeting, held in February, 2013 and SEAC decided not to recommend any new stone quarrying proposal at this juncture. The Applicants further submit that they again applied for EC and mining plan with the district authorities, which inter-alia approved the mining plan in May, 2014, subject to obtaining necessary EC.
The Applicants, therefore, have persuaded the matter with SEAC and SEAC in its 124th Meeting, held on 30-31st March, 2016 has resolved to hold these proposals in abeyance till the draft Notification related to ESA dated 14th September, 2015 is finalized.
The Applicants have approached this Tribunal against such decision to hold their proposals in abeyance and have sought intervention of the Tribunal to direct the authorities to consider their Applications on merit to grant EC.
After issuance of Notice, contesting parties have entered their appearance and Respondent No.5 filed reply. Shri. D.M.Gupte learned Counsel appears for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. SEAIAA and SEAC.
We have bestowed our considerations to the pleadings and also submissions of the learned Counsel.
The scope of these Applications is limited in the sense that the Applicants have grievance only against keeping their Applications filed for grant of EC in abeyance till draft Notification is finalized. They have not challenged any other aspect except decision of SEAC to keep the Applications pending in abeyance.
We have taken judicial note that this Tribunal in the similar other Applications has directed the Authorities to take decision on EC Applications on merit, rather than keeping them in abeyance.
Moreover, SEAC is required to conduct its proceedings and work as per provisions of the EC Regulations, 2006. The Regulations do not contemplate to keep Applications in abeyance and SEAC is, in any case, not an Authority which can grant or refuse the EC. The role of SEAC is strictly recommendatory and it is required to take a decision either to recommend grant of EC or refusal of EC. The competent Authority for grant or refuse of EC is SEIAA. On both these counts, the decision of SEAC to keep the Applications in abeyance is contrary to the provisions of Law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law and therefore, the decision of SEAC keeping such Applications in abeyance is 'nonest'.
The EC Regulation, 2006 is primarily based on the 'Precautionary Principle' towards sustainable development. In view of such premises, the EC Regulations stipulate a timeframe for various authorities involved in grant of EC to take a decision as per their role and competence in the entire EC process, and therefore, in our considered opinion, the stance of SEAC to keep such EC Applications pending is in violation of basic mandates of the EC Regulation. Such action can frustrate the very object of the EC Regulations aimed at sustainable development.
At this stage, Mr. D.M.Gupte, learned Counsel appears for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that presently SEIAA and SEAC are not in existence due to afflux of time of its validity. He submits that as per provisions of the EC Regulations, 2006, in absence of SEIAA and SEAC such Applications are required to be dealt with by the concerned EAC at MoEF.
Considering this submission and fact position, we are inclined to partly allow these Applications and direct that all these three (3) Applications shall be immediately transferred to concern EAC of MoEF by the Secretary, Environment Department, Govt. of Maharashtra within next seven (7) days, who shall appraise these Applications on its own merit and will take decision on the Applications for grant of EC within next two months.
With these directions, the Applications stand disposed off, making no order as to costs.