AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This application is filed by the applicant who is owning a farm house having Mango and coconut trees for the last 17 years situated in Survey Nos. 3-1A to 7.1 of Elapakkam village, Madhuranthakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District, challenging the alleged illegal quarrying carried on adjacent to the applicants property by 8th, 11th and 12th respondents in Survey No. 113, Mangalam village, Maduranthagam Taluk, S.F.No. 115, Mangalam village, MaduranthagamTaluk and S.F.No. 115, Mangalam village, Maduranthagam Taluk, respectively. It is the case of the applicant that 8th,11th & 12th respondents have been carrying on quarrying/mining activity using explosives to blast stones thereby causing immense pollution, nuisance and threat to life of the inhabitants in applicants property. Stone crushing activity is also being undertaken by the respondent which is causing air pollution and damage to mango trees, due to dust settling on leaves, premature ripening of fruits and falling of mango flowers, and as a result yield of mango has been highly reduced.
It is stated by the applicant that upon the information given by the Village Administrative Officer of Mangalam Village regarding the mining carried out in S.F.No.115, a legal notice was issued to the 9th, 11th & 12th respondents and also a complaint was made to the 1st Respondent. Due to their inaction, the Application No.136 of 2014 was filed before this Tribunal to direct the 1st Respondent to take action against the Respondents 2 to 4 therein. The applicant also sought for an Order of Interim Injunction restraining the Respondents and their men from carrying on blasting of stones in S.F.No.115, Mangalam Village, Madhuranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District. At the time of admission, this Tribunal was pleased to pass an Interim injunction dated 09-05-2014 restraining the respondents 2 to 4 from carrying on any activity of stone quarrying by blasting using explosives. Subsequently, the respondents in their counter affidavit stated that they are involved in mining in S.F. No. 113 also and knowing the fact that EC was granted to the respondents in respect of S.No. 113, this Tribunal passed an order dated 11-06-2014 directing the Board to make an enquiry on the complaint dated 04.04.2014 made by the applicant after hearing both the sides and pass appropriate orders and to take suitable action. Further, the 1st Respondent was directed to seal the premises wherein the blasting explosives are kept for the blasting stones, if it is there. The concerned District Collector was suomotu impleaded as 6th Respondent to ensure that the order of sealing of the explosive premises is carried out effectively. It was also directed to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (Board) that it shall supervise the mining activity and conduct Air Quality Survey from time to time and take appropriate action if the Quality is not in accordance with law.
The above stated order passed by this Tribunal was communicated to the respondents by communication dated 16.06.2015 and 20.06.2014 along with the facts outlining the problems faced by the applicant and the violations taking place so as to enable the Board to take appropriate action. No action was taken by the Board in spite of the Order passed by this Tribunal and it is further stated by the applicant that the mining activity illegally extended beyond the permitted S.F No.113 without any EC apart from violation of conditions of EC and other permissions dated 05.09.2013.
The applicant has stated that the hardship faced due to the illegal mining activities by the respondents which range from poor plantation yield to threat to life in the nearby locality and that the digging activity has also affected the water table in the applicant's property. It is the case of the applicant that the respondent units are carrying on quarrying/ mining activities without obtaining necessary Consent to Operate in violation of provisions of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
According to the applicant, the EC granted to the 8th Respondent on 05.09.2013 in respect of S.No. 113 is invalid in law as no public hearing was conducted as stipulated under the EIA Notification, 2006 and it is not known as to whether the project proponent has circulated the contents of EC in the newspaper. It is further stated by the applicant that there are violations of the conditions of EC dated 05-09-2013 and the same is liable to be cancelled on various grounds. The quarry lease area is not demarcated on the ground with wire fencing to show the boundary of the lease area and no red flag is erected before commencement of quarrying as required under para 2(ii) of EC and there is a residential structure within applicant's property housing about 20 workmen and their families and this is within 500 m from the mining area. A number of ground water extraction points in the applicant's property which have been used for irrigational purposes are almost dried up as a result of the mining activity and this is in violation of para 3 (ii) of EC. It is also stated that because of the quarrying, the water table in the entire surrounding areas has been destabilised and the same is in violation of para 3(iv) of EC. It is stated that despite the 1st and the 6th respondents being aware of the developments made in the Application No.136 of 2014 (SZ) they have failed to take appropriate action against the project proponent.
Instead, a flimsy reply was filed that the mining is carried on only in S.F.No.113. In the above circumstances, the applicant filed a detailed complaint along with all the relevant satellite pictures, judicial and administrative proceedings to the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein.
On 12.08.2014, the 1st Respondent communicated to the applicant stating that in pursuant to the Order of this Tribunal in Application No.136 of 2014 (SZ), mining activities have been stopped in S.F.No.115, Mangalam Village. However, according to the applicant no such compliance of the Order is observed as on date. Therefore, the above application is filed by the applicant before this Tribunal based on various legal grounds and to protect the right of the applicant guaranteed under Art. 21 and Art.19 (1) (g) of the Indian Constitution, praying for a direction to cancel the EC dated 05.09.2013 granted by the 7th respondent to 8th respondent as invalid in law and to pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the Respondent Nos. 8 to 12 from carrying on stone quarrying in S.Nos. 113, 114, 115 and the other surrounding areas in Mangalam village, Madhuranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
The 1st and 2nd respondents, the Board in its reply dated has stated that there are three stone quarries in S.No. 115/1B, Mangalam village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District owned by Mr. K. Badrinath in S.No.115/3B,115/1F, Mrs. K Premalatha in S.F.No. 113, and Mr. M. Manoharan which is located adjacent to applicant's property and also the stone crushing unit of M/s. Srinivasa Blue Metals located at S.No. 115/C, Mangalam village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District. It is stated that to comply with the orders of this Tribunal dated 09-05-2014 the Board issued directions under Section 31A of the Air Act to restrain the units situated in S.F. No.115, S.F. No. 115/1B and S.F. No.115/3, 1F of Mangalam village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District from carrying out their activities. It is stated that in order to comply with the orders of this Tribunal dated 11-06-2014 the Board issued direction to the 6th respondent to seal the premises wherein the blasting explosives are kept for the purpose of blasting operation in respect of units situated in S.F No. 115/1B and S.No. 115/3B, 115/1F. Thereafter, the 6th respondent issued direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Maduranthagam dated 19-06-2014 to take immediate action and to ensure that there is no stone quarry operation in the respective units until further orders from this Tribunal. By a letter dated 01-07-2014 it was informed by the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Kancheepuram District that stone quarry operations in the said units have been stopped in compliance of the order of this Tribunal dated 09-05-2014 and 11-06-2014.
It is stated that in compliance of order of this Tribunal, a personal hearing was conducted with the representatives of the applicant and the respondents on 10-07-2014 at the office of 2nd respondent, and the details of the personal hearing proceedings was received by the Board by a letter dated 10-07-2014. It is also stated that the Board in its memo dated 01-07-2014 has requested the 2nd respondent to supervise the activity of the 10th respondent unit in S.No.115 and to conduct the Air Quality Survey from time to time and take appropriate action if the air data are not in accordance with law and to ensure the execution of the directions of the NGT dated 11.06.2014. Accordingly, the Director, Advanced Environmental Laboratory of the Board was directed to conduct the Ambient Air Quality Survey (AQS) in and around the units located in S.F. No.115/1C of M/s. Srinivasa Blue Metals, S.No.115/3B, 116/1B of M/s. Kanagasalapathy Blue Metals and in S.No. 116/1A3 of M/s. Keerthana Blue Metals, respectively. AQS was conducted on 24.07.2014 by the Advanced Environmental Laboratory of the Board and on analysis it was found that the parameters such as PM10, SO2, NO2 were within the permissible limits prescribed by the Board.
It is stated that the Board has issued direction under Section 31A of Air Act based on the personal hearing conducted with the representatives of the applicant on 08-08-2014 and directed that the respondent quarries shall apply for the consent (CTE and CTO) of the Board along with the compliance report to be obtained from the Deputy Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Kancheepuram on the status of the conditions imposed in the lease granted and agreement executed with the respondent quarries. The respondent quarries shall resume the quarrying activities only after obtaining Consent to Operate from the Board. The Board has communicated the action initiated by it to comply with the order of NGT dated 11-06-2014 to the applicant. It is stated that the status report of the said stone quarry units and crushing units located in Mangalam village has been communicated to the complainant by a letter dated 08-08-2014.
It is stated by the Board that with regard to the 8th respondent unit, Mr. M. Manoharan Quarry located in S.F.No. 113, Mangalam village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District, EC was granted by SEIAA on 05-09-2013 under the EIA Notification 2006 and it was granted permission for stone quarry lease over an extent of 2.77 ha for a period of 5 years from 02-01-2014 to 01-01-2019 under Rule 19 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 by the 6th respondent by a letter dated 31-12-2013. Later, the Board granted Consent to Establish on 18-03-2014 to the 8th respondent. On 03-07-2014 the Board issued a show cause notice since the unit was carrying out quarrying of rough stone without obtaining Consent to Operate from the Board and without complying with the conditions stipulated in the Consent to Establish issued under the Water and Air Acts. The 8th respondent unit informed the Board by a letter dated 07-07-2014 that it has stopped stone quarrying activity and assured to resume the activity after obtaining CTO from the Board. The 8th respondent unit applied for CTO on 10-07-2014 stating that no structure is located within 500 m from the quarry site and assured that the quarrying will not be carried out below ground water table. The 8th respondent has also assured that the blasting will be carried out after announcing to the public through adequate public address system to avoid accident and stated that it has provided water spraying arrangement to reduce air pollution during transportation of minerals and provided wire fencing with red flags on the northern and eastern sides of the boundary and a metal sheet cover of 16 feet high with red flag on the western side. Since it is an existing stone quarry where quarrying was carried out earlier, it could not fix the pole and hence fixed red flag on the southern side of the boundary. Further, the unit reported to the Board that it has complied with the conditions imposed in the EC as well as lease dated 05-09-2013, 31-12-2013, respectively. The Joint Director of Geology and Mining in his letter dated 21-07-2014 has reported that 8th respondent Quarry is being operated in accordance with Rules and Regulation and the transport permit is being issued to the lessee on collection of required seigniorage fee. Subsequently, on 28-07-2014 CTO was issued to the 8th respondent under the provisions of Water and Air Acts which is valid up to 31-03-2015. The Board has conducted an inspection on 11-12-2014 in the said quarry unit and it was found that the preparatory work such as drilling holes for filling the explosives for the execution of blasting of rough stone and also the removing of already blasted rough stones were in progress.
It is stated by the Board that in relation to the stone quarry owned by respondent No. 11, located in S.No. 115/1B, Mangalam village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District in an extent of 0.69.5 ha, the 6th respondent has granted permission for quarry on lease basis on 10-01-2005 for a period of 10 years from 11-01-2005 to 10-01-2015. The 11th respondent unit has applied for consent to the Board on 02-06-2014 and the application was returned by the 2nd respondent by a letter dated 10-07-2014 for want of compliance report obtained from the Deputy Director, Geology and Mining, Kancheepuram on the status of compliance of conditions of lease dated 10-01-2005. On an inspection conducted on 23-12-2014, it was noticed that the 11th respondent stone quarry was not in operation.
It is stated by the Board that the 12th respondent unit owned by Mrs. K.Premalatha located in patta land at S.No. 115/3B, 115/1F, Mangalam village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District to an extent of 2.73.5 ha, was granted permission for stone quarrying of rough stone and earth on lease basis by the 6th respondent on 20-09-2010 for a period of 5 years from 20-09-2010 to 19-09-2015. The 12th respondent applied for Consent of the Board on 16-10-2014 and the same was returned for want of additional details by the 2nd respondent by a letter dated 21-11-2014 and on inspection dated 23-12-2014 it was found that the 12th respondent unit was not in operation.
The Board has stated that the 9th respondent Stone crusher unit owned by M/s. Srinivasa Blue Metals located in S.No.115/1C, Mangalam village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District has obtained CTO of the Board on 30-01-2012 under the Water and Air Acts. It is also stated by the Board that in compliance of the order of this Tribunal dated 11-06-2014 in application No. 136 of 2013, Ambient Air Quality survey was conducted on 24-07-2014 in and around the stone crushing units located at Mangalam village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District and on analysis it was found that the parameters such as PM10, SO2, NO2 are within the permissible limits prescribed by the Board. Thereafter, consent was renewed to the 9th respondent on 17-09-2014 and this is valid up to 30-06-2016.An inspection was conducted on 23-12-2014 and found that the 9th respondent unit was in operation and air pollution control measures provided at the unit were in operation.
The 3rd respondent, The Chief Conservator of Forests, Ministry of Environment & Forests, (SZ) in its reply, while addressing the question of public hearing has clarified that public consultation is not needed for Category 'B2' projects and activities. All project activities coming under Category 'B' will require EC from SEIAA only. It is stated that Regional Office of MoEF and CC has no role in the grant of EC from MoEF and CC or from SEIAA and its role is limited to monitor the implementation of conditions stipulated in the EC granted. In this regard, the Regional Office of this Ministry has monitored the site at S.No.113 and the compliance report was found to be satisfactory and the case will have to be defended by the 7th respondent, SEIAA as the subject matter of this case is EC granted by them.
The 6th respondent in its reply has stated that the application is not maintainable on the ground that the application is filed challenging the EC granted by the 7th respondent dated 05-09-2013 and the application is filed before this Tribunal on 20-08-2014, after a period of 11 months. Section 16 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 provides for only 30 days period to approach this Tribunal if aggrieved from the date on which the order or direction is passed and can condone the delay of further period not exceeding 60 days on sufficient cause. It is stated by the 6th respondent that the applicant ought to have filed an appeal under Section 16 of NGT Act, 2010 instead of filing an application under Section 18(1) read with Section 14. The 6th respondent has also relied upon various orders of National Green Tribunal in support of his submission. The 6th respondent has stated that the stone quarry lease was granted for a period of 5 years from 02-01-2014 to 01-01-2019 to the 8th respondent unit located in S.No.113, Mangalam village in an extent of 2.77 ha under rule 19 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and the lease hold area was previously leased out to Mr. Srinivasan for a period of 5 years from 22-10-2007 to 21-10-2012. Therefore, the 8th respondent unit area is not a virgin area as contended by the applicant and it was in existence from 2007 onwards. The stone quarry lease for mining of minor minerals was granted to the 11th respondent in the Government poramboke lands in S.No.115/1B measuring an extent of 0.69.5 ha of Mangalam village for a period of 10 years from 11-01-2005 to 10-01-2015 under Rule 8(8) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The lease period granted to 11th respondent unit expired on 10-01-2015 and the quarrying operation in the 11th respondent unit was stopped due to the interim order passed by this Tribunal dated 09-05-2014. Another stone quarry lease was granted to the 12th respondent unit located in patta lands in S.No.115/1F and 115/3B in the extent of 2.73.5 ha of Mangalam village under rule 19 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 for a period of 5 years from 20-09-2010 to 19-09-2015 and the quarrying operation was stopped for the short period of lease due to interim orders passed by the Tribunal dated 09-05-2014. Similarly, the stone quarry lease granted to the 12th respondent was stopped on 20-06-2014 and the stone quarry lease granted to the 8th respondent in S.No.113 in an extent of 2.77 ha of patta land under Rule 19 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 after getting EC from the 7th respondent. It is stated that in pursuance of the order of this Tribunal, mining operations in S.No.115/1B, 115/1F and 115/3B of Mangalam village was stopped on 20-06-2014. It is also stated by the 6th respondent that the mining operation was not extended beyond S.No. 113 of Mangalam village. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that no steps were taken to stop the use of explosives is incorrect.
It is stated by the 6th respondent that 10th and 9th respondents namely Jaya Shakthi Blue Metals and Srinivasa Blue Metals are crushing units, therefore it has no relation with 6th respondent. It is stated by the 6th respondent that the applicant has raised the issues due to enmity between the applicants and the respondents who are carrying the mining operation in the area. The 7th respondent has considered all aspects and issued EC for S.No 113 after following all norms and rules. It is further stated that there is no habitation in this area hence the question of public hearing does not arise and the applicant alone has raised the objection with ulterior motive to take revenge against the quarry owners in a malafide manner. The project proponent has already circulated the contents of the EC in the local dailies in vernacular language on 22-09-2013 and in English on 22-09-2013 and complied with the requirements regarding communication. It is also stated by the 6th respondent that the applicant has not impleaded the 8th respondent as party in Application No. 136 of 2014 to whom the stone quarry lease granted in S.No.113 of Mangalam village after getting EC. Therefore, action could not be taken against the 8th respondent against whom no orders were received from this Tribunal. The 8th respondent is carrying on operation without violating any provisions of Air, Water and EP Acts and there is no pollution to the environment and nuisance to the applicant or any threat to the life and livelihood of inhabitants in applicant's property.
The 7th respondent, SEIAA in its reply has stated that the proposal for obtaining EC for Rough quarrying in an extent of 2.77.0 at S.F.No.113, Mangalam village was received on 07-08-2013 and there is no forest land, no sensitive water bodies, bio spheres, National Parks, Sanctuaries within 15 km radius. There is no village within 500 m of the project site and the mine work will be open cast semi-mechanised mining and is proposed up to a depth of 33 m. The production would be 354028 cum of Rough Stone over a period of 5 years. Water requirement of 0.1KLD for drinking purposes will be sourced from surface water. The proponent has submitted that the mining plan approved by the Assistant Director, Geology and Mining. The SEAC has appraised the project in its 43rd meeting held on 29th and 30th August 2013 and recommended for the grant of EC for the 8th respondent unit and was placed before SEIAA in its 86th meeting held on 05-09-2013 and the 7th respondent has considered the proposal and accorded EC after considering the size of the mine, production rate, the mineral mined and the eco- sensitivity of the area. Therefore, according to the 7th respondent the application filed by the applicant is not maintainable.
The 8th respondent in its reply has stated that the Application No.136 of 2014 was filed by the applicant and in which 8th respondent was not made as a party and no allegation was made against the said respondent. In the present application, the 8th respondent is included and challenging the EC dated 05-09-2013 granted by the 7th respondent without challenging the CTE and CTO issued by the Board. It is further stated that the applicant ought to have filed an appeal under Section 16 of NGT Act 2010, in that case it is beyond the limitation period of 30 plus 60 days as contemplated in proviso to Section 16. To overcome this situation the applicant has filed this application under Section 18 of NGT Act and the same is liable to be dismissed on the above stated preliminary ground.
It is stated by the 8th respondent that in respect of his unit located in patta land at S.No.113, Mangalam village in extent of 2.77.0 ha, stone quarry lease was granted by the 6th respondent for a period of 5 years in favour of the pattadar, Mr.K.Srinivasan. After the expiry of said lease period Mr. K. Srinivasan has leased out the said property to the 8th respondent and a tripartite agreement was executed by the 6th respondent, Mr. K. Srinivasan and the 8th respondent from 02-01-2014 to 01-01- 2019.CTE and CTO were granted to the 8th respondent on 18-03-2014 and 28-07-2014, respectively and as on date the 8th respondent is carrying on the quarrying operation strictly following Act, Rules and conditions imposed in the lease deed and further strictly complying the conditions imposed by the pollution control authorities while granting EC as well as CTO. It is also stated that there is a clear demarcation in between the lands and fencing also properly erected and further the high raising iron sheets for about 16 feet height to cover the entire quarry units of 8th respondent from completely arresting any sort of emission of dust from the unit have also been installed. Regarding the allegation of tree weathering and premature ripening of mangoes are all false allegations, since the adjoining Survey Numbers of the applicant's land are quarry works and crushing units and are functioning for more than 16 years and there is no threat to the people residing in the applicant's property. It is also stated that the quarrying of rough stone would not in any way affect the storage of water table. It is stated that the 8th unit was inspected and periodically monitored by the official respondents and no violation is found till date.
The 12th respondent in its reply has stated that she was granted license to quarry blue metal rough stone of 2.73.5ha comprised in S.F.No. 115/3B, 115/1F in No.14, Mangalam village and an agreement was executed between 12th respondent and the 6th respondent in terms of Rule 91 and Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Mineral Concession Rule for a period of 5 years from 20-09-2010 to 12-09-2015. She has also submitted that she had been quarrying in accordance with the provisions of Air and Water Acts and the said quarry is in the patta land and it is about 600 m away from the adjoining land. It is stated that the Application No.136of 2014 was filed by the applicant contending that the 12th respondent and others are quarrying without obtaining COE and CTO and in violation of Water and Air Acts and in pursuance of the order passed by this Tribunal dated 09-05-2014 the 12th respondent has stopped quarrying activities and till date there is no quarrying operation in the site. The 12th respondent had applied for CTE and CTO before the Board on 30-05-2014and the Board has informed that the application will not be processed in view of the pendency of the Application No.136 of 2014 before this Tribunal. It is further submitted that since he had stopped quarrying operation, there is no impediment for the respondent to process the application seeking consent and pass appropriate orders and till date no order has been passed on the application seeking consent and the 12th respondent is not carrying activities as alleged by the applicant.
Advancing his arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that violating all laws and regulation and without even obtaining necessary consent orders from the Board, the respondents herein have been carrying on the illegal quarrying since 2013.He would further add that the said quarrying activities are affecting the habitants in his property because of noise, dust and effects of explosives used to blast the rocks. According to him, the environment in general and quality of air and ground water level in particular are seriously affected by the quarrying/mining being carried out in the adjacent area falling under S.F No. No. 113, Mangalam village, Maduranthagam Taluk, S.F.No. 115, Mangalam village, Maduranthagam Taluk and S.F.No. 115, Mangalam village, Maduranthagam Taluk, respectively.
The other main contention of the applicant is that by not following the necessary regulations and conditions imposed in the lease agreement, the quarrying activity is being extended beyond the permitted geographical extent in S.No. 113 in Mangalam village, Maduranthagam Taluk. Producing photographs taken in the area under question, the Counsel would claim that quarrying is being done below the ground water table in clear violation of the conditions appended to the EC. It is his further argument that the respondent No.8 has furnished incorrect information particularly in respect of the areal distance of the nearest village as more than 500 m to obtain the EC. This, he would argue amounts to concealing of actual data and on this ground alone the clearance has to be withdrawn. The Counsel would state that despite many representations to them the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 have not taken any action against the violators and on the contrary by way of issuing predated documents they appear to collude with the violators of law. Citing his rights in his property and to save the environment the Tribunal must take appropriate action in this regard.
Per Contra, respondent Nos.8 to 12 deny the allegations made by the applicant.
We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and all the respondents. We have also perused all the documents and reports submitted by the Counsel, the MoEF and CC, Board and other Government agencies. Paying anxious consideration we decided to address the following issues to decide on the subject matter.
Does the Environment Clearance given to Respondent No. 8 stand the scrutiny of law or it is liable to be set aside?
Whether the activity of stone quarrying by Respondent No. 8 can be permitted or stop forthwith?
To what relief the Applicant is entitled to?
Since the issue No.2 and 3 are consequent to the first issue, we decided to discuss all of them together to arrive at a decision.
It is an admitted position that respondent Nos. 8 to 12 are involved in quarrying activity in Survey No. 113, Mangalam village, Maduranthagam Taluk, S.F.No. 115, Mangalam village, Maduranthagam Taluk andS.F.No. 115, Mangalam village, Maduranthagam Taluk, respectively. The current status of these units is tabulated below:
Application No.222 (Dates of Lease, Consent and EC)
Name of the Unit
SurveyNos. and extent of area (ha)
Lease period
Status of CTE and CTO
Status of EC
M.Manoharan Quarry (8th respondent)
S.No.113, 2.77
02-01-2014 to 01-01-2019 (5 yrs)
CTE dated 18- 03-2014 CTO- 28-07- 2014 valid up to 31-03-2015
05-09-2013 operating
Srinivasa Blue Metals (9th respondent). (leased out by Jayasakthi Blue Metals)
S.No.115/1C,
Renewed and valid up to 30- 06-2016
Operating
Jayasakthi Blue Metals (10th respondent)
S.No.115/1C
Badrinath (11th respondent)
S.No. 115/1B, 0.69.5
11-01-2005 to 10-01-2015 (10 yrs)
Applied on 02- 06-2014, returned on 10- 07-2014
Not obtained Not in operation
K. Premalatha (12th respondent)
S.No.115/3B, 115/1F, 2.73.5
20-09-2010 to 19-09-2015 (5yrs)
Applied on 16- 10-2014 , returned on 21- 11-2014
Not obtained Not in operation
M. Manoharan Quarry, the 8th respondent herein would state that with a valid leaseextending up to 1/01/2019 and valid Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate granted by the Board he has been operating the quarry following all environmental norms and other licenses and certificates as warranted by law. According to this respondent, instead of filing an appeal under section 16 of NGT Act, the applicant has filed the present application under Section 18 to overcome the fact that his appeal would be beyond the limitation period of 30+60 days as contemplated in the Act. He would urge that the application be dismissed as not maintainable on this score. As regards his quarrying activities being carried out adjacent to the applicant's property, the 8th respondent categorically states that there is a clear demarcation between the lands and proper fencing and further fortification using high raise iron sheets for a height of 16 feet in place and these measures completely isolate the applicant's property from dust and other forms of pollution. He would further contend that his operations are restricted within the leased out area only. The Counsel would argue that extending the mining activity beyond the permitted Survey number is not at all possible as close and constant monitoring by authorities such as VAO, RI, Deputy Tahsildar, Tahsildar, RDO and authorities of 5th and 6th respondents herein is always in force. Countering the claims of the applicant, the Counsel would argue that till the filing of the present application no complaint of any kind be it against plantation and vegetation growth or the environment including ground water level has been made any time during the 16 years existence of his unit by anyone. The Counsel would also submit that the flying of stones into the applicants land is a sheer impossibility since the quarry work is being carried out almost 50 ft below ground level.
K. Premalatha Quarry, the 12th respondent herein submits that the quarrying operations are being carried on in accordance with the provisions of Air, Water and other Acts in S.R.No. S.No.115/3B, 115/1F in Mangalam village, Maduranthagam Taluk. Counsel for the said respondent would state that pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble NGT dated 9-05-2015, the quarrying activities have been stopped and as on date there is no quarrying operation in the site. He would further state that the application for Consent is pending before the Board.
Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 namely, Srinivasa Blue Metals and Jayasakthi Blue Metals are crushing units and their activities are not the subject matter of the instant application. Moreover, these Units are not carrying out any quarrying operations. Therefore, we have decided that no discussion relating to these respondents is required.
The 11th respondent M/s. Bhadrinath Quarry has not submitted any reply and according to the Board the unit is not in operation.
Taking into consideration the controversial stands taken by the applicant and the respondents, mainly the 8th respondent, the Tribunal thought it is fit to get a status report on the factual position from the Board and accordingly directed the Board to conduct an inspection of the said area and file a report. In an affidavit filed by the Board dated 23rd March 2015 the current status of the stone quarries has been detailed. From the affidavit the following relevant information has been extracted:
"Consent Status and present stage of the stone Quarries and stone Crusher:
M. Manoharan Quarry owned by Mr.Manoharan, S. F. No. 113, Mangalam Village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District [Respondent (8)].
a. The SEIAA vide letter No. SEIAA, TN/Fno.1608/EC/1 (a)748/2013 dated 05.09.2013 (Annexure XII), has accorded Environmental Clearance to the unit of M/s. Manoharan (quarry), S.F. No. 113, Mangalam Village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District under the EIA Notification, 2006.
b. The District Collector, Kancheepuram vide letter No. R.C. No.119/2013-Q2, dated: 31.12.2013(Annexure XIII) has granted permission for stone quarry lease to the applicant in patta lands in S.F. No.113, over an extent of 2.77 hectare in Mangalam Village, Madhuranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District for a period of 5 years from the date of execution of lease deed, under the provisions of Rule 19 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959.
c. The unit has made an agreement with the District Collector, Kancheepuram District to Quarry and transport of rough stone at S.F. No.113 over an extent of 2.77hectares in Mangalam Village, Madhranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District for a period of five years from 02.01.2014 to 01.01.2019.
d. Consent to Establish (CTE) of the TNPC Board was issued to the unit under the Water and Air Acts vide Proc. No. F. SPR1863/RS/DEE/TNPCB/SPR/W&A/2014 dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure XIV).
e. Show Cause Notice was issued to the unit vide Proc. No. F.SPR1863/RS/DEE/TNPCD/SPR/W&A/2014 dated 03.07.2014 (Annexure XV) since the unit was carrying out quarrying of Rough stone without obtaining Consent to Operate (CTO) from the Board and without complying the conditions stipulated in the CTE issued to the unit under the Water and Air Acts.
f. The unit in its letter received on 07.07.2014 has reported that it has stopped the stone quarrying activity and assured to resume the activity after obtaining CTO from the Board.
g. The unit has applied for CTO on 10.07.2014 and reported the following:
i. The District Collector, Kancheepuram has granted quarry lease at S.F. No.113, Mangalam Village, Madhuranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District and in the Quarry Lease Proc. Dated 31.12.2013, it is stated that no structure is located within 500 meters from the quarry site.
ii. The unit has assured that the quarrying activity will not be carried out below ground water table.
iii. The unit has stated that the drilling and blasting will be carried out only by the licensed explosive agent (M/s. Kuberan Explosives Co. D.No.164, Varanasi Village, Banriti Post, Kancheepuram District) and also furnished the copy of the license issued to them by the Chief Controller of Explosive and furnished the copy of the Blasting work contract agreement made with them (Annexure XVI).
iv. The unit has assured that the blasting will be carried out after announcing to the Public through adequate public address system to avoid any accident.
v. Provided water spraying arrangement to reduce air pollution during transportation of minerals.
vi. Provided wire fencing with red flags on the northern and eastern sides of the boundary and provided metal sheet cover of 16 feet height with red flag on the western side. Since it is an existing stone quarry where quarrying was carried out earlier, it could not fix the Pole and hence fixed red flag on the Southern side of the boundary.
vii. Further the unit has reported that it has complied with the conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance issued by the SEIAA dated 05.09.2013 and lease granted by the Distict Collector. Kancheepuram letter dated 31.12.2013.
viii. Furnished the copy of the advertisement made in Tamil & English informing that the project has been accorded Environmental Clearance.
ix. The Joint Director of Geology and Mining in his letter dated 21.07.2014 (XVIII) has reported that M. Manoharan Quarry is being operated in accordance with Rules and Regulation and the transport permit is being issued to the Lessee on collection of required Seigniorage fee.
x. Subsequently, Consent to Operate was issued to the unit under the Water & Air Acts vide Proc. No. F.SPR1863/RS/DEE/TNPCB/SPR/W&A/2014 dated 28.07.2014 (Annexure XIX) valid up to 31.03.2015.
xi. During inspection of the above said stone quarry on 11.12.2014, it was noticed that the preparatory work such as drilling holes for filling the explosives for the execution of blasting of rough stone for the day work was in progress and also the removing of already blasted rough stones were in progress.
II. Stone Quarry Owned by Mr.Badrinath, S. No. 115/1B, Mangalam Village, Madhranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District:
a. Earlier the Respondent (11) Mr. K. Badrinath (quarry) was carrying out quarrying of rough stone at S.F. No. 115/1B, to an extent of 0.69.5 Hectare at Mangalam Village, Madhuranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
b. The District Collector, Kancheepuram vide letter No.RC.1484/2004 Q1 dated 10.01.2005 (Annexure XX) has granted permission for stone quarry on lease basis.
c. The lessee has made an agreement with District Collector, Kancheepuram for quarrying of rough stones for a period of 10 years from 11.01.2005 to 10.01.2015 at S.F. No. 115/B to an extent of 0.69.5 hectare at Mangalam Village, Madhuranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District. (Annexure XXI).
d. M/s. Badrinath Quarry has applied for Consent of the Board under the Water & Air Acts through Care Centre vide Reg. No.CC19529 dated 02.06.2014 and the application was returned by DEE vide letter No. FSPR1897/SR/DEE/TNPCB/SPR/2014, dated 10.07.2014 for want of compliance report obtained from the Deputy Director, Geology and Mining, Kancheepuram on the status of compliance of the conditions stipulated in the lease granted to the stone quarry by the District Collector, Kancheepuram vide letter No. RC.1484/2004 Q1 dated 10.01.2005 and lease agreement executed dated 10.01.2005.
e. During inspection of the above stone quarry on 23.12.2014, it was noticed that the said stone quarry was not in operation.
III. Stone Quarry Owned by Mrs. K. Premlatha, W/o. Kanagasalapathy, S.No. 115/3B, 115/1F, Mangalam Village, Madhuranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
a. Earlier, the Respondent (12) Mrs. K. Premalatha, W/o. Kanagasalapathy, was carrying out quarrying of rough stone at S.No.115/3B , 115/1F, to an extent of 2.73.5 hectare at Mangalam Village, Madhranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
b. The District Collector, Kancheepuram vide letter No. RC.371/2008/Q1 dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure XXII ) has granted permission for stone quarrying of rough stone and earth on lease basis in the patta land at S.No. 115/3B, 115/1F to an extent of 2.73.5 hectare at Mangalam Village, Madhuranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
c. The lessee has made an agreement with the District Collector, Kancheepuram for quarrying of rough stone and earth for a period of 5 years from 20.09.2010 to 19.09.2015 at S. No.115/3B, 115/1F to an extent of 2.73.5 hectare at Mangalam Village, Madhranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District (Annexure XXIII).
d. M/s. Premalatha Quarry has applied for Consent of the Board under the Water & Air Acts through Care Centre vide Reg. No. CC20471 dated 16.10.2014 and the application was returned for want of additional details by the DEE vide letter No.FSPR1896/RS/DEE/TNPCB/SPR/2014 dated 21.11.2014.
e. During inspection of the above said stone quarry on 23.12.2014, it was noticed that the said stone quarry was not in operation".
From the above affidavit it clear that the main contesting respondent, namely the 8th respondent, Manoharan Quarry has obtained all necessary licenses and clearances from the Distict Collector, Kancheepuram, the SEIAA and the Board. While the EC granted by the SEIAA and lease granted by the District Collector, Kancheepuram are valid even as on date, the validity of the Consent to Operate issued by the Board has expired on 31.03.2015. The other two contestant respondents, 11th Respondent, Badrinath Quarry and the 12th Respondent, Premalatha Quarry do have valid lease, EC and the Consent to Operate, as on date. It is also true that these two Units are not in operation as on date.
Pursuant to an order of this Tribunal, a Joint Inspection Report prepared by the officials of Ground Water Division of PWD, Department of Mining and Geology and the Department of Agriculture was submitted to the Tribunal on 12th August 2015. For the sake of getting an insight into the factual matrix as recorded by the Joint Inspection of Officers, some relevant portions from the report are extracted below:
"The following observations were made during the inspection at quarry site and the nearby farm land:
The subjected stone quarries located in the Mangalam Village of Madhuranthagam Block is categorised as safe as per Ground Water potential assessment 2009.
The rough stone quarry is under operation during the during inspection in S.F. No. 113 covering an extent of 2.77.0 Hectare.
The Coordinates of the stone quarry in S.F. No. 113 is as follows:
Location
Latitude
Longitude
North End
120 37'44.2"
790 50'44.9"
South End
120 37'29.23"
790 50'38.81"
East End
120 37'35.43"
790 50'49.43"
West End
120 37'38.17"
790 50'37.89"
It is observed that quarrying in the mid portion of the S.F. No. 113 is carried out to a depth of 30 m from the existing natural ground level.
It is observed that there is no water inside the quarry. However, it is found that there is indication of seepage of ground water at a depth of 5 to 10 mtrs from the ground level.
Five open wells are inventoried in the petitioners farm land. The details of open wells are as follows:
SI No
Type of Well
Size in "m"
Coordinates
Total Depth in "m"
Water Level in "m
Distance from the quarry boundar y in "m"
Latitude
Longitude
1
Open well
10.30
12 37'30.10"
79 50'33.67"
8.70
8.20
57.0
2
Open well
9.30 x 12.30
12 37'33.40"
79 50'31.34"
13.40
12.0
160.0
3
Open well
11.0
12 37'42.59"
79 50'36.75"
10.30
8.90
57.0
4
Open well
13.0
12 37'44.64"
79 50'44.32"
11.60
10.30
163.0
5
Open well
9.0x 11.0m
12 37'58.16"
79 50'45.00"
15.20
13.60
425.0
From the above well inventory, it is observed that the water level in this area ranges from 8.0 m to 13.0 m. from the ground level and the water column is found to be 0.50m to 1.5 m. Weathered rock formations are seen from ground level to 3.0 m followed by the hard rock of charnockite.
Two open well are inventoried nearby by the quarry site. The water columns available in both the wells are very minimal.
Further, it is stated that the average ground water level of a Monitoring bore well (Piezometer) available at nearby village maintained by the said quarry site is 5.0m.
Generally, the impact of stone quarrying on ground water table can be ascertained accurately by observing water levels for a minimum period of 1 year.
The Observations recorded in the farm areas situated in Ellapakkam Village of Uthiramerur Taluk which is on the Western side of the stone quarry area is follows:
Approximate Area of the Farm:
35 Hects.
Cropping pattern:
Mango, Coconut
Plants (No):
3,500 Mango Plants
Age of the Plants:
Not less than 10 years
Statge of the Crop:
Yielding Trees
Though, Quarrying and Crushing area is in safer boundary from the horticulture plantations, there is a chance of accumulation of air pollutants in vegetative structure of plantations for a longer period.
Long term accumulation of air pollutants from Quarry will lead to physiological and morphological alterations in nearby plantations.
Quarry pollutants will affect the pollution of the Mango during flowering seasons, which leads to flower and fruit dropping.
Physiological changes affect the normal growth rate of the yielding tree as well as moderately reduce yields components of the particular tree.
Though the quarrying operations influencing the physiological and yielding components of Mango, that doesn't affect the yield in huge manner beyond economic threshold level.
The stone quarry admeasuring 2.77.0 hects located in the patta land of S.F.No.113 of Mangalam Village, Madhuranthagam Taluk was leased out to Thiru. M.Manoharan S/o. Munuswamy of Pallavaram, Chennai for a period of 5 years from 02.01.2014 to 01.01.2019 under Rule 19(1) of Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959 vide District Collector's Proceedings R.C.No.119/2013/Q2, dated 31.12.2013 after obtained the required Environmental Clearance from the SEIAA vide Lr. No. SEIAA-TN/F.No.1608/EC(a) 748/2013 dated 05.09.2013. At present, the quarry is under operation. As per the approved mining plan, a total depth of 32 m is defined to quarry (3 mtrs. Top soil & 30 mtrs. Rough stone) for a period of 5 years. Further, this quarry is an old quarry and the rough stone was quarried to a depth of 5 meter during the earlier lease period. Further, it is informed in the mining plan that the removal of overburden and development of quarry will be done by blasting with explosive in holes drilled by jackhammers and controlled blasting technique will be adopted for quarrying i.e. short holes of 32-36 mm dia will be drilled to a short depth with jackhammers and air compressor at a spaced interval depends on the requirement.
The stone quarry located in patta lands of S.F. No/115/1F & 3B over an extent of 2.73.5 hects. of Mangalam Village, was granted to Tmt. K. Premalatha W/o. Kanagasalapathi of Chengalpattu for a period of 5 years from 20.09.2010 to 19.09.2010 vide District Collector Proceeding No.371/2008/Q1, dated 20.09.2010. As per the National Green Tribunal (South Zone) Order dated 09.05.2014 in Application No. 136/2014 (SZ), the said quarry operation was stopped on 19.06.2014 onwards, which is under non-operation while carrying out Joint Inspection.
The stone quarry located in Government poramboke land in S.F. No. 115/1b over an extent of 0.69.5 hects. Of Mangalam Village was granted to Thiru. K.Badrinath S/o. Kanniyappan for a period of 10 years from 11.01.2005 under Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 vide District Collector Proceedings No.1484/2004/Q1 dated 10.01.2005. As per the National Green Tribunal (South Zone) Order dated 09.05.2014 in Application No. 136/2014 (SZ), the said quarry operation was stopped on 19.06.2014 onwards. Moreover, the lease period of the quarry was also stopped on 10.01.2015 and there is no stone quarry work at the time of inspection".
The Joint Inspection Report inter alia stated that the quarrying operation carried out by the 8th respondent in S.F.No. 113 was in the mid portion of the site and at a depth of 30m from the natural ground level. The report also stated that there were indications of seepage of ground water at a depth of 5 to 10m from the ground level. At this juncture, the Counsel for the applicant brought to the notice of this Tribunal that the act of the 8th Respondent is in gross violation of conditions stipulated in EC granted by the SEIAA with reference to the quarrying below the ground water table. The Counsel referred to the stipulation that mining activity should be stopped if the ground water table intervenes the mining activity at any point in terms of depth. Conceding to the observation of Counsel for the applicant, the Counsel for the 8th Respondent gave an undertaking on behalf of his client that quarrying operation will be stopped till the following date of hearing, namely, 17th August 2015. Recording the statement, the Tribunal passed an Interim Order staying the quarrying operations by the 8th Respondent and the same is in force even now.
Even as the Interim Order was enforced, the Counsel for the 8th respondent vehemently argued that the findings of the Joint Inspection Committee do not provide the correct and factual position. Stating that even at the time of applying for the grant of lease, the subject quarrying area in S.No. 113 in Mangalam village measuring an extent of 2.77 ha was not a virgin quarry and at that time itself the depth had reached 33m in the middle portion and the quarrying by his client is being carried out only with the approval of the authorities. He would content that the top soil and rock are absorbed from ground level from 3 m. Placing photographs as proof, the Counsel denied the observation on the seepage of ground water in S.No. 113 and argued that on this score alone the Joint Inspection Report has to be rejected. He would further submit that the said committee spent hardly about 10 minutes on the spot, took photographs and left the place without any scientific assessment. Citing to the observation made in the Joint Inspection Report that the water level ranged from 8 to 13 m from the ground water level in the well situated in the applicants farm and also the point that the water column was found to be 0.5 to 1.5m, the Counsel argued that if the contention of the applicant was true, the whole area would have been flooded with water making it impossible to carry on the quarrying operation. According to him, the EC was granted to him by the 7th respondent only after considering all relevant aspects including the ground water level/table, the natural ground level and also the fact that the area is not a virgin quarry. He would insist that the correctness of the Joint Inspection Report and the exact status of the subject matter would become clear only after the final and comprehensive report by the 3rd Respondent is made available to the Tribunal.
Pursuant to an order of this Tribunal dated 1st April 2015, the 3rd Respondent, the Chief Conservator of Forests, Ministry of Environment & Forests, (SZ) conducted a field inspection on 5-05-2015 to ascertain the ground truth relating to certain environmental issues raised by the applicant. As it was objected to by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant on the ground that no prior notice was issued to the applicant regarding the inspection, a re-inspection was ordered by the Tribunal in its order dated 27-05-2015. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent conducted an inspection of the site in S.F No. 113, 114, 115 in Mangalam village, Madhuranthagam along with the following officers on 3-09-2015.
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Agriculture and Plantation, Agriculture Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Kanchipuram.
The Chief Engineer, State Ground and Surfaces Water Resources, Data Centre, Chennai.
Tahasildar, Madhuranthagam Taluk
The Assistant Director, Geology and Mining, Kanchipuram District.
After the inspection, the 3rd Respondent filed a monitoring report on 1st July 2015 and a Comprehensive Final Report on 10th October 2015 after a fresh inspection. The consolidated findings from the fresh inspection carried out by the 3rd respondent are extracted below:
"Consolidated findings from the Fresh Inspection of stone quarry site at Survey No. 113, Mangalam Village, Madhuranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District and Applicant's Farm House, Mango and Coconut plantation and other farm area at Survey Nos. 3-1 A, to 7.1, Elapakkam Village in Uthiramerur Taluk, Kancheepuram District in the Application No. 222 of 2014 before the Hon'ble NGT(SZ), Chennai.
(i) As per the Distance Certificate furnished by Thasildar, Madhuranthagam, the nearest residential habitations from the Stone Quarry is as follows:
From Survey No.113 quarry site to the residential area in S. No.136 is 882 mts.
From Survey No.113 quarry site to the residential area in S. No.226 is 1225 mts.
(ii) Thasildar, Uthiramerur Taluk provided the requisite information containing distance certificate on the nearest residential habitation in the Applicant's farm area received by e-mail at 8.11 pm on 08.10.2015 in respect of Uthiramerur Taluk is contained in the para 4 above.
(iii) As reported by the Department of Geology and Mining, the area of quarry excavated so far is 34% out of the lease granted area of 2.77 hects. and about 66% of the lease granted area is available for quarrying rough stone to attain the allowed depth of 33mtrs. The project Authority (Respondent No.8) has reported that so far 1,02,600cu.m of rough stone was excavated from the mine when compared to allowed excavation of rough stone from the quarry of 3,54,028 cu.m.
(iv) As per the observations, there was no damages up to 15 m downwards from existing ground level in the Western side of the stone quarry, which is adjacent to the farm house (Survey No.113). A photograph taken at this depth of this contains the photos of representatives of the Applicant, Counsel for Respondents 8, 9 and 11, representatives of Respondent No.3 as evidence thereof and the same can be visualised from video coverage also. A merger amount of seepage has been observed at a depth of about 20 to 25 mts. From the existing ground level on Western side of the stone quarry site (Survey No. 113).
As it may be seen from the Videograph, seepage from the Eastern side of the mine (S. No. 115 1B), may be attributed to the percolation of rain water and watering the plantation from the surface of the Earth towards the interiors depths towards closed stone quarried site which is Government land as informed during inspection. Gravitational flow of the rain water towards the stone quarry excavated/ closed areas of the site are the reasons that can be attributed to many contain water pools as observed/ covered in the Video in the 2.77 hect. Of leased quarry site which is already used quarry site.
(v). The Ambient Air Quality parameters such as PM10 ,SO2 and NOx are also sound within the permissible limits as reported by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Conrtol Board.
(vi). The Necrosis (depth of cell or tissue) and Chlorosis ( insufficient Chlorophyll) in Mango and Coconut plantation of the Applicant farm land is not evidenced from the video coverage and photographs signifying luxuriant growth of mango and coconut plantation. This scenery has been observed from the watch tower located in the farm land adjacent to the quarry site, where in the entire stone quarry site can also be visualized.
(vii.a) As reported by the Applicant, the yield from Mango and Coconut trees in their farm land is 200 to 250 tons of Mangoes and 10,000 - 12,000 numbers of Coconut per year for the last 10 years. This, keeping in view of the fact that the entire farm area is not only mango and coconut trees but also the average of horticulture/ floriculture area and shade net nursery of ornamental plantation about 1000 sq.mts.adjoined to the farm house ( not reported by the Applicant). The farm land is irrigated by ad libitum of water by way of flood irrigation with underground pipe lines land in the midst of the farm with inter connected junctions to the five open wells and bore well as information by the representatives of the Applicant at the site.
(vii.b). The Applicant has not reported in spite of reminders about the presence of bore well which is located at 57 mts from the stone quarry site. Total depth of the bore well is 60 mts as reported by Ground Water Division, PWD. The trend of annual rainfall since 2005 (covering the Madhuranthagam Taluk where the quarry site is located and in Uthiramerur Taluk where the Applicant's farm land is located) is mentioned in the Table at para 2 above. (vii.c). In the farm house, there is a three storied building, godown, small rooms adjacent to the godown, and pump houses adjoining to five open wells etc., were observed and as evident in the video coverage. About 10 workers were present at different places in the farm land during inspection of the farm land. No habitation of the workers in the farm land has been observed. No cattles were observed in the farm land of the Applicant during inspection.
(vii.c) It is pertinent to state that inter alia the details of list of farm workers, their wages and details of the work for which the workers were deployed in the mango/ coconut plantation of the Applicant located in the farm house for the last 10 years is not furnished by the Applicant in spite of reminder. No details of the farm house, its maintainers etc. as requested are also not furnished by the Applicant.
(viii). The Project Authority(Respondent No.8) installed fencing with 20 feet height iron sheet all along western side i.e., between quarry site and Applicant's farm land. It adds up to the safety blasting operation for stone quarry. There is no compliant reported by the Applicant during site inspection about stone falling into the mango and coconut farm from quarry blasting operation by the Respondent No.8. The Project Authority reported the detailed safety operation by the blasting being carried out using hand-jack hammer driller and using mild explosives i.e., Nitrate mixture with Delayed Electronic detonator of low power carried out by certified fore man, mine and licensed explosive holders as detailed in the para 7 above of the report".
From the above report it is evident that the distance between the quarry site in S.R.No. 113 to the nearest residential area in S.No.136 is 882 m and to the residential area in S.R. No. 216 is 1225m.Thus the 8th Respondent quarry is situated beyond 500m from the applicant's farm house. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that while granting of EC, the authorities have not considered the distance criterion cannot be accepted. Relying on the data furnished by Department of Geology and Mining, the above report states that 66% of the lease granted area is still available for quarrying rough stone and the allowed depth is 33 m and the quantum of quarrying carried on by the 8th respondent is far below - both in terms of area mined and quantity of rough stone excavated so far.
In so far as the issue related to ground water table, the report of the 3rd respondent categorically states that there is no dampness up to 15 m downwards from the existing ground level on the west side of the quarry which is adjacent to the farm house of the applicant. The report further adds that the seepage observed at a depth of 20-25 m from the existing ground level in the same spot is rather meagre. According to the report, the seepage observed in the eastern side of the quarry is also meagre and the same could be attributed to the percolation of rain water. These observations made following a systematic study are in direct contrast to the claims made by the applicant. Such claims, in our considered view, are to be discounted in toto. Citing the data provided by the Board, the 3rd Respondent's report indicates that ambient air quality parameters such as PM10, SO2 and NO2 are well within permissible limits. The allegation that the quarrying activity of the 8th Respondent is causing dust and chemical pollution in the applicant's farm loses force and has to be rejected in view of the said findings.
Both the Joint Inspection Report and the Comprehensive Report of 3rd Respondent while dealing with the issue of the effect of quarrying on mango and vegetation yield state in very clear terms that there is no evidence to show that there is significant reduction in mango yield that can be attributed to the quarrying activity. The report of the 3rdRespondent in fact describes the growth of mango and coconut plantations are luxuriant and a number of photographs have also been attached to the report, in proof thereof. Similarly, the Joint Inspection Report records that the quarrying operations may influence the physiological and yielding components of mango but the same is not beyond economic threshold level. As regards other vegetation both the reports do not indicate any significantly negative impacts. Therefore, the pleadings of the applicant on these issues are rejected as devoid of merits.
From the above discussion which is based on the arguments of the Counsel appearing for the applicant and the respondents, the documents placed before us and the reports submitted by the Government agencies as directed by the Tribunal, the following points emerge:
Of the five project units, two namely, Srinivasa Blue Metals and Jayasakthi Blue metals are crushing units and are out of the purview of the subject matter of the application.
The remaining three respondents namely, Manoharan Quarry (R-8), Badrinath Quarry (R-11) and Premalatha Quarry (R-12) were/are operating in the said area in Mangalam village, Madhuranthakam Taluk, Kanchipuram District. Of these three, the 11th and 12th respondents quarry are not in operation due to the fact that they have not obtained necessary Consent to Operate and EC from the Board and SEIAA, respectively. Further the lease period granted to them has also expired on 10/01/2015 and 19/09/2015, respectively. Manoharan Quarry the 8th respondent herein has been in operation with all necessary consents and EC and its operation has been stopped by an interim order passed by us during the course of the proceedings.
Issues raised by the applicant in respect of air pollution, depletion in ground water/water table, effects of quarrying on vegetation and plantation have not been proved to be true and correct by the scientific survey and inspections carried out by the authorities per direction of this Tribunal.
We therefore dismiss the application as devoid of merits.
While dismissing the application, we give the following directions to the concerned respondents:
The 8th Respondent, Manoharan Quarry shall not carry on the quarrying activity until it is granted the 'Consent to Operate' by the Board. As the earlier 'Consent to Operate' issued by the Board expired during the pendency of the present Application for adjudication before this Tribunal, we permit the 8th Respondent to file a fresh application for renewal of the 'Consent to Operate' before the Board. As and when such an application is made by the 8th Respondent, the Board shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law expeditiously, in any case within a period of FOUR weeks from the date of filing of such application before the Board. The 8th Respondent is permitted to recommence its operations only after receiving the 'Consent to Operate' from the Board.
The Board is directed to make periodic inspection of the 8th Respondent Quarry unit after its operations are restored, in order to ensure that all environmental safeguard measures prescribed by the Board are scrupulously followed by the proponent and to take necessary action in the event of noticing any violation.
The 11th Respondent, Badrinath Quarry and the 12th Respondent, Premalatha Quarry shall not carry out any quarrying activity till such time they are granted EC, Consent to Establish, Consent to Operate and also the lease for carrying the quarrying from appropriate authorities.
It is needless to state that the operative direction, namely the complete stoppage of the quarrying activities by the 8th Respondent, given in the interim order gets merged with this order.
Application stands dismissed, in above terms.
There shall be no order as to cost.