AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These are appeals under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 against the grant of Environment Clearance (EC) to the Project Proponent (PP) for sand mining. Upon notice, the Respondents who are the statutory authorities have entered appearance.
Learned Counsel, Ms. S.B. Vaidya-Pandit appears for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. D.M. Gupte appears for Respondent No.3. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni for the Appellants in Appeal Nos.87/2017, Appeal No.88/2017 and Appeal No.89/2017.
Material proposition in all three (03) Appeals is virtually the same and hence there is no need to re-produce or extract the details of pleadings in each case. Appeal No.87 of 2017 is taken as a lead-case and averments therein shall suffice.
The factual matrix is that Respondent No.1 District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA), which was constituted by the Notification dated 15.1.2016 and 28.1.2016 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is now the jurisdictional Authority in the matter relating to grant licence/lease. The Govt. of Maharashtra, vide its Circular dated 2.2.2016 conferred the said powers in exercise of the power to delegate its function which is not disputed before the Tribunal. Copy of the Notification dated 15.1.2016 is placed on record. By virtue of it, the amended Rules 2016 require prior EC for the project detailed therein. The Appellant has pointed out that Respondent No.2 applied for grant of EC to extract the sand from the Sand Ghats at Ungaon 2A-Sandghat, Ungaon 2B-Sandghat, Neri 2A Sandghat, Neri 2B Sandghat, Sonegaon Raja 2B Sandghat. First Respondent without discharging its legal obligation has granted EC, which is uploaded on the website.
The Appellant has questioned this grant of EC on the ground that without preparation of sand mining policy/plan no activity like sand mining is permissible. Legal sustainability of EC for sand mining is therefore questioned.
Though Respondents have entered appearance there is no denial to the fact that as on the date of grant of EC by 1st Respondent to 2nd Respondent the sand mining plan is not in its place, which is the pre-requisite in view of the Notification. Besides, we shall take notice of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors; 2012 4 SCC 629 wherein this issue is elaborately dealt with and highlighted importance of the sand mining policy/plan and in fact the sand mining policy shall be framed by each State in compliance with the directions issued in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra). State of Maharashtra, therefore, cannot be in exceptional or seek to adopt any alternate mechanism. We, thus hold that pre-requisite mining plan being not in its place grant of EC is vitiated and subsequently, 2nd Respondent cannot be permitted the sand mining. In fact, similar issue had come before consideration of the Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 88 and 89 of 2017 and these Appeals are clubbed and heard to be disposed by this order.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeals are allowed and EC dated 06.09.2017 by 1st Respondent to 2nd Respondent is set aside and stay of sand mining if initiated by Respondent No.2 is granted. Right of Respondent No.2 to apply for mining lease after Sand Mining Plan is prepared is reserved.
In view of above observations, these Appeals are disposed off. In view of disposition of these Appeals, Interlocutory Applications shall also stand disposed off.