The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 18-2-2015 passed by the Collector, Dewas in respect of Survey No. 836 area 10. 926 hectare. By the aforesaid order, the Collector Dewas has recommended the matter to the Director Geology and Mining, Bhopal for cancellation of the lease, in exercise of powers conferred under the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules of 1996’).
2. The petitioner's contention is that a show cause notice was issued on 26-2-2014 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the mining lease executed in his favour be (sic: not) cancelled or a fine be imposed upon him. The petitioner did submit a reply Anenxure-P-2 to the Collector (Mining) Dewas and thereafter the Collector (Mining) Dewas based upon the documents relating to the case has forwarded the matter by an order dated 18-2-2015 to the Director Geology and Mining, Bhopal.
3. The petitioner's contention is that certain grounds which were not reflected in the show cause notice have been made to be the basis by the Collector while recommending cancellation of the lease. It is also been argued that as per Rules of 1996, sixty days time should have been granted to cure the defect and the Collector without granting sixty days time has recommended the cancellation of lease. It is pertinent to note that the notice was issued to the petitioner on 26-2-2014 and the recommendation has been made by the Collector on 18-2-2015.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the various report submitted by the various department and his contention is that the various department involved in the matter have not given any negative remark in respect of the petitioner's lease and, therefore, the order passed by the Collector is bad in law and by no stretch of imagination the Collector should have passed the impugned order.
5. The order passed by the Collector also reflects that the petitioner does not have any Environmental Clearance Certificate as required under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 read with section 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and a specific query was raised to the learned counsel while he was arguing the matter that whether the petitioner does have a certificate in respect of Environmental Clearance Certificate, he has categorically stated that the petitioner does not have such a certificate and the petitioner has applied for the same, long back.
6. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has argued before this Court that the Collector has recommended the matter to the Director Geology and Mining, Bhopal for cancellation of the lease on account of order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Central Zone Bench at Bhopal. He has further stated that the National Green Tribunal, Bench at Bhopal by order dated 23-9-2014 has also permitted the lease holders/owners of crushing units, who are parties before the Tribunal to submit their reply.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties.
8. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner who does not have an Environmental Clearance Certificate is carrying out mining activities, since 2010, which is really shocking. If the law requires for Environmental Clearance Certificate, the officers posted at Bhopal owes an explanation to this Court as well as to the Public at large as to how the petitioner was continuing with mining activities in absence of the Environmental Clearance Certificate.
9. The petitioner was issued a proper show cause notice by the Collector on 26-2-2014 and the petitioner did submit a reply in the matter. The learned Collector in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 30(26) has recommended the matter to the Director Geology and Mining, Bhopal for cancellation of the lease deed. The mining activities have already been stopped. This Court in light of the fact that petitioner does not have the Environmental Clearance Certificate is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to carry out the mining activities, in absence of fulfilment of the statutory requirement. Not only this, the Collector has forwarded the matter to the Director Geology and Mining, Bhopal for cancellation of lease. No final order has been passed by the Director Mining. The Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 do provide for an appeal in case lease is cancelled by the competent authority. Section 57 of the the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 reads as under:—
“57. Appeal, Review and Revision. —
(1) ………………………………
(2) Where any power is exercisable by the Collector/Additional Collector under these rules, in relation to any matter an appeal shall lie, from every order passed or deemed to have been passed under these rules to the Director.
(3) Where any power is exercisable by the Director under these rules, in relation to any matter an appeal shall lie from every order passed or deemed to have been passed under these rules to the State Government.
(4) Any person aggrieved by any order passed or deemed to have been passed by the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under these rules, may, within sixty days of the date of communication of the order to him, apply to the State Government for review of the order.
(5) The State Government may at its own motion review any order passed by itself and pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.”
10. In light of the aforesaid statutory provision of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner do have a remedy of appeal, in case an adverse order is passed in the matter by the competent authority. Till today, no final order has been passed by the competent authority and, therefore, in the opinion of this Court the petition is certainly premature.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Shreydeep Stone Crusher v. State of M.P reported in 2014 MPLJ Online 3 : AIR 2014 MP 49 and his contention is that the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case had held that the National Green Tribunal at Bhopal does not have a jurisdiction in the matter of cancellation of the lease.
12. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the Division Bench and the same is distinguishable on facts as in the present case the Collector has simply forwarded the matter to the competent authority for the cancellation of the lease. Such cancellation if any, is yet to be done, learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the head note-‘B’ of the same judgment and the head note ‘B’ reflects that an opportunity should be given to rectify the mistake, in accordance with the provisions of Rule. In the present case as already stated above, no final order has been passed by the competent authority and, therefore, the petitioner shall be free to raise all possible grounds before the appellate authority. Hence, the judgment relied upon is distinguishable on facts.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered again by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Aman Stone Crusher v. State of M.P reported in 2014 MPLJ Online 4 : 2014 (1) JLJ 386 and his contention is that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 provides for curing the defect by Lease Holder and in the present case Lease Holder has not been granted time to cure the defect and, therefore, the report submitted by the Collector deserves to be set aside. In the present case no final order has been passed and at the same time the matters relating to illegal mining/mining of natural resources, are pending before the National Green Tribunal, at Bhopal, and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for any relief arising out of the judgment delivered in the case of Aman Stone Crusher (supra).
14. The last judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the case of Ram Niwas Sharma v. State Of M.P., delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8424/2013 (Gwalior) dated 5-2-2014 and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that again in the aforesaid case as time was not given to the Lease holder to rectify the defect, the cancellation of the lease was held to be bad in law.
15. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment. In the present case the facts are altogether different. A person who is carrying out the mining activities is not possessing the Environmental Clearance Certificate and the matter has been forwarded to the Director for taking a final decision in the matter. The Director/Competent authority has to take a final call in the matter and to decide the matter based upon the recommendation of the Collector.
16. Resultantly, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner.
17. Other vital aspect of the case is that mining over Various hillocks in the township of Dewas is being monitored by National Green Tribunal, Bhopal. Various orders have been passed by the National Green Tribunal at Bhopal and this Court is not having an appellate jurisdiction nor jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India to decide the validity/correctness of the order passed by the National Green Tribunal at Bhopal. In case an order passed by the National Green Tribunal, at Bhopal is affecting the mining activities of lease holder, the proper remedy for such lease holder is to approach the Apex Court or to approach the National Green Tribunal at Bhopal where the matter is pending i.e OA No. 140/2013.
18. It is also been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Advocate that large number of hillocks which are in the green belt in the Dewas township are being razed to ground either by the lease holders or by carrying out illegal mining activities. Damage which is being caused to the nature is an irreparable loss.
19. The Apex Court in the case of State (Nct Of Delhi) v. Sanjay, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 772 has held that the natural resources are public property and national assets. The doctrine of Public Trust extends to natural resources. There should be a balance between the conservation of natural resources and Urban Development. There cannot be any two opinion that natural resources are the assets of the nation and its citizen. It is the object of all concerned including the Central Government and State Government to conserve and not to waste such valuable resources.
20. The Apex Court in the case of K. Guruprasad Rao v. State of Karnataka reported in (2013) 8 SCC 418 in paragraph 95 held as under:—
“95. The argument of learned counsel for the State and the private respondents that ban on mining operations/activities in the Core Zone would adversely impact iron ore supply and will also cause financial loss to the leaseholders as well as the State appears quite attractive but, keeping in view larger public interest and the interest of future generations, we do not think that this would be a very heavy price to be paid by some individuals and the State. This Court has often used the principle of sustainable development to balance the requirement of development and environmental protection and issued several directions for protection of natural resources including air, water, forest, flora and fauna as also wildlife. The Court has also recognized that the right to development includes the whole spectrum of civil, cultural, economic, political and social process, for the improvement of peoples well being and realization of their full potential.”
21. Similarly, in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2013) 4 SCC 575 in paragraphs 18 and 40 held as under:—
“18. Mr. Prakash next submitted that the main ground that was taken in the writ petitions before the High Court by National Trust For Clean Environment was that the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, and the TNPCB had not applied their mind to the nature of the industry as well as the pollution fall out of the industry of the appellants and the capacity of the unit of the appellants to handle the waste without causing adverse impact on the environment as well as on the people living in the vicinity of the plant. He submitted that this Court has already held that a right to clean environment is part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and has explained the precautionary principle and the principle of sustainable development in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647, Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners' Association v. Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association, (2009) 9 SCC 737 and M.C Mehta v. Union of India, (2009) 6 SCC 142. He submitted that these principles, therefore, have to be borne in mind by the authorities while granting environmental clearance and consent under the Water Act or the Air Act, but unfortunately both the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, and the TNPCB have ignored these principles and have gone ahead and hastily granted environmental clearance and the consent under the two Acts. He submitted that, in the present case, the appellants have relied on the Rapid ELA done by Tata Consultancy Service, but this Rapid EIA was based on the data which is less than the month's particulars and is inadequate for making a proper EIA which must address the issue of the nature of the manufacturing process, the capacity of the manufacturing facility and the quantum of production, the quantum and nature of pollutants, air, liquid and solid and handling of the waste.
40. This takes us to the argument of Mr. Prakash that had the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, applied its mind fully before granting the environment clearance and had the TNPCB applied its mind fully to the consents under the Air Act and the Water Act and considered all possible environmental repercussions that the plant proposed to be set up by the appellants would have, the environmental problems now created by the plant of the appellants would have been prevented. As we have already held, it is for the administrative and statutory authorities empowered under the law to consider and grant environmental clearance and the consents to the appellants for setting up the plant and where no ground for interference with the decisions of the authorities on well recognized principles of judicial review is made out, the High Court could not interfere with the decisions of the authorities to grant the environmental clearance or the consents on the ground that had the authorities made a proper environmental assessment of the plant, the adverse environmental effects of the industry could have been prevented. If, however, after the environmental clearance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Rules and the notifications issued thereunder and after the consents granted under the Air Act and the Water Act, the industry continues to pollute the environment so as to effect the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, the High Court could still direct the closure of the industry by virtue of its powers under Article 21 of the Constitution if it came to the conclusion that there were no other remedial measures to ensure that the industry maintains the standards of emission and effluent as laid down by law for safe environment (see M.C Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 463 in which this Court directed closure of tanneries polluting the waters of Ganga river).”
22. The Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Obulapuram Mining Company Private Ltd. reported in (2011) 12 SCC 491 has directed suspension of mining operation, keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of M.C Mehta v. Union of India reported in (2009) 6 SCC 142.
23. The Apex Court in the case of M.C Mehta v. Union of India reported in (2004) 12 SCC 118 in paragraphs 46 and 48 held as under:—
“46. Further, by 42nd Constitutional Amendment, Article 48-A was inserted in the Constitution in Part IV stipulating that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. Article 51A, inter alia, provides that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forest, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. Article 47 which provides that it shall be the duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health is also relevant in this connection. The most vital necessities, namely, air, water and soil, having regard to right of life under Article 21 cannot be permitted to be misused and polluted so as to reduce the quality of life of others. Having regard to the right of the community at large it is permissible to encourage the participation of Amicus Curiae, the appointment of experts and the appointments of monitory committees. The approach of the Court has to be liberal towards ensuring social justice and protection of human rights. In M.C Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 463, this Court held that life, public health and ecology has priority over unemployment and loss of revenue. The definition of ‘sustainable development’ which Brundtland gave more than 3 decades back still holds good. The phrase covers the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generation to meet their own needs. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664, this Court observed that sustainable development means the type or extent of development that can take place and which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation. In these matters, the required standard now is that the risk of harm to the environment or to human health is to be decided in public interest, according to a “reasonable person's” test. [See Chairman Barton: The Status of the Precautionary Principle in Australia: (Vol. 22) (1998) (Harv. Envtt. Law Review, p. 509 at p. 549-A) as in A.P Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V Nayuder (Retd), (1999) 2 SCC 718.
48. The development and the protection of environments are not enemies. If without degrading the environment or minimising adverse effects thereupon by applying stringent safeguards, it is possible to carry on development activity applying the principles of sustainable development, in that eventuality, the development has to go on because one cannot lose sight of the need for development of industries, irrigation resources and power projects etc. including the need to improve employment opportunities and the generation of revenue. A balance has to be struck. We may note that to stall fast the depletion of forest, series of orders have been passed by this Court in T.N Godavarman's case regulating the felling of trees in all the forests in the country. Principle 15 of Rio Conference of 1992 relating to the applicability of precautionary principle which stipulates that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for proposing effective measures to prevent environmental degradation is also required to be kept in view. In such matters, many a times, the option to be adopted is not very easy or in a straight jacket. If an activity is allowed to go ahead, there may be irreparable damage to the environment and if it is stopped, there may be irreparable damage to economic interest. In case of doubt, however, protection of environment would have precedence over the economic interest. Precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm. The harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. It is not always necessary that there should be direct evidence of harm to the environment.”
24. The Apex Court in the case of T.N Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India reported in (2002) 10 SCC 606 in paragraphs 19, 20, 24, 31, 32, 34, 35, 40, 42 and 43 held as under:—
“19. Environmental law is an instrument to protect and improve the environment and to control or prevent any act or omission polluting or likely to pollute the environment. In view of the enormous challenges thrown by the industrial revolution, the legislatures throughout the world are busy in this exercise. Many have enacted laws long back and they are busy in remodelling the environmental law. The others have moved their lawmaking machineries in this direction except the underdeveloped States who have yet to come in this wavelength. India was one of those few countries which paid attention right from the ancient times down to the present age and till date, the tailoring of the existing law to suit the changing conditions is going on. The problem of law-making and amending is a difficult task in this area. There are a variety of colours of this problem. For example, the industrial revolution and the evolution of certain cultural and moral values of humanity and the rural and urban area developments in agricultural technology, waste, barren or industrial belts; developed, developing and underdeveloped parts of the lands; the rich and poor Indians; the population explosion and the industrial implosion; the people's increasing awareness and the decreasing State exchequer; the promises in the political manifestos and the State's development action. In this whole gamut of problems the Tiwari Committee came out with the data that we have in India “nearly five hundred environmental laws” and the Committee pointed out that no systematic study had been undertaken to evaluate those legislative developments. Some legal controls and techniques have been adopted by the legislatures in the field of Indian environmental laws. Different legislative controls right from the ancient times, down to the modem period make interesting reading. Attention has to be paid to identify the areas of great concern to the legislature; the techniques adopted to solve those problems; the pollutants which require continuous exercises; the role of the legislature and people's participation outside. These are some of many areas which attract the attention in the study of history of the Indian environmental law.
20. Since time immemorial, natural objects like rivers enjoyed a high position in the life of the society. They were considered as Goddesses having not only purifying capacity but also self-purifying ability. Fouling of the water of a river was considered a sin and it attracted punishments of different grades which included penance, outcasting, fine etc. The earth or soil also equally had the same importance, and the ancient literature provided the means to purify the polluted soil. The above are some of the many illustrations to support the view that environmental pollution was controlled rigidly in the ancient times. It was not an affair limited to an individual or individuals but the society as a whole accepted its duty to protect the environment. The “Dharma” of environment was to sustain and ensure progress and welfare of all. The inner urge of the individuals to follow the set norms of the society, motivated them to allow the natural objects to remain in the natural state. Apart from this motivation, there was the fear of punishment. There were efforts not just to punish the culprit but to balance the ecosystems. The noteworthy development in this period was that each individual knew his duty to protect the environment and he tried to act accordingly. Those aspects have been highlighted by a learned author C.M Jariwala in his article “Changing Dimensions of the Indian Environmental Law” in the book Law and Environment by P. Leelakrishnan.
24. The tide of judicial considerations in environmental litigation in India symbolizes the anxiety of Courts in finding out appropriate remedies for environmental maladies. At global level, the right to live is now recognized as a fundamental right to an environment adequate for health and well-being of human beings. [See World Commission on Environment and Development — Our Common Future (1987).] To commemorate the tenth anniversary of the Stockholm Conference, the world community of States assembled in Nairobi (May 10-18, 1982) to review the action taken on to implement the Stockholm Declaration. It expressed serious concern about the state of environment worldwide and recognized the urgent need of intensifying the effort at the global, regional and national levels to protect and improve it.
31. Academy Law Review, at pp. 137-38 says that a recent survey reveals that every day millions of gallons of trade wastes and effluents are discharged into the rivers, streams, lakes and sea etc. Indiscriminate water pollution is a problem all over the world but is now acute in densely populated industrial cities. Our country is no exception to this. Air pollution has further added to the intensity and extent of the problem. Every year millions of tons of gaseous and particulate pollutants are injected into the atmosphere, both through natural processes and as a direct result of human activity. Scientists have pointed out that earth's atmosphere cannot absorb such unlimited amount of pollutant materials without undergoing changes which may be of an adverse nature with respect to human welfare. Man in order to survive in his planetary home will have to strike a harmonious balance with nature. There may be boundless progress scientifically which may ultimately lead to destruction of man's valued position in life. The Constitution has laid the foundation of Articles 48-A and 51-A for a jurisprudence of environmental protection. Today, the State and the citizen are under a fundamental obligation to protect and improve the environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.
32. A learned Jurist has said, the Rigveda praises the beauty of the dawn (usha) and worships nature in all its glory. And yet today a bath in the Yamuna and Ganga is a sin against bodily health, not a salvation for the soul — so polluted and noxious are these “holy” waters now.
“One hospital bed out of four in the world is occupied by a patient who is ill because of polluted water…. Provision of a safe and convenient water supply is the most important activity that could be undertaken to improve the health of people living in rural areas of the developing world.” (WHO)
“Nature never did betray, the heart that loved her.”
(Wordsworth) The anxiety to save the environment manifested in the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 by the introduction of a specific provision for the first time to “protect and improve” the environment. Man is nature's best promise and worst enemy. If industry is necessity, pollution inevitable. Since progress and pollution go together, there can be no end of progress, and consequently, no escape from pollution. If industry is a necessary evil, pollution surest sufferance. Several enactments have been made to combat pollution. “Pollution” is a noun derived from the transitive verb “pollute” which means to make foul or unclean, dirty, to make impure or morally unclean. In Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn., Vol. 38, para 66) “pollution” means the direct or indirect discharge by man of substances or energy into the aquatic environment resulting in hazard to human health, harm to living resources and aquatic ecosystems, damage to amenities on interference with other legitimate uses of water.
34. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any other use unless the Courts find it necessary, in good faith, for public good and in public interest to encroach upon the said resources.
35. It cannot be disputed that no development is possible without some adverse effect on the ecology and environment, and the projects of public utility cannot be abandoned and it is necessary to adjust the interest of the people as well as the necessity to maintain the environment. A balance has to be struck between the two interests. Where the commercial venture or enterprise would bring in results which are far more useful for the people, difficulty of a small number of people has to be bypassed. The comparative hardships have to be balanced and the convenience and benefit to a larger section of the people has to get primacy over comparatively lesser hardship.
40. Sustainable development is essentially a policy and strategy for continued economic and social development without detriment to the environment and natural resources on the quality of which continued activity and further development depend. Therefore, while thinking of the developmental measures the needs of the present and the ability of the future to meet its own needs and requirements have to be kept in view. While thinking of the present, the future should not be forgotten. We owe a duty to future generations and for a bright today, a bleak tomorrow cannot be countenanced. We must learn from our experiences of the past to make both the present and the future brighter. We learn from our experiences, mistakes from the past, so that they can be rectified for a better present and the future. It cannot be lost sight of that while today is yesterday's tomorrow, it is tomorrow's yesterday.
42. The Union Government framed the National Forest Policy in 1988. Though the basic objectives are very laudable, it is sad to note that it has virtually been confined to the papers containing it, and not much has been done to translate them into reality. Nevertheless, it reflects the anxiety of the Union Government to protect and preserve natural forests with a vast variety of flora and fauna, representing biological diversity and genetic resources of the country.
43. Duty is cast upon the Government under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to protect the environment and the two salutary principles which govern the law of environment are: (i) the principles of sustainable development, and (ii) the precautionary principle. It needs to be highlighted that the Convention on Biological Diversity has been acceded to by our country and, therefore, it has to implement the same. As was observed by this Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan in the absence of any inconsistency between the domestic law and the international conventions, the rule of judicial construction is that regard must be had to international conventions and norms even in construing the domestic law. It is, therefore, necessary for the Government to keep in view the international obligations while exercising discretionary powers under the Conservation Act unless there are compelling reasons to depart therefrom.”
25. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Apex Court from time to time illegal mining and un-controlled mining of natural resources cannot be permitted to be carried out in the State of Madhya Pradesh. As informed by learned Government Advocate, hillocks are being razed to ground by lease holders or by illegal mining and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that State/Director Mining should take a final decision in the matter that too by keeping in mind the various judgments delivered by the Apex Court, from time to time.
26. Learned Government Advocate has also stated that the National Green Tribunal is justified in restraining the mining activities in respect of various lease holders functioning in the township of Dewas as well as in the State of Madhya Pradesh. This Court does not have a jurisdiction to stay the order passed by the National Green Tribunal, but the fact remains that by preserving and conserving environment we can make a healthy atmosphere to live in for the generation to come. This is because of the fact that mankind is encroaching onto the environment at such a rate that various wild landscapes are being given over to farming, industry, housing, tourism and other human developments. The future generation too have a right to enjoy the landscape like river, mountain, lakes, sea, hill, hillocks etc. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petition is a premature petition and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.
27. It is further made clear that in case any adverse order is passed by the Director Mining/Competent Authority, the petitioner shall be free to prefer an appeal, in accordance with law. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the recommendation made by the Collector on 18-2-2015.
28. The admission is accordingly declined with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the National Green Tribunal to obtain the necessary clarificatory order and also with a liberty to file an appeal against the final order passed in the matter.
No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
Petition dismissed.