S.KANNAMMAL v. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

application(s), if any, also stands disposed of, in view of the disposal of the Original Application.

.................................J.M.

(Justice K. Ramakrishnan)

.............................E.M.

(Shri. Dr. K. Satyagopal) O.A. No.08/2017,

30^thJune, 2021. AM.

2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

Original Application No. 08 of 2017 (SZ)

(Through Video Conference)

IN THE MATTER OF

S. Kannammal, W/o Balasubramaniam 5/111, Ottanai Thottam, Coolipalayam R.S. Avinashi Taluk

Tiruppur District- 641666 ….Applicant

Versus

1. The Government of India Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,

Jor Bagh Road

Aliganjh, New Delhi- 110 003

2. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board 76, Mount Road

Guindy

Chennai- 600032

3. The District Collector Tiruppur District

4. The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Tiruppur North,

II Floor, Kumaran Commercial Complex Tiruppur- 641601

5. The Assistant Director Geology and Mining Tiruppur

3

Tiruppur District

6. M/s Jagadeesan and Jeganathan Stone Quarry Represented by its Proprietor

Jagadeesan

S/o Subramaniam

S.F. No. 89/1, 89/2B1

Agrahara Periyapalaam Village

Avinashi Taluk

Tiruppur District

7. M/s Marappan Rukmani Rough Stone Quarry Represented by its proprietor M. Balachandran,

S/o R. Marappan,

S.F. No. 89/1, 89/2B1

Agrahara Periyapalaam Village Avinashi Taluk

Tiruppur District

… Respondent(s)

For Applicant: Mr. R. Prabakar For Respondent(s): Ms. Me. Saraswathy for R1 Mr. C. Kasirajan through Ms. Ashwini for R2 & R4

Dr. V.R. Thirunarayanan for R3 & R5. Mr. M.Muthappan for R6

Mr. V.P. Sengottuvel for R7

Judgment Reserved on: 21^st June, 2021. Judgment Pronounced on: 30^th June, 2021.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. K. SATYAGOPAL, EXPERT MEMBER

Whether the Judgement is allowed to be published on the Internet - Yes/No Whether the Judgement is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No

JUDGMENT

Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member.

4

1. The grievance in this application is regarding the violations committed by respondents 6 and 7 quarry owners and also other quarry owners in and around survey fields nos. 89/1 and 89/2B1 of Agraharaperiyapalaam Village, Avinashi Taluk of Tiruppur District. It is alleged in the application that the applicant and her family members are residing in the address shown in the application and also having agricultural lands having an extent of 5.96 acres in revenue survey no. 84 of Agraharaperiyapalaam Village, Avinashi Taluk. They have partitioned the property 40 years ago and her father was allotted certain areas and on his death, she was cultivating the land with maize and cereals. Respondents 6 and 7 were carrying on quarrying operations on the southern side of their agricultural land in different names in survey field nos. 86 and 89, using heavy explosive material for blasting without following any safety measure for that purpose. The broken pieces of stone flying out of the quarry at times use to fall in their land and caused damage to the crops. On account of this continuous damage being caused, she could not cultivate her land and was compelled to keep the agricultural land as barren land as it has become unsuitable for cultivation on account of pollution caused on account of the operation of these quarrying units.

2. Large scale dust was emitted from the quarrying units and no pollution control mechanism was provided for preventing dust pollution by sprinkling of water as adopted by the other quarry

5

owners. The quarries are situated within the 300 meters radius from the school and houses. Based on the complaint regarding the citing criteria, the mining lease of 7^threspondent in S.F. No. 86A1, 89/3B were cancelled in the year 2012 but in the same survey number with other sub-divisions mining lease were granted in favour of them without considering the impact of quarrying on the nearby areas. The applicant used to remove the jelly & rough stones without adequate safety measures, as a result stone boulder pieces used to fall on her land very often. The broken pieces flown from quarrying during blasting has even caused damage to the nearby houses, school and other educational institutions. The respondents 6 and 7 also operated crushing unit in the same compound using the metals quarried from the quarry site, which also resulted in dust emission, causing loss of agricultural productivity apart from causing health hazards in that area. They were using heavy explosive for blasting against the permitted norms, carrying heavy vibration, which resulted in cracks and other damage to nearby buildings. They have done excess mining to a depth of 150-200 feet against the permission granted. There were schools situated within a distance of 300 meters and Vikas Vidhyalaya School and its student's hotel is also situated nearby, which reveal violation of citing norms.

3. Considering these aspects, they should not have been granted any mining lease in those areas. They have not adopted any

6

measures necessary for pollution control mechanism during blasting or operation of the crusher units and while transporting the same as well. Following the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, notification has been issued by the 1^st respondent as S.O. 141(E) dated 15.01.2016 categorising the extent and the authorities from whom the clearances have to be obtained. Respondents 6 and 7 have not complied with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the notification and in the reply furnished by the 5^threspondent to the notice issued under the Right to Information Act to the applicant, it was stated that obtaining of environmental clearance did not arise at the time of granting lease and that stand of the 5^th respondent is against the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepak Kumar case.

4. Further, at the time of renewing the lease, the 3^rdrespondent had conducted joint inspection and based on the inspection finding, quarry lease was refused to be renewed. It was stated that a school and the student's hostel are located nearby and considering the welfare of the students the quarry lease cannot be granted. On account of the activities of the 6^thand 7^th respondents, the agricultural lands have become polluted. Further, the lease period of 6^threspondent had expired on 23.11.2016 and they are taking steps to renew the same and the lease period of 7^threspondent would be over by 01.03.2017 and if these leases were renewed, then that will affect the health of local people and also it will be against Rule 36(1-A) of

7

the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Rules, 1959. So the applicant filed the above application seeking following reliefs:

Prayer

For the facts and reasons stated above in the memorandum of application, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to:

i. Direct the District Collector/3^rd respondent to stop illegal mining in respect of S.F.No. 86/1A, 89/1, 89/2A, 89/2B, 89/2B1 and 89/3B if 77, Agrahara Periyapaliyam in violation of EIA Notification and Deepak Kumar case.

ii. Direct the respondents 1 to 5 take appropriate action against the respondents 6 and 7 for illegally operating stone quarry in respect of S.F.No. 86/1A, 89/1, 89/2A, 89/2B, 89/2B1 and 89/3B if 77, Agrahara Periyapaliyam in violation of EIA Notification.

iii. Directing the respondents 2 to 5 to inspect and assess the damages in the surrounding area due to the operaton of stone quarry in S.F.No. 86/1A, 89/1, 89/2A, 89/2B, 89/2B1 and 89/3B if 77, Agrahara Periyapaliyam without obtaining environmental clearance as per Deepak Kumar Case.

iv. Pass other just and necessary orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice.

5. Respondents 3 and 5 filed reply affidavit, contending that the application is not maintainable. A stone quarry lease was granted to 6^threspondent in survey field no. 89/1, 89/2B1 over an extent of 2.08.5 ha in Agrahara Periyapalayam of Avinashi Taluk (Now Uthukuli Taluk) of Tiruppur District vide District Collector proceedings R.C. No. 745/Mines/2010 dated 24.11.2011 for a period of 5 years and that lease expired on 23.11.2016. Now 6^threspondent had applied for stone quarrying lease in respect of survey field no. 89/1(part alone) for a period of 5 years. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur, Deputy Director, Geology and Mining, Tiruppur have recommended for grant of stone quarry lease to the 6^th respondent. The State Level Environment Impact Authority (SEIAA) and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) have given their environment clearance and consent to grant lease

8

in respect of the subject land. The Block Development Officer, Uthukuli and the Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, Tiruppur have also given No Objection Certificate by stating that there is no approved habitation or buildings within the radial distance of 300 meters from the area applied for lease and that the application is under process.

6. Earlier a stone quarry lease was granted to the 7^threspondent in S.F. No. 89/2A over an extent of 0.64.5 ha in the same village as per proceedings of the District Collector No. R.C. No. 480/Mines/2011 dated 02.03.2012 for a period of 5 years and it is going to expire on 01.03.2017. They have also obtained necessary environment clearance from State Level Environment Impact Assessment vide letter No. SEIAA- TN/F.NO. 4511/a(a)/EC No. 3365/2016 dated 19.07.2016. The 7^threspondent was operating the subject stone quarrying by getting valid transport permits from the District Mines Department. So, it cannot be said that it was illegal quarrying as none of the above proceedings were challenged by the applicant before the appropriate forum. The Patta land in S.F.No. 84 is abutting the alleged stone quarry in S.F. No. 89/1, 89/2B1 and it was jointly registered in the names of applicant and 10 others pattadars. The Stone quarries were in operation for more than 16 years and quarry operations were permitted to be done to a depth of 20 meters. There were no complaints received from pattadars and those who were quarrying below the 20 meters depth, which acts as a wall

9

around the quarry and prevent the flying/shattering of rock fragments from causing any damage to the persons or cultivation activities. They fall within the quarry area itself after blasting. The lessees were operating on the basis of the necessary permissions granted in compliance with the provisions of the respective rules. The lessees were following the mild blasting and hand held jack hammer drilling without causing any hindrance to the public as well as adjoining pattadars. Except the applicant, no other person had made complaint regarding this aspect. There was no school building and approved layout or houses located within the radial distance of 300 meters from the subject stone quarry area. In this regard, the Union Commissioner of Uthukuli in letter No. 89/2017/A2 dated 10.01.2017 and the member Secretary of the Local Planning Authority, Tiruppur in the Letter No. 26/2017/T2.Tk (T2.Tk )dated 06.01.2017 have reported that there is no approved layout, habitations and construction existing within the prohibited distance of 300 meters. The District Collector, Tiruppur vide letter no. 344/Mines/2016 dated 30.12.2016 has also constituted a team comprising of sub-Collector, Tiruppur, Deputy Director, Geology and Mining, Tiruppur, Assistant Director (Survey), Tirupur and directed to ascertain the ground reality and structures existing within the radial distance of 300 meters from the stone quarries existing in S.F. No. 89/1, 89/2B and 89/2A and report to proceed further on the quarry lease application submitted by 6^th

10

respondent in S.F. No. 89/1(part) over an extent of 1.23.0 ha. in the said village and also after getting the report further action will be taken as provided under the respective rules.

7. Another stone quarry in S.F. No. 89/2A belongs to the 7^th respondent is in operation as per the norms of the environment clearance granted by State Level Impact Assessment Authority and there was no violation in operation of the subject stone quarry as alleged in the application. Since a stone quarry area in S.F. No. 86/A1 and 89/3B was falling within the radial distance of 300 meters from the school hostel building in S.F. No. 426 of Neruperichal village, the District Collector, Tiruppur has rejected the renewal application filed by one Thiru, R. Marappan, father of the 7^threspondent. Even though the school hostel building was constructed by violating rule 36(1-A)(c) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the District Collector had rejected the said renewal application taking into account safety of the school children. But the stone quarries belonging to 6th and 7th respondents are existing beyond the distance of 300 meters from any building. No Objection Certificates had been given by local bodies as well as Local Planning Authority, Tiruppur for granting the renewal to the 6^threspondent and as such the contention of the applicant that they were granted without adhering to environmental laws is not correct. The allegations of flying of fragments of stone during the blasting and quarrying as alleged by the applicant is not possible in view of

11

the natural barrier created by the existing quarry having a depth of 20 meters, which were in operation for the last 16 years. There is no pathway as per the revenue records within the applicant's patta land and quarry of 6^threspondent. He had already provided 7.5 meters safety distance from the applicant's patta land and the 6^threspondent never restrained the applicant from using this 7.5 meters of safety distance. The Vikas Vidhyalaya School and the Student's Hostel are located beyond the prohibited distance of 300 meters from the quarries. Necessary permission and leases were granted after hearing the applicant's husband and only in compliance with the rules in this regard. The environment clearance granted to 7^threspondent was not challenged by the applicant or any other person. So, it cannot be said the operation of the quarry is unauthorised or illegal as contented by the applicant. So, they prayed for dismissal of the application.

8. The 7^threspondent had filed reply affidavit contending that the application is not maintainable. One M. Marappan and M. Rukmani are the absolute owners of land comprising S.F.Nos. 86/1, 89/2A and 89/3B stiutated at A. Periyapalayam Village, Avinashi Taluk (then Perundurai Taluk). The land owners approached the competent authority for grant of mining lease with respect to their land and the competent authority granted mining lease for a period of 5 years in the land comprising S.F. Nos. 86/A1 and 89/3B situated in that village, as per District Collector, Erode by proceedings Na. Ka. No. 78688/x-

12

1/Minerals/2000 dated 12.04.2002 after considering the field verification report by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Erode dated 05.12.2001 and the report of Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode dated 16.05.2001stating that the said lands are not affected by any of the restrictions enumerated under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Renewal of mining lease for a period of 5 years was granted by the District Collector, Erode by proceedings Na. Ka. No. 78688/2007/x-2 dated 09.07.2007 for a period between 09.07.2007 and 08.07.2012, after considering the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode dated 14.05.2007 and the field verification report of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology-Erode dated 28.05.2007 stating that lands are not being affected under the restrictions enumerated under rules 36(1)(A)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The renewal application filed by R. Marappan was rejected by the District Collector as per proceedings No. Na. Ka. No. 297/2012/Mineral dated 03.09.2012. The said Marappan filed appeal under Rule 26(c)(2) of the said Rules before the Director of Geology and Mining on 01.10.2012, which is pending for consideration. The 7^threspondent, who is the son of said Marappan submitted an application to the 3^rdrespondent for grant of mining lease with respect to land no. S.F. No. 89/2A measuring 0.64.5 ha for quarrying rough stone and gravel for a period of 5 years. After considering the physical verification report of 5^threspondent

13

and report of the Local Authority, the mining lease was granted as per proceedings no. Na.Ka. No. 480/Mineral/2011 dated 02.03.2012 for a period of 5 years between 02.03.2012 and 01.03.2017. They obtained necessary leases and necessary consent from respondents 2 and 4 and started quarrying operations. The application for environment clearance was filed before the State Level Environment Impact Assessment on 14.11.2015 and the same was issued by their letter no. Lr. No. SEIAA-TN/F. No.4511/1a/EC. No.3365/2016 dated 19.07.2016. So, they are conducting the quarry strictly in accordance with the conditions imposed in the environment clearance and the permission granted. They have also obtained necessary permissions and consent from the Pollution Control Board under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and The Water (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act, 1974. So, the contention that the 7^threspondent is conducting the operations unauthorisedly is not correct. The allegation that there were inhabitants and school within the prohibited distance of 300 meters is also not correct. The applicant with ulterior motive made a representation to respondents 3 and 5 and other authorities on 10.11.2010 and thereafter approached the Hon'ble High Court of Madras for a direction to consider the representation as W.P. No. 29464/2010 and the Hon'ble High Court of Madras disposed of the writ petition by order dated 03.01.2011 directing respondents 1 to 6 to consider the representation made by the applicant and pass

14

appropriate orders. Detailed hearing was conducted and only thereafter the authorities have rejected the representation, after satisfying that the ambient air quality in that area is within the permissible limit. Taking advantage of the pendency of the application, the sons of applicant namely, B. Nandakumar and B. Santhoshkumar were trying to trespass into the property of respondent and threatened the employees so as to interfere with peaceful operation of the unit by 7^th respondent. They prayed for dismissal of the application.

9. The 6^threspondent had filed counter contending that he is the owner of land comprised in S.F. No. 89/1 and 89/2B1 of Agrahara Periyapalayam Village, Uthukuli Taluk of Tiruppur District over an extent of 2.08.5 ha. The land is full of stone. So he applied for stone quarrying lease to the District Collector as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules in the year 2004 and after complying with the due formalities, the District Collector had granted mining lease permission vide his proceedings dated 28.11.2005 in respect of that land for 5 years. The said lease expired on 27.11.2010. Thereafter, he applied for further lease for the said area. The applicant herein made representation to the Pollution Control Board and also to District Collector objecting for the grant of quarry lease in his favour on the ground that there are inhabited sites within the prohibited distance besides their agricultural land which is situated adjacent to the quarry area and the stone quarrying operation would affect their

15

cultivation, since, no orders have been passed in that application the applicant filed writ petition No. 29464/2010 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras which was disposed of by order dated 03.01.2011 directing the official respondents to consider her representation dated 10.10.2010 and pass appropriate orders within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Pursuant to the objections raised by the applicant, the Pollution Control Board as well as District Collector conducted detailed enquiry and came to the conclusion that the allegations are not genuine and after considering the objections and rejecting the same, District Collector granted mining lease for the said area as per proceedings dated 24.11.2011 for a period of 5 years and the said lease period expired on 23.11.2016. thereafter, he applied for mining lease for quarrying stone in S.F. No. 89/1part for an extent of 1.23.0 ha in the said village and District Collector after obtaining reports from Revenue Mining Authorities decided to grant mining lease for a period of 5 years and directed to submit the mining plan and also get environment clearance from State Environment Impact Assessment Authority. Accordingly after getting approval of the mining plan, he had obtained environment clearance from SEIAA, Tamil Nadu by their letter no. SEIAA-TN/F.No. 5729/1(a)/EC.NO. 3823/2016 dated 24.10.2016. In the meantime, the applicant's husband Shri. Balasubramanian issued a legal notice to the respondent as well as official

16

respondents calling upon them not to renew the quarry lease. The District Collector by his proceedings dated 14.12.2016 directed the respondent to appear for enquiry on 30.12.2016 and he participated in the enquiry and submitted No objection Certificates from various authorities including Town and Country Planning Authorities showing that there were no residences within the 300 meters distance and the lands abutting to this respondent which belongs to the applicant as well as 14 others and they have got only joint patta in their name. There was no cultivation taking place in the said area. Except that of the applicant, others have no objection for granting mining lease. Suppressing these facts, the applicant had approached the Hon'ble High Court and failed in their attempt and thereafter, they filed this application with frivolous and false allegations. The quarrying lease as well as environment clearance was granted in respect of 89/1 and 89/2B1 since, 28.11.2005 and there were no habitations situated within the 300 meters radius. The applicant, her husband along with 15 others are having land in their joint names, in survey no. 84 of the said village and it was barren land and no cultivation was carried on since long time. He engaged licensed blaster for blasting the stone by using minimum explosive substance as prescribed under Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Further, the quarrying is being conducted 20 meters below the ground level and even if any blasting is made, there is no possibility of stone bits to

17

fly to the adjacent lands as alleged by the applicant. They are strictly complying with all the pollution norms and also carrying out the operations fully complying with the conditions imposed in the environment clearance as well as consent granted. The applicant had filed this application with false allegations and there was no bonafides in the application and he prayed for dismissal of the application.

10. First respondent filed reply statement reiterating the procedure provided for granting of environment clearance and authorities who are vested with the powers as per EIA Notification, 2006 and as amended in 2016 dated 15.01.2016. They also mentioned that the preparation for District Survey report was envisaged in appendix X of Notification dated 15.01.2016 and the purpose of obtaining district survey report is to identify the areas of excess deposit of mines and minerals and also ascertain the quantity available in order to avoid over exploitation of minerals, taking into account the replenishment after mining in that area. Further the draft of the report has to be prepared and placed in public domain and after getting the objections, if any, then the final report will have to be finalised within 6 months by the District Authorities. The District Survey Report should form part of the application for environment clearance, preparation of reports and appraisal of the projects and report shall be updated once in 5 years. They also detailed the categorisation made depending upon the area and Authorities have to grant environment clearance as per the

18

notification. Since, the quarrying period is over and they did not possess environment clearance as the mining lease granted to 6^threspondent expired on 23.11.2016 and the lease of 7^th respondent is about to expire on 01.03.2017, they cannot carry on with the mining operation as it will amount to unauthorised quarrying. They also reiterated the allegations made by the applicant that 3^rdrespondent had refused to renew the mining lease in view of location close to school. According to them, since the matter is relating to illegal mining and the same falling within the Jurisdiction of District Administration, Ministry has no role in the same. So, they prayed for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.

11. The respondents 2 and 4 filed detailed reply affidavit contending as follows:

The 6^threspondent unit M/s Jegadeesan and Jeganathan Stone Quarry is situated in S.F. No. 89/1, 89/2B1 in Agrahara Periyapalayam village, Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur District is an existing quarry since 01.02.2004 and operating the same after obtaining mining lease from District Collector, Tiruppur vide letter No. 745/Mining/2010 dated 24.11.2011 valid for a period of 5 years. The Local Planning Authority, Tiruppur has informed that there was no approved habitation within 300 meters from quarry vide their letter dated 02.01.2011 based on these documents has been given for the quarry to operate vide proceedings No. F.PND1137/OS/DEE/TNPC/PND/W&A/2011 dated 04.12.2011. The said quarry has obtained environment

19

clearance from SEIAA, Chennai vide their letter no. SEIAA- TN/F.NO.5729/1(a)/EC.No.3823/2016 dated 24.10.2016 and also obtained necessary mining plan approved from the Deputy Director, Geology & Mining, Tiruppur vide R.C. No. 344/Mines/2016 dated 09.09.2016. The Revenue District Officer also satisfied that there were no approved habitations, archaeological monuments and buildings or religious institutions within the 300 meters radius of the quarry vide their letter no. 1545/20168A3 dated 26.08.2016. It is on that basis, the consent to operate was issued to the unit with validity period upto 31.03.2017.

The 7^threspondent unit-M/s Marappan Rukmani Rough Stone Quarry is situated at S.F. NO. 86/1A, 89/3B in Agrahara Periyapalayam Village, Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur District, is also an existing quarry since 01.04.2002 which obtained the earlier mining lease from District Collector, Erode vide Letter no. 78688/X-1/Mines/2000 dated 12.04.2002 valid for 5 years and was renewed for another period of 5 years by District Collector, Erode vide Letter No. 12844/2007/X-2 dated 09.07.2007 for a further period of 5 years. It is on that basis consent to operate was given by their proceeding no.F.PND0724 /OS / DEE / TNPCB / PND / W&A / 2011 dated 12.01.2012 with validity period up to 31.03.2012 and the quarrying is not in operation now. Mr. M. Balachandran S/o Marappan is having a quarry under the name and style M. Balacharandran Quarry in S.F. No. 89/2A and had obtained environment

20

clearance from SEIAA, Chennai vide letter no. SEIAA- TN/F.No.4511/(a)/EC No. 3365/2016 dated 19.07.2016 for 5 years and also obtained mining lease from District Collector, Tiruppur vide letter no. 480/Mining/2011 dated 02.03.2012 for a period of 5 years and they have also obtained letter from RDO, Tiruppur to the extent that there was no inhabitation, archaeological monuments and buildings or religious buildings within the 300 meters radius from the quarry. The applicant filed W.P. No. 29464/10 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras for directing the authorities to take action against the respondents from continuing the stone quarrying operation and renewing the quarry lease in violation of the provisions of the Pollution Laws and the Hon'ble High Court by order dated 03.01.2011 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents 1 to 6 therein to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 10.11.2010 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. It is also mentioned in the order that the High Court have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the cases. It is thereafter, two quarries namely, M/s Marappan and Rukmani Rough Stone Quarry and M/s Jegadeesan and Jeganathan stone quarry were inspected and issued show- cause notice dated 07.03.2011 for establishing and operating the units without obtaining consent from the Board. The Units were inspected on 14.07.2011 and it was observed that M/s Marappan and Rukmani Rough Stone Quarry was in operation

21

and it has obtained mining lease whereas, M/s Jegadeesan and Jeganathan stone quarry was not in operation from 27.11.2016 as the mining lease expired on 22.11.2010. The applicant also wanted the Pollution Control Board to conduct ambient air quality survey and the same was conducted and found that it is less than the minimum prescribed limit in that area. They are conducting the quarrying. Thereafter consent was issued to both the units by their proceedings dated 04.12.2011 and 12.01.2012 respectively with certain conditions. They further contended that they may abide by any direction issued by this Tribunal in this regard. They prayed for passing appropriate orders accepting their contentions.

12. The applicant filed rejoinder denying the allegations made in the reply statements filed by the respondents and they have given contradictory statements in the reply to the application filed under Right To Information Act regarding obtaining of environment clearance by the respondents 6 and 7. It is also alleged in the rejoinder that during 2017, unauthorised quarrying in area not leased was found by the Revenue Divisional Officer but that fact was suppressed. They have also produced certain photographs to show the nature of pollution said to have been caused by the respondents 6 and 7.

13. As per order dated 04.03.2020, this Tribunal had considered the preliminary report which was extracted in para 3 of the order which reads as follows:

"Accordingly, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board requested CPCB, Regional Directorate, Bengaluru, Assistant 3 Director of Mining and Geology Department, Tiruppur and SEIAA vide Member Secretary's

22

Proceedings No. TNPCB/Law/Law-III/002266/2017, Dated: 03.02.2020 to nominate the officials for joint inspection. In response to above letter officials were nominated by the respective departments and constituted committee comprising following officials:

1. Dr.K. Vijayakarthikeyan, District Collector, Tiruppur.

2. Dr.S.Vediappan, Deputy Director, Mining and Geology Department, Tiruppur.

3. Tmt.H.D.Varalaxmi, Sc.E/AD Central Pollution Control Board, Regional Directorate (South), Bangalore.

4. Dr.L.Elango, Professor, Department of Geology, Anna University, (State Level Expert Appraisal Committee), Chennai.

5. Thiru.P.Asokan, Joint Chief Environmental Engineer (Monitoring),TNPCB, Coimbatore (Representative of Member Secretary,

TNPCB)

6. Thiru.K.SenthilVinayagan, District Environmental Engineer, TNPCB, Tiruppur North - Convener and Nodal Officer.

The Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (SZ), Chennai vide its order dated 04.02.2020 permitted the one Senior Officer/ Senior Scientist of Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) as the nominee for the Member Secretary, TNPCB, Chennai.

The Committee carried out the visit to the area in question which is a subject matter in O.A. No 08 of 2017 on February 25, 2020. The date of inspection was informed in 4 advance to the applicant Tmt.S.Kannammal and quarry owners M/s. Jegadeesan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry and M/s. R.Marappan Rukumani Rough Stone Quarry, Tiruppur & Others. During inspection the quarry owners and the Applicant's Husband Thiru.Balasubramaniam were present.

During the inspection by the committee no mining activity was observed, and it was informed that a total of 4 mining areas are existing in which two mining area viz (i) M/s. Jegadeesan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry and (ii) M/s M Vijaya Kumar Rough Stone and Gravel Quarry having valid lease licence from Department of Mines and Geology & Environmental Clearance of the SEIAA. The other two mining areas viz (i) M/s. R.Marappan Rukumani Rough Stone Quarry and (ii) M/s Balachandran Quarry were not having valid lease licence and no mining of rough stone is being carried out in these quarries. The committee had made following field observations and discussion with mine lease holder and applicant; a. At the M/s. Jegadeesan Rough Stone and Gravel Quarry, mining is carried out in an area of 1.23 hectares located in SF No.89/1 Part. The representative of the quarry has informed that they have executed mining operation in the permitted area as per mining lease and SEIAA's Environmental Clearance. The depth of the mining is yet to be ascertained and exact latitude and longitude has to be arrived at. b. At the M/s M Vijaya Kumar Rough Stone and Gravel Quarry, mining is carried out in an area of 0.73 hectares located in SF Nos. 86/3B, 86/4B, 86/5B, 5 86/6B. The representative of the quarry has informed that they have executed mining operation in the permitted area as per mining lease and SEIAA's Environmental Clearance. The depth of the mining is yet to be ascertained and exact latitude and longitude has to be arrived at. c. At the M/s. R.Marappan Rukumani Rough Stone Quarry, no mining activity was observed. At this quarry mining was carried out in an area of

2.08 acre located in SF No. 86/1A, 89/3B. The representative of the quarry has informed that they have executed mining operation in the permitted area as per mining lease and SEIAA's Environmental Clearance. The depth of the mining is yet to be ascertained and exact latitude and longitude has to be arrived at.

d. During inspection, the applicant Tmt.Kannammal's Husband Thiru.Balasubramaniam was raising complaints on another quarry which is in operation in the name of M/s M Vijaya Kumar Rough Stone and Gravel Quarry adjacent to the M/s. R.Marappan Rukumani Rough Stone Quarry and also complained against the illegal operation of another quarry in the name of M/s Balachandran Quarry near M/s. R.Marappan Rukumani Rough

23

Stone Quarry. The details pertaining to the mining lease has been requested and the depth of the mining is yet to be ascertained and exact latitude and longitude has to be arrived at.

e. In connection to this, details from the O/o. Deputy Director, Mining and Geology Department are yet to 6 be furnished on the above said quarries. Also, at the time of inspection the representative of the mining department was requested to furnish digitized map showing the present status and details of the quarrying in these mine pits.

f. The committee has asked the mining lease holders to submit the mining plan, lease deed, copy of the explosive license and other documents related to mining area.

Prayer :

It is most respectfully submitted, that the committee has completed the field visit and asked concerned departments to provide additional documents related to mining activity as well as to make exact measurements of the mine pits, field data from the concerned authorities involved in the day to day record maintenance for quarries for preparing detailed report. Hence it is humbly prayed that time period of 6 weeks may kindly be given to this committee to verify all documents and to submit a detailed report to Hon'ble NGT, Southern Zone, Chennai."

14. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned granting time till 19.05.2020 to the Committee to submit the report. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time either by notification or at the request of the parties. On 29.10.2020, this Tribunal had considered the Joint Committee report dated nil, filed on 28.10.2020 and received on 29.10.2020 which was extracted in para 3 of the said order which reads as follows:

"JOINT INSPECTION REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE IN THE MATTER OF

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 08 OF 2017,

Smt. S. KANNAMMAL Vs GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST & CLIMATE CHANGE, NEW DELHI AND 6 OTHERS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, SOUTHERN ZONE,

CHENNAI DATED 02.01.2020.

1.0 Preamble

In the matter of Original application No. 08 of 2017, S. Kannammal Vs The Government of India, Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change, New Delhi and 6 others, The Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (SZ) has passed the following order dated 02/01/2020

(Annexure -1) and directed to constitute a committee comprising of the following members namely District Collector, Tiruppur, Assistant Director of Mining and Geology Department, Tiruppur, Senior Scientist from Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Senior Officer from State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Member Secretary of Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board (TNPCB).

"to inspect the quarries in question and submit a factual and action taken report in case there is any violation, initiate prosecution for violation and assessment of environment compensation and for any damage caused to the neighboring property on account of illegal operation and submit a factual and action taken report within a period of two months to the Tribunal by e-mail at ngtszfiling@gmail.com. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) will be the nodal agency for co-ordination and compliance." Further on request of TNPCB, the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (SZ), Chennai vide its order dated 04.02.2020 permitted the one Senior Officer/Senior Scientist of Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) as the nominee for the Member Secretary, TNPCB, Chennai. Copy of the order is produced in Annexure - 2.

In compliance of above mentioned orders, the Member Secretary, TamilNadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai, constituted a Committee comprising the following officials. The Committee members were communicated vide letter dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure - 3).

24

i. Dr.K. Vijayakarthikeyan, District Collector, Tiruppur.

ii. Dr.S.Vediappan, Deputy Director, Mining and Geology Department, Tiruppur.

iii. Mrs. H.D. Varalaxmi, Sc.E/AD, CPCB, Regional Directorate, Bengaluru

iv. Dr. L Elango, Professor, Department of Geology, Anna University, (State Level Expert Appraisal Committee),Chennai.

v. Thiru.P.Asokan, Joint Chief Environmental Engineer (Monitoring), TNPCB,Coimbatore (Representative of Member Secretary, TNPCB)

vi. Thiru.K.SenthilVinayagam, District Environmental Engineer, TNPCB, TiruppurNorth - Convener and Nodal Officer.

The committee decided to visit the area in question which is a subject matter in O.A. No. 08 of 2017 on 25.02.2020.

2.0 Meeting & Planning The Committee met on 25.02.2020 at 10.30 am at the District Collectorate, Tiruppur. Er. Ashokan, JCEE (M), Coimbatore region, TNPCB, welcomed the committee and introduced all members to the Tiruppur District collector. Er. Senthil Vinayagam, DEE, Tiruppur North, TNPCB has given brief introduction about the case including objective of committee inspection and also given brief description about stone quarry. On hearing of background details about the case and stone quarry, the committee discussed the work plan in compliance of Hon'ble NGT order.

Subsequently the committee carried out the inspection of the site in question on the same day. During inspection, the following officials from TNPCB, Mining and Geology Department, Revenue Department, Stone quarry owner and Applicant'srepresentatives were present and provided the required support in compliance of Hon'ble Tribunal order.

In spite of prior information to the applicant Smt. S. Kannammal was not present

during field visit by the committee. However applicant's representative (Husband of

Applicant) was present at the time of Committee inspection.

3.0 Brief Description about stone quarries/mining There are 5 blocks with stone quarries in the subject area, in which Quarry Block no 1 &5 are owned by M/s. Jagadeesan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry, Block no. 2is owned by M/s. Balachandaran Quarry, Block no. 3 is owned by M/s. R. MarappanRukmani Rough Stone Quarry and Block no. 4 is owned by M/s.Vijaykumar Rough Stone and Gravel Quarry. Out of 5 stone quarry areastwo (Block no 1 & 4)arehaving valid mining lease and in operation, whereas the mining lease has expired for the other threestone quarries (Block no. 2,3 & 5) and they are not in operation. The map showing individual quarrylease boundaries with the surrounding features is given below

3.1 M/s. Jagadeesan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry: The quarry BlockS.F.No:89/1(P),89/2B1 is in the shape of " L" ( Block 1 & 5). The subject quarry Block is located between agricultural land(SF 84&90) in north, expired lease quarry Blocks in South-West (SF 89/2A)& South(SF 89 /3A5), agricultural lands (SF no. 85, 89/2A & 91, 89/2B2) in West & East respectively. The Quarry owner Mr. S. Jaganathan S/o. Subramaniam obtained first lease of an area 1.63.5 ha in the S.F.No:89/1(1.23.0 ha),89/2B1(0.40.5ha), AgraharaPeriyapalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk (presently Uthukuli Taluk), Erode District (Presently Tiruppur District) vide Erode District Collector 's order No:Rc.32169/04/X1 dated 28.11.2005 with a lease period validity from 28.11.2005 to 27.11.2010 (Annexure-4). In this Lease agreement either quantity of rough stone (or)

25

depth of mining to be carried out was not specified. It is observed that there is no mining plan along with lease agreement no environmental clearance from State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) was required at the time as stated by Deputy Director, Geology and Mines letter dated: 06.08.2020 (Annexure-5).Consent to operate under the Air & Water Acts was not applied for the operation of the quarry from TNPCB. On expiry of lease agreement and after a lapse of one year, the quarry owners ( Mr. S.Jaganthan S/o Subramaniam and Mr. Jagadeesan S/o Subramaniam) obtained the second lease agreement for an area 2.08.5 ha in the S.F.No:89/1(1.68.0 ha),89/2B1(0.40.5ha) vide Tiruppur District Collector 's order Rc. No. 745/mines/10 dated 24.11.2011 with a lease period validity from 24.11.2011 to 23.11.2016(Annexure-6). In this lease agreement also quantity of rough stone or depth of mining to be carried out was not specified. Subsequently, this quarry was issued consent to operate vide Proc.No.F.Pnd1137/OS/DEE/TNPCB/ PND/W&A/2011 Dated.04.12.2011 with validity upto 31.03.2012 (Annexure-7).

As per the Hon'ble Supreme court order dated 27.02.2012 in IA Nos 12-13 of 2011 in SLP (C ) No. 19628-19629 of 2009 in the case of Deepak Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others made mandatory to obtain Environmental clearance even for the leases granted in an extent of less than 5.00 hectares for minor minerals. The Tamil Government vide GO(Ms) no. 79, industries (MMC.1) dated 06.04.2015 has inserted rule 41 and 42 of Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules 1959. Accordingly the lease owner obtained the approved mining plan for 597 days vide letter no. 569/mines/2015, dated 29.09.2015 till the end of the lease period (Annexure - 8).

The lease owners (Mr. S. Jaganthan S/o. Subramaniam) obtained the mining plan for third lease period (Annexure - 9) in the S.F. No 89/1 for an area of 1.23.0 ha vide order RC.No.344/Mines/2016 dated 09.09.2016 followed by Environmental Clearance from SEIAA vide letter no. SEIAA-TN/F.No. 5729/1(a)/EC no. 3823/16 dated 24.10.2016 for mining 81555 cu.m of Rough stone and 8844 cu.m of Gravel

(Annexure - 10) with validity up to mine lease period or limited to a maximum period of 5 years from the date of issue whichever is earlier. And also obtained consent to operate from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board vide Proc. No F.No:0477TPN

/RS/DEE/TNPCB/TPN/W&A/2016 dated 29.11.2016 with validity upto 31.03.2017

(Annexure-11). Subsequently, third lease agreement for an area 1.23.0 ha in the S.F.No:89/1 vide Tiruppur District Collector's order Rc. No. 344/mines/16 dated 08.05.2017 with a lease period validity from 11.05.2017 to 10.05.2022 (Annexure-12). As per the above, the quarry site is having valid mining lease as well as EC upto 23.10.2021.

3.2 M/s. Balachandran (Previously owned by Sri. Kumaresh) Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry: The quarry Block S.F.No:89/2A is in a shape of

"Rectangle" (Block 2). The subject quarry Block is located between quarry site (S.F.No:89/1) in north, quarry site (S.F.No:89/2B1) in East, quarry Block(S.F.No:89/3B) in south and agricultural land(SF no.85)in the west. The Quarry owner Mr. R. Kumaresh S/o Rasappan obtained first lease for an area of 0.64.5 ha in the S.F.No:89/2A, AgraharaPeriyapalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk (presently Uthukuli Taluk), Erode District (Presently Tiruppur District) vide Erode District Collector 's order Rc.15313/06/X1 with a lease period validity from 08.10.2006 to 07.10.2011(Annexure-13).

In this Lease agreement either quantity of rough stone or depth of mining to be carried out was not specified. It is observed that there is no mining plan along with lease agreement and no environmental clearance from State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) was required at the time as stated by Deputy Director, Geology and Mines(Annexure-5).Consent to operate under the Air & Water Acts was not applied for the Quarry operation from TNPCB.

Before the expiry of the lease period, the quarry owner Mr. R. Kumaresh S/o Rasappan sold out the quarry to Mr. M.Balachandran S/o R. Marappan through sale deed bearing Doc. No.2114/2011 dated 24.03.2011 of Sub Registrar's office Uthukkuli (Annexure-14). On expire of lease agreement the quarry owners (Mr.M.Balachandran S/o R. Marappan) obtained second mining lease agreement for an area 0.64.5 ha in the S.F.No:89/ 2A vide Tiruppur District Collector 's order Rc. No. 480/mines/11 dated 02.03.2012 with a lease period validity from 02.03.2012 to 01.03.2017(Annexure-15). In this lease agreement also quantity of rough stone or depth of mining to be carried out was not specified, however FMB sketch demarcated the safety distance for quarrying of rough stone and gravel. On inception of Hon'ble Supreme court order regarding mandatory of EC and modified GO of Tamil Nadu Government, the lease owner obtained mining plan for second phase for 697 days mining vide order RC.No.547/mines/2015 dated 25.09.2015 (Annexure - 16) followed by Environmental Clearance from SEIAA vide letter no. SEIAA- TN/F.No.4511/1(a)/EC no. 3365/2016 dated 19.07.2016 for mining 22108cu.m of Rough stone and 16cu.m of Gravel for validity of 1 year and 9 months i.e. upto01.03.2017

(Annexure - 17). Consent to operate under the Air & Water Acts from TNPCB was not obtained. Presently the Quarry block is not having either valid mining lease or valid EC.

3.3 M/s R. MarappanRukumani Rough Stone Quarry: The quarry block S.F.No:86/1A, 89/3B is in a shape of Rectangle ( Block 3). The subject quarry block is located between lease expired quarry in S.F No: 89/2A & S.F No: 89/2B1 in North and Existing quarry (S.F No: 86/ 3B, 4B, 5B,6B) and S.F No: 86/1B, 2B blocks in South, vacant land (S.F No. 86/8B & 89/3C) in East and dry agricultural lands (S.F No: 85) in West. The Quarry owners Mr. R. Marappan S/o Chinnaranga Naicker and Mrs. M Rukkumani w/o R. Marappan obtained first lease for an area of 2.08.0 ha in the S.F.No: 86/1A ( 0.58.0 ha) & S.F No, 89/3B (1.50.0 ha), AgraharaPeriyapalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk (Presently

26

Uthukuli Taluk),Erode District (Presently Tiruppur District) vide Erode District Collector 's orders No:Rc.78688/2000/X1 dated 13.02.2002 with a lease agreement period validity from 12.04.2002 to 11.04.2012 for 10 years (Annexure-18). In this Lease agreement either quantity of rough stone or depth of mining to be carried out was not specified, however, FMB sketch demarcated the lease granted area for quarrying of rough stone and gravel. Subsequently, the old mining lease was cancelled and limited to 5 years accordingly lease was renewed for the same area vide Erode District Collector 's orders No: Rc. 12844/07/X2 dated 09.07.2007 with a lease period (5 years) validity from 09.07.2007 to 08.07.2012 (Annexure - 19). It is also informed that, after the expiry of lease period, quarry lease application dated 26.06.2012 submitted by Mr. R. Marappan (Late) seeking stone quarry lease in S.F. No. 86/1A, 89/3B over an extent of 2.08.0 ha, the application was rejected by the District Collector vide proceedings R.C. No. 297/Mines/2012 dated 03.09.2012(Annexure -20) as there was a complaint from the neighbor regarding distance criteria. In this regard appeal has been filed by the applicant on 01.10.2012 before the Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai as per rule 36-C of TNMMCR, 1959 and the same is under enquiry. However, in the High Court of Madras W.P. 27857 of 2013 filed by the applicant Thiru. Marappan (Late) and his legal heirs was disposed of and directed the Director of Geology and Mining to issue mining lease beyond 300m.Hence the Quarry site is not having valid mining lease since 09.07.2012. The Quarry has obtained Consent to operate order F.Pnd.0724/OS/DEE/TNPCB/PND/W&A/2011 dated 12.01.2012 with validity upto 31.03.2012 (Annexure - 21).

3.4 M/s. M. Vijaya Kumar Rough Stone and Gravel Quarry: The quarry Block S.F.No:86/3B,4B,5B,6B is of irregular shape ( Block 4). The subject quarry Block is located between lease expired quarries (S.F No: 86/1A) Blocks in North, vacant land (S.F No: 86/8B &S.F No: 88) in East, vacant land (S.F No: 86/7A, S.F No: 86/7B & S.F No:86/ 7D) in South and vacant land (S.F No: 86/2B, and S.F No 86/7A) in West. The Quarry owner Mr. M. Vijaya Kumar S/o (late) Marappan applied with mining plan(Annexure-22)

and obtained Environmental Clearance from SEIAA vide letter no. SEIAA-TN/F.No. 5455/1(a)/EC no. 3389/16 dated 25.07.2016 for mining 22920cu.m of Rough stone &2170cu.m of Gravel

(Annexure - 23) with validity up to mine lease period or limited to a maximum period of 5 years from the date of issue whichever is earlier and obtained consent from Tamil Nadu Pollution control Board Proc. No F.No:1530TPN /RS/DEE/TNPCB/TPN/W&A/2016 dated 31.08.2016 with validity upto 31.03.2017 (Annexure-24) and the same was renewed till 31.03.2019.Subsequently they obtained mining lease for an area of0.73.0 ha in the S.F.No:

86/3B ( 0.18.5 ha), 86/4B (0.12.50), 86/5B (0.20.0) & 86/6B (0.22.0 ha)AgraharaPeriyapalayam Village, Uthukuli Taluk, Tiruppur District vide Tiruppur, vide Collector 's orders RC No. 115/mines/2016 dated 20.09.2016 with a lease period validity from 12.09.2016 to 19.09.2021 for 5 years (Annexure-25). As per this, quarry block is having valid lease mine as well as EC upto 24.07.2021.

4.0 Field Observations of Committee:

The Subject Quarry Nos of 5 Blocks in which two mining area viz (i) M/s. Jagadeesan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry (SF no 89/1) & (ii) M/s M Vijaya Kumar Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry were having valid mining lease licence issued by the Department of Mines & Geology, Environmental Clearance from SEIAA and Consent to operate without renewal. Other three mining area viz (i) M/s. Jagadeesan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry (SF no 89/2B) (ii) M/s. R. Rukumani Marappan Rough Stone Quarry & (iii) M/s Balachandran Rough Stone& Gravel Quarry are not having valid lease licence. During the visit by the committee, no mining activity was observed and no machineries were observed in any of subject quarry blocks. Committee has made following field observations and discussions with mine lease holder and applicant;

a. M/s. Jagadeesan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry: Block 1, S.F. No 89/1 & Block

5 S.F.No:89/2B1  The lease holder is having two quarry blocks in which one block (Block no 1, SF no. 89/1) is having valid mining lease, mining plan and EC from SEIAA till 23.10.2021.The lease holder has also obtained the first Consent To Operate the quarry under the Water and Air Act 1974 & 1981 from TNPCB in the year 29.11.2016, subsequently the Consent to operate was being renewed till 31.03.2018 (Annexure - 26). Since the unit has not renewed the consent to operate for further period, show cause notice was issued on 26.07.2018 and 28.12.2019 by the TNPCB.

 The first mining lease was accorded in 28.11.2005 and subsequently second mining lease was accorded in 24.11.2011. In both mining lease issued either quantity of rough stone or depth of mining to be carried out was not specified. The third mining lease was accorded in 11.05.2017 for 5 years i.e. upto 10.05.2022, as well as EC was granted by the SEIAA after obtaining mining plan from Department of Geology and Mining.  As per the EC the validity of mine lease will be upto 23.10.2021, the quantity of Rough Stone & Gravel excavation shall not exceed to 81555 Cu.M and 8844 Cu.M respectively during lease period of 11.05.2017 to 10.05.2022.  For block No. 5, the first mining lease was accorded in 28.11.2005 and subsequently second mining lease was accorded in 24.11.2011. In both mining lease either quantity of rough stone or depth of mining to be carried out was not specified. After expiry of second mining lease no further lease was obtained.

27

 The quarry block seems to be flat terrain, due to ongoing mining of rough stone below ground it became combination of pit and trough. No fencing around earmarked quarry site, only flag poles were observed in the outer boundary.  As per the physical appearance of mining area seems to be quarried with controlled blasting, no seepages in the side walls were observed, and no water stagnation in the pit. The mining operation was carried out until 24.02.2020 when the issue of permit was stopped.

 As per the mining plan & EC, lease holder required to maintain the safety distance of 7.5 m from the applied boundary but no proper safety distance maintained, rough stone/gravel found excavated without leaving required safety distance and without following the approved mining plan.

 As per the surface plan& section (Annexure - 27a & b; Block 1&5),the quantity of rough stone and gravel mined and the quantum for which permit issued are as below:

S. Details Quantum Quarried based on Quantum for which Remarks No pit size permit issued

Rough Gravel Rough Stone Gravel

Stone Cu.M in Cu.M Cu.M

Cu.M

1 Quantity 50645 8590 38580 120 Excess quantum mined First +3384 +2400 quarried Rough stone and Second =54029 =10990 15449 Cu.M lease (2005 to Gravel 10870Cu.M

2011)

2 Quantity 19976 1944 20490 2160 No excess quantum mined during quarried

current lease

(Third lease)

3 Quantity 1596.5 1184.5 --- ---- Quantum quarried in mined in +846 +658 Safety area

safety area =2442.5 =1842.5 Rough stone

2442.5

Cu.M Gravel 1842.5 Cu.M  Obtaining EC was made mandatory from 15.01.2016 as per the order dated: 15.01.2016, however in the subject quarry, the quarrying operation was continued until 23.11.2016 during the second lease period i.e., quarrying was carried out without EC 15.01.2016 to 23.11.2016 vide Letter from Deputy Director, Geology and Mining (Annexure - 27c). The Hon'ble Supreme court in its order dated 02.08.2017 has directed to recover the cost of the mineral for the leases operated without Environmental clearance accordingly Deputy Director Geology and Mining has issued a demand notice to the Quarry owner to remit the cost of the mineral as Rs.22,89,600/-for the EC violation (Annexure -5).

b. M/s. Balachandran (Formerly by Kumaresh) Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry :

Block 2, S.F. No. 89/2A

 The first mining lease was accorded in 08.10.2006 in the name of M/s. Kumaresh and subsequently second mining lease was accorded in 02.03.2012. In both mining lease either quantity of rough stone or depth of mining to be carried out was not specified. On inception of Hon'ble Supreme court order regarding mandatory of EC and modified GO of Tamil Nadu Government, the lease owner obtained mining plan for second phase mining vide order RC.No.547/mines/2015 dated 25.09.2015 followed by Environmental Clearance from SEIAA vide letter no. SEIAA-TN/F.No. 4511/1(a)/EC no. 3365/2016 dated 19.07.2016 for mining 22108 Cu.M of Rough stone and 16 Cu.M of Gravel for validity of 1 year and nine months i.e. upto 18.04.2018. The Quarry site is not having either valid mining lease or valid EC after 19.04.2018 and it is understood that the quarry operation was stopped since

28.02.2017.

 The quarry block seems to be not operated since long time and no fencing done around earmarked quarry site.

 As per the physical appearance of mining area seems to be quarried with controlled blasting, no seepages in the side walls were observed.

 As per the condition of mining lease, the lessees required to fence or fill in all abandoned pits. In spite of passing of 4 years the excavated pit is not fenced or filled to restore to a state fit for cultivation

 The lease holder required to maintain the safety distance of 7.5 m from the applied boundary but no proper safety distance maintained, rough stone/gravel found excavated without leaving required safety distance in north and south side of the quarry block.  As per the surface plan & section(Annexure - 28: Block 2), the quantity of rough stone and gravel mined and the quantum for which permit issued are as below:

S. Details Quantum Quarried Quantum for which Remarks

28

No based on pit size permit issued Rough Gravel Rough Gravel Stone Cu.M Stone in Cu.M Cu.M Cu.M

1 Quantity 55326 8880 33255 0 Excess quantum mined First quarried Rough

and Second stone 22071Cu.M

lease Gravel 8880Cu.M

2 Quantity mined 3865 930 ----- ---- Quantum quarried in safety area in Safety area

Rough stone

3865

Cu.M Gravel 930Cu.M

C. M/s. Rukmani Marappan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry :Block 3, S.F. No 86/1A 89/2A

 As per the information provided, the first mining lease was accorded in 12.04.2002 for 10 years subsequently 10 year period was cancelled and limited to 5 years from 09.07.2007. In both mining lease either quantity of rough stone or depth of mining to be carried out was not specified. After expiry of second mining lease no further lease was obtained.  The quarry block was used as approach way for quarrying in safety area of the Block no:4, no fencing done around earmarked quarry site.

 As per the physical appearance of mining area seems to be quarried with controlled blasting, no seepages in the side walls were observed.

 As per the condition of mining lease, the lessees required to fence or fill in all abandoned pits. In spite of passing of 8 years the excavated pit is not fenced or filled to restore to a state fit for cultivation

 The lease holder required to maintain the safety distance of 7.5 m from the applied boundary but no proper safety distance maintained, rough stone/gravel found excavated without leaving required safety distance in north and south side of the quarry site.  As per the surface plan & section (Annexure - 29: Block 3), the quantity of rough stone and gravel mined and the quantum for which permit issued are as below:

S. Details Quantum Quarried Quantum for which Remarks No based on pit size permit issued

Rough Gravel Rough Gravel

Stone Cu.M Stone in Cu.M

Cu.M Cu.M

1 Quantity 134085 12428 23670 0 Excess quantum mined quarried Rough

First and stone

Second 110415Cu.M

lease Gravel

12428Cu.M

2 Quantity 20055 2295 ----- ---- Quantum mined in quarried in

safety Safety area

area Rough stone

20055

Cu.M Gravel 2295Cu.M

D. M/s. Vijayakumar Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry :Block 4, S.F. No. 86/ 3B, 86/4B & 86/5B

 The quarry site is having EC from SIEAA and mining plan from Department of Geology and Mining and mining lease was accorded in 02.09.2016 for 5 years. The lease holder also obtained the first Consent to Operate (CTO) the quarry under the Water and Air Act 1974 & 1981 from TNPCB in the year 31.08.2016, subsequently the CTO being renewed till

31.03.2019.

 As per the EC condition the validity of mine lease will be upto 24.07.2021, the quantity Rough Stone & Gravel excavation shall not exceed to 229205 Cu.M and 2170 Cu.M during lease period of 02.09.2016 to 24.07.2021.

29

 The quarry block seems to be flat terrain, due to ongoing mining of rough stone below ground it became combination of pit and trough. No fencing around earmarked quarry block, only flag poles were observed in the outer boundary.  As per the physical appearance of mining area seems to be quarried with controlled blasting, no seepages in the side walls were observed.

 As per the condition of mining lease, the lessees required to fence or fill in all abandoned pits, the excavated pit is not fenced or filled, however the pit was found filled with water.  The lease holder required to maintain the safety distance of 7.5 m from the applied boundary but no proper safety distance maintained, rough stone/gravel found excavated without leaving required safety distance in north side of the quarry block.  As per the surface plan & section (Annexure - 30: Block 4), the quantity of rough stone and gravel mined and the quantum for which permit issued are as below S. Details Quantum Quarried Quantum for which permit Remarks

No based on pit size issued

Rough Gravel Rough Gravel

Stone Cu.M Stone in Cu.M

Cu.M Cu.M

1 Quantity 17010 1327.5 24690 60 Excess quantum mined quarried Gravel

First 1267.5 Cu.M

lease

2 Quantity 4896 360 ----- ---- Quantum quarried mined in in Safety area

safety Rough stone

area 4896

Cu.M

Gravel 360Cu.M

5.0 Groundwater table report furnished by Public Works Department, Coimbatore, Ground water sub division;

Regarding the water table, official of Assistant Director Geology , Public Works Department, Coimbatore, Ground water sub division conducted field inspection on 13.06.2020 and furnished a report dated 19.06.2020, the summary of the report is as below:

i. Total depth of the open wells nearby the quarries ranges from 15.00 m to 17.00m and Water Level of the wells were found in the range of 8.00 m to 10.00 m.

ii. Bore wells near to quarry block is having depth of 250m and the water level of 20m.

iii. The regional water table observed during the inspection around the quarry area is 28m.

iv. The average regional water level from 2011 January to 2020 June in the observation well located at AgraharaPeriyapalayam village is 10.40m in pre monsoons and 7.90m in Post Monsoon.

6.0 The details of cultivation furnished by the Revenue Department around the quarry area from the year 2010 to 2019:

The details furnished by the Head Quarters Deputy Thashildar , Uthukuli regarding the cultivation details as per the pasali year in the surrounding adjacent lands to the quarry area is depicted below; follows.

Sl. Pasali No/Year S.F.No of the Direction Cultivation Details Remarks No. field s

1 1419/2010 84/1A, &84/1B North Nil - 86 & 87 South Cholam& pulses - 86/7 Only S.F.No. 87- NallarOdai

85 East Cholam& pulses 91,92 & 88 West Not applicable NallarOdai& pathway 2 1420/2011 84/1A, &84/1B North Nil - 86 & 87 South Cholam& pulses - 86/7 Only S.F.No. 87- NallarOdai

85 East Cholam& pulses 91,92& 88 West Not applicable NallarOdai& pathway 3 1421/2012 84/1A, & 84/1B North Nil - 86 & 87 South Cholam& pulses - 86/7 Only S.F.No. 87- NallarOdai

85 East Cholam& pulses 91,92 & 88 West Not applicable NallarOdai& pathway 4 1422/2013 84/1A, & 84/1B North Nil -

30

Sl. Pasali No/Year S.F.No of the Direction Cultivation Details Remarks No. field s

86 & 87 South Cholam& pulses - 86/7 Only S.F.No. 87- NallarOdai

85 East Nil Cultivation not done 91,92 & 88 West Not applicable NallarOdai& pathway 5 1423/2014 84/1A, & 84/1B North Nil Rock area 86 & 87 South Cholam - 86/7 Only S.F.No. 87- NallarOdai

85 East Cholam 91,92 & 88 West Not applicable NallarOdai& pathway 6 1424/2015 84/1A, & 84/1B North Nil Rock area 86 & 87 South Cholam - 86/7 Only S.F.No. 87- NallarOdai

85 East Cholam 91,92 & 88 West Not applicable NallarOdai& pathway 7 1425/2016 84/1A, & 84/1B North Nil - 86 & 87 South Nil Cultivation not done

85 East Cholam 91,92 & 88 West Not applicable NallarOdai& pathway 8 1426/2017 84/1A, & 84/1B North Nil - 86 & 87 South Cholam - 86/7C Only S.F.No. 87- NallarOdai

85 East Nil Cultivation not done 91,92 & 88 West Not applicable NallarOdai& pathway 9 1427/2018 84/1A, & 84/1B North Nil - 86 & 87 South Cholam - 86/7C Only S.F.No. 87- NallarOdai

85 East Nil Cultivation not done 91,92 & 88 West Not applicable NallarOdai& pathway 10 1428/2019 84/1A, & 84/1B North Cholam - 84/2 & 84/6 Only - 86 & 87 South Cholam - 86/7C Only S.F.No. 87- NallarOdai

85 East 91,92 & 88 West Not applicable NallarOdai& pathway From the above data and based on the revenue records maintained by revenue department, no cultivation observed in the applicant undivided land of S.F. No. 84/2 & 84/6 (owned by Thiru Natraj and Thiru Chinnaranganaicker) during 2010-2018. Only in the year 2019, Cholam was cultivated in the applicant's undivided land.

7.0 Violations observed in individual quarry siteswith respect to statutory requirements:

S. No Lease Mining Plan/ EC Clearance Consent to Violations observed agreement approved sketch from SIEAA Operate under details Water and Air

Acts from

TNPCB

1.a M/s Jagadeesan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry Block 1, SF no 89/1 (Area 1.23 ha) and Block 5 SF No 89/2B1 (Area 0.40.5 ha)

i. 28.11.2005 to No sketch of the Not Stipulated Not stipulated  Approved sketch of land not

27.11.2010 land found provided for first lease.

1.b Block 1, SF no 89/1 (Area 1.68.0 ha) and Block 5 SF No 89/2B1 (Area 0.40.5 ha)  The unit has quarried without

i. 24.11.2011 sketch of the Not stipulated Obtained EC during the period

to 23.11.2016 land provided through 15.01.2016 to 23.11.2016 by

proceeding violating the MoEF&CC

dated S.O141(E) dated 15.01.2016.

04.12.2011 and renewed

upto31.03.2012.  The unit has operated without

1.c M/s Jagadeesan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry Block 1, SF no 89/1 renewal of consent to operate (Area 1.23 ha) and Block 5 SF No 89/2B1 (Area 0.40.5 ha) from 01.04.2012 to 28.11.2016

i. 11.05.2017 to Mining plan Obtained on Obtained and from 01.04.2018 to till

10.05.2022 obtained on 24.10.2016 through date.

29.09.2015 proceeding dated

29.11.2016 and

renewed upto

31

S. No Lease Mining Plan/ EC Clearance Consent to Violations observed agreement approved sketch from SIEAA Operate under details Water and Air

Acts from

TNPCB

31.03.2018.

2. M/s Balachandra (Formerly R.Kumaresh) Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry,Block 2, SF no 89/2A ( 0.64.5 ha)

i. 08.10.2006 to No sketch of the Not Stipulated Not stipulated  Approved sketch of land not

07.10.2011 land found provided for first lease.

ii. 02.03.2012 to Mining plan EC obtained Consent to 01.03.2017 obtained in in 19.07.2016 operate under  The unit has operated without

25.09.2015 for for one year 9 the Air &Water consent to operate

one year 9 months acts from months TNPCB was not obtained

3. M/s RukmaniMarappan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry,Block 3, SF no 86/1A 89/2A (Area 2.08.0 ha)

i. 12.04.2002 to Sketch of the Not stipulated Consent to  The unit has operated without

11.04.2012 land provided. operate renewal of consent to operate

obtained under from the period 01.04.2012 to

10 year period the Air & Water 08.07.2012.

cancelled and acts on again renewed 12.01.2012 with  The renewal of lease was

for 5 years from validity upto rejected, appeal has been filed

09.07.2007 to 31.03.2012. by the lease owner before the

08.07.2012 Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai and the same is under enquiry..

4. M/s. Vijayakumar Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry,Block 4, SF no 86/3B, 4B, 5B & 6B (Area 0.73.0 ha)

i. 02.09.2016 to Mining plan EC obtained CTO obtained  The unit has operated without

19.09.2021 obtained in in 25.07.2016 on 31.08.2016 renewal of consent to operate

24.06.2016 for 5 years and renewed from the period 01.04.2019 to upto31.03.2019. till date.

8.0 Conclusions based on field observations and records of Department of Geology and Mining:

The committee reviewed and discussed in detail all the records of mining activity and concluded the following based on the records and field observations:

a. M/s Jagadeesan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry,Block 1& Block 5, S.F. No. 89/1

 The lease holder Mr. S. Jagadeesan operated the Rough stone mining in 1.23.00 ha by obtaining mining lease from District Collector Erode for 5 years ( 28.11.2005 to 27.11.2010 - First lease) and subsequently from Tiruppur Collector for 5 years ( 24.11.2011 to 23.11.2016 - Second lease) in an area of 1.68.0 ha.  As per the GO of TamilNadu dated 06.04.2015, the lease owner obtained the mining plan, EC and mining lease for 5 years

(11.05.2017 to 10.05.2022 - third lease), however the consent to operate under Air & Water Acts was obtained through proceedings dated 29.11.2016 and renewed only upto 31.03.2018. Since April 2018, without valid consent mining operation was carried out.  In first two mining lease, the quantity of rough stone to be mined was not specified, as per the surface plan certified by the Firka Surveyor and Village Administrative officer ,the quantity of rough stone mined was 54029 Cu.M and Gravel was 10990 Cu.M.  As per the third mining lease the approved quantity of Rough stone and Gravel was 81555 Cu.M and 8844 Cu.M. However, as per the surface plan certified by the Firka Surveyor and Village Administrative officer, the quantity of rough stone mined was 19976 Cu.M and Gravel was 1944 Cu.M, which is lesser than the approved quantity.  Stipulated safety distance was not maintained and quarry operation was not carried out as per the mining plan i.e. bench wise. No fencing around the earmarked quarry block was observed.

 The Excess quantity of rough stone and gravel quarried against the permits issued and by violating the stipulated safety distance conditions as per the approved mining plan, the details are as below:

Sl. No Details of Mining operation Quantity of Quantity of gravel carried out rough Stone quarried in Cu.M

Quarried in

32

 The total depth of the pit was found 21 m against the permitted depth was 27 m.

 During inspection, the committee observed the neighboring lands in North, East and West

direction, no quarry waste was found in neighboring land and also no blasted rough stone

was observed in any neighboring land.

 The committee was neither found any physical damages in neighborhood nor reported by

any neighbors.

 There is no crop cultivation adjacent to the quarry

 The major violation observed by the committee was

i. Quarrying of rough stone & gravel without leaving the safety distance.

ii. Excess quantum was mined against the quantum for which the permit was issued.

iii. Operation without EC for which Demand Notice for Rs. 22,89,600/- was issued by the District Collector, Tiruppur.

iv. Operated without renewal of consent to operate.

v. No fencing provision for earmarked area.

vi. The major violation observed in block 5 was quarrying of rough stone and gravel without following the mine lease conditions and mining closure plan for restoring after lapse of more than 4 years

b. M/s. Balachandra (Previously owned by M/s. Kumaresh) Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry,Block No. 2, S.F. No. 89/2A:

 The lease holder Mr. Kumaresh operated the Rough stone mining in 0.64.50 ha by obtaining mining lease from District Collector Erode for 5 years (08.10.2006 to 07.10.2011 - first lease),before the expiry of the lease period, the quarry owner Mr. R. Kumaresh S/o Rasappan sold out the quarry to Mr. M. Balachandran S/o R. Marappan and subsequently Mr. Balachandran obtained mining lease from Tiruppur Collector for 5 years (02.03.2012 to 01.03.2017 - second lease).

 As per the GO of Tamil Nadu dated 06.04.2015, the lease owner obtained the mining plan, EC and mining lease for 1 year& 9 months (01.03.2017). The mining operation was carried out without obtaining the consent under Air & Water acts from the Board.  In both the mining lease, the quantity of rough stone to be mined was not specified, as per the surface plan of the pit size certified by the Firka Surveyor and Village Administrative officer ,the quantity of rough stone mined was 55326 Cu.M and Gravel was 8880 Cu.M.  As per the EC, the approved quantity of Rough stone and Gravel was 22108 Cu.M and 16 Cu.M for the period from 09.07.2016 to 01.03.2017.

 No safety distance was maintained, quarry operation was not carried out as per the mining plan i.e. bench wise. No fencing around the earmarked quarry block was observed.  The Excess quantity of rough stone and gravel quarried against the permits issued and by violating the stipulated safety distance conditions as per the approved mining plan, the details are as below:

 The total depth of the pit was found 20m against the permitted depth of 32 m.

 During inspection, the committee observed the neighboring lands West direction, no quarry

waste was found in neighboring land and also no blasted rough stone was observed in the

neighboring land.

 The committee neither found any physical damages in neighborhood nor reported by any

neighbors.

 There is no crop cultivation adjacent to the quarry.

 The major violation observed by the committee was

i. Quarrying of rough stone & gravel without leaving the safety distance.

33

ii. Excess quantum mined against the quantum for which the permit was issued.

iii. Operation without EC for which Demand Notice for Rs. 26,85,900/- was issued by the District Collector, Tiruppur.

iv. Operated without consent to operate .

v. No fencing provision for earmarked area .

vi. quarrying of rough stone and gravel without following the mine lease conditions and mining closure plan for restoring after lapse of more than 2 years

a. M/s. Rukmani Marappan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry, Block 3, SF no 86/1A 89/2A:

 The lease holder Mrs. Rukmani Marappan operated the Rough stone mining in 2.08.00ha by obtaining mining lease from District Collector Erode for 10 years (12.04.2002 to 11.04.2012). Subsequently, the mining lease issued was cancelled and limited to 5 years accordingly lease was renewed for the same area vide Erode District Collector 's orders No: Rc. 12844/07/X2 dated 09.07.2007 with a lease period (5 years) validity from 09.07.2007 to 08.07.2012.On expiry of lease period, the quarry owner applied for renewal, the application was rejected by the Tiruppur District Collector. The appeal has been filed by the applicant before the Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai and the same is under enquiry.

 In both the mining lease, the quantity of rough stone to be mined was not specified, as per the surface plan certified by the Firka Surveyor and Village Administrative officer ,the quantity of rough stone mined was 134085 Cu.M and Gravel was 12428 Cu.M which is more than the approved quantity.

 Safety distance was not maintained, quarry operation was not carried out as per the mining plan i.e. bench wise. No fencing around the earmarked quarry block was observed.  The Excess quantity of rough stone and gravel quarried against the permits issued and by violating the stipulated safety distance conditions as per the approved mining plan, the details are as below:

 The total depth of the pit was found to be 28 m.

 During inspection, the committee observed the neighboring lands West direction, no quarry

waste was found in neighboring land and also no blasted rough stone was observed in the

neighboring land.

 The committee was neither found any physical damages in neighborhood nor reported by

any neighbors. There is no crop cultivation adjacent to the quarry.

 The major violation observed by the committee was

i. Quarrying of rough stone & gravel without leaving the safety distance.

ii. Excess quantum mined against the quantum for which the permit was issued.

iii. Operated without renewal of consent to operate .

iv. No fencing provision for earmarked area .

v. Quarrying of rough stone and gravel without following the mine lease conditions and mining closure plan for restoring after lapse of 8 years

b. M/s. Vijayakumar Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry, Block 4, SF no. 86/3B, 4B, 5B & 6B:

 The lease holder Mr. M. Vijay Kumar operated the Rough stone mining in 0.73.00 ha by obtaining the mining plan, EC and mining lease for 5 years ( 20.09.2016 to 19.09.2021), however the consent to operate under Air & Water Acts was obtained through proceedings dated 31.08.2016 and renewed upto 31.03.2019 further CTO was not renewed. The approved quantity of Rough stone and Gravel was 22920 Cu.M and 2170 Cu.M  In the mining lease, the quantity of rough stone mined as per the surface plan certified by the Firka Surveyor and Village Administrative officer ,the quantity of rough stone mined was 17010 Cu.M and Gravel was 1327.5 Cu.M.

 Safety distance maintained, quarry operation not carried out as per the mining plan i.e. bench wise. No fencing around the earmarked quarry site was observed.  The Excess quantity of rough stone and gravel quarried against the permits issued and by violating the stipulated safety distance conditions as per the approved mining plan, the details are as below:

34

 The total depth of the pit was found 18 m against the permitted depth of 16 m.

 During inspection, the committee observed the neighboring lands in South, West and East

direction, no quarry waste was found in neighboring land and also no blasted rough stone

was observed in the neighboring land.

 The committee was neither found any physical damages in neighborhood nor reported by

any neighbors.

 There is crop cultivation adjacent to the quarry in south side.

 The major violation observed by the committee was

i. Quarrying of rough stone & gravel without leaving the safety distance and beyond the permitted depth.

ii. Excess quantum of gravel mined against the quantum for which the permit was issued.

iii. Operated without renewal of consent to operate .

iv. No fencing provision for earmarked area . In all these quarries permission was not obtained from the concerned authorities to carry out mining in the safety region.

c. Conclusion regarding Water Table based on the report furnished by Public Works Department, Coimbatore, Ground water sub division:

 As per the inspection carried out, the reported regional water table in the area is 28 m and average water level is 10.40m in pre-monsoon and 7.90m in post monsoon.  The mining activity was not carried out beyond the regional water level i.e. 28 m.  No violations noticed with respect to mining activity beyond the water table.

d. Conclusions based on the records of revenue department regarding crops cultivated in the surrounding areas of quarry sites:

 The applicant undivided dry agricultural land bearing S.F. No 84/1A & 84/2B is located adjacent to the M/s Jagadeesan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry (Block no 1- SF no. 89/1). Based on the pasali document& records maintained by revenue department, no cultivation was carried out for almost past 9 years (i.e., from the year 2010 to 2018), however in the year 2019, Cholam was cultivated in the said land.

9.0 Environment Compensation against the committed violations :

For the purpose of calculation of Environment Compensation for illegally mined material is arrived by considering followings;

i. Para 31 of the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal Principal Bench order dated 04.01.2019 in O.A.No.110(THC)/2012 titled as "Threat to life arising out of coal mining in South Garo Hills District Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors" reads as follows.

"Paying capacity and the amount which may act as deterrent to prevent further damage is also well recognised. Net Present Value of the ecological services foregone and cost of damage to environment and pristine ecology, the cost of illegal mined material, and the cost of mitigation and restoration are also relevant factors, The committee may go into these aspects to determine the final figure".

In order to calculate the Net Present Value as directed by the Hon'ble NGT, the cost of the mined mineral was taken as per the GO (D) No.107 dated 06.07.2017 (Annexure - 31). Thus the cost of the mineral as per as per the existing Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules for the year 2017-18 is as below:

ii. For the purpose of arriving the Net Present Value of the ecological services foregone and cost of damage to the Environment and pristine ecology and cost of mitigation and restoration, the decisions of this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 31.07.2015 in O.A.No.110 (THC) of 2012 and O.A.No.73 of 2014 and O.A.No.13 of 2014 and O.A.No.186 of 2014 in the matter of the "Threat to life arising out of coal mining in South Garo Hills District Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors", has been relied upon. The same is reproduced as under.

35

" We further direct that all the coal miners / transport us would be liable to pay 10% Environmental compensation, for the coal being transported, irrespective of the fact that they had paid royalty for the same even prior the date of the order." However where the coal has already been transported prior to the date of the order, that is 25^th March, 2015, for the present the liability to pay 10% to comply with the directions as environmental compensation would not be enforced by the State, subject to final orders." The Hon'ble Tribunal in its order dated 25.03.2015 referred above in the related Original Application Nos.73 of 2014 and 13 of 2014 in pages 15 and 16 has ordered as follows:

"No one has even thought of restoration of the area in question, to bring to some extent, if not completely, restoration of ecology and environment in question. Serious steps are required to be taken for cleaning polluted water bodies and ensure that no further pollution is caused by this activity and the activity which would be permitted to be carried on finally including transportation of coal. On the basis of 'Polluter Pay Principle'. We direct that the State Government shall in addition to the royalty payable to it, shall also collect 10% on the market value of the coal for every consignment.

Thus, we direct that the State Government shall in addition to the royalty payable to it, also collect 10% of the said market value of the coal per metric tone from each person. The amount so collected shall be deposited in the account to be titled as 'Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund' to be maintained by the State under the direct control of the Chief Secretary of the State of Meghalaya.

This amount shall only be used for restoration of environment and for necessary remedial and preventive measures in regard to environment and matters related thereto. We make it clear that this 10% of the additional amount shall be payable by all persons who had transported the coal in the past or would transport in future, without exception" Accordingly, the Compensation to be recovered from five rough stone mine lease holders are calculated, quantified and tabulated as under;

Sl. Components of EC Name of the Mine Lease Holders and Respective Blocks No calculation M/s. Jagadeesan M/s. M/s. M/s.

Rough Stone & Balachandra RukmaniMarap Vijayakumar

Gravel Quarry, (Formerly pan Rough Rough Stone

Block 1& 5 Kumaresh Stone & Gravel & Gravel

Rough Stone & Quarry, Block Quarry, Block

Gravel Quarry, 3 4,

Block No. 2

1. Illegal Mined Rough 17891.5 25936 130470 4896 material by stone

violating the EC Gravel 12712.5 9810 14723 1627.5 & mining lease

in M³

2 Seigniorage fee Rough Rs 59.00 per M³ stone

Gravel Rs. 33.00

3 Net Present Rough Rs. 380.00 Value of stone

Material as per Gravel Rs. 160 the existing

Tamil Nadu

Minor Mineral

Concession

Rules for the

year 2017-18

4 Cost of Mineral Rough 67,98,770.00 98,55,680.00 4,95,78,600.00 18,60,480.00 based on stone

Scheduled rate Gravel 20,34,000.00 15,69,600.00 23,55,680.00 2,60,400.00

5. Total cost of illegal mined 88,32,770.00 1,14,25,280.00 5,19,34,280.00 21,20,880.00 material (rough stone +

Gravel)

6 Net present value of the 8,83,277.00 11,42,528.00 51,93,428.00 2,12,088.00 ecological services foregone

and Cost of Damage to

Environment and pristine

ecology. (10% of the cost of

illegal mined material)

7 Cost of mitigation and 8,83,277.00 11,42,528.00 51,93,428.00 2,12,088.00 restoration

(10% of the cost of illegal

mined material)

8 Total (5+6+7) in Rs. 1,05,99,324.00 1,37,10336.00 6,23,21,136.00 25,45,056.00

36

Further, as per the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1959 36-A. Penalties: (1) Whenever any person contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act in any land, enhanced seigniorage fee upto a maximum of fifteen times the normal rate subject to a minimum of [twenty five thousand rupees] shall be charged and recovered from that person by the District Collector or the District Forest Officer as the case may be or in the alternative, he shall liable to be punished as provided in sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Act :]

Hence, the concerned authorities may be directed to decide on the number of times of the penalty over and above the quantum recommended by this committee.

10.0 Recommendation of the Committee

The committee recommends that the following calculated EC for individual lease holders including the penalty if any over and above the quantum to be recovered and deposited in the District Mineral Foundation Trust Fund, constituted vide G.O. Ms. No. 57, Industries (MMD1) dated 19^th May 2017 headed by the District Collector (Annexure - 32). The amount shall be used for restoration of Environment and for necessary remedial and preventive measures in regard to Environment and matters related thereto

15. After considering the report this Tribunal had directed the Authorities to submit their further action taken report including the nature of precaution taken by the violating units for mitigating the circumstances and any timeline has been given to them to comply with the same. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned from time to time at the request of the Committee or at the request of the parties.

16. The Joint Committee had filed further action taken report dated nil, e-filed on 17.12.2020 and received on the same date which reads as follows:

JOINT COMMITTEE REPORT ON STATUS OF ACTION TAKEN IN

THE MATTER OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 08 OF 2017, SMT. S.

KANNAMMAL VS GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ENYIRONMENT,

FOREST & CLIMATE CHANGE, NEW DELHI AND 6 OTHERS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL,

SOUTHERN ZONE IN COMPLIANCE TO ORDER DATED 13.01.2021

& 23.02.2021.

1. Back Ground:

In the matter of Original application No. 08 of 2017, S. Kannammal Vs The Government of India, Ministry of Environment Forest & Climatic Change, New Delhi and 6 others, The Hon'b1e National Green Tribunal (SZ) has passed an order dated 02/01/2020 and directed to constitute a committee comprising of the following members namely District Collector,

37

Tiruppur, Assistant Director of Mining and Geology Department, Tiruppur, Senior Scientist from Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Senior Officer from State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Member Secretary of Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board (TNPCB). Based on this order the committee members inspected the subject quarries M/s. Jagadeesan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry , SF No.89/1, 89/2B1, AgraharaPeriyapalayam Village, Uthukuli Taluk, Tiruppur District , Mls. Balachandran (Previously owned by Sri. Kumaresh) Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry , S.F.No.89/2A, AgraharaPeriyapalayamvillage, Uthukuli Taluk, Tiruppur District, Ws R. MarappanRukumani Rough Stone Quarry, S.F.No.86/A, 89/3B, AgraharaPeriyapalayamvillage, Uthukuli Taluk, Tiruppur District and M/s. M. Vijaya Kumar Rough Stone and Gravel Quarry, 86/3B,86/4B,86/5B,86/6B Agrahara Periyapalayam village, Uthukuli Taluk , Tiruppur District on 25.02.2020. Due to COVID-19 issue the committee has submitted its report on 28.10.2020.

Subsequently the case was heard on 29.10 2020 and passed an order that;

"4. Though, it is mentioned in the report that there were certain violations committed by some of the units and also that the committee has decided to recommend for recovery of environmental compensation and penalty for excess mining by some of the mine owners, it is not mentioned in the report as to what are all the steps taken by them for that purpose. // is also not know as to whether what are all the precautions to be taken by the violating units for mitigating the circumstances and whether any time line has been given to them for complying the same.

5. Under such circumstances, we feel that without getting further report, it is not possible for this Tribunal to dispose of the case. So, the committee is directed to submit a further action taken report in this regard. In the mean time, the applicant as well as mine owners are at liberty to file their objections to the committee 's report

7. The committee as well as the Pollution Control Board are directed to submit their action taken report on the basis of the recommendations of the committee respectively and also further remedial measures to be taken, imposition of environmental compensation and recovery of the same in accordance with law and also plan of action for rejuvenation of already mines as per the mining plan to restore the degraded area to its original position."

A copy of the said order is given at annexure-I

2.Field observations of the Committee :

In compliance of the above order of Hon'b1e NGT in O.A. No. 08 of 2017 on 29.10.2020, the members of the committee had a meeting on 03.12.2020 at Tiruppur and discussed the action to be taken. Subsequently, the committee made a visit to the subject quarries. During field inspection, mine or owner of the quarries and the applicant Smt. Kannanimal's husband were also present at the site. The committee after thorough inspection of the quarries from different locations observed hat the following measures have been taken by the quarry lease holders; The quarries were not in operation, no machineries were observed in any quarry blocks.

The quarries have developed the green belt around the premises. The quarries have provided partly GI Steel sheet cladding for 5 ft height along the quality pit on northern side to prevent intrusion of any stray animals.

The quarries have provided green cloth net partly along the western side.

The quarries have provided partly earthen bund along the non mined area as a safety measure.

The quarries have provided sprinkling points in the pathway heading to quarry area.

The above mentioned works were carried out by the quarry owners as per the instructions of the committee during the inspection on 25.02.2020

3.Actions taken against the violating units by District Collector of Tiruppur

It is informed by the Deputy Director, Geology and Mining vide letter dated

38

04.12.2020 that show cause notice has been issued to the lessee's Thiru. S. Jegadeesan and Thiru. M. Vijayakumar and ex-lessee's Thiru. Balachandaran, Tvl. Rukmani Marappan and Thiru. Kumaesan vide District Collector's memo R.C. No. 79/2020/Mines dated 27.11.2020(Annexure-11), to furnish their reply within a weeks' time for non-remittance of Environmental compensation calculated by the committee and as to wh y action should not be initiated as per Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, l9i9, for the violations committed by them during quarrying operation. Further, for the excess quarrying carried out by the lessees and ex-lessees in case of minor mineral such as building and road construction stones, since the powers has been delegated to the Revenue Divisional Officer's concerned as per Rule 36-A of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur has been directed vide District Co lector's letter dated 27.11.2020(Annexure-HI) to take further action as per rule after conducting enquiry with them. After getting reply from the lessees and ex-lessees final orders will be passed by the District Collector after granting an opportunity of personal hearing leased on the Act and Rules enforce and to the said persons and hence it needs a time limit of minimum two months.

4.Precautionary measures taken by the violating units to mitigate the violations reported by the committee:

Violation -i: Quarrying of Rough stone & Gravel without leaving the safety distance

39

4. M/s M. Vijaya Kumar Rough In the north side quarried partly in the safety Stone and Gravel Quarrey, distance,

86/3B, 86/4B, 86/5B, 86/6B No measures were taken to restore the safety Arahara Periyapalayam Village distance.

Uthukuli Taluk, Tiruppur since, it is very difficult to restore the mined out District area in the safety distance, the quarry owner has erected green cloth net of 5 feet height on the

western side and a barb wired fencing of 5 feet

height on the southern side. In the eastern side the

quarry has remaining unquarried area Partially

complying.

Violation -ü: Excess quantum was mined against the quantum for which the permit was issued.

Violation-iii: Operation without Environmental Clearance S. Name of the Quarry Measures taken with respect to the above No. mentioned violation in the committee report

1. M/s. Jagadeesan Rough Stone The mine owner has obtained Environmental

40

& Gravel Quarry , SF No.89/1, Clearance for the present vide SEIAA letter 89/2B1, dated 24.10.2016 and the same is valid till Agrahara Periyapalayam 23.10.2021.

Village, Uthukuli Taluk, Earlier Demand notice for Rs.22,89,600 was issued Tinippur District by Tiruppur District collector vide letter dated 10.09.2019 with for operating without obtaining

Environmental Clearance. The Mine owner is liable

to pay the said amount.

Violation -iv: operated without renewal of consent to operate

41

4. M/s. M. Vijay a Kumar Rough The quarry was not in operation at the time of Stone and Gravel Quarry, inspection on 28.12.2019. The renewal validity 86/3B,86/4B,86/5B,86/6B expired on 31.03,2019 and further renewal was not Agrahara Periyapalayam issued, since the NGT OA 8 Of 2017 was under trial village, Uthukuli Taluk , from that time and still to be disposed. Tiruppur District

Violation -v: No Fencing provision for Earmarked area.

4. M/s. M. Vijaya Kumar Rough Stone and The quarry owner bas erected green cloth Gravel Quarry, net of 5 feet height on the western side 86/3B,86/4B,86/5B,86/6B Agrahara and a barb wired fen ring of 5 feet height Periyapalayam village, Uthukuli Taluk , on the southern side. Tiruppur District

Violation-vi: With respect to mine lease conditions and mining closure plan for restoration

Violation-vi: With respect to mine lease conditions and mining closure plan for restoration

s. Name of the Quarry Measures taken with respect to the No. above mentioned violation in the

committee report

M/s. Jagadeesan Rough Stone & Gravel It is informed by the Deputy Director, Quarry , SF No.89/1, 89/2B1, Agrahara Geology and Mining vide letter R.c. No. Periyapalayam Village, Uthukuli Taluk, 79/2020/Mines dated 04.12.2020 that, there Tiruppur District are two types of closure, one is progressive

2. M/s. Balachandran (Previously owned by mine closure and second one is final mine Sri. Kumaresh) Rough Stone & Gravel closure. The Final closure of mines will be Quarry , S.F.No.89/2A, A.Periyapa1ayam carried out after the exhausting of entire village, Uthukuli Taluk, Tiruppur District mineral available tiI1 the mine reached the

3. M/s R. MarappanRukumani Rough Stone permitted depth. In this case, as per the Quarry, S.F.No.86/A, 89/3B, groundwater report, the regional water table A.Peiiyapa1ayam village, Uthukuli Taluk, in this area is reported as 28meters. Since, Tiruppur District all the above Quarries have not reached the

4. M/s. M. Vijaya Kumar Rough Stone and optimum depth and part of the area is also Gravel Quarry, 86/3B,86/4B,86/5B,86/6B seen as un-quarried and hence final mine Agarhara Periyapalayam village, Uttukuli closure has not been done at this stage. Taluk, Tiruppur District However, at the time of inspection, the quarry owners has already been instructed

to construct fencing / earth bunds to safe

guard the entry of cattle's, public etc.,

plantation all around the mine boundary to

42

improve green belt to prevent and control air pollution and finally mined out area will be utilized as surface water storage pond for water supply and for possible fish culture.

5.Plan of action for rejuvenation of already mines as per tire mining plan to restore the degraded area to its original position.

It is informed by the Deputy Director, Geology and Mining that as per letter vide R.c. No. 79/2020/Mines dated 04.12.2020, all the above quarries have not leached the optimum depth and part of the area has also - not yet been quarried and hence final mine closure is not done at this stage. However, at the time of inspection, the quarry owners has already been instructed to construct fencing / earth bunds to safe guard the entry of cattle's, public etc., plantation all around the mine boundary to improve green belt to prevent and control air pollution and finally mined out area will be utilized for fish culture, water storage pond, etc., for future consumption. Photos of the green belt, fencing and provision of sprinkling points to control air pollution is enclosed side Annexure-IV.

6.Recommendation of Committee:

 The mine closure plan shall be commenced after these pits attain the maximum depth {26 m) under the supervision of the Department of Geology and Mining as per the plan furnished while obtaining the EC and mining lease.

 Since rejuvenation of safety distance is not practically possible, the lease holder, need to provide permanent 5 feet height wire chain link fencing around the quarry area encompassing all the quarry pits as they are adjacent to each other with a single entry with five feet height gate with locking arrangement to avoid entry of human and animals.

17. One Mr. M. Vijay Kumar has filed objection to the Committee report stating that he is not party to the proceedings but the Committee had inspected his quarry site in S. Nos. 86/3B, 86/5B & 86/6B and submitted the report in respect of their quarry as well. According to him, District Collector has granted mining plan and obtained environment clearance and also obtained lease under the Tamil Nadu Minor and Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959 and also obtained consent to operate from Pollution Control Board. As per the proceedings of District Collector, Erode dated 20.09.2016, mining lease was granted for 5 year commencing from 20.09.2016. He had provided the safe distance of 7.5 meters. The allegations of violations against him are not correct and the principles laid down by the

43

Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi dated 25.03.2015 in O.A. NO. 73 and 13 of 2014 are not applicable to their case.

18. One B. Balachandran also filed objection stating that land comprised in S.F. No. 89/2A measuring an extent of 0.64.50 ha situated at Arahar Periyapalayam Village, Uthukuli Taluk, Tiruppur District originally belonged to one R. Kumaresh, who was granted with quarry lease for a period of 5 years between08.10.2006 and 07.10.2011 as per agreement dated 08.10.2006 registered as document no. 2588 of 2006 of Sub- Registrar Office, Uthukuli. He operated the quarry till the expiry of the lease period. He himself had quarried part of survey no. 89/2A on its southern side up to the boundary of the then operation quarrying in S. No. 89/3B and he had also quarried partly upto its northern boundary in S. No. 89/2A. He purchased the quarry land after extraction of minerals by the earlier lessee as per sale deed dated 04.03.2011 as per document no. 2113 of 2011 Sub-Registrar Office, Uthukuli. Thereafter, he applied for quarry lease to District Collector, Tiruppur and it was granted for 5 years commencing from 02.03.2012 which expired on 01.03.2017. He had provided 7.5 meters safety distance from the neighbouring patta lands. He obtained mining plan approval for the remaining lease period of 697 days as per proceedings of the Assistant Director, Geology & Mining, Tiruppur dated 25.09.2015 and as per the same approval was granted for 22,108 cubic meters of rough stone

44

and 16 cubic meters of gravel. He was doing the quarrying operation strictly in accordance with the lease granted. The Committee went wrong in fixing the quantum of alleged excess mining and also rate fixed for assessing its value. The Dictum laid down in O.A. Nos. 73 and 13 of 2014 of National Green Tribunal, PB, New Delhi is not applicable to his case.

19. The 7^threspondent also filed objection denying the allegation of excess quarrying and also challenging the quantum of compensation fixed and his liability to pay the same.

20. The 6^threspondent also filed objections more or less in lines with the objections filed by the other quarry owners, denying that he had not committed any excess mining and the distance alleged is not correct and the measurements were also not properly taken and quantum fixed relying on certain decisions of the Principal Bench is not applicable to his case.

21. The applicant also filed detailed objections to the Joint Committee report alleging that on account of their complaint, since final environmental compensation has been imposed, they attacked his son engaging hired hooligans and under the influence of the mining mafias, a false case as crime no. 41/2021 was registered against her son before the Uthukuli Police Station and he was arrested on the eve of Thai Pongal holidays. She wanted appointment of a commission to go into the question and submit a report.

45

22. The Committee had filed action taken report dated 25.03.2021, e-filed the same on that date and received on 26.03.2021 which reads as follows:

JOINT COMMITTEE REPORT ON STATUS OF ACTION TAKEN

IN THE MATTER OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 08 OF 2017,

SMT. S. KANNAMMAL VS GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF

ENYIRONMENT, FOREST & CLIMATE CHANGE, NEW DELHI AND 6 OTHERS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, SOUTHERN ZONE IN

COMPLIANCE TO ORDER DATED 13.01.2021 & 23.02.2021.

1. Back Ground:

In the matter of Original application No. 08 of 2017, S. Kannammal Vs The Government of India, Ministry of Environment Forest & Climatic Change, New Delhi and 6 others, The Hon'b1e National Green Tribunal (SZ) has passed an order dated 02/01/2020 and directed to constitute a committee comprising of the following members namely District Collector, Tiruppur, Assistant Director of Mining and Geology Department, Tiruppur, Senior Scientist from Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Senior Officer from State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Member Secretary of Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board (TNPCB).

Based on this order the committee members inspected the subject quarries M/s. Jagadeesan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry , SF No.89/1, 89/2B1, Agrahara Periyapalayam Village, Uthukuli Taluk, Tiruppur District , Mls. Balachandran (Previously owned by Sri. Kumaresh) Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry , S.F.No.89/2A, AgraharaPeriyapalayamvillage, Uthukuli Taluk, Tiruppur District, Ws R. MarappanRukumani Rough Stone Quarry, S.F.No.86/A, 89/3B, AgraharaPeriyapalayamvillage, Uthukuli Taluk, Tiruppur District and Mls. M. Vijaya Kumar Rough Stone and Gravel Quarry,

86/3B,86/4B,86/5B,86/6B Agrahara Periyapalayam village, Uthukuli Taluk , Tiruppur District on 25.02.2020. Due to COVID-19 issue the committee has submitted its report on 28.10.2020.

Subsequently the case was heard on 29.10 2020 and passed an order that;

"4. Though, it is mentioned in the report that there were certain violations committed by some of the units and also that the committee has decided to recommend for recovery of environmental compensation and penalty for excess mining by some of the mine owners, it is not mentioned in the report as to what are all the steps taken by them for that purpose. // is also not know as to whether what are all the precautions to be taken by the violating units for mitigating the circumstances and whether any time line has been given to them for complying the same.

5. Under such circumstances, we feel that without getting further report, it is not possible for this Tribunal to dispose of the case. So, the committee is directed to submit a further action taken report in this regard. In the mean time, the applicant as well as mine owners are at liberty to file their objections to the committee 's report.

7. The committee as well as the Pollution Control Board are directed to submit their action taken report on the basis of the recommendations of the committee respectively and also further remedial measures to be taken, imposition of environmental compensation and recovery of the same in accordance with law and also plan of action for rejuvenation of already mines as per the mining plan to restore the degraded area to its original position."

While hearing the case, on 13.01.2021, the Hon"b1e NGT ordered that

46

(Annexure I)

".......7. The committee is also directed to submit the further action report along with the report as directed by this Tribunal after considering the objections of the respondents 6 and 7 and other quarry owners, who are not party to the proceedings in respect of whom certain observations were made in the joint committee along with the objection of the 7th respondent on or before 23.02.2021, by e-filing in the form of searchable PDF7OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hard copies to be produced as per rules.

.....For consideration of further report and the objections filed, post on 23.02.2021".

Since, the committee has not received the objections filed by the quarry owners in time, the committee took time for considering the objections of the quarry owners and to prepare the report and further, the Hon"b1e NGT passed an order on 23.02.2021 (Annexure II)

".....5. The committee is directed to file a consolidated report, after considering the objections filed by the quarry owners as well as the applicant to this Tribunal on or before 24.03.2021 by e-filing in the form of Searchable PDF/OCR Supportable PDF and not in the form oflmage PDF along with necessary hardcopies to be produced as per Rules and also by serving copies to the counsel appearing for the applicant as well as to the respondents, so that they can file their objections to the same as well".

2. Action taken by the Committee:

In compliance of the above order of Hon'b1e NGT in O.A. No. 08 of 2017 on 29.10.2020, the members of the committee had a meeting on 03.12.2020 at Tiruppur and discussed on the action to be taken. Subsequently, the committee made a field visit to the subject quarries. During field inspection, occupiers of the quarries and the applicant Smt. Kannammal's husband Thiru Balasubrainanian were present at the site. The committee after thorough inspection of the quarries observed that the following measures have been taken by the quarry lease holders;

1. The quarries were not in operation, no machineries were observed in any quarry blocks.

2. The quarries have developed the green belt around the premises.

3. The quarries have provided partly GI Steel sheet cladding for 5 ft height along the quarry pit on northern side to prevent intrusion of any stray animals.

4. The quarries have provided green cloth net partly along the western side.

5. The quarries have provided partly earthen bund along the non-mined area as a safety measure.

6. The quarries have provided sprinkling points in the pathway heading to quarry area.

7. The quarries have provided permanent 5 feet height wire chain link fencing around the quarry area encompassing all the quarry pits with a single entry with five feet height gate to avoid entry of human and animals.

The above mentioned works were carried out by the quarry owners as per the instructions of the committee.

In this regard, action taken report was already submitted by the committee before the Hon'ble NGT (SZ), Chennai on 18.12.2020 (Annexure —III),

3. Actions taken on the objections filed by the quarry units.

The Deputy Director ,Geology and Mining vide letter dated 04.12.2020 informed that show cause notices were issued to the lessee's Thiru. S. Jegadeesan and Thiru. M. Vijayakumar and ex-lessee's Thiru. Balachandar, Tvl. RukmaniMarappan and Thiru. Kumaresan vide District Collector's memo R.c. No. 79/2020/Mines, dated 27.11.2020, for non- remittance of Environmental compensation. Further, for the excess

47

quarrying carried out by the lessees and ex-lessees, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur has been directed by the District Collector vide letter dated 27.11.2020 to take further action as per rule, since the powers has been delegated to the Revenue Divisional Officer's concerned as per Rule 36-A of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Again, the District Collector vide letter dated: 09.03.2021 has directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur to submit the status without delay.

1. The committee members have discussed about the objection filed by the quarry owners and it was concluded by the committee members that the excess quarrying period was not ascertained as there is no records submitted by the quarry owners to substantiate their claim. Hence, the committee members have decided to uphold the report submitted earlier to the Hon"b1e NGT.

2. Subsequently, the District Collector vide Proc. Dated: 09.03.2021 (Annexure — IY) has déected Mls. Balachandran Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry and Mls R. MarappanRukumani Rough Stone Quarry to remit the Environmental Compensation of Rs. 1,37,10,336/- and Rs. 6,23,21,136/- respectively as calculated by the committee to District Mineral Foundation Trust after giving sufficient opportunity and considering the objections filed by the quarry units.

3. Further, the District Collector vide Proc. Dated: 09.03.2021 (Annexure — IV) has cancelled the quarry lease of Mls. Jagadeesan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry and Mls. M. Vijaya Kumar Rough Stone and Gravel Quarry and directed to remit the Environmental Compensation of Rs. 1,05,99,324/- and Rs. 25,45,056/- respectively as calculated by the committee after giving sufficient opportunity and considering the objections filed by the quarry units.

4. Plan of action for rejuvenation of already mined as per the mining plan to restore the degraded area to its original position.

It is informed by the Deputy Director, Geology and Mining vide his letter R.C. No. 79/2020/Mines dated 04.12.2020 that all the above quarries have not reached the optimum depth and part of the area has also - not yet been quarried and hence final mine closure is not done at this stage. However, at the time of inspection, the quarry owners have already been instructed to construct fencing / earth bunds to safe guard the entry of cattle's, public etc., plantation all around the mine boundary to improve green belt in that area.

Following to this, the quarry owners have provided green belt, water sprinkling points, earthen bund, green wind net around their quarrying area with an entry gate. Photos of the green belt development, fencing and provision of sprinkling points to control air pollution is enclosed vide Annexure-III

5. Status action taken on Recommendations of Committee :

The quarry lease of Ns. Jagadeesan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry and Mls. M. Vijaya Kumar Rough Stone and Gravel Quarry have been cancelled by the District Collector for the violation noticed by the committee after giving sufficient oppominity and considering their objection.

The District Collector has instructed the Revenue Divisional Officer to take immediate action to recover the Environmental Compensation from Mls. Balachandran Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry of Rs. 1,37,10,336/-, Mls R. MarappanRukurnani Rough Stone Quarry of Rs. 6,23,21,138/-, M/s. Jagadeesan Rough Stone & Gravel Quarry of Rs. 1,05,99,324/- and Mls. M. Vijaya Kumar Rough Stone of Rs. 25,45,056/-.

48

23. It is seen from the report that the Committee had considered the objections filed by the quarry owners and initiated action for recovery of the environmental compensation.

24. It is also mentioned in the report that at the time of last inspection, none of the quarry was in operation and they have complied with the directions issued earlier. Further, Deputy Director, Geology and Mining vide their letter dated 24.12.2020 informed that show-cause notices were issued to the lessees for non-payment of environment compensation amount imposed and the Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to take appropriate action against the present and former lessees for excess mining. The quarry lease granted to Mr. S. Jegadeesan Rough Stone & Gravel and M/s M. Vijaya Kumar Roguh Stone and Gravel were cancelled and necessary directions have been issued for recovery of the environment compensation.

25. The 6^threspondent has filed objections to last action taken report stating that the quantum of compensation is excessive and the manner in which it was calculated is not correct and he had applied for environment clearance and there was some delay in issuing the same and a writ petition is pending before the Hon'ble High Court in this regard and as such it cannot be said that there was violation during the lease period of 2011 to 2016. The District Collector had cancelled the lease on the basis of the report of the Committee without considering the objections.

49

26. Heard. Mr. Prabakar, Learned Counsel for the applicant, Ms. Me. Saraswathy for 1^strespondent, Mr. C. Kasirajan through Ms. Ashwini for respondents 2 and 4. Mr. C. Harsharaj for respondents 3 and 5, Mr. M. Muthappan for 6^threspondent and Mr. V.P. Sengottuvel for 7^threspondent.

27. The Learned Counsel appearing for applicant submitted that quarries are not operating now and the mining leases granted to respondents 6 and 7 were cancelled and proceedings have been initiated for recovery of environmental compensation. So, this Tribunal can pass appropriate orders accordingly.

28. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing for State Government and Pollution Control Board submitted that on the basis of the observations made by the Committee, action has been taken and now the quarries are not operating.

29. The Learned Counsel appearing for the quarry owners, namely, Mr. M. Muthappan and Mr. V.P. Sengottuvel argued that their right to challenge the action of the authorities may be left open and the environmental compensation assessed is excessive.

30. The grievance in this application was that respondent 6 and 7 are conducting the quarry in violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959 and also in violations of the conditions imposed in the environment clearance granted. They were also not complying with the citing criteria and causing pollution. On the basis of the allegations and after considering the reply affidavit filed by the parties the

50

joint Committee was appointed and the Joint Committee had filed several reports which were extracted above, showing the nature of things on ground the genuineness of the allegations made by the applicant and the case of the respondents and also the violations found by them at the time of inspection and then recommending for certain actions and also assessing environmental compensation for excess quarrying and also for violation committed by them. It is also seen from the report that the mining leases granted to respondent 6 and 7 and other quarry owners were cancelled and proceedings have been initiated by the authorities for recovery of compensation fixed. It may be mentioned here that since, the authorities have already initiated proceedings against the respondents, the remedy of the quarry owners is to challenge the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Since, quarry of the respondents 6 and 7 are not operating, nothing survives at present. So under such circumstances, the Tribunal feels that the matter can be disposed of as follows:

i) The Joint Committee report are recorded and accepted subject to following directions.

ii) Since, the mining leases granted to respondents 6 and 7 have been cancelled and they are not in operation, nothing survives in the matter.

iii) The quarry owners, whose mining leases have been cancelled by the District Collector, Tiruppur are at

51

liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

iv) As regards environmental compensation is concerned, the District Collector has initiated proceedings and District Collector or his nominee is directed to consider the objections to be filed by the quarry owners regarding the quantum of compensation and their liability to pay the same and then pass orders in accordance with law and if parities are aggrieved by the same, they are at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

v) The parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the application.

vi) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the District Collector, Tiruppur, Director of Mining and Geology, Pollution Control Board for their information and compliance with the directions.

31. With the above directions and observations, the application is disposed of.

.................................J.M.

(Justice K. Ramakrishnan)

52