BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Application No.165 of 2013 (SZ) In the matter of
News Item dated 07.07.2012 in The Hindu about quarrying operations In Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve Forest VS 1. The Secretary to Government Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi 110003
2. The Principal Secretary to Government Department of Environment and Forests, Fort St. George, Chennai 600009
3. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai 600032
4. The Collector, Erode District, Erode.
5. The Collector, Coimbatore District Coimbatore.
6. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, Chepauk, Chennai 600005
7. The Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai 600032
8. Mr.E.C.Senniappan, Proprietor of M/s.Annamar Granite, No.413/296, Sathy Road, Erode 638 003
9. Mr.R.Jeyaraj S/o Shri Ramasamy Gounder, No.145/4 Goundampalayam (PO) Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.
10.Tmt.L.Eswari, W/o T.K.Loganathan, Dasanackenpalayam Kavundachipalayam Post Perundurai Taluk,
Erode District.
11.K.Indirani, W/o Kuppuraj, No.16, Mariamman Kovil Street, T.M.Palayam. Goppichettipalayam, Erode District.
12.A.Palaniswamy, S/o Periyaswamy, Having office at Avarpalayam, West Pathi (PO), Kunnathur (Via) Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur District. 13. R.Saravana Kumar, S/o Ramasamy, Office at No.4/578, Nanjappa Nagar, Vellalapalayam Village, Gobichettipalayam 638476
14. T.K.Gopal, S/o Karuppanna Gounder, Office at North Thottam, T.N.Palayam, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode District.
15. S.Selvaraj, S/o Sellappa Gounder, Motor Thottam, Moolapalayam Road, Arakkankottai, Gobichettipalayam, Erode 638 506
16. T.A.Gunasekar, S/o Alagirisamy, No.31, Sathy – Athani Main Road, T.N.Palayam, Gobichettipalayam, Erode 638 506
17. S.Kandasamy, S/o Subramaniam, Residence at Boring Thottam, Chinna Kodivery, Gobichettipalayam, Erode – 638 506
18. P.Magudeshwaran, S/o Palanisamy, Residence at Rathna Nilayam, No.31, Sathy – Athani Main Road, T.N.Palayam, Gobichettipalayam, Erode 638 506
19. R.Paulraj, S/o Rakkiyaboyan, No.172B, Kamaraj Street, T.N.Palayam, Gobichettipalayam, Erode 638 506
20. M.Srinivasan, S/o N.Munusamy, Residence at E.Mettu Puthur, Sathyamangalam, Erode 638506
21. T.C.Nagarajan, S/o Senniyappa Gounder, No.15/8, Karuthiruman Sandu, T.N.Palayam, Gobichettipalayam, Erode 638 506
22. S.Sivabalan, S/o Sankaranarayan, Office at No.83, Baguduthari, Bhavanisagar, Sathyamangalam (TK) Erode District.
23. T.R.Velusamy, S/o Ramasamy, No.88/45, Union Office Road, T.N.Palayam, Gobichettipalayam, Erode 638 506
24. A.Thangaraj, S/o Alagirisamy, No.107/4, Mugambikai Nagar, T.N.Palayam, Gobichettipalayam, Erode 638 506
25. K.Prabhakaran, S/o M.S.Karupusamy, Office at Modurpalayam, Koodakarai (Post) Kaasipalayam (Via) Gobi (TK), Erode District.
26. N.Thangavel, S/o Nagappa Gounder, Office at No.20, Ex-Service Colony, Bhavanisagar, Sathyamangalam (TK) Erode District.
27. Sarasammal, W/o Subramani, Office at Nallroad, Thoppampalayam (Post) Bhavanisagar, Sathyamangalam (TK) Erode District.
28. C.Ramasamy, S/o Chinnaya Gounder, No.34G/13, Kurungi Nagar, Kaaramadai, Mettupalayam (via) Kovai District.
29. G.A.Venkatesan, S/o G.S.Appachi Gounder,
Office at Godapalayam, Thoppampalayam (PO) Bhavanisagar (via), Erode District.
30. N.R.Appusamy, S/o Ramasamy Gounder, Office at No.281/4, Anna Nagar, Thopampalayam, Sathy (TK), Erode District.
31. V.K.Ravi, S/o K.G.Karupusamy, Office at No.6B, Gowdham Garden, Atthipalayam Road, No.4, Veerapandi, Kovai 19
32. M.Thimmakkaal, W/o Maaraiyagowder, No.14, Kdepalayam, Thoppampalayam, Sathiyamangalam (TK) Erode Distrct.
33. Elju Eldho Thomas, S/o K.T.Eldon, Office at No.12/218, Puthuuravyal, Marthomaa Nagar (Post) Goodalur.
34. N.Thangavel, S/o Nagappa Gounder, Office at No.20, Ex-Service Colony, Bhavanisagar, Sathyamangalam (TK) Erode District.
35. T.K.Loganathan, S/o Kolandasamy Gounder, Thasanaikanpalayam, Kavundachipalayam Post, Perundurai Taluk, Erode 630112
36. R.Selvaraj, S/o P.Ramasamy, 46, Manimekalai Street, Puthupalayam, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode 638 452
37. R.Ganesh, S/o B.Ramasamy, 399, Anna Nagar, Bhavanisagar, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode 638 451
38. S.Ganesa Moorthy, S/o Sennimalai Gounder, Sri Saptha Giri Illam, Neagamam First Street, Konamoolai, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode 638 402
39. R.Nagarajan, S/o Ramasamy Gounder, Majara Thayirpallam Pudhur, Ekkarai Thathapalli, Sathiyamangalam Taluk, Erode 638 451
40. T.P.Perumal, S/o Palani Gounder, Chinnannan Street, T.N.Palayam, Gobichettipalayam, Erode 638 506
41. R.Eswari, W/o T.K.Rathinasamy, 118/147, Kamaraj Street, Vaniputhur, Gobichettipalayam, Erode 638 506
42. A.Govindarajan, S/o Arunachala Mudaliyar, 32, Kalkothu, Bhavani Sagar, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode 638 451
43. S.Oothisamy, S/o Sennimalai Gounder, 374/C, ARR Thottam, T.N.Palayam, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode 638506
44. N.Rajagopal, S/o Nagappa Gowda, Office at No.10, Ex-Service Men Colony, Bhavani Sagar (Post) Bhavanisagar, Sathyamangalam (TK) Erode District. 45. K.C.Sundaram, S/o Chinnasamy, Office at No.29T, Nallangattu Thottam, A.Komarapalayam, Annur, Kovai District.
46. A.Thulasiyammal, W/o Arukutti Kounder, Office at No.79, Avinasi Road, Annur, Kovai District
47. K.Mohanraj S/o R.Kondaswamy, No.304, G.V.Residency, Coimbatore – 28 .. Respondents
Counsel appearing for the applicant:
Counsel appearing for the Respondents:
Smt.C.Sangamithirai for R1 Smt.H.Yasmeen Ali for R3 M/s.M.K.Subramanian for R2, R4 to R7 Smt.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel for Sri S.Kulandaisamy for R8, R9 & R35 Sri R.Amarnath for R10 M/s.E.Vijay Anand & R.Shivakumar for R11 to R19 & R21 to R34 &R36 to R44 Sri. M.Nandakumar for R20 M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates for R45 &R46 M/s.R.Rajiv Gandhi, V.Pandian & M.Ramesh for R47
O R D E R
Present
Hon’ble Shri Justice Dr.P. Jyothimani, Judicial Member
Hon’ble Prof.Dr.R. Nagendran, Expert Member
1. Whether the judgement is allowed to be published on the internet ..... Yes/No
2. Whether the judgement is to be published in the All India NGT Report .... Yes/No
------
14th September, 2015
------
This application has been taken up suo motu on the basis of a newspaper report stating that in the forest area at Sathyamangalam, some illegal quarrying have been going on.
2. In fact, we have passed an interim order against such quarrying activities.
Subsequently, many quarrying operators were made as parties numbering respondent
Nos.8 to 47. Some of the respondents have filed application to vacate the order of stay. It is stated that these quarries are situated beyond 10 km from Sathyamangalam Tiger
Reserve Forest.
3. Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, the learned counsel appearing for a few of the respondents has brought to the notice of this Tribunal about the judgement passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reported in Goa Foundation vs.Union Of India reported in 2014 (6) SCC 590
dated 21.04.2014, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified the earlier order passed the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Goa Foundation vs. Union of India (2011) 15 SCC
791) dated 04.12.2006.
4. It was felt that under the said order dated 04.12.2006, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has prohibited mining activities within 10 km distance from the boundaries of National Parks and
Wildlife Sancturies. It was this observation dated 04.12.2006 which was clarified by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said judgement reported in Goa Foundation vs.Union
Of India reported in 2014 (6) SCC 590 dated 21.04.2014. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the judgement dated 04.12.2006 has never restricted the mining activities within 10 kms of the eco sensitive zone from the boundaries of the Wildlife Santuaries or National
Parks and therefore there was no direction on 04.12.2006, interim or final, of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, prohibiting mining activities within 10 km of the boundaries of National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries. The Supreme Court in fact held that as directed earlier, the Central
Government should take into consideration the claims of all the stakeholders before closure of such mining activities, including the project proponents and huge number of employees who are likely to be affected and therefore any decision should be taken only after hearing of all the persons who are likely to be affected by such a decision. The clarification has been made explicit by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Page 50 to 52 of judgements which are extracted as follows:
“50. When, however, we read the order dated 04.12.2006 of this Court in Goa
Foundation v. Union of India, we find that the Court has not prohibited any mining activity within 10 kilometre distance from the boundaries of the national parks or wildlife sanctuaries. The relevant portion of the order dated 04.12.2006 is quoted hereinbelow (SCC pp 792-93, paras 4-5)
4. The Ministry is directed to give a final opportunity to all States/Union Territories to respond to its Letter dated 27.05.2005. The State of Goa also is permitted to give
appropriate proposal in addition to what is said to have already been sent to the
Central Government. The communication sent to the States/Union Territories shall make it clear that if the proposals are not sent even now within a period of four weeks of receipt of the communication from the Ministry, this Court may have to consider passing orders for implementation of the decision that was taken on 21.01.2002, namely, notification of the areas within 10 km of the boundaries of the sanctuaries and national parks as eco-sensitive areas with a view to conserve the forest, wildlife and environment and having regard to the precautionary principles. If the
States/Union Territories now fail to respond, they would do so at their own risk and peril.
5. MoEF would also refer to the Standing Committee of the National Board for
Wildlife, under Sections 5-B and 5-C(2) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, the cases where environment clearance has already been granted where activities are within 10 km zone.
It will be clear from the order dated 04.12.2006 of this Court that this Court has not passed any orders for implementation of the decision taken on 21.01.2002 to notify areas within 10 km of the boundaries of national parks or wildlife sanctuaries as eco- sensitive areas with a view to conserve the forest, wildlife and environment. By the order dated 04.12.2006 of this Court, however, the Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Government of India was directed to give a final opportunity to all
States/Union Territories to respond to the proposal and also to refer to the Standing
Committee of the National Board for Wildlife the cases in which environment clearance has already been granted in respect of activities within the 10 km zone from the boundaries of the wildlife sanctuaries and national parks. There is, therefore, no direction, interim or final, of this Court prohibiting mining activities within 10 km of the boundaries of national parks or wildlife sanctuaries.”
“52. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 lists the number of factors, which the Central
Government has to take into consideration while prohibiting or restricting the carrying on of processes and operations in different areas. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 provides that before prohibiting the processes and operations in the area, the Central
Government has to follow the procedure laid down in sub-rule (3). The procedure in
Sub-rule (3) of Rule (5) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 includes giving notice of the intention of the Central Government to prohibit the carrying on of processes and operations in the reserved area, giving brief description of the area, the operations and processes in that area relating to which the notification pertains and also specifying the reasons for the imposition of the prohibition on carrying on of the processes or operations in that area, and an opportunity to the persons interested in filing an objection against the imposition of such prohibition on carrying on of processes or operations by the Central Government. These procedural checks have been made in Rule 5 because a notification issued by the Central Government prohibiting an operation or a process will have serious consequences on the rights of different persons. For example, persons who are carrying on the process or operation and those who are directly or indirectly employed in the process or the operation may be affected by the proposed prohibition of the process or the operation in the entire area. Therefore until the Central Government takes into account various factors mentioned in sub-rule (1), follows the procedure laid down in sub-rule (3) and issues a notification under Rule 5 prohibiting mining operations in a certain area, there can be no prohibition under law to carry on mining activity beyond 1 km of the boundaries of national parks or wildlife sanctuaries.”
5. Mrs.Sangamithrai, learned counsel appearing for the MoEF & CC, on instructions, has submitted that the Central Government has not yet taken any decision after conducting proper enquiry as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 04.12.2006.
In such view of the matter it is clear that as per the law as it stands as on today, the mining activities within 10 km of the National Park or Wildlife Sanctuaries are not prohibited.
Therefore, the interim order passed due to the above said reason cannot stand as on date.
However, it remains the fact that as per the EIA Notifications 2006, any mining activity is expected to have the Environmental Clearance (EC). Simply because certain units have been functioning for a long time without obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC), this
Tribunal cannot permit them to carry on their activities in the light of the EIA Notification
2006. Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that many of these project proponents have made necessary applications to SEIAA and the same are pending and SEIAA has not taken any decision due to the pendency of this case.
We make it clear that SEIAA shall give priority to those cases where applications have been made and pending before it seeking Environmental Clearance (EC) for mining operations in Satyamangalam Reserve Forest and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, in any event, within a period of 4 weeks, in the manner known to law.
We also make it clear that as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases where the quaries are situated within 10 km, no permission will be granted.
With the above direction, the application stands dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.
Since the main application is disposed of, M.A.No. 220 and 229 of 2015 is closed.
Justice Dr.P. Jyothimani Judicial Member
Prof.Dr.R.Nagendran Expert Member