Before the National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi …………

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI …………..

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 496 OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Ramakant Gautam, S/o Late Sh. Veer Abhimanyu Gautam R/o Purani Basti, Gautam Mohalla, Katni, District-Katni, M.P.

2. Ramesh Kumar Gautam, S/o Sh. Shivnarayan Gautam, R/o Gautam Mohalla, Masuraha Ward, Purani Basti, Katni, M.P.

3. Ram Manohar Gaud, S/o Sh. Chhanga Gaud, R/o Near Krishi Upaj Mandi, Katni, M.P.

4. Naresh Jayswani, S/o Sh. Gopal Das Jayswani, R/o Bangla Line, Madhav Nagar, Katni, M.P.

5. Ramgopal Jayswani, S/o Sh. Pohuram Jayswani, R/o Kalyani Ward, Madhav Nagar, Katni, M.P.

6. Om Prakash Upadhyay S/o Sh. N. Upadhyay, Village : Sakin Reethi, Teh:Reethi, District Katni, M.P.

7. Anant Masurha S/o Sh. Hargovind Masurha R/o Village Tikariya, District Panna, M.P. …..Applicants Versus 1. State of Madhya Pradesh Through its Secretary, Department of Mineral Resources, Vallab Bhawan, Bhopal.

2. Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, Government of India, Through its Secretary, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi.

3. Chairman, M.P. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (MP SEIAA) EPCO Campus, Paryavaran Parisar, E-5, Arera Colony, Bhopal.

4. District Collector, Office of Collector, District Panna, M.P.

5. District Collector, Office of Collector District Katni, M.P. …….Respondents

COUNSEL FOR APPLICANTS: Mr. Shivendu Joshi & Ms. Sucheta Yadav, Advocates.

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: Appearance not marked.

JUDGMENT PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson) Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Nambiar (Judicial Member) Hon’ble Dr. D.K. Agrawal (Expert Member) Reserved on: 6th November, 2015 Pronounced on: 10th December, 2015

1. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published on the net? 2. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published in the NGT Reporter?

JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, (CHAIRPERSON)

The Applicants who are quarry lease holders of sandstone under different lease deeds from the State of Madhya Pradesh have filed this application praying that reasonable period to comply with the judgment of the Tribunal dated 13th January, 2015 in the case of Himmat Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India & Ors. 2015 ALL (I)

NGT Reporter (1) (Delhi) 44, be allowed for obtaining Environmental

Clearance (for short ‘EC’) from the Madhya Pradesh State

Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (for short ‘MPSEIAA’).

They further prayed that the authorities be directed to dispose of applications expeditiously in terms of the order of the Tribunal dated 24th July, 2015 in the case of M.P. State Mining Corporation vs. Ministry of Environment & Forest & Ors., being, Review

Application No. 18/2015.

2. The applicants submit that they have been granted renewal of such quarry leases and have entered into agreement with the respective Collectors of the District Panna and Katni, Madhya

Pradesh for carrying on the mining operations. The renewal of these leases was granted to these parties for a period of ten years vide letters dated 26th September, 2009 onwards. The quarrying operations of some of the applicants (1,2,3 and 5) were ordered to be closed by the Collector vide order dated 29th July, 2015. This order was passed by the Collector in furtherance to the order of the

Tribunal dated 13th January, 2015 in O.A. No. 123/2014 titled

Himmat Singh Shekhawat vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. The

State of Madhya Pradesh had filed a Review Application No.

18/2015 titled as M.P. State Mining Corporation vs. Ministry of

Environment & Forest & Ors. seeking review of the order dated 13th

January, 2015. In this application the Units were permitted to operate for a period of three months but the units which had not applied for the EC as on the date of passing of the order in the

Review Application were directed to be closed. 3

3. Later, the quarry leases of applicants’ no. 4, 6 and 7 were also directed to be closed by order of the Collector dated 7th August,

2015. In the judgment of Himmat Singh Shekhawat (supra), the

Tribunal had clearly held that even existing mine lease right holders would be required to obtain EC from the competent authorities in accordance with law and they could not take up the plea that as they were existing units, they need not submit such application.

Within six months from the date of pronouncement of the judgment they were expected to take EC. It is stated that the intent of the order was to expedite the grant of EC and not closure of the existing quarry leases.

4. It is the case of the applicant that the State of Madhya

Pradesh issued an order dated 15th April, 2015 to all the Collectors in that State to comply with the directions of the Tribunal. The

District Collectors kept sitting over the orders and did not take any steps for a period of three months. Thus, it was not within the knowledge of the applicants that they were required to comply with the provisions of EIA Notification of 2006. The applicants applied in the month of April, 2015 within cut-off date in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 13th January, 2015. The fault lies on the part of the Departments who had not taken timely action.

Thus, the impugned order of the Collector dated 24th July, 2015 is not correct. The Units which had applied for grant of EC were permitted to operate for a period of three months. There is complete arbitrariness on the part of the Mining Department of the

State of Madhya Pradesh. It is also stated that the Tribunal had not directed closure of the mines but had granted time to make applications for grant of EC. Thus, the Collector could not have passed orders for closure of the mines, particularly when they had applied for EC. The Madhya Pradesh State Mining Corporation has

450 mining leases in the entire State out of which only 224 units have applied for obtaining the EC. They were not ordered to be closed.

5. The main grievance of the applicant is that the State

Government and its authorities have remained inactive for a considerable time and now suddenly have started issuing closure orders despite the fact that the applicants have already moved applications for obtaining ECs. According to the applicants, they had no reasonable method of knowing the judgments of the

Tribunal in view of complete laxity on the part of the Government and various agencies. The applicant claims that they are small quarry lease holders having land measuring from 0.6 to 2 hectares and have invested huge sums of money in their mining operations.

Thus, the closure orders would be prejudicial to their economic interests. On 24th July, 2015, the Tribunal had also directed the

State of Madhya Pradesh and the Ministry of Environment and

Forests to constitute larger number of committees to deal with the pending applications. Despite that, no effective steps have been taken to dispose of the pending applications. They have stated that the numbers given to their applications are 4508, 4506, 4510,

5104, 5103, 5437 and 4623. They submit that their applications 5

may be dealt with in the near future and resultantly the order of closure should not be permitted to operate against them. The applicant’s grievance, thus, are twofold; firstly, that it is the lackness and non-compliance to the order of the Tribunal on the part of the State and MPSEIAA that is causing them prejudice and secondly, the intent of the order was not to close the mining activity but was to require the mine-owners to obtain EC to prevent air and environmental pollution in those areas.

6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at some length. It is evident that definite time schedule was fixed by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 13th January, 2015.

Thereafter, different parties not only from the State of Madhya

Pradesh, but also from other States filed applications for review of the judgment and even claiming other incidental reliefs including extension of time. The Tribunal by subsequent orders had granted extension of time. Last extension of six months for complete compliance to the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act,

1986 and EIA Notifications, 2006, as contained in the order dated

13th January, 2015 was granted by order dated 24th July, 2015. On the one hand the applicants have failed to provide any plausible or reasonable cause that would persuade the Tribunal to grant any further extension of time for complying with the directions contained in the judgment dated 13th January, 2015, while on the other hand the applicant admits that principle of ignorantia juris non excusat is applicable and ignorance of law is not an excuse for committing violation of law. There, on the other hand, right from 6

January, 2015 till April, 2015 these applicants did not even submit the application for grant of EC. Of course, laxity is noticeable on the part of the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as MPSEIAA. They were expected to act expeditiously and ensure compliance. It is averred by the applicant that more than sufficient period has been allowed under the judgment for compliance to the law and the applicants should not be permitted to suffer on account of laxity and default on the part of the State Authorities and/or MPSEIAA.

But in the present case, it is not the State which is solely to be blamed for non-compliance of law and order of the Tribunal dated

13th January, 2015. The applicant’s lease in relation to the mining had been renewed from the year 2009 onwards. The EIA

Notification, 2006 was already in force at that time. Furthermore, the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar vs.

State of Rajasthan and Ors. had been passed in the year 2012.

Thus, both parties are liable to be blamed for their inaction and laches. We may notice here that the Tribunal has dealt with one such other application in the case of NGT Bar Association v MoEF &

Ors being Original Application No. 364/2015 vide order of the same date. In that case also request for further extension has been declined and the Tribunal has passed certain specific directions.

We find that in order to have consistency and uniform applicability of the directions all over the country, it will be necessary for the

Tribunal to follow the same directions even in the present case.

7. Thus, for the reasons afore-stated, we dispose of this application with the following directions: 7

1. The MPSEIAA and State of Madhya Pradesh shall direct and

ensure closure of all the mines which are operating in the area

which have not applied for grant of Environmental Clearance.

These units should be shut down and if they are provided with

water and any electrical connections, the same should be

disconnected forthwith.

2. MPSEIAA shall dispose of all the applications that are pending

before it as on 1st September, 2015 positively by 31st

December, 2015.

3. The applicants who have filed their applications but the same

are pending with MPSEIAA for want of information or further

particulars, all such applicants should furnish the requested

information within 2 weeks from today. Upon furnishing of

such information, such applications should also be disposed

of on or before 31st December, 2015. In the event the mine

owners/operators fail to provide such information, particulars

or documents within 2 weeks, they shall be shutdown

forthwith and if they are provided with power connections the

same shall be disconnected without any notice.

4. The applicants who have submitted the applications to

MPSEIAA for grant of EC already and the same are pending

with MPSEIAA and particularly where the units have been

ordered to be closed, MPSEIAA shall dispose of such

applications within two weeks from the date of passing of this

judgment. In the event of default, all such applicants would

have the right to approach the Tribunal for violation of the

orders of the Tribunal. We make it clear that we would be

compelled to take strong action as available in law against

MPSEIAA and all its officers since they have already delayed

the disposal considerably despite directions for constitution of

more Committees.

This direction would operate in precedence to other directions contained in this order.

8. The application stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

Justice Swatanter Kumar Chairperson

Justice M.S. Nambiar Judicial Member

Dr. D.K. Agrawal Expert Member

New Delhi 10th December, 2015