1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4049/2008 Chintaman Dashrath Kongre, R/o Kundra, Po. Nerad Purad, Tq. Wani, Distt. Yavatmal .. PETITIONER .. Versus .. 1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forest Department, Delhi. 2. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Mines and Coal, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Environment Deptt., Mantralaya, New Administrative Building, 15th Floor, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai -32. 4. State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal. 5. The Chairman, Maha. State Pollution Control Board, Sub Division Officer, Amravati. .. RESPONDENTS Smt. Seema w/o Anil Belurkar, Aged about 38 years, Occupation – Nil, R/o. 69, Shivaji Nagar, Yavatmal. .. INTERVENOR 2 Petitioner in person. Mr. S.S. Sanyal, Advocate for Respondent no.5. Mr. S.S. Voditel, Advocate for Intervenor. Mr. S.K. Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General for Respondents 1 & 2. .... CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : AUGUST 12 , 2009 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER: AUGUST 20,2009 ORAL ORDER Heard. 2. This Court in public interest upon the letter dated 20.8.2008 sent by the petitioner ,has taken cognizance of issue of the farmers and villagers of Kundra getting displaced and facing the situation of abandoning their farms, fields and houses due to granting of a permission for Dolomite Mines proposed by M/s Kundra Dolomite Mine. 3. The same was taken in view of prayer being made for not granting the permission to the project and/or at least for not according the final permission till the additional terms informed by respondent no.1 vide letter dated 30.10.2007 were complied by Project Proponent before public hearing to the satisfaction of the villagers on the count of the grievances communicated vide the said letter of a) public hearing with regard to said proposal scheduled by the respondent no.5 vide letter dated 25th June, 2008 being illegal and against the public welfare; b) project presenter/proposed intervener Smt. Belorkar having not complied with single term from additional terms stipulated in letter dated 30th October, 2007 issued by the Ministry of Environment and 3 Forest Government of India, without meeting even a single person has been trying to conduct public hearing illegally ; c) in event of commencement of the project of villagers being forced to abandon the village due to distance of mine being less than 1 k.m. and stones thrown away due to blasting to be carried out from 10 O Clock to 4 O clock bound to fall on the residential localities and fields nearby endangering lives of the labourers working in the fields making them impossible to work in the surrounding farms wherein the agricultural activities are carried out throughout the year; d) the commencement of project giving rise to lease for the project having many tracks under the usage of the farmers giving rise to the serious question of traffic in view of the land to be given farmers, cattles and the bullock-carts; e) the commencement of project also giving rise to the problem for grazing due to Gaothan land lease for the project is being used for grazing/ resting by the shepherds. 4. The learned counsel for respondent no.5 on 6.3.2009 having made a statement of authorities of Pollution Control Board having conducted public hearing as per the procedure prescribed under Environment Protection Act and the report thereto about the same being forwarded to respondent no.1 and further statement on 9.4.2009 of the said Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board having conducted inspection and taken into consideration the issue raised by the petitioner and the same being forwarded to Environment Impact Assessment Committee constituted under Notification dated 14.9.2006 by the Central Government, the leave as sought by the petitioner for joining the said Committee as a party to this proceeding was accorded on the said date i.e. on 4 9.4.2009. The petitioner having failed to carry out the necessary amendment , the matter was posted for final hearing after issuing the notice to the petitioner for the said purpose. 5. The learned counsel for respondent no.5 has urged of the petitioner having unnecessarily rushed to the Court and the petition being premature as the same being preferred prior to completion of the procedural requirements stipulated by Ministry of Environment and Forest of respondent no.1 vide Notification dated 14th September,2006. 6. He urged that as directed by respondent no.1 upon request of Project Proponent , respondent no.5 had constituted Committee for conducting a public hearing and notice of the public hearing was published in three widely circulated newspapers in accordance with the statutory provision. 7. The petitioner had attended the said public hearing and was duly apprised that respondent no.1 had informed Project Proponent that the proposal was considered by Expert Appraisal Committee during the 14th meeting held on 11/12th of October,2007 for determining Terms of Reference for undertaking a detail environmental impact assessment study in accordance with environmental impact assessment notification dated 14th September,2006. The Committee has suggested additional terms of reference for preparation of Environmental Impact Assessment Report and Environment Management Plan in respect of the said project in addition to model terms of reference for mining projects and incorporating the same before submitting the proposal for public consultation and public hearing to the State Pollution Control Board. Similarly Committee has also suggested that issue emerging during public hearing should be incorporated in the said report along with public hearing report and the requisite 5 documents should be submitted to respondent no.1 for appraisal by Expert Appraisal Committee for consideration of awarding environmental clearance under the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification dated 14th September, 2006. 8. The learned counsel urged that as per the said letter dated 30th October,2007 issued by respondent no.1 , the Project Proponent has to incorporate the suggestion of terms of reference while preparing the draft environmental impact assessment report and it was not expected to do compliance of the terms of reference as the same was proposed project. 9. He further urged that public hearing was conducted on 28th July,2008 and the objections were recorded from the participants and the replies given by Dr. Vibhute and Mr. Anil Belorkar- the representative of Project Proponent regarding the points raised by the participants in presence of Additional District Magistrate, Yavatmal. Written representation received from villagers of Kundra and Lok Janshakti Party were taken on record. 10. He further urged that the request of the petitioner for fixing venue of public hearing at Kundra village could not be fulfilled in view of notification dated 14th September,2006 not allowing postponement of public hearing without arising of emergent situation and without the same being recommended by the District Magistrate. Similarly venue of public hearing being decided by District Collector, Yavatmal, considering infrastructure required for the same, the contention of the petitioner of taking public hearing at other adjoining villages could not be accepted. 11. He further urged that at the public haring, petitioner and his companions were called to express their views, objections and suggestions after 6 making of presentation by the Project Proponent. The petitioner was appraised that views of participants will be recorded and video graphed and could be part and parcel of public hearing. Accordingly petitioner filed objections/ views by letter dated 14th July,2008. The views expressed by him were recorded and incorporated in the minutes of public hearing. He further urged that only after receipt of report of public hearing, respondent no.1 would be verifying the environmental impact assessment before granting environmental clearance to Project Proponent. 12. He further urged that the distance between proposed mine and village Kundra is about 1 k.m. and the Project Proponent has proposed to carry out blasting operation only during day time as per Mines Safety Guidelines and during favourable atmospheric conditions and less human activities timings and by adopting modified techniques under the supervision of the experts in the field duly authorized by the concerned authorities. He thus contended that since the decision is yet to be taken by respondent no.1, the present petition is premature and the petitioner being not entitled for the reliefs. 13. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of respondent no.5 and after perusing record, the petitioner was specifically queried about the decision, if any, taken and/or communicated to him by the concerned and about his right to seek the relief at the present stage in the present petition. However, the petitioner was not able to give any satisfactory reason for approaching this Court without having received any communication or about arriving of decision by respondents in the matter. 14. Having regard to the same we are of the considered opinion of there being substance in the contentions of the learned counsel of the respondent no.5 7 of petitioner having prematurely approached the Court and/or having failed to make out a case for intervention at this premature stage in the present petition by invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In view of the same,we dismiss the petition as being premature but considering the cause tried to be agitated in the matter and decision being said to have not arrived regarding the grievance , we deem it appropriate to award liberty to the petitioner to approach at appropriate stage. 15. In view of disposal of Writ Petition No. 4049 of 2008, CAW 1320 of 2009 preferred for intervention also stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE ....