Case: DHRUVA ENTERPRISES Vs. C. SRINIVASULU AND OTHERS

(V), Peddakothapally (M), Mahabubnagar District. It was reported that the nearest human habitation viz., Yenambetla (V) exists at a distance of about 1.6 Km from the mine lease area. It was also reported that Singotham Lake which is existing at a distance of 0.25 Km from the mine lease area. It was noted that the capital investment of the project is Rs. 2.1 Crores and maximum capacity of the project is as follows: Mining of Quartz – 4,05,842 TPA II. It is a semi-mechanized opencast quarry. The Blocks are cut by using jack hammer drilling, wedge-cutting and excavation. The separated blocks are dressed manually. It is reported that the life of the Mine is estimated as 18 years. The total mine lease area is 24.00 Ha. III. The proposal has been examined and processed in accordance with EIA Notification, 2006 and its amendments thereof. The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) examined the application, in its meeting held on 30.12.2016 & 22.02.2017. The project is considered under B2 category and exempted from the process of public hearing as the mining lease area is less than 25 Ha., as per provisions laid under EIA Notification, 2006 & its subsequent amendments. Based on the information furnished, presentation made by the proponent and the consultant M/s. Global Enviro Labs, Hyderabad; In-principle grant of quarry lease by the DMG, Hyderabad Notice Dt. 07.09.2016 for a period of 20 years; Approved Mining Plan; Lr. dt. 12.01.2017 of ADMG: Nagarkurnol informing that there are no mines surrounding 500 mtrs as Cluster, the Committee considered the project and recommended for issue of EC. The State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), in its meeting held on 14.03.2017 & 18.03.2017 examined the proposal and recommendations of SEAC, Telangana for issue of Environmental Clearance. Accordingly, after discussions in the matter and considering the recommendations of the SEAC, Telangana, the SEIAA, Telangana hereby accords prior Environmental Clearance to the project as mentioned at Para no. I under the provisions of EIA Notification 2006 and its subsequent amendments issued under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 subject to implementation of the following specific and general conditions. 18. Thereafter, vide order dated 22nd April 2017, the Government of Telangana granted Quarry Lease for Quartz over an extent of 24.00 hectares in Sy. No. 330/1 of Kalwakole Village, Peddakothapally Mandal, Nagarkurnool (erstwhile Mahabubnagar) District in favour of the appellant. 19. A perusal of the aforesaid documents would reveal that the appellant, in fact, had applied for grant of Mining Lease for 29 hectares. It is, however, the authorities including the Tahsildar, the RDO, Assistant Director of Mining and Geology, Mahabubnagar, who had recommended grant of Quarry Lease over 24 hectares. Insofar as the water body is concerned, the appellant, in his application as well as Mining Plan, has clearly mentioned that Singotham Lake is situated at a distance of 0.25 km. While processing the proposal of the appellant, the Tahsildar and the Assistant Revenue Inspector of the concerned area have physically carried out the inspection. Not only that, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology had personally inspected the area on 11th August 2016, and the Surveyor had surveyed the applied area with the help of a GPS instrument. It is also revealed from the record that the area of 24 hectares in Sy. No. 330/1, which consists a larger area, was earmarked after leaving the safety distance of 0.25 km from Singotham Lake. In its report, the Surveyor had also reported that the demarcated area was not overlapping with the existing leases and there were no pending applications in that area. 20. It could thus be seen that prior to grant of in-principle approval by the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, Government of Telangana, the proposed area was physically inspected by the Tahsildar along with the Assistant Revenue Inspector. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Mahabubnagar had independently inspected the area. The area was surveyed by the Official Surveyor with the GPS instrument and while earmarking the area, the distance of 0.25 km was also maintained. 21. After in-principle approval was granted, the appellant submitted its Mining Plan on 20th October 2016. The proposal of the appellant was thereafter considered by the SEAC on 30th December 2016, wherein it was resolved to recommend the proposal of the appellant for grant of EC. Thereafter, the SEIAA, in its meeting dated 11h April 2017, has granted its EC after considering all the aspects. Thereafter, Quarry Lease has been granted in favour of the appellant on 22nd April 2017. 22. It could thus be seen that the proposal of the appellant has undergone scrutiny at various stages. Only after it was found that it was in conformity with the provisions of law, the in-principle approval and EC for Quarry Lease had been granted. Thereafter, the appellant has submitted his Mining Plan which was again duly examined by various authorities. The proposal of the appellant was initially considered by SEAC and recommended for grant of EC. Thereafter, SEIAA, after considering all the aspects has granted EC to the project of the appellant. Only thereafter, the Quarry Lease had been granted in favour of the appellant. 23. Insofar as the finding of the learned Tribunal that the area was reduced to 24 hectares from 29 hectares only in order to avoid the rigours of public hearing, is totally erroneous. The appellant had no role to play in the same. It is the authorities who recommended approval in respect of only 24 hectares. Insofar as the mandatory distance from the water body is concerned, the authorities upon survey had found that the mandatory distance of 0.25 km is maintained. 24. In this view of matter, we find that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in arriving at a finding that the appellant had reduced the area to 24 hectares only in order to avoid the rigours of public hearing and further that there was no distance of 0.25 km between the proposed mining area and the Singotham Lake.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]19. A perusal of the aforesaid documents would reveal that the appellant, in fact, had applied for grant of Mining Lease for 29 hectares. It is, however, the authorities including the Tahsildar, the RDO, Assistant Director of Mining and Geology, Mahabubnagar, who had recommended grant of Quarry Lease over 24 hectares. Insofar as the water body is concerned, the appellant, in his application as well as Mining Plan, has clearly mentioned that Singotham Lake is situated at a distance of 0.25 km. While processing the proposal of the appellant, the Tahsildar and the Assistant Revenue Inspector of the concerned area have physically carried out the inspection. Not only that, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology had personally inspected the area on 11th August 2016, and the Surveyor had surveyed the applied area with the help of a GPS instrument. It is also revealed from the record that the area of 24 hectares in Sy. No. 330/1, which consists a larger area, was earmarked after leaving the safety distance of 0.25 km from Singotham Lake. In its report, the Surveyor had also reported that the demarcated area was not overlapping with the existing leases and there were no pending applications in that area.20. It could thus be seen that prior to grant of in-principle approval by the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, Government of Telangana, the proposed area was physically inspected by the Tahsildar along with the Assistant Revenue Inspector. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Mahabubnagar had independently inspected the area. The area was surveyed by the Official Surveyor with the GPS instrument and while earmarking the area, the distance of 0.25 km was also maintained.21. After in-principle approval was granted, the appellant submitted its Mining Plan on 20th October 2016. The proposal of the appellant was thereafter considered by the SEAC on 30th December 2016, wherein it was resolved to recommend the proposal of the appellant for grant of EC. Thereafter, the SEIAA, in its meeting dated 11h April 2017, has granted its EC after considering all the aspects. Thereafter, Quarry Lease has been granted in favour of the appellant on 22nd April 2017.22. It could thus be seen that the proposal of the appellant has undergone scrutiny at various stages. Only after it was found that it was in conformity with the provisions of law, the in-principle approval and EC for Quarry Lease had been granted. Thereafter, the appellant has submitted his Mining Plan which was again duly examined by various authorities. The proposal of the appellant was initially considered by SEAC and recommended for grant of EC. Thereafter, SEIAA, after considering all the aspects has granted EC to the project of the appellant. Only thereafter, the Quarry Lease had been granted in favour of the appellant.23. Insofar as the finding of the learned Tribunal that the area was reduced to 24 hectares from 29 hectares only in order to avoid the rigours of public hearing, is totally erroneous. The appellant had no role to play in the same. It is the authorities who recommended approval in respect of only 24 hectares. Insofar as the mandatory distance from the water body is concerned, the authorities upon survey had found that the mandatory distance of 0.25 km is maintained.24. In this view of matter, we find that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in arriving at a finding that the appellant had reduced the area to 24 hectares only in order to avoid the rigours of public hearing and further that there was no distance of 0.25 km between the proposed mining area and the Singotham Lake.