Case: DHRUVA ENTERPRISES Vs. C. SRINIVASULU AND OTHERS

2. Facts in brief giving rise to filing of the present appeal are as under:-The appellant had applied on 28th July 2016 for Mining Lease for Quartz and Feldspar mining over 29 hectares of land in Sy. No. 330/1, Kalwakole Village, Peddakothapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, State of Telangana. The total land in the said survey number was 109 Acres and 08 Guntas (approximately 44 hectares), out of which the appellant had applied for 29 hectares. In the application submitted by the appellant, it was stated that the nearest human habitation was Yenambetla, existing at a distance of about 1.6 km from the applied area. It was further stated in the application that the nearest water body was at a distance of 0.25 km named as Singotham Lake.3. The application of the appellant was processed at various stages including the Revenue Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as the RDO), Nagarkurnool, Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Mahabubnagar and Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, Government of Telangana. Vide communication dated 7th September 2016, the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, Government of Telangana informed the appellant that after careful examination of the proposal submitted by the appellant, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Mahabubnagar had recommended for grant of Quarry Lease in favour of the appellant for Quartz and Feldspar over an area of 24 hectares in Sy. No. 330/1, Kalwakole Village, Peddakothapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, Telangana. The appellant was directed to submit a Mining Plan approved by Joint Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad for the proposed area within a period of six months from the date of the said communication. The appellant was directed to submit Consent from the Telangana State Pollution Control Board and also Environmental Clearance (hereinafter referred to as EC) from the Ministry of Environment & Forest (hereinafter referred to as the MoEF) as per the Environment Impact Assessment Notification (hereinafter referred to as the EIA Notification 2006) dated 14th September 2006 and 15th January 2016. It was also stated in the said communication that if the appellant fails to submit the Approved Mining Plan within the stipulated period, it will be presumed that the appellant was not interested in getting the Quarry Lease for the said area and further course of action will be initiated in accordance with law. Thereafter, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Telangana (hereinafter referred to as the SEIAA) examined the said proposal in accordance with EIA Notification 2006 and the subsequent amendments thereof and exempted the same from the process of public hearing as the mining lease area was less than 25 hectares. The SEIAA accorded EC on 11th April 2017, with specific and general conditions.4. Challenging the same, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed an appeal under Section 16 read with Section 18(1) and Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) before the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai being Appeal No. 582 of 2017 (SZ), which was transferred to National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) being Appeal No. 24 of 2018, wherein a two-fold challenge was made by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3: first, that the area was reduced from 29 hectares to 24 hectares only in order to avoid the rigours of public hearing and second, that the Singotham Lake was in close proximity of the proposed mining area and as such, the EC granted, was not correct in law.5. In the said proceedings, the learned Tribunal had passed an interim order on 24th April 2018, thereby staying the order challenged in the appeal. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant had approached this Court being Civil Appeal No. 8130 of 2019. This Court vide its order dated 8th November 2019, requested the learned Tribunal to hear the matter on 22nd November 2019. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal after hearing the counsel for the parties, found favour with both the grounds raised by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and allowed the appeal by passing the order as aforesaid. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant has approached this Court.

Court's reasoning:
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.