9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1340 - HC - Indian LawsMining Services - environmental clearance with regard to extraction of minor mineral required - Held that - In case where quarrying/mining/lease which were existing on the date of issuance of Notification dated 14.09.2006 or on the date of issue of the order dated 18.05.2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests with regard to area less than 5 hectares no environmental clearance with regard to extraction of minor mineral is required. Notification dated 14.09.2006 contemplated obtaining environmental clearance only with regard to new projects/new activities. Government Order dated 10.01.2014 cannot be relied on by the parties in view of the restraint order issued by the National Green Tribunal dated 27.09.2013 till such time the restraint order continues. By amendment of Section 14 by Act 37 of 1986 making Section 4 applicable to minor minerals also the provision contained in Section 4 shall be applicable to mining operations by a person holding mining lease or any other kind of mineral concession. It cannot be accepted that mining operation with effect from 10.02.1987 cannot be continued by a person holding any other mineral concession apart from mining lease. Judgment of the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar s case 2012 (2) TMI 656 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA did not contemplate environmental clearance for an area less than 5 hectares with regard to existing mining lease/mining permits on the date of judgment. Paragraph 29 of the judgment clearly directed that leases of minor minerals including their renewal for an area of less than five hectares be granted by the State/Union Territories only after getting environmental clearance. Environmental clearance as contemplated by Notification dated 14.09.2006 required environmental clearance for new projects/new activities. The Notification dated 14.09.2006 having been applied vide order dated 18.05.2012 of the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests all mining operations for new project and new activities for an area less than 5 hectares after 18.05.2012 required environmental clearance carried through either a mining lease or mining permit. Interim order passed by the Apex Court on 27.01.2012 was intended by the Supreme Court to operate till the Rules have been framed by the States taking into consideration the guidelines and recommendations of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. As per Rule 68 no mining/quarrying operations can be permitted without there being an approved mining plan. But such rule is subject to exception as engrafted in Rule 66, i.e., for existing lease holders, time has been allowed to submit mining plan. Writ Petitions relating to Group - I, Public Interest Litigations are disposed of in accordance with our conclusions and directions contained in paragraph 82. All the Writ Petitions relating to Group - II, challenging quarrying operations by private individuals are disposed of with a direction to the District Collector to examine the right of quarrying owners/mining permit owners (private respondents) to carry mining operations and to issue necessary clarifications/clearance only after being satisfied that such mining operations are in accordance with the 2015 Rules as well as the observations made by this Court in the present case. Writ Petitions of Groups - III & IV by quarry owners as well as quarry owners seeking police protection are disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the District Collector for carrying on mining operations which clearance shall be issued by the District Collector only after being satisfied that they are entitled to carry mining operations as per the 2015 Rules and the observations made by this Court in the present case. W.P(C). No. 7632 of 2014 is dismissed upholding the order of State Government dated 19.2.2014 cancelling the quarry lease. All the three cases of miscellaneous Group are disposed of in the following manner W.P is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to submit appropriate application before the competent authority seeking permit of ordinary earth as per the 2015 Rules. Writ Appeal No. 1566 of 2014 is dismissed giving liberty to the appellant to make fresh application before the Panchayat for obtaining licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act after obtaining necessary permit for quarrying operations in accordance with the 2015 Rules. W.P(C) No. 2636 of 2015 is dismissed having become infructuous due to enforcement of 2015 Rules with effect from 07.02.201(i) Writ Petitions relating to Group - I, Public Interest Litigations are disposed of in accordance with our conclusions and directions contained in paragraph 82. (ii) All the Writ Petitions relating to Group - II, challenging quarrying operations by private individuals are disposed of with a direction to the District Collector to examine the right of quarrying owners/mining permit owners (private respondents) to carry mining operations and to issue necessary clarifications/clearance only after being satisfied that such mining operations are in accordance with the 2015 Rules as well as the observations made by this Court in the present case. (iii) Writ Petitions of Groups - III & IV (except WP(C). No. 7632 of 2014), by quarry owners as well as quarry owners seeking police protection are disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the District Collector for carrying on mining operations which clearance shall be issued by the District Collector only after being satisfied that they are entitled to carry mining operations as per the 2015 Rules and the observations made by this Court in the present case. (iv) W.P(C). No. 7632 of 2014 is dismissed upholding the order of State Government dated 19.2.2014 cancelling the quarry lease.5.
Issues Involved:
1. Unauthorized functioning of quarries. 2. Environmental clearance for quarrying operations. 3. Validity of mining permits and leases. 4. Police protection for quarrying operations. 5. Miscellaneous issues regarding mining regulations. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue I: Unauthorized Functioning of Quarries The court addressed several Public Interest Litigations (PILs) concerning unauthorized quarry operations in violation of the Supreme Court's decision in Deepak Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others ([2012] 4 SCC 629) and notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The PILs argued that excessive mining operations pose a serious threat to the environment and ecology. The court emphasized that environmental clearance is essential for all mining operations, including minor minerals, as mandated by the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Issue II: Environmental Clearance for Quarrying Operations The court examined whether environmental clearance is required for existing quarrying/mining permits. It concluded that the Notification dated 14.09.2006, which mandates environmental clearance for new projects or activities, does not apply retrospectively to existing projects. However, the court noted that the Government of India's order dated 18.05.2012 extends the requirement of environmental clearance to mining projects with lease areas less than 5 hectares. The court held that environmental clearance is mandatory for all new mining projects and renewals post the 2012 order. Issue III: Validity of Mining Permits and Leases The court addressed the impact of the amendment to Section 14 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 by Act 37 of 1986, which made Section 4 applicable to minor minerals. The court clarified that mining operations can be conducted under mining leases or other mineral concessions, including mining permits. It rejected the contention that mining operations could only be conducted under a mining lease post the amendment. Issue IV: Police Protection for Quarrying Operations Several petitions sought police protection for quarrying operations. The court directed petitioners to approach the District Collector for necessary clarifications and clearance to carry out mining operations in accordance with the 2015 Rules and the observations made in the judgment. Police protection could be sought only after obtaining such clearance. Issue V: Miscellaneous Issues Regarding Mining Regulations The court addressed various miscellaneous issues, including the validity of government orders and the interpretation of specific rules under the 2015 Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. It upheld the requirement for environmental clearance for mining operations and directed that all actions regarding mining operations be conducted in accordance with the 2015 Rules. Conclusion: The court concluded that: 1. Environmental clearance is mandatory for all new mining projects and renewals post the 2012 order. 2. Mining operations can be conducted under mining leases or other mineral concessions, including mining permits. 3. Petitioners seeking police protection for quarrying operations must obtain clearance from the District Collector. 4. All mining operations must comply with the 2015 Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The court disposed of all writ petitions and the writ appeal accordingly, directing parties to bear their own costs.
|
