2017 SCC OnLine NGT 1683

J 2

In the National Green Tribunal

(BEFORE U.D. SALVI, J.M. AND NAGIN NANDA, E.M.)

Kunal Shankar Mali … Applicant;

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents.

Original Application No. 08 of 2017

Decided on November 14, 2017

2. The Applicant submits that every quarrying activity requires Environment

Clearance (EC) and ‘Consent to Operate’ under the Water (Prevention and Control)
of Pollution Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control) of Pollution Act, 1981
granted by the lawful Authorities before any activity of quarrying is undertaken.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 State of

Maharashtra through Environment Department, and other Authorities Respondent
Nos. 2 to 10 admit this legal proposition, and submit to the orders of this Bench.

4. In this backdrop, the Applicant submits that the Applicant can be disposed off
with appropriate directions binding the parties to discharge their obligations as per
law.

5. The Application further reveals that lack of pollution control measures and

violations of law done by the quarrying operators, particularly, without consent to
operate as well as Mining Plan and quarrying being done in excess of the
sanctioned limits prescribed under the Mining Plan. We, therefore, pass the
following directions:

i) Respondent No. 1 State of Maharashtra through Environment Department,

Respondent No. 3 the Principal Secretary, Revenue and the Forest
Department of Govt. of Maharashtra and Respondent No. 4 - the Chief
Conservator of Forest, Thane shall not allow any quarrying activity in the
areas of aforesaid villages designated or identified as ‘Reserved Forest’,
‘Protected Forest’, ‘Private Forest’ and ‘Forest like Area’, Forest Land and
 ‘Shrub Forest’ without any Forest Clearance as envisaged under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980.

ii) Respondent No. 5-District Collector, Thane shall not allow

any quarrying activity without prior Mining Plan and EC required for such
activity in the District, particularly, in the said villages and shall keep vigil over
the area and ensure that no such illegal quarrying activity is carried out.

iii) Respondent No. 2 CIDCO shall not grant any lease falling within their area in
the said villages to any one desirous of carrying out quarrying activity without
production of EC required therefor.

iv) Respondent No. 7 MIDC is directed not to grant any permission/permit

any quarrying activity in the said village without EC being produced for such
activity.

v) Respondent Nos. 8 the Regional Officer MPCB and Respondent No. 9 the
Member Secretary, MPCB are directed not to grant any ‘Consent to Operate’
to quarrying in the said villages without their being any EC therefor.

vi) Respondent Nos. 8 the Regional Officer MPCB and Respondent No. 9 the
Member Secretary, MPCB are further directed to ensure strict compliance of
all the terms and conditions prescribed under ‘Consent to Operate’ granted
to quarrying activity and Stone Crushing in the said villages.

vii) Respondent No. 10 Deputy Director, Ecology and Mine, Govt. of Maharashtra
is directed to ensure that no mining is done exceeding/beyond the carrying
capacity of the mining are in question and/or without Mining Plan.

viii) We direct Respondent No. 5 the Collector, Thane Respondent Nos. 8 the
Regional Officer MPCB and Respondent No. 9 the Member Secretary, MPCB
and Respondent No. 10-Deputy Director, Directorate of Geology & Mining or
any one of them to place before us description and particulars
of quarrying and stone crusher operators, operating in the aforesaid area
without EC and/or in violation of Law in any manner whatsoever for
imposition of Environmental Compensation and for such other further
directions.

ix) Every case of transgression of these directions and/or non-compliance of such terms
and conditions stipulated for operating stone quarrying/crushing shall be brought to
 the Notice of this Tribunal for the purposes of imposing
Environmental Compensation and such other further directions

This extract is taken from A. Citizen v. District Collector, R.R. Dist., 1997 SCC
OnLine AP 791 : (1998) 4 ALD 389 : (1998) 1 An WR 478 at page 399
31. The distance of 1 kilometre, according to expert Committee is a safe distance
between the site under quarry lease and the residential locality or GLSR. In fact the
distance between them is not only be safe, but it should be safer. As the residents
of the village situated nearby are experiencing tremors as well as dust pollution, it
is always better that no quarry lease should be granted within a distance of 2
kilometres in future. Therefore, the respondents 7 to 23 cannot operate quarry
leases and stone crushers. It is, however, open to them to apply for areas for
quarry lease beyond 2 kilometres from residential areas and GLSR.

This extract is taken from A. Citizen v. District Collector, R.R. Dist., 1997 SCC
OnLine AP 791 : (1998) 4 ALD 389 : (1998) 1 An WR 478 at page 400
32. Accordingly, respondents 2 and 4, who are Secretary Mines and Geology,
Government of Andhra Pradesh as well as Chairman, A.P. Pollution Control Board,
Hyderabad respectively would examine the leases of respondents afresh before
they are renewed, or continued and ensure that no damage to habitation of human
life, animals and plant life. Illegal quarrying by Vaddera community which is within 1
kilometre from the above areas should be stopped forthwith. The respondents
while applying for fresh areas ensure and adopt dust suppression methods to
control dust emission as recommended by MOEF/APPCB by following the
guidelines as notified. The Gram Panchayat members will bring to the notice of the
High Court whenever there is infraction of these guidelines. In the result, Writ
Petition No. 7326 of 1997 is allowed and the quarry leases issued to respondents 7
to 23 in three villages viz., Kokapet, Gowlidoddi and Nanakramguda shall stand set
aside and the stone crushers established by them shall be removed forth with.
However, there cannot be any impediment for the respondents to carry away cut
granite stone or metal lying at the site, if the same is cut and stored as per the
terms of impugned leases. It is open to the workers working in those quarry leases
and stone crushers to claim such compensation from their employers in
accordance with law till fresh leases are obtained by them and on obtaining fresh
leases, these workers shall be reemployed again.

This extract is taken from Koppula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy v. State

of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 SCC OnLine AP 1422 : (2014) 4 ALD 33 : (2014) 6 ALT
458 at page 50
32. All the impugned orders are set at naught and it is declared that the State
Government lacks power to grant any extensions of quarry leases for the minor
mineral sand even under the current legal regime. The State Government shall
forthwith stop all such lease holders from quarrying sand any further. The State
Government shall ensure that sand quarry operations henceforth can be carried
out strictly in accordance with the legal regime prevailing through the notification
contained in G.O. Ms. No. 186 Industries & Commerce (Mines-I) Department dated
17.12.2013. All the writ petitions are accordingly allowed, but however without
costs.
This extract is taken from Koppula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy v. State
of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 SCC OnLine AP 1422 : (2014) 4 ALD 33 : (2014) 6 ALT
458 at page 49
30. But, the note file did not even refer to them as former lessees or ex-lessees.
The responsibility and accountability hence has got to be fixed in this regard on all
people who had played the necessary role in taking die decision which resulted in
the impugned order. A repeated error committed by the State Government cannot
be brushed aside lightly, as an honest error particularly when it is resulting in a
bountiful of benefits to the beneficiaries and cascading consequences to the State's
interests. Therefore, all the public servants who have not helped in arriving at a
correct decision must be rendered accountable for their lapse and failures in that
regard. The ultimate decision making authority must be made accountable for the
decision taken. I, hope and trust, that the State Government will concentrate its
energies in this direction.
 2002 SCC OnLine Mad 494 : (2003) 1 LW 262 : 2003 Cri LJ (NOC
277) 88 J 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

26.7.2002

Contempt Application No. 56 2001 in W.P. No. 985 of 2000

K. SAMPATH, J.

M.K. Janardhanam S/o M.R. Krishnaswamy Naidu, Old No. 90, New No. 60, K.R. Koil Street, West
Mambalam, Chennai - 600 033 … Applicant

v.

1. The District Collector, Tiruvallur District at Tiruvallur.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri.

30. It appears that it was only a cry in wilderness. Nothing appears to have been done.
On the contrary things have gone from bad to worse. The Hindu reported about the
battles between the District administration and the sand mafia. The report referred to
the collapse of Karanodai Highway Bridge on Chennai-Calcutta Highway and how the
Lakshmipuram Anicut across Araniar, on the northern outskirts of the city was washed
away some years ago because its structure got weakened as a result of sand extraction
around the Anicut. As on that day it required Rs. 3 or 4 crores to build a fresh Anicut.

31. The enormity of the problem suffocates us. The apathetic and lukewarm approach
of the powers that be baffles and pains us. Gide Andre lamented ‘Everything has been
said already but nobody is listening. We must always begin again.’ Scores of Judges
have said before. Their directions have not been implemented. It is a sordid
commentary on the state of affairs. Still I am issuing directions to the Government in the
fond hope that they will be implemented and something good may come about. These
are in addition to what has been directed to be done by P. Shanmugham, J. in W.P.
Nos. 10632/92 etc. batch already referred to.
1. The Government shall constitute a high level committee consisting of scientists,
geologists and environmentalists within one month from today. The said committee shall
tour the State, conduct a scientific survey with reference to sand quarrying in rivers and
river beds and submit a report with particular reference to the damage caused on
account of indiscriminate and illegal quarrying and spelt out suitable remedial steps to
stamp out the malady, within six months thereafter.

2. On receipt of the report from the committee, the Government shall act in conformity
with the guidelines and take all necessary further steps to arrest the exploitation and to
protect and improve the situation and restore status quo ante. The Government shall
pass suitable regulatory legislation in this regard. The action on the part of the
Government after the receipt of the report should not brook any delay. It should act fast.

In the meantime there should be a total ban on sand quarrying anywhere near motor or

rail bridges - the distance between the bridges and the quarrying area should be not
less than 500 metres.

The distance between the riverbank and the mining area should be not less than 10 to
15 metres. The depth of the sand pits should not exceed 1 to 1-1/2metres.

While granting licence the local public should be taken into confidence. They should be
allowed to air their views and raise their objections.

   

Wherever there has been violation of the terms of the grant, stringent action should be
taken against the erring parties. Prosecution under Section 379 of the Penal Code,
1860 for theft and causing damage to public property should be launched. Severe
penalties should be imposed. They should also be made to pay heavy compensation.

34. I directed the petitioner to submit a statement of expenses. I find that a total sum of
Rs. 22,258/- has been spent by him. I have the least hesitation in directing the
Government to reimburse the petitioner in a sum of Rs. 32,258/- which includes the sum
of Rs. 10,000/- directed to be paid to the Advocate Commissioner by this order. The
Government shall pay Rs. 32,258/- to the petitioner within four weeks from today
towards the costs in the contempt petition. The contempt petition is ordered accordingly.
34. I directed the petitioner to submit a statement of expenses. I find that a total sum of
Rs. 22,258/- has been spent by him. I have the least hesitation in directing the
Government to reimburse the petitioner in a sum of Rs. 32,258/- which includes the sum
of Rs. 10,000/- directed to be paid to the Advocate Commissioner by this order. The
Government shall pay Rs. 32,258/- to the petitioner within four weeks from today
towards the costs in the contempt petition. The contempt petition is ordered accordingly.

12. We are informed that in Atharva Veda, a verse occurs, meaning as follows:

“Oh Mother Earth - On this multi-colour Indra Gupta Prithvi let me enjoy, never
ending happiness and gain ever lasting glory without fear of defeat.”

13. Our ancients worshipped the five elements of nature, viz. earth, air, water, fire and
sky both in reality and symbolically. Our scriptures are replete with information on the
relationship between man and nature and the former's eternal indebtedness to the
latter. We are told that earth is the paradise of man which has been blessed with
nature's bounties. During ancient times there was emphasis on the care for the natural
resources.

14. All religions in our country have environmental overtones for the observance of an
ecological code of conduct and are united in their attitude towards nature. They enjoin
us to respect nature and its creations which is complementary to secularism.

15. The enjoyment of life and its attainment and its fulfillment guaranteed by Article 21
of the Constitution embraces the protection and preservation of nature's gifts without
which life cannot be enjoyed and environmental degradation violates the fundamental
right to life.

16. Stockholm Declaration of United Nations on Human Environment evidences this

human anxiety: —

“The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna and
especially representative samples of natural ecosystem, must be safeguarded for the
benefit of present and future generations through careful planning or management, as
appropriate…… Nature conservation including wildlife must therefore receive
importance in planning for economic development.”

17. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone, (AIR 1981 SC 711) it has been observed as
follows:
 “Rivers, forests, minerals and such other resources constitute a nation's natural wealth.
These resources are not to be frittered away and exhausted by any one generation.
Every generation owes a duty to all succeeding generations to develop and conserve
the natural resources of the nation in the best possible way. It is in the interest of
mankind. It is in the interest of the nation.”

18. A decade ago there was a big Earth Summit in Rio de Jeneiro. A publication from
UNESCO offered the following vision of the future.

“Every generation should leave water, air and soil resources as pure and
unpolluted as when it came to earth. Each generation should leave undiminished
all the species of minerals it found existing on earth.

2019 SCC OnLine Mad 19400: (2019) 1 CWC 852

In the High Court of Madras

(BEFORE M. VENUGOPAL AND S. VAIDYANATHAN, JJ.)

A. Soundararajan … Petitioner;

Versus

Secretary to the Government and Others … Respondents.

22. It is needless to point out that if any negligence/laissez-faire attitude/inaction is shown by the
Officers, who are specially deputed for this task, the Government is entitled to take suitable
disciplinary action against them for dereliction of duties and those Officials may be placed under
suspension and necessary punishments may be imposed for their
misdemeanor/deviant/misconduct, dereliction of duty, lack of devotion to work, lack of integrity
so as to deprive their entire terminal benefits, which will be an eye opener for others. Similar is
the case with I.A.S. and I.P.S. Officers, who may be stripped off from these posts and they be
posted in in-sensitive posts.

Facts in brief:

i) The Petitioner, who is a retired Additional Superintendent of Police, espousing the

cause of Villagers, has submitted that in order to protect natural resources like
rivers, ground water and agriculture in general, the excavation of sand in
Cheyyar River at Vinnamangalam, Mottur, Randam and Gangapuram Villages,
 Arni and Chetpet Taluks, Thiruvannamalai District should be banned and action
should be initiated against the illegal miners;

ii) It was further submitted that the Cheyyar River, which is a tributary of Palar River,
is a seasonal river running through the Thiruvannamalai District before emptying
into the Bay of Bengal and the river that is the major source of irrigation for
several villages, including the towns of Cheyyar and Vandavasi along its Bank,
receives most of its water from the Northeast and Southwest monsoons;

iii) The Petitioner has stated that the ancient name of Cheyyaru River is Sei Aaru
(Child River) meaning that the river is created for a child to play and the said
River is believed to be a Holy River in Cheyyar and its surrounding villages. The
Villagers, including the Petitioner have been eking out their livelihood
out of agriculture for several years and the petitioner's family has donated three
acres of land and cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the purpose of starting a High School
in the Village;

iv) The Petitioner has also stated that Cheyyar River quenches
thirst of villagers of that area by providing drinking water to the integrated
Drinking Water Project supplemented by the bore well in the Cheyyar River. That
being the state, unrestrained illicit sand mining and indiscriminate
sand quarrying in Cheyyar River caused irreparable loss and damage to the
natural resources, as a result of which, the bore well became dry and saline;

v) The Petitioner submitted that though he had sent a representation dated

12.03.2015, followed by repeated reminders dated 03.03.2016 and 13.11.2016 to
the Respondents 7, 9 and 12 in addition to sending an email to the 7 th respondent
on 07.07.2016 to take action for stopping illegal sand mining, his representation
did not evoke any response. At last, the 7 th Responent responded to one of his
representation, by directing the 12 th Respondent to constitute a Task Force to
curb the illicity quarrying
 017 SCC OnLine Bom 234 : (2017) 2 Bom CR 734 : (2017) 2 AIR Bom
R 759 J 2

In the High Court of Bombay

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

(BEFORE MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. AND M.S. SONAK, J.)

Writ Petition No. 6620 of 2012

Genba Laxman Pawagi .…. Petitioner

v.

State of Maharashtra & ors. .…. Respondents

With

Writ Petition No. 6621 of 2012

52. In Bhusawal Municipal Council (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the

context of court, acquisition of lands by the State and the consequent delay in
payment of compensation has held that the judicial process of the court cannot subvert
justice for the reason that the court exercises its jurisdiction only in furtherance of the
justice. The State/authority often drags “poor uprooted claimants” even for payment of a
paltry amount up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wasting the public money in such
luxury litigation without realising that the poor people cannot afford the exorbitant
costs of litigation and, unfortunately, no superior officer of the State is accountable for
such unreasonable conduct. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs 17 to 21 has
observed thus:
 “10. … A blinkered vision of development, complete apathy towards those
who are highly adversely affected by the development process and a cynical
unconcern for the enforcement of the laws lead to a situation where the rights
and benefits promised and guaranteed under the Constitution hardly ever
reach the most marginalised citizens

the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India In this

case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with a situation of drought which
has affected almost 1/3rd population of the country. In a detailed judgment,
considering various legislations and constitutional provisions the Supreme Court
after quoting Lokmanya Tilak “the problem is not lack of resources or capability,
but the lack of will”, has ruled that it is the duty of the State to create
circumstances so as to enable drought affected persons to live a
life of dignity as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The
Supreme Court has decried the attitude of the State Authorities in even
acknowledging the existence of the problem. The Supreme Court has
observed that sometimes, the cause of the problem is bureaucratic inactivity
and apathy; sometimes executive excesses that cause the problem and
sometimes the problem is caused by the ostrich-like reaction of the executive.
In such a situation, it is the duty of the court to intervene, even though, such
intervention are often pejoratively and unfortunately described as judicial
activism.

58. Taking into consideration the established violation by the State

Authorities of the petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution, not to mention the gross dereliction on the part of the State Authorities
in complying with their statutory and constitutional obligations to the petitioners, we
are of the opinion that this is a fit case to award to the petitioners compensation. The
basic facts in the present case, are really not in dispute. Some minor and
inconsequential disputes attempted to be created by the State Authorities quite
belatedly (i.e. after this court vide order dated 8 December 2015 directed
payment of compensation and such direction was not stayed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in its order dated 12 February 2016) cannot deflect the
jurisdiction of this court to award compensation to the petitioners as a public law
 remedy, now that the infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioners is
established. There is really no merit in the contention of the State Authorities that the
unreasonable delay in providing water supply and irrigation facility to the lands
allotted to the petitioners after they were ousted from the affected zone on
account of submergence of their lands and houses, was for any genuine causes,
beyond the control or contemplation of the State Authorities.

68. In this case, even if we were to proceed on the basis that the State Authorities
discharge sovereign functions when it comes to construction of dams and irrigation
projects, we must note that the facts and circumstances as emerge from the record
clearly establish that there is dereliction of duty on the part of the State Authorities not
merely in the matter of compliance with the provisions of the statute, but also, in the
matter of compliance with constitutional obligations. The material on record, clearly
establishes that the State Authorities, on account of apathy, lethargy and insensitivity
have violated the petitioners' fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. In the situation of this nature, therefore, there is no
question of upholding the State's plea of “sovereign immunity” based mainly upon the
decision in Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain (supra).

69. In Nilabati Behera alieas Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa38 the Supreme Court

has distinguished its decision in Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain (supra) upholding the State's
plea of sovereign immunity for tortious acts of its servants is confined to the
sphere of liability in tort, which is distinct from the State's liability for
contravention of fundamental rights to which the doctrine of sovereign immunity has no
application. In the constitutional scheme, sovereign immunity is no defence to the
constitutional remedies under Articles 32 and 226 which enables the
award of compensation for contravention of fundamental rights.

70. In State of A.P. v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy39, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

considered in great details the legal validity of the defence of sovereign immunity where
the State is alleged to have infringed fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution and concluded in no uncertain terms that such a defence based
upon sovereign immunity is wholly inapplicable. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that such a defence, based upon the old English Maxim that the King can do no
wrong has undergone a change in England itself with the enactment of the Crown
Proceedings Act, 1947. Even the Crown in England therefore, does not enjoy absolute
immunity and may be held vicariously liable for the tortuous acts of its officers and
servants. The maxim that King can do no wrong or that the Crown is not answerable in
tort has no place in Indian jurisprudence where the power vests, not in the Crown, but in
the people who elect their representatives to run the Government, which has to act in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and would be answerable to the
people for any violation thereof. The right to life is one of the basic human right. It is
guaranteed to every person by Article 21 of the Constitution and not even the State has
the authority to violate that right. The fundamental rights, which also includes basic
human rights continue to be available even to a prisoner and those rights cannot be
defeated by the pleadings the old and archiac defence of immunity in
respect of sovereign acts which has been rejected several times by this Court. Finally,
by reference to its decision in Common Cause, A Registered
Society v. Union of India40 - (1999) 6 SCC 667, in which the entire history in relation to
the doctrine of sovereign immunity was considered beginning from the time of East
India Company and up to the stage of the enactment of Constitution of India, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “In this process of judicial advancement, Kasturi
Lal's case has paled into insignificance and is no longer of any binding value”.

71. In N. Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P.41, in the context of the doctrine of sovereign

immunity, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no civilized system can permit an
executive to play with the people of its country and claim that it is entitled to act in any
manner as it is sovereign. The concept of public interest has changed with the structural
change in the society No legal or political system today can place the State above the
law as it is unjust and unfair for a citizen to be deprived of its property illegally by
negligent acts of the officers of the State without any remedy. From sincerity, efficiency
and dignity of State as a juristic person, propounded in the 19 th Century as a sound
sociological basis for State immunity, the circle has gone round and the emphasis now
is more on liberty, equality and the rule of law. The modern social
thinking of progressive society and the judicial approach is to do away with the archiac
State protection and place the State or the Government on par with any other juristic
legal entity. The movement now is from “State irresponsibility to state responsibility”

72. As noted earlier, this is not a fit case to relegate the petitioners to the ordinary
remedy of instituting suits against the State Authorities now that the infringement of their
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution is established. It is even
otherwise well settled that a constitutional court is vested with the jurisdiction to award
compensation, particularly where such award is consequential upon the
deprivation of fundamental right of the petitioners. In Rudul Sah (supra), the petitioner
upon establishing that his detention had violated his fundamental rights applied to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court for compensation in the petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 10 and 12
observed thus:

“10. We cannot resist this argument. We see no effective answer to it save the
stale and sterile objection that the petitioner may, if so advised, file a suit to recover
damages from the State Government. Happily, the State's counsel has not raised
that objection. The petitioner could have been relegated to the ordinary remedy of a
suit if his claim to compensation was factually controversial, in the sense that a civil
court may or may not have upheld his claim. But we have no doubt that if the
petitioner files a suit to recover damages for his illegal detention, a decree for
damages would have to be passed in that suit, though it is not possible to predicate,
in the absence of evidence, the precise amount which would be decreed in his
favour. In these circumstances, the refusal of this Court to pass an
order of compensation in favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lip-
service to his fundamental right to liberty which the State Government has so
grossly violated. Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be
denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to
passing orders of release from illegal detention. One of the telling ways in
which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance
with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the
payment of monetary compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant
infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method
open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to compensation is some palliative for
the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest
and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. If
civilisation is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well
known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that,
respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the
State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's rights. It may
have recourse against those officers.

….. ….12. This order will not preclude the petitioner from bringing a suit to
recover appropriate damages from the State and its erring officials. The order or
compensation passed by us is, as we said above, in the nature of a palliative. We
cannot leave the petitioner penniless until the end of his suit, the many appeals and
the execution proceedings. A full-dressed debate on the nice points of fact and law
 which takes place leisurely in compensation suits will have to await the filing of such
a suit by the poor Rudul Sah. The Leviathan will have liberty to raise those points in
that suit. Until then, we hope, there will be no more Rudul Sahs in Bihar or
elsewhere.”

This extract is taken from State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517 at

page 527
12. Section 3(e) of the Act defines “minor minerals” as building stones, gravel,
ordinary clay, ordinary sand (other than sand used for prescribed purposes), and
any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral. Section 4 requires the mining operations to
be done under leases granted under the Act and the Rules made thereunder.
Section 4-A deals with termination of mining leases. While sub-section (1) enables
the Central Government to request the State Government to terminate a mining
lease in respect of any mineral other than a minor mineral in the circumstances
stated therein, sub-section (2) enables the State Government to make premature
termination of mining lease in regard to minor minerals. We extract below sub-
sections (2) and (3) of Section 4-A which are relevant for our purpose:
“4-A. (2) Where the State Government is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest
of regulation of mines and mineral development, preservation of natural environment,
control of floods, prevention of pollution or to avoid danger to public health or
communications or to ensure safety of buildings, monuments or other structures or for
such other purposes, as the State Government may deem fit, it may, by an order, in respect
of any minor mineral, make premature termination of a prospecting licence or mining
lease with respect to the area or any part thereof covered by such licence or lease:
***
(3) No order making a premature termination of a prospecting licence or mining
lease shall be made except after giving the holder of the licence or lease a
reasonable opportunity of being heard.”
(emphasis supplied)
 2020 SCC OnLine NGT 734

In the National Green Tribunal

(BEFORE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER)

R. Govindarasu … Applicant(s);

Versus

Mani Omega Granites Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Chairman, No. 2,/140 A, Mankuttaikadu,
Morur Post, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. (Amended as per order of the
Tribunal Dated 05.10.2017 made in M.A. No. 166 of 2017) and Others … Respondent(s).

Original Application No. 97 of 2017(SZ)

Decided on February 19, 2020

The grievance in this application is regarding the illegal operation of quarry by

the first respondent. It is alleged in the application that the first respondent is
conducting a quarry since 2013. The total extent of the quarry is 1.83 hectares.
Mining lease was obtained for a period of 20 years from 25.05.2011 to 24.05.2031
in Survey No. 60.2 for an extent of 30 cents, Survey No. 59.8B for an extent of 39
cents and for Survey No. 61.3A for an extent of 17 cents vide G.O. 3(D) No. 25
Industries (MMB-1) Department, dated 23.02.2011. He has not obtained
Environmental Clearance (EC) for the said quarry as required under EIA Notification
2006 as it has been classified as B2 category requiring Environmental Clearance
(EC) prior to commencement of the quarrying activity. He has also not prepared any
Environment Management Plan. Large scale pollution is being caused on account of
the operation of the unit. People are finding it very difficult to live in that area.
Though, several complaints have been made to several departments, no action has
been taken. So, the applicant filed the present application seeking the following
reliefs:

“(a) An order of permanent injunction restraining the 1 st  Respondent from carrying
on the  illegal  quarrying  activity at Survey Numbers 59.8, 59.8.B 60.2, 61.3A, 61.3
B Anathapuram village, Villupuram District. Amended to include the following
Survey numbers:

SF Numbers 12/1(part) 0.23.0. Hectares

12/3. (Part) (0.03.0) Hectares

 12/4.(Part) (0.15.0) Hectares

12/5.(Part) (0.01.0) Hectares

12/6.(Part) (0.16.0) Hectares

12/7.(Part) (0.16.0) Hectares

12/8.(Part) (0.20.0) Hectares of  Vengamur village and

S. Nos. 59/7B part 0.19 Hectares.

59/8B. (Part) 0.23.0. Hectares

60/2 (0.30.0) Hectares

61/3A1 (0.17.5.) Hectares of Anumanthapuram village,

Vikkaravandi Taluk, Villupuram District.

(Amended as per order of the Tribunal dated 5.10.2017 and made in M.A
No. 165/2017)

(b)  Compensation  of Rs. 12 Lakhs together with punitive damages to be fixed by this
Hon'ble Tribunal together with interest @12% p.a to the Applicant provisionally
estimated for the injury suffered by Applicant's family

(c)  Compensation  for loss of revenue suffered by the Applicant due to

the  illegal  quarrying  of granite from the Applicant's family land

(d) An order directing the 1st  Respondent to take the necessary measures for the
rehabilitation and restoration of the Applicant's lands.”

 Since, the first respondent has already obtained Environmental Clearance and necessary
consent to operate, there is no legal impediment for the first respondent to proceed with
the quarrying operations in accordance with law. However, they are bound to comply with
the conditions mentioned in the Environmental Clearance and consent and keep
the pollution norms intact and conduct the quarry without causing any pollution and
environmental hazards to others. Though there was a claim for damages made by the
applicant on account of the operation of the quarry, stating environmental damage has
been caused to his property and claimed Rs. 12 lakhs as compensation, there was no
material available before this Tribunal to assess the compensation.
 11. So, under such circumstances, we feel it appropriate to dispose of the
application as follows:

(1) The first respondent is at liberty to start quarry operation if he has complied
with necessary conditions imposed by the Pollution Control Board and the
Environmental Clearance in carrying out the quarry operations in this
property.

(2) The first respondent is bound to comply with the conditions imposed in the
Environmental Clearance and consent to operate and also take all necessary
steps to suppress the possible pollution that is likely to be caused on account
of the operation of the quarry by taking all necessary precautions and also
providing pollution control mechanism while operating the quarry.

(3) The Pollution Control Board is directed to make periodical inspection of the

unit while in operation and take necessary action against the first respondent
if there is any violation found in accordance with law.

(4) Since there is no material available for assessing compensation, we are

declining the relief of compensation to the applicant as he was not present to
prosecute the matter as well.

This extract is taken from A. Citizen v. District Collector, R.R. Dist., 1997 SCC
OnLine AP 791 : (1998) 4 ALD 389 : (1998) 1 An WR 478 at page 396
21. The Supreme Court proceeded further and observed:
“When the Court is called upon to give effect to the Directive Principle and the
fundamental duty, the Court is not to shrug its shoulders and say that priorities
are a matter of policy and so it is a matter for the policy-making authority.»
This extract is taken from A. Citizen v. District Collector, R.R. Dist., 1997 SCC
OnLine AP 791 : (1998) 4 ALD 389 : (1998) 1 An WR 478 at page 396
20. In Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (1987) 2 SCC 295 : AIR 1987
SC 1109, the Supreme Court expressing its deep concern over deteriorating
ecological unbalance leading to health hazards, observed:
“Today society's interaction with nature is so extensive that the environmental
question has assumed proportions affecting all humanity. Industrialisation,
urbanisation, explosion of population, over-exploitation of resources, depletion
of traditional sources of energy and raw; materials and the search for new
 sources of energy and raw materials, the disruption of natural ecological
balances, the destruction of a multitude of animal and plant species for
economic reasons and sometimes for no good reasons at all are factors which
have contributed to environmental deterioration.”
This extract is taken from A. Citizen v. District Collector, R.R. Dist., 1997 SCC
OnLine AP 791 : (1998) 4 ALD 389 : (1998) 1 An WR 478 at page 397
24. The more exhortive message is found in State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone,
(1981) 2 SCC 205 : AIR 1981 SC 711.
“Rivers, Forests, Minerals and such other resources constitute a nation's natural
wealth. These resources are not to be frittered away and exhausted by any one
generation. Every generation owes a duty to all succeeding generations to
develop and conserve the natural resources of the nation in the best possible
way. It is in the interest of the Nation.”
This extract is taken from A. Citizen v. District Collector, R.R. Dist., 1997 SCC
OnLine AP 791 : (1998) 4 ALD 389 : (1998) 1 An WR 478 at page 397
26. The entire medley of decisions of the Apex Court point out one direction i.e.,
erratic, irrational and uncontrolled quarrying leading to environment deterioration
is deplorable, nay intolerable. No doubt industries are necessary-concomitant for
economic growth of a country, but at the same time safety cannot be overlooked.
While balancing the competing interests due regard must be had on the affects of
unabated pollution on the community, economic interest of the country and the
employment potential of the workers at large. In such circumstances, Courts should
adopt a method which is more hannoneous in approach with little or less
sufferance to one or the other. Environment cannot be allowed to suffer and the
stone crushing operations cannot be allowed to cause dust pollution and create
health hazards to the residents in the locality. Crushing operations in the vicinity of
the residential localities emit dust which causes serious respiratory problem to the
inhabitants. It is common knowledge that dust particles are carried by air, travel
land distance. However, as this Court has no expertise to find out to what extent air
pollution is caused and what remedial measures should be adopted in such
circumstances, an expert Committee was appointed which has already submitted
its report. The expert Committee consisting of members who have adequate
knowledge on environment pollution, discloses that there are in all 11 stone
crushing units in the area at three different locations. The stone crushers are
engaged in crushing granite stone to sizes ranging from 6 to 40 mm. useful for
construction of buildings as well as road metal. All the units are adopting the same
technology, using jaw crushers and vibratory, rotary screens for purposes of
crushing, and they are causing dust emission due to crushing operations, as they
have not taken any pollution control measures recommended by the State
Pollution Control Board. The fine dust emitted is more hazardous as it contains
approximately 85-90% silica, and high content of silica and its fineness less than 10
ug, causes disease called silicosis. It is further seen that silicosis is a pulmonary
fibrosis caused by inhalation of dust containing free silica. It is more severe of all
pneumoconiosis. The GLSR of HMWW & SB has a capacity of 12 million Lts and is
built on a hillock with cement concrete tank with top cover. Respondent No. 13 is
located at a distance of 60 metres from GLSR. In addition to respondent No. 13, the
Committee of experts noticed three stone crushers viz., respondents 10, 11 and 13
with attached quarries (operated by respondents 9, 12 and 14) at Kokapet area at a
distance of 1 km from GLSR. Of course respondent No. 15 is also seen operating in
the same area as per the report of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology.
Regarding air quality, the report indicates as follows:
“Ambient Air Quality Monitoring was conducted at 40 mts. away from Modem
Stone Crusher, which is very close to GLSR (50 Mts.) and the concentration of
Suspended Particulate Matter was found to be 4196 ug/m3 against the
permissible value of 600 ug/m3. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring was also carried
out at Khanapur (V) and Kokapet (V) which are the nearest villages to the
quarries and stone crushers located at GLSR. Concentration of SPM recorded at
these two villages are 213/69ug/m3 (day/night) and 114/108ug/m3 respectively
against the permissible value of 200 ug/m3.”