Allahabad High Court
M/S Shyam Enterprises Through Its ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 20 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76529-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9308 of 2024
Petitioner :- M/S Shyam Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Gopal Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Geology And Mining Lko And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yugal Kishor Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Sri A.K.Verma, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.4.
2. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.07.2024 whereby the Environment Clearance Certificate dated 19.11.2019 for excavation of sand over gata no. 286, measuring 25.0566 hectares, situated in village Katari Pariyar, District Unnao issued in favour of the petitioner-M/S Shyam Enterprises, valid for a period of 5 years from the date of mining lease, has been cancelled.
3. The writ petition further assails the order dated 19.09.2024 whereby mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner for the aforesaid project has also been cancelled besides blacklisting the petitioner for the alleged violations of the conditions of the mining lease agreement.
4. Insofar as challenge to the order dated 29.07.2024 whereby Environment Clearance has been cancelled, is concerned, shorn of unnecessary facts, we may precisely mention that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.06.2024 pointing out some violations on the basis of which the petitioner was required to submit his explanation as against the proposed action.
5. On a careful reading of the notice dated 14.06.2024 we gather that the very notice is essentially based on an inspection report dated 01.07.2023 wherein some violations were said to have been noticed by the Inspection Team and it is on this premise that the petitioner was put to a notice to file his reply.
6. On a pointed query to learned Standing Counsel as regards the service of inspection report dated 01.07.2023 alongwith the show cause notice dated 14.06.2024 to the petitioner, it has come out that no such report was communicated to the petitioner either alongwith the show cause or prior thereto. The report dated 01.07.2023 on being summoned by order dated 19.11.2024 has been placed before us and the same is taken on record. The report dated 01.07.2023 is extracted hereunder:-
"मै० श्याम इण्टरप्राइजेज गाटा नं0 286, ग्राम-कटरी परियर, तहसील व जनपद-उन्नाव के विरुद्ध कार्यालय जिलाधिकारी, उन्नाव के पत्रांक 257/ खनिज विभाग/2023-24 दिनांक 30.06.2023 की प्राप्त प्रति में दिये निर्देश के अनुपालन में पट्टेदार द्वारा पर्यावरण स्वच्छता प्रमाण-पत्र की शर्तों का उल्लंघन किये जाने पर कार्यवाही किये जाने के संबंधी निरीक्षण आख्या।
उपरोक्त संदर्भित बालू खनन पट्टा इकाई मै० श्याम इण्टरप्राइजेज गाटा नं० 286, ग्राम-कटरी परियर, तहसील व जनपद-उन्नाव के विरुद्ध कार्यालय जिलाधिकारी, उन्नाव के पत्रांक 257/ खनिज विभाग/2023-24 दिनांक 30.06.2023 द्वारा दिये गये निर्देश के अनुपालन में उक्त इकाई खनन क्षेत्र का निरीक्षण कार्यालय के आदेश सं० 220/सहमति-2229/2023 दिनांक 26.06.2023 के माध्यम से गठित समिति द्वारा दिनांक 01.07.2023 को किया गया। निरीक्षण के समय श्री गोपाल पाण्डेय, प्रोपराइटर उपस्थित थे। निरीक्षण आख्या निम्नवत् है - :-
1. निरीक्षण के समय बालू खनन क्षेत्र में अत्यधिक वर्षा का जल भराव होने के कारण खनन क्षेत्र की पैमाइस संबंधी सत्यापन किया जाना सभव नहीं हो सका।
2. बालू खनन परियोजना को पर्यावरण, वन एवं जलवायु परिवर्तन मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार, नई दिल्ली द्वारा जारी अधिसूचना सं० 1533 दिनांक 14.09.2006 के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत आच्छादित खनन क्षेत्र को नियमानुसार स्टेट इन्वार्यनमेन्टल इम्पेक्ट अससेमेन्ट अथारिटी (SEIAA) के पत्र पत्रांक 348/पर्या/ सिया/4574/2019 दिनाक 19.11.2019 के माध्यम से पर्यावरणीय स्वीकृति जारी है तथा राज्य बोर्ड द्वारा जल (प्रदूषण निवारण तथा नियंत्रण) अधिनियम 1974 यथासंशोधित एवं वायु (प्रदूषण निवारण तथा नियंत्रण) अधिनियम 1981 यथासंशोधित के अन्तर्गत खनन इकाई के संचालन हेतु बोर्ड मुख्यालय स्तर से पत्र दिनांक 11.03.2022 द्वारा सहमति (जल/वायु) प्रदान की गई है, जिसकी वैधता अवधि दिनांक 31.12. 2023 तक है।
3. कार्यालय जिलाधिकारी, उन्नाव के पत्रांक 257/ खनिज विभाग/2023-24 दिनांक 30.06.2023 के अनुसार दिनांक 29-30 मई 2023 की मध्य रात्रि को उपजिलाधिकारी, सदर, उन्नाव द्वारा औचक निरीक्षण के दौरान गंगा नदी की जल धारा के मध्य 02 पोकलैण्ड मशीनों द्वारा स्वीकृत क्षेत्र से बाहर लगभग 1500 घ०मी० अवैध बालू का भण्डारित पाया गया। दोनों मशीनें जलधारा एवं रूके हुये पानी के मध्य बालू के ऊँचे टीले को समेट कर इकट्ठा कर रही थीं। दोनों पोकलेण्ड मशीनें मौजूदा समय में स्वीकृत खनन पट्टा क्षेत्र के अन्दर ही कार्य कर रही थी, जो कि राज्य स्तरीय पर्यावरणीय प्रभाव मूल्यांकन समिति उ०प्र० द्वारा पत्रांक 348/पर्या/सिया/4574/2019 दिनांक 19.11.2019 द्वारा जारी पर्यावरणीय स्वच्छता प्रमाण पत्र की शर्तों का उल्लंघन है।
4. उक्त पत्र के अनुसार खनन इकाई द्वारा उक्त पर्यावरण स्वच्छता प्रमाण पत्र में वर्णित शर्तों में से निम्न
शर्तों का उल्लंघन पाया गया।
सामान्य शर्तें:-
बिन्दु संख्या-5 mining and loading shall be done only within day hours time.
बिन्दु संख्या-13 it shall be ensured that mining operation of sand/moram will not in any way disturb the, velocity and flow pattern of the river water significantly.
बिन्दु संख्या-14 it shall be ensured that there is no fauna dependent on the river bed or areas close to mining for its nesting a report on the same. Vetted by the competent authority shall be submitted to the RO. PCB. and SEIAA within 02 months.
विशिष्ट शर्तें:-
बिन्दु संख्या-4 No green develop in mining area.
बिन्दु संख्या-5 No mining activity should be carried out in stream channel as per SSMG 2016
बिन्दु संख्या-6 No Pakka Motorable haul road maintained by P.P.
4. निरीक्षण के समय सहमति (वायु) आदेश की निम्न शर्तों का अनुपालन होता नहीं पाया गया:-
* कार्यालय जिलाधिकारी, उन्नाव के पत्र दिनाक 30.06.2023 के अनुसार बालू खनन परियोजना द्वारा जिलाधिकारी, उन्नाव द्वारा जारी कन्सेन्ट लेटर (LOI) दिनांक 18.10.2022 की शर्तों का अनुपालन होता नहीं पाया गया। (शर्त सं०-4)
* बालू खनन परियोजना द्वारा वायु / डस्ट उत्सर्जन की रोकथाम हेतु वाटर स्प्रिंकलर आदि व्यवस्था स्थापित नहीं पायी गयी तथा बालू खनन के दौरान डस्ट उत्सर्जन स्रोतों, लोडिंग-अनलोडिंग तथा परिवहन में प्रयुक्त वाहनों के आवागमन से जनित धूल के नियंत्रण हेतु टैंकर के माध्यम से पानी छिड़काव की व्यवस्था नहीं पायी गया। (शर्त सं०-5 एवं 6)
* बालू खनन परियोजना द्वारा परिवेशीय वायुगुणता संबंधी मानीटरिंग रिपोर्ट मान्यता प्राप्त प्रयोगशाला से कराकर राज्य बोर्ड में प्रेषित नहीं की गयी है। (शर्त सं०-8)
* खनन परियोजना द्वारा खनन एरिया एवं उसके उसके आस-पास वृक्षारोपण नहीं किया गया है।
(शर्त सं०-3बी)
5. जिलाधिकारी, उन्नाव के पत्रांक 257/ खनिज विभाग/2023-24 दिनांक 30.06.2023 द्वारा संबंधित खनन इकाई को स्वीकृत खनन पट्टा विलेख दिनांक 18.12.2019 को तत्काल प्रभाव से निलंबित कर दिया गया है। वर्तमान में बालू खनन परियोजना को जारी खनन पट्टा विलेख विधिमान्य नहीं है।
उपरोक्त तथ्यों के दृष्टिगत खनन इकाई को स्वीकृत खनन पट्टा विलेख दिनांक 18.12.2019 को तत्काल प्रभाव से निलंबित कर दिये जाने बालू खनन इकाई द्वारा खनन नियमों/आदेशों तथा पट्टा विलेख की शर्तों का उल्लंघन तथा सहमति वायु की शर्तों का उल्लंघन किये जाने के दृष्टिगत खनन परियोजना को उल्लंघन अवधि हेतु पर्यावरणीय क्षतिपूर्ति अधिरोपित किये जाने तथा वायु (प्रदूषण निवारण तथा नियंत्रण) अधिनियम 1981 की धारा 21/22 यथासंशोधित के अन्तर्गत जारी सहमति (वायु) को खनन पट्टा विलेख निलम्बन अवधि तक रिवोक किये जाने की संस्तुति की जाती है। अग्रेतर स्टेट इन्वार्यनमेन्टल इम्पैक्ट अससेमेन्ट अथारिटी (SEIAA) के पत्र पत्रांक 348/पर्या/सिया/4574/2019 दिनांक 19.11.2019 द्वारा जारी पर्यावरणीय स्वीकृति की शर्तों का उल्लंघन किये जाने की दृष्टिगत भी परियोजना के विरुद्ध नियमानुसार अग्रिम आवश्यक कार्यवाही किये जाने की संस्तुति की जाती है।"
7. On a careful reading of the report extracted above, it can be sufficiently gathered that the inspection report placed reliance upon shows seizure of some machines and material by the revenue authorities which have led to an action against the petitioner under the mining laws.
8. We also gather from the inspection report dated 01.07.2023 submitted by the team deputed by the State level Environment Impact Assessment Authority that the team could not discover or record any independent facts for the reasons spelt out in the report itself. The inspection report clearly mentions that due to rainy season, it was impractical for the inspection team to have verified the violations as were indicated by the revenue authorities. The revenue authorities as per the documents available on record had seized some machines and other material which was entrusted to the police authorities for its custody.
9. In this manner the inspection report dated 01.07.2023 lacks independent application of mind on the basis of which the action as was proposed by means of show cause notice dated 14.06.2024 could be resorted.
10. In any case the petitioner faced with the show cause notice dated 14.06.2024 submitted his reply on 20.06.2024.
11. The reply submitted by the petitioner merely mentions about setting aside of the order of cancellation of mining lease by this Court vide judgement dated 06.02.2024 and has not touched upon the allegation of violation empirically. The order passed by this Court had also noticed lack of fair opportunity for which the matter was remitted back to the competent authority.
12. The validity of environment clearance certificate issued by the competent authority, though being co-extensive with the validity period of the mining lease, yet the same is not open to be withdrawn except for the violation of terms and conditions which are a part and parcel of the environment clearance certificate itself. In the present case the violation of the conditions of the environment clearance certificate, namely, general condition nos. 5, 13 and 14 and out of the specific conditions, the conditions nos. 4, 5 and 6 was particularly alleged in the notice.
13. The general and specific conditions of the environment clearance certificate being independent, therefore, an inquiry or inspection by the environmental team ought to have been held independently with due application of mind before issuance of such a notice.
14. In the present case as we have observed herein above, the show cause notice itself was based on the inspection report dated 01.07.2023, as such, the correctness of the show cause notice is to be evaluated on the strength of the inspection report dated 01.07.2023. The inspection report dated 01.07.2023, does not show that any fact finding inspection was conducted by the inspection team as the report itself mentions that the inspection team could not carryout any spot verification on account of the rainy season and the flow of water in river Ganges being at a very high speed.
15. The environmental inspection team has not undergone any further study on the aspect of the seizure of machines or collection of any material by the competent authority having proceeded under the mining laws and no such facts were collected while performing the inspection on 01.07.2023.
16. Thus, a show cause notice on an unfounded premise ought not to have not been issued against the petitioner and even if a show cause notice of this description was issued, yet it does not constitute a reasonable cause for proceeding against the petitioner to cancel the environment clearance certificate. The proceedings for cancellation of environment clearance certificate are separate and an independent act which affects the business activity within the framework of the terms and conditions embodied therein.
17. In this background when the legality of the impugned order contained in annexure no.1 passed on 29.07.2024 is tested, we do not find that apart from the report dated 01.07.2023, there has been any other material before the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority which may justify the impugned action.
18. Once it is observed that the inspection report dated 01.07.2023 was itself a material not worthy of being relied upon, any action based on such a report is clearly illegal uncalled for and cannot be justified within the parameters of law.
19. Accordingly, the cancellation of environment clearance certificate by order dated 29.07.2024 contained in annexure no.1 is hereby set aside and the environment clearance certificate shall stand revived in terms of the conditions as have been incorporated therein.
20. Insofar as the cancellation of mining lease by order dated 19.9.2024 or any other consequential action is concerned, learned Standing Counsel has argued that this part of cause of action has accrued to the petitioner after availing due opportunity in compliance of the judgment/order passed by this Court on 6.2.2024 and the competent authority having empirically gone into the violations attributed against the petitioner especially the seizure of machinery and other material and their entrustment to the police authorities, therefore, the determination of disputed questions of facts are involved.
21. It is also not the case before us that the cancellation of mining lease is solely due to the violation of environmental clearance certificate. The cancellation of mining lease is for a variety of different reasons out of which the withdrawal of environmental clearance is one.
22. The adjudication of contentious questions of facts according to learned Standing Counsel may not lie within the scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the objection as against the maintainability of the writ petition for cancellation of lease and consequential action has been raised.
23. Having regard to the material available on record, we find force in the arguments put-forth by learned Standing Counsel on the maintainability of the writ petition as against the residual cause. This Court while sustaining the objection raised by learned Standing Counsel as to the maintainability of the writ petition for assailing the order dated 19.9.2024, therefore, is not convinced to entertain the writ petition against the same. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy of revision as provided under Rule 80(XXI) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rule, 2021 to which he concedes.
24. In case a revision under the aforesaid provision is instituted by the petitioner before the State Government within a period of ten days from today, the same shall be decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date of its institution.
25. Needless to say that the parties shall be heard by the revisional authority before deciding the proceedings finally.
26. We also clarify that participation of the petitioner in the auction for mining, if any, shall be subject to the institution and outcome of the revision as permitted hereinabove.
27. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is partly allowed.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.)
Order Date :- 20.11.2024
Shahnaz
