Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) recently took a strong stand condemning the rampant illegal sand mining in the Dhasan River, Jhansi district in Uttar Pradesh. The tribunal highlighted widespread violations of Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions by the project proponent (PP).

The bench of NGT chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava, along with Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi and expert member Dr A Senthil Vel, while acknowledging the violated EC conditions, noted that the reply filed by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Uttar Pradesh in respect of the non-compliance of the conditions was evasive in nature.

The tribunal further observed that the District Magistrate of Jhansi had not provided a written response to the issues raised in the instant original application (OA). As a result of this failure, the tribunal-imposed costs on the (SEIAA) and the District Magistrate.

In order to determine the extent of illegal mining in violation of environmental clearance conditions, the Tribunal formed a joint committee and directed the committee to collect comprehensive information regarding the mining and submit the report accordingly

According to the joint committee report, it was revealed that out of 76 Specific Conditions of the Environmental Clearance (EC) and 48 General Conditions, 38 conditions were found to be "not complied with," 17 were "partially complied with," and 48 were "in compliance."

As a result, it was clearly noted that there was significant non-compliance with the majority of the Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions by the Project Proponent (PP).

Non-compliance of Environment Clearance conditions

It was found that a borewell in the mine office, located 100 to 200 meters from the lease area, is operating without permission. Additionally, it was revealed that PP had not prepared a rejuvenation and management plan for water bodies in consultation with the District Environment Authority. The Project Authorities (PAs) have also failed to establish a separate Environmental Management Cell (EMC) with suitably qualified personnel

The project proponent had not installed solar light systems in the lease area or mine office and also failed to explore the possibilities of rainwater harvesting.

However, the compliance report filed by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB), which should have been filed by the Member Secretary, stated that there were no violations of Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions.

The Member Secretary, who appeared virtually, claimed that the report was filed on his instructions. The tribunal further noted that, as a regulatory body, the UPPCB should have approached the matter with greater seriousness, especially in addressing violations of environmental norms.

Advocate Akash Vashishtha, representing the Applicant, pointed out that the Project Proponent (PP) was required to submit a new annual replenishment study to SEIAA, UP. However, the PP did not provide this report for a long time and continued with mining operations.

''The authorities have committed a serious lapse in not taking action against the PP even though there was a gross violation of Specific and General EC conditions'' Advocate Akash was quoted as saying.

In response, the Counsel for the PP submitted that the mining work had stopped already and would not be resumed, while the matter remains sub judice before the Tribunal.

The tribunal finally directed SEIAA, UP, and UPPCB to take lawful action against the PP according to the principles of natural justice and that they are required to submit a further action report in the form of an affidavit within one week before the next hearing date.