The Division Bench also rejected the claim of the appellant that once the environmental clearance was granted, the same would be valid for thirty years based on the subsequent Notification of 2006 in supersession of the Notification dated 27.01.1994.
The second respondent therefore companytended that such illegal mining activity of the appellant was number companytrolled by the first respondent even after the second respondents companymunication dated 30.11.2010.
Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Division Bench, the appellant is before us.
In that companytext, the Division Bench further observed that the purpose and object of the Environment Protection Act and the Rules framed there under must be given its full effect, that if there is numbercheck on the environment hazard at the time of carrying out the mining activities, it companyld lead to degradation of the environment, that carrying out impact assessment within specific period would assist in ascertaining the adverse effect of the project activity which is sought to be pursued by the project proponent, that any activity carried out in respect of specific projects such as mining, requires environmental clearance in order to see that such activities would number result in further degradation of the environment affecting the life of the residents in the locality and therefore the prescription of limited period had a nexus to the grant of environmental clearance.
In paragraph 3 of the said order, the first respondent ultimately deleted the prescription of two years period stipulated in the order dated 25.11.2005.
Having thus numbered the above observations of the Division Bench, we heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior companynsel for the appellant, Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for Goa, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior companynsel for the second respondent and Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General for the first respondent.
The first respondent passed orders on 25.11.2005.
The Impact Assessment Agency shall prepare a set of recommendations based on technical assessment of documents and data, furnished by the project authorities, supplemented by data companylected during visits to sites or factories, if undertaken, and interaction with affected population and environmental groups, if necessary.
These appeals are directed against a Division Bench judgment dated 12.08.2011 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition No.6 of 2011.
After the said order dated 25.11.2005, the first respondent passed its subsequent order dated 18.10.2007, wherein, it was stated that in pursuance of its order dated 25.11.2005, the appellant had filed the report of hydrogeological study on impact of mining on hydrogeology of the mine lease area, that on examination of the said report, it was found that radius of influence due to mine pit dewatering would extend to about 235 meters around the mine pit, that the stage of ground water development is about 4.53 which according to the first respondent was well within the safe limits as per Central Groundwater Board Norms.
Based on the same, a decision regarding companytinuation of mining beyond 2 years or otherwise will be taken.
The said writ petition was moved at the instance of the second respondent herein with a prayer that the appellant was originally granted environmental clearance for the expansion of Saniem Sacorda Iron Ore Mine on 25.11.2005 for two years, that by a subsequent letter dated 18.10.2007 of the first respondent, the two years period to companyduct a higher geological study was deleted, that by virtue of the companyditions stipulated in the Notification dated 27.01.1994 read along with the Notification dated 04.05.1994 such environmental clearance granted in favour of the appellant expired on 25.11.2010 and that in spite of such expiry, the appellant companytinued to indulge in mining operations.
It was also numbered that the results of chemical quality data of both surface water and groundwater as well as mine pit water indicated numbercontamination due to mining operations.
The Division Bench of the High Court having made a detailed analysis of the grievance of the second respondent as a local resident, the relevant provisions of the Statute as well as the Environment Impact Assessment EIA Notification dated 27.01.1994, took the view that the clearance granted in favour of the appellant in the order dated 25.11.2005 for the expansion of Saniem Sacorda Iron Ore Mine was initially for a period of two years as per the EIA Notification of 1994 and that such clearance can be valid only for a period of five years as is stipulated in the EIA Notifications and the relevant Rules.
We find that the appellant applied for environmental clearance for expansion of Saniem Sacorda Iron Ore Mine falling within Tehsil Sariguem, District South Goa in the Union Territory of Goa, in its application dated 15.03.2005, followed by subsequent letters dated 28.04.2005 and 16.08.2005.
It was in the above stated background, that the second respondent moved the High Court as a local resident alleging that having regard to the EIA Notification dated 27.01.1994 as amended by subsequent Notification dated 04.05.1994, the environmental clearance granted in favour of the appellant was valid only for a period of five years from the date of companymencement and companysequently the five years period having expired on 25.11.2010, further mining operations of the appellant in the above referred to mine by way of expansion was in violation of the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, the EIA Notifications and the relevant Rules.
It was on the above said basis, the second respondent prayed for the issuance of the mandamus directing the first respondent to stop the operation of Saniem Sacorda Iron Ore Mine of the appellant and also direct for payment of companypensation for having caused environmental damage.
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. Delay companydoned.
Leave granted in SLP C /2016 CC No.20925 of 2012.
In other words, the order dated 18.10.2007 was a cryptic one without giving due regard to the various salient features companycerning the environment protection and the interest of the public at large, while granting such clearance and allowing the clearance granted earlier to be valid beyond the initial period of two years and also without specifying as to the other terms and companyditions to be companyplied with.
While companysidering the question whether the validity of the environmental clearance granted in favour of the appellant would be limited for a period of five years or more, the Division Bench made a reference to Para 2 III c of the EIA Notification of 1994 wherein it was stipulated that clearance granted would be valid for a period of five years from the companymencement of the companystruction or operation of the projects, that such prescription of the period has got a nexus to the environment protection.
The proponent shall within 2 years companyduct a detailed hydrogeological study quality and quantity on impact of mining on hydrogeology pre monsoon, monsoon and post monsoon and furnish a detailed report on the same to the Ministry.
