Supreme Court Upholds Revocation of Environmental Clearance for Mining: Department of Mines & Geology vs. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (2019)

Date of the Judgment: November 18, 2019

The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addressed a critical issue regarding the veracity of information provided for obtaining environmental clearances for mining projects. Can an environmental clearance be revoked if it is later found that the facts presented in the application do not align with the actual ground situation? This case highlights the importance of accurate information in environmental assessments and the consequences of misrepresentation. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

The Department of Mines & Geology, State of Punjab (Appellant), applied for environmental clearance to mine minor minerals (sand) in an area of 12.96 hectares in the riverbed of the Satluj River. The application included documents like Form-I, a pre-feasibility report, proof of land ownership, an approved mining plan, a No Objection Certificate from the District Forest Officer, a final District Survey Report, and an environmental management plan.

The State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) granted environmental clearance on May 3, 2017, subject to certain conditions. Subsequently, the Appellant intended to auction 102 minor mineral mines and applied to the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Punjab (Respondent), for the transfer of environmental clearances to the successful bidders.

During the review of the application for transfer of environmental clearance, the Respondent found discrepancies. Many of the Khasra numbers (land survey numbers) were located within the stream, contrary to the initial application, which stated that all Khasra numbers were in the riverbed, away from the active channel. Additionally, some Khasra numbers were found to be in agricultural land, suggesting that replenishment of mined material might not occur.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Following the discrepancies found by the Respondent, a show-cause notice was issued to the Appellant, asking why the environmental clearance should not be revoked. The Appellant submitted an explanation, which the Respondent considered before revoking the environmental clearance on April 9, 2018. The Appellant then filed appeals before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which were dismissed. The NGT upheld the revocation, noting that it was based on a spot inspection report by a committee constituted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon. The committee’s report confirmed that much of the land was under flood protection structures and some was under private cultivation, contradicting the Appellant’s initial claims. The Tribunal also dismissed the Review Application filed by the Appellant.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the Environment Impact Assessment Notification of September 14, 2006 (referred to as ‘the EIA Notification’). This notification outlines the procedure for obtaining environmental clearances for various projects, including mining. The notification mandates that project proponents provide accurate information and adhere to the conditions specified in the clearance. The case also involves the interpretation of the obligations of the project proponent to provide accurate information and the powers of the environmental authorities to revoke clearances if the information is found to be false or misleading.

Arguments

The Appellant’s main argument was that the environmental clearance should not have been revoked.

• The Appellant contended that the initial application for environmental clearance was based on the understanding that the mining area was part of the river bed of the Satluj and that the excavated material would be replenished every monsoon season.
• They argued that the discrepancies found during the review were not significant enough to warrant the revocation of the clearance.

The Respondent’s main argument was that the environmental clearance was rightly revoked due to misrepresentation of facts by the Appellant.

• The Respondent emphasized that the Appellant had misrepresented the location of the mining area, stating it was in the river bed when, in reality, many Khasra numbers were located in the stream or on agricultural land.
• The Respondent argued that the joint inspection report by the Revenue Department and Mining Department confirmed the discrepancies and that the appraisal of the application was based on false information provided by the Appellant.
• The Respondent highlighted that the pre-feasibility report submitted by the Appellant stated that the land was situated in the river bed of the river Satluj and the proposed activity was to take place in the dry part of the river bed and hence there would be no change in the land used and that the excavated material will get replenished in every monsoon season.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the revocation of the environmental clearance by the Respondent was justified based on the discrepancies found between the information provided by the Appellant and the ground reality.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or books in this judgment. The judgment primarily relied on the factual findings of the joint inspection report and the report of the Expert Committee constituted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon.

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• The Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006, which outlines the procedure for obtaining environmental clearances.

Authorities Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which had affirmed the revocation of the environmental clearance. The Court found no reason to interfere with the NGT’s order, emphasizing that the revocation was based on the acceptance of the report submitted by the Expert Committee.

The Court noted that the ground reality, as per the Expert Committee’s report, was different from what was projected by the Appellant in its application for the environmental clearance.

The Court did not specifically cite any authorities, but it relied on the factual findings of the joint inspection report and the report of the Expert Committee constituted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the factual discrepancies between the information provided by the Appellant and the ground reality as revealed by the joint inspection report and the Expert Committee’s findings. The Court emphasized the importance of accurate information in environmental assessments and the consequences of misrepresentation. The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that environmental clearances should be granted based on truthful and accurate information, and any deviation from this principle can lead to revocation of such clearances. The Court’s decision was also influenced by the need to protect the environment and ensure that mining activities are carried out in a sustainable manner.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The Appellant misrepresented the location of the mining area.
• The joint inspection report confirmed the discrepancies.
• The appraisal of the application was based on false information.
• The need to protect the environment and ensure sustainable mining activities.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Environmental clearances can be revoked if the information provided in the application is found to be false or misleading.
• Project proponents must ensure that the information provided in their applications is accurate and reflects the ground reality.
• Environmental authorities have the power to conduct spot inspections and verify the accuracy of the information provided by project proponents.
• The case highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in the environmental clearance process.
• The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the need for sustainable mining practices and the protection of the environment.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the dismissal of the appeals shall not preclude the Appellant from filing an application for environmental clearance afresh, which shall be considered by the Respondent on its own merits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that environmental clearances can be revoked if the information provided in the application is found to be false or misleading. This case reinforces the principle that environmental clearances should be granted based on truthful and accurate information. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of accurate and truthful information in obtaining environmental clearances. The Court upheld the revocation of the environmental clearance, emphasizing that the ground reality differed significantly from what was projected by the Appellant. This judgment reinforces the need for transparency and accountability in the environmental clearance process and highlights the consequences of misrepresentation.