2021 INSC 0529
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3776 OF 2020
DHRUVA ENTERPRISES        ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
C. SRINIVASULU AND OTHERS    ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The   appellant   has   approached   this   Court   being   aggrieved
by the impugned judgment and order dated 17 th
 January 2020,
passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi,
thereby allowing the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and
directing   the   Ministry   of   Environment   &   Forest   and   Climate
Change   to   conduct   Environment   Impact   Assessment   Appraisal
in terms of EIA Notification 2006, and subsequent amendments
1

thereunder   and   also   to   conduct   public   hearing   and   impose
whatever   conditions   they   may   find   necessary   and   appropriate
for carrying out mining operation.   By the impugned judgment
and order, the Tribunal has further directed suspension of the
mining operations until the completion of the said exercise.
2. Facts in brief giving rise to filing of the present appeal are
as under:­
The   appellant   had   applied   on   28 th
  July   2016   for   Mining
Lease for Quartz and Feldspar mining over 29 hectares of land
in   Sy.   No.   330/1,   Kalwakole   Village,   Peddakothapally   Mandal,
Mahabubnagar   District,   State   of   Telangana.     The   total   land   in
the   said   survey   number   was   109   Acres   and   08   Guntas
(approximately   44   hectares),   out   of   which   the   appellant   had
applied   for   29   hectares.     In   the   application   submitted   by   the
appellant, it was stated that the nearest human habitation was
Yenambetla,   existing   at   a   distance   of   about   1.6   km   from   the
applied   area.     It   was   further   stated   in   the   application   that   the
2

nearest   water   body   was   at   a   distance   of   0.25   km   named   as
Singotham Lake.
3. The application of the appellant was processed at various
stages   including   the   Revenue   Divisional   Officer   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   the   “RDO”),   Nagarkurnool,   Assistant   Director   of
Mines   and   Geology,   Mahabubnagar   and   Director   of   Mines   and
Geology,   Hyderabad,   Government   of   Telangana.     Vide
communication   dated   7 th
  September   2016,   the   Director   of
Mines   and   Geology,   Hyderabad,   Government   of   Telangana
informed   the   appellant   that   after   careful   examination   of   the
proposal   submitted   by   the   appellant,   the   Assistant   Director   of
Mines and Geology, Mahabubnagar had recommended for grant
of   Quarry   Lease   in   favour   of   the   appellant   for   Quartz   and
Feldspar   over   an   area   of   24   hectares   in   Sy.   No.   330/1,
Kalwakole   Village,   Peddakothapally   Mandal,   Mahabubnagar
District,   Telangana.     The   appellant   was   directed   to   submit   a
Mining   Plan   approved   by   Joint  Director   of   Mines  and   Geology,
Hyderabad for the proposed area within a period of six months
3

from   the   date   of   the   said   communication.     The   appellant   was
directed to submit Consent from the Telangana State Pollution
Control   Board   and   also   Environmental   Clearance   (hereinafter
referred to as “EC”) from the Ministry of Environment & Forest
(hereinafter  referred to as the “MoEF”) as per the Environment
Impact   Assessment   Notification   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the
“EIA   Notification   2006)   dated   14 th
  September   2006   and   15 th
January   2016.     It   was   also   stated   in   the   said   communication
that   if   the   appellant   fails   to   submit   the   Approved   Mining   Plan
within   the   stipulated   period,   it   will   be   presumed   that   the
appellant was not interested in getting the Quarry Lease for the
said   area   and   further   course   of   action   will   be   initiated   in
accordance with law.  Thereafter, the State Environment Impact
Assessment Authority, Telangana (hereinafter referred to as the
“SEIAA”)   examined   the   said   proposal   in   accordance   with   EIA
Notification 2006 and the subsequent amendments thereof and
exempted   the   same   from   the   process   of   public   hearing   as   the
mining   lease   area   was   less   than   25   hectares.     The   SEIAA
4

accorded   EC   on   11 th
  April   2017,   with   specific   and   general
conditions.
4. Challenging the same, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed an
appeal under Section 16 read with Section 18(1) and Section 15
of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to
as the “said Act”) before the National Green Tribunal, Southern
Zone,   Chennai   being   Appeal   No.   582   of   2017   (SZ),   which   was
transferred   to   National   Green   Tribunal,   Principal   Bench,   New
Delhi   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   “Tribunal”)   being   Appeal
No. 24 of 2018, wherein a two­fold challenge was made by  the
respondent Nos. 1 to 3: first, that the area was reduced from 29
hectares   to   24   hectares   only   in   order   to   avoid   the   rigours   of
public   hearing   and   second,   that   the   Singotham   Lake   was   in
close   proximity   of   the   proposed   mining   area   and   as   such,   the
EC granted, was not correct in law.
5. In  the  said  proceedings,  the  learned  Tribunal   had  passed
an   interim   order   on   24 th
  April   2018,   thereby   staying   the   order
challenged   in   the   appeal.     Being   aggrieved   thereby,   the
5

appellant   had   approached   this   Court   being   Civil   Appeal   No.
8130   of   2019.     This   Court   vide   its   order   dated   8 th
  November
2019, requested the learned Tribunal to hear the matter on 22 nd
November   2019.     Accordingly,   the   learned   Tribunal   after
hearing the counsel for the parties, found favour with both the
grounds   raised   by   respondent   Nos.   1   to   3   and   allowed   the
appeal   by   passing   the   order   as   aforesaid.     Being   aggrieved
thereby, the appellant has approached this Court.
6. We   have   heard   Mr.   K.V.   Viswanathan,   learned   Senior
Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant,   Mr.   Sandeep
Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.
1 to 3, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG appearing on behalf
of   respondent   No.4­Union   of   India   and   Mr.   Dhananjay   Baijal,
learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   respondent   No.9­State
Pollution Control Board, Telangana.
7. Mr.   Viswanathan,   learned   Senior   Counsel   submitted   that
the   learned   Tribunal   has   grossly   erred   in   coming   to   the
conclusion that the area was reduced by the appellant from 29
6

hectares   to   24   hectares   only   in   order   to   avoid   the   rigours   of
public hearing.  He submitted that the appellant had no role to
play in such a reduction. As a matter of fact, the appellant had
applied   for   an   area   admeasuring   29   hectares.     It   was   only   the
authorities which had reduced the area.   He further submitted
that   the   ground   with   regard   to   Singotham   Lake   being   in   the
close   proximity   to   the   proposed   mining   area,   is   also   totally
erroneous.    The   learned   Senior   Counsel,   relying   on   the   Google
Maps   as   well   as   photographs,   would   submit   that   the   distance
between   the   proposed   mining   area   and   the   Singotham   Lake   is
0.25 km.   It is therefore submitted that the said distance is in
accordance with the requirements of law.
8. Mr.   Viswanathan   took   us   through   various   documents   to
show   that   while   granting   EC,   the   entire   procedure   required   to
be   followed   under   EIA   Notification   2006   was   followed.     The
proposal   underwent   scrutiny   at   various   stages   and   only
thereafter, the SEIAA had granted EC in favour of the appellant.
7

9. Mr.   Sandeep Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that if the distance between
the proposed mining area and the water body is more than 0.25
km,   the   said   respondents   would   not   have   any   objection   of
permitting mining activities.   The learned counsel for the State
as well as the State Pollution Control Board also supported the
case of the appellant.
10. In view of the concession granted by respondent Nos. 1 to
3,   we   could   have   very   well   disposed   of   the   appeal.   However,
since the issue involved is with regard to environment, we have
considered the appeal on merits.
11. As   per   the   guidelines   framed   by   the   Government   of
Telangana   dated   19 th
  January   2015,   for   land   admeasuring
between   15   hectares   to   30   hectares,   the   competent   authority,
for issue of ‘No Objection Certificate’ (hereinafter  referred to as
the   “NOC”),   for   Mining   Lease   and   Quarry   Lease   in   respect   of
Government/Patta Lands, is with the RDO/Sub­Collector. After
the   application   was   made   by   the   appellant   for   grant   of   Mining
8

Lease, a letter was addressed by the Assistant Director of Mines
and   Geology,   Mahabubnagar   to   RDO,   Nagarkurnool,
Mahabubnagar   on   28 th
  July   2016.     Vide   the   said   letter,   the
RDO   was   instructed   to   consider   the   following   aspects   while
issuing NOC:­
1. “Extent of Land.
2. Classification of Land.
3. Proximity   to   Forest,   Tank,   Lake   or   Irrigation
Source.
4. Proximity to habitation.
5. Whether mining will affect habitation.
6. Whether   mining   will   affect   agriculture   in
neighbouring lands.”
12. The RDO was required to submit its report within 30 days
from   the   date   of   receipt   of   the   said   letter.     It   further   appears
that   on   6 th
  August   2016,   the   Tahsildar,   Peddakothapally,   after
personally inspecting the site along with the Assistant Revenue
Inspector,   Peddakothapally,   submitted   its   report   to   RDO.     The
relevant part of the said report reads thus:­ 
“In   view   of   the   above   myself   and   ARI   of
Peddakothapally   Mandal   have   been   proceeded   to
the  Sy  No.  330/1,  and  found  that  the  said  land  Sy
No. 330/1 of Kalwakole is a Govt. land (P.P) covered
by   hillrock  to   an   extent   of   Ac  109.08  gts  and   there
is  no   objection   for   allotting   the   said   part   of   land   to
9

M/s   Dhruva   Enterprises.     Further   submitted   that
the Mandal surveyor has been prepared sketch and
the   extract   of   Khasra   1954­55,   pahani   for   the   year
2015­16   and   same   are   enclosed   herewith.     The
detailed report is as follows:­
1. Extent of Land : AC   109.08
gts.
2. Classification of Land : Govt.   Land
(P.P)
3. Proximity   to   Forest,   Tank,
Lake of Irrigation Source : The   canal   is
situated  1.00
Km   for   away
from the said
Sy. No.
4. Proximity to habitation : There   is   no
habitation
nearby.
5. Whether   mining   will   affect
habitation : Not   affected
to   the
habitation
6. Whether   mining   will   affect
agriculture   in
neighbouring lands : No,   not
affecting   to
the
Agriculture
lands
I,   therefore,   request   you   to   kindly   lease   may   be
granted in favour of M/s Dhruva Enterprises, rep by
S.   Venkateshwar   Rao   over   the   Sy   No.   330/1   an
extent   109.08   gts   situated   within   the   limits   of
Peddakothapally   mandal   is   feasible   to   lease   the
land.”
10

13. After   the   report   of   the   Tahsildar   was   received,   the   RDO,
Nagarkurnool   granted   ‘NOC’   vide   communication   dated   8 th
August   2016.     The   relevant   part   of   the   said   communication
reads thus:­  
“In   this   regard,   the   Tahsildar   Peddakothapally   has
reported that the Sy. No. 330/1, and found that the
said   land   Sy.   No.   330/1   of   Kalwakole   is   a
Government   land   (P.P)   covered   by   hillrock   to   an
extent of Ac. 109.08 gts and there is no objection for
allotting   the   said   part   of   land   to   M/s   Dhruva
Enterprises.     Further,   it   is   submitted   that   the
Mandal Surveyor has been prepared sketch and the
extract   of   Khasra   1954­55,   Pahani   for   the   year
2015­16   and   same   are   enclosed   here   with.     The
detailed report is as follows:
1. Extent of Land : Ac.   109.08
gts.
2. Classification of Land : Government
Land (P.P)
3. Proximity   to   Forest,   Tank,
Lake of Irrigation Source : The   canal   is
situated  1.00
KM   for   away
from the said
Sy. No.
4. Proximity to habitation : There   is   no
habitation
near   by,   but
existing   1
KM away.
5. Whether   mining   will   affect
habitation : Not   affected
to   the
11

habitation
6. Whether   mining   will   affect
agriculture   in
neighbouring lands : No,
agriculture
lands   are
existing   500
Mts.   Away
from the site.
Therefore,   the   Assistant   Director   of   Mines   &
Geology, Mahaboobnagar is requested to grant lease
permission   in   favour   of   M/s   Dhruva   Enterprises,
rep. by S. Venkateshwar Rao over the above Sy. No.
to   an   extent   of   Ac.   109.08   gts   situated   within   the
limits   of   Kalwakole   Village   of   Peddakothapally
Mandal as per rules.”
14. Vide   communication   dated   7 th
  September   2016,   the
Director   of   Mines   and   Geology,   Hyderabad,   Government   of
Telangana granted ‘in­principle’ approval for a Quarry Lease for
Quartz and Feldspar over an extent of 24 hectares.  While doing
so,  the  Director  of  Mines  and  Geology,  Hyderabad directed  the
appellant   to   submit   a   Mining   Plan   approved   by   the   Joint
Director   of   Mines   and   Geology,   Hyderabad,   Government   of
Telangana   within   six   months   from   the   date   of   issue   of   the
notice.     It   was   also   directed   to   submit   the   Consent   from   the
State   Pollution   Control   Board,   Telangana   and   EC   from   MoEF,
as   per   EIA   Notification   2006   and   subsequent   amendments
12

thereof.   The   relevant   part   of   the   said   communication   reads
thus:­  
“After   careful   examination   of   the   proposals   of
the   Asst.   Director   of   Mines   &   Geology,
Mahabubnagar   in   principle,   it   has   been   decided   to
grant   a   Quarry   Lease   for   Quartz  and   Feldspar   over
an   extent   of   24.00   Hect.   in   Sy.   No.   330/1   of
Kalwakole   Village,   Peddakothapally   Mandal,
Mahabubnagar   District   in   favour   of   M/s   Dhruva
Enterprises, Rep: by Sri S. Venkateshwar Rao for a
period   of   20   years   subject   to   submission   of
Approved Mining Plan within a period of (6) months
from   the   date   of   issue   of   this   notice   as   per   Rule
12(5)(c)   of   T.S.   Minor   Mineral   Concession   Rules,
1966   alongwith   CFE   from   ESPCB   and
Environmental Clearance from MoEF.
However,   the   approved   mining   plan   shall   also
reflect the restriction to be adopted by the applicant
while   conducting   quarry   operations   due   to   the
existence   of   structures,   like   temples   railway   line,
roads, water bodies such as river, lake etc., and the
stipulated  distances  as   per   the   various  Regulations
prescribed   under   Mines   &   Metalliferous
Regulations, 1961.  The safety measures to be taken
are also to be incorporated.  
In view of the above, M/s. Dhruva Enterprises,
Rep:   by   Sri   S.   Venkateshwar   Rao   is   hereby
requested to submit Mining Plan approved by Joint
Director   of   Mines   &   Geology,   Hyderabad   for   the
proposed precise area within a period of (6) months
from  the date of issue of this notice and also along
with   the   Consent   for   Establishment   from   T.S.
Pollution   Control   Board   and   Environmental
Clearance   from   Ministry   of   Environment   and
13

Forests   as   per   Environment   Impact   Assessment
Notification through S.O. 1533, dt: 14.09.2006 read
with  S.O. No. 141(E), dated 15.01.2016  to  consider
for grant of Quarry lease for Quartz and Feldspar in
the subject area.  If the applicant fails to submit the
Approved   Mining   Plan   within   the   stipulated   period,
it   will   be   presumed   that   the   applicant   is   not
interested   in   getting   the   Quarry   lease   over   the
subject   area   and   further   course   of   action   will   be
initiated   as   per   Rules.     A   copy   of   the   Surveyed
sketch   showing   the   precise   area   of   24.00   Hect.   in
Sy.   No.   330/1   proposed   for   grant   of   Quarry   Lease
for   Quartz   and   Feldspar   in   the   subject   area   in
favour of the applicant is enclosed herewith.”
15. Accordingly,   the   appellant   submitted   a   detailed   Mining
Plan on 20 th
 October 2016.  The relevant part of the said Mining
Plan reads thus:­  
“(ii) Infrastructure and Communication:
Water:     Sufficient   quantity   of   drinking   water   is
available in the nearby villages from bore wells and
opens wells.
Electricity:    Electricity is available at a distance of
about 800 m from the applied lease area.
Rail   Head:     The   nearest   Railway   station   is
Mahabubnagar   about   100   Km   from   the   applied
Lease area.
14

River Head:   No river a located in the vicinity of the
Lease area.   Singotam Lake is located at a distance
of   about   250   m   from   the   applied   area.     Numerous
tanks   and   bore   wells  constitute   the   main   source   of
water in the area.
Communication:    Telephonic Communication, Post
Office,   Bank,   is   available   in   Kalwakole   and
Peddakothapally.
Road:    Road to the quarry is accessible throughout
the   year.     Four­wheelers,   two­wheelers,   buses   and
autos ply on the road.”
16. In   the   meeting   held   on   30 th
  December   2016   of   the   State
Expert   Appraisal   Committee   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the
“SEAC”),   the   proposal   of   the   appellant   came   to   be   considered.
The   relevant   part   of   the   said   Minutes   of   the   Meeting   reads
thus:­  
Agenda
Item:
01 24.00   Ha.   Quartz   and   Feldspar   Mine   of
M/s.   Dhruva   Enterprises,   Sy.   Nos.
330/1,   Kalwakole   (V),   Peddakothapally
(M),   Mahabubnagar   District   –
Environmental Clearance – Reg.
The representative of the project propone Sri Dr. S.
Venkateshwar   Rao;   and   Sri   M.   Venkatesh   of   M/s.
Global   Enviro   Labs   &   Consultants,   Hyderabad
attended and made a presentation before the SEAC.
It   is   noted   that   the   mine   lease   area   is   24.00   Ha.
which   is   less   than   25.0   Ha.     The   project   is
15

considered under B1 Category as per the guidelines
of   the   MoEF   &   CC,   GoI.     The   proponent   submitted
Approved Mining Plan & EMP report.
It   is   noted   from   the   Notice   dt.   07.09.2016   of   DMG,
Hyderabad that the proponent obtained in principle
grant of quarry lease for  a period of 20 years.   It is
further   noted   that   the   quarry   lease   is   not   granted
prior to 09.09.2013.  hence, it has to be ascertained
whether   any   other   Mines   are   located   surrounding
500m   as   Cluster,   as   per   S.O.   2269(E),   dt.
01.07.2016 issued by the MoEF & CC, GoI.
The   proponent   stated   that   there   are   no   mining
activities existing within 500m from the periphery of
project.
The   nearest   village   to   the   proposed   site   is
Yenambetla (V) which is existing at a distance of 1.6
Km and Singotham Lake exists at a distance of 0.25
Km from the boundary of the site.”
17. After a detailed discussion, the project was recommended
for   grant   of   EC.     Thereafter,  the   SEIAA,  in   its  meeting   held  on
11 th
 April 2017, considered the said proposal and granted EC to
the   project   of   the   appellant.     The   relevant   part   of   the   said
Minutes of the Meeting reads thus:­ 
“I.  This has reference to your application submitted
online   on   14.11.2016   (proposal   No.
SIA/TG/MIN/60426/2016) received on 23.11.2016,
seeking   Environment   Clearance   for   the   proposed
Quartz & Feldspar Mine   in favour of   M/s. Dhruva
Enterprises,   Sy.   Nos.   330/1,   Kalwakole   (V),
16

Peddakothapally   (M),   Mahabubnagar   District .     It
was   reported   that   the   nearest   human   habitation
viz., Yenambetla (V) exists at a distance of about 1.6
Km  from  the   mine  lease  area.    It  was  also  reported
that Singotham Lake which is existing at a distance
of 0.25 Km from the mine lease area.   It was noted
that the capital investment of the project is   Rs. 2.1
Crores   and   maximum   capacity   of   the   project   is   as
follows:
Mining of Quartz – 4,05,842 TPA
II.     It   is   a   semi­mechanized   opencast   quarry.     The
Blocks   are   cut   by   using   jack   hammer   drilling,
wedge­cutting   and   excavation.     The   separated
blocks are dressed manually.  It is reported that the
life of the Mine is estimated as 18 years.   The total
mine lease area is 24.00 Ha.
III.  The proposal has been examined and processed
in   accordance   with   EIA   Notification,   2006   and   its
amendments   thereof.     The   State   Level   Expert
Appraisal   Committee   (SEAC)   examined   the
application,   in   its   meeting   held   on   30.12.2016   &
22.02.2017.     The   project   is   considered   under   B2
category   and   exempted   from   the   process   of   public
hearing   as   the   mining   lease   area   is   less   than   25
Ha.,   as   per   provisions   laid   under   EIA   Notification,
2006 & its subsequent amendments.   Based on the
information   furnished,   presentation   made   by   the
proponent   and   the   consultant   M/s.   Global   Enviro
Labs,  Hyderabad;  In­principle  grant   of  quarry  lease
by the DMG, Hyderabad Notice Dt. 07.09.2016 for a
period   of   20   years;   Approved   Mining   Plan;   Lr.   dt.
12.01.2017   of   ADMG:   Nagarkurnol   informing   that
there   are   no   mines   surrounding   500   mtrs   as
Cluster,   the   Committee   considered   the   project   and
recommended   for   issue   of   EC.     The   State   Level
17

Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA),
in   its   meeting   held   on   14.03.2017   &   18.03.2017
examined   the   proposal   and   recommendations   of
SEAC,   Telangana   for   issue   of   Environmental
Clearance.     Accordingly,   after   discussions   in   the
matter and considering the recommendations of the
SEAC,   Telangana,   the   SEIAA,   Telangana   hereby
accords   prior   Environmental   Clearance   to   the
project   as   mentioned   at   Para   no.   I   under   the
provisions   of   EIA   Notification   2006   and   its
subsequent   amendments   issued   under
Environment   (Protection)   Act,   1986   subject   to
implementation of the following specific and general
conditions.”
18. Thereafter,   vide   order   dated   22 nd
  April   2017,   the
Government of Telangana granted Quarry Lease for Quartz over
an   extent   of   24.00   hectares   in   Sy.   No.   330/1   of   Kalwakole
Village,   Peddakothapally   Mandal,   Nagarkurnool   (erstwhile
Mahabubnagar) District in favour of the appellant.
19. A   perusal   of   the   aforesaid   documents   would   reveal   that
the appellant, in fact, had applied for grant of Mining Lease for
29   hectares.     It   is,   however,   the   authorities   including   the
Tahsildar,   the   RDO,   Assistant  Director   of   Mining  and   Geology,
Mahabubnagar,   who   had   recommended   grant   of   Quarry   Lease
18

over   24   hectares.     Insofar   as  the   water  body   is   concerned,   the
appellant, in his application as well as Mining Plan, has clearly
mentioned   that   Singotham   Lake   is   situated   at   a   distance   of
0.25   km.     While   processing   the   proposal   of   the   appellant,   the
Tahsildar and the Assistant Revenue Inspector of the concerned
area have physically carried out the inspection.   Not only that,
the   Assistant   Director   of   Mines   and   Geology   had   personally
inspected the area on 11 th
  August 2016, and the Surveyor had
surveyed the applied area with the help of a GPS instrument.  It
is also revealed from the record that the area of 24 hectares in
Sy.   No.   330/1,   which   consists   a   larger   area,   was   earmarked
after   leaving   the   safety   distance   of   0.25   km   from   Singotham
Lake.     In   its   report,   the   Surveyor   had   also   reported   that   the
demarcated   area   was   not   overlapping   with   the   existing   leases
and there were no pending applications in that area.
20. It   could   thus   be   seen   that   prior   to   grant   of   ‘in­principle’
approval   by   the   Director   of   Mines   and   Geology,   Hyderabad,
Government   of   Telangana,   the   proposed   area   was   physically
19

inspected   by   the   Tahsildar   along   with   the   Assistant   Revenue
Inspector.   The   Assistant   Director   of   Mines   and   Geology,
Mahabubnagar   had   independently   inspected   the   area.     The
area   was   surveyed   by   the   Official   Surveyor   with   the   GPS
instrument and while earmarking the area, the distance of 0.25
km was also maintained.
21. After   ‘in­principle’   approval   was   granted,   the   appellant
submitted its Mining Plan on 20 th
  October 2016.   The proposal
of the appellant was thereafter considered by the SEAC on 30 th
December   2016,   wherein   it   was   resolved   to   recommend   the
proposal   of   the   appellant   for   grant   of   EC.     Thereafter,   the
SEIAA, in its meeting dated 11 h
  April 2017, has granted its EC
after considering all the aspects.   Thereafter, Quarry Lease has
been granted in favour of the appellant on 22 nd
 April 2017. 
22. It   could   thus   be   seen   that   the   proposal   of   the   appellant
has   undergone   scrutiny   at   various   stages.     Only   after   it   was
found  that  it  was in  conformity  with  the  provisions of  law, the
‘in­principle’   approval   and   EC   for   Quarry   Lease   had   been
20

granted.   Thereafter,   the   appellant   has   submitted   his   Mining
Plan   which   was   again   duly   examined   by   various   authorities.
The proposal of the appellant was initially considered by SEAC
and   recommended   for   grant   of   EC.     Thereafter,   SEIAA,   after
considering all the aspects has granted EC to the project of the
appellant.  Only thereafter, the Quarry Lease had been granted
in favour of the appellant. 
23. Insofar as the finding of the learned Tribunal that the area
was   reduced   to   24   hectares   from   29   hectares   only   in   order   to
avoid   the   rigours   of   public   hearing,   is   totally   erroneous.     The
appellant  had no role  to  play  in  the  same.  It  is  the  authorities
who   recommended   approval   in   respect   of   only   24   hectares.
Insofar   as   the   mandatory   distance   from   the   water   body   is
concerned,   the   authorities   upon   survey   had   found   that   the
mandatory distance of 0.25 km is maintained.
24. In   this   view   of   matter,   we   find   that   the   learned   Tribunal
has grossly erred in arriving at a finding that the appellant had
reduced   the   area   to   24   hectares   only   in   order   to   avoid   the
21

rigours of public hearing and further that there was no distance
of   0.25   km   between   the   proposed   mining   area   and   the
Singotham Lake.
25. In   the   result,   the   appeal   succeeds   and   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   17 th
  January   2020,   passed   by   the
learned Tribunal is quashed and set aside.  No costs.
…..…..….......................J.
   [L. NAGESWARA RAO]
    …….........................J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
..…..….......................J.
       [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 15, 2021.
22