CORAM: BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH BHOPAL Misc. Application No. 557/2014 and Original Application No. 118/2014 (THC) (CZ) Hon ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh (Judicial Member) Hon ble Mr. P.S.Rao (Expert Member) BETWEEN: Jal, Jungle, Jameen Sangarsh Samiti Represented by Conveynor- Rajendra & Member- Ramratan Ji Kumawat, Village-Amba, Tehsil-Sailana, District Ratlam (M.P.)..Applicant Versus 1. Dilip Buildcon Ltd., Managing Director, E-5/99, Arera Colony, Bhopal 2. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Village Amba, Tehsil Piploda, District Ratlam. 3. State of Madhya Pradesh Represented by District Collector, Collector s Office, Ratlam 4. District Forest Officer District Forest Office, Ratlam. Original Application No. 144/2013 (CZ) Page 1 of 10
5. M.P. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Represented by- Member Secretary, State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, Paryavaran Parisar, E-A, Arera Colony, Bhopal 6. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, M.P. Satpura Bhavan, 1 st Floor, Bhopal. 7. Ministry of Environment and ForestS Represented by Secretary, Paryavaran Bhawan, C.G.O.Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 8. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Represented by Managing Director, 45 A, Arera Hills, Bhopal....Respondents Counsel for Applicant : Counsel for Respondent No. 1: Counsel for Respondent No. 3,4, & 6 : Counsel for Respondent No. 5 : Counsel for Respondent No. 7 : Counsel for Respondent No. 8 : Shri Dinesh Rawat, Adv. Shri Varun Amar,Adv. & Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Shri Sachin K. Verma, Adv. Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Adv. for Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, Adv. Shri Om Shankar Shrivastav, Adv. Shri Rohit Sharma, Adv. & Ms. Anjum Feroz, Adv. Dated : 26 th September, 2014 Delivered in open court by Hon ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh, Judicial Member 1. The Respondent No. 8 has filed Misc. Application No.557/2014 with the prayer to accept their reply and take it on record. The reply has been enclosed with the documents at Annexure R-8/1, 2 & 3. Copy of the said Original Application No. 144/2013 (CZ) Page 2 of 10
application has been furnished to the Learned Counsel for the Applicant. In the interest of justice, Misc. Application No. 557/2014 is allowed and the reply filed along with the documents is ordered to be taken on record. 2. We heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. This application was filed by the Applicant in the matter of the grant of the mining lease to the Respondent No.1 for executing the construction work of the road from the Jaora-Piplodha-Jalandharkheda & Piploda Sailana at the instance of the Respondent No. 8/Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. (MPRDC). For the aforesaid purpose the Respondent No.1 was granted temporary mining lease in July, 2013 for mining of material i.e. stone/boulder and murrum from the land in Khasra no. 308/1/1/a, village Amba, Tahsil Sailana, District Ratlam. The question raised by the Applicant was looking to the close proximity to the site of the aforesaid mining lease granted to the Respondent No.1, to the Sailana Wildlife Sanctuary famous for the Lesser Floricon bird, commonly known as Kharmour which is reported to be on the verge of near extinction and the aforesaid Sanctuary is one of the few habitats left over for the breeding purpose preferred by this bird, would be extensively disturbed as a result of the mining activity in such close proximity of the Sanctuary as also the fact, as was revealed before the Tribunal during the hearing, that the extent of the area of the Sailana Wildlife Sanctuary was limited to just about 13 sq.km. 3. It was also submitted by the Applicant that habitat is conducive to breeding on account of open grass land and the Lesser Floricon birds normally frequent the aforesaid area for breeding purpose during the Original Application No. 144/2013 (CZ) Page 3 of 10
monsoon season. The Applicant submitted that the aforesaid bird species is critically endangered and listed under Schedule-I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. This bird is very shy and it is very difficult to locate the breeding female in the grass and any slight ecological disturbance may turn it away and because of uncontrolled use of dynamite and other blasting material for mining the stones/boulders and transportation of material in heavily loaded heavy vehicles creating high decibel noise the ecologically sensitive habitat of the bird got disturbed. It has also been reported that from a number of 238 birds recorded in the year 1999 in the States of M.P., Gujrat & Rajasthan, the figure has dropped to 84 in the year 2011.Looking to the nature of the application, notices were ordered to be issued to the Respondents vide order dated 26.03.2014. After service the Respondents put in their appearance. 4. On 23.07.2014 reply was filed by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and it was also brought to notice of the Tribunal that vide order dated 03.10.2013, the Additional Collector, Ratlam had, in fact, cancelled the lease in question of the Respondent No.1 for excavation of the material for construction of the road Jaora-Piplodha-Jalandharkheda & Piploda Sailana. This fact was not disputed before us and so far as activity of the mining operations which could possibly result in adverse impact upon the wildlife sanctuary and breeding habitat of the Lesser Floricon bird is concerned, that had been taken care by the authorities. 5. In the reply filed by the Respondents No. 4 and 6 it was submitted that as the mining site is located 500 mt. away from the boundary of the Sanctuary and therefore in pursuance of the report of the Forest Department and Original Application No. 144/2013 (CZ) Page 4 of 10
representations of the local residents of the order the District Collector Ratlam cancelled the temporary mining licence granted to the Respondent vide order dtd. 03.10.2013 and the State Government has submitted proposals dated 08.02.2014 to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, for demarcating and notifying an area upto 2 km. from the boundary of the aforesaid Sanctuary as Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 6. While we could have allowed the matter to rest on that, this Tribunal proceeded further in the matter and the response of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden was sought with regard to the existing situation pertaining to the Lesser Floricon particular in the State of Madhya Pradesh particularly in the Sailana Wildlife Sanctuary and the adjoining Wildlife Sanctuaries of Petlawad in Jhabua and Sardarpur in Dhar Districts and what additional measures and precautions, in the opinion of the PCCF (Wildlife), were required to be taken to improve the conditions in the sanctuary so as to ensure undisturbed and safe habitat to the endangered Lesser Floricon so that more number of birds arrive during the breeding season. During the course of hearing it was also submitted that according to the recent media reports there is a gradual decline in the arrival of Lesser Floricon to Sailana Wildlife Sanctuary and only 8 such birds have been sighted in the said sanctuary during the monsoon of 2014 which only shows and justifies the fact that they are very nearly extinct and their numbers are dwindling rapidly. To substantiate the above, an article appearing in a English Daily newspaper was also brought to our notice wherein as per study conducted, Original Application No. 144/2013 (CZ) Page 5 of 10
it was submitted that while in 2012 about 20 birds were sighted in the Sailana Wildlife Sanctuary it has come down to 8 in the year 2013. 7. The Respondent No. 1, have submitted through their Counsel that they would be willing to contribute significantly towards any project that may be required to be carried out for which financial assistance is required apart from what is being provided by the State for the regular management, conservation and protection of the habitat of the Lesser Floricon in the Sailana Wildlife Sanctuary. 8. The PCCF (Wildlife) appeared before this Tribunal in person on 09.09.2014. Certain issues with regard to the measures which are required to be taken and what are the problems being faced in the management of the Sanctuary were also brought to our notice which included, among others, the interference as a result of extensive grazing in the area by the cattle and sheep of the villagers as well as nomads passing through the area. Removal of obnoxious weeds, improving the grassland making it more conducive for arrival and breeding of the bird was discussed. It was also submitted that the problem with regard to retention of the water in the ponds which require repairs as soon after the monsoon, the water was getting depleted from the ponds. Apart from the above, it was also submitted that watch towers need to be erected so that with regard to improvement of sighting and controlling the biotic interference in the Sanctuary can be more effective and preventive measures can be taken for the aforesaid purpose. 9. On our enquiry, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that he would take necessary instructions from Respondent No. 1 Original Application No. 144/2013 (CZ) Page 6 of 10
Company, to whom the mining lease was initially granted but subsequently closed down by the Collector, Ratlam vide order dated 03.10.2013 prior to filing of this application, with regard to the extent of financial assistance that the company would be willing to make for maintenance of Sailana Wildlife Sanctuary for the improvement of habitat of Lesser Floricon and he would be submitting the same before this Tribunal. 10. Today, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted before us a copy of the letter submitted by the Company to the PCCF (WL) MP, wherein, in consultation with the Divisional Forest Officer, they have decided that they would be willing to contribute an amount of Rs. 29.55 lakhs towards discharge of their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for the improvement of Sailana Wildlife Sanctuary. In consultation with the DFO, four works have been identified namely: (1) Deepening of Tank/Pond i.e. soil excavation and disposal of material; (2) Eradication of Lantana weed in the sanctuary; (3) Removal of Prosophis, Babool, Khejri and ;(4) Providing facilities such as torches, rain coats, long boots for the field staff of the Sanctuary. It was submitted that these proposals are sent to the PCCF (WL) and in case the PCCF (WL) agrees to the same and makes any alteration, addition, modification to the proposal, the Company/Respondent No.1 would be willing to contribute for the additional work as well. Copy of the letter of the Company/Respondent No.1 to the PCCF (WL) has also been handed over to the Learned Counsel for the State who in turn shall contact the PCCF (WL) and ensure that the reply to the same with the necessary approval/amendment or addition or modification so that the utilization of the funds is done in a rational manner Original Application No. 144/2013 (CZ) Page 7 of 10
prioritising the items of the works to be carried out in the Sanctuary shall be conveyed to the Respondent No.1 with the proposed works to be undertaken and the estimated additional amount if any, for the same within 10 days from today. 11. Learned Counsel for the Applicant also drew our attention to the fact that while granting mining lease (Annexure P-10) the Collector had imposed certain conditions in his letter dated 15.07.2013 which are 32 in number. It was submitted that after the cancellation of the mining lease vide the order dated 03.10.2013, though the work had been officially stopped, the Respondent No.1 had in fact carried out mining operations during the intervening period and as such it may be directed that the conditions which have been imposed by the Collector in the order dated 15.07.2013 should be fulfilled and the Collector to ensure that the conditions are complied with by the Respondent No. 1. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that since the issue has been raised during the course of hearing, they have no objection to any direction being issued to the Collector in this behalf and Respondent No. 1 would abide by all the necessary conditions which are therein not only with regard to the sanction granted vide letter dated 15.07.2013 but also in respect of the issues stated in the Collector order dated 03.10.2013. 12. As indicated above, we have granted 10 days time to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) to take note of the proposals forwarded by the Respondent No.1 after consulting the DFO concerned and take a decision on the same within 10 days. The matter shall be reverted back to us by the Learned Counsel for the State with regard to the decision taken Original Application No. 144/2013 (CZ) Page 8 of 10
by way of amendment, addition, modification, etc. on the proposal submitted by the DFO as also any replies and estimates made in this behalf. 13. The Respondent No.1 Company in accordance with their commitment shall deposit an amount of Rs. 29.55 lakhs with the Forest Department under non-lapsable Head of Account as decided by the PCCF (WL) by way of Demand Draft within a week for utilization of funds for improvement and management of the Sailana Wildlife Sanctuary in addition to the regular budget already provided from the funds allotted to Department. 14. It is also ordered that to effectively utilize the funds and involve the local villagers, the funds may be spent through Eco Development Committee (EDC) if already constituted and if not yet, necessary action shall be taken to constitute the same as per the rules, regulations and Government orders in force and then execute the works which will not only bring transparency but also motivate the local villagers in contributing their services for the protection and conservation of the critically endangered Lesser Floricon so that it flourishes in the Sanctuary, their population increases and past glory is restored for which the local villagers were proud of, as stated in the Application by the Applicant. 15. With the aforesaid directions the Applications stands disposed of along with the Misc. Application No. 557/2014. 16. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that there are certain other issues and irregularities on the part of Respondent No. 1 and that liberty may be granted to the Applicant to approach the appropriate authority with regard to the same and aforesaid disposal of the Application Original Application No. 144/2013 (CZ) Page 9 of 10
should not be considered as adjudication or abandonment of the aforesaid other issues. So far as the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant is concerned, the submission is reasonable and we hereby clarify that that any relief that the Applicant may be seeking against any other authorities, it would be open for the Applicant to approach the appropriate authority having the jurisdiction in the matter and the authority shall take cognizance of the same and deal with it in accordance with law. 17. The matter shall be listed for compliance before this Tribunal on 17 th October, 2014. Bhopal; September, 26 th 2014 (Mr. Justice Dalip Singh) Judicial Member (Mr. P.S.Rao) Expert Member Original Application No. 144/2013 (CZ) Page 10 of 10