Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Day Five

Date 5th May 2017


Day- Friday

Suresh Kumar

V
Union of India & ORS.

Application No- 14/2017

FACTS

The application is being filed to address the issue of illegal mining that is being carried out by
M/S tekno Exports. Having sand mining unit-2 (Tekno Exports) at village Badoli, district
Sonipat, Harayana. The said mine lease area comprises of an area measuring 57.99 hectares
in the river bed with the capacity of 24 lakh (TPA). There was special condition for the
mining in that area. The condition was that no stream should be diverted for the purpose of
sand mining. No natural water course and/or water resources are obstructed due to mining
operations. This condition was mentioned in EC letter. The EC letter is dated 15th December
2015. It is the duty of EC holder to take all possible precautions for protection of
environment and control of pollution. The respondent was erecting a bridge and thereby
obstruction/diverting the natural flow of the river Yamuna has automatically involved the
negative sanction/condition no 12 of the EC letter which provides for withdrawal of the EC
issued in favour of the erring respondent and also makes him liable for action under the
provisions of EPA act 1986. condition no 12of EC letters states that if there is failure to
comply with any of the conditions mentioned in environmental clearance letter may result in
withdrawal of environment clearance and attract action under the provisions of the
environment (protection) act 1986. Because of the bridge irreparable damage has been caused
the respondent is liable to pay exemplary damages for the determination and restoration of
the same. As per the order passed by Hon’ble tribunal in M.A. no 110712015 in O.A
171/2013 in which clear direction were issued to the state government to demolish all the
illegal and unauthorized bridges constructed on the river Yamuna by the miners. Total area of
mining is 68.19 i.e. outside area 10 - 20 and inside 57.99. Therefore the petitioner applied for
environment clearance which was given by the government of India Ministry of environment.
The permission letter of environmental clearance issued by the respondent it eas stated that
the method of mining is open cast method (semi mechanized) in river bed and open cast
method (mechanized ) in outside river bed.

PRAYER

The petitioner has no other statutory remedy of appeal or revision against the impugned
order/action of the respondents, except to approach this Hon’ble high court by way of filing a
writ petition under article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. The state of Uttar Pradesh
says that it is not their task but is done by state of Harayana. And a case related to this is
being filed in Chadhigarh high court. The respondent was given permission to have a
temporary bridge. But it is obstruction the flow of river Yamuna.