1. This is an Application filed under Section 14(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The dispute raised by the Applicant is that the Respondent No. 2, has extracted excessive minor minerals from land admeasuring 2Ha 50Aars though he has been granted permission for excavation of only 1H, 20 Aars area, by the District Collector, Pune. Excessive stone mining by the Respondent No. 2, has, thus, caused environmental degradation and adverse impact on the agricultural lands, which has become infertile and a big ditch is caused at the place. The permission for stone mining was granted by District Collector, Pune to Respondent No. 2, on 18.10.2005, notwithstanding a complaint filed by the Applicant about excessive stone mining by Respondent No. 2 - Dattu Lokhande. The permission was renewed on 18.10.2010. The stone mining business of Respondent No. 2 Dattu causes air pollution due to operation of crusher by name, "Shradha Stone Crusher" i.e. the Respondent No. 1. This fact was noticed during visit of competent officer deputed by MPCB on 5.4.2013. Respondent No. 2 - Dattu has extracted stones and operated the crusher illegally since 2011 for excessive mining. He has not provided metallic road, nor has provided greenbelt, as envisaged in the conditions of permission granted to him. When the Application was moved under the R.T.I., the response of MPCB indicated that the Respondent No. 1 had applied for consent to operate on 22nd April, 2013, but prior to that it was being operated without consent. So also, it was revealed that various violations were committed by the Respondent No. 1 and MPCB had issued warning Notices to the Respondent No. 1 for illegalities committed by latter. The Joint Director of MPCB, Mumbai, however, issued consent letter to the Respondent No. 1 at subsequent date in spite of illegalities noticed earlier. The emission standard and various norms have been breached by Respondent No. 1-Shradha Stone Crusher. Not only that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, have extracted excessive minor minerals, mining material but have caused serious environmental damage, including violations of Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The permission granted to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, is liable to be cancelled forever, in view of such lapses. Hence this Application.

2. By filing their common reply affidavits, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, refuted all the material averments made by the Applicants. According to them, they did not excavate more minor mineral, than the permission granted to them. They submit that the order dated 26.9.2014, passed by the Tehsildar Haveli, is against of the principles of natural justice. They further allege that they have filed an Appeal bearing RTS No. 712 of 2014, before the SDO, Haveli, Pune and have also sought stay to the said order. They contend that Mr. Bhausaheb Nalwade, is the watchman of the stone-crusher and had no authority to act as representative in the proceedings of measurement of Panchnama, which was carried out at the site. They submit that they had no knowledge about such Panchnama. They further submit that one Shri. Ghule, was the owner of said stone quarry adjoining the impugned stone quarry previously and, therefore, it is possible that during course of site inspection and measurement of Panchnama, the area was excessively measured due to confusion. According to them, they have paid royalty amount with the Tehsil office, though they are not liable to pay such amount, during pendency of the RTS Appeal, because stay could not be obtained till the date.

3. The District Mining Officer (DMO), contended that permission was granted to the Respondent No. 2, under provisions of the Bombay Minor Mineral Extraction Rules, 1955, only for extraction of minor minerals (Stones) from area of 1 Ha, 20 Aars for five (5) years period, which had completed on 17.10.2010. The permission was extended for further period of five (5) years, which lapsed on 27.12.2015. He states that the Respondent No. 2, extracted excessive minor mineral material, at least, from 1Ha area and caused environmental damage to the area in question. His further contention is that stone crusher was operated without taking due care.

4. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, denied averments made by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. They would submit that the Applicant No. 1, is the sister of Respondent No. 2 and the Applicant No. 2 is nephew of Respondent No. 2 and that M/s. Shradha Stone Crusher, sought permission to extract stones from the land Survey No. 9/1, at village Wadachi-wadi, to the extent of 1Ha, 20Aars for running crusher activity. The permission was granted. MPCB noted that crusher activity was being run without following conditions of consent, after visit to the site on 14.9.2013. Thereafter, a Show-cause Notice was issued. The further consent to operate was granted when M/s. Shradha Stone Crusher, rectified deficiencies. The air monitoring was done on 29.4.2014 and on 14.5.2014, which indicated that results were not abnormal. The Sub-Regional Officer of MPCB, states that Stone Crusher is not in residential area, at least, within 2km and there is no agricultural land up to 0.5km, nor any public member has made a complaint regarding air pollution. The project activity was found to be well equipped with water sprinkling system, arrangement for breaking the wind flow, enclosed system covering stone crusher etc. Thus, MPCB, supported the case of Respondent No. 1- M/s. Shradha Stone Crusher. Upon hearing learned Advocates for the parties, and ongoing through the relevant records, we are required to examine whether M/s. Shradha Stone Crusher (Operator thereof), have extracted excessive minor minerals; namely; stones from excessive area of 1Ha, situated in the land Survey No. 9/1, at Wadachi-Wadi, taluka Haveli (Pune), though licence was given only for area of 1Ha, 20 Aars and thereby caused adverse environmental impact/losses, as enumerated in provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, as well as the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. State Environment Department submits that the stone quarry is granted EC on 31-1-2014, and being the project proponent, Collector Pune is responsible to ensure compliance of EC. The Collector-Respondent No. 5 in response submits that the additional stone mining is done by Respondent No. 1, prior to grant of EC, and they have already taken action under Bombay Minor Mineral Extraction Rules. Collector has also undertaken to take effective steps for compliance and enforcement of environmental clearance conditions.

5. There is no dispute about the fact that originally, Respondent No. 2, Dattu gave Application for lease of only 1Ha, 20Ars area, out of land survey No. 9/1, for grant of permission to extract minor minerals. The order issued in his favour on 18.10.2005, (Ex. A), shows that he was liable to carry out measurement of land in question and to submit the measurement plan to the Mining Officer (Collector), Pune, within period of fifteen (15) days and in case of his default to do so, the permission was liable to be deemed as rejected. This clause in the permission Order dated 18.10.2005, is significant, inasmuch as it negates defense regarding confusion that would have been caused due to adjoining mine of Mr. Ghule, which was inoperative and was never shown to be in use. If the Respondent No. 2, had complied with said conditions, then it was imperative that he ought to have confined himself to the area of 1Ha, 20Aars and could not have included the area of any other land. It is not his case that he had shown some excess area at the time of obtaining licence, nor it is his case that he had not complied with such conditions and no measurement was carried out, as per the permission granted to him. Obviously, it will have to be said that there is no substance in the allegation that there is likelihood of considering some other area in the mine area of M/s. Shradha Stone Crusher, when the area was measured for the purpose of locating the land from which stones were extracted.

6. It appears that MPCB, gave Notice dated 2.8.2013, to the Respondent No. 2, (Ex C), whereby it was informed that the mine was being operated without consent to operate. It appears that the Respondent No. 2, did not give response to the said Notice. Site Inspection dated 14.9.2013, showed various deficiencies. The Stone Crusher was found to be used without construction of road, there was no greenbelt. The ambient air quality monitoring, was not carried out and the unit had no proper metallic road.

7. The photographs attached with the Application, go to show that in the midst of land, there is practically a big ditch caused due to excessive excavation of stones. The warning Notice was issued by the MPCB on 15.4.2013, to the M/s. Shradha Stone Crusher, for the reason that the unit was being operated without consent to operate since 2011. Thus, it is manifest that, at least, for two (2) years, the Respondent No. 1, extracted stones from area of 1Ha, in excess of permissible limits, without consent to operate. The ambient air quality monitoring was carried out on various dates, is shown at P-86 and P-87, which show that the unit provided conveyor belt. It also shows that the unit provided water sprinkling system. Even then the results of sample were found to be not satisfactory. The RSPM, was not as per the standard. The SPM was above the standard required. Needless to say, dust spread out due to M/s. Shradha Stone Crusher, was likely to cause environmental adverse impact. In any case, one cannot overlook the fact that the Precautionary Principle will have to be applied, as required under Section 20 of the NGT Act, 2010, in such a case. We cannot permit the Respondent No. 1 Stone Crusher to operate and to pollute the area, in the nearby area, which may cause air pollution, as and when any passerby will go from proximity thereby. Under these circumstances, MPCB and the Mining Officer, should not have granted necessary consent to operate and permission to Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Shradha Stone Crusher, at least, without ensuring provision of adequate air pollution control arrangements. It is on record that Respondent No. 5 has already initiated action under the Bombay Minor Mineral Extraction Rules, 1955, for the unauthorized excessive mining carried out by Respondent No. 5, and therefore, we are inclined to issue directions towards restitution and restoration only.

8. Considering foregoing discussion, we allow the Application and direct that the impugned order of granting consent to operate the stone crusher by Respondent No. 1-M/s. Shradha Stone Crusher, shall be revoked/cancelled, immediately which can be reconsidered only after provision of necessary air pollution control arrangements by the concerned Regional Officer of the MPCB. We also direct that amount of Rs. 2 lakhs be recovered from M/s. Shradha Stone Crusher (Respondent No. 1), through the operator i.e. the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by Collector, Pune, within period of four (4) months for remedial measures, for restitution like filling up the ditch and afforestation/plantation etc. Apart from that M/s. Shradha Stone Crusher, shall pay amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand), as costs of litigation to the Applicants.

The Application is partly allowed and accordingly disposed of.