Dhruva Enterprises v. C. Srinivasulu and Ors. (2021)

Introduction 

This landmark judgment addresses the validity of environmental clearance granted for mining operations in Telangana, where allegations of deliberately reducing lease area to avoid public hearing requirements were raised before the National Green Tribunal. 

• The Supreme Court pronounced this decision on July 16, 2021  emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between administrative decisions and applicant actions in environmental clearance processes. 
• The case clarified the principles governing environmental due process and the limits of judicial review when statutory compliance requirements are substantively met. 

Facts 

• Dhruva Enterprises applied for a Mining Lease on July 28, 2016, for Quartz and Feldspar mining over 29 hectares in Survey No. 330/1, Kalwakole Village, Peddakothapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, Telangana. 
• The total land in the survey number was approximately 44 hectares, with the application stating that the nearest human habitation (Yenambetla) was about 1.6 km away and the nearest water body (Singotham Lake) was 0.25 km distant. 
• After processing at various administrative levels, the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, approved a Quarry Lease for 24 hectares on September 7, 2016, reducing the area from the originally applied 29 hectares. 
• The Appellant was required to submit an approved Mining Plan, obtain Consent from the Telangana State Pollution Control Board, and secure Environmental Clearance as per the EIA Notification 2006 and its amendments. 
• SEIAA, Telangana, exempted the project from public hearing requirements as the lease area was under 25 hectares and granted Environmental Clearance on April 11, 2017. 
• Respondents (C. Srinivasulu and others) filed an appeal before the National Green Tribunal, arguing that the lease area was deliberately reduced to evade public hearing requirements and that the proximity of Singotham Lake made the Environmental Clearance legally untenable. 
• The Tribunal stayed the Environmental Clearance on April 24, 2018, and subsequently on November 22, 2019, ruled in favor of the Respondents, leading the Appellant to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether the reduction of the mining lease area from 29 hectares to 24 hectares constituted an evasion of public hearing requirements under the EIA Notification 2006? 
• Whether the authorities properly verified compliance with the mandatory distance norm of 0.25 km from the nearest water body (Singotham Lake)? 
• Whether the National Green Tribunal erred in attributing mala fide intent to the Appellant for administrative decisions made by competent authorities? 

Court's Observations 

• The Court held that the finding of the National Green Tribunal that the area was reduced from 29 hectares to 24 hectares only to avoid public hearing requirements was totally erroneous. 
• The Court emphasized that the Appellant had no role to play in the reduction of the lease area, as it was the authorities who recommended approval for only 24 hectares through their administrative discretion. 
• The Court found that regarding the mandatory distance from the water body, the authorities had conducted a survey and determined that the mandatory distance of 0.25 km from Singotham Lake was properly maintained. 
• The Court ruled that the NGT's findings were based on unfounded assumptions rather than evidence, and that there was no proof of mala fide intent or deliberate evasion by the Appellant. 
• The Court applied principles of administrative law, holding that decisions made by competent authorities cannot be attributed to applicants as attempts to circumvent regulatory requirements without clear evidence. 
• The Court restored the environmental clearance and mining permissions granted to the appellant, setting aside the NGT's order that had suspended mining operations. 
• The judgment underscored that environmental clearance processes must be followed diligently, but it also protects project developers from unjust penalties when procedural decisions are made by authorities, not the developers themselves. 

Conclusion 

• This landmark judgment reinforces that administrative discretion exercised by competent authorities cannot be attributed to applicants as deliberate evasion tactics without concrete evidence of mala fide intent. 
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the National Green Tribunal's order, restoring the environmental clearance granted to Dhruva Enterprises. 
• The decision establishes that substantive compliance with environmental safeguards, including statutory distance norms from water bodies, must be verified through proper surveys and assessments by authorities.