No distinction between Stone quarrying and Stone crusher to protect environment of Sanctuary

The petitioner – construction company – was given the contract of upgradation / re-construction of existing highway from Adhalgaon to Jamkhed on 11.2.2022.

The petitioner had taken lands in village Supta Supa Taluka Karjat District Ahmednagar, on leave and licence basis, to start stone crusher temporarily for crushing rubbles and stone aggregate.  The said lands were a distance of 564 and 772 meters from the boundary of GIB Santuary, Karjat.

The non-agricultural use permission under Section 45 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was granted, after no objection certificates of the District Forest Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Gram Panchayat.    Advance royalty was deposited.

On 21.12.2022, the respondent no.7 District Forest Officer constituted a monitoring committee for stone crusher operating near the sanctuary.   On that basis, the Tahsildar directed the petitioner to close down the plant on the ground that it is within 1000 meters of boundary of GIB sanctuary.

This was challenged on the ground that there is no mining at the site of the petitioner but only stone crushing of rubbles and violation of the principles of natural justice in not giving opportunity of hearing before closure of the plant. 

HELD – A stand alone stone crushing plant unconnected with stone quarrying  has not been mentioned as prohibited activity but it has to be understood in the light of decisions in Goa Foundation and T.N.Gadavrman case.   Any distinction between quarrying and crushing of stone would be contrary to the notification dated 11.2.2020 and directions in T.N.Godavarman case.  Since the closure of plant was in obedience to the said notification and the decision, relegating the petitioner before the respondents would be futile exercise.  The writ petition was dismissed. 

Nikhil Construction Group Pvt Ltd.  Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others – Writ Petition No.842 of 2023 (Aurangabad Bench)