ABHAY KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the above case, which is filed as a public interest litigation, is aggrieved with the notification brought out at Annexure-2, by which quarrying for the purpose of brick-kiln was deemed to be a non-mining activity for the purpose of environmental clearance and also required that such clearance would be imperative only if the depth of quarry is not more than one and a half meters from the adjoining ground level.

(2.) Shri Abhinav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, specifically pointed out Annexure-1 notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (For brevity 'MoEF&CC') dtd. 28/3/2020, wherein by Appendix-IX, a number of activities were held to be not requiring prior environmental clearance. Sl. No. 13 of the Appendix provided for activities which could be declared by the State Government under legislation or rules as a non-mining activity.

(3.) It is argued that primarily, it is beyond the power conferred on the executive government at the Centre and in any event, it results in excessive delegation. Further, it is argued that even if Sl. No. 13 is found to be in order, then, necessarily the activities which are so declared by the State Government, can only be such activities as are covered by or similar to those described in Sl. Nos. 1 to 12. Sl. Nos. 1 to 12 are all activities which ensure preservation of a traditional occupation or a craft or skill and along with such preservation, sustenance of the livelihood of the marginalized groups in society who will be unable to procure an environmental clearance. There are absolutely no guidelines insofar as bringing in activities by the State as provided in Sl. No. 13. Specific reliance is made to Annexure-P/4 which has spoken of preservation of top soil, which is to maintain the fertility of the soil, which objective would be defeated and frustrated, if rampant brick-kilns are brought into operation.