1

Annexure - 5

Detail description of the Public Hearing organized dated on 05 / 12 / 2015 at village - Narmadapur, Tahsil (block) Office - the stadium located in front of the Mainpath, District - Sarguja regarding the Environment Clearance provided to M/S Chhattisgarh Mineral Water Development Corporation Limited for the proposed mining of Bauxite with capacity - 2,00,00,00 TPA (Lease Area - 99.350 hectares) in Village - Pathrai, Tahsil - Sitapur (New Tahsil - Mainpath), District - Surguja (Chhattisgarh) under the provisions of the notification No. 1533, New Delhi (A), dated 14th September 2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, The Government of India : -

Under the chairmanship of Mr. N. N. Ekka, Additional Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Ambikapur and in the presence of regional officer of the Chhattisgarh Environmental Protection Board, Ambikapur, a Public Hearing was organized at 12:10 a.m., dated on 05 / 12 / 2015 at village - Narmadapur, Tahsil (block) office - the stadium located in front of the Mainpath, District - Sarguja, regarding the environment clearance provided to M/S Chhattisgarh Mineral Water Development Corporation Limited for the proposed mining of Bauxite with capacity - 2,00,00,00 TPA (lease area - 99.350 hectares) in the village - Pathrai, Tahsil - Sitapur (New Tahsil - Mainpath), District - Surguja (Chhattisgarh) under the provisions of the notification No. 1533, New Delhi (A), dated 14th September 2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, The Government of India : -

At first, the regional officer of Chhattisgarh Environmental Protection Board, appraised the present gatherings about the application submitted to Divisional Headquarters, Chhattisgarh Environmental Protection Board, Raipur, dated on September 2015 to organise a public hearing pertaining to the environment clearance given to M/S Chhattisgarh Mineral Water Development Corporation Limited for the proposed mining of Bauxite with capacity - 2,00,00,00 TPA (lease area - 99.350 hectares) in the village - Pathrai, Tahsil - Sitapur (New Tahsil - Mainpath), District - Surguja (Chhattisgarh). The Divisional Headquarters, Raipur, issued orders dated on 18 / 09 /2015 to organise the public hearing. After that, dated on 27 / 10 / 2015, the Collector of Sarguja fixed a dated to organise the public hearing dated on 05 / 12 / 2015. Subsequently, a notification to organise the public hearing was published in The Times of India, Delhi edition, dated on 02 November 2015, and in Raipur edition of Navbharat Times and Hari Bhoomi news papers dated on 01 November 2015, and in Bilaspur edition of Navbharat Times and Hari Bhoomi news papers dated on 02 November 2015, before 30 days of the actual date of public hearing, in compliance of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification issued dated on 14.19. 2006 and published in The Government of India Gazette. A copy of the Environment Impact Assessment report as well as copies of executive summaries for the proposed Buxite mining have been placed in the office of Collector - Sarguja, District Panchayat office - Sarguja, District business and industry centre - Ambikapur, Office of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) - Sitapur, Regional Office Chhatisgarh, Environment Propection Board, Ambikapur, Janpad Panchayat - Mainpath, Gram panchayat office - Narmadapur, Barima, Kesra, Kudarideeh and Kamleshwarpur, tahsil - Mainpath, District - Sarguja, Director Environment and Forest Ministry Environment Building, C. G. O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, Chief Forest Conservator, Environment and Forest Ministry, regional office (western region) link road No. 3, E- 5 Ravisankar Nagar, Bhopal (M. P.), headoffice Chhatisgarh Environment Protection Board, Kabir nagar commercial complex, Chhatisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal colony, Kabir Nagar, Raipur.

Subsequently, the additional collector and additional district magistrate invited the project proponent to furnish the information / show presentation before the proposed public hearing, following which representatives of the project proponent presented the information about the project while the representatives of M/s Green See India Consulting Private Limited, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, submitted the zest of their Environment Impact Assessment Report (draft E. I. A. report). Consequently, the additional collector and additional district magistrate requested the present gatherings to give their suggestion / ideas / comments regarding the proposed mining project.

2

The people present during the public hearing gave their suggestions / ideas / comments regarding the proposed mining project, which have been mentioned below : -

1. Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate, Sitapur - He requested to make available the E. I. A report. Additonally, he requested that Public Hearing plan, mining plan, action plan, and revenue plan should be submitted and an N. O. C, should be obtained from the Gramsabha under the profession act. Further historical certificate, compensatory forestry plan, rehabilitation of the people affected from the project as well as top sheet of the Survey of India are essential.

2. Mr. Heeralal, village - Pathraai and president of Panth Samiti - He said that people having patta of 80 - 85 can be able to get something and those people whose patta is of this side, could not get anything. He further said that during the first meeting all people unequivocally opposed the mine and said we do not want mining and when the second meeting was held, most people remain silent as they were under the influence of greed. There are not only government school but also private schools are operating in Patraai, where all the children of villages go to study. The proposed site of mine, where the mining is being opened is not worth mining. After starting the mining, the future generations of children will be destroyed. He said that opening of mining will end the water and moisture (dampness) of the land. The tourist places in damp (moist) area also comes under Pathrai and if the mining is opened their, then the moisture (dampness) of the land will vanished. According to him, an Adarsh School and a hospital is located just 01 kilometre. The mining activities will adversely affect the growth of school going children. The Ghunghuta drain has dried up near the Kesra mine. The people are yearning for water. Apart from this, the opening of mine will also have severe consequences on women, babies and animals etc. The free movement will also be hindered due to opening of mining in the area. That is not a place worth mining. That is a tourist place. There is a river and some drains, he added.

3. Mr. Prabhat Khalko, District Panchayat Vice President, District - Sarguja - He requested to make available the legal proposal for mining.

4. Mr. Krishna Nandan Singh, Mainpath - The collector should resolve the concerns of the people while the Chief Minister rationalise the opening of mining. The opening of mine will destroy the environment and ecological balance.

5. Mr. Sabhapati, village - Pathrai - The mine should not be opened. During the meetings of Gramsabha, we have unequivocally said that we do not want mine. However, some people agreed during the second meeting. People were told that the mine will be opened in Tikra and not in Pathrai. It will affect the study of children studying in the nearby schools. Pathrai is the heart of Mainpath and if the heart is removed, can the man can remain alive. We do want not mine. The village of Pathrai is not suitable for mining. The village of Pathrai is small. Here are schools and hospitals, which will be adversely affected by the blast carried out for mining. The opening of mine above the drain will destroy the water source. Our livelihood will be destroyed if mines are opened in the village. Please tell us where we will go with our families. We have every arrangement at our doorstep such as market, school and hospital and I do not want mine in my village. We have been opposing mining as it will be a source of trouble for us tomorrow.

6. Mr. Munna Yadav, village - Pathrai - India is my country, Pathrai is my identity and Munna Yadav is my name. The dependents of Grampanchayt are from village Pathrai. Almost 98 percent people opposed the mining; however, the proposal for mining was approved in the Grampanchayt. None of the names from village were mentioned in the Grampanchayt. The office bearers of the Grampanchayt passed the proposal in the Grampanchayt meeting. We, the villagers are committed for the conservation of environment. Soil erosion has lead to extensive damage to environment, while human as well as plants lives were adversely affected. The material used for blasting purpose causes so much noise that the whole environment gets polluted due to sound vibrations. The water should be sprinkled to settle down the rising dust; however, it not done in the area. Additionally, the chemicals also pollute the water of river and drains, which ultimately proves harmful for animals and birds. Hence, we would like to say that mine is not opened; we are against its opening.

3

7. Mr. Father Gyan Prakash Lakda, village - Pathrai - The public hearing should be organised in Pathrai. We had to spend nearly 1000 rupees to reach here. It has been mentioned in the report that asses are found in the village, which no one in the village own. The people of the village have buffalo which has not been mentioned in the report. The assurance given during the meeting of Gramsabha has not been fulfilled. They promised us that the four lane road will be constructed, which was not honoured. Whatever said or mentioned in the Gramshabha / report has not been completed. The nearby surroundings will be adversely affected due to opening of mining in the region. We are against the mining; hence, we request not to grant environmental clearance. Adequate measures should be in place first for the protection and conservation of environment. It is not only the people of Pathrai but also all people of the region will be adversely affected due to mining. The land of the region is fertile. People of the region are living happily and peacefully. The imbalance in the environment will also affect the surrounding. The school and children will have to bear the brunt of mining; the water level will further go down, the atmosphere will be affected, and just not the people of Pathrai but also villagers of Ambikapur will be affected. We have witnessed widespread flooding in Chennai due to environmental imbalance. Please do not grant environmental clearance for the sake of environment protection. Please do not allow mine opening in the region.

8. Mr. Unjan, member of District Panchayt, Mainpath - I have not been invited in the meetings as well as gramshabha proceedings. I was also not aware about the proposed public hearing. I oppose the public hearing.

9. Mr. Atal Bihari Yadav, Narmadapur - A number of mines has already been operating in the region for a long time; however, the basic infrastructures such as school, hospital, road, electricity have not been provided yet. Hence, we oppose the opening of mines in the region.

10. Mr. Nageshwar Yadav, former District Vice President, Narmadapur - I express my gross objection on the date for environmental clearance provided. He warned that the environmental clearance will destroy the water, forest and land (Jal, Jangal and Jamin) of Mainpath. Hence we oppose the mining before it destroys our environment. He further said that around 20 -25 years ago, people did not need to go to hospital. People of the region did not suffer even from fever. The water flowing in the river used to pure and cold. Cracks appeared in a number of buildings and houses including community hall, Tahsil office, and district office following blasting. He said that we do not want such environment clearance which could prove disastrous for Mainpath. Approximately 90 percent people of the region are against the mining.

11. Mr. Jamuna Prasad Yadav, former district president, Mainpath - All people are against the opening of the proposed Bauxite mining in the region. Blasting has resulted in cracks even in newly constructed buildings. The water is no more potable. People are against this mining project. Foreign tourists come here to visit the famous tourist place Daldali. Now, the rivers in the region are polluted. Hence, we all would like to request to not to open mining project considering that Daldali, historical places such as temples will be annihilated. All the thousands people present in the public hearing are against this mining project.

12. Mr. Balram Yadav, former block Congress President, Mainpath - I support all that was said by the Father about the environment. The mining must not be opened, I oppose this.

13. Mr. Ganesh Soni, representative of the member of the legislative assembly - Whatever the father had said about the environment of the country and abroad, considering those facts, we should start from Mainpath. There was a time when severe cold used to cripple in the region which has disappeared now. Due to mining of bauxite, the climate of Mainpath which was once known as the Shimla of Chhattisgarh, has severely polluted and damaged. The mining should not be started. I am against this project.

14. Mr. Ganesh Kumar Yadav, deputy Sarpanch, Barima - He said that the compensation amount has been deposited for Grampanchayat Barima, Narmadapur. Earlier people connected with mining were able to get livelihood from mining; however, the situation has changed completely. We should do our best to provide them sources of livelihood. The youths of poor families of Mainpath are not employed in the mines and no one cares about their problem. As it happened with the mine of Barima. People are in dilemma whether the mining should be allowed or not as old experiences tell us the people’s problem of livelihood have not resolved with the opening of mine. There are mines operating in every Panchayat in Mainpath. The environment condition has deteriorated. First, the government should provide us with potable water, the hand pump, and open the school and hospital and make sure that the doctors are available. If the government provide all the above mentioned facilities in our region, then we

4

support opening of mining. The amount earned from royalty should be given to Panchayat so that the Panchayat can invest it according to its requirements, namely employment-oriented development programs.

15. Mr. Ganesh Yadav, former deputy Sarpanch, village Sapnadar - I oppose the camp organised today for environmental clearance. He said that we are living in peaceful environment. And to maintain the tranquillity of environment, I want that the mining should not be opened. He added that if the opening of mine will provide an income of 25 paise then we have to incur 75 paise for that. Hence, I am against the opening of mine.

16. Mr. Chandraprakash Sonvani, District Member, Mainpath - He said that the mining should be opened; however, protection and preservation of environment should be of utmost priority. He explained that earlier people did not get adequate compensation. The water sources are depleting. Road should be build. Then I will my support for mining.

17. Mr Bali Charan Yadav, village Pathrai - He said that the camp organised to gauge the mood of public over the environment clearance for the proposed mining is a good concept. However, the sentiments of speakers are not taken into account who speaks during the public hearing. He said that I agree with provision here. I also agree with the concerns raised and suggestions given about the environment. The biggest problem is environment problem, which the entire world is facing. The chemical used in the blasting purposes dissolved in the air and reaches in our body which leads a lot of health related problems. Hence, the preservation of environment should be done by all means. Inadequate availability of greenery and plants will result into lesser availability of oxygen which will create havoc for living species. Life will not exist without oxygen. He added that Naxalism destroy a particular region but the environment pollution can destroy everything. The mining activities cause all kinds of pollution, namely water pollution, air pollution, noise pollution etc. The closure of mines operated earlier had not any major impact of lives of people connected with this. The closure of mines does not result into huge losses. He suggested that plantation of trees would be better alternative compared to mine opening. Mainpath is a tourist spot which is famous all over the world. Hence, it is not proper to open the mines in the area, it would be unacceptable.

18. Mr. Vikash Chaturvedi, village Pathrai - The vehicles used in the mining travel through the Pathrai, which causes a lot of pollution in the area when it is not fully open. When it will be fully open, one can think how much pollution it will cause, it should be taken into consideration.

19. Father Marshal Toppo, Pathrai - I feel that this public hearing has been organised to complete their own quorum. If the mine is opened, the water level will go down, the pollution level will increase. Hence, I am fully opposing the opening of mine.

20. Mr. Amarjit Singh Bhagat, Member of Legislative Assembly, Sitapur, Mainpath - I was not aware about the complaints registered by the people representatives against the proposed opening of mine. A healthy environment is invaluable for life. I want that the mine should be opened and also do not want that mine should not be opened. The public hearing should be organised where the proposed mine has to be opened. It is not proper that the public hearing has been organised around 15 -20 kilometres from the mining site. Why do you give contract of mining to others? Why you do not mine yourself? The condition of road is worse and no one wants to visit Mainpath. When we organised demonstrations to construct, then the road was build. A number of tourist spots, beautiful places and forest land suitable to maintain ecological balance. Here is proportion of life and forest in around 30 percent and 70 percent respectively. We are presenting our some objections in black and white and I would like their answers in writing from CMDC. Do not run trucks on the road build by us; instead build your own road to run your trucks.

21. Mr. Devcharan, former Sarpanch, Barima - Bring the employment that can contribute to development and not destruction. Here the destruction is being done, that must be stopped and development should be done.

22. Mr. Prabhat Khalko - The mining process pollutes the environment. The mining of bauxite is being carried out as per the mining act. However, you are not fully complying with the Mining Act, hence there is resentment among the public. The land acquisition process is also not suitable. It should be done in accordance with the recommendations of Footi Committee. The mining which started in 1992 is continuing today. The company which will establish factory will take away the bauxite. We do not want mining at the cost of destruction of environment. The compensation of land was given INR 40 lakh per

5

per acre. Additionally, the government should do the rehabilitation for the affected families. Apart from this, one member of the affected family or household should be given a permanent job. There is school and hospital in Pathrai region. However, after commencement of mining, an engineering college and a hospital with 100 beds should be opened. The development work should be carried out in such ways that it could not harm the interests of the people of Mainpath and they could be protected. It should be ensured that the small farmers should not be exploited. I want to submit my reports to the district administration.

23. Mr. Bhinsariya Ram Manjhi, district president, Manjhi Society, Mainpath - It is invaluable area for tribal. The location of public hearing has been changed which make me dubious about their intent. The Barima mine was opened by getting thumb impression of people; I feel same kind of dubious plot in this project also. The blasting was done indiscriminately which causes cracks in buildings. The payment is also not done for two - three months. I Manjhi Society request that the mine should not opened in the area.

24. Mr. Shriram Yadav, Kamleshwarpur - The people of village Pathrai should be given priority in the employment. I support it, the mine should be opened and the locals should be employed on priority basis. I support this.

25. Mr. Rajnish Pandey - The reports submitted by CMDC should also include the religious

places of the region. The tourist places of the region should also be developed in the region and help the people of Pathrai to get more and more employment opportunities. Just the plants of Eucalyptus are being planted as mentioned in the reports, whereas all other of trees should also be planted. The rivers nearby Pathrai are gradually drying. Necessary measures should be in place to protect them. Encroachment in our area is an increasing problem, hence pasture land should be provided for cattleman. The mining can be opened; however, implementation of all the matters mentioned in the report should be ensured. There are religious places in Pathrai such as Meta Point, Fish Point etc.

26. Mr. Kunj Bihari Gupta, Mainpath - CMDC gives contract to BALCO on lease agreement.

BALCO has worsened the condition of road, electricity and water. I support opening of mine, but environment protection should be of utmost priority. Trees should be planted after completion of mining. Trees should also be planted on both sides of the road. All the necessary measures should be in place to avoid pollution of the Mainpath’s environment.

27. Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate, Sitapur - The EIA report mentions presence of 08 rivers in the

region whereas the biggest river of the region, namely Ghunghuta river has been mentioned as the drain. The report has mentioned Sitapur as Tahsil while Mainpath has become a Tahsil in January 2008. There is quite difference in the population in the district. The report mentioned in the EIA report is wrong. It is a tribal area. The main source of livelihood is raring of animals. Here are a lot of bushes which did not find place in the report. The tourist are coming here to see forest, waterfalls etc. The effort should be to make Mainpath a tourist spot. The gramsabha was organised under Pesha (Occupation) Act, then why the meetings of gramshabha was organised again. We demand to develop Mainpath as a tourist spot. The plan submitted by you is vague.

28. Mr. Madho Yadav, village Kudaridih - I am a labourer of CMDC. I am not getting payment. I did not realize when the mine was closed. I am not able to feed my family due to non-payment of my wages.

29. Mr. Hariom Singh, Junior mining engineer, CMDC - The public hearing has not been organised at its designated place. Hence I object on the opening of mines.

Respected Additional Collector - I object that the consultant has not obtained the complete information / not carried out the proper study of the region before EIA report of mining for CMDC.

6

After listening and documenting all of the above statements mentioned, the Additional Collector and Additional District Magistrate as well as the regional officers requested the people present at the public hearing to express their views and giver their suggestions, when none came forward to express their thoughts, then the Additional Collector and Additional District Magistrate invited the project proponent at afternoon 02:45 p.m., to resolve the various issues raised during the public hearing.

Behalf of the project proponent, Mr. Upendra Kumar, Assistant General Manager / Regional Officer, Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Ambikapur, verbally described the various measures and solutions related to project before the present gathering to resolve the issue raised during the public hearing. Around 03:45, the Additional Collector and Additional District Magistrate announced the completion of the public hearing.

At the venue of public hearing, around 38 suggestions / views / ideas / comments as well as objections were received in black and white. All the people present during the public hearing were given opportunities to get information / explanation about the project. During the public hearing, the verbal suggestion / ideas / comments as well as objections received by 29 people, were documented. The regional officer read the same before the present gatherings. Around 450 people were present during the public hearing. Approximately 160 people put their signature on the attendance sheet. Additionally, photography and videography were done of the public hearing.

Additional Collector and Additional District Magistrate

Ambikapur; District - Sarguja