SHILLONG, MAY 5: The Jaintia Students’ Union (JSU), Khliehriat Circle, has formally objected to a proposed 217.394-hectare limestone mining project by Shree Cement Limited at Lum Syrman in Elaka Nongkhlieh, East Jaintia Hills, calling for the immediate suspension of the public hearing and scrapping of the project.

In a letter addressed to the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board (MSPCB), JSU president Livingson Sama described the proposal as legally flawed and environmentally risky. The Union warned that it would launch a district-wide democratic agitation if the clearance process proceeds, and escalate the matter to the National Green Tribunal and the Meghalaya High Court.

The Union questioned the classification of the project under “Category B1,” arguing that, as per the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, mining projects exceeding 50 hectares fall under “Category A” and require appraisal at the central level. It alleged that the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Meghalaya, acted beyond its jurisdiction in issuing the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the project.

Raising environmental concerns, the JSU claimed that the draft EIA report downplays the ecological significance of the Wah Litein River, which it described as a vital agrarian resource for local communities. It also warned of potential damage to the region’s fragile limestone karst landscape and underground water systems due to mining activity.

On the issue of land ownership, the Union alleged that the project is based on a disputed agreement for sale dated October 6, 2025, involving community-owned tribal land. It argued that any such transfer would violate provisions of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971, and stated that legal proceedings have already been initiated to challenge the transaction.

The JSU further asserted that the MSPCB should halt the clearance process until the land ownership dispute is resolved, adding that proceeding otherwise would amount to a failure of statutory duty.

Describing the issue as one of “survival” for local communities, the Union reiterated its opposition, stating that it would resist any attempt to proceed with the project at the cost of environmental and community interests.