Disposed

Jivabhai Ganeshbhai Bada v. State of Gujarat

NGT8 Sept 2021IA No. 74/2020 in Original Application No. 53/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gujarat National Green Tribunal disposed of an application alleging environmental pollution from an industrial unit affecting an agriculturist. The Tribunal relied on a report from its inspection committee indicating that while the unit had past violations, it was currently complying with norms, thus declining to order closure.

What did the court decide?

No order as to cost. Original Application No. 53/2020 disposed of; Interlocutory Application No. 74/2020 closed.

Jivabhai Ganeshbhai Bada vs State of Gujarat — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2021)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.4

¶3

WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

(By Video Conferencing)

¶5

**************

¶6

Original Application No. 53/2020(WZ) I.A. No. 74/2020(WZ)

¶7

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶8

Jivabhaiganeshbhai Bada,
Residence at Mori Vas,
Samakhiyali, Village, Bhachau, Taluka,
Kutch, District.
…..Applicant(s)
Versus
1. State of Gujarat
Through Chief Secretary,
Environment and Forest Department,
Gujarat State, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar,
Pine Code-382010
2. Gujarat Pollution Control Board
Chairman Secretary Paryavaran Bhavan,
Sector-10 Gandhinagar,
Pine Code-382010
3. Collector,
Having his office at Collector Office,
Bhuj-Kutch,
Pine Code-370001
4. District Development Officer
District Panchayat, Bhuj-Kutch,
Pine Code-370001.
5. Electrotherm (India)Ltd.
(Sponge Iron & DI Pipe Plant)
Through Managing Director
or in-charge of the company, Survey No. 325,
Samakhiyali, Village, Kutch District.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s):
Mr. Rutul Kinariwala, Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s):
Mr.Maulik Nanavati, with Ms. Manvi Damne, Advocates for R- 2
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for R-5

¶9

¶10

PRESENT:

¶11

Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Sathyanarayanan (Judicial Member) Hon’ble Dr. Arun Kumar Verma (Expert Member)

¶12

Orders Pronounced on: 08.09.2021

¶13

ORDER

¶14

By consent, the Original Application is taken up for final disposal and is disposed of by this order.

¶15

The Original Applicant who is eking out his livelihood as an agriculturist and is a resident of Mori Vas, Samakhiyali Village, Bhachau Taluka, Kutch District Gujarat came forward to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Tribunal by alleging among other things that he is the owner of the land comprised in survey nos. 28611 paiki 1, 273 paiki 1 of Chhadavada Village, Bhachau Taluka, Kutch District and is carrying on agricultural activities for very many years and his sole livelihood is depending upon the income earned out of agricultural operations.

¶16

The Applicant would further aver that the Respondent No.5 company is located in revenue survey nos. 368, 388 and other survey numbers, adjacent to Samakhiyali National Highway and it is carrying on the activities of manufacturing iron, iron rod and DI Pipe etc., by melting the iron and other metals. The complaint made by the Original Applicant in this regard is that the said activities result in emission of poisonous dust, gases, and also causing serious environmental degradation and it is also affecting the agricultural activities of the Original Applicant as well as the other agricultural land owners and hence, filed this Original Application praying for appropriate orders.

¶17

¶18

The Application was listed for admission on 16.09.2020 and the Tribunal vide ordering notices to all the respondents, directed the constitution of a Joint Committee consisting of Collector, Bhuj-Kutch, Gujarat and Gujarat Pollution control Board and with the direction to submit a factual and action taken report with regard to the allegations made in the application and also fixed up an outer time limit to submit the report. It is also indicated that the Respondent No.2-Gujarat PCB shall be the nodal agency, for compliance.

¶19

The Respondent No.2 in compliance of the order, has filed the affidavit dated 03.09.2021 with the supporting documents and the contents of the same would read among other things that the inspection was conducted on 31.12.2020 and all the parameters, were normal at the relevant point of time.

¶20

It is also stated on an earlier occasion that the Respondent No.2 has issued a notice dated 02.01.2021, to Respondent No.5 under Section 31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1986, in which the following non-compliances were observed:-

¶21

“1. Ambient air was carried out at two locations:

¶22

I. Near weight bridge No.2 of the unit (up stream) results of the same shows that PM10- 185 ug/Nm3 which is higher than the permissible norms PM10- 100 ug/Nm3.

¶23

II. Near weight bridge No.3 of the unit (down stream) results of the same shows that PM10- 139 ug/Nm3 and PM2.5- 84 ug /Nm3 a which are higher than the permissible norms PM10100ug/Nm3 and PM2.5- 60 ug /Nm3 respectively”.

¶24

Accordingly, the Respondent No.5, was issued with a show cause notice and the remedial measures have also been suggested and thereafter, Respondent No.2 has issued a closure direction under the said

¶25

¶26

provision vide communication dated 19.03.2021 and also levied environmental compensation of Rs.27 lakhs.

¶27

The Learned Counsel appearing for the Original Applicant would submit that admittedly the Respondent No.5 was guilty of violating the required and relevant environmental norms and as such the Tribunal may issue appropriate directions for closure of the said unit.

¶28

Per contra, Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 would submit that in full compliance of the order dated 16.09.2020 passed by this Tribunal, the Joint Committee caused inspection and found that as on the date of inspection, all parameters were normal and however, also pointed out that on earlier occasion the Respondent No.5 was guilty of infraction of certain environmental norms and an environmental compensation of Rs. 27 lakhs was also levied and it was also deposited by the Respondent No.5.

¶29

The Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 has also invited the attention of this Tribunal to paragraph no. 18 of the reply affidavit and would submit, the Respondent No.2-Board shall continue to carry periodical inspection of the unit of the Respondent No.5 for the purpose of ensuring that no pollution is caused by them and it remains compliant, at all times.

¶30

The Tribunal heard the submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5.

¶31

The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5 would submit that the inspection caused by the inspection committee constituted by this Tribunal did not notice, any environmental violation and the Respondent No.5 would wholly comply with all the required norms and also discharging its corporate social responsibility.

¶32

¶33

The Tribunal paid it’s best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the material placed on record.

¶34

The Inspection Committee constituted by this Tribunal has caused inspection of the manufacturing facility/unit run by the Respondent No.5 and found that as on the date of inspection all required norms have been complied with. However, noted on an earlier occasion, the Respondent No.5 has violated the certain norms for which an environmental compensation of Rs. 27 lakhs was also levied upon them after offering them an fair and reasonable opportunity and the Respondent No.5 has also deposited the same.

¶35

It is also relevant to extract the paragraph no. 18 of the reply affidavit of Respondent No.2 dated 03.09.2021, which is as follows:-

¶36

“ The contention of applicant that the Board has not been taking any action against respondent no.5, despite applicant having made several complaints, is not wholly correct. I submit that action has been taken by the Board. I submit that inspections have been carried out by the Board, and as submitted hereinbefore the Board shall continue to carry periodic inspections of the unit of respondent no.5 to ensure that no pollution is caused by the industrial unit and that it remains compliant at all times”.

¶37

In the light of the said report and on consideration and appreciation of the relevant materials placed, the Tribunal is of the considered view that there is no need or necessity to close down the operations of the Respondent No.5 but at the same time it is pointed out that the Respondent No.5 is under obligation to comply with all the environmental norms and it is also open to the Respondent No.2 to cause regular and surprise inspection as to the compliance of the said norms on the part of the Respondent No.5.

¶38

¶39

In the result, the Original Application stands disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.

¶40

Consequently, interlocutory Application No. 74/2020 also stands closed.

¶41

M. Sathyanarayanan, JM

¶42

Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM

¶43

September 08, 2021 Original Application No. 53/2020(WZ) I.A. No. 74/2020(WZ) JG

¶44

Jivabhai Ganeshbhai Bada v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jivabhai Ganeshbhai Bada v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Madadh Poultry Farm through Its Partner Mr Surjit Singh vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Ajay Bisht vs State of Uttarakhand

Tausif Bagnikar vs M/S Auto India Bajaj

Tausif Bagnikar vs M/S Auto India Bajaj

Green Gene Enviro Protection & Infrastructure Private Limited vs Daman Diu & Dadra Nagar Haveli Pollution Control Committee

Sandeep Singh vs Union of India

Krishi Vigyan Arogya Sanstha vs Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd.

Om Singh Chundawat vs State of Rajasthan through the Secretary

01. Smt. Sushilam. Naik Widow of Late Mukund B. Naik vs 1. Goa Coastal Zone Managment Authority

Tausif Bagnikar vs M/S Auto India Bajaj

Tausif Bagnikar vs M/S Auto India Bajaj

Kashinath Jairam Shetye vs the Member Secretary Gdzma

Jivabhai Ganeshbhai Bada vs State of Gujarat

Krishi Vigyan Arogya Sanstha vs Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd.