Disposed

Anwar Hussain Ansari Vice President Jhamumo v. State of Jharkhand

NGT10 Mar 2021Original Application No. 162/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this matter regarding encroachment on Challiya Nala, the National Green Tribunal treated the compulsion to deposit environmental compensation as a proposal. The Court directed the State PCB to finalize the order after giving due opportunity to the applicant before passing any further order.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the deposit order be treated as a proposal and the matter finalized within two months after affording a hearing to the applicant.

Anwar Hussain Ansari Vice President Jhamumo vs State of… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2021)

¶1

Court No. 1

¶2

Item No. 07

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

(By Video Conferencing)

¶5

Original Application No. 162/2019 (I.A. No. 425/2020 & I.A. No. 426/2020)

¶6

(With report dated 08.01.2021)

¶7

Anwar Hussain Ansari, Vice President, Jhamumo

Applicant

Versus

State of Jharkhand

Respondent

Date of hearing: 10.03.2021

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶14

Applicant: -None

¶15

Respondent: Mr. Rajat Jariwal, Advocate for M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. Mr. Nishant Piyush, Advocate for JSPCB.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The issue involved in this matter relates to encroachment by M/s.

¶18

Grasim Industries Limited, Rehla in District Palamau.

¶19

The matter was last considered on 23.09.2020 in the light of report of the State PCB dated 28.01.2020, operative part of the said order is as follows:-

¶20

“ 2. An action taken report was sought from the State PCB vide order dated 19.11.2019 and 05.12.2019. Accordingly, report dated 28.01.2020 has been filed by the State PCB as follows:-

¶21

“1. The Deputy Commissioner, Dist- Palamau and the Regional Officer, JSPCB Regional Office, Ranchi has informed that the encroachment on the Challiya Nala has been removed.

¶22

¶23

2. Previously, the Circle Officer, Vishrampur had informed that the encroachment was done by M/s K.G. Industries, Rehla and action was taken accordingly but subsequently after further inspections the Circle Officer, Vishrampur informed that the encroachment was done by M/s Grasim Industries Limited, Rehla and not by M/s K.G. Industries, Rehla. On the basis of this report an environmental compensation of INR 40,20,000.00/- (Rupees Fourty Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only/-) has been imposed on M/s Grasim Industries Limited, Rehla as per the Methodology for assessing Environmental Compensation developed by CPCB which is based on Pollution Index, duration of violation in terms of number of days, scale of operation in terms of micro & small/medium/large industry and location in terms of proximity to the large habitations. ”

¶24

3. The Member Secretary has informed that no steps have been taken to recover compensation on the ground that a stay has been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in another matter. Each matter depends on its own merits. Once an order has been passed by the State PCB on being satisfied that law has been violated and the order has attained finality, there is no reason not to recover the same. This inaction by the State PCB is not an isolated instance. As observed in the separate order passed today in OA No. 23/2017, the State PCB appears to be either not competent or in collusion with law violators.

¶25

4. Accordingly, the State PCB may take appropriate steps to enforce its order in absence of any prohibition from any higher forum. An action taken report may be filed before the next date by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF. ”

¶26

Accordingly, further report has been filed by the State PCB on 08.01.2021 as follows:-

¶27

“ 3. On the basis of the report of the Circle Officer, Vishrampur the encroachment was done by M/s K.G. Industries, Rehla and M/s Grasim Industries Limited, Rehla. On the basis of this report an Environmental Compensation of INR 13,40,000.00/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Forty Thousand Only/-) and INR 40,20,000.00/(Rupees Forty Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only/-) was imposed on M/s K.G. Industries, Rehla and M/s Grasim Industries Limited, Rehla respectively as per the Methodology for assessing Environmental Compensation developed by CPCB which is based on Pollution Index, duration of violation in terms of number of days, scale of operation in terms of micro & small/medium/large industry and location in terms of proximity to the large habitations.

¶28

4. M/s K.G. Industries, Rehla has deposited the Environmental Compensation of INR 13,40,000.00/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Forty

¶29

¶30

Thousand Only/-) vide DO No - 309882 dated 24.12.2020 issued by Kotak Mahindra Bank and M/s Grasim Industries Limited, Rehla has deposited the Environmental Compensation of INR 40,20,000.00/- ( Rupees Fourty Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only/-) vide DONo - 048365 dated 24.12.2020issued by HDFC Bank. ”

¶31

As against above, I.A. No. 425/2020 and I.A. No. 426/2020 have been filed by M/s. Grasim Industries Limited. In I.A. No. 425/2020, it is stated that the amount in question has been deposited under protest. In I.A. No. 426/2020, it is stated that the said applicant has been wrongly mentioned as encroacher without being given any opportunity of being heard.

¶32

On being asked learned Counsel for the State PCB stated that he has no instructions.

¶33

In view of above, we direct that the order for deposit will be treated as proposal which may be finalised by the State PCB, after giving due opportunity to the said applicant, M/s. Grasim Industries Limited. The deposit will abide by further orders which may be passed after such hearing. The matter be finalised within two months.

¶34

The application is disposed of.

¶35

In view of order in the main matter, all pending I.A.s also stand disposed of.

¶36

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP

¶37

S.K. Singh, JM

¶38

Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM

¶39

March 10, 2021 Original Application No. 162/2019 AVT

¶40

Anwar Hussain Ansari Vice President Jhamumo v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwar Hussain Ansari Vice President Jhamumo v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Hanumant Chauhan vs State of Maharashtra

C.Palanisamy vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

S P Muthuraman vs Ministry of Environment & Forest

Prabhat Mohan Pandey S/O Shri Mohan Pandey vs State of Madhya Pradesh through District Collector

Purva Pravin Bora vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Ms. Purva Pravin Bora vs Ministry of Environment and Forest & Cc

Court on Its Own Motion vs State of Karnataka

Prabhjot Kaur vs Transport Department

Sushil Sharma vs Chief Secretary Govt. of Mp

Rahul Hanumant Chauhan vs State of Maharashtra

Prabhat Mohan Pandey S/O Shri Mohan Pandey vs State of Madhya Pradesh through District Collector

Munjoh Resorts Private Ltd. through Director vs Andaman & Nicobar Administration through the Lieutenant Governor.

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 24/2018 in Appeal No. 02/2018 of M/S. Parampara Ayurved vs the Chief Secretary Department of Environment Government of West Bengal

Tapas Kumar Ghosh S/O Late Sukumar Ghosh vs Sri Subrata Mukherjee the Member Secretary West Bengal Pollution Control Board