Disposed

Sarvesh Dangwal v. State of Uttarakhand

NGT15 Mar 2021Original Application No. 559/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NGT examined the State PCB report regarding environmental violations at Arboria Luxury Homes. The Tribunal found the compensation imposed was insignificant and not recovered. It directed the PCB to take further remedial action, seal vacant flats, and fix continuing compensation on a rising scale until compliance is achieved. The application was disposed of without issuing a notice to the alleged v

What did the court decide?

Directed State PCB to take effective remedial measures, seal vacant flats, and fix continuing compensation on a rising scale until compliance.

Sarvesh Dangwal vs State of Uttarakhand — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2021)

¶1

Item No. 06

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

(By Video Conferencing)

¶5

Original Application No. 559/2019

¶6

(With report dated 05.02.2021)

¶7

Sarvesh Dangwal Applicant

¶8

Versus State of Uttarakhand Respondent

¶9

Date of hearing: 15.03.2021

¶10

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

¶11

Respondent: Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocate for UEPPCB

¶12

ORDER

¶13

A report was sought from the Uttarakhand State Pollution Control

¶14

Board with reference to the allegation of violation of environmental norms by Arborea Luxury Homes, Tarla Nagal, Kulhan, Dehradun, having a swimming pool and 96 apartments.

¶15

The matter was considered in the light of report received. Vide

¶16

order dated 15.01.2020, it was observed:-

¶17

“ The report acknowledges extraction of groundwater but the explanation for not taking action is that prosecution was initiated and report was sent to Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), Dehradun.

¶18

¶19

There can be no dispute with a proposition that mere initiation of prosecution for the past violation is no bar to prohibiting current illegal action and recovering compensation on ‘Polluter Pays’ principle. The Uttarakhand State PCB being a regulator under the provision of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 can certainly exercise its jurisdiction in the matter, which has not been done.

¶20

Let the State PCB take further action after following due procedure of law and furnish a compliance report to the Tribunal before the next date by email at [email protected].”

¶21

The matter was last considered on 08.10.2020 in light of further report of the CPCB dated 07.10.2020 showing that the violation of environmental norms was still continuing. The Tribunal directed remedial action and filing of compliance report. The relevant extracts from the order are as follows:-

¶22

“3. Accordingly, the report dated 07.10.2020 has been filed by State PCB to the effect that the criminal complaint has been filed on 04.09.2020 under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, alleging that a building has been constructed without NOC from the State PCB. 96 flats have been constructed with STP, which is without consent to establish/operate under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Notice for closure was issued on 21.03.2017 but since 40 flats were inhabited, the closure was not practical.

¶23

4. We are surprised at the repeated stand taken by the State PCB in not doing its duty and in a way supporting perpetuation of illegality instead of taking effective remedial action against the violation of law. The inference is either there is incompetence or collusion which needs to be looked into at appropriate level and action taken against such incompetence and collusion. The least which could be done was assessment and recovery of compensation, apart from black-listing of the law violator. Merely, because an irreversible illegality had been committed, the law cannot be helpless. First, there was apparent failure or collusion in violation of law being allowed and thereafter, there is unwillingness to enforce the law inspite of order of this Tribunal.

¶24

5. Accordingly, the State PCB may take further effective measures in the matter in accordance with law. The vacant flats may need to be sealed till the law is complied with. A compliance report may be filed before the next date by e-mail at judicial-

¶25

¶26

[email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.”

¶27

Accordingly, an action taken report has been filed by the State PCB on 05.02.2021 as follows:

¶28

“1. As per the Inspection Report of Uttrakhand Pollution Control Board's Regional Office, Dehradun, dated 27.10.2020, the Arboria Luxury Home, Dehradun was commissioned in year 2013, which is of 96 flats, all are occupied by the residents. For domestic effluent, STP having 60 KLD capacity is installed, which was found operational at the time of inspection. Consent to operate was not taken by Society yet. As per the inspection report, the society is utilizing two borewell of capacity 7.5 HP and 5.0 HP respectively and society has not obtained permission from the Central Ground Water Board. The matter has been referred to CGWB, Dehradun for necessary action. Annexure-l

¶29

3. The compliant case against the unit M/s Arboria Luxury Home, Tarla Nagla, Kulhan, Dehradun is under trial in the designated court ACJM V, Dehradun.

¶30

4. As per order no. UKPCB/HO/Gen-183-440/2021/57, dated 19.01.2021, Uttrakhand Pollution Control Board has imposed a sum of rupees ₹14,66,250/- (Rs. Fourteen Lakh Sixty Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only) as Environment Compensation on M/s Arboria Luxury Home, Tarla Nagla, Kulhan, Dehradun on dated 19-01-2020. (Annexure-2) ”

¶31

From the above, it is seen that the project is functioning without statutory consent to operate and also extracting ground water without the requisite permission. The compensation imposed is insignificant and does not cover the entire period of violation and does not ensuring action against continuing violation for which compensation must progressively include element of deterrence to compel compliance. The compensation amount has not even been recovered.

¶32

In view of above, let the State PCB take further remedial action to ensure compliance of environmental norms and fix continuing

¶33

¶34

compensation on rising scale till compliance, following due process of law.

¶35

We have not found it necessary to issue notice to the alleged violator as it is to be heard by the regulatory authority in exercise of its statutory power and remedies can be taken against the decision of the statutory regulator.

¶36

The application is disposed of.

¶37

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP

¶38

S.K. Singh, JM

¶39

Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM

¶40

March 15, 2021 Original Application No. 559/2019 SN

¶41

Sarvesh Dangwal v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Dangwal v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Court on Its Own Motion vs State of Karnataka

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

Purva Pravin Bora vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Anwar Hussain Ansari Vice President Jhamumo vs State of Jharkhand

Shiv Lal vs Ministry of Environment & Forest

Jainuddin vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Nature Club of Rajasthan (Ngo) vs 1- Union of India

Shivansh Pandey vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Court on Its Own Motion vs State of Karnataka

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

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 383/2017 in Original Application No. 180/2017 of Purva Pravin Bora vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Sanjeev vs State of Haryana

T N Chaurasiya vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Anuradha vs Government of Uttar Pradesh