Sanjay Chauhan v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

NGT4 Mar 2022IA No. 11/2022 in Original Application No. 38/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order regarding instant applications for recall of a previous order and setting aside costs. The Tribunal rejected the applications, directing the applicant to clarify required actions by the State Pollution Control Board and rejecting the lack of timelines and action in the SCR.

What did the court decide?

Instant applications for recall of order and setting aside costs dismissed. Applicant directed to specify required actions by JSPCB.

Sanjay Chauhan vs Central Coalfields Ltd. — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2022)

¶1

Item Nos. 05-09

¶2

Court No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA (Through Video Conferencing)

¶4

Original Application No. 27/2020/EZ (I.A. No.10/2022/EZ) With Original Application No. 28/2020/EZ With Original Application No. 37/2020/EZ With Original Application No. 38/2020/EZ (I.A. No.11/2022/EZ) With Original Application No. 39/2020/EZ

¶5

Sanjay Chauhan Applicant(s)

¶6

Versus Central Coalfield Ltd. & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of hearing: 04.03.2022

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶9

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate

¶10

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gora Chand Roy Choudhury, Advocate for R-2, Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate for R-3 & 4, Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Advocate for R-5

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Mr. Saurabh Sharma, learned Counsel is present for the Applicant.

¶13

One reply affidavit dated 04.08.2020 has been filed by Respondent No.1; Central Coalfield Limited; same is taken on record. (in O.A. No.27/2020/EZ)

¶14

One counter-affidavit dated 04.02.2022 has been filed by Respondent No.5, Department of Mines and Geology; same is taken on record. (in O.A. No.27/2020/EZ)

¶15

One reply affidavit dated 12.09.2020 has been filed by Respondent No.1; Central Coalfield Limited; same is taken on record. (in O.A. No.28/2020/EZ)

¶16

¶17

One counter-affidavit dated 04.02.2022 has been filed by Respondent No.5, Department of Mines and Geology; same is taken on record. (in O.A. No.28/2020/EZ)

¶18

One reply affidavit dated 12.09.2020 has been filed by Respondent No.1; Central Coalfield Limited; same is taken on record. (in O.A. No.37/2020/EZ)

¶19

One counter-affidavit dated 04.02.2022 has been filed by Respondent No.5, Department of Mines and Geology; same is taken on record. (in O.A. No.37/2020/EZ)

¶20

One reply affidavit dated 12.09.2020 has been filed by Respondent No.1; Central Coalfield Limited; same is taken on record. (in O.A. No.38/2020/EZ)

¶21

One counter-affidavit dated 04.02.2022 has been filed by Respondent No.5, Department of Mines and Geology; same is taken on record. (in O.A. No.38/2020/EZ)

¶22

One supplementary affidavit dated 25.02.2022 has been filed by the Applicant in I.A. No.11/2022/EZ; same is taken on record. (in O.A. No.38/2020/EZ)

¶23

One reply affidavit dated 12.09.2020 has been filed by Respondent No.1; Central Coalfield Limited; same is taken on record. (in O.A. No.39/2020/EZ)

¶24

One counter-affidavit dated 04.02.2022 has been filed by Respondent No.5, Department of Mines and Geology; same is taken on record. (in O.A. No.39/2020/EZ)

¶25

Mr. Saurabh Sharma, learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as other counsel for Respondents state that the copy of the affidavit dated 04.08.2020 has not been served upon them.

¶26

¶27

One Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the Respondent No.1 but he is not present today.

¶28

Let the copy of this order be communicated to the Chairman & Managing Director, Central Coalfield Ltd., Ranchi who shall put in appearance either in person or through some counsel on his behalf by the next date of listing. He shall also serve a copy of his affidavit dated 04.08.2020 on the learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as other counsel for the Respondents within a week hereof.

¶29

In view of the order passed in IAs, the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board is granted four weeks time to file a fresh affidavit bringing on record the Action Taken Report after due site inspection and also state as to after 22.06.2020 how many times Consent to Operate (CTO) has been granted/renewed of the Respondent No.1.

¶30

The Member Secretary shall also file an affidavit bringing on record a comprehensive report giving the timeline for completion of all the deficiencies and inadequacies noted in the various reports and the timeline for completion of the same and also clarify whether the Environmental Compensation has been recovered or not and what action has been taken in this regard for each of the projects. The Member Secretary shall also state in his affidavit as to why the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station has not yet been installed in that area to check the quality of air pollution and also state the penal action to be taken against officials for non-compliance of Environmental Norms.

¶31

18. List on 05.05.2022.

¶32

¶33

I.A. No.10/2022/EZ & I.A. No.11/2022/EZ:-

¶34

I.A. No.10/2022/EZ & I.A. No.11/2022/EZ taken up. These IAs have been filed with the prayer for recall of the order dated 08.12.2021 and to set aside the cost imposed upon the applicants of the IAs.

¶35

The submission of the Mr. Nilanjan Pal, learned Counsel for the applicant in the IAs is that by mistake the Inspection Report conducted by the applicants herein had been labeled as Action Taken Report.

¶36

This inspection was carried out in pursuance of a direction given by the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board dated 10.11.2020 (Pg. 168 of the paper book in O.A. No.38/2020/EZ) and of an earlier order dated 13.08.2020 passed by the Regional Officer, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Ranchi (Pg. No.190 of the paper book in O.A. No.38/2020/EZ).

¶37

We have perused the letter dated 13.08.2021 which in fact directs the applicants herein who is R.N. Kashyap, Regional Officer, Regional Office, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board to submit an Action Taken Report in pursuance of the directions given by the Tribunal. The Report of the applicant herein dated 18.08.2021 has been filed at page no. 170 of the paper book in O.A. No.38/2020/EZ.

¶38

The learned Counsel submitted that the applicant herein was not required to take any action and therefore, the question of submission of Action Taken Report did not arise. He further submits that the action was required to be taken by the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. What action has been taken in this regard, has not been spelt out in the IAs.

¶39

¶40

We, therefore, direct the applicant of the IAs to spell out in so many words what action was required to be taken by the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board.

¶41

The Action Taken Report has still not been filed by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board despite several directions given by the Tribunal from 22.06.2020 onwards.

¶42

From all the deficiencies and inadequacies noticed by the applicant Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha and Mr. R.N. Kashyap and in their report dated 18.08.2021, we find that no timelines have been suggested for completion of the works which would have shown that some action has been taken by them. The percentage of green belt developed and what remains to be developed has also not been stated. Timeline for completion of proper drain has not been given. No timeline has been given for construction of siltation ponds.

¶43

For reasons aforesaid, we do not find any good ground for interference with our order dated 08.12.2021. The I.A. No.10/2022/EZ and I.A. No.11/2022/EZ stand rejected.

¶44

..................................... B. Amit Sthalekar, JM

¶45

................................... Saibal Dasgupta, EM

¶46

March 04, 2022 Original Application No. 27/2020/EZ (I.A. No.10/2022/EZ) With Original Application No. 28/2020/EZ With Original Application No. 37/2020/EZ With Original Application No. 38/2020/EZ (I.A. No.11/2022/EZ) With Original Application No. 39/2020/EZ MN

¶47

Sanjay Chauhan v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Chauhan v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

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

News Item Published in Hindustan Times Dt 12.02.2021 Title 12 Dead 36 Injured as Fire Breaks Out in Factory in Tamil Nadu Sivakasi vs .

Pasumpom Anand vs State of Tamilnadu

Dr Bina Basnett vs State of Sikkim

P Gengaiyan vs the District Collector

Shivling Mahadappa Bodhane vs State of Maharashtra

Mangal Singh Bundela vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary Mineral Resources Department

Anish vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

R K Gupta vs

Srikanta Kumar Pakal vs State of Odisha

Dr Bina Basnett vs State of Sikkim

Dr Bina Basnett vs State of Sikkim

Biranchi Narayan Mahapatra vs State of Odisha

Sajnay Chauhan vs Central Coalfields Limited

Court on Its Own Motion vs the State of West Bengal through Chief Secretary