Disposed

Jayshri Gayatri Food Products Private Limited through Director Kishan Modi Son of Shri Rajendra Prasad Modi v. M.P Pollution Control Board

NGT28 Mar 2022IA No. 23/2022 in Appeal No. 2/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal Special Bench disposed of an appeal filed against an order directing closure of the appellant's unit for environmental violations. The appeal was declared infructuous as the State PCB had already revoked the closure order and levied compensation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of as infructuous. State PCB directed to finalize further action within one month. I.A. No.23/2022 disposed of.

Jayshri Gayatri Food Products Private Limited through… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2022)

¶1

Item No. 03

¶2

(Court No. 1)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SPECIAL BENCH

¶4

(By Video Conferencing)

¶5

Appeal No. 02/2022 (CZ) (I.A. No.23/2022)

¶6

Jayshri Gayatri Foods Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

MPPCB Respondent

¶9

Date of hearing: 28.03.2022

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Appellant: Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate

¶12

Respondent(s): Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Advocate for MP PCB

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 19.01.2022 passed by the MP State PCB directing closure of the unit of the appellant on account of violation of the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The violations alleged include not installing requisite equipments to prevent pollution, resulting in discharge of untreated effluents, to the detriment of environment.

¶15

Vide order dated 04.03.2022, the Tribunal considered the matter when it was noted that apart from closure, levy of environmental compensation on polluter pays principle was also proposed. The appellant claimed that steps had been taken and the appellant was prepared to pay 50% compensation proposed and represent to the State

¶16

¶17

PCB against the closure direction. The Tribunal permitted the appellant to approach the State PCB with its offer to deposit 50% amount of the proposed environmental compensation and claim that remedial action had been taken.

¶18

We have taken up the matter for consideration. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the State PCB has revoked compensation considering the case of the appellant and 50% of compensation proposed has been deposited. Final demand has yet to be raised by the PCB. The appellant does not wish to proceed further in the appeal without prejudice to its contesting the matter before the State PCB.

¶19

The State PCB has filed its reply dated 25.03.2022 during the course of hearing stating that subsequent to the impugned closure order, the unit has made waste treatment equipments operational. Compensation of Rs. 1,20,50,000/- has been levied for past violations for the period from 01.06.2019 to 19.01.2022 out of which 50% amount has been deposited. Additional environmental compensation has been levied for continuing violation upto 25.02.2022 out of which 50% amount has been deposited. Consent to Establish has been granted and order of closure revoked. Demand for compensation is in the process of being finalised.

¶20

In view of revocation of order of closure, the appeal which stands disposed of as infructuous without prejudice to the State PCB finalizing its further action within one month, in accordance with law.

¶21

I.A. No.23/2022 also stands disposed of.

¶22

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP

S.K. Singh, JM

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM