Dismissed

Anadi Nath Bag v. Pollution Control Board

NGT5 May 2022Original Application No. 119/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application alleging noise and chemical pollution from a scrap shop near the applicant's residence, the National Green Tribunal examined inspection reports and affidavits. The court dismissed the application, finding the shop operated legally, used manual labor, and noise levels were average for the area.

What the court decided

AI extract

Anadi Nath Bag vs Pollution Control Board — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2022)

¶1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶2

............ ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.119/2021/EZ

¶3

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶4

Sri Anadi Nath Bag, S/o Late Nityananda Bag, Residing at Naity Road, Village-Chhotobehara, Post Office-Barabehara, Police Station-Uttarpara, District-Hooghly-712246 Land Mark-Bank of Baroda Versus

¶5

....Applicant(s)

¶6

1. Pollution Control Board Government of West Bengal, Service through the Chairman, Paribesh Bhavan, 10A, Block-LA, Sector-III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700098

¶7

2. The State of West Bengal, Service through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Affairs, Having office situated at Nabanna, 325, Sarat Chandra Chatterjee Roadh, P.O. Shibpur, District-Howrah-711102

¶8

3. District Magistrate (L.R.), District-Hooghly, Having office at Chinsurah, Post office and Police Station-Chinsurah, District-Hooghly-712101

¶9

¶10

4. Sub Divisional Officer, Serampore, Having office situated at Serampore, Serampore and Police Station-Serampore, District-Hooghly-712201

¶11

5. The Commissioner of Police, Chandernagore Police Commissionerate, Having office situated at Chinsurah Police Line, Chinsurah, Hooghly-712101

¶12

6. Block Development Officer, Serampore Uttarpara Development Block, Having office situated at Serampore, District-Hooghly-712201

¶13

7. Prodhan Nabagram Gram Panchayat Having office situated at 15A, Bankim Chatterjee Road, Post office-Nabagram, District-Hooghly-712246

¶14

8. Officer-in-Charge, Uttarpara Police Station, Having office situated at Grand Trunk Road, Uttarpara, Hooghly-712258

¶15

9. Nanda Dulal Sardar, S/o Nani Gopal Sardar, Residing at Wireless Road, Bara Behara Post Office-Bara Behara, Police Station-Uttarpara, District-Hooghly-712246 And carrying on business at Vilalge Chhotobehara, Post Office-Barabehara, Police Station-Uttarpara, District-Hooghly-712246

¶16

¶17

Land Mar-Bank of Baroda

¶18

....Respondent(s)

¶19

COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT:

¶20

Ms. Oindrila Ghosh, Advocate

¶21

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS:

¶22

Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Advocate for R-1, Mr. Sudip Kumar Dutta, Advocate for State Respondents, Mr. Prasenjit Debnath, Advocate for R-9

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) HON’BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA (EXPERT MEMBER)

¶25

Reserved On:- 27 th April, 2022
Pronounce On:- 05 th May, 2022

1. Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published on
the net? Yes
2. Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published in the
NGT Reporter? Yes
JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

¶26

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

¶27

This original application has been filed by the Applicant with the allegation that the Respondent No.9 is operating a scrap shop in L.R. Plot No. 1058, Bastu Land, under J.L. No. 6, Mouza-KhorddaBahera under Police Station Uttarpara, District Hooghly, whereas the applicant is residing in a two storied building situated at L.R. Plot No. 1062/1329, Bastu Land, Mouza Khordda-Bahera, J.L. No. 6 under Police Station Uttarpara, District Hooghly.

¶28

¶29

It is stated that in the process of scrap business the private respondent is dismantling used articles, vehicles, two wheelers etc. by using harmful chemicals in the residential area and contaminating the entire area with toxic materials also leading to garbage and waste materials.

¶30

It is also stated that the area is littered with discarded plastic materials, broken electrical equipment, table foil, broken glass, aluminum cans, toiletry items, sharp metal objects, blades etc. It is also stated that the Respondent No.9 is running machines with the loud thud sound for 10 to 12 hours each day creating massive noise pollution.

¶31

Notices were issued to the Respondents and various respondents have filed their affidavits.

¶32

An affidavit dated 02.02.2022 has been filed by Respondent No.1, West Bengal Pollution Control Board bringing on record the Inspection Report of an inspection carried out on 14.01.2022. The observation and remarks of the Inspection Report read as under: -

¶33

“9) Observation: -

¶34

The unit is situated on the west side of the complainant’s house across a lane (off Naity Road) approx. 10 ft. wide. During inspection, the complainant Sri Anadi Nath Bag was not present. His son, Sri Abhishek Bag, was present. He stated that the unit causes noise pollution and odour.

¶35

It was observed that the unit is a Scrap Shop. Scrap materials (News paper, plastic bottles, cardboard carton, scrap iron etc.) are purchased/collected from houses, stored in the unit and

¶36

¶37

then resold. As informed by the proprietor, the shop is running for last twenty years.

¶38

The unit has four nos. workers – the proprietor and his family members. Only scrap sorting and packaging was observed during the inspection. The work was being done manually – no machinery was found in the shop. No use of acid or other chemical was observed.

¶39

This is a mixed area with residential and commercial activities as well as high traffic movement along Naity Road. Therefore ambient noise level in the area is high. Some noise was generated from the scrap shop due to scrap iron handling (loading, unloading, sorting). Noise measured from the complainant’s house was found to be 68.73db. (Average). Peak noise level observed was 77.30 db.

¶40

10) Remarks:

¶41

1) As per the present categorization order of the State Board, Consent is not required to be obtained from the State Board for such scrap trading activity/shop.

¶42

2) It is recommended that the scrap shop should handle the scrap carefully to prevent noise generation especially during loading and unloading.”

¶43

The Additional District Magistrate and District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Hooghly has filed an affidavit stating therein that plot No.1058 is a shop. On enquiry conducted in respect of the property, it was found that the Respondent No.9, Nanda Dulal Sardar has been running a scrap shop in an area of about 0.01 acre in the said property for a long time. The Applicant’s residence is just opposite to the scrap shop in a two storied building.

¶44

¶45

The Respondent No.8, Officer-in-Charge, Uttarpara Police Station in his affidavit has stated that the Respondent No.9 is carrying on the business of used articles and scrap iron, old newspaper, old plastic chair, table and bottles as well as paper cartons.

¶46

During inspection the Applicant was also present as also the Respondent No.9 and though the Applicant alleged that there was lot of noise and sound pollution during the processing of scrap articles but the other persons in the area who were contacted, did not make any allegation about the scrap shop business of the Respondent No.9 causing any noise pollution however, since one Mr. Abhishek Bag, son of the Applicant, Anadi Nath Bag had submitted a complaint in the Uttarpara Police Station, Kanaipur Beat House on 09.01.2021, the ASI submitted prosecution vide Kanaipur B/H NCR No.13/21 dated 12.01.2021 under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. against Debabrata Sardar son of Respondent No.9. It is submitted that earlier also a compliant was submitted by Abhishek Bag on 03.01.2020 and NCR No.152/20 dated 03.12.2020 under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. has been registered against the Respondent No.9.

¶47

The Respondent No.9 however in his affidavit has denied that there was any noise pollution being caused in his scrap business from the premises in question which has been running from the last 20 years. He further stated that the house of the Applicant is situated just beside the Naity Road and therefore, the Applicant has

¶48

¶49

ignored the noise being caused by vehicles moving on the road. The said respondent also denied that there existed any manufacturing unit nor any recycling unit in the said premises or that he was using any harmful chemical or acid for dismantling scraps and twowheeler vehicles.

¶50

Ms. Oindrila Ghosh, learned Counsel for the Applicant also placed before us few photographs to show scrap and scrap material in the shape of plastic bags, baskets, cycle parts etc. lying on the roof of the shop which is said to be the place where the Respondent No.9 is running his business. The photographs also show that some of the scrap is being brought in an mini truck. The learned Counsel also referred to the photographs dated 07.03.2020 to show that some dirty water had collected in the area and submitted that it was actually waste material of acid used in the business of scrap disposal by the Respondent No.9.

¶51

However, from the Inspection Report which has been filed by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board and the submission of the parties, the facts that emerge are that there is scrap shop in the premises in question and scrap material in the shape of old newspaper, plastic bottles, cardboard cartons, scrap iron, scrap cycles/parts etc. are purchased/collected from houses and stored in the Unit and then resold. The scrap shop of the Respondent No.9 has been running for the last 20 years; there are about 04 workers in the Unit including the proprietor and his family members. In this shop only scrap sorting and packaging was observed during

¶52

¶53

inspection. The work was being done manually and no machinery was found in the shop, no use of acid or other chemical was observed in the shop. The noise level which was measured from the complainant’s house was found to be 68.73 db (average) and peak noise level observed was 77.30 db. Some noise was generated from the scrap shop due to scrap iron handling loading, unloading and sorting. The Inspection Team however noted that the area in question is a mixed area having residential as well as commercial activities and being on the side of the Naity Road there is heavy traffic movement. The Committee only recommended that the shop should handle the scrap carefully to prevent noise generation especially during loading and unloading.

¶54

The affidavit of the Respondent No.9 also shows that the business is being carried on in the rented premises of Sri Debashish Bag who is a relation of the Applicant’s family and that there is some property dispute between the Applicant and the owner of the premises where the Respondent No.9 is carrying on his business. It is also stated that the main business of the Respondent No.9 is to purchase scrap from local vendors known as pheriwalas and storing it in the shop and then selling it to other persons. The Respondent No.9 in his affidavit has also stated that the house of the Applicant is situated near the Naity Road which starts from the Konnagar Railway Station and connects to the State Highway and there is heavy traffic on the road.

¶55

¶56

From the documents on record, we find that there is a categorically finding by the Inspection Team that in the premises in question there is no machinery being used in the shop, only scrap sorting and packaging is being done. The noise level was also found to be average and the peak level was 77.30 db.

¶57

For reasons stated above, we find no merit in the Original

¶58

Application and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶59

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

........................................
B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JM
........................................
SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EM

¶61

Kolkata, May 05, 2022, Original Application No.119/2021/EZ MN

¶62

Anadi Nath Bag v. Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Anadi Nath Bag v. Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagan Kumar J vs Minor Irrigation Department

Banshi Badan Kundu vs the State of West Bengal Service through the Secretary

Uda Ram S O Shri Ramnarayan vs State of Rajasthan through the Secretary

Saviour Park Apartment Owners Association vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Sri Ajit Kumar Dhal vs State of Odisha & Ors.

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

Mrs Sheetal Rohit Chaturvedi vs M/S Tanish Associates

Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Banshi Badan Kundu vs the State of West Bengal Service through the Secretary

Sunil Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand

Joydeep Mukherjee vs Member Secretary West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Malay Rudra vs Bengal Peerless Housing Development Company Ltd.

Sri Ajit Kumar Dhal vs State of Odisha & Ors.

Ajay Kumar Bhagat vs the State of Jharkhand