Disposed

Mohammada Khalik Ansari v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT17 Oct 2022Original Application No. 22/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal Eastern Zone Bench disposed of an application alleging illegal stone crushing damaging the Ganga riverbed and dolphins. After noting delay in enforcement by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, the Tribunal directed recovery of environmental compensation against erring units.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board to recover environmental compensation against erring units and file a compliance affidavit by 30.11.2022.

Mohammada Khalik Ansari vs Ministry of Environment Forest… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2022)

¶1

Court No.1

¶2

Item No.11

¶3

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

¶4

Original Application No.22/2021/EZ (I.A. No.221/2022/EZ)

¶5

In the Matter of:

¶6

Mohammda Khalik Ansari, S/o Rahamat Ansari, H. No.84, Village-Barj Bhagaimari, 5-Sakrigali, Sakribazar, Sahebganj, Jharkhand – 816115, ………Applicant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change Through its Secretary, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodhi road, New Delhi-110003.

¶9

The State of Kharkhand, Through its Chief Secretary, Having its office at Project Bhavan, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur District-Ranchi, PIN-834004.

¶10

The Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Through its Member Secretary, Town Administration Building, H.E.C. Dhurwa, P.O.Dhurwa P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, Pin-834004.

¶11

Department of Mines and & Geology, Through the Director of Mines, Nepal House (Yojna Bhawan), Doranda, Ranchi-834002.

¶12

Bithal Ansari, S/o Zalil Ansari, R/O-Madanshahi, P.S.-Borio Jirwabari, District-Sahibganj, Jharkhand-816115.

¶13

¶14

Pappu Ansari, S/O-Kamrujama Ansari, R/O-Madansahi, P.S.-Borio Jirwabar, District-Sahibganj, Jharkhand-816115.

¶15

Murshid Ansari, S/O-Chasku Ansari, R/O-Madansahi, P.S.-Borio Jirwabar, District-Sahibganj, Jharkhand-816115.

¶16

Mohammad Rahis alias MD Rahim Ansari, S/O-Late Abul Hasan, R/O-Madansahi, P.S.-Borio Jirwabar, District-Sahibganj, Jharkhand-816115.

¶17

Irsad Ansari alias Kallu Miya, S/O-Hafijulla Ansari, R/O-Madansahi, P.S.-Borio Jirwabar, District-Sahibganj, Jharkhand-816115.

¶18

Ashok Mandal, S/O-Mahesh Mondal, R/O-Sotichowki Khutahri, P.S.- Borio Jirwabar, District-Sahibganj, Jharkhand-816115.

¶19

Mohan Jadav, S/O-roushan Jadav, R/O-near Police Line, P.S-Borio Jirwari, District-Sahibganj, Jharkhand-816115.

¶20

Manjhi Yadav, S/O-Satyanarayan Yadav, R/O-Samdanala, P.S. Sahibjang (Mufsil), District-Sahibganj, Jharkhand-816115.

¶21

Divisional Commissioner, Sahibganj, Jharkhand-816115.

¶22

Ministry of Jal Shakti, Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110001

¶23

Central Pollution Control Board, East Arjun Nagar, New Delhi, Pin -110032.

¶24

…. Respondent(s)

¶25

Date of hearing: 17.10.2022

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Somnath Roy Chowdhury, Advocate

¶29

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debasish Ghosh,, Advocate for R-1,

¶30

Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Adv. for R-2,4&13, (in Virtual Mode) Mr. Surendra Kumar, Adv for R-3, Mr. Ashok Prasad, Advocate for R-14, Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Adv for R-15,

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Mr. Somnath Roy Choudhury, learned Counsel holding brief of Ms.

¶33

Paushali Banerjee, learned Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the Applicant.

¶34

Supplementary affidavit dated 14.10.2022 has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board; the same is taken on record.

¶35

We have heard Mr. Somnath Roy Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Debasish Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 4 & 13, State Respondents, Govt. of Jharkhand, Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.3, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Mr. Ashok Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 14, Ministry of Jal Shakti, and Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5, Central Pollution Control Board.

¶36

This Original Application has been filed by the Applicant, seeking a direction to the Respondents to take adequate measures for protecting and preserving the floodplains and river bed of river Ganga from being encroached by illegal Stone Crusher Units and to protect the Dolphins in the said river.

¶37

¶38

The allegation of the Applicant is that the Respondent Nos. 5 to 12, Private Respondents, are carrying out the activities of illegal stone crushing in the river bed thereby causing damage to the riverine environment.

¶39

Affidavit dated 07.06.2021 has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.1, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, wherein it is only stated that the controversy in the present case relates to conservation, development, management and abatement of pollution of river Ganga and its tributaries including river Yamuna which now falls under the Ministry of Jal Shakti.

¶40

A further affidavit dated 17.08.2021 has also been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.1, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, stating therein that sand is defined as minor mineral under Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1975. Minor minerals means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay and ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes and any other mineral which the Union Government may, by notification in the Gazette Notification, declare to be a minor mineral.

¶41

An undated affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.15, Central Pollution Control Board, stating therein that under the Namami Gange Programme, the Central Pollution Control Board is regularly monitoring the groundwater near the vicinity of Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) to assess the impact of STP activities in Ganga Front towns. It is stated that three groundwater samples were collected and analyzed from Sahibganj and Rajmahal towns during December, 2020 and the results of the analysis shows that the analyzed parameters are within the permissible

¶42

¶43

limit of drinking water standard. The result of the analysis are as follows:-

¶44

*Parameters*	*Standard*		*Results*
*analyzed Unit:* *mg/L*	*(IS 10500:* *2012)*
		*Sample-1*	*Sample-2*	*Sample-3*
TDS	2000	659	368	654
Nitrate	NR*	0.09	0.99	0.15
Amonia (NH3^N)	NR*	0.73	0.03	0.08
Sulphate	400	22	12	108
Chloride	1000	33	21	94
Alkalinity	600	302	269	298
T. Hardness	600	392	277	388
Calcium	200	96	91	83
Magnesium	100	37	12	44
Iron	NR	0.331	1.032	0.187
Zinc	15	0.054	0.056	0.041
Manganese	0.3	1.2	0.016	0.034
Lead	NR*	0.0077	0.0053	0.0053
Arsenic	0.05	0.0012	0.0010	0.0012
Copper	1.5	0.014	0.029	0.0088
Nickel	NR	0.022	0.0086	0.008
T. Chromium	NR	0.046	0.019	0.017
Cadmium	NR	0.00029	0.00021	0.00027

¶45

*NR: No Relaxation; Unit: mg/L

¶46

It is also stated in the affidavit that there is no waste generation from the Stone Crushing Units.

¶47

Affidavit dated 17.07.2021 has been filed by the Divisional Commissioner, Sahibganj, on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2, 4 & 13, stating therein that licenses granted to certain erring persons near various Ganga Ghats have been cancelled vide memo dated 30.10.2019 and they have been prohibited to operate the Units therein and steps have also been taken to remove them from the area, particularly in the light of the Detailed Survey Report. The

¶48

¶49

allegation of death of dolphins has been denied stating therein that the same is based on newspaper reports without adequate supporting material.

¶50

Affidavit dated 25.08.2021 has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.3, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, and in paragraph 5 thereof it is stated that no stone crusher (legal or illegal) have been established or operational along the river Banks/Ghats of River Ganga at Sahibganj and no encroachment by stone crushers was found. A factsheet vide Memo No.1101 dated 17.08.2021 has also been filed along with the affidavit (page no. 437 of the paper book). This factsheet shows that the said inspection has been conducted by Regional Officer, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Dumka.

¶51

¶52

However, the District Collector in his affidavit has stated that the District Task Force on and from 01.01.2020 has, apart from lodging police complaints, also seized and confiscated 222 trucks, 41 tractors, 25 boats, 40 crushers, 36 motorcycles, drill machines, pockland, JCB and the like from the site in question and arrested men and complaints were also lodged against 63 erring people for illegal mining. The Task Force has also demolished crushers found to be indulging in illegal mining. The Task Force has been able to recover about Rs.18,61,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs sixty one thousand only) from the 50 trucks and tractors owners’.

¶53

It is, therefore, clear that, prima-facie, the Regional Officer, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board at Dumka, has filed a false factsheet report.

¶54

In view of the affidavit of the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Respondent No.2 being in sharp contradiction to the affidavit of the District Collector, Mr. Yatindra Kumar, Member

¶55

¶56

Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, as well as the Regional Officer, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, at Dumka, were directed to be present in the Court.

¶57

A supplementary affidavit dated 20.04.2022 has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.3, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, by the Regional Officer, Dumka, which only refers to some orders passed in 2019 whereby Consent applications of 6 Stone Crusher Units’ were rejected by the Regional Officer, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, at Dumka, and the Units were directed not to operate ‘further’. This means that these six units were operating or at least some of them were operating prior to that order. The affidavit does not disclose that if there were any environmental violations, what action has been taken against those six Stone Crusher Units. The affidavit does not even disclose whether any FIRs have been lodged against these units or not. The affidavit is also silent whether any Environmental Compensation has been computed and recovered from the polluters or not.

¶58

The Tribunal, therefore, noted in its order dated 27.05.2022 that Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board has completely failed in its responsibilities as a Regulatory Authority created under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board was directed to file his personal affidavit, showing what action has been taken for past violations.

¶59

It is insisted by the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, in his further affidavit dated 22.07.2022, that illegal dumping of stone chips by illegal crushing units in and around the Ganga river bed was totally false and misleading. There is no stone crushers (legal or illegal) established or operational along the river

¶60

¶61

banks/ghats of river Ganga at Sahibganj and no encroachment by stone crushers was found along the river banks/ghats of river Ganga. So far as the water quality parameters were concerned, it is stated that the same were within the permissible limits.

¶62

In para 20 of the affidavit, it is stated that along the river banks, altogether a list of 17 dealers’ license for storage of stone chips were issued by the Mines Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, and out of these 17 licenses, 4 were repeated. Thus, total dealers’ licenses were 13 and out of these 13 Units, Combined Consent (Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO)) was granted to 9 Units. Out of these 9 Units, 6 had applied for renewal of Consent to Operate which were rejected by the Board in the light of the letter dated 31.10.2019 issued by the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj and they were directed not to operate the said units. Rest of three Units did not opt for renewal of Consent to Operate and became inoperative. Four units illegally ran their Units without Consents of the Board. The then In-Charge, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, neither applied the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ nor took any legal action against these defaulting Units and, therefore, the present Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, called for a report from the Regional Office, Dumka and recommended for imposition of Environmental Compensation on the erring units which is yet to be approved by the Chairman, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, since the post was vacant on account of superannuation of the previous Chairman.

¶63

A further compliance affidavit dated 22.07.2022 was also filed by the Respondent No.3, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, to the same effect.

¶64

¶65

Supplementary affidavit dated 07.09.2022 has also been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.3, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, giving details of information called from the report of the Regional Office, Dumka, and imposition of interim Environmental Compensation on the erring Units. The information so provided reads as under:-

¶66

*S.N*	*Name and Address* *of the Erring Units*	*Amount of* *Interim* *Environmental* *Compensation*	*Direction issued* *vide Board’s* *Ref. No.*
1.	M/s Vikaash Stone Works, At-Sotichowki Khuthari, Sahebganj,	Rs. 36,50,000/-	B-1791 dated 05/09/2022
2.	M/s Rampreet Stone Works, At-Sotichowki Khuthari, Sahebganj,	Rs. 36,50,000/-	B-1792 dated 05/09/2022
3.	M/s Vishwanath Stone Works, At- Samdanala, PO- Sakrigali, Sahebganj,	Rs. 36,50,000/-	B-1793 dated 05/09/2022
4.	M/s Bajrangbali Stone Wroks, At- Samdanala, PO- Sakrigali, Sahebganj,	Rs. 36,50,000/-	B-1794 dated 05/09/2022

¶67

The notices issued to the above erring Units have also been filed as

¶68

Annexure-I (colly) to the affidavit. This clearly shows that notices were issued to the illegal stone crushers only after the Tribunal took cognizance of this case.

¶69

A further supplementary affidavit dated 14.10.2022 has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.3, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, reiterating the contents of the previous affidavit and it is further stated that reminder letters have also been issued on

¶70

¶71

13.10.2022 to the erring Units giving them further 15 days time, in addition to the previous notice issued on 05.09.2022, to deposit the Environmental Compensation within the said period of time, failing which interest @ 12% per annum will be charged and legal action shall also be taken against the said Units.

¶72

In this view of the matter, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending. We dispose of this Original Application with a direction to the Respondent No.3, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, to take steps forthwith for recovery of Environmental Compensation computed against the erring Units mentioned in their affidavit and also referred to herein above, on the expiry of the notice period mentioned in the reminder letter dated 13.10.2022 in accordance with law and file affidavit of compliance in this regard by 30.11.2022 .

¶73

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶74

(I.A. No. 221/2022/EZ):-

¶75

This I.A. has been filed by the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, stating therein that a Writ Application being W.P. (C) No. 3825 of 2022 has been filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, challenging the orders of the Tribunal dated 27.05.2022 as well as 09.09.2022 and, therefore, the proceedings before the Tribunal be stayed as the matter is subjudice before the Hon’ble High Court.

¶76

We may note that no stay order has been passed by the Hon’ble High Court nor any such stay order has been placed before us by

¶77

¶78

the Applicant of the I.A., therefore, we see no good ground for staying the proceedings in the present Original Application.

¶79

The I.A. No. 221/2022/EZ is accordingly rejected.

¶80

.....................................
B. Amit Sthalekar, JM
...................................
Saibal Dasgupta, EM
October 17, 2022,
Original Application No.22/2021/EZ
(I.A. No.221/2022/EZ)
AK

¶81

Mohammada Khalik Ansari v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammada Khalik Ansari v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

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

Bidhu Bhusan Harichandan vs Dist Collector Khurda

Yogendra Mohan Sengupta vs Union of India

Uday Education and Welfare Trust through Its Authorized Signatory vs State of Uttar Pradesh

News Item Published in the Telugu Newspaper Named Eenadu Andhra Pradesh Edition Dated 29TH July 2021 Entitled Illegal Sand Mining in Prakasham and Kadapa Dist Andhra Pradesh vs

Narayan Das Tulsani vs

Mohammed Nasir vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

News Item Published Int the Times of India Dated 28.04.2022 Titled : Massive Fire Breaks Out at Meeruth Chemical Factory; No Casualties Reported" vs

Anand Rohidas vs Ms Jsw Bhushan Power and Steel Limited

Bidhu Bhusan Harichandan vs Dist Collector Khurda

Bidhu Bhusan Harichandan vs Dist Collector Khurda

Rabeya Tabassum vs Union of India through Secretary of Ministry of Water Resourses Riverr Development and Ganga Rejuvination

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 7/2021 in Original Application No. 75/2021 of Abhinandan Chopra vs Union of India

All India Anti Corruption Origanization Regd Represented by Sri Subrata Mallick vs the State of West Bengal

All India Anti Corruption Origanization Regd Represented by Sri Subrata Mallick vs the State of West Bengal