Disposed

Devidas Khatri v. Union of India through Its Secretary Moef and Cc

NGT16 Mar 2022Original Application No. 39/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal addressed allegations of arbitrary reduction of environmental compensation by the State PCB in a foundry case. The Tribunal directed the Chairman of the State PCB to pass a reasoned order within one month considering all parties' stands regarding ongoing violations and compensation assessment.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Chairman State PCB to pass an appropriate order within one month recording reasons considering both parties' stands.

Devidas Khatri vs Union of India through Its Secretary… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2022)

¶1

Item No. 01

¶2

(Pune Bench)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

(By Video Conferencing)

¶5

Original Application No. 39/2019(WZ)

Devidas Khatri

Applicant

Versus

Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶10

Date of hearing: 16.03.2022

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶12

Applicant: Mr. Anoop Agarwal, Advocate

¶13

Respondent(s): Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R -1 & 2 Mr. R.B. Mahabal, Advocate for R - 4

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Grievance in this application is against violation of environmental norms in operation of foundry unit having capacity of 50,000 MTPA Grey and Modular Iron by the Respondent No. 4. It is stated that the Environmental Clearance (EC) for the unit was obtained by concealing material facts and that the conditions of Consent to Operate are also being violated. It is contented that notices were issued by the State Pollution Control Board against Respondent No. 4 for violation of various environment norms but the situation remains unremedied.

¶16

Vide order dated 25.07.2019, a report was called from the

¶17

Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board on the factual aspects with a

¶18

¶19

direction that if upon verification the allegations are found to be correct, the Board may take appropriate action, in accordance with law.

¶20

Accordingly, a report was filed by the State Pollution Control Board on 16.10.2019 based on site visit on 02.08.2018 (appears to be mistake

¶21

for 02.08.2019) as follows:-

¶22

“i. M/s Sriniwas Engineering Autocomponants (P) Ltd. Plot No. A 24, Talegaon Industrial Area Phase-IV Maval Dist. Pune is engaged in manufacturing of Cast and Nodular Iron casting components1,70,000 MT/Y and Mechanised casting components 36,000 MT/Y.

¶23

ii. Industry is operating unit without valid consent of Board.

¶24

iii. Industry has not provided full-fledged Effluent Treatment Plant for Treatment of 55 CMD industrial effluent generated.

¶25

iv. There is no provision of pipeline to carry effluent from source to ETP.

¶26

v. Operation and maintenance of STP is poor.

¶27

vi. Industry has not provided adequate air pollution control system to furnace resulting into Secondary emission in the factory shed area and Environment.

¶28

vii. Industry has not provided secondary emission system

¶29

viii. The fume extraction ducting provided to induction furnace No. B (5 T Capacity) found broken.

¶30

ix. Industry has not provided fume extraction system to one of the mould cooling line.

¶31

x. Industry has not provided ID fan of sand mixing plant regularly to which air emission observed into shed.

¶32

xi. Industry has not installed CAAQMS as per consent conditions.

¶33

xii. Industry has not obtained CGWA permission for extraction of ground water

¶34

xiii. Industry has not incorporated generation and disposal of empty drums and cotton waste.”

¶35

¶36

2. On the basis aforesaid non-compliance the MPCB has issued Proposed Directions vide letter dated 6.8.2018 to M/s. Shriniwas Engineering Auto components (P) Ltd., Pune. A copy of Proposed Direction dated 06/08/2018 is attached and annexed herewith as an Annexure — 1.

¶37

3. In response to the proposed directions dtd.06/08/2018, the Respondent No. 4 -Industry have submitted reply dated 10/08/2018. In the interest of natural justice, the MPCB has extended a personal hearing to the above unit on 31/08/2018.

¶38

4. On the basis of discussion held during the personal hearing, the MPCB has issued following Interim Directions to Respondent No 4-Industry vide letter dtd.03/09/2018.

¶39

i) The industry shall obtain renewal of consent from the Board for existing activity.

¶40

ii) To provide adequate effluent treatment plant and shall operate the same effectively so as to achieve consented standards.

¶41

iii) To provide closed pipeline to convey the effluent from source to ETP.

¶42

iv) To operate STP effectively so as to achieve consented standards.

¶43

v) To upgrade existing APC system with in a period three months.

¶44

vi) To provide fume extraction system to all source of emission.

¶45

vii) To operate APC system effectively so as to achieve consented standards.

¶46

viii) Not to use Ground water for the activity without obtaining NOC from CGWA.

¶47

ix) To submit revised/actual water budget and information of hazardous waste within 15 days and apply for amendment in the consent as per actual generation.

¶48

A copy of the Interim Directions is attached and enclosed herewith as an Annexure — 2.

¶49

5. In order to verify the compliance of the interim directions issued by the Board vide letter dtd. 03/09/2018, the Officials of Respondent-MPCB visited Respondent No. 4 on 24/09/2019 and observed as follows:

¶50

(i) Industry has applied for renewal of consent and obtained consent till 30/09/2019, now for further renewal of consent application is submitted to M.P.C. Board.

¶51

(ii) At the time of visit, the Respondent No.4-Industry was found in operation and engaged in production of Grey Iron and Nodular Iron Casting Components and mechanism casting (painting). Last month production is 3942 MT (August, 2019) and in July — 4540 MT.

¶52

¶53

(iii) Industry has provided total 6 nos. of melting furnace, out of which, two induction furnaces are having capacity of 12 MT and rest four are having 5 MT capacity. These induction furnaces are have fume extraction system, followed by dust collection system — cyclone followed by bag filters (two units) and two stack of 24 and 28 mtrs. height for four induction furnaces of 5 MT and two induction of 12 MT capacity.

¶54

(iv) Industry is having two nos. of mould cooling lines, out of which, one is found in operation and equipped with FES followed by a stack of 30 meters height. Second mould cooling line was not found in operation. The work of provision of FES and stack found in progress. It was informed by the representative of the industry that the same is 75% completed and rest work will be completed by the end of October, 2019.

¶55

(v) Industry has provided 02 sand dryer unit with dust collection system (bag filters) followed by a stack of 36 mtrs. height.

¶56

(vi) Industry has provided one sand plant (mixing) with dust collection system (bag house)followed by common stack of 30 mtrs. height, two knock out of units are connected to said common stack of sand plant after their individual bag house.

¶57

(vii) Industry has provided 6 nos. of shot blasting units with dust collectors and stacks.

¶58

(viii) Two paint booths are provided with water curtains and stacks, industry has provided closed pipeline to transfer effluent from paint booth to ETP.

¶59

(ix) Domestic effluent generation is 50 CMD and trade effluent generation is 26 CMD for which industry has provided 170 CMD capacity treatment plant. ETP comprises primary oil skimmer, reaction cum settling tank. sludge drying bed. Further, this treated effluent transferred to conventional STP (primary, secondary and tertiary).

¶60

(x) Hazardous waste generation is in the form of category no.5.1, 5.2 —waste oil, oily cotton waste, 21.1 — point residue and 33.3 empty containers/ chemical barrels, for disposal, the industry has obtained Membership of CHWTSDF, MEPL Ranjangaon, which is valid upto 27/12/2020.

¶61

(xi) During the visit. no any burnt sand / waste sand disposal outside premises or nearby area observed etc.

¶62

(xii) The Board has carried out stack sampling of melting furnace and sand drying plant on 24.9.2019, the

¶63

¶64

results shows Dust concentration 91mg/NM³ for the melting furnace and 58 mg/NM³ for sand drying section. Industry has provided fume extraction system to all sources of air pollution.

¶65

(xiii) During visit on 24.9.2019 Ambient quality monitoring inside company as well as at the main gate of company for 8 hrs are collected. The RSPM level is 255 mg/NM³ at near guest house and 158 mg/Nm³ at main gate which is higher for the limit 100 mg/NM³ .

¶66

(xiv) The joint vigilance sample of outlet of STP is collected and results are within limit which indicated now operation of STP is satisfactory.”

¶67

Vide order dated 17.10.2019, the Tribunal considered the matter and sought further report about the remedial action in terms of mitigation measures as well as assessment of compensation for the past violations on polluter pays principle. The State PCB assessed compensation of more than Rs. 1 crore, against which the Project Proponent made representation on which the State PCB had to take decision. Vide order dated 06.02.2020, the Tribunal directed the issue to be finalized by the State PCB.

¶68

The State PCB filed affidavit dated 23.04.2021 to the effect that the compensation was reduced from more than one crore to Rs. 7 lakhs. Deficiencies have since been remedied. Extracts from the affidavit are reproduced below:

¶69

“ 2. I say and submit that in compliance of the order passed by Hon'ble NGT on 17/10/2019, the Respondent Board assessed the Environmental Compensation of Rs.1,24,20,000/- taking into consideration the days from the date of issuance of proposed directions dated 06/08/2018 to the date of visit of Board officials on 24/09/2019 (414 days). The Environmental Compensation direction was issued by Board on 16/12/2019. The said direction is submitted before Hon'ble NGT by affidavit filed by MPCB on 16/12/2019.

¶70

3. I say and submit that in response to the directions dated 16/12/2019 issued by the Respondent Board, the Respondent Industry submitted the representation

¶71

¶72

before the Respondent Board and requested the Board for industry specific assessment of environmental damage and recalculation of environment compensation

¶73

4. I say and submit that this Hon'ble NGT vide order dated 06/02/2020 directed the MPCB to take a considerable decision on the representation submitted by the Respondent industry and also take further steps for recovery of compensation in accordance with law.

¶74

5. I say and submit that in order to verify the correctness of assessment in question, the Respondent Board has extended an opportunity of personal hearing to the Respondent-Industry on 02/03/2020. During the personal hearing, it has been noticed that the Respondent industry had submitted the compliance report vide letter dated 31/08/2018 in response to the directions issued by the Respondent-Board vide letter dated 06/08/2018.

¶75

6. I say and submit that vide Order dated 06/02/2020 Hon'ble NGT directed the M.P.C. Board to deal with the representation and take a considered decision and also take further steps for recovery of the compensation in accordance with law. It is also submitted that vide Order dated 22/07/2020, Hon'ble NGT directed the Board to dispose of the application moved by the Respondent Industry and proceed with for the calculation of the amount of EC and its recovery as per the settled principles of guidelines issued by the CPCB and Order passed by Hon'ble NGT, Principal Bench.

¶76

In compliance of directions given by Hon'ble NGT the Board has decided to review the earlier Environmental Compensation and recalculated the same for 26 days.

¶77

7. Accordingly, the Respondent Board has issued revised directions to the Respondent- industry vide letter dated 19/04/2021 and directed them to submit the amount of Rs. 7,80,000/- (Seven Lacs Eighty Thousand only) towards Revised Environment Compensation. A copy of the revised directions dated 19/04/2021 is enclosed herewith and marked as an Annexure- ‘I’. The direction dated 16/12/2019 is cancelled by the revised Environmental Compensation direction dated 19/04/2021. ”

¶78

The applicant in his rejoinder has submitted that approach of the State PCB in exercise of its power has not been judicious but arbitrary. There is no transparency in its working. There is no earthy reason in first finding serious violations and assessing compensation of more than one

¶79

¶80

crore and then suddenly reducing the same to Rs.7 lacs. The relevant

¶81

averments from the rejoinder are extracted below:

¶82

“ 2. That content of para No. 2 of the affidavit is not admitted as stated. It is respectfully submitted that vide order dated 25.07.2019 Hon'ble tribunal directed respondent no.2 Maharashtra pollution control Board to submit a report on factual aspects of the case as set out in the application. And further directed to inspect the unit and verify on the allegations and it was also directed that if allegations are found for be true, appropriate action be instituted against the respondent no.4 (Project proponent) in accordance with law. After that MPCB visited the industry on 26.07.2019 and observed that there is several non-compliances as per conditions of Consent conditions and thereafter Regional officer of MPCB vide show cause notice dated 31/7/2019 asked to close-down the manufacturing unit. Copy of aforesaid notice is malafidely concealed by the MPCB from the Hon'ble tribunal so far for the reason best known to them. In the said notice dated 31/07/2019, besides other allegations, MPCB in para 14 made serious allegation that project proponent is dumping burnt sand outside factory premises in the River Indrayani Catchment area near Andhra Dam downstream. But no reply has been given by the project proponent and thereafter in connivance with the project proponent MPCB submitted a factual and Action taken report dated 16.10.2019 has been submitted on the basis of notice dated 06.08.2018 (Annexure-1), but concealed the notice dated 31/07/2019 due to some malafide intention and thereafter again on 16.12.2019 MPCB has again submitted a report proposing a meager compensation of Rs 1,24,20,00,0/- only, which was also very less amount as per default done by project proponent. But even after that MPCB again reconsider the project proponent and now vide order dated 19.8.2021 only Rs 7,80,000/- as environmental compensation has been assessed, which is totally wrong. Project proponent without consent is operating the industry after 30.04.2018 and also several conditions of consent has been violated. CGWA permission is not there and dumping burnt sand in the catchment area of river Indrayani near Andhra Dam Downstream and causing huge pollution. But all facts has been concealed by the MPCB from the Hon'ble tribunal and in order to provide benefit to the project proponent false report has been prepared. So, a committee deserve to be formed consisting of senior higher officials including members of CPCB and MoEF who may be directed for detailed inspection of the unit and submit its report before Hon'ble tribunal.

¶83

¶84

3. It all shows that there is a great manipulation between present officials of MPCB and Project Proponent.

¶85

4 That Hon'ble tribunal directed State pollution control Board to file present status and to assess the Environmental compensation for non-compliances indicated in the findings taking into consideration the duration of such non- compliances. After that State pollution control Board did not gave para-wise reply with malafide intention and inadvertently he has admitted the facts of O.A. Without filing detailed reply, he could not be permitted to file any affidavit to counter the allegations.

¶86

5. That content of para no. 4 of reply affidavit, is admitted as stated. But MPCB has not done his duty with full devotion, rather he has facilitated the project proponent to justify their wrongs.

¶87

6. That content of para no. 5 of affidavit is not admitted. It is wrong to say that respondent industry has submitted any compliance report during personal hearing on 2.3.2020, nor there was any occasion to do so. When project proponent has already complied with all conditions on 31.8.2018, then how during visit of officials of MPCB on 26.7.2019, found several irregularities and how notice no. ROP/MPCB/PD/1907310002 dated 31.7.2019 has been issued to project proponent. And why it has not been mentioned in the report dated 1610.2019 before Hon'ble Tribunal. It all shows that there is manipulation between present officials of MPCB and Project Proponent.

¶88

7. That contents of para no.6 of affidavit is not admitted as stated. It is true that Hon'ble tribunal vide order dated 6.2.2020 directed MPCB to deal with the representation and take considered decision, but never directed to review the Environmental compensation against the law. MPCB in order to facilitate the project proponent only 26 days compensation has been calculated which itself shows their incorrectness.

¶89

8. That contents of para no.7 of affidavit is not admitted as stated. It is very surprised that instead of protecting the environment, Respondent MPCB is protecting the project proponent and true report has not been submitted. MPCB has not deal with the main allegation against the project proponent that he has got consent and environment clearance concealing the material fact that he is generating 50000MTPA burnt sand as waste during the process and also during inspection made by officials of MPCB on 26.7.2019, founds 23 noncompliances, which has not been rectified till date even after passing of more than 30 months long time . So a committee deserve to be formed in this case

¶90

¶91

and further as the project proponent has not complied with the various conditions of Environment clearance. So he could not be allowed to carry out operations. ”

¶92

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is clear from the record that violation of environmental norms was found. Compensation was assessed but drastically reduced without any cogent reasons. No explanation is coming forth from State PCB or the PP. In these circumstances, while disapproving the arbitrariness and lack of transparency in working of the State PCB as shown above, we direct the Chairman State PCB to pass an appropriate order, considering the stand of the applicant as well as the Project Proponent and recording reasons within one month from today. If any party is aggrieved by the order of the State PCB, it can take remedy in accordance with law.

¶93

The application will stand disposed of.

¶94

A copy of this order be forwarded to Chairman State PCB by e-mail for compliance.

¶95

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP

¶96

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶97

Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶98

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶99

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶100

March 16, 2022 Original Application No. 39/2019(WZ) DV

¶101

Devidas Khatri v. Union of India through Its Secretary Moef and Cc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devidas Khatri v. Union of India through Its Secretary Moef and Cc

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

P Gengaiyan vs the District Collector

Covestro India Private Limited vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Venan Dias vs Dr. Jasmine Brenda Pinto

Allamsetti Satyanarayana vs Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

Roshni B. Patel vs Union of India

Mr. Gulab Kishan Choudhari vs M/S Ultra Tech Cement Ltd.

Tapas Kumar Das vs State of West Bengal through the Principal Secretary Department of Urban Development & Municipal Affairs

K.M.Muthusamy Gounder vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Jitendra Prakash Khasnis vs the Sub (Deputy) Regional Officer

Roshni B. Patel vs Union of India

Roshni B. Patel vs Union of India

Roshni B. Patel vs Union of India