Disposed

Sanjaya Kumar Mishra v. Cgwa

NGT6 Sept 2023Original Application No. 138/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of an original application alleging illegal groundwater extraction by a company. Relying on a Joint Committee report finding violations, the Court directed the Central Ground Water Authority to expeditiously investigate, hear both parties, and submit an action report.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Central Ground Water Authority to take action after opportunity of hearing and submit report within three months.

Sanjaya Kumar Mishra vs Cgwa — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2023)

¶1

Court No. 1

¶2

Item No. 02

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 138/2022

Sanjaya Kumar Mishra

Appellant

Versus

Central Ground Water Authority Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 06.09.2023

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Appellant: Mr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, Applicant in Person Respondent: Mr. Rahul Khurana, Adv. for HSPCB

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Original Application has been filed raising the grievance relating to illegal extraction of ground water by Respondent No. 3 M/s Mitsui Kingzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal in the proceeding dated 06.03.2023 had taken note of the relevant fact and prima facie found the violation and formed a Joint Committee with a direction to the Committee to submit the report. The relevant part of the direction of the Tribunal is as under:

¶14

“2. According to the applicant, NOC was granted to the PP by the ground water authority for groundwater abstraction up to 30m³ /day, not exceeding 18,000 m³ /year. But much more extraction is taking place. Net groundwater availability in Bawal, as reported by Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) was 7265 Ham. on 31.03.2009, which has declined to 4428.35 Ham. CGWB has categorized the area as ‘Over Exploited’. Condition lay down in NOC dated 28.08.2011 issued by CGWA is thus violated. HSIIDC vide notice dated 23.01.2009 directed dismantling of tubewell but the said direction remained un-complied. Thus, there is violation of judgment of the

¶15

¶16

Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. UOI¹ . Vide order dated 15.11.2022 in OA No. 392/2022, this Tribunal directed CGWA to take remedial action against non-compliances including recovery of compensation equal to the 0.5% of the project cost but no such action has been taken. The Applicant has also referred RTI response dated 06.10.2020 to the effect that unit is not complying with the condition on which ground water extraction has been permitted.

¶17

3. In view of the above, we find it necessary to require a factual report in the matter from a joint Committee of CGWA, CPCB, State PCB and District Magistrate, Rewari which may be filed by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF within two months. The State PCB will be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance.”

¶18

A report has been filed by the Joint Committee dated 14.08.2023. The Joint Committee has found the violation during inspection of the unit and also recorded the lapses in compliance of condition of NoC and tabulated that non-compliance in chart form. The conclusions and recommendations of the joint committee are as under:

¶19

“4.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

¶20

1. M/s Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd. is not fully complying the conditions of NOC granted by Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) as given above in Table 2.

¶21

2. The real time-water abstraction could not be ascertained owing to dismantling of flow-meter. However, as per the log book provided by M/s Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd., the average ground water abstraction per day is less than the permissible limit of 30m3 /day. Further, the quantity of water supply details provided by HSIIDC also confirms that per day water consumption of M/s Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd. is less than 30m3/day.

¶22

3. Existing sealed bore-well was observed in premises of M/s Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd. in non-operational condition, which was also cement sealed by HSIIDC during site visit.

¶23

4. Since the unit had not applied afresh NOC after 31^st December 2017 as per the Public Notice published by CGWA, therefore withdrawal of ground water without NOC after 31.12.2017 onwards may be treated as illegal withdrawal as per CGWA Guideline dated 24.09.2020.

¶24

1 (1997) 11 SCC 312

¶25

¶26

5. Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA)/Haryana Water Resources Authority(HWRA) to take necessary action against the unit for non compliance of the conditions of NOC granted by them and also may take action for illegal extraction of ground water from 01.01.2018 to 31.03.2023 without obtaining fresh NOC from CGWA and to recover Environmental Compensation & penalty as calculated by CGWA.”

¶27

The applicant has also filed the reply to the report of the Joint Committee and has taken the stand that some of the conclusions drawn by the Joint Committee in the report are incorrect and the basis of calculation of environmental compensation is also wrong.

¶28

Hence, we are of the view that the appropriate action in the matter is now required to be taken by the Central Ground Water Authority after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant and project proponent. The Central Ground Water Authority will also take into account the report of the joint Committee and the stand taken by the applicant in the reply dated 05.09.2023 filed in response to the Report of the Joint Committee. The CGWA is expected to take expeditious action in the matter and also submit action taken report before the Registrar General of this Tribunal within three months. If found necessary, the Registrar General may place the matter before the Bench for consideration.

¶29

5. Original Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶30

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶31

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶32

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶33

September 06, 2023 Original Application No. 138/2022 HB

¶34

Sanjaya Kumar Mishra v. Cgwa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjaya Kumar Mishra v. Cgwa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samit Kavdia vs State of Rajasthan

Jheel Sanrakshan Samiti vs State of Rajasthan

Vikram vs

Samalapuram Pallapalayam Perikulam Pasana Vivasayigal Sangam vs District Collector

V Resalayyan vs Union of India

Ranjeet Kumar vs the Municipal Commissioner

Sabitri Bala Saha vs Municipality

Sudheer Kumar Pandey vs State of Chhattisgarh through Its Chief Secretary Govt of Chhattisgarh

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 36/2023 in Original Application No. 823/2022 of Ravinder Singh vs

Vikram vs

News Item Titled "Eight Killed in Blast at Illegal Fireworks Unit in West Bengal" Appearing in the Hindu Dated 28.08.2023 vs

Haryana State Pollution Control Board vs M/S v K Stone Crushing Co.

Haryana State Pollution Control Board vs M/S v K Stone Crushing Co.

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 17/2023 in Original Application No. 94/2021 of Haider Ali vs Union of India