Remanded

Amit Gupta v. Jharkhand Pollution Control Board

NGT6 Aug 2024Appeal No. 5/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an order imposing Environmental Compensation. Tribunal set aside the order for violation of principles of natural justice regarding inadequate notice and hearing, and imposed a fresh hearing deadline.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to appear before the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board positively on 12.09.2024 and the Board directed to pass fresh order by 20.09.2024.

Amit Gupta vs Jharkhand Pollution Control Board — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No.08

¶2

Court No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶4

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶5

Appeal No.05/2024/EZ

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF
Amit Gupta,
S/o Jagnarayan Gupta,
R/o Abadganj, Daltonganj, Palamau,
Pin – 822101,
…….Appellant(s)
Versus
Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board,
Through the Member Secretary,
T.A. Division Building (Ground Floor),
H.E.C. Dhurwa, Ranchi,
Pin – 834004,
………..Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 06.08.2024
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Paushali Banerjee, Advocate

¶7

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate for JSPCB,

¶8

ORDER

¶9

Heard Ms. Paushali Banerjee, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board.

¶10

The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant assailing the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board imposing Environmental Compensation of Rs.68,50,000/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Lakhs Fifty Thousand ony) against the Appellant.

¶11

¶12

The grievance of the Appellant is that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was given to the Appellant.

¶13

The case of the Appellant is that he was a lessee of Belchampa sand Mines situated in Plot No.01(P), Khata No.56, Area 4.20 hectares at Village-Belchampa, Thana-Garhwa, District-Garhwa, with effect from 08.12.2018 to 07.12.2021. It is stated that the time period of this Sand Ghat has already expired way back on 08.12.2021 and during that period the sand mine was operated with valid Consent to Operate, Environmental Clearance and Mining Plan.

¶14

It is also stated that one Sonu Sharma, resident of Garhwa, Jharkhand, filed a letter complaint before the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, regarding illegal mining of sand from the sand ghat at Belchampa which was registered as Original Application No.430/2021/PB and thereafter the said case was transferred to the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench at Kolkata and re-numbered as Original Application No.134/2023/EZ.

¶15

In the said proceedings, an affidavit dated 01.03.2024 had been filed by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board bringing on record an order dated 11.03.2024 whereby Environmental Compensation of Rs. 68,50,000/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) had been imposed against the Appellant, Respondent No.7 therein.

¶16

The said Original Application was disposed of by this Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 13.03.2024, on the submission of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.7, Appellant herein, that he had remedy of statutory appeal against the said order, with a further direction to the Respondent No.7 to pursue such statutory remedies as may be available to him under the law.

¶17

¶18

The Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board has filed affidavit dated 05.08.2024 stating therein that the Appellant was granted Consent to Establish dated 05.06.2021 and Consent to Operate dated 09.10.2021 valid upto 07.12.2021 by the State Board.

¶19

It is further stated that in pursuance of the order of the New Delhi Bench of the Tribunal dated 27.01.2022 passed in Original Application No.430/2021 and the consequential Committee Report of the Five Member Committee constituted by the Tribunal submitted through the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, vide his letter dated 08.09.2022, recommending imposition of Environmental Compensation on Shri Amit Gupta, the Project Proponent, Environmental Compensation was computed against the Appellant amounting to Rs.68,50,000/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Lakhs Fifty Thousand only).

¶20

It is further stated that a show cause notice dated 16.09.2022 was issued to the Appellant by the State Board, copy of which is on record at page no.26 of the paper book, wherein he was directed to appear before the State Board on 23.09.2022 for appearing and submitting his explanation but the Appellant did not appear before the State Board on the date fixed. Thereafter, the Appellant vide his letter dated 28.09.2022 requested for providing copy of the Inspection Report and the copy of the Inspection Report dated 16.04.2022 and 30.05.2022 of the Committee was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 21.12.2022. It is stated that the Appellant submitted his reply vide letter dated 13.02.2023 and thereafter the State Board directed the Regional Officer, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Ranchi, to provide his opinion on the reply dated 13.02.2023 which was submitted by the Regional

¶21

¶22

Officer vide his letter dated 21.09.2023. The recommendations made by the Regional Officer, Ranchi, are quoted in para 15 of the affidavit which reads as under:-

¶23

“The lessee has said nothing about the approach road which was found in river bed during the inspection of the Committee. Hence his plea may be rejected and Environmental Compensation may be imposed.”

¶24

It is stated that thereafter the Appellant was given again provided an opportunity vide letter dated 14.11.2023 (page 123-125 of the paper book), to appear before the State Board on 21.11.2023 for appearing and submitting his explanation as to why Environmental Compensation of Rs.68,50,000/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) be not imposed against him.

¶25

¶26

The contention of the Appellant is that the second notice dated 14.11.2023 fixing the date of hearing on 21.11.2023 was never received by the Appellant and the State Board without verifying the fact regarding service of its notice dated 14.11.2023 proceeded to pass the impugned order on 11.03.2024.

¶27

The submission of Ms. Paushali Banerjee, learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the Original Application No.134/2023/EZ (S onu Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. ), was disposed of by this Tribunal vide its order dated 13.03.2024 granting liberty to the Respondent No.7 therein i.e., the Appellant herein, to pursue his statutory remedies as may be available to him in law and, therefore, the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 was illegal and could not have been passed and the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board ought to have given notice to the Appellant fixing a date for hearing in terms of the order of the Tribunal dated 13.03.2024 instead of

¶28

¶29

passing the order dated 11.03.2024, impugned in the present Appeal, during the pendency of the Original Application No.134/2023/EZ.

¶30

The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant further is that sand mining lease valid for Belchampa Sand Ghat at Plot No.01(P), Khata No.56, Area 4.20 hectares i.e., Plot in question, situated in Village-Belchampa, Thana-Garhwa, District-Garhwa, had expired way back on 07.12.2021 and that the Appellant had carried out mining operation with a valid Consent to Establish dated 05.06.2021, Consent to Operate granted on 09.10.2021 and Environmental Clearance dated 17.01.2018 and the sand mining lease expired on 07.12.2021 and the State Government had already received back possession of the said sand ghat in question vide their letters dated 11.12.2021 and 14.12.2021 whereas the inspection of the sand ghat in question was carried out on 16.04.2022 but these facts could not be brought to the notice of the State Board by the Appellant after order of the Tribunal dated 13.03.2024 and the State Board passed the impugned order dated 11.03.2024.

¶31

The records clearly show that the Original Application No.134/2023/EZ was disposed of by this Tribunal vide its order dated 13.03.2024 granting liberty to the Respondent No.7 therein (Appellant herein), to pursue his statutory remedies as may be available to him in law but in the meantime the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 (under challenge in the present Appeal) has been passed by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board.

¶32

However, we find that prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 11.03.2024, the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board

¶33

¶34

had given a notice to the Appellant on 14.11.2023 fixing a date for hearing on 21.11.2023 which notice the Appellant had denied having been served upon him.

¶35

In view of the above, we direct that the Appellant shall now appear before the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board with his reply/explanation to the show cause notice dated 14.11.2023, copy of which is on record at page no.123 of paper book, on 12.09.2024 positively and the State Board shall hear the Appellant or his representative, as the case may be, if they so desire, and also consider any reply/explanation submitted by the Appellant and thereafter shall proceed to pass fresh order in accordance with law by 20.09.2024.

¶36

With the aforesaid directions, the Appeal No.05/2024/EZ is accordingly disposed of.

¶37

I.As., if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
20. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

.....................................
B. Amit Sthalekar, JM

¶39

…..........................................
Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM

¶40

August 06, 2024,
Appeal No.05/2024/EZ
AK

¶41

Amit Gupta v. Jharkhand Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Gupta v. Jharkhand Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Prabhakar Rai vs Union of India

M Padmavathi vs the Honble Appellate Authority

Mr Vijay Engineers vs the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authoriy

T Raviganesan vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Tamil Nadu

V Ramasubbu vs Member Secretary

Sk Vijaykumar vs Seiaa

M/S Rajal Paharia vs Union of India

M/S Rahul Paharia Mine vs Union of India

Manish Ranjan vs State of Bihar

Serajul Islam vs the State of West Bengal

Abhrajit Roy Chowdhury vs the State of West Bengal through Chief Secretary

Subrata Mallick vs State of West Bangal

Laxmidhar Biswal vs Member Secretary Odisha State Pollution Control Board

Dinesh Prasad Chaurasia & Ors. vs State of Bihar