Dismissed

Anand Swaroop Rastogi v. Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Limited

NGT12 Sept 2024IA No. 135/2022 in Original Application No. 402/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged non-compliance of green belt and ETP/STP conditions. The Court held that issues were already decided in O.A. No. 129/2020 and dismissal of the second petition disallows the litigation of this matter, though the applicant may complain against individual industries separately.

What did the court decide?

The Original Application is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to avail remedy in respect of individual industries.

Anand Swaroop Rastogi vs Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Limited — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No. 05

¶2

Court No. 2

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 402/2022 (I.A. No. 135 of 2022)

¶5

Anand Swaroop Rastogi Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Himalayan Food Part Pvt. Limited Respondent

¶8

Date of hearing: 12.09.2024

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶10

Applicant: Mr. Udit Bansal, Advocate for applicant (through VC)

¶11

Respondents: Mr. Naginder Benipal, Mr. Ankit Siwach and Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocates for respondent no. 1 (through VC)

¶12

Mr. Mukesh Verma and Ms. Vatsala Tripathi, Advocates for UKPCB

¶13

ORDER

¶14

In this Original Application, applicant is challenging noncompliances of the conditions of consent with regard to maintenance of green belt and construction of Effluent Treatment Plant (hereinafter referred to as ‘ETP’) and Sewage Treatment Plant (hereinafter referred to as ‘STP’) in the premises of the Food Park of Respondent No. 1. Our attention is drawn to page 42 of the paper book which contains specific condition number 7 in the ‘Consolidated Consent to Operate and Authorization’ dated 01.12.2017 stating as under:-

¶15

¶16

“7. The Applicant shall develop three rows of green belt on the premises with plant species as suggested by the Central Pollution Control Board.”

¶17

The applicant’s counsel also drew our attention to para 2(ii)&(iv) of the above Consolidated Consent to Operate and Authorization dated 01.12.2017 with regard to the requirement of ETP and STP in the said Food Park and stated that the said conditions have not been complied with by the Respondent No. 1.

¶18

We find from record that similar issue was raised in respect of Respondent 1 i.e. Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Ltd. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand in O.A. No. 129/2020, Vijay Kumar Malhotra v. Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board & Ors . and the said OA was finally disposed of vide order dated 24.11.2020 which reads as under:-

¶19

“1. Grievance in this application is that Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Ltd., Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand is operating near Jim Corbett National Park, in violation of environmental norms. Neither the green belt has been developed around the complex nor ETP/STP has been set up. No spare land has been provided for development of green belt. The applicant has filed certain photographs in support of averments in the application.

¶20

2. Vide order dated 17.07.2020, a factual and action taken report was sought from Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board (PCB) and the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar.

¶21

3. Accordingly, the District Magistrate has filed a report on 16.10.2020 and the State PCB has filed a report on 28.10.2020 to the effect that there is no violation as alleged by the applicant. In the report of the State PCB, there are following observations:-

¶22

“1. M/s Himalaya Food Park Pvt. Ltd established in Mahukheraganj, Tehsil - Kashipur, District - Udham Singh Nagar and Obtained Consent to Establish (CTE) from State Pollution Control Board for 28-industrial plots for Food & Fruits Vegetable Processing units with total land area 50.14 Acre.

¶23

2. Currently, two units namely M/s Himalaya Food Park Pvt. Ltd and M/s ShriShradhanand Food Processing Pvt. Ltd are in production, 10 units are in construction phase. and rest plot are empty.

¶24

¶25

3. One of the unit M/s Himalaya Food Park Pvt. Ltd engaged in the production of Food/Vegetable processing and having valid Consent to Established (CTE) and Consent to Operate (COP) .Total 100 KLD Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) is established with primary, secondary and tertiary treatment facility and treated water is proposed to be used in greenbelt area. Unit has established 5 and 8 ton capacity boiler with proper Air Pollution Control System. Although during inspection.unit found closed due to non-availability of raw material. so that the final treated sample will be taken after production.

¶26

4. Another unit M/s Shri Shradha and Food Processing Pvt. Ltd is under trial production. The Consent to Operate (COP) application is under consideration

¶27

5. In Food Park, remaining units have to establish their individual effluent treatment facilities as per condition of CTE of M/s Himalaya Food Park Pvt. Ltd.

¶28

6. Total 22617 Square Meter green belt area (10.01% of total area) is being developed in Food Park.

¶29

7. Joint committee neither observed any indication of discharge of effluent in nearby area of the food park nor any damage of agriculture crops.

¶30

8. It is also reported by the joint committee that the Food Park is around 30 km away from the Corbett National Park and 20 km away from Eco Sensitive Zone of the Corbett National Park and committee observed there is no possibility to impact on wildlife in Corbett National Park area by the Food Park.

¶31

In view of observation of the committee, Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board directed to concern Regional Officer to carry out following work:-

¶32

1. To carry out effluent/stack emission monitoring of operational units of the Food Park.

¶33

2. To conduct soil testing of the area after harvesting of crop.

¶34

3. To direct the Himalaya Food Park Pvt. Ltd & associated units to develop more dense green belt.”

¶35

4. In view of the above, no further order is necessary except that the observations in the report may be strictly enforced with regard to the monitoring of the emissions, testing of the soil and development of more dense green belts.

¶36

The application is disposed of. ”

¶37

¶38

We also find from record that against the above order of the Tribunal Civil Appeal No.6865 of 2021,Vijay Kumar Malhotra v. Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board &Ors .was filed which was disposed of by Supreme Court on 18.11.2021 and the order reads as under:-

¶39

“ 1. Mr. Udit Bansal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, seeks the liberty of the Court to move the National Green Tribunal in review of its order dated 17.07.2020.

¶40

2. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in view of the above statement granting liberty to the appellant to move the NGT in appropriate proceedings.

¶41

3. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. ”

¶42

Learned Counsel for the Applicant who was also counsel in the above matter admitted that though Supreme Court granted permission to file review but no review has been filed. He however submitted that the conditions for green belt and ETP/STP have not been complied with and the order of Tribunal has not been complied. If that be so, the remedy lies is seeking execution of earlier order but raising same dispute in another matter is not permissible. Since the issues raised in this matter have already been decided in earlier proceedings in O.A. No. 129 of 2020, we do not find that a second petition can be entertained involving similar issues.

¶43

Learned Counsel for the applicant at this stage submitted that the individual industries set up in Himalayan Food Park are not complying with environmental laws and norms. If that be so, the individual cause of action against those industry, if exist, may be taken up by the applicant in appropriate forum before the appropriate proceedings.

¶44

All pending IAs also stand disposed of.

¶45

¶46

In view of above observations, this OA is disposed of with the liberty to the applicant to avail remedy in respect of individual industries in accordance with law.

¶47

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶48

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶49

September 12, 2024 O.A. No. 402/2022 (I.A. No. 135 of 2022) A

¶50

Anand Swaroop Rastogi v. Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Swaroop Rastogi v. Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Sharad Gupta vs

Dr Sharad Gupta vs

Vanashakti vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change

Lloyd St Jude Joachim Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Mr Fidales Paulo Dsouza vs Zonal Officer Greater Chennai Corporation

Ramchandrapur Kalyan Samity vs the State of West Bengal Service through the Principal Secretary Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs Government of West Bengal

Anupam Verma Advocate vs

Prabahat Mohan Pandey vs Union of India through Moef

Dr Sharad Gupta vs

Dr Sharad Gupta vs

Dr Sharad Gupta vs

Jayant Thakur vs

Prem Chand Gupta vs

Anand Swaroop Rastogi vs Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Limited