Dismissed

Shantinath Devappa Hukkeri v. Dunung Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Director Pritam Prafulla Dunung

NGT21 Nov 2024IA No. 157/2022 in Original Application No. 81/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal considered an application alleging pollution damages arising from an industrial facility. The applicant attempted to prove loss through photographic evidence and affidavits of crop income, but the Court accepted a Joint Committee report finding insufficient revenue records to substantiate fruit crop claims and soil tests within limits, disposing of the application.

What did the court decide?

The application and pending applications are disposed of without any specific relief being granted to the applicant.

Shantinath Devappa Hukkeri vs Dunung Industries Pvt… — Public Procurement and Tenders | NGT (2024)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.11

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

¶5

Original Application No.81/2022(WZ) I.A. No.157/2022(WZ) & I.A. No.140/2022(WZ)

¶6

Shri Shatinath Devappa Hukkeri

¶7

…..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Dunung Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 21.11.2024

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶13

Applicant : Ms. Reshma P. Bhurke, Advocate Respondents : Mr. Sachin Chavan, Advocate for R-1/PP Mr. Vilas Jadhav, Advocate for R-2/MPCB

¶14

ORDER

¶15

In compliance with our previous order dated 07.03.2024, applicant has filed English translation of the 7/12 extract of 2022-23 and 2023-24, which is found to be defective by the Registry as per its report dated 21.11.2024. But we overrule these objections and take this document on record.

¶16

Thereafter, we have heard the argument of learned counsel Ms. Reshma P. Bhurke representing applicant in this matter. When we asked from her as to what is the evidence in support of her case regarding pollution, she has drawn our attention to page no.96 of the paper book, wherein photographs of the site in question are annexed and indicating the same, it is urged by her that there are soot and dust particles, which can be clearly seen. But we cannot make out any such soot or dust

¶17

Page 1 of 8

¶18

particles visible in these photographs. Thereafter, she has drawn our attention to page no.97 of the paper book as well, in which there are also some photographs annexed, based on which it is tried to be asserted that there were fruit trees at the site in question and on the basis of this, it is further urged that the Joint Committee Report is absolutely false.

¶19

From the side of respondent No.2- MPCB, learned counsel Mr. Vilas Jadhav has appeared before us, who has drawn our attention to the 1^st Joint Committee Report, which is annexed at page nos.191 to 292 of the paper book and read out the relevant para of that report at point no.2.1, wherein it is clearly mentioned that at the time of inspection, which was conducted by the Joint Committee on 30.11.2022 and 01.12.2022, applicant along-with his two sons were present at the said site. Thereafter, he drew our attention to the order dated 06.07.2023 passed by this Tribunal, wherein this report was considered and following order was passed:-

¶20

“2. By our previous order dated 03.04.2023, we had directed the respondent No. 1/Project Proponent to file objection against the Joint Committee report, if any, in pursuance of which, comments have been submitted by the respondent No. 1 instead of any objection, where-in it is submitted that the soil samples, which were collected, were found to be within parameters, which means that the same was not found contaminated, hence there is no need for data to be provided by the applicant of last five years for assessment of the damages. The Committee has made recommendation with respect to ETP of the industry and adequate APCS, regarding which it is submitted that the ETP of the industry is a batch type ETP that is used only whenever required. The said ETP has been upgraded as per the directions given by the State PCB and also the industry has upgraded its APCS. It is further submitted that in view of absence of substantial evidence to show that the industry has polluted the agricultural land of the petitioner, recommendations made by the Committee in para no. 6.2 need to be quashed.

¶21

3. From the side of respondent No. 2/MPCB, learned Counsel Mr. Vilas Jadhav has appeared, who has filed reply affidavit dated 31.03.2023, where-in it is submitted that the land of the

¶22

Page 2 of 8

¶23

applicant/complainant is adjoining to the land of the industry in question, which is located in the industrial zone which is declared by the Regional Town Planning and Development Authority. The industry has obtained Consent to Operate dated 30.04.2014 and 1^st Consent to Operate dated 31.03.2015, which has been renewed up to 30.11.2024. In the remaining part of the affidavit of the respondent No. 2/MPCB, we find that neither air pollution is found to have been done by the industry nor is any violation found to be there with respect to hazardous waste disposal. Whatever infirmities were found from time to time, regarding which show cause notices were issued. After receiving the compliance report from the Project Proponent, no adverse action was required to be taken at their end.

¶24

4. By our previous order dated 03.04.2023, we had directed the applicant to provide details of the record regarding agricultural produce/plants of the last 5 years and the revenue record in that respect so that the Committee could be forwarded the same for making assessment of the loss suffered by the applicant. In compliance of the same, the applicant has filed affidavit dated 06.07.2023, where-in the details of the agricultural produce from the year 2013 to 2017 have been given, which are as follows:-

¶25

“

¶26

*Sr.No* .	*Name of* *Crops /* *Fruit Trees*	*Total No of Trees*	*Average* *income* *per year* *Rs.*	*Yearly income* *(Approximately)*
1)	*Curry* *Leaves*	**500[500365days]***	*500/-*	*1,82,500/-*
2)	*Bananas* *(seasonal)*	*200[200* **ghad400Rs.per* tree.]**	*200/-*	*80,000/-*
3)	*Custard* *Apple* *(seasonal)*	**25kg50Rs.=1250* Rs.Per tree 1250 Rs80trees]***	*1250/-*	*1,00,000/-*
4)	*Ramfal* *(seasonal)*	*10 trees* 50 **fruits40Fts=Rs2000* Rs.200010 trees***	*200/-*	*20,000/-*

¶27

Page 3 of 8

¶28

5)	*Mango* *(seasonal)*	*10 trees* *125kg fruits* **125Kg10* trees=1250 kg** _1250 Kg 80_ *Rs=1,00,000/-	*1250/-*	*1,00,000/-*
6)	*Drumsticks* *Trees*	*40 trees* *Rs 2000 per tree* _40_** trees=Rs.80,000/-*	*2000/-*	*80,000/-*
7)	*Guvava* *(seasonal)*	*5 trees* **Rs.10005trees***	*1000/-*	*5,000/-*
8)	*Chickoo*	**5trees 2000Rs***	*2000/-*	*10,000/-*
9)	*Papaya*	*40trees* *Avenge fruits* **12550=6250fruits* 6250 fruits 10** Rs=62500/- aproximately*	*1250/-*	*62,500/-*
*10)*	*Coconut*	*10 trees*	*Produce* *was not* *yet* *begun-*	*----*
*11)*	*Lemon*	**12 trees6000Rs per* year per tree.**	*17 Rs.*	*72,000/-*
*12)*	*Groundnuts*	*---*	*---*	*24,000/-*
*13)*	*Soyabean*	*---*	*---*	*21,000/-*
*14)*	*Turdal*	*---*	*---*	*35,000/-*
*15)*	*Chickpeas*	*---*	*---*	*47,000/-*
*16)*	*Tomatoes,* *Brinjals,*	*---*	*---*	*50,000/-*
	*Chilly etc.*
		*Tot*	*al Income*	*9,66,000/-*
		*Total Cost*	*incurred*	*2,00,000/-*

¶29

”

¶30

Further, the details of the agricultural produce from the year 2017 to 2022 are being shown as ‘Nil’. The reason for this

¶31

Page 4 of 8

¶32

produce to be Nil, is mentioned to be the damage caused to the crop due to the heavy pollution from the industry of the respondent No. 1/Project Proponent.

¶33

6. We find that the said calculation, which has been given in this affidavit, to be not accurate. But even then, we deem it appropriate to forward the same to the Joint Committee as the Committee had required through its recommendation at point no. 6.2 of the report that the applicant may be asked to provide detailed data/records regarding agricultural produce/plants of fi ve years prior to the commissioning of the industry.

¶34

7. From the perusal of the Annexure- A1 annexed to the original application at page no. 35 of the paper book, we find that the applicant is owning 0-86.50 hec. of land, therefore, the Committee has also to ascertain whether for the said piece of land was it possible to grow the crops, which are shown by the applicant in its affidavit dated 06.07.2023 and also to verify the probability of the income, which is being shown to have been earned and the loss which is being shown of the entire income. Whether the same could be correct or not . ”

¶35

Thereafter, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that in compliance with the above-mentioned order, the Joint Committee has submitted its 2^nd report, which is annexed at page nos.394 to 423 of the paper book, wherein following observations and conclusions have been made:-

¶36

“ 3.0. OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSIONS

¶37

The District Superintendent of Agriculture, Kolhapur prepared its report based on the Revenue Records (7/12 Extracts) submitted by Applicant, Ready Reference Dairy of Gov. Agricultural College for recommended spacing specifications for cultivation of unit crops and cash crops and discussions in the meeting dated 22.08.2023. The report vide letter dated. 28.08.2023 to RO, MPCB, Kolhapur (Nodal Agency). The detailed report along with Revenue Records (7/12 Extracts-as annexure) submitted by District Superintendent of Agriculture, Kolhapur is attached as an Annexure-V.

¶38

The observations from the aforesaid report are summarized as below-

¶39

1. As per the Revenue Records (7/12 Extracts) for period ‘2013 to 2017’ submitted by the Applicant, the agricultural crops such as Soyabean, Groundnut and Sugarcane are mentioned on Revenue records (7/12 Extracts). The Fruit

¶40

Page 5 of 8

¶41

crops are not mentioned on the 7/12 Extracts for years ‘2013 to 2017’. The Applicant has falsely mentioned fruit crops in the Affidavit dated 06.07.2023. In the absence of Revenue records, it is not possible to verify the income, as claimed by the Applicant.

¶42

2. Considering the Recommended Spacing Specifications for Cultivation of Fruits Crops and Cash Crops in Ready Reference Diary of Govt. Agricultural College, it is not possible to grow the crops to the tune of quantity which are shown by the Applicant in its Affidavit dated 06.07.2023, and hence it is not possible to ascertain the probability of the income, earnings/losses incurred.

¶43

3. The soil testing reports of the Applicant’s land along with other surrounding land are “well within limits” as prescribed by the competent authority and the same are already produced on record along with the Joint Committee Report.

¶44

Based on the Report of the Agriculture Department, the Committee is of the opinion that the claims made by the Applicant regarding losses/damages to the agriculture produce cannot be ascertained as Fruit crops are not mentioned in the Revenue Records (7/12 extracts) for the period of 2013-2017. However, as per the Revenue Records (7/12 Extracts) for period ‘2013 to 2017’, the agricultural crops-cash crops such as Soyabean, Groundnut and Sugarcane are mentioned in Revenue records (7/12 Extracts), however, no supporting record/documents for income/loss of such crops have been provided by the Applicant. Therefore, the loss due to these crops also cannot be ascertained.

¶45

Further, as per Recommended Spacing Specifications for Cultivation of Fruits Crops and Cash Crops in Ready Reference Dairy of Gov. Agricultural College, it is not possible to grow the Cash crop/Fruit Crops in 0.86 hectare of land of the Applicant, as mentioned in the Affidavit dated 06.07.2023.”

¶46

Against this Joint Committee Report, applicant has filed objection dated 07.12.2023 before this Tribunal on 07.02.2024, wherein it is mentioned that the Joint Committee has drawn erroneous conclusion that there are no fruit trees as averred in the Petition. In fact, there are various fruit trees viz. Neem, awala, Chickoo, Cashewnuts, Jackfruit, Kokum, coconut, mango, Ramphal along-with Soyabean and Sugarcane available at the site in question and that there are also 722 trees of Curry

¶47

Page 6 of 8

¶48

leaves as mentioned in the 7/12 extract. The Joint Committee has erroneously drawn conclusion without paying visit to the land in question and verifying the number of fruit trees, which are actually available at the said land.

¶49

It is further mentioned in this objection by the applicant that Joint Committee has come to the said erroneous conclusion that they are unable to ascertain income from crops without taking the 7/12 extract into consideration, is also erroneous because in the said extract, it is clearly seen that there are a large number of fruit trees in the petitioner’s land.

¶50

We do not find any justifiable ground to disbelieve the said report of the Joint Committee, which comprises of three Departments, i.e. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and District Superintendent Agriculture Officer, Kolhapur. It is far-fetched thing that all the three Officers would be colluding with each other and submitted false report before us.

¶51

Form the final report, which is annexed at page nos.394 to 398 of the paper book, which is submitted in compliance with our previous order, it is clear that in the extract 7/12 for the periods from 2013 to 2017 submitted by the applicant, the agricultural crops such as Soyabean, Groundnut and Sugarcane are mentioned on Revenue records (7/12 Extracts) and the fruit crops are not mentioned on the 7/12 extracts. Therefore, applicant has falsely mentioned that the fruit crops got damaged and the same cannot be held to be correct. Therefore, considering the Recommended Spacing Specifications for Cultivation of Fruits Crops and Cash Crops in Ready Reference Diary of Government Agricultural College, it is not possible to grow the crops to the extent of

¶52

Page 7 of 8

¶53

quantity, which are shown by the applicant in its affidavit dated 06.07.2023. It is also concluded by the Joint Committee that the soil testing reports were found to be well within the limits.

¶54

In view of the above-mentioned reports of the Joint Committee, we conclude that this application needs to be disposed of and is accordingly disposed of.

¶55

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶56

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶57

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶58

November 21, 2024 Original Application No.81/2022(WZ) I.A. No.157/2022(WZ) & I.A. No.140/2022(WZ) P.Kr

¶59

Page 8 of 8

Shantinath Devappa Hukkeri v. Dunung Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Director Pritam Prafulla Dunung

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantinath Devappa Hukkeri v. Dunung Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Director Pritam Prafulla Dunung

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

Shri Omprakash Somani vs 1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary

Shri Omprakash Somani vs 1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary

Shri Omprakash Somani vs 1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary

Kundan Veer Singh Bhullar and Ors. vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Anurag Sharma vs

Kissan Udey Samiti vs State of Haryana

Subhash Datta vs State of West Bengal

Deochand Damduji Karemore vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Union of India

News Item Titled Nine Workers Killed in Blast in an Explosives Factory Near Nagpur Appearing in the Hindu Bureau DATED18.12.2023 vs the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives Dts Gondkhairi Amravati Road Nagpur

Mr Shiyal Hamirbhai Rudabhai vs Ms Nirma Cement Ltd. through Managing Director

Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Shantinath Devappa Hukkeri vs Dunung Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Director Pritam Prafulla Dunung