Partly allowed

Yanati Sreenivasulu Reddy S/O Ramachandra Reddy Hindu Aged About 70 Years v. the Chief Secretary Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

NGT3 Dec 2024IA No. 16/2023 in Original Application No. 105/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Residents sought compensation for pollution from thermal power plants affecting agriculture. The court dismissed the compensation claim as the Joint Committee found no loss due to crop yield, noting observed pollution. The Tribunal directed the Pollution Board to issue a show-cause notice for environmental compensation and directed MoEF&CC to examine the coal usage deviation.

What did the court decide?

Granted directions to the State Pollution Control Board to issue a show-cause notice to respondents for environmental compensation after enquiry; granted a mandate to the Ministry of Environment to ex

Yanati Sreenivasulu Reddy S/O Ramachandra Reddy Hindu… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No.1:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Tuesday, the 03^rd day of December 2024.

¶4

(Through Video Conference)

¶5

Original Application No.105 of 2021 (SZ) & I.A. No.16 of 2023 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF

¶7

1) Yanati Srinivasulu Reddy

¶8

S/o. Ramachandra Reddy Hindu, Aged about 70 years, Regd. No.28/2019, Nelatur Village & Post, Muthukar Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh – 524 344.

¶9

2) Magunta Krishna Reddy

¶10

S/o. Subbarami Reddy Hindu, Aged about 88 years

¶11

Rep. by its Special Power of Attorney, Yanati Srinivasulu Reddy S/o. Ramachandra Reddy Hindu, Aged about 70 years, Regd. No.28/2019, Nelatur Village & Post, Muthukar Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh – 524 344.

¶12

[Permitted as per Order dt.20.05.2021 in I.A. No.76 of 2021 (SZ)]

¶13

...Applicant(s)

¶14

Versus

¶15

1) The Chief Secretary

¶16

Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh.

¶17

2) Union of India

¶18

Rep. by the Secretary Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change 1^st Floor, Jal Block, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

¶19

3) Central Pollution Control Board

¶20

Rep. by its Chairman Parivesh Bhavan, CBD cum Office Complex, East Arjun Nagar, New Delhi.

¶21

Page 1 of 16

¶22

4) The Secretary

¶23

Ministry of Power Government of India Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Mag, New Delhi.

¶24

5) The Secretary (Environment) Forests and Environment Department, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh.

¶25

6) District Collector Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

¶26

7) The Chairman

¶27

Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board D.No.33-26-14/D2, Near Sunrise Hospital, Pushpa Hotel Centre, Chalamalavari Street, Kasthuribaipet, Vijayawada – 520 010.

¶28

8) The Director

¶29

Sri Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal Power Plant M/s. A.P. Power Development Company Limited (A subsidiary of APGENCO & Govt. of A.P. undertaking) Nelatur Village, Mutthukar Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶30

9) The Director

¶31

Thermal Power Tech Corporation India Limited (TPCIL) Nelaturu Village, Mutthukur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶32

...Respondent(s)

¶33

For Applicant (s): M/s. Rayasam N. Suneetha. For Respondent(s): Mrs. Madhuri Donti Reddy for R1, R5 to R7. Ms. N. Nathami for R3. Mr. A.R. Sakthivel for R4. Mr. Mohan, Sr. Adv. For M/s. King & Partridge and Mr. Kumaresan for R8. Mr. Satish Parasaran, Sr. Adv. a/w. Mr. Kapil Arora, Juvraj Singh Bundra and Mr. Gautam S Raman for R9/I.A. No.16 of 2023.

¶34

Judgment Reserved on: 03^rd April, 2024.

¶35

CORAM :

¶36

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶37

HON’BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶38

Page 2 of 16

¶39

J U D G E M E N T

¶40

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member.

¶41

1. The above application is filed by the applicants, who are the residents of Nelaturu Village, Muthukur Mandal, Nellore District, seeking compensation for the pollution caused by Respondents No.8 & 9 viz., Sri Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal Power Plant and Thermal Powertech Corporation India Limited (TPCIL) respectively.

¶42

2. It is alleged in the application that the thermal power plants near the lands of Nelaturu and Pynapuram Villages were related to Krishnapatnam Port which is running under the name and style of Damodara Sanjeevaiah Thermal Power Plant. The Nellore district is well known for agriculture and aquaculture economy. Majority of the population are depending upon agriculture, handicrafts, fishing, salt cultivation etc. The applicants have agricultural lands in the Pynapuram Village, which is adjacent to the Nelaturu Village, and the power projects are extended to that area also.

¶43

3. There are two tanks for irrigation in an extent of 240 Acres viz., Chinna Cheruvu (90 Acres) and Pedda Cheruvu (150 Acres). The water in both tanks is mainly used for irrigation purpose, drinking water for cattle, buffaloes and sheep which were being reared by the farmers and other traditional communities.

¶44

4. In the year 2004 and onwards, Krishnapatnam Port is in existence and there are about 30 coal based thermal power projects which were established by A.P.GENCO, TPCIL, Reliance, Gavathri, NELCAST in and around the Nelaturu Village. Out of total 2333.84 Acres of Nelaturu village, the Government acquired an extent of 1668.57 Acres of land for the purpose of the power plants viz., APSPDCL (APGECO) - 1024.31 Acres, TPCIL - 416.31 Acres and APIIC - 192.32 Acres. An extent of 237.49 Acres of land is being irrigated and the balance land to an extent of 427.78 Acres of dry land was left out in Nelaturu Village due to

¶45

Page 3 of 16

¶46

spreading of tones of toxic fly ash in and around the village, due to which pollution levels became high. Water became contaminated by discharge of toxic effluents, chemicals and fly ash, and was not fit for consumption.

¶47

5. As many as 21 No. of Coal-based Thermal Power Projects with a total capacity of 21,234 MW are coming up adjacent to Krishnapatnam Port in SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh. All these coal-based thermal power plants are being established within 5 KMs radius of Krishnapatnam port, which is a threatening issue resulting to turn the area into the most polluted zone in the country.

¶48

6. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated and the Land Acquisition officer, Nellore passed awards in Award Nos.50/2006 – 2007 dated 31.12.2017, 37/2006 - 2007 dated 09.02.2017 and 38/2006 – 2007 dated 08.02.2017.

¶49

7. To prove the extent held by the 2^nd Applicant, the Adangals standing in the name of Magunta Krishna Reddy are annexed herewith the application.

¶50

8. The coal-based electricity generation will involve the burning of coal and dumping of tonnes of toxic fly ash and due to this, tons of sulphur would enter the environment every day which will cause an environmental disaster.

¶51

9. In the year 2014, the Government granted another plant for production of 800 MW under expansion phase of A.P. GENCO’s Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal Power Project at Nelaturu. Many environmental activists and local residents made their objections for its construction on the grounds of pollution and relocation/rehabilitation problems.

¶52

10. Further, an Environment Management Plan to mitigate the impacts due to the establishment of power plant was also not implemented. Further, the concerned authorities are fully aware that the main solid waste generated from the power plant is fly ash. This fly ash has to be stored in a pond provided with 0.5 mm lining LDP to prevent the leaching, but the

¶53

Page 4 of 16

¶54

same has not taken place in Nelaturu village. There is no definite plan to dispose of the utilized ash to the ash pond.

¶55

11. The establishment of these power plants in and around Nelaturu village has further caused serious marine ecology loss. No steps were taken for greenbelt development to control dust and noise pollution. At the time of establishment of the projects, the power project management and the Government promised that “the technology adopted and the implementation ensured that the impacts due to the proposed power plants are amenable to technological control and effective environmental management” but the same assurance is not fulfilled.

¶56

12. After the establishment of the power projects by acquiring an extent of 1668.57 Acres in and around the Nelaturu Village, there remained an extent of about 250 Acres of irrigable land. Though there are two tanks i.e., Pedda Cheruvu and Chinna Cheruvu for irrigating the remaining lands, the said two irrigation tanks were also occupied and enjoyed by the unauthorized power plants. They destroyed the two irrigation tanks and started using them as ash ponds illegally, thereby causing irreparable loss to the farmers for cultivation, and no drinking water to the cattle, but the project managements did not come forward to make alternate arrangements to the people of Nelaturu Village.

¶57

13. All the drinking water wells became polluted and the fly ash released by the power plants spread all over the village in layers and thereby causing health hazards to the inhabitants and the cattle. Finally, the agricultural activities of Nelaturu, applicants were abandoned in toto, while fishing and cattle farming also became defunct, employment also was not generated for the local villagers by the power plant.

¶58

14. Applicants issued a legal notice to all the respondents on 12.11.2020 calling upon the respondents to take appropriate measures to reduce the pollution in their area and examine the pathetic conditions that are prevailing in Nelaturu Village due to the establishment of the power projects.

¶59

Page 5 of 16

¶60

15. The applicants/appellants who are below the poverty line or indigent in terms of the provisions contain in the order of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, attached an attested copy of proof of below the poverty line to claim waiver of fee. The applicants had filed the income proof given by the Tahsildar to the affect that the applicants are having only agricultural income and they are unable to pay the court fees. The Agricultural Income Certificate of 1^st applicant dated 04-01-2021 is filed as Annexure A-11. The Agricultural Income Certificate of 2^nd applicant is filed as Annexure A-12.

¶61

16. Hence, this application claiming compensation of Rs.2,84,56,000/- to the 1^st Applicant and Rs.3,30,10,000/- to the 2^nd Applicant for the loss sustained by them due to the pollution caused on account of the operation of the thermal power plants.

¶62

17. The applicants have filed interlocutory application [I.A. No.77 of 2021 (SZ)] seeking exemption of Court Fee for the compensation amount claimed. After due consideration, this Tribunal has allowed the application on the condition that the necessary court fee has to be realized later, if the applicants are entitled to get any compensation as prayed for in the Original Application.

¶63

18. To ascertain the genuineness of the allegations made in the application, vide Order dated 16.09.2021, this Tribunal appointed a Joint Committee to go into the issue and directed them to file a report. Pursuant to it, the Joint Committee has filed its report dated 22.03.2022, wherein they have made the overall observation based on the field inspection and monitoring results, which are extracted below:-

¶64

“X. Overall Observation of the Committee based on field observations and Monitoring results:

¶65

A. M/s Sri Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal Power

¶66

Station

¶67

i. The respondent unit M/s Sri Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal Power Station unit was in operation at 2x550 MW against the consented capacity of 2x800 MW. The unit is using 100% Indian coal with ash content of about 30 % and Sulphur content of about 0.3%. As per the EC condition, the unit is required to use blended coal of Indian washed and Imported coal in the ratio of 70 & 30 %.

¶68

Page 6 of 16

¶69

ii. The unit is having requisite permissions /clearances from AP Boiler Inspection Department, Dy.Chief Controller of Explosives, MOEF&CC, Dy. Chief Inspector of Factories and Panchayath raj Department, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, PESO except Department of Fire.

¶70

iii. The unit has valid integrated consent under Water & Air and Authorisation under H&OW Rule 2016, however 26 out 41 conditions imposed were found complying and remaining 15 conditions were found non compliance. The major non compliance observed are non-utilisation of 100% fly ash & bottom ash, inadequate measures taken for controlling fugitive emissions from coal storage yard and Ash pond, poor operation, maintenance & calibration of CAAQM stations and on line monitoring system installed to monitor the effluent & emissions and in adequate green development around the plant.

¶71

iv. As per the source emissions monitoring conducted during committee visit was found meeting with prescribed standards of APPCB (Table No 2). But Online monitoring system installed found not in operation since one year.

¶72

v. As per the analysis results of samples taken from ash pond Seepage water confirms the accumulation of TDS due to using sea water for making ash slurry till March, 2021. In spite of using sweet water for making ash slurry accumulated TDS contributing to ash pond seepage water.

¶73

vi. The unit has ETP of capacity 75 KLD but operating at 5 to 45 KLD only which confirms that failure of tapping of all effluent and discharging untreated effluent through storm drain which is passing inside the premises. The analysis results of samples taken from storm water drains (ROA presented in Table no. 4) indicates that confirms the discharging of untreated effluent into drain.

¶74

vii. As per the conditions of CTO the unit is required to operate 4 CAAQM stations to monitor Ambient Air Quality, out 4 stations two stations were found not working and two stations found partially working.

¶75

viii. The unit is required to utilise 100 % fly ash but unit is utilising only 58 % of generated fly ash and remaining ash is found accumulated in ash pond.

¶76

ix. The unit is required to re-circulate 100 % ash pond water for slurry making but huge quantity of discharge of seepage water was observed into the storm water drain. From the storm water drain it is joining the nearby canal which is being used for aqua culture farming.

¶77

B. M/s Sembcorp Energy India Ltd., Project -1

¶78

i. The respondent unit M/s Sembcorp Energy India Ltd., was in operation at 1x660MW against the consented capacity of 2x660 MW. The unit isusing blended Indian coal and imported coal in the ratio of 70% & 30%.

¶79

ii. The unit is having all requisite permissions /clearances from AP Boiler Inspection Department, Dy. Chief Controller of Explosives, MOEF&CC, Dy. Chief Inspector of Factories and Panchayath raj Department, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, PESO and Department of Fire.

¶80

iii. The unit has valid integrated consent under Water & Air and Authorisation under H&OW Rule 2016, however 25 out 31 conditions imposed were found complying and remaining 6conditions were found non compliance. The major non compliance observed are non installation of closed shed, wind barrier/wind breaking wall coal storage yard, inadequate

¶81

Page 7 of 16

¶82

measures taken for controlling fugitive emissions from coal storage yard and non utilisation of 100% fly ash& bottom ash.

¶83

iv. As per the source emissions monitoring conducted during committee visit was found meeting with prescribed standards of APPCB and the online monitoring system installed found in operation. As per the OCEMS data, the average concentration of PM was 39.98 mg/Nm3 on 22.10.2021. The manual monitoring result 40.8 mg/Nm3 and OCEMS result are found almost in the same range, which confirms the proper operation & calibration of OCEMS system.

¶84

v. The industry provided ETP of 1732 KLD capacity. But the industry is generating floor wash of 30 KLD only and the same is taken for treatment in the ETP.

¶85

vi. The unit is required to utilise 100 % fly ash but the unit failed utilise till 2018, as per the record the unit is achieving 100 % utilisation of fly ash and bottom ash since 2020-21 only.

¶86

vii. The unit is required to do 100 % recirculation of ash pond water for slurry making. The unit has provided ash pond seepage water collection tank and re-circulating back to ash slurry making. In spite of these arrangement committee observed stagnation of water near to ash pond and storm water drain confirms joining of the seepage water from the ash pond is getting leaked.”

¶87

19. The Joint Committee has also assessed the Environmental Compensation on account of damage caused to the air quality, health and non-compliances against Respondents No.8 and 9 to the tune of Rs.1,84,04,567/- and Rs.1,11,31,586/respectively. The Joint Committee has suggested certain mitigations/suggestions to prevent the pollution caused which is usefully extracted below:-

¶88

a. As per the conditions of EC and CTO, respondent units are required to ensure use of blended coal of Indian wash coal of 70% and imported coal of 30% so that to reduce particulate matter emissions.

¶89

b. Both units may asked to provide closed shed and wind barriers/wind breaking wall to Coal storage yard to reduce the fugitive emissions.

¶90

c. Both units required to explore possibilities of utilization of 100% fly ash and Bottom Ash to curtail fugitive emissions and water pollution due to seepage of ash ponds.

¶91

d. To ensure installation of Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) plant to achieve SO2 norms as per time line given by CPCB.

¶92

e. To ensure 100% recirculation of ash pond seepage to make slurry and dust suppression to prevent water pollution if any in surrounding areas of respondent units.

¶93

f. To switch over to use sweet water for ash slurry purpose instead of sea water to prevent increase of TDS in the ground water.

¶94

g. To switch over to use treated sewage from the Municipal corporation, Nellore instead of treating the sea water in the desalination plant and discharging the High TDS containing desalination plant rejects into Sea.

¶95

Page 8 of 16

¶96

h. To ensure proper operation of Online Continuous Effluent Monitoring System, Online Continuous Emission Monitoring System and Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Stations and transmit the live data to the APPCB and CPCB server.”

¶97

20. The official respondents have filed their respective replies/reports. Respondents No.8 and 9 have also filed their objections to the Joint Committee report.

¶98

21. The APPCB, after examining the Joint Committee Report, Inspection Report of the APPCB, Recommendation of the External Advisory Committee (Task Force) and the response of the industry, has issued notice dated 30.01.2023 under Section 33 A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31 A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 against Respondents No.8 and 9 to comply with the directions issued therein.

¶99

22. Aggrieved by the notice issued, the 9^th Respondent filed an interlocutory application [I.A. No.16 of 2023 (SZ)] seeking an order to restrain the 7^th Respondent (APPCB) from taking any coercive steps against the 9^th Respondent pursuant to its notice dated 30.01.2023.

¶100

23. Vide Order dated 09.02.2023, the notices dated 30.01.2023 issued by the APPCB against Respondents No.8 & 9 were directed to be kept in abeyance until further orders from this Tribunal. The APPCB was also directed to inspect the units to find out any violations after the report of the Joint Committee and also report about the compliances by the industries with reference to non-compliances noted by the Joint Committee.

¶101

24. Accordingly, the APPCB has inspected the industry of Respondents No.8 & 9 on 21.03.2023 and 17.03.2023 respectively and made the following remarks:-

¶102

“ Remarks:

¶103

A. Sri Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal Power Station:

¶104

1. Ash disposal: The power plant has not yet achieved 100% utilization of fly ash. The MoEF&CC, GoI vide S.O.No.5481 (E) dated 31.12.2021 issued fly ash notification 2021 in supersession of earlier notification. As per this notification, the

¶105

Page 9 of 16

¶106

industry shall achieve 100 % ash disposal in 4 years cycle. Otherwise, the power plant is liable for Environmental Compensation.

¶107

2. Online Monitors: The power plant revamped CEMS and CAAQMS after the visit of the joint committee. Now, all online monitors are functioning except one PM10 monitor and pH meter at the outlet of ETP.

¶108

3. Fugitive emissions: After the visit of the joint committee, the power plant completed two sheds for coal storage (89m x 117.5m x 2 nos). The coal yard is provided with MDSS. The internal roads are required to be cleaned at regular intervals. The power plant needs to improve the measures for control of fugitive emissions. Further, the power plant shall provide water sprinklers on the ash pond.

¶109

4. Installation of Flue Gas De-sulphurization system: The MoEF&CC, GOI vide S.O.No.682 (E) dated. 05.09.2022 issued an amendment with regard to the compliance date for achievement of SO2 emission standards by 31.12.2026. Otherwise, the power plant is liable for Environmental Compensation.

¶110

5. Coal Usage: The MoEF&CC, GoI issued Environmental Clearance vide order dated.17.07.2007 to use blended coal, i.e. 70% Indian Coal & 30 % Imported coal. Subsequently, the MoEF&CC, GoI issued a notification vide S.O.1561 (E) dated 21.05.2020 by amending sub-rule (8) in rule 3 of Environment Protection Rules, which is a regulation on ash content (i.e. <34%) in coal. As per the notification, the power plant can use the coal without stipulations with regard to ash content or distance subject to compliance with the conditions stipulated in the Notification. In view of the above notification, the regulation on coal sources may not be insisted.

¶111

B. M/s. Sembcorp Energy India Limited (Project – 1), Pynapuram (V), Muthukur (M), SPSR Nellore District:

¶112

1. Ash disposal: The power plant achieved 100%

¶113

utilization of fly ash.

¶114

2. Online Monitors: The power plant provided CEQMS, CEMS and CAAQMS and also calibrated them as per schedule.

¶115

3. Fugitive emissions: The power plant provided MDSS in the coal yard and developed a plantation around the coal yard to act as a wind barrier. The internal roads are being cleaned at regular intervals. The power plant provided water sprinklers on the part of the ash pond & for the remaining area, the water level is being maintained to prevent ash emissions.

¶116

4. Installation of Flue Gas De-Sulphurization system: The MoEF&CC, GOI vide S.O.No.682 (E) dated 05.09.2022 issued an amendment with regard to the compliance date for achievement of SO2 emission standards by 31.12.2026. Otherwise, the power plant is liable for Environmental Compensation.

¶117

5. Coal Usage: The Board issued CTE vide order dated: 15.05.2010 to use blended coal, i.e. 70% Indian Coal & 30% imported coal. Subsequently, the MoEF&CC, GoI issued a notification vide S.O.1561 (E) dated. 21.05.2020 by amending sub-rule (8) in rule 3 of Environment Protection Rules, which is a regulation on ash content (i.e. <34%) in coal. As per the notification, the power plant can use the coal without stipulations with regard to ash content or distance subject to compliance with the conditions stipulated in the Notification. In view of the above notification, the regulation on coal sources may not be insisted.”

¶118

Page 10 of 16

¶119

25. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as the respondents.

¶120

26. The main concern of the applicants is that their agricultural lands were affected due to the dumping of fly ash and discharging of toxic effluents and chemicals from the thermal power plants situated in the Nelaturu and Pynapuram Villages, more particularly, Sri Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal Power Plant and Thermal Powertech Corporation India Limited (TPCIL), who are arrayed as Respondents No.8 & 9 respectively.

¶121

27. The applicants further contended that the irrigation tanks viz., Pedda Cheruvu and Chinna Cheruvu were encroached upon by the miscreants unauthorizedly and used as ash ponds, which resulted in groundwater contamination and loss of yield in the surrounding areas.

¶122

28. As the applicants claimed to have suffered the loss of agricultural yield due to the thermal power plants, they prayed for a compensation of Rs.2,84,56,000/- and Rs.3,30,10,000/from the 8^th Respondent. However, the Joint Committee, in its report, has observed that as per the agricultural yield data of Pinampuram and Nelaturu Village (nearby villages of the respondent unit), no crop yield loss was observed with reference to the year of establishment of the respondent units i.e. 201415. However, the crop yield in the Kharif season was observed from 06% to 11% due to drought in the area during the year 2018-19. The Joint Committee has finally concluded that no monetary loss is attracted with regard to the crop yield.

¶123

29. While arguing the matter, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants would state that the applicants are accepting the reports of the Joint Committee and the APPCB, in view of the rectification of the violations noticed.

¶124

30. The learned counsel for the applicant also sent an e- mail dated 07.04.2024 to the Registry stating that the applicants have no objection against the Joint Committee Report and also prayed this Tribunal to pass appropriate orders, as the 8^th

¶125

Page 11 of 16

¶126

Respondent after inspection rectified certain violations of the conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance and hence, they prayed for the compensation.

¶127

31. To be noted is that the relief of claiming compensation sought for is only against the 8^th Respondent and not against the 9^th Respondent. Further, the applicants have filed an interlocutory application viz., [I.A. No.77 of 2021 (SZ)] seeking exemption of Court Fee for the compensation amount claimed and the same has been allowed by this Tribunal on 16.09.2021, on a condition that the necessary court fee has to be realized later if the applicants are entitled to get any compensation as prayed for in the Original Application.

¶128

32. As stated supra, since the Joint Committee has concluded that the applicants have not suffered any monetary loss with regard to the crop yield, the applicants are not entitled to the compensation as prayed for in the application.

¶129

33. With regard to the contention made by the learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.8 and 9 that the notice dated 30.01.2023 issued by the APPCB has already been directed to be kept in abeyance and prayed this Tribunal to close the proceedings initiated by the APPCB vide its Notice dated 30.01.2023 is concerned, the Tribunal is of the view that if the 8^th and 9^th Respondents have complied with the conditions imposed, they should inform the APPCB about their compliance and in turn, the APPCB can inspect the unit and decide to either drop the proceedings initiated by them or take further action. It would be not appropriate for this Tribunal to direct the APPCB to close the proceedings initiated by them, as it is for the APPCB to take a call on this.

¶130

34. Now what remains for consideration is that in the process of assessing the damages caused to the applicants’ agricultural land, the Joint Committee had found that the 8^th and 9^th Respondents had committed certain violations.

¶131

Page 12 of 16

¶132

35. So far as the 8^th Respondent (M/s. Sri

¶133

Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal Power Station) is concerned, the major non-compliances observed by the Joint Committee are non-utilization of 100% fly ash (i.e. the unit is utilizing only 58% of the generated fly ash and the remaining ash is found accumulated in the ash pond) and bottom ash, inadequate measures taken for controlling fugitive emissions from coal storage yard and ash pond, poor operation, maintenance and calibration of CAAQM stations and online monitoring system installed to monitor the effluents and emissions and inadequate greenbelt development around the thermal power plant. The unit has an ETP of capacity 75 KLD, but operating at 5 to 45 KLD only, which confirms the failure of tapping all effluent and discharging untreated effluents through the storm water drain which is passing inside the premises. As per the conditions of the CTO, the unit is required to operate 4 CAAQM stations. Out of which, two stations were found not working and two stations were found partially working.

¶134

36. So far as the 9^th Respondent (M/s. Sembcorp Energy India Limited, Project -1) is concerned, the major violations observed by the Joint Committee are non-installation of the closed shed, wind barrier/wind breaking wall, coal storage yard, inadequate measures for controlling fugitive emissions from coal storage yard and non-utilization of the fly ash and bottom ash i.e. the unit is required to utilize 100% fly ash but the unit failed to utilize the same till 2019 and as the per the record, the unit is achieving 100% utilization of fly ash and bottom ash since 2020-2021 only. Further, though the unit has provided an ash pond seepage water collection tank and recirculating back to ash slurry making, during the inspection, the Joint Committee observed stagnation of water near to ash pond and storm water drain, which confirms the joining of the seepage water from the ash pond is getting leaked.

¶135

37. With regard to the environmental damages including air, water and soil caused on account of the operation of the respondent units, the Joint Committee observed that the Particulate Matter in the ambient air was found exceeding the

¶136

Page 13 of 16

¶137

limit of National Ambient Air Quality Standards. As per the surface water monitoring, the analysis results of the samples collected from the canal and pond confirm the inception of effluent through storm water passing through the premises of M/s. Sri Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal Power Station. A detailed survey of soil samples around the respondent units was conducted and as per the analysis report, the soils of the study area were slightly acidic to slightly alkaline in reaction, normal in electrical conductivity (non-saline) with a mean organic carbon content of 0.53 percent. The majority of the soils were sufficient in micronutrient content with correspondent mean Zn, Fe, Cu and Mn contents of 1.01, 7.87, 1.54 and 6.64 mg Kg-1 respectively. The heavy metal contents were found below the permissible limits. Similarly, the samples collected from the ash pond also did not show any DTPA extractable trace metals above permissible limits.

¶138

38. Ultimately, for the non-compliances and violations observed, the Joint Committee has assessed a sum of Rs.1,84,04,567/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Four Lakhs Four Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Seven only) and Rs.1,11,31,586/- (Rupees One Crore Eleven Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Six only) against the 8^th and 9^th Respondent respectively.

¶139

39. In this regard, the 8^th and 9^th Respondent have filed their respective objections to the Joint Committee report, wherein they have specifically stated that without affording an opportunity to them to explain the current status of the compliance, the environmental compensation has been imposed.

¶140

40. It is also noted that with reference to M/s. Sri Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal Power Station, the APPCB has stated that contrary to the condition imposed in Environmental Clearance dated 17.07.2007 to use blended coal (i.e. 70% Indian Coal and 30% Imported Coal), the thermal power station has switched over to 100% Indian Coal without necessary amendments to the prior Environmental Clearance granted. However, the APPCB contended that the said deviation may be

¶141

Page 14 of 16

¶142

permissible in view of the notification issued by the MoEF&CC vide S.O. 1561 (E) dated 21.05.2020 as amended Sub-rule (8) in Rule 3 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. The retrospective applicability of S.O. 1561 (E) dated 21.05.2020 needs to be examined with reference to the pronouncements made by this Tribunal as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

¶143

41. In the result, the Original Application [O.A. No.105 of 2021 (SZ)] is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶144

I. As the applicants have agreed with the Joint Committee’s report, which concluded that there is no monetary loss suffered by them with regard to the crop yield, the compensation for damages as claimed by the applicants cannot be granted.

¶145

II. In order to sustain the principle of natural justice, we direct the APPCB to issue a show cause notice to the 8^th and 9^th Respondent on the amount arrived at by the Joint Committee and after enquiry pass appropriate orders, arriving at the final environmental compensation (if any) and recover the same from them.

¶146

III. The MoEF&CC is directed to examine under what authority M/s. Sri Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal Power Station has switched over to 100% Indian Coal deviating from the condition imposed in the prior Environmental Clearance granted with reference to the rules in force and pronouncements made by this Tribunal as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on this subject.

¶147

IV. Let the said exercise be complied with within a period of 3 (Three) months.

¶148

Page 15 of 16

¶149

42. In view of the directions given, the interlocutory application [I.A. No.16 of 2023 (SZ)] is closed.

¶150

Sd/-

¶151

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶152

Sd/Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM

¶153

Internet – Yes/No All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

¶154

O.A. No.105/2021 & I.A. No.16/2023 (SZ) 03^rd December, 2024. Mn.

¶155

Page 16 of 16

Yanati Sreenivasulu Reddy S/O Ramachandra Reddy Hindu Aged About 70 Years v. the Chief Secretary Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yanati Sreenivasulu Reddy S/O Ramachandra Reddy Hindu Aged About 70 Years v. the Chief Secretary Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

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

News Item Titled Birbhum a Proposed Coal Mine in West Bengal and the Related Health Hazards Appearing in the Hindu Dated 12 05 2024 vs Central Pollution Control Board

Mohinder Pal vs State of Haryana through Director General Mines & Geology

Mr. Ajay Jayvantrao Bhosale vs Union of India

Lyndford D Souza vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Suo Motu Huge Pollution Risk in 8KM Around Nlc vs Managing Director Nlc India Ltd.

Neeraj Chhachhar vs

Neeraj Chhachhar vs

Abdul Qadir vs State of Uttar Pradesh

B. Sudhakar Reddy S/O B. Linga Reddy vs 1. the Metropolitan Commissioner Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

Paari vs Pollution Control Board

N.Malayananthan vs Puducherry Coastal Zone Management Authority Rep by Its Member Secretary

News Item Titled "Begging for Breath: Trapped Between Industries Kochi Residents Gasp for Fresh Air" Appearing in the New Indian Express Dated 23.02.2024 vs Central Pollution Control Board

Khambampati Venata Ramesh vs the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer the Ap Pollution Control Board Zonal Office Anr.