Disposed

Gyanendra Pandey vs

NGT1 Aug 2024IA No. 638/2023 in Original Application No. 273/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of an application regarding illegal brick kiln operations in Sitapur. It modified an earlier order exempting one applicant who held a valid Consent to Operate but failed to notify the Tribunal. Authorities were directed to comply with High Court stays on impositions while ensuring violations resulted in prosecution or closure.

What did the court decide?

Modification of interim order to exempt Respondent No. 8 from operational ban due to valid Consent to Operate; disposal of main OA and pending IAs.

Gyanendra Pandey vs — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No. 09

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 273/2022 (IA No. 171/2024, IA No. 638/2023)

¶5

Gyanendra Pandey Applicant

Versus

State of U.P. & Ors.

Respondent(s)

Date of hearing: 01.08.2024

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Amicus Curiae: Ms. Mansi Chahal, Adv. (Amicus Curiae) (Through VC)

¶12

Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Misra & Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advs. for UPPCB (Through VC) Mr. Nishchay Dutt & Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Advs. for R – 10, 11, 22 & 25 Mr. Sumeer Sodhi & Mr. Chaitanya Sharma, Advs. for R - 8 Mr. Nishchay Dutt & Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Advs. for R – 9, 14, 16, 17, 23, 28, 35 & 38

¶13

ORDER

¶14

In this original application, registered on the basis of the letter petition sent by one Gyanendra Pandey resident of Raipurganj, Tehsil Laharpur, District Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh, the plea is about illegal operation of the brick kilns. The complaint of the Applicant was that approximately 280 brick kilns were operating in Sitapur District out of which about 42 were illegally operating mainly in Sitapur and surrounding areas which include 24 in Laharpur, 14 in Mahmoodabad, 2 in Sidhauli and 1 each in Mishrikh and Sitapur Tehsil. These brick kilns were alleged to be violating the norms and causing air pollution.

¶15

The Tribunal by order dated 27.04.2022 had constituted the Joint Committee with a direction to the Joint Committee to visit the site of all 280 brick kilns, look into the grievance of the Applicant and take

¶16

¶17

remedial action by following due process of law and submit the report within two months.

¶18

The report of the Joint Committee submitted on 06.09.2022 was taken into account by the Tribunal by order dated 29.09.2022 and 44 Project Proponents (PP) – brick kilns found to be violating were impleaded in the OA and notices were issued to them.

¶19

The Tribunal having regard to the seriousness of the allegation by order dated 19.01.2023 had directed as under:

¶20

“xxx ……………………………xxx………………………………………xxx 7. In the meanwhile, all the 44 brick kilns in question shall not be operated till further order of this Tribunal. The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur shall take requisites steps to ensure that all the 44 brick kilns in question are not operated by the owners till further order of this Tribunal.”

¶21

The Tribunal in the proceedings dated 21.12.2023 had taken note of the stand of the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) that Environmental Compensation (EC) was imposed upon 31 units.

¶22

Thereafter, IA No. 292/2023 was filed by Respondent No. 8 with the plea that he was already having the ‘Consent to Operate’ (CTO) prior to the passing of the interim order dated 19.01.2023, therefore, he should be kept out of the ambit of that order and the Tribunal, after examining the same on 12.02.2024, had directed as under:

¶23

“xxx ……………………………..xxx…………………………………..xxx

¶24

9. Learned Counsel appearing for UPPCB has not disputed the fact that the applicant had valid CTO could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal on 19.01.2023, hence, interim order has been made applicable to the applicant in I.A. also, who was treated to be amongst 44 industrial units. It has also been pointed out that since the applicant has not violated any norms, therefore, no EC has been imposed on the applicant for the prior period.

¶25

10. Having regard to the undisputed circumstances which have been pointed out by the Counsel for the respondent no.8 and also

¶26

¶27

considering the fact that the applicant was granted CTO on 16.12.2022 valid from 12.12.2022 to 31.07.2027 and the said CTO was operating when the 19.01.2023 order was passed by the Tribunal but this fact could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal, we deem it proper to modify the order dated 19.01.2023 passed in the OA. Hence, we direct that the restriction imposed by the Tribunal by the order dated 19.01.2023 will not be applicable to respondent no. 8 (applicant in I.A. No. 292/2023).

¶28

11. Learned Counsel appearing for UPPCB has submitted that the applicant i.e. respondent no. 8 is required to adopt zig-zag technology and till that is adopted, the applicant cannot be permitted to operate. We make it clear that if the applicant is found to be violating any environmental norms, the concerned authorities will be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶29

12. IA 292/2023 is accordingly disposed of.

¶30

13. List on 22.04.2024.”

¶31

Hence, Respondent No. 8 stands on different footing but it is required to comply with all the applicable environmental norms and any violation thereof will expose it to action in accordance with law.

¶32

When the matter was listed on 22.04.2024 Tribunal was informed about the stay granted by the High Court as against imposition of the EC.

¶33

The report filed by the UPPCB on 30.07.2024 mentions that an inspection was done in compliance of the order dated 12.04.2023 in the Months of June and July, 2024 and all the 44 brick kilns were found to be closed. The details of which are disclosed in Annexure-2 to the report dated 30.07.2024.

¶34

Learned Counsel for the UPPCB has informed that initially closure order for all the 44 defaulting brick kilns were passed but 31 brick kilns had violated that order and were found to be operating inspite of closure order, therefore, prosecution was initiated against those 31 brick kilns and now those 31 brick kilns are also closed. He has further submitted that over and above the 44 defaulting brick kilns, 9 brick kilns were also found to be violating which have been dismantled. He has informed that

¶35

¶36

EC has been imposed against all the brick kilns which were found to be violating the norms but they have now approached the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench and there is interim order passed in those writ petitions. The details of writ petitions and interim orders are disclosed in the report dated 30.07.2024 as under:

¶37

“xxx ……………………………….xxx………………………………xxx 2. That in compliance to the order dated 22.04.2024, UPPCB has filed Prosecution against remaining 07 Brick kilns on dated 26.07.2024 under section-39(D) of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended. The chart showing status of prosecution is attached as Annexure No. 1.

¶38

3. That in compliance to the order dated 22.04.2024 it is to be submitted that UPPCB has conducted inspections of all Brick Kilns the month of June and July 2024. During inspection the Brick Kilns were found closed. Chart showing date of inspection and status of compliance of closure order is attached as Annexure No. 2.

¶39

4. That the UP Pollution Control Board has issued letter dated 05.02.2024 and 07.02.2024 to District Collector, Sitapur for recovery of the Environmental Compensation from the defaulter Brick kilns. The copy of letter dated 05.02.2024 and 07.02.2024 is attached as Annexure No. 3.

¶40

5. That with regard to I.A. no. 171/2024 filed by the Respondent No's. 10, 11, 22 and 25 it is respectfully mentioned here that Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ-C No. 151 of 2024 on 12.02.2024 has passed following order:-

¶41

“……Till the next date of listing, no coercive measures be taken in respect of the cases where properties have been attached. The undertaking, if any given in connected matters and extended earlier, may also operate till the next date of listing ……”

¶42

Copy of order dated 12.02.2024 of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in annexed as Annexure No. 4.

¶43

6. That Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ-C No. 151 of 2024 on 16.02.2024 has passed following order:-

¶44

“…..17. Till the next date of listing, status-quo existing as on today, shall be maintained. This order shall apply to all the writ petitions connected in this bunch ….”

¶45

Copy of order dated 16.02.2024 of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in annexed as Annexure No. 5

¶46

¶47

7. That Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ-C No. 1084 of 2024 M/s Maa Vaishno Brick Field V/s State of UP, Writ-C no. 1230 of 2024 M/s Gurudeen Brick Field V/s State of UP, Writ-C no 1106 of 2024 M/s N.G. Brick Field (Old Name Gold Brick Field) V/s State of UP and Writ-C no. 1126 of 2024 M/s Shiv Narain Brick Field V/s State of UP on 16.02.2024 has passed following order:-

¶48

“…..For orders, see our order of date passed in Writ-C No. 151 of 2024 ……” 11

¶49

Copy of above orders dated 16.02.2024 of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in annexed as Annexure No. 6, 7, 8 & 9.

¶50

8. That Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ-C No. 151 of 2024 on 10.07.2024 has passed following order:-

¶51

"List after one month.

¶52

Interim order, if any, shall continue till the next date of listing"

¶53

Copy of order dated 10.07.2024 of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in annexed as Annexure No. 10.”

¶54

Having regard to the above factual position, we find that so far as the closure orders are concerned, the concerned project proponents against whom the closure orders have been passed, have the remedy to challenge it before Appellate Authority and if any such challenge is made, the appeal will be decided on its own merit.

¶55

So far as imposition of EC and coercive action taken by the authorities to recover the said EC is concerned, the same is already subject matter of challenge before the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench in various writ petitions wherein the interim order is operating, therefore, authorities will be required to take appropriate action in terms of the final outcome in those writ petitions. Therefore, we direct the authorities that as soon as the writ petitions are decided or

¶56

¶57

interim orders are vacated, the authorities will do the needful without any delay in accordance with the final order/orders passed by the High Court.

¶58

The OA is accordingly disposed of. Pending IA, if any, will also stand disposed of.

¶59

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶60

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶61

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶62

August 01, 2024 Original Application No. 273/2022 IA No. 171/2024, IA No. 638/2023 DV

¶63

Gyanendra Pandey vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyanendra Pandey vs

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

K.S. Mohan vs the Corporation of Coimbatore

Selvaraju Duraisamy vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Swapnesh Bhanudas Sherlekar vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Serajul Islam vs the State of West Bengal

J.Sathyan Praveen vs the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Tamil Nadu Seiaa Tn

Mr Lalit Kumar R Shah vs Chennai Metro Rail Limited

Mr Vijay Engineers vs the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authoriy

Raman Sharma vs

Rambharose Tomar vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 102/2023 in Original Application No. 80/2023 of Varun Gulati vs Union of India

Dr Sandeep Kumar Gupta vs State of Haryana

Deepak Rai vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Gyanendra Pandey vs

A C Garg vs