Dismissed

Environmentwarrior v. West Bengal Pollution Control Board

NGT6 Nov 2024Original Application No. 118/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal East Zone Bench dismissed an Original Application challenging the continued operation of M/s Sunil Foam (P) Ltd. The court held that a related High Court matter had already adjudicated the controversy regarding the closure order, leaving nothing for further adjudication. An allegation of garbage dumping was noted but disregarded as a report found no garbage.

What did the court decide?

The Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Environmentwarrior vs West Bengal Pollution Control Board — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No.01

¶2

Court No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶4

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶5

Original Application No.118/2024/EZ

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF

¶7

Environment Warrior
……….Applicant(s)
Versus
1. West Bengal Pollution Control Board,
Through its Member Secretary;
2. Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Environment ,
Forests and Climate Change,
Government of West Bengal;
3. District Magistrate and Collector,
Hooghly;
4. M/s Sunil Foam (P) Ltd.,
P.O. & P.S.- Dankuni,
District- Hooghly
Pin- 712310
………..Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 06.11.2024
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s) : None
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Adv. for R-1,
Mr. Samrat Sen, Sr. Adv. a/w
Mr. Sibojyoti Chakrabarti, Adv. for R-2 & 3,
Mr. Krishnendu Bera, Adv. for R-4
ORDER
1. Case called out. No one is present for the Applicant.
2. Mr. Samrat Sen, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sibojyoti
Chakrabarti, learned Counsel is present on behalf of the State
Respondents.

¶8

¶9

Affidavit dated 05.11.2024 has been filed by the Respondent No.4, M/s Sunil Foam (P) Ltd.; the same is taken on record.

¶10

The present Original Application is being taken up on a letter petition received by Email dated 01.04.2024. The allegation is that in spite of a notice of closure having been passed with disconnection of electricity vide order dated 30.11.2023 against M/s Sunil Foam (P) Ltd., the said Unit is still continuing operation.

¶11

Copy of the order dated 30.11.2023 has been filed with the letter petition which shows that a complaint has been lodged by one Ankur Sharma, 13/3, Dr. P.K. Banerjee Road, Howrah-711101, alleging that said Unit was filling up water bodies at MouzaMollarber, Dankuni, Hooghly. It is stated that the West Bengal Pollution Control Board inspected the site and during inspection the Unit was found under lock and key and could not be entered. However, water bodies were observed at a distance of about 300m from the Unit and plenty of garbage was found dumped on the banks of the said water body.

¶12

Affidavits have also been filed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Hooghly dated 22.08.2024 stating therein that the unit was closed with no electricity as the same has been disconnected by the Electricity Authority physically on 19.01.2024 in pursuance of the directions issued by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board.

¶13

Affidavit has also been filed by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board bringing the facts on record.

¶14

The Respondent No.4, M/s Sunil Foam (P) Ltd., the project proponent has also filed affidavit dated 05.11.2024 stating therein that on an absolutely identical ground WPA (P) 87 of 2024 (Ankur

¶15

¶16

Sharma vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) was filed seeking implementation of the order of Closure passed by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board dated 30.11.2023. The same writ petition has been disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 14.03.2024 which reads as under:-

¶17

“WPA (P) 87 of 2024

¶18

Ankur Sharma Vs.

¶19

State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶20

1. By this writ petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation, the writ petitioner seeks for implenmentation of the order of closure passed by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board dated 30.11.2023. Learned counsel appearing for the West Bengal Pollution Control Board submitted that pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 24.07.2023 notice was issued to the offending party viz. the 11^th respondent as well as the writ petitioner, parties were heard and the Pollution Control Board passed an order of closure on 30.11.2023.

¶21

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board submitted that in terms of the directions issued by the Pollution Control Board the electricity connection has been disconnected. Thus, as on date, the 11^th respondent cannot operate the unit as the order of closure continues to remain in force. However, the Court is conscious of the fact that under the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the offending party has remedy against the order of

¶22

¶23

closure. Therefore, such a remedy cannot be foreclosed by this Court at this juncture. However, as long as the order of closure remains in force, the Pollution Control Board shall ensure that the same is not violated in any manner and no third party interest is created in respect of the said industry. In the event, the industry approaches the Pollution Control Board or the Appellate Authority under the aforementioned statutory provisions, the writ petitioner shall be issued notice and shall be heard by the Pollution Control Board before any order is passed on such a prayer made for revocation of the order of closure. If ultimately, the order of closure attains finality, the authority shall take appropriate steps on merit and in accordance with law with regard to the reclamation of property in question.

¶24

3. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of .”

¶25

A perusal of the order of the Hon’ble High Court would show that the High Court has directed that the offending party has a remedy against the order of Closure and such a remedy cannot be foreclosed by the High Court at this juncture and as long as the order of Closure remains in force, the Pollution Control Board shall ensure that the same is not violated in any manner and no third party interest is created in respect of the said industry.

¶26

It was further directed that in the event the industry approaches the Pollution Control Board or the Appellate Authority under the aforementioned statutory provisions, the writ petitioner shall be issued notice and shall be heard by the Pollution Control Board

¶27

¶28

before any order is passed on such a prayer made for revocation of the order of Closure.

¶29

It was also observed that if ultimately the order of Closure attains finality, the authority shall take appropriate steps on merit and in accordance with law with regard to the reclamation of property in question.

¶30

We find that since the controversy in the present case has already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court in WPA (P) 87 of 2024 (Ankur Sharma vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) nothing further remains for adjudication in the present Original Application.

¶31

13.
14.

¶32

The present Original Application is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

However, with regard to allegation of dumping of garbage around the waterbody is concerned an Inspection Report mentioned as Enquiry Report has been filed at Page No.30 with letter of Sub Divisional Officer, Serampore, Hooghly dated 14.08.2024 at (page no.31 of the paperbook) stating that no garbage was found in the area.

¶34

I.As., if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶35

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

November 06, 2024, Original Application No.118/2024/EZ OM

¶39

Environmentwarrior v. West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Environmentwarrior v. West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghan Shyam vs Department of Revenue

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

Municipal Corporation vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Ankur Sharma vs Union of India

Swati vs

Mohid Shah vs

Gaurav Singhal vs

News Item Titled "Toxic Gas Leak Claims Two Lives at Gujarat Textile Factory" Appearing in the Millenium Post Dated 27.10.2024 vs

Ankur Sharma vs Union of India

1. Madhu Sudan Palai S/O Late Binayak Palai Aged About 48 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 41/2024 in Original Application No. 173/2024 of Sushil Kumar Jain vs the Principal Secretary West Bengal Biodiversity Board

Midnapore Cultural and Welfare Association vs West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Limited

Sevasetu vs the State Environment Impact Assessment