Allowed

Chandrashekhar Khawade v. State of Jharkhand

NGT9 May 2024Original Application No. 125/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Eastern Zone Bench rejected the argument that a soap factory established in 1937 should close due to urban development. While confirming past compliance lapses, the court directed the Pollution Control Board to determine environmental compensation rather than ordering closure.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal disposed of the application and directed the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board to determine the environmental compensation payable by the Respondent No.4 for past lapses in accordan

Chandrashekhar Khawade vs State of Jharkhand — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Court No.1

¶2

Item No.10

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶4

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶5

Original Application No.125/2023/EZ

¶6

(Earlier O.A. No.511/2022/PB)

¶7

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶8

Mr. Chandrashekhar Khawade

¶9

Principal, Taurian World School, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶10

....Applicant(s)

¶11

Versus

¶12

1. State of Jharkhand,

¶13

Through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi- 834004;

¶14

2. The Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, H.E.C., Dhurwa, Ranchi- 834004, Jharkhand;

¶15

3. District Magistrate, Deoghar

¶16

Deoghar Samaharnalay, Williams Town, Deoghar, Jharkhand- 814112;

¶17

4. M/s Sita Ram Soap Works (SITCO Soap Factory)

¶18

(Project Proponent) CP Drolia Road, Shivganga Muhalla, Near Laxmi Market, Deoghar, Jharkhand 814112

¶19

....Respondent(s)

¶20

Date of hearing: 09.05.2024

¶21

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶22

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Chandrashekar Khawade, in person (in Virtual Mode)

¶23

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Adv. for R-1&3 (in Virtual Mode), Mr. Dev Aaryan, Advocate for R-2 (in Virtual Mode), Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate for R-4 (in Virtual Mode)

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The present Original Application No.511/2022 was taken up suo motu by the New Delhi Bench of the National Green Tribunal on a letter petition filed before it alleging that SITCO Soap Industry is being run in violation of environmental norms in a thickly populated area near Baidnath Mandir, Laxmi Bazar/Ganesh Market in District Deoghar, Jharkhand. It was also alleged that the said industry which is stated to fall in the green category, emits heavy smoke from its chimney three days a week on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday and untreated polluted industrial effluent is also being discharged in the municipal drain of Deoghar Municipal Corporation.

¶27

The New Delhi Bench of the NGT constituted a Joint Committee comprising of the representative of the State Pollution Control Board and District Magistrate, Deogarh and directed the Committee to submit its Report with regard to the factual position.

¶28

A Joint Inspection Report was filed vide email dated 14.03.2023 before the New Delhi Bench of the NGT which reads as under:-

¶29

“Action Taken Report (ATR) in light of the directions issued by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench (PB), New Delhi in its order dated 30/08/2022 in 0. A. No. 511/2022 in the matter of Chandrashekhar Khawade Versus State of Jharkhand.

¶30

1.In light of the order dated 30/08/2022 issued by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench (PB), New Delhi in O. A. No. 511/2022 in the matter of Chandrashekhar Khawade Versus State of Jharkhand, the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB) vide its Ref. No. B - 2024 dated 22/09/2022 has informed the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar about the abovesaid order and nominated the Regional Officer, JSPCB Regional Office - Cum - Laboratory, Dumka as the member of the committee on behalf of the JSPCB to look into the matter.

¶31

¶32

The copy of the JSPCB's Ref No. B-2024 dated 22/ 09/2022 is enclosed herewith as Annexure `A'.

¶33

2. The Regional Officer, JSPCB Regional Office — Cum — Laboratory, Dumka has submitted the Inspection Report of the Committee (comprising of the Executive Magistrate, Deoghar and the Regional Officer, JSPCB Regional Office-cum-Laboratory, Dumka) vide Ref. No. 1740 dated 18/10/2022. In view of the observations of the committee it was recommended that the Competent Authority may issue necessary direction to ensure the following: -

¶34

a) Unit shall install oil trapper at last discharge point for trapping of oil from floor wash /domestic discharge.

¶35

b) Unit shall do proper Rain Water Harvesting following the implementation of RWH plan.

¶36

c) Unit shall install stack as per CPCB norms, along with Air Pollution Control Device.

¶37

d) Unit shall do plantation in vacant land. If land is not available it will be done in several big Unit shall do proper solid waste dumping. The copy of the Ref No. 1740 dated 18/ 10/ 2 022is enclosed herewith as Annexure ‘B’

¶38

3. In compliance to the directions issued by the Hon'ble NGT, PB, New Delhi, a copy of the Inspection Report submitted by the committee was forwarded to the Incharge, M/s Sitaram Soap Works, Deoghar (Unit) to enable him to comply with the recommendations in the report of the Joint Committee or file objections against the observations/recommendations in the report of the Joint Committee before the Hon'ble Tribunal. Moreover, it was, also directed to submit the time bound action plan to comply with the conditions of the previous CTO as well as the recommendations made in the report of the committee vide Board's Ref. No. B - 2650 dated 19/12/2022.

¶39

The copy of the Board's Ref No. B - 2650 dated 19/ 12/2022 is enclosed herewith as Annexure ‘C’.

¶40

4. In reply, the Authorized representative of the Unit vide its letter dated 02/01/2023 has informed that the working partner of the firm was admitted in a hospital in Pune and in his absence the complete compliance of the recommendation was getting delayed and has⁸ requested for further 30 days' time to report compliance of the recommendations.

¶41

The copy of the Unit's letter dated 02/01/2023 is enclosed herewith as Annexure ‘D’.

¶42

5. In light of the abovementioned reply submitted by the Unit, the Board vide its Ref. No. B - 234 dated

¶43

¶44

31/01/2023 had issued certain directions which are as follows: -

¶45

a) To stop the operation of the Unit with immediate effect till Renewal CTO is accorded.

¶46

b) To submit the Rain Water Harvesting Scheme (RWHS) within 15 days and implement the RWHS within 2 months.

¶47

c) To maintain the neat and clean factory premises. d) To make the proper drainage system and the Katcha drain which meets the municipal drain should be made pucca within 15 days of issuance of this letter.

¶48

e) The Ash which is stored inside the premises, its quantity should be submitted to the Board within 15 days and it should be disposed of properly within 2 months.

¶49

f) To install the oil trapper at last discharge point for trapping of oil from floor wash/domestic discharge.

¶50

g) To install the stack as per the CPCB norms, along with the Air Pollution Control Device within 3 months.

¶51

h) To do plantation in vacant land and if land is not available it should be done in several big baskets.

¶52

i) To do proper Solid Waste Dumping. The copy of the Board's Ref. No. B - 234 dated 31/01/ 2023 is enclosed herewith as Annexure `E'.

¶53

6. The Unit has submitted the compliance of recommendations of the Committee vide its letter dated 02/02/2023.

¶54

The copy of the Unit's letter dated 02/02/2023 is enclosed herewith as Annexure ‘F’.

¶55

7. In light of the abovementioned compliance report submitted by the Unit, the Regional Officer, JSPCB Regional Office - Cum - Laboratory, Dumkawas directed vide Board's Ref. No. B - 395 dated 27/02/2023to verify the compliance status of the Unit w.r.t. the directions issued by the Board vide Ref. No. B234 dated 31/01/2023 and submit the Verification Report.

¶56

The copy of the Board's Ref. No. B -395 dated 27/02/ 2023 is enclosed herewith as Annexure ‘G’.

¶57

8. The Regional Officer, JSPCB Regional Office - Cum - Laboratory, Dumka vide his Memo. No. 770 dated 10/03/2023 has submitted the Inspection Report of the Unit. The observations of which is as follows: -

¶58

¶59

*S. N.*	*Directions* *issued vide* *Board's* *Ref.* *No. B-234* *dated 31/01/2023*	*Compliance Status*
a)	To stop the operation of the Unit with immediate effect till Renewal CTO is accorded.	Complied (Unit was Not under operation)
b)	To submit the Rain Water Harvesting Scheme (RWHS) within 15 days and implement the RWHS within 2 months.	Complied (Two Pit has been constructed fo RWH)
c)	To maintain the neat and clean factory premises.	Complied
d)	To make the proper drainage system and the Katcha drain Which meets the municipal drain should be made pucca within 15 days of issuance of this letter.	All the drain system Found Pucca up to meeting point at municipal drain.
e)	The Ash which is stored inside the premises, its quantity should be submitted to the Board within 15 days and it should be disposed of properly within 2 months.	Unit was not found under operation total coal ash dumped in low lying area after wetting.
f)	To install the oil trapper at last discharge point for trapping of oil from floor wash/domestic discharge.	Oil trapper has been provided.
g)	To install the stack as per the CPCB norms, along with the Air Pollution Control Device within 3 months	Stack found as per CPCB norms along with scrubbing system.
h)	. To do plantation in vacant land and if land is not available it should be done in several big baskets.	30 nos. of plants along with basket found during inspection.
i)	To do proper Solid Waste Dumping.	Solid waste (Mainly ashes 86 domestic waste) is being disposed of by Deoghar Municipal Corporation application and receipt regarding is enclosed with.

¶60

¶61

The copy of the Memo. No. 770 dated 10/ 03/2023 is enclosed herewith as Annexure ‘H’.”

¶62

Considering the Report of the Committee, the Tribunal issued notices to the Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4.

¶63

The New Delhi Bench of the NGT by an order dated 15.03.2023, considering the Report of the Committee ordered that the Unit in question of the Respondent No.4, Project Proponent, shall remain closed till further orders.

¶64

I.A. No.455/2023 was also filed by the Respondent No.4, Project Proponent, praying for earlier hearing of the case.

¶65

By order dated 23.05.2023, the NGT, New Delhi modified its order dated 15.03.2023 and observed that the Respondent No.4 will be entitled to operate the industry in question on renewal of the Consent to Operate (CTO) by Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board while ensuring strict compliance with the environmental norms. The Tribunal also observed that the Respondent No.4 is using coal which generates fly ash, even though it is stated that the fly ash is being disposed of through Deoghar Municipal Corporation for filling low lying areas. The Tribunal, therefore, observed that it would be appropriate in the circumstances that possibility of use of fly ash for brick manufacturing or supply to some cement manufacturing industry is explored by the Respondent No.4 and appropriate contractual arrangement is made in this regard.

¶66

The Tribunal also observed that the Respondent No.4 is using caustic soda and edible oils in manufacturing of the soap and the effluent generated is discharged in the municipal drain and though the connecting drain has now been made pucca and oil trapper is also stated to have been installed but remedial measures are required to be taken to ensure that the effluent does not cause any

¶67

¶68

environmental damage. The Tribunal also directed the Respondent No.4 to explore the possibility of treating effluent by appropriate measures such as construction of settling tanks to ensure that it does not contain any chemicals before it is discharged to the municipal drain.

¶69

Thereafter, by an order dated 22.08.2023, the case file was transferred to the NGT, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata. Upon transfer, the case has been re-numbered as O.A. No.125/2023/EZ. 10. The Respondent No.4, Project Proponent, has filed affidavit dated 06.04.2023 and it is stated that the said industry has been in operation since 10.10.1937 i.e. about 85 years and is involved in the process of making soap. It is also stated that prior to the interim order of the Tribunal dated 16.01.2023, different types of vegetable oils were taken in a pan and then heated by using coal and upon heating of oil for approximately 4 hours, the optimum temperature of 75⁰ C is reached. It is further stated that once the oil got heated caustic soda was added which upon chemical reaction, formed soap. The soap so made was allowed to settle in slow heat and allowed to cool for about 6 hours. Thereafter, semisolid soap was taken out and poured in a small pan and mixed with powder for bonding and then added with silicate for volume/filler. Paragraph-5 of the said affidavit reads as under:-

¶70

“5. That I say the Respondent No.4 before the order of stoppage dated 16.01.2023 was engaged in the business of manufacture of soap for washing clothes. Manufacture of soap had commenced in the works of the Petitioner about 85 years ago since 10.10.1937 through locally available vegetable oils.

¶71

The process of soap making in the works of Respondent No.4 had been simple. Different types of vegetable oils were taken in pan and then heated by using coal. Upon heating of oil

¶72

¶73

for approximately 4 hrs, the optimum temperature of 75 Degree Celsius is reached. Once oil got heated Caustic Soda was added, which upon chemical reaction, formed soap. Soap so made was allowed to settle in slow heat. Soap so formed was then allowed to coal for about 6 hrs. Therefore, semi solid soap was taken out and poured in small pan and mixed with powder for bonding and then added with silicate for volume/filler. The mixture was then poured into frames and allowed to solidify. The solidified soap was thereafter cut, stamped and packed by hand for sale in nearby shops of small towns/villages.”

¶74

It is stated that the Respondent No.4 does not discharge any water as affluent in the manufacturing process; domestic water used in the operation of the Respondent flows into the Pucca Municipal Drains of Deoghar Municipal corporation; the Respondent uses coal in its refined form namely Briquette, a Special Smokeless Fuel (SSF).

¶75

The Respondent No.3, District Magistrate, Deoghar in his affidavit has stated that SITCO Soap factory was visited on 13.04.2023 by Shri Animesh Ranjan, IAS and after due physical inspection, Report

¶76

dated 13.04.2023 was submitted which is as under:-

¶77

*Sl. No.*	*Directions* *issued* *vide* *Board’s* *Ref.* *No.B-234* *dated 31/01/2023*	*Enquiry/Verifi* *Report*	*cation*
_a) _	To stop the operation of the Unit with immediate effect till Renewal CTO is accorded.	Complied- Uni not under oper during the vis with further enq the local area confirmed un closed. Sales also reflect the (Sales Enclosed)	t was ational it and uiry in people it is Trend same. Report
_b) _	To submit the Rain Water Harvesting Scheme (RWHS) within 15 days and implement the RWHS within	Complied- The two rain harvesting proj the premises	re are water ect in (twin

¶78

¶79

	2 months.	_pit). _
_c) _	To maintain the neat and clean factory premises.	Complied- Factory premises was neat and clean.
_d) _	To make the proper drainage system and the Katcha drain which meets the municipal drain should be made pucca within 15 days of issuance of this letter.	Complied- Newly constructed drainage system was found in the backside linking it to Municipal drain (Slope is form entry/main gate of factory to exit/backside)
_e) _	The Ash which is stored inside the premises, its quantity should be submitted to the Board within 15 days and it should be disposed of properly within 2 months.	Complied- Since factory is not under operation coal ash dumping area was empty. Also Municipal Area for transport of waste. They are also having transiting from coal to Briquette.
_f) _	To install the oil trapper at last discharge point for trapping of oil from floor wash/domestic discharge.	Complied- Found Oil trapper installed in the premises (Gravitational one)
_g) _	To install the stack as per the CPCB norms, along with the Air Pollution Control Device within 3 months.	Complied- Found stack installed in the premises.
_h) _	To do plantation in vacant land and if land is not available it should be done in several big baskets.	Found 30 plants in basket during the verification visit.
_i) _	To do proper Solid Waste Dumping.	No solid waste now in factory premises as factory is not operational one Solid waste transportation receipt from Deoghar Municipal Corporation wasfound.

¶80

That during verification the verifying officer found that currently factory is not operational.”

¶81

The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, has filed affidavit stating therein that the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board issued a

¶82

¶83

direction on 31.01.2023 directing the Project Proponent to stop operation of the Unit with immediate effect till Consent to Operate (CTO) is renewed.

¶84

The Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board in its affidavit has stated that the Regional Officer, got the Unit inspected on different dates namely from 14.04.2023 to 17.04.2023. The Unit was inspected by Shri Ravi Kumar, Assistant Scientific Officer, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Dumka and during inspection, the Unit was found closed.

¶85

The Respondent No.4, SITCO, has filed further affidavit dated 23.07.2023 stating that it was directed by Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board to carry out additional plantation work, disposal of fly ash to brick manufacturers who use fly ash and to construct settling tank so that no effluent is discharged. It is also stated that the Project Proponent vide its letter dated 10.06.2023 submitted its action plan to the Regional Officer, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Dumka and thereafter, Consent to Operate (CTO) dated 15.06.2023 has been granted to the Project Proponent. The said Consent to Operate (CTO) is valid upto 31.12.2023.

¶86

It is stated that the Respondent No.4 had discussions with number of brick manufacturers and finally one M/s Singhal Infra has agreed to use the fly ash for brick manufacturing and a letter to that effect has also been issued by M/s Singhal Infra. It is also stated that the Respondent No.4 approached M/s Lachhiramka & Associates, Architects and Designers for designing a settling tank for the factory and now the said Respondent has also constructed the settling tank within the factory premises. The bill raised by the Architect dated 01.07.2023 has been filed with the affidavit. It is

¶87

¶88

also stated that 20 Ashok plants were purchased from the Forest Department and have been planted on 06.07.2023; similar Ashok plants have been planted in the earlier years also. Copy of the Consent to Operate (CTO) dated 15.06.2023 has been filed with the affidavit.

¶89

Further affidavit dated 07.05.2024 has been filed by Respondent No.4, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, stating therein that the Assistant Scientific Officer, JSPCB, Regional Office, Dumka, again inspected the site on 26.04.2024 and submitted his Report which reads as under:-

¶90

“Inspection Report of M/s Sitaram Soap Works, (SITCO Soap Factory) in compliance to the directions issued by the Hon’ble NGT, EZB, Kolkata in its order dated 09/04/2024 in O.A. No.125/2023/EZ (Earlier O.A. No.511/2022/PB) in the matter of Chandrashekhar Khawade Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors.

¶91

______________________________________________________________ In compliance to the directions issued by the Hon’ble NGT, EZB, Kolkata in O.A. No.125/2023/EZ (Earlier O.A. No.511/2022/PB) in the matter of Chandrashekhar Khawade Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. vide order dated 09/04/2024 the Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to direct the JSPCB to re-inspect the Unit and submit a fresh inspection report on all environmental parameters including smoke generation, ash generation & consumption of ground water etc._

¶92

In the light of above direction issued by Hon’ble NGT M/s Sitaram Soap Works (Sitco Soap Factory), C.P. Drolia Road, Deoghar was inspected on 26/04/2024 by Sri Ravi Kumar, Assistant Scientific Officer, JSPCB Regional Ofice-cumLaboratory, Dumka & findings are as under-

¶93

a) M/s Sitaram Soap Works (Sitco Soap Factory) is situated in thickly populated area near Ganesh/Lakshmi Market, Deoghar. The Unit is operating since 1937.

¶94

b) The Unit falls under Green category & is involved in production of handmade soap using Fatty Acid-570 Kg/Day, Soap Stone Powder-10 Kg/Day, Caustic-200 Ltr/Day, Cilicate-20 Kg/Day as raw materials. Approx. 200 liters of water is used for caustic mixing.

¶95

c) The Unit is now using briquette of Paddy Husk-160 Kg/Day as a fuel. Ash generation is 08-10% of fuel used,

¶96

¶97

ash is being sent to fly ash bricks manufacturer (M/s Singhal Infra, Jasidih, Industrial area, Jasidih, Deoghar).

¶98

d) The Unit has installed a stack of height 30.43 mtr. Attached with Kiln. Current Stack Monitoring Report done by Envirocheck Lab, Dhanbad, recognized by JSPCB Ranchi is attached herewith. The monitored parameter (SPM-Suspended Particulate Matter) is found under limit.

¶99

e) There are 05 nos. of Kiln existing in the Unit, out of which 02 to 03 Kiln is generally operated & rest is Kiln is for standby, as informed by the Unit.

¶100

f) There are 30 nos. of Plant (sapling) found inside the plant premises. No more space is available for further plantation.

¶101

g) Two Rain Water Harvesting structures has been constructed.

¶102

h) 500 ltr/day water is being used for domestic purpose.”

¶103

The Applicant appeared in Virtual Mode in the proceedings before this Tribunal on 20.09.2023 and filed his submissions by email stating therein that the number of workers stated in the affidavit of Respondent No.4 is wrong and that there are more than 16 employees working. We may at the outset point out that the number of employees working with the Respondent No.4 is not an environmental question at all and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into those questions as to whether the labour/staff engaged by Respondent No.4 are adequate or insufficient or in excess. The next point raised by him is that in spite of the factory being ordered to be closed by the Tribunal it was never closed and continued to operate. He has also assailed the Inspection Report of Shri Ravi Kumar, Assistant Scientific Officer, JSPCB, Regional Office, Dumka and it is stated that allegations of corruptions have been made against him. It is also alleged that no inspection was conducted by the Committee constituted by the Tribunal. He has alleged that during inspection he was not informed and Inspection Report has

¶104

¶105

also not been given to him. The Applicant has also requested that a Committee from some other State other than Jharkhand should be constituted to inspect the premises of the Respondent No.4 and that the Applicant may be permitted to carry out video recording of the inspection.

¶106

Today when the matter was being argued and the learned Counsel for the parties were being heard, the Applicant was throughout present in the Virtual court proceedings and though we called upon him to make his submissions he did not make any submissions and after the proceedings had closed, he sent an email in the office of the Tribunal stating that he had not been given an opportunity of being heard. He submitted an email dated 09.05.2024 which was received in the Tribunal at 12:43 PM. In addition to complaining that he was not given opportunity of being heard, the Applicant has again raised the issue that the number of employees in the Respondent No.4, Unit is less what has been stated in the affidavit of the Respondent No.4 with the intention to deny them the benefits of Labour Laws and this fact can be verified from the CCTV cameras in the Unit.

¶107

We are of the view that the issue with regard to number of labour employed by Respondent No.4 whether is in violation Labour Laws or otherwise is beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to consider as it does not relate to violation of environment nor is it an environmental issue.

¶108

As regards the allegation of the Applicant that he was not informed about the inspection and the Inspection Report has not been given to him, we are of the view that during an inspection the presence of the Applicant is neither mandatory nor denial of the same a

¶109

¶110

violation of natural justice and, therefore, inspection proceedings cannot be faulted on that ground. His further allegation that the Inspection Report has not been given to him is also without merit since the Inspection Report of inspection carried out on 13.04.2024 and 26.04.2024 has already been filed with the response of the District Magistrate, Deoghar and are already part of the record and any document that the Applicant thought was necessary for his case could have been downloaded by him from the portal of the NGT.

¶111

In our opinion, it cannot be said that the Applicant has been denied any opportunity to meet the findings of the Inspection Report. We are also satisfied that the submission of the Applicant that the inspection should have been carried out by a Committee from some other State other than Jharkhand has absolutely no merit as we do not find it any illegality or infirmity in the procedure adopted by the respondents in conducting the inspection.

¶112

So far as the number of trees planted, the Applicant has stated that the same is not sufficient and adequate number of trees could have been planted by the Project Proponent in any neighbouring area.

¶113

The Applicant has further raised a question that when the factory was started in 1937, the population of the area was much less than what it is today and in fact today the factory has been surrounded by thousands of residential and commercial Units and, therefore, the said factory of the Respondent No.4 should be closed down.

¶114

So far as the submissions of the Applicant that the Respondent No.4 Unit should be closed down since it has now been surrounded by residential and commercial Units. We may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3798/2019,

¶115

¶116

Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Ajay Khera & Ors., wherein the issue was with regard to pollution created by the Inland Container Depot (for short ‘ICD’) at Tughlakabad caused due to movements of trucks/trailers and the NGT has observed that there is an option to restrict the entry of diesel vehicles in the said ICDs at Tughlakabad by diverting these vehicles to the ICDs at Dadri, Rewari, Ballabhgarh, Khatuawas or any other ICD around Delhi so as to control pollution in Delhi NCR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held the observation of the NGT, New Delhi Bench was wholly unjustified and unwarranted and being in complete ignorance of the fact that citizens living in other parts of the country other than Delhi NCR also have a fundamental right to a pollution free environment as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph 21 of the said judgment reads as under:-

¶117

“21. Before we part with the judgment, we must say something about an option mentioned by the NGT in paragraph 7 of the impugned order. The NGT has inter alia observed that there is an option to restrict the entry of diesel vehicles in the said ICDs at Tughlakabad by diverting these vehicles to the ICDs at Dadri, Rewari, Ballabhgarh, Khatuawas or any other ICD around Delhi so as to control the pollution in Delhi NCR, as if only the people living in Delhi NCR alone are entitled to pollution free atmosphere and not those living in other parts of the country. Such an observation by the NGT is in complete ignorance of the fact that citizens living in other parts of the country other than Delhi NCR also have a fundamental right to a pollution free environment as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such a fundamental right is equally enforceable by all and is not confined to the people of Delhi NCR. The NGT while protecting/safeguarding the above fundamental right of the people of Delhi NCR cannot allow infringement of the same fundamental right of the citizens living outside Delhi NCR. The observation of the NGT is totally unjustified and unwarranted.”

¶118

¶119

In the present case also no direction can be given for closing down the industry merely because the residential and commercial Units and the population in the surrounding area has increased far beyond what it was in 1937 when the industry of soap manufacturing Respondent No.4 was first started. What is required of the Respondent No.4, Unit is to make it compliant of environmental norms and closure of the unit is only an extreme measure being consequential of failure of the Respondent No.4 to comply with the environmental laws.

¶120

The submission of the Applicant is misconceived and is rejected.

¶121

The Action Taken Report filed by the Joint Committee vide its email dated 14.03.2023 mentions that the Competent Authority may issue necessary directions to ensure that the Unit shall install oil trapper at last discharge point for trapping of oil floor wash/domestic discharge; the Unit shall ensure proper Rain Water Harvesting following the implementation of RWH plan; the Unit shall stack as per CPCB norms, along with Air Pollution Control Device; and the Unit shall carry out plantation in vacant land. A copy of the Inspection Report was forwarded to the In-charge, M/s Sitaram Soap Works, Deoghar, Respondent No.4, to enable him to comply with the recommendations or file objections to the same. After considering the reply submitted by the Unit, the State Board vide its order dated 31.01.2023 issued the following directions namely: the Unit was directed to stop operation with immediate effect till renewal of Consent to Operate (CTO) is accorded; to submit Rain Water Harvesting Scheme (RWHS) within 15 days and implement the said scheme within 2 months; to maintain neat and clean factory premises; to make proper drainage system and the

¶122

¶123

Kacha drain which meets the municipal drain should be made Pucca within 15 days; the ash which is stored inside the premises, its quantity should be submitted to the State Board within 15 days and it should be disposed of properly within 2 months; install oil trapper at last discharge point for trapping of oil from floor wash/domestic discharge; install stack as per CPCB norms along with Air Pollution Control Device within 3 months; to carry out plantation in vacant land and if land is not available it should be done in several big baskets; to ensure proper solid waste dumping. 29. The Unit was again inspected and the Regional Officer, Dumka, submitted his Inspection Report dated 10.03.2023 stating that the Unit was not in operation; the Unit had constructed two pits for Rain Water Harvesting Scheme (RWHS); direction to maintain neat and clean factory premises was complied; all drain systems were found to be pucca upto the meeting point at municipal drain; the Unit was not found in operation:- total coal ash was dumped in low lying area after wetting; oil trapper has been provided; stack found installed as per CPCB norms along with scrubbing system; 30 plants along with basket were planted; solid waste is being disposed of by Deoghar Municipal Corporation.

¶124

The Inspection Report of Shri Animesh, IAS upon his inspection of the site on 13.04.2023 mentions that there are two Rain Water Harvesting Projects in the premises (twin pit); factory premises were neat and clean; newly constructed drainage system was found in the back portion linking it to the Municipal drain; factory is not under operation/coal ash dumping area was empty and as per receipt produced, Deoghar Municipal Area was transporting the waste; oil trapper has been installed; stack has been installed in

¶125

¶126

the premises; 30 plants in basket were verified during inspection; solid waste transportation receipt has been issued by the Deoghar Municipal Corporation and no solid waste has been found in the factory.

¶127

However, from the affidavit of the Respondent No.4, we find that Consent to Operate (CTO) was issued to the Unit only on 15.06.2023 valid upto 31.12.2023 based on the Inspection Report dated 10.06.2023 which is mentioned in the Consent to Operate (CTO) itself. This means that prior to 15.06.2023 the Unit was operating without a valid Consent to Operate (CTO). From the affidavit, we also find that settling tank has been installed only after 01.07.2023 when the Architect submitted drawing plan for two settling tanks which means that prior to this there was no settling tank or tanks.

¶128

The documents on record would also show that prior to the directions issued by the Board for installing two Rain Water Harvesting Structures, no Rain Water Harvesting Structures had been installed. The documents on record and the Inspection Report also show that though the coal ash dumping area was found empty during the inspection on 13.04.2023, however, the previous inspection dated 10.03.2023 (page no.66 of the paper book) shows that coal ash was dumped in low lying area after wetting and is in violation of Fly Ash Management Rules, 2016 as fly ash cannot allowed to be spread over any area and as to be managed and disposed of as per the Fly Ash Management, Rules, 2016.

¶129

From the Inspection Report, it is also clear that the drainage system was Kacha for which directions were issued to the Unit to have Pucca drains connecting to the municipal drain which has

¶130

¶131

been complied only subsequently. The Reports on record also show that oil trapper was installed only after specific directions were issued by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board in this regard. As regard trees planted by the Respondent No.4, we find that 30 trees have been planted as per Inspection Report, therefore, adequacy of the number of trees to be planted has to be determined by the State Board. If the area within the Unit premises are insufficient for plantation, the State Board shall demarcate the area elsewhere where Unit Respondent No.4 can carry out tree plantation.

¶132

We are satisfied that the Unit though may have made itself environmentally compliant subsequent to the various directions issued by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and by this Tribunal it had not been environment compliant in the past and, therefore, this Tribunal had to issue an order on 16.01.2023 directing the Unit to stop its operations. However, we may add that even if the Unit is environmental compliant as of today it would still be liable for payment of environmental compensation for past lapses.

¶133

We, therefore, dispose of this Original Application with a direction to the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board to determine environmental compensation payable by the Respondent No.4 for past lapses in accordance with law and the guidelines laid down by the CPCB in this regard. Needless to say, the Respondent No.4 shall be given an opportunity of hearing with regard to determination of environmental compensation after which, if he is still aggrieved he will have a right of statutory appeal as provided

¶134

¶135

under Section 33B of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

¶136

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶137

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶138

B. Amit Sthalekar, JM

¶139

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

¶140

May 09, 2024, Original Application No.125/2023/EZ (Earlier O.A. No.511/2022/PB) MN

¶141

Chandrashekhar Khawade v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekhar Khawade v. State of Jharkhand

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

Palayam S vs the Tamilnadu Coastal Zone Management Authority

Gregorio Judy Fernandes vs State of Goa

Krishna Harichandra Gaude vs State of Goa

Brackish Water Research Centre vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board

Mr. Santosh Vishnu Kadam vs M/S Shivsiddhi Redimix Concrete

Harihar Samal S/O Mathuri Samal Aged About 64 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

News Item Titled "8 Killed in Explosion at Fireworks Factory Near Sivakasi in Tamil Nadu" Appearing in Ndtv.Com Dated 09.05.2024 and News Item Titled "10 Workers Includimg Six Women Die in Sivakasi Fireworks Unit Blast" Appearing in the Hindu Dated 10.05.2024 vs

News Item Titled "No Crops No Brides: How Rising Seas Are Killing India,S Coastal Villages" Appearing in the Guardian Dated 11.03.2024 vs

Shri Nabendu Kumar Bandyopadhyay vs the Department of Evironment Government of West Bengal

In Re Unchecked Cattle Sheds on the Opposite Side of Police Outpost in Bidhannagar Dispute Regarding Its Demolition vs State of West Bengal

1. Gobardhan Prasad Dalai S/O Late Sripati Charan Dalai Aged About 68YEARS vs 1. State of Odisha Revenue & Disaster Department Odisha Bhubaneswar

Dasarathi Swain S/O Mani Swain Aged About 32 Years vs Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Dasarathi Swain S/O Mani Swain Aged About 32 Years vs Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Harihar Samal S/O Mathuri Samal Aged About 64 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha