Disposed

Surti Mohmmedaaqib v. Gujarat Pollution Control Board

NGT22 Nov 2024Original Application No. 179/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of an application seeking Environmental Damage Compensation for a project proponent's failure to install a water scrubber. After reviewing affidavits confirming emissions were within limits and noting the scrubber was subsequently installed, the Tribunal held no compensation was required.

What did the court decide?

No order for calculation of Environmental Damage Compensation; Original Application disposed of.

Surti Mohmmedaaqib vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.3

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (with Hybrid Option)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.179 OF 2024 (WZ)

Surti Mohmmed Aaqib

… Applicant

Versus

M/s A.R. Enterprises & Ors.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

Date of Hearing : 22.11.2024

¶12

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

¶13

Applicant : Mr. Maitreya Ghorpade, Advocate

¶14

Respondents : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Jash Thakkar, Advocate for R-2/GPCB

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This order is being passed in continuation of our previous orders dated 30.08.2024 and 14.11.2024. By our order dated 14.11.2024, we had directed respondent No.2-GPCB to file their reply-affidavit in order to respond to the allegations that GPCB had noticed several violations on the part of respondent No.1 – Project Proponent, to which response by way of affidavit-in-reply dated 21.11.2024 has been filed by respondent No.2 – GPCB as to the actions taken at their end, wherein it has been mentioned that an inspection was carried out at the premises of respondent No.1/Project Proponent – M/s A.R. Enterprises on 29.01.2024 and though water scrubber was not found to have been installed in the unit, analysis results of the flue gas emission sample show that all parameters were well within the consented limits and the details of the parameters are given in paragraph No.6 of the affidavit. Another inspection was carried out by the GPCB on 19.11.2024 and on that date as well, all parameters were found

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

within the consented limits, details of which are given in paragraph no.10 of the affidavit.

¶19

The learned counsel for the applicant states that the CCA granted in favour of respondent No.1 contains one of the conditions that scrubber should have been installed by respondent No.1, which was not installed. Hence, from the date when it was supposed to be installed till it has been actually installed, respondent No.1 has committed violation of the said condition and for that, Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) should be calculated by the GPCB for that period against respondent No.1. This has been responded by the GPCB stating that no pollution has happened because of non-installation of scrubber as is evident from the site inspections made and the report submitted for perusal of this Tribunal. Therefore no EDC has been calculated for the said period.

¶20

During argument, it also transpired that now respondent No.1 has installed water scrubber. Therefore, no grievance remains to be redressed and looking to the fact that no pollution is found to have happened due to non-installation of the scrubber, no question of calculation of EDC arises.

¶21

In the result, Original Application is disposed.

¶22

No order as to costs.

¶23

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶24

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶25

November 22, 2024 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.179/2024 npj

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Surti Mohmmedaaqib v. Gujarat Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surti Mohmmedaaqib v. Gujarat Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Raju Goyal vs State of Maharashtra through Mira Bhaindar Municipal Corporation

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

Gaurav Chaturvedi vs State of Gujarat through District Magistrate Surat

Shalbhjit Singh vs

Bajrang Agarwal vs

Swaminathan vs

Akash Dubey vs Union of India

Monu vs State of Uttarakhand

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

Shri Raju Goyal vs State of Maharashtra through Mira Bhaindar Municipal Corporation

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

Deochand Damduji Karemore vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Shri Suraj Kale vs K K Stone Crusher

Gavhan Koliwada Matsyavyavasayik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Gavhan Koliwada through Its Chairman Shri. Hitesh Harichandra Koli vs City and Industrial Development Corporation through Its Chairperson