Allowed

Vivek Mahna vs

NGT6 May 2024Original Application No. 195/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant challenged non-appearance by the District Magistrate. The Tribunal waived the penalty for non-appearance but directed the CPCB to take appropriate action against violations regarding water, waste, noise, and air pollution observed at wedding halls in New Delhi, submitting a report within three months.

What did the court decide?

Cost of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on District Magistrate for non-appearance was waived. CPCB directed to take action against violators and submit report within three months.

Vivek Mahna vs — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No.08

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No.195/2023 (I.A. No.141/2024)

Vivek Mahna

Applicant

Versus

Govt. of NCT of Delhi Respondent

¶9

Date of hearing: 06.05.2024

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Appellant: Ms. Madhumita Singh, Adv. for Applicant (Through VC)

¶12

Respondent: Mr. Raj Kumar, Mr. Sumit Choudhary, Mr. Ankit Choudhary & Ms. Anamika Singh, Advs. for CPCB Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta & Ms. Ananya Basudha, Advs. with Mr. Lakshay Singhal, DM (SW), Ms. Namgyal Angmu, SDM Kapashera & Mr. Balram Meena, ADM (SW) Ms. Tanisha Samanta, Adv. for DPCC (Through VC)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

In this Original Application, registered on the basis of the letter petition, the grievance relates to use of green area and parks in village Bijwasan and Bhartal, New Delhi for holding wedding and other social functions causing air pollution and discharging sewage on open land and roads causing water pollution in the area.

¶15

The Tribunal by order dated 28.04.2023 had constituted a joint Committee and had called for a report from it. The report submitted by the Committee was found to be deficient. The Tribunal on 11.01.2024, having regard to the repeated defaults, had directed the District

¶16

¶17

Magistrate, District South West to remain personally present through virtual mode on the next date i.e. on 11.03.2024.

¶18

When the matter was listed on 11.03.2024, the Tribunal had noted the following circumstances for direction to the DM for virtual presence:-

¶19

“2. Considering the grievance, Tribunal by order dated 28.04.2023 had constituted a Joint Committee comprising of DPCC and District Magistrate, South West Delhi with the direction to the Committee to visit the site, collect relevant information and submit a factual report within two months. The direction was contained in paragraph 3 of the order dated 28.04.2023 as under:-

¶20

“3. In our view, a substantial question relating to environment due to implementation of Scheduled enactment under NGT Act, 2010 has arisen but before taking any further action in the matter, we find it appropriate to obtain a factual action taken report, for the purpose whereof, we constitute a joint Committee comprising DPCC and District Magistrate, South West Delhi who shall visit the site, collect relevant information and submit a factual report within two months by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.”

¶21

3. A report dated 01.08.2023 was submitted under the signature of the District Magistrate, South West Delhi but the said report was not report by the Joint Committee as constituted by the Tribunal by order dated 28.04.2023. Along with the so called report dated 01.08.2023, a joint Inspection report by JEE, DPCC and Patwari, Revenue Department was submitted but that was not the joint Committee constituted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the order dated 31.10.2023 had taken note of the report dated 01.08.2023, submitted on 30.10.2023 and had observed as under:-

¶22

“4. A report on 30.10.2023 has been filed under the signature of the District Magistrate, District South West but a perusal of the said report reveals that the report is based upon the joint inspection done by JEE, DPCC and Patwari, Revenue Department. The joint inspection has not been done by the joint Committee which was constituted by this Tribunal and as per the direction of the Tribunal. A perusal of the report also reveals that the inspection was done when no function was being held at the alleged site. The violation by concerned person at the time of holding of functions can be ascertained if the inspection is done at the time when the activity is going on at the site. We also gather from the photographs that a DG set has been kept there but there is no report in respect of the pollution being caused by it.”

¶23

¶24

4. Thus, the Tribunal has clearly mentioned that the Joint Inspection was not done by the Joint Committee constituted by the Tribunal and it was based upon the Joint Inspection done by the authorities which were not the Members of the Joint Committee constituted by the Tribunal. Hence, on that date, the SDM, Kapashera appearing on behalf of the District Magistrate, District South West had submitted that a fresh report covering all the points reflected in the order will be submitted by the Committee after due compliance of direction of the Tribunal. The statement so made by SDM, Kapashera was recorded in the proceedings dated 31.10.2023 as under:-

¶25

“5. Ms. Namgyal Angmu, SDM Kapashera appearing on behalf of the District Magistrate, District South West has submitted that a fresh report covering all the above points will be submitted by the joint Committee after due compliance of the directions of the Tribunal.

¶26

6. Hence, we give further six weeks’ time to the joint Committee to carry out the inspection keeping in view the observations made above and submit a fresh report by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.”

¶27

5. In view of the above, the Tribunal had granted further six week’s time to the Joint Committee to carry out the inspection and submit a fresh report.

¶28

6. A second report dated 06.12.2023 was again submitted under the signature of the District Magistrate, District South West. The report did not bear the signature of both the Members of the Joint Committee. Hence, the Tribunal by order dated 11.01.2024 had mentioned as under:-

¶29

“4. Now again, a report dated 06.12.2023 under the signature of District Magistrate, District South West alone has been filed. It does not contain the signature of the Member or authorized representative of DPCC. The report is incomplete . It has been pointed out by the applicant that there are three banquet halls namely Crystal, Pearl and Sapphire in Krishna Greens and the report does not reflect as to which banquet hall was inspected. It has also been stated that there are toilets and washrooms in the banquet halls but they have not been inspected and it has not been disclosed as to where the sewage from these toilets is going when no sewer connection has been provided by the MCD. It has also been stated by Counsel for the applicant that even the capacity of the STP set up has not been disclosed and that the report relating to the noise pollution is in respect of the sample which was taken on 08.06.2023, much prior to the previous direction of the Tribunal. She has also pointed out that the report does not reflect the number of borewells and the extent of ground water being drawn by these banquet halls.”

¶30

¶31

Tribunal by order dated 06.12.2023 had directed personal presence of the District Magistrate, District South West through virtual mode today.”

¶32

When inspite of the above said direction, the District Magistrate had not appeared virtually, therefore, Tribunal by noting the relevant circumstances had imposed the cost of Rs. 25,000/- by observing as under:-

¶33

“8. Inspite of the clear direction of the Tribunal, the District Magistrate, District South West has not appeared virtually today. He has also not filed any application seeking exemption for appearance or disclosing any reason or difficulty on account of which he has failed to appear virtually today. Mr. Balram Meena, ADM South West, has appeared virtually and has very bluntly said that the report of the Joint Committee was already filed and that the District Magistrate is held up in some function, therefore, he cannot appear. Hence, we have no option but to impose a cost of Rs. 25,000/- for non-compliance of the repeated direction, payable by the District Magistrate, District South West which will be deposited with the Registrar General of the Tribunal within two weeks.”

¶34

There was a fresh direction to the District Magistrate, South West to file a fresh report and also to appear personally today.

¶35

An I.A No. 141/2024 has been filed by the District Magistrate, South West seeking waiver of cost and taking the plea that on account of programme of Hon’ble Home and Cooperation Minister, Government of India on 11.03.2024, he had failed to appear and he has also mentioned the circumstances due to which the ADM, South West who had appeared virtually could not make the proper submissions. DM and ADM both have personally appeared today and tendered apology. Hence, in the circumstances mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 141/2024 is allowed and the cost of Rs. 25,000/- imposed by the order dated 11.03.2024 upon the District Magistrate, South West is waived.

¶36

In terms of the earlier order of the Tribunal, fresh report by the CPCB has been filed on 07.03.2024. The fresh report reveals that the

¶37

¶38

permission for commercial use of the property located at H-1, Pushpanjali Farms Link Road Dwarka, Delhi for holding social functions such as weddings, parties etc. was granted and that the unit consist of the three halls namely Hall no. 1-Sapphire, open lawn adjoining to Sapphire, Hall No. 2- Pearl and Hall No. 3 - Crystal. The report of the CPCB is as follows which reflects violations by the Project Proponent:-

¶39

“3.3 Water supply:

¶40

During the inspection,

¶41

i. It was observed that there was no water supply connection in the unit.

¶42

ii. The unit informed that the water requirements for various purposes such as cleaning utensils, toilets, and a small swimming pool are being met through tankers. Additionally, drinking water is provided to customers via RO water jars as per the requirement. Tanker bill dated 27.02.2024 was provided by the unit (Copy is enclosed in Annexure-IV.), for the period from 04.02.2024 to 26.02.2024, indicating the procurement of 12 tankers, each carrying 5000 liters of water for per function. However, the team did not observe any tanker on 25.02.2024 during the function, and no water storage tank of 5000 liters capacity was found on site.

¶43

iii. One bore well was also found in the unit and no water meter was installed on the bore well. The unit informed that bore well is legally installed. In this regard, unit has provided copy of Delhi Jal Board letter dated 16.05.2015 and the order of SDM Kapashera dated 29.06.2015 (Copy is enclosed in Annexure-V) wherein it is mentioned that bore well is not illegal. However, the unit has not provided supporting document regarding permission from Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) or any records on the utilization of bore well water.

¶44

3.4 Waste Water Management:

¶45

During inspection, it was observed that there is no sewerage network in the area. The unit has installed Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) for the treatment of kitchen effluent and Septic Tank for waste generated from toilets and urinals.

¶46

i. Observations regarding Effluent Treatment Plant;

¶47

a. The ETP was found to be in non-operational condition. The oil & grease trap and drainage system for transporting effluent were choked and filled with solid waste.

¶48

b. There was no meter installed at the inlet and outlet of the ETP.

¶49

¶50

c. No arrangements were made for the storage of untreated water during maintenance of the ETP.

¶51

d. The logbook was not being maintained regarding the operation and maintenance of ETP.

¶52

e. No information was provided regarding the utilization of treated water.

¶53

f. There was no ETP operator present during the inspection for the operation of the ETP.

¶54

g. The unit has not provided any documents regarding the layout diagram and capacity of the ETP.

¶55

ii. Observations regarding Septic tank;

¶56

a. Unit has constructed toilets for each hall and separate toilets for workers.

¶57

b. The discharge from toilets and urinals of the unit was being managed through the septic tank.

¶58

c. Unit provided a copy of the bill dated 28.02.2024 regarding cleaning services of the septic tank during February 2024 through Gopal Gulia (Copy enclosed in Annexure-VI). However, the unit has not provided any record that M/s Gopal Gulia is authorized for the collection of septic tank waste and the collected waste is being sent to centralized STP.

¶59

3.5 Solid Waste Management

¶60

During the Inspection, it was observed that;

¶61

i. The unit was not adhering to Rule 4(1) of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, as it was not segregating dry and wet waste and has not provided separate bins accordingly.

¶62

ii. Facility for composting or bio-methanation, as mandated by Rule 4(8) of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, has not been installed by the unit.

¶63

iii. The unit has informed that all unsegregated solid waste is being collected by M/s Delhi Waste Management Najafgarh Pvt Ltd at the rate of ₹ 5000/- per month. A copy of the invoice issued by M/s Delhi Waste Management Najafgarh Pvt Ltd for the month of February 2024 has been provided. (Copy is enclosed in Annexure-VII)

¶64

3.6Air Pollution Control Measures

¶65

During inspection, it was observed that;

¶66

i. Proper ducting arrangements have been installed in the kitchens to channelize air emissions effectively.

¶67

ii. Gas-based Tandoors were being used for cooking purposes.

¶68

iii. A total of 6 diesel generators of different capacities have been installed in the unit, primarily used for power supply during functions. However, following noncompliance observed:

¶69

a. Only two diesel generators, with capacities of 250 kVA and 500 kVA, are mentioned in the Consent to Operate (CTO).

¶70

¶71

b. As per CAQM direction no. 76, dated 29.09.2023 (amended on 22.02.2024). (Copy is enclosed in Annexure VIII), installation of Dual Fuel Kits or Retrofitted ECDs through certified vendors/agencies is mandatory for all 6 diesel generators in the unit. However, No action has been initiated for the installation of Retrofitted ECDs or Dual Fuel Kits. Furthermore, logbooks for DG sets were not maintained.

¶72

S.No	Capacity In kVA	Status of Compliance of CAQM direction no 76	Remarks
1	250	Non-compliant and No action	DG sets
2	250	initiated for installation of	logbook not
3	_125 _	RECD/Dual Fuel Kit.	maintained.
4	125
5	125
6	380

¶73

iv. In addition to this, the unit has also obtained a power connection from BSES with a sanctioned load of 6.0 kVA,

¶74

3.7 Noise Pollution:

¶75

i. All 6 diesel generators (DG sets) in the premises are equipped with acoustic enclosures, ensuring noise reduction during operation.

¶76

ii. DJ (Music) system has been installed in all three halls (Sapphire, Pearl and Crystal).

¶77

iii. However, it was observed during the inspection that music was being played on the DJ system beyond 10:00 PM in the open lawn area adjoining Sapphire Hall No. 01.

¶78

3.8 Fire Safety Certificate:

¶79

The unit has provided a copy of the fire safety certificate issued to M/s Krishna Green Farm House, valid from 11.03.2021 for a period of three years i.e. renewal due on or before 11.03.2024 (Copy is enclosed in Annexure-IX). However, it was noted that the Consent to Operate (CTO) issued by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) is in the name of Krishna Green by Mapple Gold.

¶80

Parking Arrangement:

¶81

i. The unit has informed that vehicles are being parked in adjacent properties H-3 and H-4. However, the documentation provided indicates a with H-3 only. (Copy is enclosed in Annexure-X) No document has been provided for the parking agreement with the H-4 property.

¶82

ii. During the inspection, it was observed that the unit had deployed traffic marshals and valet parking facilities, and cars were being parked in the H-3 property. However, it was noted that the entry and exit were common, and a few cars were also parked on the service road.

¶83

The report of the CPCB makes following recommendations:-

¶84

¶85

“4.0 Recommendations:

¶86

1. The unit must ensure the proper maintenance and operation of the ETP and deploy trained operators for its operation.

¶87

2. The unit shall ensure that after cleaning the septic tank, waste is transported to centralized STPs only through authorized tankers or service providers.

¶88

3. Unit may take appropriate action as per CGWA guidelines regarding use of bore well.

¶89

4. The unit shall place sufficient number of separate bins for waste segregation at the source and install facilities for composting or bio-methanation for the treatment of biodegradable waste.

¶90

5. The unit must ensure compliance with Direction No. 76 dated 29.09.2023 issued by CAQM regarding the use of DG sets in the Delhi NCR area.

¶91

6. The unit must ensure compliance with the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.

¶92

a) According to Rule 5(2) of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, sound-producing instruments or musical instruments shall not be used during night time (10:00 PM to 6:00 AM) except in closed premises.

¶93

b) As per Rule 5A(2), sound-emitting firecrackers shall not be burst in silence zones or during night time.

¶94

7. The unit must ensure that functions are only booked according to the parking capacity/parking agreement, and no vehicles are to be parked on adjacent roads or service roads.

¶95

8. The fire safety certificate to be renewed and updated for the unit.

¶96

9. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi should ensure that the banquet hall is operating in accordance with its permission dated 27.04.2009.”

¶97

The Joint Committee has also filed following fresh report dated 20.03.2024, reflecting the violation by the unit in question:-

¶98

“(3) Details of the inspection team: Sh. Lakshay Singhal — DM, South West District, Sh. Amzad Khan - JEE, DPCC

¶99

(10) Treatment of Waste Water generated from the kitchen and mode of disposal of treated effluent:

¶100

¶101

4. During the time of inspection operator started the plant and the same was found operational.

¶102

5. Flow meter was not found installed in the plant.

¶103

(11) Details of Power supply and DG sets in the unit:

¶104

3. Logbook of DG sets is not maintained as it is not shown to the joint inspection team.

¶105

(12) Compliance of CAQM directions with respect to DG sets:

¶106

All the 06 DG sets are non-compliant wrt CAQM directions No76.

¶107

Unit owner informed that they are in the process of installing Retrofitting Emissions Control Device (RECD) and unit also provided purchase order of 6 RECD dated 05.03.2024. Copy of the order placed is enclosed as Annexure-7

¶108

(15) Ground water extraction and permission from Competent Authority:

¶109

01 Borewell was found installed in the banquet for which unit owner had shown certificate of registration from CGWA dated 10.11.1998. However, purpose for which the permission was given is not shown to the joint committee whether it was given for agriculture purpose or commercial purpose. Copy of the same is enclosed as Annexure-6. Currently the borewell is being used for commercial purpose. No permission from the District Advisory Committee (DAC) for the borewell as per the Notification of Department of Environment dated 12.7.2010.

¶110

(16) Fire safety: Unit has informed the Joint Committee during the inspection that they have applied for renewal of the same, but no document was shown to the inspection team.

¶111

(17) Parking facilities : no parking agreement of property H2 was furnished by the owner. Copy of the agreement is enclosed as Annexure-8.”

¶112

The District Magistrate, South West, present in person, has submitted that he will duly consider the issue of cancelling the permission granted to the Project Proponent in view of the violations which have come on record.

¶113

¶114

When once the violations have been found by the CPCB, appropriate action is also required to be taken by it by duly following the principles of ‘Natural Justice’.

¶115

Hence, we dispose of the OA directing the Member Secretary, CPCB to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the violators by duly following the principles of natural justice and submit action taken report before the before the Registrar General of the Tribunal within three months by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF and if found necessary, the matter may be listed before the Bench for consideration.

¶116

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶117

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶118

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶119

May 06, 2024 Original Application No.195/2023 (I.A. No.141/2024) SN

¶120

Vivek Mahna vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Mahna 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

Deepu Malik vs

Mr. Sukhadev Jadhav vs Collector of Sangli District

Neelam Kumar Soni vs State of Chattisgarh

Kamal Rathi vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Vivek Pandey vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through Its Secretary

News Item Titled "Dhamtari-Amethi Mei Ret Utkhanan Joro Par Nahi Ho Rahee Karyavai" Appearing in Janta Se Rishta Dated 28.02.2024 vs

News Item Titled "Giridih Sakari Nadee Se Har Roj Hota Hai Baalu Ka Avaidh Uthav Chhape Mari Ke Dauran Do Tractor Jabt" Appearing in News Wing Dated 29.02.2024 vs

News Item Titled "1 Crore 14 Lakh Ka Maal Jabt....Ret Maafia Ke Khilaaf Maharashtra Police Kee Karyavai" Appearing in Aaj Tak Dated 01.03.2024 vs

Prem Mohan Gaur vs National Highways Authority of India

Vinod Kumar Jangra vs State of Haryana

Vinod Kumar Jangra vs State of Haryana

Vivek Mahna vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 85/2023 in Original Application No. 81/2023 of Sunil Kumar Aledia vs

Kuldeep Singh vs State of Haryana