Disposed

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

NGT10 May 2024Original Application No. 223/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed an application regarding a Ready Mix Concrete plant operating without a valid Consent to Operate. Finding non-compliance and inadequate remedy from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, the Tribunal directed the MPCB to issue a closure order, calculate environmental damage compensation, and submit a compliance report.

What did the court decide?

Direction to MPCB to issue closure order, calculate and levy environmental damage compensation, and submit a compliance report within a week.

Mr. Santosh Vishnu Kadam vs M/S Shivsiddhi Redimix Concrete — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.04

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (with Hybrid Option)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.223 OF 2023 (WZ)

Santosh Vishnu Kadam

Applicant

Versus

M/s Shivsiddhi Redimix Concrete & Ors. Respondents

¶10

Date of hearing : 10.05.2024

¶11

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

¶12

Applicant : None for the applicant

¶13

Respondents : Mr. Vilas Jadhav, Advocate for R-3 and R-4/MPCB

¶14

ORDER

¶15

None has appeared from the side of the applicant.

¶16

By our previous order dated 05.03.2024, we had directed learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Omkar Wangikar as to whether, after death of the applicant, any person from his family would pursue this matter and to apprise us, two weeks’ time was allowed. But today, none has appeared on behalf of the applicant nor is it informed as to whether any person from the family of applicant would pursue this matter in place of the applicant.

¶17

Looking to the fact that this is an environmental issue, which was raised by the applicant, pertaining to respondent No.1 – M/s Shivsiddhi Redimix Concrete plant being run without valid Consent to Operate, we are pursuing the matter on our own.

¶18

By our previous order, on behalf of respondent No.1 – M/s Shivsiddhi Redimix Concrete, learned counsel Mr. Swapnil Chopade had appeared and sought two weeks’ time to file the reply-affidavit, which was

¶19

[NPJ] Page 1 of 5

¶20

granted. Today, none has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1, nor has the reply-affidavit been filed from their side.

¶21

From the side of respondent Nos.3 and 4 – MPCB, reply-affidavit dated 09.05.2024 has been filed, wherein it is recorded that pursuant to the complaint made, investigation was made by the Board officials by visiting the site of respondent No.1 on 26.10.2023 and following was observed/found:

¶22

(i) During the inspection it was observed that commercial manufacturing was found in operation and the unit was engaged in Ready Mix Concrete activity.

¶23

(ii) The Unit has provided water sprinklers arrangements within factory premises, however same is inadequate & needs to be upgraded.

¶24

(iii) The Unit has not provided pukka or metalled road within premise. Asphalt type road has been provided which causes fugitive air pollution during the transportation of loaded/uploaded vehicles.

¶25

(iv) The Unit has started commercial manufacturing since last 6 months without obtaining prior Consent to operate from Maharashtra Pollution Control Board.

¶26

(v) During visit it has been observed fugitive emission was observed while unloading of raw material, transportation of vehicles.

¶27

(vi) During the visit it is observed that distance between the National highway and actual RMC Plant (machine) is approx.. 70.0 mtrs, which is a violation of distance criteria of Consent to Establish condition.

¶28

(vii) During visit it is observed that Green belt is partially developed.

¶29

(viii) The Unit has not submitted the imposed Bank Guarantee of Rs.10,000/- till date.

¶30

(ix) The Unit is in operation since last 6 months as per informed by the authorized representative without obtaining prior Consent to Operate. Also, violating consent conditions and Guidelines for the RMC Plant in the State of Maharashtra as per notification dated 7/11/2016. A copy of the visit report dated 26/10/2023 is enclosed and marked as Annexure-“D”.

¶31

[NPJ] Page 2 of 5

¶32

It is stated in the reply-affidavit that pursuant to the noncompliances on the part of respondent No.1, the answering respondent, on 19.01.2024, issued proposed directions to respondent No.1 under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (annexed as Annexure-E at pages 83 and 84 of the paper-book). Pursuant to the said proposed directions, response dated 22.01.2024 was submitted by respondent No.1 (annexed as Annexure-F at pages 85 and 86 of the paper-book), wherein following reply was given:

¶33

(1) Our Plant is a captive project dedicated for work of Railway Bridge Project at LC112, Kirloskarwadi, Tal. Palus, Dist. Sangli. The work order copy is attached herewith for your ready reference.

¶34

(2) Due to fixed schedule of Railway Bridge work completion, we have taken trial run on 20.09.2023 to start the projects on time. Our project is captive project and time limit of this project is three years i.e. up to 25.10.2026. Due to constraint of time for completion of project work, we have started production from 20.09.2023. But before that we have obtained Consent to Establish and applied for Consent to Operate vide online application-MPCB-CONSENT-0000173385 with above reference No.2.

¶35

(3) We have provided water sprinklers arrangement within factory premises. Further we have extended it with additional nozzles and locations.

¶36

(4) We have provided compacted pukka road within a premise and carrying out regular wetting of road to avoid fugitive air pollution during the transportation of loaded/unloaded vehicles.

¶37

(5) We have changed our entrance from West side to East side of the plant, which is away from Sangli-Palus road and our plant is captive project.

¶38

(6) We have carried out massive tree plantation towards the West side of the plant. We have planted trees of around 20 feet height to cover maximum area and will act as barricading, further we have extended it with netlon clothing.

¶39

[NPJ] Page 3 of 5

¶40

(7) We have submitted Online Bank Guarantee vide No.MPCB-BG0000027249. The copy of the same is uploaded on the portal.

¶41

(8) Due to fixed schedule of Railway Birdge work completion, we have taken trial run on 20.09.2023 to start the projects on time. Our project is captive project and time limit of this project is three years i.e. up to 25.10.2026. Due to time constraint for completion of project work, we have started production from 20.09.2023. But before that we have obtained Consent to $Establish and applied for Consent to Operate vide online application-MPCBCONSENT-0000173385 with above reference No.2, which was refused. Now again we have submitted online application for consent to first operate vide No.MPCB-CONSENT-0000194696 dt.22.01.2024.

¶42

(9) The complainant is regular complainant and he has suited complaint with willful and wrong intentions against our Ready Mix Concrete Plant.”

¶43

After considering the above reply, the Consent to Operate was refused due to non-compliances under Section 27 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21(4) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 vide order dated 27.12.2023, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-G (pages 87 and 88 of the paper-book). Thereafter respondent No.1/Project Proponent had again resubmitted application for first Consent to Operate on 02.02.2024, which has been refused vide letter dated 09.05.2024 (annexed as Annexure-H at pages 89 and 90 of the paper-book).

¶44

We enquired from the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 – MPCB as to what happened thereafter, he stated that till date, no closure order has been passed/issued. But after the refusal to Consent to Operate, the Industry could not have continued to operate. However, as to why closure order has not been issued against respondent No.1, against which the Project Proponent/respondent No.1 could have approached us, has not been clarified by respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶45

[NPJ] Page 4 of 5

¶46

We find that in view of the non-compliances on the part of respondent No.1/Project Proponent, noted above and the reply given by respondent No.1 having been considered and the same not been found to be convincing, respondent Nos.3 and 4 – MPCB ought to have passed a clear order regarding closure of the industry i.e. respondent No.1. Instead, merely order/letter refusing Consent to Operate has been issued to respondent No.1. We are of the view that in case the said Industry/respondent No.1 had operated without Consent to Operate, respondent Nos.3 and 4 – MPCB was duty bound to calculate environmental damage compensation (EDC) to be levied from respondent No.1 for the period during which the Industry/respondent No.1 was in operation till the date of its closure and levy the EDC from respondent No.1 following the guidelines laid down by the CPCB in that respect.

¶47

None has appeared from the side of respondent No.2 – Collector, Sangli despite sufficient service.

¶48

We dispose of this Original Application with a direction to respondent Nos.3 and 4 – MPCB to take appropriate action as directed by us hereinabove and submit a report of compliance within a week from the date of uploading of this order.

¶49

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶50

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶51

May 10, 2024 O.A. NO.223/2023(WZ) npj

¶52

[NPJ] Page 5 of 5

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishan Chander vs Union of India

Shri Dinesh Kharade vs State of Maharashtra through Pune Municipaal Corporation

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

Chandrashekhar Khawade vs State of Jharkhand

News Report Published in the Hindu Dated 28 08 2023 Titled Eight Killed in Blast at Illegal Fireworks Unit in West Bengal vs State of West Bengal

Hanuman Prasad Gupta vs

News Item Titled " Ret Mafiyaon Ne Kafar Dam Par Banaya Ret Parivahan Ka Rasta Prashashan Bekhabar" Appearing in Jantaserishta.Com Dated 04.03.2024 vs

News Item Titled "Kmerc Funds Elude Mining-Ravaged Areas" Appearing in the Deccan Herald Dated 04.03.2024 vs

Shri Dinesh Kharade vs State of Maharashtra through Pune Municipaal Corporation

Aryavart Foundation vs M/S Ria Cetp Co.Op. Society Ltd.

Gregorio Judy Fernandes vs State of Goa

Seasaga Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Seasaga Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Premjibhai Kerasiya vs Harilal Kerasiya