Disposed

Babasaheb Mahadev Patil v. 1. M/S. Shikshan Maharshi Dnyandeo Mohekar Agro Industries Ltd.

NGT4 Feb 2025Original Application No. 146/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal declined to allow a rejoinder affidavit, directing the MPCB to decide the pending revocation of a closure order within two weeks. The Tribunal further ordered the calculation and imposition of environmental dues on the industrial unit for violations and their utilization for area restoration. Pending applications were disposed off.

What did the court decide?

Direction to MPCB to decide revocation of closure within 2 weeks; calculate and levy environmental compensation within 1 month for restoration.

Babasaheb Mahadev Patil vs 1. M/S. Shikshan Maharshi… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.10

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

Original Application No.146/2024(WZ)

¶6

Babasaheb Mahadev Patil

¶7

…..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. Shikshan Maharshi Dnyandeo Mohekar Agro Industries Ltd. & Ors.

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 04.02.2025

¶12

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

¶13

Applicant : Mr. Omkar Wangikar, Advocate Respondents : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate for R-1/PP Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate along-with Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocate for R-2 & 3/MPCB

¶14

ORDER

¶15

We are passing this order in continuation to the earlier orders dated 22.07.2024, 30.09.2024 and 10.12.2024.

¶16

In compliance with our previous order dated 10.12.2024, respondent No.1- M/s. Shikshan Maharshi Dnyandeo Mohekar Agro Industries Ltd./Project Proponent has filed reply affidavit dated 03.03.2025, wherein it is submitted that applicant has no locus to file present Original Application and is also not an aggrieved party to the present proceedings. The factory of respondent No.1 is located in Village Moha, Osmanabad, Maharashtra, while the applicant is residing at Chinchwad, which is approximately 277 kms. away from the factory of respondent No.1.

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

It is further submitted in this affidavit by respondent No.1-PP that the unit of answering respondent was granted Consent to Operate from respondent No.2- MPCB under Orange Category on 28.11.2019, which is valid till 31.10.2029. It is further submitted that applicant has alleged that respondent No.1 has started the production of molasses using Borewell water, but the same has been denied.

¶19

It is further submitted in this affidavit by respondent No.1-PP that a visit was conducted by respondent No.3- MPCB and thereafter, proposed directions were issued to the answering respondent on 26.01.2024, which was replied by the answering respondent vide letter dated 27.02.2024, in which it is submitted that the ETP of the answering respondent is running and has been improved as per the instructions of respondent No.3; the pipeline carrying untreated water is as per the rule of respondent No.3. The pipeline supplying water to the orchards and other trees in the premises damaged by the JCB, while work was being carried out, due to which water leakage of untreated water was inspected; the holding storage tank has also been repaired; and as per the rule of MPCB, answering respondent has also set up the proper equipment under the guidance of Scrubber Expert Officer and the results of the same are also found to be good.

¶20

It is further submitted in this affidavit by respondent No.1-PP that applicant has also made the allegation that respondent No.1 has installed machinery for expansion of industry without obtaining Consent to Establish for expansion from respondent No.3, to which answering respondent has submitted that the last year i.e. on 10.03.2023, answering respondent applied for Consent to Establish for Khansari Project at Sub-Regional Office, Latur.

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

It is further submitted in this affidavit by respondent No.1-PP that earlier the applicant had also filed Original Application No.73 of 2022 before this Tribunal against the answering respondent, wherein direction was issued to the answering respondent to deposit the Environmental Compensation amount to the tune of Rs.12,62,340/-. In this regard, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3- MPCB submits that this amount has already been deposited by respondent No.1 on 27.01.2023.

¶23

It is further submitted in this affidavit by respondent No.1-PP that respondent Nos.2 & 3 had issued order dated 18.11.2024 for closure of the activities of respondent No.1, which was responded to by the answering respondent on 25.12.2024. Thereafter, visit was carried out by respondent No.3 on 26.12.2024 and it was found that the issues raised in the order of closure stood complied with. The latest visit carried out by respondent No.3 is on 01.02.2025 and that visit report also recorded satisfaction of overall functioning of the answering respondent. Thereafter, answering respondent has submitted an application for revocation of the closure order dated 25.12.2024, which is pending consideration.

¶24

At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the above-mentioned application, which is pending consideration before respondent Nos.2 & 3- MPCB, is not being decided because of the pendency of the present Original Application. Therefore, it is prayed that a direction may be issued to MPCB to expedite the same and revoke the order of closure.

¶25

Respondent Nos.2 & 3- MPCB has filed reply affidavit dated 03.02.2025 before this Tribunal, wherein it is submitted that on 10.12.2024, the Board officials had visited the industry of respondent

¶26

Page 3 of 6

¶27

No.1 and thereafter, again inspected the site in question on 01.02.2025, to assess the current status of the industry after the closure direction issued by the Board on 18.11.2024 and thereafter, all the compliances were found to have been done by respondent No.1.

¶28

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he should be provided an opportunity to file rejoinder affidavit to the reply affidavit filed by respondent Nos.2 & 3. Because according to him, there are still non-compliances going on and that no EDC amount has been proposed to be levied by the MPCB for the period of default, during which the violations were committed by respondent No.1.

¶29

We do not deem it appropriate to grant any opportunity to the applicant to file rejoinder affidavit because whatever he has to say, has been heard at length. His main grievance is that respondent No.1 is a repetitive offender as earlier also, it had been found violating the environmental norms and for that heavy cost was imposed on it. He further pressed for the order to be passed for EDC amount to be levied from respondent No.1 and states that the said amount should be directed to be calculated by the MPCB and thereafter, giving an opportunity to the applicant to file objection against the same, this application may be disposed of. But we are of the view that since the application for revocation of the closure order is pending consideration before the MPCB for long time, we direct that the same be decided at the earliest because the industry of respondent No.1 is seasonal and whatever period of defaults/violations are found to be there, for that an amount of EDC may be levied after giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.1 as well as the applicant.

¶30

Page 4 of 6

¶31

When we enquired from learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3- MPCB, is this case a fit case, in which EDC should be levied, she has pointed out the 1^st reply affidavit dated 28.09.2024 filed from her side, in which in para no.3, it is mentioned that the complaint dated 21.12.2023 was made by the same applicant i.e. Shri Babasaheb Mahadev Bhosale, which was investigated by the MPCB on 17.01.2024 and following was found:-

¶32

“ i. The said unit is jaggery unit having consent to operate under orange category granted by the Board vide consent No. ROAURANGABAD/ CONSENT/ 1911001290 dated 28.11.2019 which is valid upto 31.10.2029. The said industry has provided Effluent Treatment Plant however, during the visit same was not in operation; untreated effluent is being discharged into nearby areas/natural nalla which could lead to further contamination of non-perennial natural pond. Located at approximately @ 1 KM away from the said unit. I say that as per consent the trade effluent after requisite treatment shall be used on (and for gardening only and in no case, the effluent shall find its way outside factory premises.

¶33

ii. The industry has failed to provide proper channeling system to carry out untreated effluent up to ETP.

¶34

iii. The industry has not provided treated effluent holding tank for storage of treated effluent.

¶35

iv. The industry has provided Wet Scrubber as Air Pollution Control System to boiler which was not in operation.”

¶36

Having drawn our attention to the above, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3- MPCB that on the date of inspection of the industry of respondent No.1 i.e. on 17.01.2024, above-mentioned violations had been found to be there and that they all stood removed on the next visit conducted on 01.02.2025. Therefore, the period between 17.01.2025 to 01.02.2025 would be treated to be the period of violations excluding the period, for which the industry remained closed on account of the same being seasonal. So we find that the MPCB is in the best

¶37

Page 5 of 6

¶38

position to calculate the EDC amount after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶39

In view of above observations, we dispose off this application with the direction that pending application for revocation of the closure order shall be disposed of within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order and prior to that, calculation of EDC amount shall be done by giving an opportunity of hearing to the party concerned and whatever amount is found to be appropriate to be levied from respondent No.1 as per the rules, the same shall be levied within a period of one month from the date of uploading of this order. Thereafter, the said amount shall be utilized for restoration of the area in question.

¶40

Even thereafter, any grievance is left to the party concerned, they may approach us as per the rules.

¶41

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

¶42

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶43

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶44

February 04, 2025 Original Application No.146/2024(WZ) P.Kr

¶45

Page 6 of 6

Babasaheb Mahadev Patil v. 1. M/S. Shikshan Maharshi Dnyandeo Mohekar Agro Industries Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babasaheb Mahadev Patil v. 1. M/S. Shikshan Maharshi Dnyandeo Mohekar Agro Industries Ltd.

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

Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Vanashakti a Public Trust vs Mcgm

News Item Titled Erosion Pushes Turtle Nests 14 Km in Odisha Appearing in the Times of India Dt 14 04 2024 vs National Coastal Zone Management Authority through Chairman

News Item Titled "Maharashtra Ordnance Unit Blast Blows Away Factory Roof 8 Killed" Appearing in the Times of India Dated 25.01.2025 vs

News Item Titled Plastic Waste Deposits in Doyang Dam to Adversely Impact Humans and Wildlife Appearing in Nagaland Tribune Dated 02 06 2024 vs Central Pollution Control Board

Prameya Foundation vs State of West Bengal

Hameshwari Nishad vs State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Department of Housing and Environment Government of Chhattisgarh

Dushyant Gupta Father Shri Narendra Gupta vs State of Mp Though Its Chief Secretary

Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

News Item Titled How Banni Grasslands of Kachchh Gujarat Can Be Restored Appearing in the Hindu Dated 20.08.2024 vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Gujarat

Bosco Cruz Fernandes Alias Cruz Austin Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Vernon Rodrigues vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority