Disposed

Rishipal Malik v. State of Uttar Pradesh

NGT1 Jul 2025Original Application No. 168/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal addressed a grievance regarding sugarcane crushing mills operating within prohibited distances in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, violating CPCB guidelines. The court directed the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board to consider the applicant's fresh complaint and take remedial action.

What did the court decide?

Directing the State Pollution Control Board to consider the applicant's fresh complaint and take appropriate remedial action by following natural justice within two months.

Rishipal Malik vs State of Uttar Pradesh — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 04

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 168/2025

¶5

Rishipal Malik Applicant Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶6

Date of hearing: 01.07.2025

¶7

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

¶8

Applicant: Ms. Atika Singh, Adv.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

In this Original Application (OA), the Applicant who is stated to be a resident of the village Kharar, Pargana Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh has raised a grievance that the Respondent No. 8 to 14 are operating sugarcane crushing mills for manufacture of jaggery (operating Kolhus ) in village Kharar. The submission of counsel for the Applicant is that UP PCB has issued the guidelines prepared by CPCB on 13.06.2018 which include the citing criteria, according to which the Kolhus cannot be permitted to operate within 0.5 Km. from the approved habitation, schools, hospitals etc.

¶11

The Applicant has placed on record the guidelines prepared by CPCB

¶12

on 13.06.2018 issued on 13.08.2019 which provide as under: -

¶13

“Guidelines for Pollution Control in Kolhus

¶14

1. The Kolhus shall not be allowed to set up at locations within 0.5 km distance from approved habitation, schools, hospitals and the sensitive zones.

¶15

¶16

2. Only dried bagasse, wood and the agricultural residues/wastes shall be used as fuel. In no case rubber, used tyres, plastic etc. shall be fired in furnace.

¶17

3. Improved/energy efficient furnace shall be used by Kolhus. The furnace shall be made of masonry bricks or refractory bricks. Use of mud or soil in place of bricks should be avoided. The furnace shall be constructed in such a way that it ensures multipan (more than one pan in series) heating as shown in Figure(s) below for utilisation of heat contained by flue gases. The Pan 3 is used for evaporation of the juice to achieve the desired concentration for making Jaggery/Gur. The hot flue gases further transfer heat to preheat the Pan 2 and Pan 1.

¶18

The number of Pans may range from 2 to 5 depending upon the design of furnace. As the flue gas transfer the heat to the Pan, its temperature reduces. The remaining heat in the flue gas is further utilised to preheat the juice in the subsequent Pans. The Kolhus with production capacity of ≤ 2 MT/day have a choice to adopt either single pan or multi-pan arrangement.

¶19

4. A flap shall be installed on fuel feed hole of furnace to control excess air. There shall be provision of fire grate for efficient burning of fuel in the furnace. The ash generated would be collected from bottom of the furnace. A provision of baffles in flue gas path leading to stack (chimney) should be made to contain the particulate matter.

¶20

5. The height of stack shall be prescribed by the State Pollution Control Board depending upon the local conditions, but it shall not be less than 10 m. The Kolhus without stack shall not be permitted.

¶21

6. The limit of particulate matter (PM) in flue gas shall be prescribed by the State Pollution Control Board depending upon the local conditions, but it shall not be more than 500 mg/Nm3.

¶22

7. The solid wastes generated from the Kolhus shall be reused or properly disposed. The bagasse shall be used as fuel in the furnace. Scum collected from pan and ash shall be utilised as soil conditioner in agricultural land.

¶23

8. The washings of pans shall be disposed through soak pit.

¶24

9. The Kolhus shall ensure cleanliness and hygienic conditions in the premises .”

¶25

Further submission of the counsel for the applicant is that UP PCB

¶26

had earlier issued notice dated 11.07.2024 to the private Respondents herein requiring them to shift at a distance of more than 500 meters from

¶27

¶28

the habitation etc. as prescribed in the Guidelines and in compliance of the said notice private Respondents had earlier shifted the Kolhus but now again they have come back within the restricted area and they are causing pollution. Counsel for the applicant submits that the fresh complaint dated 06.11.2024 was made to the UP PCB but till now action has not been taken and the residents of the village are suffering on account of the pollution caused by these private Respondents.

¶29

If the Applicant is correct in his assertion that the guidelines are being violated then the requisite action is required to be taken by the Respondent-UP PCB. Earlier the UP PCB had initiated action by issuing notice dated 11.07.2024. The subsequent complaint dated 06.11.2024 filed by the Applicant has not been considered by the UP PCB till now. Hence, we dispose of the OA directing the Respondent No. 5-Chairman, UP PCB to duly consider the grievance/complaint of the Applicant and take appropriate remedial action by duly following the principles of Natural Justice as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said complaint. Thereafter, if the Applicant is left with any further grievance, he will be at liberty to approach the Tribunal.

¶30

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶31

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶32

July 01, 2025 Original Application No. 168/2025 A

¶33

Rishipal Malik v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishipal Malik v. State of Uttar Pradesh

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

News Item Appearing in Express News Service Dated 05.12.2023 Titled Change Location of Sewage Treatment Plant from CoimbatoreS Ukkadam Over 100 Residents Stage Stir vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Tribunal on Its Own Motion in the Matter of Sewage Mixed in Theppakulam Sivagangai District Based on Dinamalar Daily Sivagangai Edition Dated 1ST January 2024 vs the District Collector Sivagangai

Jaywant Jotiba Patil vs Lalchand Tobacco Products

Mahendran vs the Principal Secretary to Government

Devi Lal vs Pawan Kumar and Others

Sajibur Rahaman vs the State of West Bengal

Mr. Tanaji Ruikar vs M/S Narsinha Stone Crusher & Crush Sand

National Green Tribunal Southern Zone vs the Principal Secretary to Government of Kerala Environment Department

Dr Amit Kumar vs State of Haryana

Ms Sukhdeep Poultry Farm vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Ms Sukhdeep Poultry Farm vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Shahid Raza vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Arun Kumar Tomar vs Ranjeet Singh

Arun Kumar Tomar vs Ranjeet Singh