Disposed

Mr Tejas Chandrakant Yadav v. Ms Jn Marshall Co.

NGT9 Jan 2025Original Application No. 180/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal examined an application regarding alleged non-compliance by a project proponent concerning unscientific storage of waste. The Court held that no EDC would be levied as the industry achieves Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD), and while reiterating statutory limits on hazardous waste storage, it ignored the urgency of the disposal directive due to lack of specific evidence regarding quantity

What did the court decide?

Directed that MPCB must clearly disclose quantity and period of violation in future notices; ignored the delay in disposal complaint for present case; no EDC levied.

Mr Tejas Chandrakant Yadav vs Ms Jn Marshall Co. — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.12

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

¶5

Original Application No.180/2024 (WZ)

¶6

Tejas Chandrakant Yadav

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s J.N. Marshall & Co. & Ors.

¶9

….Respondents

¶10

Date of hearing: 09.01.2025

¶11

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

¶12

Applicant : Mr. Ravi Uikey, Advocate Respondents : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate for R-1/PP Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate along-with Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocate for R-2/MPCB Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-4/CPCB

¶13

ORDER

¶14

We are passing this order in continuation to the earlier orders dated 29.08.2024 and 14.11.2024.

¶15

In compliance with our previous order dated 14.11.2024, respondent No.2-MPCB has filed reply affidavit dated 07.01.2025, wherein it is made clear that respondent No.1 – M/s J.N. Marshall & Co. (Engg. Dept.) (Project Proponent-PP) was granted Consent to Establish on 20/04/2013 and further, its Revalidation of Consent to Establish was granted on 01/10/2019 and Consent to Operate was granted on 01/07/2021, which was valid upto 21/03/2023. Thereafter, PP has applied for Renewal of Consent to Operate with change in the name i.e. M/s. Simmonds Marshall Limited, which was refused by the MPCB vide letter dated 20/07/2024. Further, Consent to Renewal was granted on

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

01/01/2025 in the name of M/s J.N. Marshall & Co. (Engineering Dept.), which is valid upto 31/03/2027.

¶18

It is further submitted in this affidavit by the respondent No.2MPCB that on the basis of complaint received by MPCB regarding air and water pollution, its officials visited the premises of respondent No.1 on 10/6/2024 and after noticing non-compliances, proposed directions were issued on 24.06.2024, which is annexed at page nos.133-134 of the paper book, mainly observing therein that the Project Proponent had stored/dumped non-hazardous waste in an unscientific manner i.e. plastic waste and oily drums, due to which heavy oil seepages were observed near the ETP plant. Pursuant to the said directions, respondent No.1 submitted reply vide letter dated 04.12.2024, which is annexed at page nos.131-132 of the paper book, saying therein that they had disposed of stored non-hazardous waste, which was said to have been kept in an unscientific manner and they had planned for proper storage of the same.

¶19

Thereafter, we find that there is no document on record showing that any visit was made by the officials of MPCB to ensure the fact as to whether the reply, which was given by respondent No.1- Project Proponent, was correct or not. But we presume that no violation was found after the compliance made by the respondent No.1 on 04.12.2024 because Renewal of Consent was granted to the respondent No.1 on 01/01/2025, which is of subsequent date, after having realized a fees of Rs.77,500/- towards penal charges for operating the unit without obtaining Consent. This fees has been orally submitted to have been levied for the period from 01.04.2023 to 27.06.2024. On 01.01.2023 is the date when the first Consent to Operate was granted and 27.06.2024

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

is the date when the application was CTO was moved by the respondent No.1- Project Proponent.

¶22

When we made a query from learned counsel for respondent No.2MPCB as to whether any EDC amount has been levied from respondent No.1, it is responded by saying that no such amount has been levied because the only violation, which they have noticed, was with respect to storage of the non-hazardous waste in an unscientific manner and nothing-else. As per our observation above, we also find that once the response was given by the industry that they had cleared the same, there was no visit made by the MPCB to ensure whether the said statement was correct or not. Therefore, we presume that respondent No.1-Project Proponent must have made the correct statement.

¶23

With regard to levying of EDC, it will also be essential for this Tribunal to find first as to whether any pollution may have happened by the act of respondent No.1, which is said to be of violation. We find that first Consent to Establish was granted to the respondent No.1 on 01.07.2021 for the Trade effluent 2.5 CMD and Disposal Path is recorded “Recycle 100% to achieve ZLD”. Thereafter, 2^nd Renewal of Consent to Operate was granted to the respondent No.1 on 01.01.2025, wherein the quantity of Trade effluent is recorded as 0.1 CMD (but it is being said by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the same has been wrongly typed as the same should be 2.5 CMD) and the Disposal Path says “Recycle 100% to achieve ZLD”. From these two Consents, it is clear that industry achieves ZLD, therefore, there is no chance of any pollution happening from the industry of respondent No.1. In view of that, we do not deem it appropriate to issue any direction against the said respondent with respect to calculation of EDC amount for any period of violation.

¶24

Page 3 of 5

¶25

Since it is also apprised us by learned counsel for respondent No.2MPCB that personal hearing was given to the respondent No.1 where it was directed to ensure that hazardous waste, which was allowed to be accumulated within its premises, be disposed of within seven days.

¶26

Now, we would like to go through the rule concerned i.e. Rule 8 of the Hazardous and other Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules- 2016, which provides that the occupiers of facilities may store hazardous & other wastes for a period not more than ninety (90) days and shall maintain a record of sale, transfer, storage, recycling, recovery, pre-processing, co-processing, utilization of such waste and make its record available for the public inspection. There is proviso also saying that the said time limit could be extended by the State PCB beyond 90 days for different categories of generators for different period.

¶27

Learned counsel for respondent No.2- MPCB submits that, in the case in hand, the said 90 days’ period had been extended because the first proposed directions were issued to the respondent No.1 with respect to removal of the said non-hazardous waste on 24.06.2024 and latest visit was made on 26.11.2024 when the said waste was still found lying there. In this regard, we would like to make it clear that even the amount of alleged hazardous waste has not been mentioned, which was found to have been stored within the premises of respondent No.1-Project Proponent, which certainly should have been done and some document should have been produced as an evidence showing that the same was found to be there to hold that the Project Proponent is accountable therefor. But to be on the safer side, we deem it appropriate that the direction, which was issued by the MPCB for disposing of the nonhazardous waste in accordance with the norms i.e. the same should be sold to some authorized agent, should have been complied with within

¶28

Page 4 of 5

¶29

seven days. In compliance with the said direction, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the same has already been complied with. But as to whether the same has been done within seven days or not, is not made clear. In this case, we ignore this delay and believe that in future also, MPCB shall keep informed the Project Proponent while issuing notices and at least the quantity found kept in an unscientific manner should also be disclosed and period should also be mentioned, for which violations were found to be there. Then in that situation only, it would be possible to levy appropriate EDC.

¶30

During our dictation of this order, learned counsel for the applicant remained present, who submitted that though he has received a copy of the reply affidavit submitted by the respondent No.2- MPCB yesterday only, he did not seek any time to file rejoinder affidavit to the same and made argument orally, which has been considered.

¶31

From the side of respondent No.1 – M/s J.N. Marshall & Co., learned counsel Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni has appeared before us. His argument has also been heard in this matter.

¶32

In view of above, we disposed of this application accordingly on merits.

¶33

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶34

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶35

January 09, 2025 Original Application No.180/2024 (WZ) P.Kr

¶36

Page 5 of 5

Mr Tejas Chandrakant Yadav v. Ms Jn Marshall Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Tejas Chandrakant Yadav v. Ms Jn Marshall Co.

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

Subhash Datta vs Ministry of Environment Forests Climant Change Service through Joint Secretary

Shailesh Singh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Mohammad Ziaurrahman Khan vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Uttar Pradesh

Shivendra Dutt Shukla vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Dwarka Expressway Gurugram Development Association vs Muncipal Corporation of Gurugram

Bibekananda Pattnaik S/O Late Radhakrushna Pattnaik Aged About 58 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Satrughan Meher S/O Late Lingaraj Meher Aged ABOUT47 Years vs 1. State of Odisha through Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Sunil Paliwal vs Local Self Government Department

Gold Star a Proprietorship Firm through Mr Prasad Betkar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Gold Star a Proprietorship Firm through Mr Prasad Betkar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 20/2024 in Original Application No. 217/2024 of Shri Ashok Vasudeo Rawool vs Tahsildar and District Magistrate Sawantwaid

News Item Titled Encroachments in Tungareshwar Driving Away Wild Animals Appearing in the Hindustan Times Dated 27.04.2024 vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (H.O.O.F.) Maharashtra

Yogesh Pratap Singh vs the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change

Sampat Baburao Mirghe vs Mr. Chandrakant Kundalmal Sancheti