Dismissed

Shri Shanlang W Kharbangar v. Meghalaya Pollution Control Board

NGT2 Jan 2025Original Application No. 230/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal dismissed an application challenging an Environmental Compensation demand. The court rejected claims of confusion between the initial and revised compensation amounts, noting the respondent had revised the demand to Rs. 75,000. The tribunal granted the applicant 15 days to deposit the reduced amount.

What did the court decide?

Original application dismissed with liberty to deposit the Environmental Compensation of Rs. 75,000 within 15 days.

Shri Shanlang W Kharbangar vs Meghalaya Pollution Control… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Court No.1

¶2

Item No.01

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶4

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶5

Original Application No.230/2024/EZ (I.A. No.127/2024/EZ)

¶6

In the matter of: Shri Shanlang W. Kharbangar Proprietor of M/s Shanlang Stone Crusher, Bhoirymbong, Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya

¶7

…. Applicant(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board Through the Member Secretary, “ARDEN”, Lumpyngngad Shillong, Meghalaya – 793014

¶10

2. Government of Meghalaya Through the Chief Secretary, Rilang Building, Room No.321, Meghalaya Secretariat, Shillong, Meghalaya – 793001 …. Respondent(s)

¶11

Date of hearing: 02.01.2025

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶13

For Applicant(s) : Dr. Alana Golmei, Adv. (in Virtual Mode)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

We have heard Dr. Alana Golmei, learned Counsel appearing (in

¶16

Virtual Mode) on behalf of the Applicant.

¶17

The Applicant of the present Original Application is stated to be the Proprietor of M/s. Shanlang Stone Crusher, a stone crushing unit located at Bhoirymbong Lumdaitkhla, Ri Bhoi District, Meghalaya. It is stated that the Applicant has received Consent to Establish (CTE) in the year 2012 for the stone crushing unit and was thereafter granted Consent to Operate (CTO) which was renewed on 19.09.2016 valid until 31.10.2020 for operating a stone crusher to produce graded stone chips. It is further stated that in May-June

¶18

¶19

2019, the Applicant, for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of his operations, acquired a secondary stone crusher, specifically a “Mashin Tylliat Maw” (Aggarwalla Stone Crusher 16X10) to handle the oversized aggregates produced by the licensed primary stone crusher unit. This secondary stone crusher was operational for a brief period between June and August 2019 and was installed without the required permission from the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board.

¶20

It is stated that in September 2019, officers of the District Administration had visited the Applicant’s site and directed the shutdown of the secondary Stone Crusher due to its unlicensed status. The unit was sealed on 08.09.2019 and the Applicant was directed to submit all necessary documents. In compliance, the Applicant had submitted the No Objection Certificate issued by the Labour Department and the Professional Tax Certificate obtained from the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council.

¶21

¶22

It is further stated that despite the fact that the secondary stone crusher was shut down in 2019, on 24.11.2020 the Applicant was served with a notice from the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board imposing an Environmental Compensation of Rs.38,56,250/(Rupees thirty eight lacs fifty six thousand two hundred fifty only) for unlicensed operation of the secondary stone crusher.

¶23

It is stated that the Applicant had represented to the Respondent No.1, Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board through letters dated 24.08.2021 and 17.02.2022 and by order dated 10.05.2024, the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board, Shillong had revised the Environmental Compensation to Rs.75000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only).

¶24

¶25

It is stated that the Applicant was issued another notice dated 19.08.2024 demanding payment of the Environmental Compensation. It is stated that the letter dated 19.08.2024 refers to the initial demand of Rs.38,56,250/- (Rupees thirty eight lacs fifty six thousand two hundred fifty only) thus “creating a confusion” with regard to the actual amount payable. In para 10 of the Original Application it is stated that the Applicant is willing to make payment of revised Environmental Compensation of Rs.75,000/(Rupees seventy five thousand only).

¶26

We do not find any anomaly or ‘confusion’ in the order of the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board dated 19.08.2024 since it not only refers to the initial order of 24.11.2020 wherein the Environmental Compensation of Rs.38,56,250/had been computed but also refers to the subsequent letter of the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board dated 10.05.2024 which itself mentions that on the representation of the Applicant, the Environmental Compensation computed under the order of 24.11.2020 had been revised to Rs.75,000/-. The apprehension of ‘confusion’ stated by the Applicant is thoroughly misconceived, misplaced and misleading.

¶27

The Applicant in para 10 of his Original Application has also stated that “the revised compensation of Rs.75,000/- appears to be a reasonable assessment, considering the scale of operations, and the Applicant is willing to make this payment immediately.”

¶28

In the course of the argument, Dr. Alana Golmei, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant may be granted time to deposit the amount of Environmental Compensation of Rs.75000/-.

¶29

¶30

In this view of the matter, we dismiss the Original Application giving liberty to the Applicant to deposit the amount of Rs.75,000/(Rupees seventy five thousand only) within 15 days .

¶31

I.As, if any, stand dismissed accordingly.

¶32

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

.....................................
B. Amit Sthalekar, JM
…..........................................
Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM
January 02, 2025,
Original Application No.230/2024/EZ
(I.A. No.127/2024/EZ)
SKB

¶34

Shri Shanlang W Kharbangar v. Meghalaya Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shanlang W Kharbangar v. Meghalaya Pollution Control Board

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

Srinivas M Mehta vs State of Goa through the Chairman Goa State Pollution Control Board

Omveer Singh vs Purvanchal Projects Private Limited

Sushil Chaudhary vs

Kamlesh Singh vs

News Item Titled "Air Quality Alert Gujarat Has 15 SO2 Hotspots" Appearing in the Times of India Dated 03.12.2024 vs

Akhilesh Kumar vs District Collector

Jay Kumar vs State of Jharkhand

Muheeudeen vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 31/2023 in Original Application No. 43/2020 of Bonani Kakkar vs Oil India Limited

1. Babuli Jena S/O Krsushna Chandra Jena 27YEARS vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Bimal Baroi and Ors. vs State of Assam and Ors.

Shri Shanlang W Kharbangar vs Meghalaya Pollution Control Board

Villagers of Jaykrishnapur Lokkhipur and Gohogram Represented by One Bimal Bhakta vs the Union of India Service Throuth Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change

Jay Kumar vs State of Jharkhand