Dismissed

Mr Santosh Kumar Gupta v. Bihar Pollution Control Board

NGT7 Jan 2025Original Application No. 237/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's original application regarding pollution from a local pond, holding that the High Court had already adjudicated the dispute and found no need for further directions. The order characterized the filing as bench hunting and imposed costs for abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed; the applicant was imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/- for abuse of process of court.

Mr Santosh Kumar Gupta vs Bihar Pollution Control Board — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No.01

¶2

Court No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶4

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶5

Original Application No.237/2024/EZ

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF

¶7

Mr. Santosh Kumar Gupta R/O Bara Bazar, Motipur, Fanya Patti, Nagar Parishad-Motipur, Ward No.7, Bakhri, Muzaffarpur, Motipur, Bihar PIN-843111

¶8

……….Applicant(s) Versus 1. Bihar State Pollution Control Board, (Through Member Secretary) Office: Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna, Bihar, PIN-800023 2. Director, Regional Office, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Muzaffarpur, Srai Syed Ali Chowk, Technical Chowk, Muzaffarpur-8420001 3. Circle Officer (C.O.), CCircle Office, Motipur, District-Muzaffarpur, Bihar-843111 ………..Respondent(s)

¶9

2. Director, Regional Office, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Muzaffarpur, Srai Syed Ali Chowk, Technical Chowk, Muzaffarpur-8420001

¶10

Date of hearing: 07.01.2025

¶11

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

¶12

For Applicant(s) : Ms. Rema Raina, Advocate (in Virtual Mode)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Heard Ms. Rema Raina, learned Counsel present (in Virtual Mode) for the Applicant.

¶15

The Applicant who is a resident of Bara Bazar, Motipur, Fanya Patti, Nagar Parishad-Motipur, Ward No.7, Bakhri, Muzaffarpur,

¶16

¶17

Motipur, Bihar has filed the present Original Application stating that a pond situated on R.S. Khata Number 266, R.S.P. No. 202 known as Mansarovar measuring area 0.68 decimal is a natural pond recorded as such in the revenue book, but because there is a residential colony in the surrounding area, the pond has been used for dumping of garbage which has created a grave situation by way of water and air pollution in the area causing foul smell, insects, etc.

¶18

¶19

¶20

It is also stated that earlier the Applicant had filed a Writ Petition No.12323 of 2024 in the Hon’ble High Court at Patna seeking restoration of the pond by way of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). A Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court, however, by its order dated 23.08.2024 had disposed of the said PIL Writ Petition observing that no further order is required. The Hon’ble High Court has recorded a finding that there was an order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the Executive Officer of the Motipur Nagar Parishad stating that previous order passed by the High Court in CWJC No.7525 of 2020 has been complied with. The Hon’ble High Court observed that the contents of the order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Motipur so far as the allegation of the pond being converted into a dumping ground for garbage is concerned, the same is absolutely incorrect and it has never been used for such purposes.

¶21

The Hon’ble High Court has also observed that “In fact, while the Mansarovar pond is in Ward no.7, the Motipur Nagar Parishad has demarcated an area in Ward no.14 for separation of different types of garbage and its resultant conversion to fertilizer. Specific steps have been taken so that no garbage should be dumped near the

¶22

¶23

pond and a board with warning has been put up that in case any garbage is dumped, penalty will be imposed”.

¶24

The Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court has also noted that the land in question is recorded in the name of Motipur Jamindar Company in the Revisional Survey Records of Rights. Steps for renovation could only be done of those ponds of which the Nagar Panchayat Motipur has title. So far as sale of articles by footpath vendors are concerned, at a distance of about 50 meters from the pond, a vending zone is being constructed and the foot path vendors would be shifted to this area marked as vending zone. 7. The Hon’ble High Court observed that in view of the several directions already issued by the High Court on 21.07.2023 passed in CWJC no.9692 of 2015 and steps taken by the respondent authorities; repeated directions on similar lines is not required to be given in the facts and circumstances of the case as the Court is satisfied that the respondents have taken steps in the matter.

¶25

¶26

The judgement and order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court dated 23.08.2024 passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12323 of 2024 (Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of Bihar) reads as under:

¶27

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶28

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12323 of 2024

¶29

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Gupta Son of Surendra Prasad, R/o – Bara Bazar, Motipur Fanya Patti Nagar Parishad Motipur, Ward No. 13, Bakhri, P.S. Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur.

¶30

……Petitioner/s
Versus

¶31

1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate(D.M.), Collectorate, District-Muzaffarpur, Bihar, Pin Code-842001.

¶32

2. The Circle Officer (C.O.), Circle Office-Motipur, District-Muzaffarpur. Pin Code-843111.

¶33

3. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government

¶34

¶35

of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna(Bihar).Pin Code-800015.

¶36

4. The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar, Pin Code-843111.

¶37

……Respondent/s Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY)

¶38

2 23-08-2024 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶39

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application in the nature of public interest litigation for a direction to the respondents to take urgent steps for restoration of the ancient Mansarovar pond located in the Motipur Nagar Parishad, Ward no.13 to its original nature and character, to complete the restoration of the said pond and for other reliefs.

¶40

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the filed CWJC no.7525 of 2020 for similar reliefs and the same was disposed of by an order dated 12.07.2021 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the authority concerned by filing a representation for redressal of his grievances and which was to be disposed of by a reasoned speaking order within the time fixed. The petitioner accordingly filed a representation. The same not having been disposed of, a contempt application (MJC no.2178 of 2021) was filed, however, during pendency of the same, the representation of the petitioner was disposed of by order dated 08.02.2022. Accordingly, by order dated 29.08.2023 the contempt application was dropped reserving liberty to the petitioner to assail the order dated 08.02.2022 in accordance with law.

¶41

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to the different orders passed by the Principal Bench at New Delhi of the National Green Tribunal and other orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also order dated 21.7.2023 by this Court in CWJC no. 9692 of 2015 to submit that the grievance of the petitioner as raised in his representative have not been redressed and the pond has not been restored to its original position.

¶42

5. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to the order dated 8.2.2022 passed by the Executive Officer of the Motipur Nagar Parishad submits that there is compliance of the directions of this

¶43

¶44

Court as contained in order dated 12.7.2021 passed in CWJC no.7525 of 2020.

¶45

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, it transpires from the contents of the order dated 8.2.2022 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Motipur that so far as the allegation of the pond having been converted into a dumping ground for garbage is concerned, the same is absolutely incorrect and it has never been used for such purpose. In fact, while the Mansarovar pond is in Ward no.7, the Motipur Nagar Parishad has demarcated an area in Ward no.14 for separation of different types of garbage and its resultant conversion to fertilizer. Specific steps have been taken so that no garbage should be dumped near the pond and a board with warning has been put up that in case any garbage is dumped, penalty will be imposed.

¶46

7. It further transpires from the stand of the respondents as borne out from the order dated 8.2.2022 read with the counter affidavit filed in the connected writ application that the land in question is recorded in the name of Motipur Jamindar Company in the Revisional Survey Records of Rights. Steps for renovation could only be done of those ponds of which the Nagar Panchayat Motipur has title. It is further stated that so far as sale of articles by footpath vendors are concerned, at a distance of about 50 meters from the pond, a vending zone is being constructed and the foot path vendors would be shifted to this area marked as vending zone.

¶47

8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that several directions have already been given by this Court in various orders including the order dated 21.7.2023 passed in CWJC no.9692 of 2015. Further steps having been taken by the respondent authorities is also borne out from the order dated 8.2.2022 disposing of the petitioners representation and repeated directions on similar lines is not required to be given in the facts and circumstances of the case as the Court is satisfied that the respondents have taken steps in the matter.

¶48

9. In the opinion of the Court no further order is required to be passed in the instant application. The application stands disposed of”.

¶49

In the present Original Application the Applicant is also referring to the orders passed by the Nagar Parishad-Motipur with Nagar Vikas and Awas Department dated 08.02.2022 and 31.12.2022 and in view of the order of the Hon’ble High Court declining to give any fresh directions, we are not inclined to interfere in the present

¶50

¶51

Original Application which is on absolutely same lines as his Writ Petition filed before the Hon’ble High Court at Patna and therefore, no case for interference is called for.

¶52

We may also observe that even though the subject matter of the petition relating to environment may fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, however, since the constitutional Court namely the Hon’ble High Court of Patna has already adjudicated the dispute on the very same facts after calling for a counter-affidavit having held that “repeated directions on similar lines is not required to be given in the facts and circumstances of the case as the Court is satisfied that the Respondents have taken steps in the matter”, therefore, we find no good ground for interfering in the present Original Application which is nothing but an attempt by the Applicant at Bench hunting by approaching this Tribunal after having failed to obtain relief from the Hon’ble High Court.

¶53

We also find that the photographs on which the Applicant is relying are all of 17.07.2021 which is prior to the passing of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Patna which shows that the Applicant is deliberately trying to mislead this Tribunal.

¶54

We are further of the view that if the Applicant’s apprehension is that the order of the Hon’ble High Court has not been complied with. The remedy for the Applicant is by way of contempt petition before the Hon’ble High Court and not by filing fresh Original Application before this Court.

¶55

In view of the above we impose cost of Rs. 10,000/- upon the Applicant for abuse of process of Court. The Applicant shall deposit the cost of Rs. 10,000/- with the Registrar of the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone by 24.01.2025 failing which the same shall

¶56

¶57

be recovered from him by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur as arrears of land revenue in accordance with law.

¶58

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur by the Registrar, National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata for necessary compliance. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur shall file affidavit of compliance by 15.02.2025.

¶59

The Original Application No.237/2024/EZ lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
16. I.As., if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.
.....................................
B. Amit Sthalekar, JM
…..........................................
Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM
January 07, 2025,
Original Application No.237/2024/EZ
OM

¶60

Mr Santosh Kumar Gupta v. Bihar Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Santosh Kumar Gupta v. Bihar Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muheeudeen vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Jay Kumar vs State of Jharkhand

Akhilesh Kumar vs District Collector

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

Shivendra Dutt Shukla vs State of Uttar Pradesh

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

Shailesh Singh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

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

Jay Kumar vs State of Jharkhand

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

Shri Shanlang W Kharbangar vs Meghalaya Pollution Control Board

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

Rajan Kumar vs State of Bihar

1. Jitendra Kumar Pradhan S/O Ram Chandra Pradhan Aged About 36 Years vs 1. State of Odisha through Chief Secretary Government of Odisha