Dismissed

Yogesh Kumar v. Gupta Food Products

NGT9 May 2025Original Application No. 24/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant complained of environmental violations by a food processing unit operating without required consents. The Tribunal noted show cause notices were issued by the State Board and disposed of the matter, directing the Board to proceed strictly as per law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board to proceed against Respondent No.1 for environmental violations giving opportunity of being heard and pass orders within two months.

Yogesh Kumar vs Gupta Food Products — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No.07

¶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.24/2025/EZ

Yogesh Kumar `

Applicant(s)

Versus

M/S Gupta Food Products & Ors.

¶10

Respondent(s)

¶11

Date of hearing: 09.05.2025

¶12

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

¶13

For Applicant(s) : Ankur Sharma, Adv.

¶14

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Kumar, Adv. for R-2,

¶15

Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Adv. for R-4 (in Virtual Mode)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned Counsel is present for the Applicant. Learned Counsel files Vakalatnama on behalf of the Applicant ; the same is taken on record.

¶18

Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board has placed before us the show cause notice dated 07.05.2025 issued by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board to the Respondent No.1, M/s Gupta Food Products and submits that the matter has been fixed by the Board for hearing on 20.05.2025. learned Counsel states that affidavit shall also be filed in the course of the day itself. Let the affidavit be filed in the course of the day.

¶19

Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, learned Counsel is present (in Virtual Mode) on behalf of the Respondent No.4, District Magistrate/Collector, Dhanbad.

¶20

Rejoinder affidavit dated 08.05.2025 has been filed by the Applicant ; the same is taken on record.

¶21

¶22

Affidavit of service has been filed ; the same is taken on record.

¶23

The Respondent No.1, Private Respondent has not put in appearance but since the Respondent No.1 has been issued a show cause notice by the Board to appear on 20.05.2025 and hearing has been fixed before the Board on 20.05.2025, we are disposing of this matter at this stage itself.

¶24

(Final order of the said case will be uploaded in NGT website by separate sheets of paper).

¶25

B. Amit Sthalekar, JM

¶26

….......................................... Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM

¶27

May 09, 2025, Original Application No.24/2025/EZ SKB

Court No.1

Item No.07

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶32

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶33

Original Application No.24/2025/EZ

¶34

In the matter of: Yogesh Kumar Son of Nandlal Kumar Aged about – 30 years, R/o Pandit Niwas, Chaita Road Chamara Godam, Gomoh, P.O. – Gomoh, P.S. – Hariharpur, Dist – Dhanbad (Jharkhand) Pin Code - 828401

¶35

.... Applicant(s)

¶36

Versus

¶37

1. M/S Gupta Food Products Represented through its Proprietor Rupesh Gupta,

¶38

S/o Kanhai Ram Gupta

¶39

Having its Registered office at Chamra Godam, Gomoh, P.O. – Gomoh, P.S. – Hariharpur, Dist – Dhanbad (Jharkhand), Pin Code – 828401

¶40

2. The Member Secretary

¶41

Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Having office at Information Bhawan Campus, Dhurwa, P.O. – Dhurwa, Pin – 834004 P.S. – Jagarnathpur, Dist – Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶42

3. The Regional Officer

¶43

Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board,

¶44

Having office at HIG-I, Sardar Patel Nagar, Hirapur, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. – Dhanbad,, Dist – Dhanbad (Jharkhand), Pin – 826001

¶45

4. District Magistrate/Collector, Dhanbad Collectorate Building,,

¶46

Near Head Post Office, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) - 826001

¶47

.... Respondent(s)

¶48

Date of hearing: 09.05.2025

¶49

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

¶50

For Applicant(s) : Ankur Sharma, Adv.

¶51

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Kumar, Adv. for R-2, Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Adv. for R-4 (in Virtual Mode)

¶52

¶53

ORDER

¶54

The allegation of the Applicant in the present Original Application is that the Respondent No.1, M/S Gupta Food Products is operating food processing plant and in the process of its operations is generating toxic effluent as a by-product of the industrial processes which is contaminating the water with organic pollutants, chemicals and pathogens. It is stated that the Respondent No.1 (Plant) is near the house of the Applicant.

¶55

It is stated that he had made a complaint in the year 2022 against the Respondent No.1 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhanbad and has also been provided with the Inspection Report in response to his RTI application listing various non-compliance by the Respondent No.1.

¶56

It is stated that till date no action has been taken by the Respondents even though the said unit is operating without obtaining necessary Government Registration, NOC from Local Body, Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate from the Pollution Control Board. It is stated that the Applicant had filed Writ Petition in the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi being W.P.(C) No.4198 of 2023 Yogesh Kumar Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondents to take action against the Respondent No.8 therein (Respondent No.1 in the present Original Application). It is stated that the said Writ Petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand vide order dated 14.05.2024 giving liberty to the Applicant to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to seek his remedy in accordance with law. The order dated 14.05.2024 reads as under :-

¶57

¶58

“1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶59

2. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs :-

¶60

“That, the instant writ petition, petitioner prays for issuance of writ/writs. Order / Orders, direction/directions in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding upon the concerned Respondents to take action against private Respondent No.8 for running illegal food plant without obtaining necessary Government Registration. Environmental Clearance, Food Licence in the midst of Residential Area just in the neighbourhood of the petitioner causing serious damage to local Environment. Polluting the local Water table by releasing obnoxious of positions smoke emanating from spurious wiles being a used a manufacturing of food products.”

¶61

3. After some argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with a liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law.

¶62

4. Permission is accorded.

¶63

5. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶64

It is stated that in respect of the previous complaint made by the Applicant against the Respondent No.1, in 2022 an inspection of the Respondent No.1 site was carried out by the Khadya Suraksha Padhadhikari (Food Safety Officer) on 01.04.2022, copy of which has been supplied to the Applicant on his Application under the RTI (Right to Information) Act and copy of the Inspection Report has been filed on record and reads as under :-

The District Magistrate, Dhanbad along with his affidavit has filed an Inspection Report of an inspection carried out on 26.03.2025. The said Inspection Report reads as under :-

The Applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit with photographs.

¶77

A perusal of the Inspection Report of the inspection carried out on 01.04.2022 shows that :-

¶78

i) the Respondent No.1 has not displayed the FSSAI license at prominent location ;

¶79

ii) drainage facility is not available ;

¶80

iii) sewage water is pumped out and then taken in tanks to be disposed of ;

¶81

iv) food material is not stored on pallets and were stacked against the wall ;

¶82

v) the finished products were lying directly on the floor ; and

¶83

there was Partial Compliance on most of the parameters mentioned in the Inspection Report. The Report also mentions that No Objection Certificate (NOC) from local body or Municipality and Consents from the State Pollution Control Board which is mandatory, was not produced at the time of inspection.

¶84

The subsequent Inspection Report mentions that effluent was being discharged in the nearby Low Lying Land through pipes as no drainage channel was provided as alleged by the Applicant but on the date of inspection it was found that the Respondent No.1 has provided pipeline and channels which have channelized the waste water discharged into the Soak Pit and there is no discharge of Processed Effluent in the Open Low Lying Area ; Soak Pit has been constructed using latticed brick work for disposal of Processed Effluent. The Report also mentions that during inspection, effluent sample was collected and sent for analysis and the Test Report shows abnormally high pH value - 4.89, COD value – 2292 and other parameters which are beyond the prescribed limits. It was

¶85

¶86

also noted by the Committee that the Respondent No.1 has not provided Effluent Treatment Plant for treatment of Processed Effluent.

¶87

The Committee has therefore issued directions to the Respondent No.1 to obtain Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and to provide Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) as a proper facility for disposal of Processed Effluents ; the Unit must provide for electric Chulha / Cleaner Fuels such as Soft Coke along with Fume Ventilation System and provide proper demarcation of its land and pucca boundary wall from all sides.

¶88

The Applicant in his rejoinder has alleged that the sample was not properly collected during inspection and not even sealed.

¶89

We have heard Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned Counsel for the Applicant ; Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4, District Magistrate/Collector, Dhanbad and perused the documents on record.

¶90

From the two Inspection Reports, several environmental violations have been found. It is also established that the Respondent No.1 Unit is operating without Consent to Establish (CTE and Consent to Operate (CTO) from the State Board.

¶91

The Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board has filed affidavit dated 09.05.2025 wherein it is stated that a show cause notice has been issued to the Respondent No.1 Unit vide Board’s Memo No.1265 dated 07.05.2025 informing the Respondent No.1 that it has violated the norms of environment by operating the Unit

¶92

¶93

without obtaining Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate from the Board and therefore, show cause notice has been issued to the Unit and the date of hearing has been fixed for 20.05.2025 to show cause and explain why the Environmental Compensation be not levied and legal action initiated against the Respondent No.1.

¶94

We may note that notices were issued in the case on 14.02.2025. The case was taken up on 15.04.2025 but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent No.1. Today also no one has appeared for the Respondent No.1.

¶95

From the documents on record, we find that in respect of the environmental violations noted in the two Inspection Reports, show cause notice dated 07.05.2025 has been issued to the Respondent No.1 by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and 20.05.2025 has been fixed to enable the Respondent No.1 to show cause on that date.

¶96

In this view of the matter, since the Jharkhand Pollution Control Board is now seized of the matter and has initiated proceedings against the Respondent No.1 for alleged environmental violations, we do not wish to express any opinion with regard to the Environmental Compensation to be determined against the Respondent No.1 as any opinion expressed by us may prejudice the defense of the Respondent No.1 before the Board.

¶97

We therefore dispose of this Original Application with a direction to the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board to proceed against the Respondent No.1 for environmental violations strictly as per law giving him an opportunity of being heard and thereafter pass appropriate orders within a period of two months hereof.

¶98

¶99

The Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board shall file affidavit of compliance by 15.07.2025 .

¶100

I.As, of any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶101

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶102

B. Amit Sthalekar, JM

¶103

….......................................... Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM May 09, 2025, Original Application No.24/2025/EZ SKB

¶104

Yogesh Kumar v. Gupta Food Products

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Kumar v. Gupta Food Products

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 Published in the Tribune Dated 16TH January 2023 Titled Joshimath Disaster a Warning for Mussoorie vs

Ravindra Kumar vs State of Bihar

Citizens for Green Doon Cfgd vs State of Uttarakhand

Mantu Soni @Shani Kant vs

Ranjan Singh vs State of Bihar through Chief Secretary

News Item Titled Large Portion of Forest Areas in Kamrup M Under Encroachment Govt Appearing in the Assam Tribune Dated 06 11 2024 vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Assam

Vikram Rathore vs Union of India Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

News Item Titled "Villagers Demanding Shifting of Silicon Factory from Niglok Igc Appearing in the Arunachal Times Dated 28.04.2025" vs

Kali Charan Chand vs the Chief Secretary of Odisha

Ravindra Kumar vs State of Bihar

Raghunath Maity vs West Bengal Pollution Control Board

News Item Titled the Last Feral Horses in India Appearing in Mongabay Dated 05 11 2024 vs Chief Wildlife Warden Assam

Dr R K Singh vs Union of India

Dr R K Singh vs Union of India