National Green Tribunal
Raghunath Maity vs West Bengal Pollution Control Board on 7 May, 2025
Item No.07 Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA
(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)
Original Application No.64/2023/EZ
Raghunath Maity Applicant(s)
Versus
West Bengal Pollution
Control Board & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 07.05.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sandip Ghosh, Adv. a/w
Mr. Partha Sarkar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Adv. for R-1,
Mr. Sibojyoti Chakrabarti, Adv. for R-2 to 5,
Mr. Arshad Hussain, Adv. for R-6 (in Virtual Mode)
ORDER
1. Mr. Sandip Ghosh, assisted by Mr. Partha Sarkar, learned Counsel is present on behalf of the Applicant.
2. Heard Mr. Sandip Ghosh assisted by Mr. Partha Sarkar, learned Counsel for the Applicant ; Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 ; Mr. Sibojyoti Chakrabarti, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned Counsel appearing (in Virtual Mode) on behalf of the Respondent No.6.
(Final order of the said case will be uploaded in NGT website by separate sheets of paper).
.....................................
B. Amit Sthalekar, JM .............................................
Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM
May 07, 2025,
Original Application No.64/2023/EZ
SKB
1
Item No.07 Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA
(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE) Original Application No.64/2023/EZ In the matter of:
Raghunath Maity Son of Late Bibhuti Bhusan Maity, Residing at Village + Post Office - Meghadangar, Police Station - Panskura, District - Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721152 .... Applicant(s) Versus
1. West Bengal Pollution Control Board Service through its Chairman, Department of Environment, Government of West Bengal, Paribesh Bhawan, 10A, Block-LA, Sector-11, Salt Lake City, Kolkata - 700106
2. The Superintendent of Police, Purba Medinipur, Haldia, Tamluk Mechada Road, Post Office - Tamluk, Uttar Chara Sankarara, District - Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721636
3. The Inspector-in-Charge, Panskura Police Station, Post Office + Police Station - Panskura, District - Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721 139
4. The Irrigation and Waterways Department Service through its Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Jalasampad Bhawan, 1st Floor, DF Block, Sector - I, Bidhannagar, Kolkata - 700091
5. The Executive Engineer Irrigation and Waterways Directorate, Purba Medinipur, Village Abasbari, Pairatungi, Post Office & Police Station - Tamluk, District - Purba Medinipur, 2 Pin - 721636
6. M/s Biswanath Bani Mill Service through upon the legal heirs of its Proprietor Dipak Kumar Das, Son of Late Kishori Das, Mithu Rani Das, Wife of Late Dipak Kumar Das and Suvankar Das Son of Late Dipak Kumar Das Residing at Village - Bakhrabaj, Post Office - Meghadangar, Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721152 .... Respondent(s) Date of hearing: 07.05.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sandip Ghosh, Adv. a/w Mr. Partha Sarkar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Adv. for R-1, Mr. Sibojyoti Chakrabarti, Adv. for R-2 to 5, Mr. Arshad Hussain, Adv. for R-6 (in Virtual Mode) ORDER
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
2. This Original Application has been filed by the Applicant seeking a direction to the Respondent No.3 to seal the premises of M/s Biswanath Bani Mill situated at P.S.-Panskura, Mouza- Meghadanagar, J.L. No.92, Dag No.164, District-Purba Medinipur. It is alleged that the said Mill has been setup by its erstwhile Proprietor Dipak Kumar Das (since deceased) by obtaining Consent to Establish (CTE) from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board on Plot No.165, Mouza-Meghadanagar, J.L. No.92, Khatian No.157 but actually the Mill has been setup on Plot No.164, Mouza- Meghadanagar, J.L. No.92 since the Plot No.164 and 165, Mouza- Meghadanagar, J.L. No.92, Khatian No.157 belong to the Irrigation 3 and Waterways Department, Govt. of West Bengal, as per information obtained from the BL&LRO, Panskura-I. This shows that the Consent to Establish (CTE) has been procured by the Mill Respondent No.6 by misrepresentation and suppression of facts and without submitting the land records. From the averments of the Original Application it is seen that there have been several rounds of litigation before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta and also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. The allegation of the Applicant is that the Mill is operating without a valid Consent to Operate (CTO) and order was also issued by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board during the hearing held on 25.03.2006 directing the Respondent No.6, Mill, not to operate without a valid Consent to Operate (CTO) as per record of proceedings/order dated 25.03.2006, Annexure-A-8 to the Original Application.
4. Further allegation of the Applicant is that the Mill is operating without valid consents i.e., Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act in 1981 as well as Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
5. It is further stated that the Applicant moved an application under the RTI on 30.11.2022 before the GM-DIC, Purba Medinipur, enquiring whether any Consent to Operate (CTO) has been issued in favour of the Respondent No.6 and he was informed by RTI reply dated 10.01.2023, Annexure-A-40 to the Original Application, that the status of Consent to Operate (CTO) of M/s Biswanath Bani Mill, P.O.-Meghadanagar, P.S.-Panskura, District-Purba Medinipur, 4 is rejected which shows that even as of today the Respondent No.6 is operating the Mill without a valid Consent to Operate (CTO).
6. The contention of the Applicant is that for the same issue as involved in the present Original Application the local people and adjoining villagers had made an Application dated 16.07.2005 to the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur, B.D.O. Panskura-I, Officer-in-Charge, Panskura P.S., Divisional Manager, Tamluk (D) Division, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited ('WBSEDCL' for short) and Pollution Control Board, Paribesh Bhavan, Salt Lake City, Kolkata. It is stated that no action was taken by the State Authority against the Mill. The Applicant along with others had filed W.P. No. 17547(W) of 2005 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. It is stated that the Hon'ble High Court directed the Respondents to file a Report regarding action taken against the encroachers and illegal constructions. Copy of the order dated 18.11.2005 reads as under :-
"The Respondent State is directed to give a report of its further actions taken against the encroachers and illegal constructions in the area. For that purpose three weeks' time is granted. The matter shall appear after three weeks in the meantime a complete report shall be given of the operations by the State Respondents."
7. It is stated that in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, a Compliance Report was filed by the Irrigation and Waterways Department, Government of West Bengal stating that the unauthorized construction had been demolished from the river bund with the aid of the Police authority. It is stated that thereafter, by an order dated 16.12.2005, the W.P. No. 17547(W) of 5 2005 was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 16.12.2005. The order dated 16.12.2005 reads as under :-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties. Pursuant to the previous order of this Court dated 18th November, 2005 a report has been filed before this Court and signed by one Koushik Basak who is the Sub-Divisional Officer, Panskura Irrigation Sub-Division No.2. From the said report it appears that the illegal construction in question have been demolished on 2nd December, 2005 with the help of police. The said report formed part of the records of this case. In view of the said report, a copy whereof has been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this application any further. Hence, this application is dismissed Urgent xerox certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking."
8. It is stated that sometime in 2006 the Proprietor of the Mill in question again started to operate on the land of the Irrigation & Waterways Department, Government of West Bengal without obtaining Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) from the State Board, further causing Air and Sound pollution. It is stated that the Applicant complained before the West Bengal Pollution Control Board and the Board directed the parties to appear before it on 25.03.2006 and after hearing the parties, the Board passed an order on 25.03.2006. The record of proceedings dated 25.03.2006 reads as under :-
"RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 25-03-2006 Name of the Officer present at the time of hearing Sri Biswajit Mukherjee Sr. Law Officer, WBPCB All parties appeared.
It is a complaint against a husking mill. It appears that both two husking mills, obtained NOC from the State Board. Sri Dipak Kr.6
Das obtained NOC on 08.01.2003, and Manasi Bani Mill obtained NOC on 08-04-2005.
Sri Dipak Kr. Das, obtained NOC only for rice milling and Smt. Manasi Maity obtained for husking mill, for spice grinding, and mustered oil.
It appears that these two units only obtained ('Consent to Establish' but none of the unit obtained 'Consent to Operate' as per the provisions of Section 25 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and also under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Hence these two units are directed not to operate till obtaining 'Consent to Operate' of the State Board and after submission of application for 'Consent to Operate' by the units, the Regional Office of the State Board should inspect the units and dispose of the 'Consent to Operate' application within the stipulated time as fixed up under the law and inform the Public Grievance Cell of the State Board. Accordingly the matte stands disposed of with a direction to local police station, that said two mills may not operate as required under the law."
9. It is stated that sometime in 2008, the Applicant obtained Electricity Bill of M/s Biswanath Bani Mill, the Respondent No.6 and it came to light that the Mill was carrying on operation in spite of not obtaining Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate. It is stated that the Applicant again complained to the Board and the Board issued notices to both the parties to appear before it on 22.05.2009. It is stated that the proceedings were held before the Board on 22.05.2009 in the presence of the Applicant but no one has appeared on behalf of the Unit in spite of notice being issued to the Unit and thereafter, an order was passed by the Board on 28.05.2009 directing the Respondent No.6 to close its functioning with immediate effect and the Officer-in-Charge, Panskura Police Station was directed to execute the Closure Order. It was also directed that if it is found that the said Unit is established on 7 Irrigation & Waterways Department land, then the entire construction needed to be demolished in consultation with the Irrigation and Waterways Department, Government of West Bengal. The record of proceedings of 28.05.2009 is extracted hereinunder :-
"RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Sri Raghunath Maity, Post Master of Meghadanga Post Office, appeared on behalf of the complainant. None appeared on behalf of the unit even after proper notice being issued to the unit.
State Board received a complaint against an unit namely M/s. Biswanath Bani Mill, Vill. & P.O. Meghadanga, Dist: Purba Medinipur, W.B. for a considerable period of time and number of regulatory orders issued against unit, but it is reported that the unit is still creating environmental hazards in the surrounding areas of the unit.
The Post Master of Meghadanga Post Office submits that due to running of the diesel machine of the unit under question, serious air pollution and noise pollution are being generated and therefore, office work is largely hampered.
It reveals from the earlier records the said unit was established on irrigation land and the same was duly demolished by the competent authority and the same was also reported to the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta, in connection with W.P. No.17547 (W) of 2005. But it appears that the said unit once again started in irrigation land and also without 'Consent to Establish' and 'Consent to Operate' of the State Board which is a serious violation of the law of the land.
Accordingly, the said unit is directed to close its functioning with immediate effect and Officer in Charge, Panskura Police Station should execute the closure order and if it is found the said unit is established on the irrigation land then the entire construction need to be demolished in consultation with Irrigation Department. Local Police Station may also take pro-active move in this matter.
Secretary, WBSEDCL is also requested to advise his good office to disconnect the electricity of the said unit with intimation to the West Bengal Pollution Control Board. As per order of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta, WBSEDCL or any electric supplying authority should not extend electricity to any unit who have not obtained 'Consent to Establish' from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board.8
During hearing, Senior Environmental Engineer-(P) of the State Board present in the hearing and placed the inspection report for consideration of the hearing officer.
Accordingly, matter stands disposed of."
10. It is stated that aggrieved by the order dated 28.05.2009, passed by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board, the Respondent No.6 through its Proprietor filed a Writ Petition No.10855(W) of 2009 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and on 26.11.2009, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition.
11. The Hon'ble High Court (page 101 of the paper book) quashed the order passed by the Board dated 28.05.2009 and directed restoration of the supply of electricity to the Unit of the Petitioner immediately subject to payment of necessary charges. The order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 26.11.2009 reads as under :-
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his client presently is not encroaching any land owned by the Irrigation Department. The said learned advocate has further submitted that the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Purba Medinipur, has already issued the acknowledgement of Entrepreneurs Memorandum being annexure 'P-3' to the writ petition. The West Bengal Pollution Control Board Authorities, however, directed the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. to disconnect the supply of electricity to the unit of the petitioner as the said unit did not obtain the 'Consent to Establish' from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board. The learned advocate for the petitioner referred to the memo dated 8th January, 2004 issued by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board whereby and whereunder the said Pollution Control Board granted 'Consent to Establish' to the unit. The relevant direction of the Chief Law Officer as mentioned in the memo dated 28th May, 2009 is quoted below :
"Secretary, WBSEDCL is also requested to advise his good office to disconnect the electricity of the said unit 9 with intimation to the West Bengal Pollution Control Board. As per order of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta, WBSEDCL or any electric supplying authority should not extend electricity to any unit who have not obtained 'Consent to Establish' from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board."
Since the petitioner has admittedly obtained the 'Consent to Establish' for the unit and at present there is no encroachment of any land by the petitioner belonging to Irrigation Department, I do not find any reason as to why the WBSEDCL authorities will not restore the supply of electricity to the said unit. However, I make it clear that in the event the respondent WBSEDCL authorities find that the petitioner is still encroaching any government land then supply of electricity should not be restored in terms of this order. With the aforesaid directions, I dispose of this writ petition and quash the order passed by the Chief Law Officer under memo dated 28th May, 2009 being Annexure 'P-4' to the writ petition. The respondent no.7 is directed to restore the supply of electricity to the unit of the petitioner immediately subject to payment of necessary charges.
There will be, however, no order as to costs."
12. It is stated that in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) by its order dated 26.12.2009 (page 102 of the paper book) directed the Respondent No.6 Unit to submit the following documents :
i) Whether the land bearing Plot No.165, Khatian No.157, J.L. No.92, Mouza - Meghadangar where your Mill is situated, owned by you or not ?
a) If yes, proper authentic documents are required to be submitted positively by 08.01.2010 for onward submission of the same to the Court.10
b) If not, your service line is liable to be disconnected as per Court order dated 26.11.2009.
13. It is stated that this order was followed by reminders to the Respondent No.6 and thereafter, physical disconnection of the electricity connection was carried out and a Report to that effect was submitted by the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) on 29.12.2010 addressed to the Divisional Manager, Tamluk (D) Division, WBSEDCL, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur informing that the disconnection had been carried out.
14. It is stated that aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL), Dipak Kumar Das, the Proprietor, Respondent No.6 filed Writ Petition No.460(W) of 2011 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta by its order dated 14.01.2011. The Order dated 14.01.2011 reads as under :-
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Counsel concedes that the petitioner is not the owner of the property wherefrom supply of electricity was given to him. Supply has been disconnected in terms of an order of this Court. The impugned decision is at p.30 In view of the fact that the petitioner has no right to take electricity from any pole at the place in question, I do not find any reason to direct the licensee to reconnect his supply.
Counsel has said that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned decision, then the petitioner may be given liberty to apply for new connection.
Needless to say that in view of the provisions of s.43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the petitioner is free to apply seeking supply of electricity, and that if an application is filed, the licensee will incur a statutory obligation to decide the application. But he is not entitled to any relief in this case.11
For these reasons, the art.226 petition is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox."
15. It is stated that the Respondent No.6 through its Proprietor late Dipak Kumar Das challenged the order of the High Court dated 14.01.2011 before the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court in M.A.T. No.622 of 2011+C.A.N. 4506 of 2011+C.A.N. 4511 of 2011 Mr. Golam Mastafa versus Mr. Rammohan Chattopadhyay. The Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the M.A.T. No.622/2011 vide its order dated 26.08.2011. The order dated 26.08.2011 reads as under :-
12 13
16. It is also stated that against the order dated 26.11.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.10855(W) of 2009, the Applicant filed Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta being F.M.A. No.1438 of 2014 Raghunath Maity Versus Dipak Kumar Das & Ors. It is stated that 14 the aforesaid Appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 04.09.2014. The order dated 04.09.2014 reads as under :-15 16 17
17. It is stated that thereafter, the Assistant Engineer and Station Manager, Panskura issued a letter dated 12.12.2014 to the B.L.&.L.R.O., Panskura-I with a request to supply authentic documents to identify the land of the Respondent No.6 industry as to whether it is situated on Government land or not for purposes of disconnection of electricity connection.
It is stated that the B.L.&.L.R.O. did not supply the concerned documents to the Applicant and therefore, the Applicant herein filed W.P. No.3284(W) of 2015 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta.
18. The aforesaid W.P. No. 3284(W) of 2015 was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court by its judgment and order dated 25.02.2015. The order dated 25.02.2015 reads as under :-
18
19. It is stated that thereafter, the Applicant made a complaint before the West Bengal Pollution Control Board against the Respondent No.6 Mill and on the basis of the said complaint, the concerned Board passed an order on 19.01.2015 in a Record of Proceedings observing that the Applicant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority to get redressal of the environmental problem arising from the alleged husk Mill (M/s Biswanath Bani Mill). The order dated 19.01.2015 reads as under :-
19
"RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Ld. Advocate Sukumar Ghosh appears on behalf of the complainant. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent party.
Ld. Advocate has drawn our attention to the order of the State Board (earlier passed on 22-05-2009) and also order of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta, passed on 04-09-2014. The State Board is pursuing this matter for a considerable period of time. Order of the State Board and Hon'ble High Court are quite clear and there are no ambiguity attached thereto.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, Ld. Advocate is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority to get redressal of the environmental problems arising out from alleged husking mill (M/s. Biswanath Bani Mill). In view of aforesaid position, the State Board has no other option to act on this matter further.
Subsequently, at about 3-00 P.M., the unit appears and submitted that they are now in the process of doing wheat grinding and spice grinding activity. However, unit is directed to obtain 'Consent to Operate' of the State Board immediately.
Finally, the above proceedings read over and explained to them."
20. It is further stated that the WBSEDCL passed an order dated 29.06.2015 directing the Divisional Manager, Tamluk Division to disconnect the electricity of the Respondent No.6 Mill to ensure compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 04.09.2014 passed in F.M.A. No.1438/2014. Thereafter, by an order dated 13.01.2016, the electricity connection of the industrial premises of the Respondent No.6 was disconnected (page 134 of the paper book). It is stated that the aforesaid order of 13.01.2016 was challenged by the Proprietor of the Respondent No.6 late Dipak Kumar Das before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.7648(W) of 2015 and since no counter affidavit had been filed by the 20 Respondents therein, the Hon'ble High Court observed that the disconnection of electric line to the premises of the Petitioner therein (Respondent No.6 herein) has been in violation of the principles of natural justice and a direction was issued to the concerned Respondent to restore the electric connection within a period of seven days upon payment of charges and the Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 26.04.2016. The order dated 26.04.2016 at page 135 of the paper book (Colly) reads as under :- 21 22 23 24
21. It is stated that thereafter, the Applicant therein filed PIL W.P. 8300(W) of 2016 Raghunath Maity & Ors. versus State of West Bengal and Ors. in which the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court on 01.07.2016 directed the Pollution Control Board to enquire into the matter and place a Report on record as to whether the Mill is running in accordance with the decision contemplated including Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) in their favour. The order dated 01.07.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Calcutta High Court reads as under :-25 26
22. The West Bengal Pollution Control Board inspected the site in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court and thereafter submitted a Report dated 11.08.2016 which reads as under :- 27
23. It is stated that the aforesaid W.P. No.8300(W) of 2016 Raghunath Maity & Ors. versus State of West Bengal and Ors. was thereafter disposed of by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court by the order dated 07.04.2017. The order dated 07.04.2017 reads as under :-
28
24. It is stated that in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the West Bengal Pollution Control Board held the Record of Proceedings and passed an order on 11.05.2017 stating that the Respondent No.6 Mill comes under 'Green' Category but is operating without valid Consent to Operate of the Board. The Record of Proceedings (at page 151 (Colly) of the paper book) dated 11.05.2017 reads as under :-
29
25. It is stated that thereafter, the Collector and District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur passed an order dated 27.06.2017 directing the West Bengal pollution Control Board to comply with the order dated 11.05.2017.
26. It is stated that aggrieved by the inaction of the Respondents, the Applicant filed an Original Application No.137/2017/EZ which was disposed of by this Tribunal by its order dated 02.12.2019. This 30 order records that Report was filed on 27.11.2019 by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board showing that directions have been issued against the Unit to pay Environmental Compensation of Rs.70,500/- (Rupees seventy thousand five hundred only) with further direction to the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur to recover the same.
27. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the said order of the Tribunal dated 02.12.2019 read as under :-
31 32 33
28. It is stated that thereafter, the West Bengal Pollution Control Board by its order dated 10.05.2019 ordered Closure of the Respondent No.6 industry with the direction to the Officer-in-Charge, Panskura Police Station to enforce the order and submit Compliance Report before the West Bengal Pollution Control Board within seven days.
The order dated 10.05.2019 reads as under :-
34
29. It is stated that aggrieved by the order of the National Green Tribunal dated 02.12.2019, the Respondent No.6 Mill filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No.4760-4761 of 2021. It is stated that this Appeal was, however, withdrawn by the Appellant late Dipak Kumar Das as would be clear from the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 24.09.2021. The order dated 24.09.2021 is extracted hereinunder :-
30. It is however stated that without there being any order of any Authority on record, the Respondent No.6 Mill was de-sealed and unlocked as would be evident from the letter of the Inspector-in- 35
Charge, Panskura Police Station, Purba Medinipur dated 13.04.2022 and addressed to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Purba Medinipur. The letter dated 13.04.2022 reads as under
:-
31. It is stated that thereafter, the Applicant moved an RTI Application before the West Bengal Pollution Control Board which was replied by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board on 05.04.2022 clearly stating that :-
36
The State Board did not issue any "Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate" permission in favour of M/s Biswanath Bani Mill situated at Village + PO - Meghadangar, P.S. -
Panskura, District - Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721152 (page 170 of the paper book).
32. The allegation of the Applicant herein is that the letter of the Inspector-in-Charge, Panskura Police Station dated 13.04.2022 is absolutely misleading in as much as there was no direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to open the door of the Respondent No.6, Biswanath Bani Mill.
33. The Applicant has filed along with this Original Application, the copy of the reply affidavit filed by the Respondent No.6 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4760-4761 of 2021 wherein the stand of the Respondent Mill is that it is a 'Green' Category Mill and therefore, there is no scope of pollution in the locality or vibration as alleged.
34. We find that along with the Original Application, another RTI reply dated 10.01.2023 has been filed which is in reply to the query of the Applicant and the Directorate of Micro and Small Scale Enterprises has, with regard to the Status of Consent to Operate of the Respondent No.6 Mill stated as "Rejected". The RTI reply dated 10.01.2023 reads as under :-37 38
35. The West Bengal Pollution Control Board has filed its affidavit bringing on record an Inspection Report of an inspection carried out on 13.07.2023 which reads as under :-
39
36. In this Inspection Report, it is stated that the Unit M/s Biswanath Bani Mill was not in operation and was found under lock and key and no one was available to open the factory but referring to the earlier inspection carried out on 24.10.2017, the Report mentiones that the Unit has a wheat grinding and rice milling facility using 15HP electric motor and Mr. Suvankar Das, son of late Dipak Kumar Das informed that some renovation work of the building of the Unit was going on hence, production related activity was temporarily stopped. It is also stated that local residents have informed that sometimes the Unit performed grinding activity with the help of a small diesel engine (instead of electrical power as the line was found to be disconnected).
40
37. The Report also mentions that the land belongs to the Irrigation and Waterways Department, Government of West Bengal on which the Mill is situated and hence necessary clearance related to the land from the State Department is necessary. The Report also mentions that there is no information from the Certificate Office of the Collector with regard to deposit of Rs.70,500/- towards Environmental Compensation. It is stated that thereafter, an order was passed on 02.08.2023 by the Chief Engineer (O&E), West Bengal Pollution Control Board directing the Officer-in-Charge, Panskura Police Station, Purba Medinipur to take necessary steps so that the Unit should not operate in violation of the order of the State Board and if the Unit is found to be operating with the help of Diesel Generator, the Generator should be sealed.
38. The District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur has filed affidavits dated 25.08.2023, 27.08.2023 and 04.01.2024 and it is stated that with regard to recovery of Environmental Compensation of Rs.70,500/-, Certificate Proceedings have been drawn up by the Certificate Officer, Purba Medinipur vide Certificate No.01/2023 dated 23.08.2023 and notice had been issued to M/s Biswanath Bani Mill. It is also stated that the date of hearing was fixed for 24.08.2023 but the Certificate Proceedings was delayed and again fresh date has been fixed for 11.10.2023 and it is stated that now the Certificate Officer, District - Purba Medinipur has passed order dated 06.12.2023 directing the Certificate Debtor i.e. the Respondent No.6, Mr. Suvankar Das to pay Rs.90,578/- (Rupees ninety thousand five hundred seventy eight only) to the Certificate holder i.e. West Bengal Pollution Control Board in 24 instalments by way of Demand Draft and to send to the Court of Certificate 41 Officer the copy of the counter part of the Demand Drafts regularly and now the next date has been fixed for 19.02.2024. As of today i.e. 19.02.2024, it is not known as to whether the Environmental Compensation has been recovered from the Respondent No.6 or not.
39. The Officer-in-Charge, Panskura Police Station has filed affidavit bringing on record a Report of Inspection of the Respondent No.6 premises carried out on 22.01.2024. The Inspection Report reads as under :-
42
40.
41. The Inspection Report shows that during inspection, the Unit was found locked from outside and the locals have informed that the Unit is not operating for the last one year.
42. A further compliance affidavit has been filed by the Inspector-in-
Charge, Panskura Police Station dated 22.01.2025 mentioning that 43 the site was again inspected on 07.01.2025 and it was observed that the Mill was under lock and key ; owner of the Mill Mr. Dipak Kumar Das had died two years ago and after his death, his wife "would occasionally run the mill" but the local people could not say when the deceased's wife had last run the Mill. The Unit also could not produce statutory license as the owner had expired on 03.05.2022.
43. The West Bengal Pollution Control Board has also filed further affidavit bringing on record the Inspection Report of an inspection carried out on 22.01.2024 which has already been extracted hereinabove.
44. The Respondent No.6 has also filed affidavit dated 21.08.2023 stating that the order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the Tribunal has merged in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore there is no scope for realization of the Environmental Compensation. It is also stated that Dipak Kumar Das has since died and therefore, no prosecution can be ordered against the deceased person. However, so far as the matter of alleged violation against the operation of the Mill in violation of the environmental norms and Consents from the Board are concerned, the affidavit is silent.
45. We may note here that the present proceedings is not one of prosecution of late Dipak Kumar Das and in fact, the Respondent No.6 Mill has been impleaded through the legal heirs of the late Proprietor Dipak Kumar Das i.e. Mithu Rani Das, wife of late Dipak Kumar Das and Suvankar Das, son of late Dipak Kumar Das, therefore, the Original Application is maintainable. 44
46. The Respondent No.6 Biswanath Bani Mill has filed further affidavit dated 17.12.2024 making allegations against the Applicant having initiated the present proceedings on account of business rivalry but so far as environmental violations and non-possession of Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) from the Board are concerned, the affidavit is silent. All that has been stated in the affidavit is that no pollution, no disturbance and no nuisance has been caused by the Respondent No.6.
47. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Waterways Department, Purba Medinipur has filed affidavit stating that in terms of the letter of the Sub-Divisional Office, Panskura-(I) Sub Division - II dated 10.03.2023 regarding encroachment in the name of Biswanath Bani Mill on Plot No.163 and 164, J.L. No.92, Mouza - Meghadangar, Block P.S. - Panskura, District - Purba Medinipur, the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar - Tamluk, Purba Medinipur has been requested to take necessary legal action to remove the unauthorised construction from the Government land vide Memo dated 20.02.2023. It is stated that the plots in question are recorded in favour of the Irrigation and Waterways Department, Government of West Bengal and notices have already been issued to the concerned authorities including the Respondent No.6 Suvankar Das, son of late Dipak Kumar Das.
48. A further affidavit has been filed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Waterways Department dated 23.12.2024 stating that on 16.08.2024, a joint demarcation was conducted in respect of certain Plot Nos. including Plot 163 and 164 which belongs to the Irrigation and Waterways Directorate, Government of West Bengal and it was observed as under :-
45
i) the Respondent No.6 Biswanath Bani Mill was situated over Plot No.163 and 164 measuring area 630 sq.ft. = 1.45 decimal
ii) A raiyat of Plot number 223, Raghunath Maity, the present Applicant in this Original Application has himself has encroached an area of 603 sq.ft. i.e. = 1.38 decimal in Plot 164
iii) The Plot 224 belongs to Collector's Khatian classification as Rasta (Road) and this plot has also been closed by Raghunath Maity, the Applicant of the Original Application.
iv) The Applicant of the Original Applicant has encroached by constructing a brick wall asbestos shaded structure.
It is further stated that the Sub Divisional Officer, Panskura (I), Sub Division-II, Panskura, Purba Medinipur has requested the Sub Divisional Officer, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur to take necessary action in terms of Provisions of West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1962 so that encroachments may be removed from government land.
49. It is also stated that notices have been served upon the respective encroachers vide letter dated 22.08.2024 of the Sub Divisional Officer, Panskura (I), Sub Division-II, Panskura, Purba Medinipur and Eviction Proceedings Case No.07/2023 U/S 31(1) of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1962 has been initiated against the Applicant Raghunath Maity also.
50. The further contention of the Respondent No.6 that the order of the Tribunal dated 02.12.2019 had become void in view of the order of 46 the Supreme Court, the said submission is wholly misconceived in as much as the Special Appeal filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was withdrawn by the Appellant Dipak Kumar Das with the observation that he has represented before the competent authority and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the Special Appeal has only observed that the representation as submitted, the competent authority has to consider it in accordance with law.
51. From the documents on record, it is not in dispute that the Unit was sealed but under the garb of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 24.09.2021, the Unit was allowed to be opened by the Inspector-in-Charge, Panskura Police Station. A perusal of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would show that there is no such direction for de-sealing or re-opening of the Respondent No.6 Husk Mill. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has only recorded the submission of the Appellant before it that he has made a representation to the competent authority for reopening of the Husking Mill and while dismissing the Civil Appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has only observed that if the representation is submitted, the Competent Authority has to consider it in accordance with law. It is therefore clear that the Inspector-in- Charge, Panskura Police Station has sought to interpret the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and put words therein which were never expressed by the Hon'ble Court. The conduct of the then In- Charge, Panskura Police Station, prima facie, appears to have been deliberately to aid the Respondent No.6 to open the Husking Mill under the garb of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
52. Prima facie, the conduct of the Inspector-in-Charge, Panskura Police Station casts the shadow upon his integrity as a Government 47 Servant apart from the fact that he has chosen to interpret the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 24.09.2021. In fact, the letter of the Inspector-in-Charge, Panskura Police Station does not mention anywhere that he was in any doubt with regard to the language of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or that he had tried to seek instructions from the Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ) or from any other higher authority. The letter also does not show that the Officer-in-Charge, Panskura Police Station had sought legal opinion with reference to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In fact we find that he is straightway informing the Deputy Superintendent of Police that "the door of Biswanath Bani Mill Proprietor Dipak Kumar Das was opened" under the order of the Hon'Ble Supreme Court of India vide Civil Appeal No.4761 of 2021. The language of the letter of the Inspector-in-Charge, Panskura Police Station clearly shows that it is a unilateral act on his part and that, prima facie, he has acted in order to aid and facilitate the opening of the Biswanath Bani Mill (Respondent No.6 herein) quite against the various orders to close the Mill already on record and thus, the Inspector-in-Charge has rendered himself open to disciplinary proceedings for gross misconduct. Interpreting an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that too misinterpreting it to read something into the order which was never intended by the Court, not only constitutes, prima facie, contempt of the Court but amounts to gross misconduct.
53. Be that as it may, we need not say anything further and leave it open to the Higher Police Authorities to take appropriate action as they deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case against the then Officer-in-Charge, Panskura Police Station. 48
54. The letter of the Officer-in-Charge, Panskura Police Station dated 13.04.2022 clearly shows that the door of the Respondent No.6 Mill was opened. Admittedly the Mill is operating without any Consent to Operate (CTO) and Consent to Establish (CTE) as would be clear from the RTI reply of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board dated 05.04.2022.
55. The subsequent RTI reply of the Micro and Small Scale Enterprises / Directorate of Medium, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME), Purba Medinipur dated 10.01.2023 further shows the status of Consent to Operate of M/s Biswanath Bani Mill as 'Rejected'.
56. The subsequent Inspection Report dated 13.07.2023 shows that the said Mill was not in operation and was found under lock and key but the same Report also mentions that production activity of the said Mill was temporarily stopped as informed by Mr. Suvankar Das, son of late Dipak Kumar Das and the local residents also informed that sometimes the Unit performed grinding activity with the help of a small diesel engine, thus prompting the West Bengal Pollution Control Board to issue the subsequent order dated 02.08.2023 to the Officer-in-Charge, Panskura Police Station to take steps so that the Unit should not carry on its operation in violation of the order of the State Board. The inspection of the Unit carried out on 22.01.2024 also shows that the Unit was locked from outside and was not operating for one year. However, the fact that the door of the Mill was opened on 13.04.2022 by the Officer- in-Charge, Panskura Police Station and it was operating from time to time as informed by the local residents and only closed for renovation temporarily would render the Respondent No.6 Unit 49 liable for payment of Environmental Compensation which has already been computed against the Unit.
57. Further inspection of 07.01.2025 mentions that the wife of late Dipak Kumar Das would occasionally run the Mill.
58. We also find that Certificate proceedings for recovery of Environmental Compensation were pending till 19.02.2024. It is not know as to whether the proceedings has been completed and Environmental Compensation recovered from the Respondent No.6 or not.
59. Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.6 also submitted that the matter may be disposed of in the light of the documents on record.
60. We are aware of the fact that the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur has not been impleaded in the present proceedings as a Respondent but he has filed three counter affidavits and is therefore aware of the present proceedings and the orders passed herein by this Tribunal.
61. Therefore, on a conspectus of facts and the case history of the Respondent No.6, we dispose of this Original Application with a direction to the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur to ensure recovery of the Environmental Compensation from the Respondent No.6 within one month and file affidavit of compliance if the same has not already been recovered.
62. I.As, if any, stand disposed of accordingly 50
63. There shall be no order as to costs.
.....................................
B. Amit Sthalekar, JM ............................................. Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM May 07, 2025, Original Application No.64/2023/EZ SKB 51