National Green Tribunal
Anurag Sharma vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 20 December, 2022
Item No. 12 (Court No. 2)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI.
(Through Physical Hearing with Hybrid VC Option)
Original Application No. 725/2022
Anurag Sharma ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ...Respondents
Date of hearing: 20.12.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER.
Applicant: None.
Respondents: Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Mr. Shinghra Kumar and Mr. B.
Venkatraman, Advocates for respondent no. 2.
Mr. Pradeep Misra, Advocate for UPPCB (through VC).
Application is registered based on a letter petition received by Post.
ORDER
1. Mr. Anurag Sharma, Member of Parliament from Jhansi has sent by Post the present letter petition, which has been treated and registered as original application, complaining about damage to the agricultural crops by fly ash dust emission from 3X660 MW Thermal Power plant established in the year 2015 in the area of village Mirchwara and Burogaon in District Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh. The applicant has submitted that dust emission from the fly ash dumps of the plant is causing serious health hazards to local residents and stray animals due to air pollution. The applicant has also mentioned that the applicant, being a member of the Permanent Committee of the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, requested the Managing Director of the Bajaj Power Generation Company Ltd., Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg, O. A. No. 725/2022 Anurag Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. -2- Noida in the year 2020 for proper disposal of the fly ash but requisite remedial action was not taken.
2. Vide order dated 18.11.2022, notice was ordered to be issued to the project proponent-M/s. Bajaj Power Generation Company Ltd., through its Managing Director requiring the same to file reply in respect of the averments made in the application within one month.
3. In compliance thereof, reply on behalf of the Respondent No. 2- Lalitpur Power Generation Company Ltd. (the project proponent) has been filed vide email dated 17.12.2022.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for respondent no. 2-the project proponent and gone through the reply filed by it.
5. In its reply, respondent no. 2-the project proponent has made averments regarding 100% fly Ash utilization target but a perusal of monthly abstract of Ash generation and utilization filed with the reply shows that substantial part is being used in the reclamation of low lying areas. However, particulars of the low lying areas which have been reclaimed by utilization of fly Ash have not been mentioned. Mentioning the particulars of such land is considered to be necessary to know the efficacy of utilization of fly Ash and its impact on environment. Further, it may be observed that during the period 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 part of fly Ash was utilized in making of fly Ash bricks/blocks/tiles etc. but during the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 and 01.04.20221 to 31.03.2022, there was no utilization of fly Ash in making of fly Ash bricks/blocks/tiles etc. The reasons for the same need to be ascertained. The question as to existence/development of industries manufacturing fly Ash bricks/blocks/tiles etc. in the area needs consideration for long term sustainability of fly Ashy utilization program. In its reply, O. A. No. 725/2022 Anurag Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. -3- respondent no. 2-the project proponent has also not mentioned anything about legacy fly Ash. In the eventuality of there being legacy fly Ash, respondent no. 2-the project proponent is required to take appropriate steps for utilization thereof, in accordance with environmental norms. In these facts and circumstances, respondent no. 2-the project proponent is required to file an additional affidavit giving requisite details in respect of the aspects highlighted above within one month by email at judicial- [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR supported PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.
6. None has appeared for the applicant today. The Registry is directed to send VC link to the applicant for joining the proceedings on the next date of hearing, if so, desired.
7. In view of the averments made in the application and reply filed by the project proponent, we consider it appropriate to constitute a Joint Committee to verify the factual position regarding compliance with EC/Consent Conditions and environmental norms by the project proponent. Accordingly, we constitute a Joint Committee comprising of representatives of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB), Regional Office-Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) at Lucknow, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Jhansi and the District Magistrate- Lalitpur, U.P. to undertake visit to the site within two weeks and verify the factual position regarding compliance with EC/Consent Conditions and environmental norms by the project proponent and submit its report within one month by email at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR supported PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.
O. A. No. 725/2022 Anurag Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. -4-
8. List for further consideration on 07.02.2023.
9. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB), Regional Office-Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) at Lucknow, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Jhansi and the District Magistrate-Lalitpur, U.P. by email for compliance Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM December 20, 2022 AVT