National Green Tribunal
National Green Tribunal Southern Zone vs Government Of Kerala Rep By Its Chief ... on 11 August, 2020
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan
Item No.12 BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 12 of 2020 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Tribunal on its own motion Suo Motu
based on the news item in Mathrubumi,
Malayam newspaper dated 19.01.2020,
"The removal of debris in Maradu not according
to Norms - National Green Tribunal"
The Chief Secretary,
Kerala and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 11.8.2020
CORAM: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON‟BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER
For applicant: Suo motu by Tribunal
For Respondent(s): Mr. E.K. Kumaresan for R1, R3 and R5
Mrs. Rema Smrithi for R2
Mr. P.B. Sahasranaman for R4
ORDER
As per the order dated 21.1.2020, this Tribunal had suo motu registered the case on the basis of paper report published in Mathrubumi dated 19.1.2020 and constituted a committee to submit a report. We also directed that the entire things will have to be done under the supervision of the State 1 Level Monitoring Committee appointed in O.A.No.606 of 2018 by the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi and posted the case to 18.3.3030.
2. On 18.3.2020, this Tribunal had considered a status report which is extracted in para 2 of the order and also considered the independent report submitted by the Chairman of the State Level Monitoring Committee which is extracted in para 3 of the order and thereafter passed the following order:
"It is seen from the report submitted by the committee as well as the Chairman of State Level Monitoring Committee that there were serious lapses on the part of the Maradu municipality and also service provider in removing the debris which has collected due to the demolition of buildings.
Though there was certain direction given by the committee to suppress the air pollution and possible contamination of the Kayal water, no serious steps have been taken either by the Maradu municipality or by the service provider. It appears that Maradu municipality is not interested in carrying out the directions given by the committee, instead they were sticking on to the recommendations made by the technical committee which was appointed by the Government earlier for the purpose of supervising the demolition of the building as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The committee is only expected to supervise the possible pollution that is likely to cause at the time of demolition of the building and their 2 recommendations are nothing to do with the removal of the debris collected and also the steps to be taken by the Maradu municipality as well as the service provider to avoid the possible pollution that is likely to be caused on account of the collection of the debris in the demolition site till it is disposed of in a scientific manner as provided under the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016. There is a responsibility cast on the Maradu municipality to implement these rules in its letter and spirit.
If there is any violation found in implementing the rules and if there is any non-compliance of the directions given by the committee appointed by this Tribunal, either to the Maradu municipality or to the service provider which results in the pollution being caused to the environment as well as to the nearby Kayal then regulating authority namely, Pollution Control Board is duty bound to impose environmental compensation against those persons who are violating the norms and causing pollution.
Such an attempt is not seen taken in this case, though there were observations in the committee report that there were serious violations and deficiencies in carrying out the directions issued by the State Level Monitoring Committee as well as the committee appointed by this Tribunal.
So under such circumstances, we direct the Pollution Control Board to take appropriate legal action against those persons who are violating the 3 directions and causing pollution and affecting the environment including possible contamination of Kayal water which is likely to cause on account of the seepage of water that is likely to happen on account of pouring the water on the debris instead of sprinkling the same without providing necessary protective measures to avoid seepage. They are also directed to take sample of the Kayal water to find out as to whether there was any damage caused to the Kayal water on account of the negligent act on the part of the service provider and the Maradu municipality in taking action to remove the debris collected after demolition and not complying with the provision of the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016.
The committee is directed to submit the report to this Tribunal by e-mail at [email protected] or by e-filing."
The case was posted to 11.5.2020 for consideration of further report. On 11.5.2020, it was adjourned to 14.5.2020 by notification.
3. On 14.5.2020 this Tribunal considered the report submitted by the Chairman of the State Level Monitoring Committee and passed the following order:
"Learned counsel appearing for Pollution Control Board submitted a memo seeking two months time for filing the report. It is also mentioned in the report that due to the on going Covid -19 pandemic, the joint committee report could not be filed. Learned counsel also submitted that Pollution Control Board had independently inspected the area on 11.5.2020 and may be allowed to file 4 their independent report in this matter. It may be mentioned here that when a monitoring committee has been constituted in which Pollution Control Board is also a party, they are expected to coordinate with the committee and submit the joint report. Learned counsel appearing for State Authorities submitted that official committee members will be instructed to cooperate with the committee and inspect the area and submit the report as directed by this Tribunal. Pollution Control Board is also at liberty to file independent report as well so as to enable us to assess the present status. Pollution Control Board as well as the District Collector are directed to take steps to implement the direction given by the State Level Monitoring Committee in resolving the issue and take action against the service provider if they are not complying with the direction in implementing the disposal of demolition debris and waste as per Municipal Solid Waste Rules, 2016 and Demolition of Construction Waste Management Rules, 2016. The committee may also assess the environmental compensation if there is any damage caused on account of their lapse. Maradu Municipality, being the local body, in whose jurisdiction the incident happened, is also having responsibility under the concerned Rules in dealing with the demolition waste. They cannot shirk their responsibility and disobey the direction given by the State Level Monitoring Committee and the committee constituted by this Tribunal in order to protect environment under Article 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India as they are also having equal responsibility in this regard. For filing the report as directed by this Tribunal two months time has been granted as prayed for on the hope that the situation will come to normalcy after the lock down period is over. Further, the committee as well as the State Authorities will have to 5 take note of the fact that monsoon is going to set-in in Kerala State from the middle of May and if the debris is not cleared then it is likely to create leachate from the debris collected in the area which is likely to seep into the Kayal which is situated nearby and affect the water quality in the Koyal and the State Authorities are duty bound to protect the Kayal which is part of environment. Two months time is granted to the committee to file the report. The State Monitoring Committee is also directed to file their report to this Tribunal within the above time. The joint committee as well as the Monitoring Committee are directed to file the report to this Tribunal through e-mail at [email protected]. or e-filing within the above time. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the members of the committee as well as Maradu Municipality and the State Monitoring committee. Registry is also directed to issue notice to Maradu Municipality so that they can also enter appearance and make their submission in this regard.
and posted the case to 30.7.2020 for further report. On 30.7.2020, it was adjourned to 11.8.2020 by notification.
4. When the matter came up for hearing today through Video Conference, Mr. E.K. Kumaresan represented respondents 1, 3 and 5, Mrs. Rema Smirithi represented second respondent and Mr. Sahasranaman represented fourth respondent - Maradu Municipality.
5. We have received a report dated 24.7.2020 submitted by the committee which reads as follows:
6ACTION TAKEN REPORT FILED BY THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AS PER THE ORDER DATED 14.05.2020 IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION We, the committee constituted by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal as per the order dated 22.01.2020 in O A no.12 of 2020 know the facts and circumstances of the case.The factual submissions made hereunder are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. In these circumstances it is just and necessary that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to accept the accompanying report on file as submitted by the committee constituted by the Hon'ble Tribunal and it is so humbly peayed in the interest of justice in this case.
1. We hereby respectfully submit that in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 14.05.2020, the committee visited the demolition sites on 17.06.2020. The findings of the committee during the site visit is produced herewith and marked as Annexure 1. After the site visit, detailed discussion was done on 18.06.2020
2. We hereby respectfully submit that around 11250 tonnes debris was already removed before demolition and was sent to a yard in Chandiroor, Alappuzha District. This material was thereby used for road formation and basement filling purpose at KSIDC industrial park, Pallipuram, Alappuzha. All this material was transported following relevant provisions of the Construction & Demolition Waste Management Rules 2016 and are as follows,
1). Covering of all the material in the truck while transportation
2). Ensuring that all waste is wet, so that no pollution is caused during the transportation.
3). 24 hour sprinkling of water on the site, to ensure that there is no air pollution caused during the removal.
3. It is respectfully submitted that waste collected after the blasting was mainly of cement blocks with steel reinforcement. The entire process for 7 removal of waste was to break the concrete debris and salvage the steel from the same. The steel had to be removed from the debris by using mechanical and automatic breakers. The steel had to be cut using gas cutters and other methods. Action plans were not submitted prior to removal of debris by either Municipality or service providers ie., Vijay Steels for steel debris and Prompt Enterprises for concrete debris. It is true that they had submitted disposal details with locations after the removal of debris. The Maradu Municipality never submitted or forwarded action plans prior to removal of debris whether it is concrete or steel except action taken reports.
4. It is respectfully submitted that with respect to the Construction & Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016, the specific findings of the committee are as follows:
a) Adequate metal barrier of 35 feet was required - but in actual the barrier was made of varying heights. It was due to specific limitations in terms of the sites. The site was covered adequately.Specific details of provision of wind breaking measures were explained in the report which are as follows.
Provided 10m metal barrier on land side of Alfa Serene flats Provided 10ft height geotextile barrier in the back-water side of the Golden Kayaloram Provided 10ft height geotextile barrier in the back-water side of the Holyfaith, H2O Provided 10ft height geotextile barrier in the front side of the Jain Coral Cove It may be pertinent to note that during monitoring the air quality was found to be within the standards stipulated most of the times.
b) Adequate water sprinkling of sites for dust suppression was carried out. It was done by using pumps with fire hoses instead of water sprinklers, when it was found that the water sprinklers were not effective in covering the entire site. The water pumps used were having higher capacity than a conventional sprinkler and were far more effective in controlling the 8 dust spread.There were no serious complaints from any residents living nearby about the dust in the entire process of the removal of debris
c) Ensuring that the water used for sprinkling doesn't reach the Kayal- There was no incident found for the same, and as a matter of precaution a separate drain was also prepared in Golden Kayaloram site.
d) Removal of demolition waste fallen in the Kayal - This incident happened for Alfa Serene tower demolition that a chunk of debris fell in the Kayal during blasting. This was subsequently removed and also a check was carried out by local fisherman so as to establish that there is no debris in the Kayal. These actions are verified by the committee during its visit on 17.06.2020 and instruction was given to Secretary to ensure that entire wastes fallen in the Kayal were removed and transferred to disposal locations. Subsequently the Secretary, Municipality submitted his report on 18.06.2020. A copy of the report submitted by the Secretary,Maradu Municipality is produced herewith and marked as Annexure 2.
e) All vehicles which were used for transportation of the waste material was having covering, so that no pollution was caused due to the movement.
f) Though the Service provider for removal of Concrete debris or the Secretary, Maradu Municipality had not submitted any proposals as to where these debris are disposed of, the Secretary was often forwarded the details of disposal locations submitted by the service providers after such works. Hence the committee was able to supervise the activities partially. It is also identified that the generated waste which was taken to multiple sites and not to one specific C&D waste processing facility. This was mainly due to the fact that the waste was suitable to be used as it is, and it didn't need further processing. Even though there was some processing required, an authorisation was given for the same by Kerala State Pollution Control Board but the service provider has not provided this facility at Kumbalam pointing out some complaints from local people.
9g) Log book was maintained by the agency doing the debris removal and the same was verified by the Maradu Municipality.
5. We respectfully submit that the Kerala Pollution Control Board played an active and pivotal role in ensuring that the entire process was carried out following the C&D waste Management Rules except those mentioned in the previous paragraphs. It was only due to the effort of Kerala State pollution Control Board that the exact rules were informed and were followed to the maximum extent possible by the Joint Committee. The KSPCB also ensured regular monitoring of air pollution (PM 10, PM2.5) and also sound pollution monitoring. In terms of any deviation from the normal, immediate steps were taken by the agency to regulate the same on advice of the KSPCB. It is pertinent to note that due to lockdown restrictions in view of the outbreak of COVID-19 in the country, monitoring was discontinued from 20.03.2020 onwards. Since the demolition sites are seen cleared, the monitoring was not rescheduled. The KSPCB also pointed out during the meeting convened on 18.06.2020 that all fallen debris should be removed from the Kayal. The Committee entrusted the Secretary Maradu Municipality to submit their report regarding removal of debris from the Kayal. Kerala State Pollution Control Board has reported that the Secretary had submitted completion report dated 18.06.2020 intime. A copy of the report submitted by the Secretary, Maradu Municipality is produced herewith and marked as Annexure 3. Also, the analysis report of water samples taken from the Kayal never showed any abnormal values. However, KSPCB has completed another set of monitoring of Kayal water and the report is awaited.
6. We respectfully submit that the Maradu Municipality has given a consolidated report on the tonnage removed in the case of concrete debris. The total expected tonnage was 76300 tonnes approx., but when the work was finished the actual tonnage of debris removed was approximately 69600 Tonnes. It gives the following information:
Sites No. of Loads Vehicle Loads
10
in Tonnes
Alfa Serene Towers 3260 Eicher 20375
H2O Holy Faith 818 Torres 20450
Jain Coral Cove 863 Torres 21575
Golden Kayaloram 1153 Eicher 7206
It is also respectfully submitted that the Joint Committee had carried out the duties assigned delegently to ensure all the provisions of the Construction & Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016 to the maximum extent possible and the shortfalls if any will be addressed after discussion in detail during Hon'ble State Level Monitoring Committee forum."
6.The Chairman, State Level Monitoring Committee has filed a report dated 27.7.2020 which reads as follows:
‟Kindly refer to the previous report dt.12.2.2020 in this matter, wherein the following shortcomings in the handling of the demolition wastes of the high rises within the local limits of the Maradu Municipality were noted. Major short comings in brief:
Maradu Municipality has not been able to collect all specific details till date. In the updated status of removal of waste as on 10.2.2020 submitted by the Municipality the details given are vague and without specific details. Wind breakers around the sites as mandated by statute are provided. Sprinkle systems provided by the statute are not provided. 11 There is no display of dust mitigation measures at site for public viewing. No protective measures like use of geo textile are seen provided in the stretches near the lake side of Alfa Serine and Golden Kayaloram to prevent the flow of contaminated water to the back waters.
Physical verification reveals 40% of steel was segregated and 35% of steel has been removed. However, authentic details of storage/recycling units are not submitted.
Removal of debris after segregation of steel is being done and details of sites to where the debris were transferred are given. However, the log book details are not legible.
Though Prompt Enterprises claims that a C&D waste processing facility is being set up at Kubalam no such plant is installed there and no waste is deposited there.
Failure to install CCTV cameras to make continuous monitoring effective. No specific details are there in the log books of the vehicles deployed in the transportation of debris.
Adverting to the above, this Tribunal as per order dt.18.3.2020 had made certain observations and had given certain directions as under: Though there was certain direction given by the committee to suppress the air pollution and possible contamination of the Kayal water, no serious steps have been taken either by the Maradu Municipality or by the service provider. It appears that Maradu Municipality is not interested in carrying out the 12 directions given by the committee, instead they were sticking on to the recommendations made by the technical committee which was appointed by the Government earlier for the purpose of supervising the demolition of the building as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The committee is only expected to supervise the possible pollution that is likely to cause at the time of demolition of the building and their recommendations are nothing to do with the removal of the debris collected and also the steps to be taken by the Makradu Municipality as well as the service provider to avoid the possible pollution that is likely to be caused on account of the collection of the debris in the demolition site till it is disposed of in a scientific manner as provided under the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016. There is a responsibility cast on the Maradu Municipality to implement these rules in its letter and spirit. If there is any violation found in implementing the rules and if there is any non compliance of the directions given by the committee appointed by this Tribunal, either to the Maradu Municipality or to the service provider which results in the pollution being caused to the environment as well as to the nearby Kayal then regulating authority namely Pollution Control Board is duty bound to impose environmental compensation against those persons who are violating the norms and causing pollution.
Such an attempt is not seen taken in this case, though there were observations in the committee report that there were serious violations and deficiencies in carrying out the directions issued by the State Level Monitoring Committee as well as the committee appointed by this Tribunal. 13 So under such circumstances, we direct the Pollution Control Board to take appropriate legal action against those persons who are violating the directions and causing pollution and affecting the environment including possible contamination of Kayal water which is likely to cause on account of the seepage of water that is likely to happen on account of pouring the water on the debris instead of sprinkling he same without providing necessary protective measures to avoid seepage.
They are also directed to take sample of the Kayal water to find out as to whether there was any damage caused to the Kayal water on account of the negligent act on the part of the service provider and the Maradu Municipality in taking action to remove the debris collected after demolition and not complying with the provision of the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016.
The committee is directed to submit the report to this tribunal by e-mail at ngtszfiling@gmail,com.
I was informed that the meeting of the Joint Committee appointed by this Tribunal was delayed on account of the intervening lockdowns due to the spread of Covid - 19. That is the reason why the said committee could not file the report on 15.5.2020 as directed by this tribual. Later, a report dt.20.7.2020 was submitted to me by the Chief Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, Ernakulam of Kekrala State Pollution Control Board along with the copies of certain communications and the report of the Joint Committee meeting. The copy of the report of the Chief Engineer and annexures are appended a Annexure -XI series to this report. In page 2 of XI 14 report, it is stated that the Secretary of the Maradu Municipality vide Lr.dt.18.6.2020 had reported the completion of the removal of debris from the nearby water body as well as from the demolition sites. In the report of the Join Committee which is part of XI series is stated as under.
Removal of demolition waste fallen in the Kayal. This incident happened for Alfa Serene tower demolition that a chunk of debris fell in the Kayal during blasting. His was subsequently removed and also a check was carried out by local fisherman so as to establish that there is no debris in the Kayal. These actions are verified by the committee during its visit on 17.6.2020 and instruction was given to Secretary to ensure that entire wastes fallen in the Kayal were removed and transferred to disposal locations. However, a news report appeared in Kochi Edition of Malayala Manorama daily dt.12.7.2020 stating that the debris fallen into the nearby water bodies during the demolition process were not removed yet. As the said report was inconsistent with the finding of the Joint Committee on 24.7.2020, I have directed the Chief Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, Kochi of KSPCB to conduct a site inspection and to give a factual report after conducting a site inspection. Accordingly, he has submitted a report on 25.7.2020 which is concluded as under:
Debris due to demolition of Alfa Serene - Tower 2 apartment has fallen at a stretch of approximately 30 m length parallel to the bank of the stream an approximately 15 m towards the middle of the back water. 15 Search was made up to about 20 m towards backwater where some scattered settlement of debris were found including reinforced beams, concrete debris etc beyond 5 m and upto approximately 15 m from the bank. It is understood that these types of wastes are identified in the backwater since the municipality had used JCB type earth movers for the removal of debris upto a length of maximum 5 m only from the river bank. Further, I may report that detailed quantification if needed can be done using accredited agencies viz., Navy, Fire & Rescue team etc. Annexure X-4 contains the photograph of the bank of the waterbody where the debris during the demolition had fallen into the back waters. As I felt that it is only just and proper to conduct a site inspection personally before filing a report before this Tribunal, I visited the spot at 10.30 a on 26.7.2020. With the help of one Sugunandan, a local resident who came to the spot at the time of my visit, I could get the assistance of a swimmer to conduct a detailed search in the water body. Annexure - X-5 is a report prepared by the Chief Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, KSPCB, Kochi after my site inspection on 26.7.2020. In photo No.4 of the X-6 series, we can see the swimmer standing on a reinforced concrete debris lying submerged in the water. It is at a distance of 15 meters away from the bank. At that point, the depth of the water is more than 5 feet. Normally a person who does not know swimming cannot hold his head above the water level at the point.
Conclusion 16 The claim of the Maradu Municipality as well as the Join Committee is that the entire debris fallen into the back waters near the demolition site of Alfa Serene Tower -2 has been removed. This is factually incorrect. It is true that attempts have been made to remove the debris from the portion at a width of 15 meter from the bank towards middle of the water body. What was seen moved is the debris which were seen over the water level. During my inspection scattered settlement of debris including reinforced beams beyond a distance of about 15 meters from the bank towards the middle of the water body could be detected, At some points, steel bars used for the re-
enforcement of the concrete are seen protruding above the water level.
Neither the Maradu Municipality nor he Joint Committee can sit idle till the last piece of debris is removed from the water body. If the existing debris in the water body remains here, it will lead to undesirable result in future.
The recalcitrant attitude of Maradu Municipality was evident at every stage of the removal of the demolition wastes. Presumably, the Municipality is under the wrong notion that they are not bound by law.
The Pollution Control Boards cannot absolve from its responsibility of recovering compensation for environmental degradation from the defaulters on the lame excuse that the rules does not provide for the methods for quantification of compensation. There cannot be any straight jacket formula for assessing the quantum of compensation. In every assessment there will be some inbuilt arbitrariness. This arbitrariness is here even in assessment of compensation under certain heads in Motor Accident Claims. However, while assessing compensation, the authority has to be guided by established norms 17 and principles which would appear to be just and reasonable. The quantum of compensation fixed shall be neither too low nor disproportionately high.
The authority fixing the compensation has to strike a proper balance between these two. If recovery of compensation for environmental degradation from the defaulters is delayed indefinitely it will send a wrong message to the defaulters and likeminded persons."
7.On the basis of the report of the State Level Monitoring Committee, Pollution Control Board has submitted another report dated 28.7.2020 which reads as follows:
ADDITIONAL REPORT FILED BY THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER ON BEHALF OF KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AS PER THE ORDER DATED 14.05.2020 IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION I, M.A Baiju, 54 Years, S/o M.K Aravindakshan, the Chief Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, Ernakulam, also the Nodal Officer of the Joint Committee constituted by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal as per the order dated 22.01.2020 in O A 12 of 2020. I know the facts and circumstances of the case. The factual submissions made hereunder are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. In these circumstances it is just and necessary that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to accept the accompanying additional report on file as submitted by the Chief Environmental Engineer and it is so humbly peayed in the interest of justice in this case.
1. I may humbly submit that the draft report explaining the updated actions already initiated by the Committee was prepared in the prescribed format and got approved by all the members of the joint committee and final report was prepared after incorporating the suggestions made by all the members. 18
It is respectfully submitted that after finalizing this report the Chairman, SLMC has specifically instructed to enquire about a complaint raised by some local public who belong to fisherman community that the Municipality was not able to completely remove the debris from the Kayal. Though the Chairman was intimated about the completion report submitted by the Secretary with respect to removal of debris from all the four sites, he insisted to carry out further enquiry on the specific issue on the removal of debris from the backwater. It is also important to note that the completion report submitted by the Secretary, Maradu Municipality is already attached as an annexure in the original report prepared and signed by all the members of the committee.
2. It is respectfully submitted that on receiving such directions from the Chairman, SLMC, an enquiry was conducted on 24.07.2020 itself with the assistance of a local fisherman and observed some scattered debris which include reinforced concrete structures and other concrete debis in the Kayal. Even though it was reported vide our report dated 25.07.2020 that there are evidences of debris still in the Kayal, the quantity of which could be assessed by carry out detailed study using accredited agencies, the Chairman, SLMC personally visited the site on 26.07.2020 along with this respondent. It may be pertinent to note that the Chairman, SLMC during the visit convinced that the observation of the Board during the visit dated 24.07.2020 is factual. He also asked to give a consolidated report attaching certain photographs taken during different inspections to prove that there are certain noticeable conclusions that still there are debris remains in the backwater which need urgent attention by the Municipality. Hence such report is prepared and forwarded to the Chairman, SLMC who is supervising the activities of removal debris due to demolition with copies to all committee members and with a specific direction to the Secretary, Maradu Municipality who plainly submitted completion report on 19.07.2020 on removal of debris from the backwater.
3. It is respectfully submitted that the restrictions imposed due to lockdown and the widespread of COVID-19 are more severe here and more areas are declared as containtmant zones. Hence, there were difficulies in preparing 19 a modified report incorporating all these details in the report already finalized and signed by all the joint committee members since all the other members are engaged in the COVID-19 relief activities. It is also respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal specifically stated in the order dated 14.05.2020 that "Pollution Control Board is also at liberty to file independent report as well so as to enable us to assess the present status." Hence this report is submitted individually in addition to the report submitted by the joint committee dated 24.07.2020.
4. I may humbly submit that the Secretary, Maradu Municipality is responsible as per relevant provisions of the C&D waste Rules 2016 for arranging and managing the service providers for the safe removal of all the wastes due to demolition of flats from the sites. It is pertinent to note that the Board is initiating speedy actions to obtain specific advice/ guidelines from CPCB on imposing environmental compensation since no such specific guidelines or model calculations are available for the same and is not found to be practiced anywhere. On receiving such a document, the shortfalls/violations committed by the Maradu Municipality if any on complying with specific provisions of the said rule ie, the C&D Waste Management Rules 2016 will be addressed accordingly. Copy of the letter dated 25.07.2020 sent to the Chairman after the visit of the Board officials & Consolidated report dated 26.07.2020 forwarded to the Chairman, SLMC are produced herewith and marked as Annexure 1&2 respectively.
5. It is also respectfully submitted that this respondent individually and as a part of the Joint Committee had carried out the duties assigned delegently to ensure all the provisions of the Construction & Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016 to the maximum extent possible and the shortfalls if any will be addressed after discussed in detail during Hon'ble State Level Monitoring Committee forum."
8. It is also seen from the report submitted through Pollution Control Board that there are certain violations and the Maradu Municipality as well as project proponent did not strictly comply with the directions issued by the monitoring committee appointed by this Tribunal and non-compliance of 20 the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016 and they also submitted that there are certain remnants of the demolition waste found in the nearby Kayal and there is no methodology provided for assessing compensation and they will recover the amount, after getting necessary guidelines and also taking steps to remove remnants seen in the Kayal. It may be mentioned here that the guidelines provided by Central Pollution Control Board in violation cases for assessing Environmental compensation will be strictly applicable to those who are likely to cause pollution as well. Maradu Municipality is also duty bound to monitor the implementation of the Construction & Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016 when they are giving „authorization‟ on the basis of the Management Plan provided by the project proponent for that purpose. It is seen from the report of Chairman, State Level Monitoring Committee and also by Pollution Control Board that necessary registers were not properly maintained by the service provider who are engaged in the demolition process in removing the waste collected due to demolition. Log books were not properly maintained to ascertain how the waste has been disposed of. There is nothing to show whether the authenticity of the particulars given by the project proponent is genuine or not and whether any independent enquiry was conducted by the regulators in this regard as well.
9. So under these circumstances, we direct Pollution Control Board to apply the guidelines provided by the National Green Tribunal on the basis of the guidelines of the Central Pollution Control Board to assess compensation for the violation found by them against the Maradu 21 Municipality as well the project proponent in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity before fixing compensation.
10. Mr. Sahasranaman, learned counsel appearing for fourth respondent
- Maradu Municipality submitted that they are strictly adhering to the provisions of the Construction & Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016 in respect of the disposal of the waste collected. Even if there are any lapses regarding the disposal of debris said to have been done it was due to the shortage of time fixed by the Honourable Apex Court for carrying out the operation.
11. It may be mentioned here that the Apex Court also did not say that they are not bound to follow the rules. They are expected to follow the Rules within the time frame provided by the Apex Court for carrying out the operation especially regarding disposal of the debris collected due to demolition in an environment friendly manner, as provided in the above provisions.
12. So we direct Maradu Municipality also to produce all the necessary documents as to how they have monitored and satisfied with the compliance of the said Rules andthe plan provided as required under the Rules by the project proponent. The committee is directed to file further report as per the observations made within a period of two months. Maradu Municipality is also directed to produce documents before before the Pollution Control Board and before the committee. The committee can consider the question and submit a detailed report to this Tribunal on or before 28.10.2020. The Chairman State Level Monitoring Committee appointed in OA606/2018 is 22 required to monitor the same and submit an independent report regarding the same.
The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the members of the committee and also Chairman of the State Level Monitoring Committee appointed in O.A.No.606 of 2018 immediately by e.mail so as to enable them to comply with the direction.
For further compliance report, post on 28.10.2020 ....................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) .................................E.M. (Shri. Saibal Dasgupta) O.A. No.12/2020 11.8.2020 Kkr 23