National Green Tribunal
Petro Carbon And Chemicals Limited vs Commission For Air Quality Management ... on 13 September, 2024
Item No.01 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Appeal No.36/2024
Petro Carbon and Chemicals Limited Appellant
Versus
Commission for Air Quality Management in
NCR and Adjoining Areas & Anr Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 13.09.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Senior Advocate with Ms. Madhavi Agrawal, Ms.
Mansi Bachani & Mr. Shubham Upadhyay, Advs. for Appellant
ORDER
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 18 of Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Area Act 2021 whereby appeal has been permitted against any order, direction or action taken by or on behalf of the Commission Constituted under the Act before the NGT.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the action of the CAQM, as reflected in the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the CAQM, advising the MoEF & CC to reconsider the capacity augmentation permission and also the letter dated 19.04.2024 requiring the MoEF & CC to look into the matter in the light of the CAQM order dated 15.02.2024. The appellant is also aggrieved with the communication dated 17.05.2024 of the CAQM stating that the request for allocation of Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) for the proposed expansion of Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC) does not have any merit.
1
3. Submission of the ld. Sr. counsel for the appellant is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had permitted the Raw Pet Coke as feedstock for producing CPC by the order dated 09.10.2018 in WP (C) No. 13029/1985 MC Mehta Vs. Union of India & ors by observing as under:
"Consequently, raw pet coke (domestic and imported) can be used as a feedstock for producing calcined pet coke.
We make it clear that the imported raw pet coke for this purpose cannot exceed 1.4 MT per annum in total."
4. He has further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.10.2023 in WP (C) No. 13029/1985: MC Mehta Vs. Union of India &ors observed that pet coke is highly polluting especially when used as a fuel and in unregulated industries and empowered CAQM to issue the requisite directions by observing as under:
"Be that as it may, it is appropriate that the CAQM bestows consideration even on this aspect and wherever any interim directions are required, the Commission itself can pass those directions, uninfluenced by other orders which may be passed by any other Court.
Needless to say that all concerned parties will be heard in this process and in so far as the interim directions are concerned, an earlier consideration will be bestowed.
Learned counsel for the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change requests for three months to complete the task. However, insofar as the interim directions are concerned, the Commission may take an action between 4-6 weeks.
The aforesaid would take care of the various applications before us qua the issue of import and enhancement of import quota and thus, these applications stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order."
5. The CAQM to examine the issue in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court direction had issued notice of meeting dated 09.11.2023 for holding the meeting on 15.11.2023 for allocation of 0.4 MT of Pet Coke. The counsel for the applicant has submitted that the report dated 24.11.2023 was prepared by the Sub-Committee of the CAQM to the following effect:
"(i) The balance quantity of 0.4 million tonne of RPC should be allocated to all eligible applicants on pro-rata basis based on the extant methodology adopted so far by the DGFT for such allocations.
(ii) Those CPC manufacturing units that have not applied for allocation of imported quota of RPC or have applied for the first time 2 in current year or not featuring in the EPCA report 91, may not be considered for allocation of the remaining 0.4MT RPC for IrY 2023-
24.
(iii) CPC manufacturing unit that have secured allocation(s) of RPC earlier (for a 5 year period from 2Ol8-19 to 2022-2023) but have surrendered 2}o/o or more of the total allocated quantity on atleast two occasions or have surrendered only once but the surrendered quantity was more than 4}oh of the total allocated quantity during the said period shall not be considered for allocation of balance RPC for FY 2023-24"
6. The appellant had submitted the applicant for the argumentation of the capacity and had applied for TOR and the MoEF & CC on 12.03.2024 had recommended the TOR and the said information was also sent to the CAQM.
7. The grievance of the applicant started with the order of the CAQM dated 15.02.2024 which fixed the cap of 1.9 MMT RPC for CPC manufacturers and 0.5 CPC for Aluminum Industry respectively during 2024 & 25 and had suggested as under:
"i. The suggested caps on the import of respective quantities of RPC/ CPC is considering the present capacities / consents of the regulatory authorities including the ongoing manufacturing capacity augmentations and is expected to take Care of the requirements in all sectors for the next five years and thus ordinarily a review would be required accordingly, except for emergent and unforeseen conditions that may arise in future. Accordingly, any new establishment of CPC manufacturing unit or capacity augmentation of existing calcining units shall not be allowed purely in the overall interest of environment"
8. On receipt of the intimation of approval of TOR from Appellant the CAQM on 19.04.2024 had sent the communication to MoEF & CC by observing as under:
"However, it has been brought to the notice of the Commission that some Calcining units are being allowed for capacity augmentation. Recently, the Commission has received representation dated 13.03.2024 (copy enclosed) of M/s Petro Carbon & Chemicals Pvt Ltd apprising that the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) has approved and recommended expansion of the unit on 12.03.2024 i.e well after issuance of CAQM order dated 15.02.2024.
In view of the above, it is requested to kindly look into the matter and take appropriate action for compliance of the aforesaid order. It is also requested to arrange dissemination of the order to the all concerned authorities including SEIAA/ all SPCBs."3
9. The recommendation which was made by MoEF & CC was thereafter withdrawn vide annexure A-23 dated 09.05.2024 and on the application/representation of the appellant the CAQM had sent the communication dated 17.05.2024 mentioning as under:
"5. Further, it is quite clear as per Para 10(I)(i) of the commission order dated 15.02.2024 that any new establishment of CPC manufacturing unit or capacity augmentation of existing calcining units shall not be allowed purely in the overall interest of environment. Therefore, your request for allocation of RPC for proposed expansion of CPC plant does not have any merit"
10. In the aforesaid background, the appellant has challenged the order of the CAQM dated 15.02.2024, the letters dated 19.04.2024 and 17.05.2024in the present appeal.
11. This being a statutory appeal under Section 18 of the CAQM Act it is maintained and admitted.
12. Let notice be issued in appeal and interim prayer to the respondents for filing their response by way of affidavit, if any, at least one week before the next date of hearing.
13. List on 24.12.2024.
Prakash Shrivastava, CP Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM September 13, 2024..
Appeal No.36/2024HB 4