National Green Tribunal
Madhusudan Roongta vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 September, 2021
Item No.03 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
(By Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 74/2020(WZ)
Madhusudan Roongta Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 23.09.2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant : Mr. Navin Maheshwari, Advocate
Respondent : Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for R-3 (MoEF&CC)
Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocate for R-4 (MPCB)
Mr. Raghunath Mahabal, Advocate for R-5 & 6
ORDER
1. This Tribunal in continuation of the earlier orders dated 29.10.2020 and 12.08.2021, is passing the following order-
2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has invited the attention of the Tribunal to the joint committee report prepared by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) in compliance of the order dated 29.10.2020 passed by this Tribunal and would submit that Paragraph No. V inner page no. 19 of the of the said report, deals with the standard limit as per MoEF Notification dated 07.12.2015 and MPCB/CCA and it is observed that in respect of SO2 mg/Nm3 emission, it is nearly two times more than the prescribes norms, and in the light of the fact that particular units of Page No. 1/3 the respondent no. 6 which is under the control of the respondent no. 5 continue to violate the environmental norms, those units have to be shut down by passing an interim order.
3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 5 & 6 would submit that except the problem of fly ash management, all other infirmities/deficiencies pointed out, have been set right and also invited the attention of the Tribunal to the reply affidavits of respondent nos. 5 & 6 dated 14.06.2021 with supporting documents. However, it is pointed out by the Registry that the said reply affidavits with supporting documents are under scrutiny. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 would submit that they would also like to file their additional reply affidavit.
4. The Tribunal has considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed on record. The reply affidavit of respondent no. 4 dated 12.03.2018, points out that the respondent no. 7 is a major contributry to the air pollution and the level of air pollution is very significant and it may be on account of the fact that due to bad weather condition and uncovered vehicles are being used for transportation of the coal.
5. During the course of arguments, it is also pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 that in the light of the statutory provisions available under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, it is also open to them to assess and levy environmental compensation as well as launching of Criminal Prosecution in accordance with Law.
Page No. 2/3
6. Responding to the same, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 also prays for some accommodation to file the additional affidavit with required particulars. Though, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 5 & 6 prays for closure of this petition on account of long pendency, in the light of the materials placed on record, the Tribunal is of the considered view that it requires continuous monitoring the emission norms are adhered/fully complied with.
7. Additional reply affidavit of the respondent no. 4 with supporting documents, be filed before the next date of hearing. The Registry is also directed to cause verification of the reply affidavits of respondent nos. 5 & 6 with supporting documents and place it before the Tribunal on the next date of hearing.
Call on 24.11.2021 M. Sathyanarayanan, JM Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM September 23, 2021 Original Application No. 74/2020(WZ) P.kr Page No. 3/3