National Green Tribunal
Om Puri & Ors vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd on 5 February, 2021
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Item No. 04 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 226/2020
(Earlier O.A.68/2020(CZ))
(I.A. No. 94/2020 & I.A. No. 95/2020)
Om Puri Applicant
Versus
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 05.02.2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Mr. Dharamveer Sharma, Advocate
Respondent(s): Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Senior Advocate with Mr. U.N. Tiwary,
Advocate for Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
Ms. Sapna Aggarwal, Advocate for MoEF&CC
Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate for RSPCB
Mr. OM Shankar Shrivastava for Indian Bureau of Mines
ORDER
1. This application has been filed with a grievance of violation of environmental norms by Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Udaipur, Rajasthan in executing a mining lease of Lead, Zinc and associated minerals at villages Agucha, Rampura, etc., Tehsil Hurd, District Bhilwada, Rajasthan covering nearly an area about 1200 hectares of mining land. In course of such mining residents of the said villages are adversely affecting on account of degradation of environment. There is heavy blasting and underground mining operations resulting in contamination of source of drinking of water, resulting in various diseases like Asthma and skin borne diseases. Live stocks are also affected. Dust and stone get accumulated close to the agricultural land and houses of the inhabitants. Toxic and contaminated waste water is discharged from the 1 mines. The area is 'over exploited' in terms of the ground water, notified as such by the CGWB. There are mammoth holes at many places because of unplanned underground mining. The applicant has relied upon photographs filed with the application. The applicants have assessed the damage in terms of money at Rs. 3.70 Lakhs. Atleast 15 other similar applications have been filed by the affected villagers being O.A. Nos. 49 to 53 of 2020 (CZ), 54 to 62 of 2020 (CZ) and 69 of 2020 (CZ).
2. The application was first taken up for hearing on 18.08.2020. The Tribunal issued notice and also sought an independent report from a joint Committee comprising Collector, Bhilwada and the State PCB, the State PCB being the nodal agency.
3. The respondent No. 1 mining Company has filed I.A. Nos. 94/2020 and 95/2020 to seek recall of order dated 18.8.2020 with regard to seeking an independent report from a joint Committee on the ground that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to seek such a report without hearing the said Company. The said applications were heard on 16.09.2020 and directed to be considered further after the response to the application was filed by the opposite party.
4. Accordingly, we have taken up the matter for further consideration.
5. We have heard Shri Krishnan Venugopal, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.1 in support of the above I.A.s He submitted that several such applications were earlier filed and disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.05.2016 in O.A. Nos. 128/2014 & 129/2014, Raghu Nath v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. & Ors. On consideration of compliance report filed on 16.11.2014 about the remedial measures to 2 reduce the fugitive dust emissions, maintaining quality of drinking water and to improving environment, the Tribunal directed the Company to contain the dust and improve the air quality. The State PCB was required to quarterly monitor the ambient air quality and also to maintain the quality of water being supplied. The respondent No. 1 has denied that any damage was being caused to the environment and has mentioned the CSR activities for mitigation measures.
6. We find the IAs to be without any merit and lacking in bonafides. If five years back some grievance was considered does not mean that such grievance can never be considered later, particularly when environmentally hazardous activities are carried out. We fail to see how mere self-serving denial of an alleged violator can be a ground not to go into the matter. It is difficult to understand how seeking an independent report by this Tribunal should be objected to if the company is complying with the norms. Such applications are thus clearly devoid of bonafides, apart from being without any legal basis. The inherent power of this Tribunal to appoint such a Committee and obtaining an independent report under Rule 24 of the National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011 is no longer res integra in view of categorical judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject being State of Meghalaya v. All Dimasa Students Union, Dima-Hasao District Committee v. Ors.1.
7. A factual report in the matter about compliance of norms by respondent No.1 be furnished as earlier directed vide order dated 18.08.2020 with the modification that the joint Committee will comprise of seven members i.e. the Collector Bhilwada, Rajasthan State PCB, 1 (2019) 8 SCC 177, Paras 156 to 166 3 nominee of Indian Institute of Mines, Dhanbad, CPCB, CSIR-CIMFR, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, CSIR-CBRI Roorkee and IIT Roorkee. The nodal agency for compliance and coordination will be the CPCB. The State PCB may provide logistics for functioning of the Committee. The Committee may undertake visit to the affected area atleast once and except for such visit, it will be free to conduct other proceedings as per its convenience, by video conferencing or otherwise. The Committee may also conduct public hearing in the area, if necessary. This direction is being issued so that this Tribunal may simultaneously adjudicate upon all connected matters and for this purpose O.A. Nos. 49 to 53 of 2020 (CZ), 54 to 62 of 2020 (CZ) and 69 of 2020 (CZ) and any other connected matter raising the same issue in respect of the same mining lease will stand transferred to the Principal Bench for being considered alongwith the present matter. The Committee may also assess the monetary value of damage to the environment caused, if any, in the last three years. The Committee will be at liberty to co-opt any other expert or institution. It is made clear that the Tribunal may consider the quantum of compensation in the light of report of the Committee and response of the Company thereto, depending on the actual damage caused to the individual victims and to the environment, irrespective of the claim of the applicants. Based on the observations of the independent Committee, it will be open to the statutory authorities to take remedial action, following due process of law. The Committee may give its report within three months. A copy thereof may also be furnished to the respondent No. 1 Company for its response alongwith further action taken, if any, within three weeks from the receipt of the report, with advance copy to the CPCB, which may file supplementary report, if necessary, after cross checking the stand of the Company, within two weeks thereafter. The report or response thereto be 4 filed by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.
8. The applicant may furnish a set of papers to the CPCB and file an affidavit of service within one week.
I.A. Nos. 94/2020 and 95/2020 stand disposed of.
List for further consideration on 07.07.2021.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the CPCB, Collector Bhilwada, Rajasthan State PCB, Indian Institute of Mines, Dhanbad, CSIR-CIMFR, Chhattisgarh Bilaspur, CSIR-CBRI Roorkee and IIT Roorkee by e-mail for compliance.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP S.K. Singh, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM February 05, 2021 Original Application No. 226/2020 A 5