National Green Tribunal
Meenava Thanthai K R Selvaraj Kumar ... vs The Director Ministry Of Environment ... on 9 June, 2021
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.18:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No.234 of 2017 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Meenava Thanthai K.R. Selvaraj Kumar,
Meenavar NalaSangam
...Applicant(s)
Versus
Ministry of Environment, Forests
and Climate Change and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 10.06.2021.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. K. SATYAGOPAL, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Mr. Stanley Hebzon Singh
For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff through Mr.
Ashik Ahamed forR 1and R2
Mr. D.S. Ekambaram through Ms. P.
Jayalakshmi for R3
Dr. V.R. Thirunarayanan for R4 to R6, R9 and
R10
Mr. C. Kasirajan through Ms. Ashwini for R7.
[1]
ORDER
1. As per order dated 15.02.2021, this Tribunal had reiterated several orders passed in this case exposing the deficiencies found in the enforcement of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 and also reiterating the legal principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding role of regulators in implementing and enforcing the environmental laws and the danger that is likely to be caused if it is not done and also the powers of the Central Government in taking over the issues when the State Authorities are not implementing the environmental laws is its letter and spirit and also reiterating the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment in Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority vs. State of Kerala Maradu Municipality & Ors. 2019 (7) SCC 248 and directed the regulators to come with a proper action taken report including the imposition of environmental compensation and posted the case to 24.03.2021 for that purpose. Thereafter it was adjourned from time to time and it was posted to today as per notification dated 29.04.2021.
2. When the matter came up for hearing today Mr. Stanley Hebzon Singh represented the applicant. Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff through Mr. Ashik Ahamed represented respondents 1 and 2, Mr. D.S. Ekambaram through Ms. P. Jayalakshmi represented 3rd respondent, Dr. V.R. Thirunarayanan represented respondents 4 to 6, 9 and 10, Mr. C. [2] Kasirajan through Ms. Ashwini represented 7th respondent.
3. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has filed a report dated 23.03.2021, e-filed on 23.03.2021 and received on 26.03.2021 which reads as follows:
Report filed on behalf of the 7th respondent Tamil Nadu Pollution Control board I, G. Gopalkrishnan, Son of V. Gandhi, Hindu, aged about 58 years, having office at No T6, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032, do hereby sincerely affirm and sincerely state as follows:-
1. I am the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Chennai- 600 032 and I am filing this Report on behalf of the respondents TNPC Board and as such I am well acquainted he facts c' the case from the records.
2. It is submitted that the Hon'ble NGT has passed an order dated 12.09.2020 and directed as follows:
"The Committee is also directed to revisit the question of compensation for past violation as directed by this Tribunal in several cases of this nature applying the formula evolved by the Central Pollution Control Board in this regard and also taking into the consideration the nature of damage caused to the coastal zone on account of such activities and the amount required for restoration of the same to its original position."
3. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble NGT has also passed an order dated 15.02.2021 and directed inter alia as follows:
"So considering the circumstances, we feel that one more opportunity can be given to the regulators to come with a proper action taken report before this Tribunal on or before 24.03.2021.
4. It is respectfully submitted that in pursuance to the said orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal, the revised joint committee was constituted with the following members:
i. The RDO, Chennai North, Chennai District (Representing District Collector, Chennai)-member ii. Director, Institute of Remote sensing, Anna University, Chennai-
28/member TNSCZA (Representing TNSCZMA, Chennai)- Member iii. Thiru, R. Rajkumar, Scientist D, Central Pollution Control Board, Regional Directorate, Chennai-Member-CPCB. iv. Thiru, Dr. R. Umaykunjaram, District Environmental Engineer, TNPCB, Chennai.
The Committee assessed the environmental compensation for violation of the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 considering the CPCB in house calculation methodology.
Calculation of environmental compensation based on the CPCB guidelines:
Environmental Compensation Formula EC = PI x N x R x S x LF Where EC = Environmental compensation [3] PI = Pollution Index of Industry Sector N = Number of days of violation took place R = A factor of Rs for EC S = Factor for scale of operation LF = Location factor Environmental Compensation Formula = PI x N x R x S x LF = 50 x 320 x 100 x 0.5 x 1.5 = 12,00,000/-
The environmental compensation calculated by the committee as per the formula is Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) and same shall be imposed on the industry. The copy of Joint Inspection Report on environmental compensation for the violations committed by the Mls. St Peter Paul Sea Food Exports Pvt. Ltd., is submitted herewith as Annexure-I. It is respectfully submitted that based on the assessment of the Environmental Compensation calculated by the Joint Committee, the TNPC Board has issued direction under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to the Managing Director, Ms. St Peter Paul Sea Food Exports Pvt. Ltd., to remit environmental compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) to the Board vide proceeding dated 15.03.2021. The copy of Board proceeding dt.15.03.2021 is submitted herewith as Annexure-II.
Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone) may be pleased to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case thus render justice.
Joint Chief Environmental Engineer Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Before Me VERIFICATION I, G. Gopalakrishnan, Son of V. Gandhi, working as Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai- 600 032 do hereby submit that the contents of above report are true to the best of my knowledge through records.
Verified at Chennai on this 23'd day of March, 2021.
Joint Chief Environmental Engineer Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
4. They have also annexed the manner in which environmental compensation was assessed as annexure-I and also produced the proceedings imposing the compensation and directing the 12th respondent to pay environmental compensation of Rs. 12 lakhs on or before [4] 22.03.2021. They have not mentioned as to whether any action has been taken for closure of the unit or for demolition of the unit, which was constructed against the CRZ Notification, 2011.
5. According to the Learned Counsel for the applicant, the unit is still functioning and no coercive steps/action have been taken by the regulators to prevent the functioning of the unit in the building which was unauthorisedly constructed. Further according to the Learned Counsel for the applicant environmental compensation assessed is also very meagre considering the nature of work conducted by them and profit that is earned by doing those activities.
6. The application was filed in the year 2017 alleging that the 12 th respondent is conducting the unit in violation of CRZ Notification, 2011 but in spite of that the number of days of violation was taken as 320 days taking the date of violation from 28.09.2017 to 14.08.2018 when the violations was observed and power supply was disconnected. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the construction was itself illegal. Though power supply of upstairs was disconnected, power supply of the lower downstairs is still available and unit is continuing its business using the power supply in the downstairs.
7. The State Coastal Zone Management Authority also did not come with any independent report as to what is the nature of action taken by them for construction of building in a CRZ Zone in violation of CRZ [5] Notification, 2011 or whichever notification applicable during the date of construction.
8. The Regional Office of MOEF&CC, Chennai also did not come with any action taken report as it was brought to their notice that if the State Authorities are not strictly implementing the provisions of the CRZ, Notification in respect of this unit as on the last date of hearing, this Tribunal had directed them to come with action taken report. Report of the Pollution Control Board is also silent about the same. If the construction was found prior to 2017 and activities of the unit is functional and going on in violations of the CRZ Notification, 2011, then the period of violation should have to be taken from the date of violations started and not from the date it was observed. Further going by the Polluter Pays Principle the amount imposed should be in consonance with the damage caused to the environment and the nature of violation and the amount of compensation must be detriment in nature even to the extent of preventing profits being earned by the polluter on account of those violations. Such an approach and principle is not taken by the Pollution Control Board while fixing the amount of environmental compensation as well. Further, since the construction itself was made against the CRZ Notification, 2011 for doing certain activity which is not permissible in that area, then damage caused on such activity should also have been taken into account while fixing the amount of compensation apart from [6] taking the number of days for violations of conditions. Further, if any damage has been caused to environment on account of illegal construction against the CRZ Notification, 2011, then the amount required for restoring the same should also have been taken into consideration by the Authority while fixing compensation. All these crucial things were not considered by the Pollution Control Board while fixing the amount of environmental compensation.
9. We direct the Committee appointed by this Tribunal to re-visit the question of environmental compensation on the basis of the directions mentioned above and also direct the regulators to take appropriate action against the 9th respondent for committing violations of statutory provisions in making the construction and also causing damage to the environment for continuing with the activities in that area by resorting legal steps in accordance with law and submit a report to that effect as well. If the directions of this Tribunal are not complied with by the Authorities, then the officer responsible for executing or complying with the directions, will be made liable to face the consequences for non- compliance with the directions given by this Tribunal as contemplated under Section 25 and 28 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The Committee is also directed to ascertain as to whether the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the applicant that the unit is still functioning in the downstairs level of the building which was also a part [7] of the construction made in violation to the provisions of the CRZ Notification, 2011 and if so, what is the nature of action taken by the authorities against such violations as well.
10.The Committee as well as official respondents are directed to file their respective report to this Tribunal on or before 29.07.2021 by e-filling in the form of searchable PDF/OCR supportable PDF and not in the form of image PDF along with necessary hardcopies to be produced as per Rules.
11.The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the members of the Committee, Pollution Control Board, State Coastal Zone Management Authority, Integrated Regional Offices of MoEF&CC, and Central Pollution Control Board, Chennai and to the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary of Environment for their information and taking steps for complying with the directions issued by this Tribunal and submit a proper report as directed.
12.For consideration of further reports, post on 29.07.2021.
...................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) ................................E.M. (Shri. Dr. K. Satyagopal) O.A. No. 234/2017(SZ) 10th June, 2021. (AM) [8]