National Green Tribunal
Nitin Devraj Jaru And Anr vs Ministry Of Environment Forest And ... on 30 March, 2022
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Revised order
Corrected on 04.04.2022
Item No. 01 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(By Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 104/2019 (WZ)
(I.A. No. 05/2020 & I.A. No. 86/2020)
Nitin Devraj Jaru & Anr. Applicant(s)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 30.03.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Advocate
Respondent(s): Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for MoEF & CC
Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Advocate for GPCB
Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for CPCB
Mr. Ashish Madan Advocate for CGWA
Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Attri,
Advocate for M/s SAL Steel Pvt. Ltd.
ORDER
[
1. Grievance raised in this application is against violation of environmental norms in the operation of R-6 - M/s SAL Steel Pvt. Ltd, Kutch, Gujarat (the PP). According to the applicant, air quality of kiln and boiler is beyond the norms adversely affecting the inhabitants, particularly, the children. The unit is extracting ground water illegally through twelve tube-wells in Village Shinay without requisite NOC from the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) and also against the CTO 1 conditions prohibiting extraction of ground water. Fly ash dumping in Village Tuna Vandi which is part of CRZ III is in violation of CRZ Notifications. The unit in question is sponge iron plant with captive thermal power plant for which consolidated consents have been granted though such consents should be individual. The unit is a 'red' category industry. The State PCB issued closure order dated 29.04.2019 in view of the violations which was later revoked on 15.05.2019 though the violations continued. Another closure order was passed on 30.07.2019 which was revoked on 14.08.2019. Violations found included failure to furnish weekly progress reports about the compliance. The applicant has filed photographs showing dumping of fly ash, fugitive emissions and also copies of closure orders passed by the State PCB.
2. The matter first came up for hearing on 15.01.2020. On consideration of the matter, the Tribunal issued notice to the respondents, including, the PP, GPCB and CGWA.
3. The stand of the PP is that the plant started operations in 2005. Deficiencies noticed in the closure orders were duly complied with which led to the revocation of closure orders. The PP has disposed of the fly ash as per norms in the last one year and constructed boundary wall near adjoining farms to control dust. It has submitted plan for fly ash management. It has also submitted weekly progress reports from time to time. Environment impact study report has been got prepared from Ahmedabad Textile Industry's Research Association (ATIRA) which covers management of effluent generated, stack for dispersion of emissions, measures for air pollution control, disposal of oil used in the plant, water sprinklers to control fugitive emissions and third party monitoring of air and stack. As per EC conditions granted by SEIAA, Gujarat, the project 2 has pipe line linked to the Narmada, which is at a distance of 18 Kms from the premises which has been repeatedly broken by the applicant for personal use and sale. The EC condition dated 01.05.2017 is as follows:-
"2. Water consumption for the project shall not exceed 6000 liter per day from Narmada Water Canal Water Tankers. A water meter shall be provided for the measurement of the consumption of the water and its logbook shall be maintained.
3. There shall not be any industrial wastewater discharge from the unit.
4. Domestic wastewater should be discharged as per GPCB norms."
4. The GPCB has filed a status report mentioning the deficiencies found earlier and measures taken for compliance. It has also stated that GPCB levied interim environmental compensation of Rs. 18 lakhs which has been recovered. Stand of the CGWA is that PP filed online application on 06.08.2019 for drawing 2506 m3/day of ground water from their existing 7 bore wells and proposed 4 bore-wells. The Respondent No.4, CGWA has granted online NOC dated 26.12.2019 permitting ground water extraction of saline water from their existing 7 bore-wells to the extent of 2,436 m3/day. The NOC was valid from 13.12.2019 to 12.12.2021 as per the terms and conditions prescribed under NOC.
5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
6. Main contentions of learned counsel for the applicant is that even though the PP has been extracting ground water, it sought NOC only in the year 2019 which was for period up to December, 2021 which is over. Still illegal extraction of ground water is taking place. Drawl of water from Narmada Water Canal could not be allowed by SEIAA. Its function is only to appraise a project for grant of EC. Further such permission is against 3 public trust doctrine as it is at the cost of need for drinking water which is scarce in the area. Further, as per EC for expansion of the project granted on 01.11.2008 restriction is placed on quantity of ground water to be extracted which has been violated. The restriction is as follows:
"Total water requirement from river Narmada shall not exceed 3,000 m3/d as permitted the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Gandhinagar, Gujarat. 800 m3/d was requirement will be met from desalination plant."
7. It is further submitted that there is also air pollution from the emissions in the project which remains unchecked. Fly ash is illegally dumped in CRZ III area without CRZ clearance. NOC has also been granted by CGWA without considering impact of such extraction.
8. We have given due consideration to the issue. We find that issues of permissibility of drawal of water from Narmada, ground water extraction, air pollution and dumping of fly ash in CRZ area without requisite permission need to be considered for which an independent report needs to be sought from the statutory regulators. EC condition permitting expansion of project requires limited water supply from the Narmada with the condition of taking further water from desalination plant but subsequent EC is different. There appears to be illegal extraction of ground water by the unit ion violation of law laid down in MC Mehta (1997) 11 SCC 312. Further, in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664, it was held that "Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of the right to life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and can be served only by providing source of water where there is none. The resolution of UNO in 1977 to which India is a signatory, during the United Nations Water Conference resolved unanimously inter alia as under: 4
"All people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water in quantum and of a quality equal to their basic needs."
9. Again, in State of Orissa vs. GOI, (2009) 5 SCC 492, problem of shortage of drinking water and priority required for drinking purpose was laid down. In Keshoram Industries, (2004) 10 SCC 201, para 389, it was held that the water is national wealth and belongs to the entire society. In view of such legal position, it cannot be taken to be right of CGWA or SEIAA to permit potable drinking water to be used for private industrial purpose for which secondary water can be used. Thus, even if any such permission is given, the same cannot be accepted as valid unless the same can be justified showing that enough drinking water is available or other compelling need. There is also need to independently investigate the fly ash disposal and management issue and the issue of fugitive emission from the processes of the plant and during transportation.
10. Accordingly, we constitute a joint Committee comprising of the CPCB, State PCB, District Magistrate, Kutch and the Central Ground Water Authority to give its report on the issues for further consideration of the matter by this Tribunal. The State PCB will be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance. The joint Committee may meet within 15 days, undertake visit to the site, interact with the stakeholders and furnish a factual and action taken report within two months by e-mail at judicial- [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF. If there are any observations against the PP, a copy of the report may also be simultaneously given to the PP for its response, if any which may be filed before the next date. The Committee may consider the justification for the quantity of potable ground/surface 5 water consumption by the Industry and options available such as treated waste water or the desalinated water. The Committee may also ascertain status of utilisation / management plan of fly ash, slag and other waste.
List for further consideration on 13.07.2022.
A copy of the order be forwarded to the CPCB, State PCB, District Magistrate, Kutch and the Central Ground Water Authority by email for compliance.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM March 30, 2022 Original Application No. 104/2019 (WZ) (I.A. No. 05/2020 & I.A. No. 86/2020) AB 6