National Green Tribunal
Ghanshyam Singh Pasi vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 4 October, 2023
Item No.1 (Court No. 2)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI.
(Through Physical Hearing with Hybrid VC Option)
Original Application No. 152/2022
Ghanshyam Singh Pasi Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. Respondents
Date of hearing: 04.10.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: None.
Respondents: Mr. Gi.Gi. C. George, Advocate for State of U.P.
Mr. Pradeep Misra, Advocate for UPPCB (through VC).
Mr. Sanjeev Ralli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shantanu
Chaturvedi and Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Advocates for
Project Proponent- M/s. Radico Khaitan Ltd.
Mr. Balendur Shekhar, Advocate for CPCB.
Application is registered based on a complaint received by Email
ORDER
1. The grievances in the present application are inter alia regarding causing of environmental pollution by Radico Khaitan Ltd., Rampur by release of toxic gases/emissions/fly-ash and discharge of industrial effluent in drain and also regarding the accident which occurred in the above said industrial establishment on 08.03.2021.
2. Vide order dated 29.04.2022, this Tribunal constituted a Joint Committee and directed the same to submit Factual and Action Taken Report within two months.
O.A No. 152/2022 Ghanshyam Singh Pasi Vs. State of U.P.& Ors. 2
3. In compliance of above order, The Joint Committee inspected the unit of the Project Proponent on 12.07.2022 and report of the Joint Committee was also filed vide email dated 09.09.2022.
4. The Project Proponent- M/s. Radico Khaitan Ltd. filed W.P (c) 13212/2022 titled Radico Khaitan Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Vide order dated 12.09.2022, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi stayed order dated 29.04.2022 passed by this Tribunal.
5. Stay of order dated 29.04.2022 was extended by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 07.12.2022 till 09.05.2023 with direction to UPPCB to ''verify the genuineness of the said complaint, as also, the bona fides of the complainant, and file a report in respect of the same, by the next date of hearing''.
6. Respondent no. 4 filed an application for clarification of order dated 07.12.2022 on the ground that said order being misused by respondent no. 2-CPCB to conduct a fresh inspection of the industrial unit of respondent no. 4 which was dismissed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court with the observation that the order dated 07.12.2022 does not require any clarification. The above said case was subsequently adjourned by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 09.05.2023 to 10.11.2023.
7. This Tribunal vide order dated 26.04.2023 directed CPCB to file copy of its report submitted in terms of order dated 07.12.2022 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Project Proponent was directed to file its response in tabular format regarding compliance with EC/CTE/CTO conditions imposed for abatement of environmental O.A No. 152/2022 Ghanshyam Singh Pasi Vs. State of U.P.& Ors. 3 pollution and treatment and discharge of effluents from its industrial unit in question.
8. In compliance thereof report has been filed by CPCB vide email dated 21.07.2023.
9. With respect to the objection of the respondent no. 4-Project Proponent as to the complaint being anonymous, CPCB has mentioned in its report that CPCB team met the complainant and interacted with him with regard to his grievances and has thereby verified his identity and bonafides.
10. In its report CPCB has also mentioned the Environmental violations by the respondent no. 4-Project Proponent as mentioned in detail therein and CPCB has also made recommendations in respect thereof.
11. In its report the CPCB has noticed that the complainant also mentioned about a drain and informed that the drain near Hitachi bio- compost site (at village Tashka) receives effluent from M/s Radico Khaitan Ltd., Rampur through an underground pipeline. The CPCB team along with the complainant visited the said drain (Lat. - 28.77633; Long
- 79.04598) which is located approximately 200 meters away (aerial distance) from the unit (Hitachi bio-compost site) near Tashka village. In the report it has been mentioned that the location was unapproachable and therefore correctness of the averments made by the applicant in this regard cannot be said to be verified. In the report no reason was mentioned as to why the location was un-approachable and what further action was required to be taken to verify the correctness of the averments made by the applicant.
O.A No. 152/2022 Ghanshyam Singh Pasi Vs. State of U.P.& Ors. 4
12. In its report the CPCB has taken note of the plantation carried out by respondent no. 4 and mentioned that out of 39 acres, unit has developed green belt inside the premises in 6.78 acre of land, which is approximately 17.38% of total land area. In addition, the unit has also developed green belt in approximately 6.49 acres area outside the industrial premises. Even though, CPCB has mentioned that the unit has total green belt area of 13.2 Acres and the details of the land have been given in report but the details regarding nature, extent, density and species of trees and other vegetation planted in the green belt have not been mentioned.
13. We also find that in its report the CPCB has not looked into the aspects of permissibility of Rain Water Harvesting in composting area; discharge of waste water in piezo-metric-well; utilization of treated STP water for horticulture and other activities; and generation and disposal of fly ash by the Project Proponent.
14. CPCB is directed to look into the averments regarding discharge of effluent through pipeline in composting area; permissibility of Rain Water Harvesting in composting area; stoppage of discharge of waste water in piezo-metric-well; utilization of treated STP water for horticulture and other activities; and generation and disposal of fly ash by the Project Proponent and submit its additional report within two months by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.
15. It may be observed here that as per the above said report waste water sample was collected from the culvert by CPCB team and laboratory analysis result showed pH - 7.3, Total solids- 3688 mg/l, COD- 1027 mg/l, BOD- 506 mg/l and TSS- 667 mg/l. As per the information provided by Regional Officer, Moradabad of Uttar Pradesh O.A No. 152/2022 Ghanshyam Singh Pasi Vs. State of U.P.& Ors. 5 Pollution Control Board (UPPCB), the drain is entering Rampur city from Bilaspur gate, which is about four kilometer in the upstream of the sampling location. The drain carries sewage from Bilaspur gate colony, Pahari gate colony, Bamroha and other surrounding colonies and as informed by UPPCB, there is no industrial discharge in the drain. The drain was found covered with surface vegetation at many places and subsurface flow was observed at these places. As per analysis result, the pH value (7.3) was found in the neutral range i.e. 6.5 - 8.5, which does not match with the claim of discharge of chemical acidic effluent by M/s Radico Khaitan Ltd. in drain as mentioned in the complaint. As per physical observation during visit, no sense of odour and colour, which are typical characteristics of the effluent from the Distillery unit was felt by the team and no pipeline was visible to the team near the culvert. However, the other physicochemical characteristics i.e. BOD (506 mg/L) and COD (1027 mg/L) in the sample collected from the drain do not match with the typical characteristics of sewage (values are on higher side), and indicate discharge from trade/industrial activities alongwith sewage. The ground water at Hitachi bio-composting site (Piezometer no.
02) and Ajeetpur bio-composting site (Piezometer- 02, 03, 04 and Hand- pump) were found contaminated in terms of COD.
16. It is also pertinent to observed that as per the CPCB report monitoring result of ambient air quality monitoring carried out near Chairman Guest house of unit (Upwind side - 500 metres from stack), concentration of NO2, SO2 and PM10 was found as 41.83 µg/m3, 04 µg/m3 and 263.33 µg/m3 respectively against notified national ambient air quality standard of 80 µg/m3 , 80 µg/m3 and 100 µg/m3 as notified vide Gazette dated 18.11.2009 under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. As per the monitoring result of ambient air quality monitoring carried out near staff guest house of unit (Downwind side - O.A No. 152/2022 Ghanshyam Singh Pasi Vs. State of U.P.& Ors. 6 700 metres from stack), concentration of NO2, SO2 and PM10 was found to be 38.83 µg/m3 , 08 µg/m3 and 297 µg/m3 respectively against the notified standard of 80 µg/m3 , 80 µg/m3 and 100 µg/m3 as notified vide Gazette dated 18.11.2009 under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The UPPCB is directed to monitor the air quality within the premises of the Project Proponent and surrounding area and inventories the source of pollution and take remedial measures.
17. The CPCB has recommended that UPPCB may carry out the inventorization of the pollution source of the drains and groundwater and take measures for control of pollution. The CPCB has also recommended that UPPCB may carry out air ambient quality monitoring and prepare air quality management plan for the Industrial Area at Rampur, Uttar Pradesh.
18. In view of the above referred observations and recommendations UPPCB is directed to inventories the pollution of the drains and take measures for control of pollution. UPPCB is directed to file action taken report regarding compliance with recommendations made by CPCB within two months by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.
19. In compliance of order dated 26.04.2023 affidavit has been filed by the Project Proponent- Radico Khaitan Ltd vide email dated 03.10.2023.
20. We have also gone through the affidavit filed by the Project Proponent and we find that along with its affidavit the Project Proponent has attached copy of compliance report sent to UPPCB and has not filed any independent compliance status report in tabular format giving requisite details. In the affidavit there is no mention of CSR/CER activities carried out by the Project Proponent.
O.A No. 152/2022 Ghanshyam Singh Pasi Vs. State of U.P.& Ors. 7
21. Learned counsel for the Project Proponent seeks time to file additional affidavit for compliance with respect to the above mentioned aspects.
22. Additional affidavit be filed 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 specifically mentioning compliance status with respect to the abovementioned aspects as well as the recommendations made by the CPCB in its report with requisite details.
23. List for further consideration on 23.01.2024.
24. A copy of this order be sent to the Member Secretary, UPPCB and the Member Secretary, CPCB by email for requisite compliance.
Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM October 04th, 2023 ag