Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

National Green Tribunal

Sandplast (India) Ltd vs Ministry Of Environment, Forest And ... on 11 December, 2014

Author: Swatanter Kumar

Bench: Swatanter Kumar

                       BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL,
                          PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

           M.A. Nos. 667/2014, 686/2014, 781/2014, 840/2014, 858/2014,
                               872/2014 to 874/2014
                                          In
                         Original Application No.102 of 2014

IN THE MATTER OF:

                    Sandplast (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. MoEF & Ors.

CORAM :        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, CHAIRPERSON
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE U.D. SALVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
               HON'BLE DR. D.K. AGRAWAL, EXPERT MEMBER
               HON'BLE PROF. A.R. YOUSUF, EXPERT MEMBER

Present:       Applicant:                Ms. Tasneema Ahmadi and Mr. Pramod Kumar,
                                         Advocates.
                                         Mr. Ajit, Advocate in 840/2014
                                         Mr. Anand Verma, Adv. in 781/2014
               Respondent No. 2 & 115    Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate

Respondent No. 9 & 10 Ms. Puja Kalra, Advocate Respondent No. 4,12 & 128 Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Advocate Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Bharat Sangal and Ms. Srijana Lama, Advocates Respondent No. 17,36,56,78&98 Mr. Atul Jha, Advocate Respondent No. 25,64 & 86 Mr. C.D. Singh and Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocates Respondent No. 47 & 67 Mr. Shubham Bhalla, Adv.

Respondent No. 63 Mr. Mukesh Verma Respondent No. 6, 45 & 65 Mr. Biraja Mahapatra, Adv. Dinesh Jindal, LO, DPCC Respondent No. 106 Mr. Ravin Dubey, Advocate Respondent No. 129 Mr. Ashok Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ghanshyam, Adv. and Mr. P.K. Manohar, Advocates Respondent No.17,36,56,78&98 Mr. Vikram Singh, Adv. and Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocates Respondent No. 113 Mr. Amit Agrawal, Adv.

Mr. Sachin Das and Mr. Mikas Karjofta, Advs. Respondent No. 116 Mr. Krishan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate Respondent No. 5,39,59&101 Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv., Mr. Bano Deswal and Mr. S.S. Hooda, Advocates Respondent No. 26,46,66,88&108 Mr. Ashok Panigrahi and Mr. Ashmi Mohavi Respondent No. 11 Mr. Balendushekhar and Mr. Vivek Jaiswal, Advocates Respondent No. 28,48,68,127,90 & 110 Mr. Ajay Choudhary and Mr. Ankit R. Kothari, Advocates Respondent No. 18,37,57,79&99 Mr. Bansuri Swaraj, Mr. Snigdha Pandey and Mr. Kaushik, Advocates Respondent No. 4,12&128 Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Advocate Respondent No. 9 & 10 Ms. Puja Kalra, Advocate for North & South MCD Respondent No. 109 Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Mr. Vishal Dabas and Mr. Ajay P. Tushir, Advocate Respondent No. 120 Mr. Rajiv Bansal with Mr. Kush Sharma, Advs. Respondent No. 34 Ms. Kanikana Arandhara, Adv. for state of Assam.

Respondent No. 121 Mr. D. Bhadra,Adv for NBCC Ltd. Respondent No. 38 Ms. Preeti Bhardwaj for Hemantika Wahi Respondent No. 49,69&91 Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna with Ms. Vanita Chandrakant Giri, Advocates Respondent No. 2,3,22,71,61,83,103,115&175 Mr. Devashish Biaruka, Advocate Respondent No. 3,8&73 Mr. B.V. Niren & Mr. Prasouk Jain, Advs. Respondent No. 23,42,62&84 Mr. Devraj Ashok, Advocate Respondent No. 14,33,53,75&95 Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Mr. Akanksha and Mr. N. Sai Vinod, Advocates Respondent No. 7,45,65,87&107 Mr. Sushil Dutt Sahwan, Adv. Respondent No. 111 Mr. S. Vallinayagam, Adv. Respondent No. 13 Mr. Om Prakash with Mr. Jwala Prasad, Adv. for Railway Respondent No. 117 Mr. Moni Cinmoy, Adv. for DSIIDC Respondent No. 95 Mr. Guntur Prabhakar and Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, Advocates Respondent No. 24,43&105 Mr. Ajit S. Bhasme and Mr. Pankar Kr. Mishra, Advocates Respondent No. 16,35,55,77&97 Mr. Rudreshwar Singh with Mr. Gopal Jha, Advs.

Respondent No. 123 Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate for Airport Authority of India Respondent No. 119 Ms. Beena Rani Pandey, Adv. Respondent No. 74 Mr. Abhishek Paruthi, Advocate Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv., Mr. S. Panda and Mr. M. Paikaray, Advocate for OSPCB Mr. Vikas Malhotra, Adv. for MoEF Mr. Akhil Sigal Tusija, Advocate Mr. Shwetha Bidhuri and Mr. Haaris Fazili, Advocates for Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Date and Orders of the Tribunal Remarks Item No. 28, The Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant December 11, 2014 has referred to the various paragraphs of the Affidavit and Annexure attached thereto filed by the MoEF at some length. She has clearly demonstrated that MoEF is failing in its statutory duty of preventing and control of pollution resulting from fly ash generated by the thermal plants.

On the one hand, the Ministry has put embargo on use of red bricks, on the other hand, no effort has been made to ensure that the brick manufactured from the fly ash are made available to the public at reasonable rates. She further contends that the monitoring by the MoEF and the State Agencies in that regard is completely lacking.

According to her, the data furnished apparently if not incorrect cannot be even supported by any plausible documents or data.

The state of Odisha is granted time to file requisite Affidavits in terms of the Order of the Tribunal within one week from today.

In the circumstances aforestated, we direct the Joint Director who has sworn this Affidavit along with the Joint Secretary concerned to be present before the Tribunal on 17th December, 2014.

Reasons will be provided as to why the data could not be collected from the Regional Offices in the States or the Monitoring Committee of the States.

The Joint Director and the Joint Secretary shall state before the Tribunal as to what they would mean by the land development utilisation of the fly ash which is shown to be 32 per cent of the total generation.

We further direct all the industries, thermal plant present before us to file Affidavits showing the quantum of fly ash generated by them and its utilisation and why they should not be directed either individually or collectively for installing the brick manufacturing units and respective States be directed to facilitate the sale of such bricks manufactured within the 100 KMs radius that has been specified in the Notification under consideration. Let such Affidavit be filed and records be produced before one week from today.

All industries, Respondents, non-Applicants are permitted to file Replies within one week from today if not already filed.

This Application is allowed subject to just exception.

None of the averments made in the said application would be construed as being admitted by any of the party in this case. Application is allowed to the limited extent of impleadment and the impleaded party would be heard on merit of the case. Liberty to the Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant to file Reply Affidavit to this Application if she may so desire which would be considered on merit. With the above directions and observations, M. A.No. 840 of 2014 stands disposed of.

This Application has been moved for impleadement.

The same is allowed subject to just exception. The contents of the Application are not admitted by any of the non-Applicants. Liberty is granted to the them to file Reply to this Application, if they so desire on merit with the directions to be considered on merits at the final hearing.

With the above observation the impleadment is allowed and M.A. No. 873 of 2014 stands disposed of.

M.A. No. 872 of 2014, M.A. No. 874 of 2014 and M.A. No. 858 of 2014 Notice be issued in these Misc. Applications.

Copies of the Applications be furnished to all the learned counsel appearing in the case. Reply thereto be filed within one week from today.

..........................................,CP (Swatanter Kumar) .........................................,JM (U.D. Salvi) .........................................,EM (Dr. D.K. Agrawal) .........................................,EM (Prof. A.R. Yousuf)