National Green Tribunal
Mr. Sakharam Asaram Kale vs Regional Officer Mpcb on 8 August, 2024
Item No.8 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[Through Physical Hearing (with Hybrid Option)]
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2019 (WZ)
Mr. Sakharam Asaram Kale & Anr. Applicants
Versus
Regional Officer, MPCB & Ors. Respondents
Date of hearing : 08.08.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicants : Mr. Tanaji Gambhire, Advocate
Respondents : Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R-1
Mr. S.S. Ladda, Advocate for R-2 to R-4
Mr. R.B. Mahabal, Advocate for R-5
Mr. Anirudha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-6
ORDER
1. After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants, it transpired that the main grievance raised by the applicants relates to the violation of terms and conditions of the Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 23.06.2014, which is annexed at page Nos.28 to 34 of the paper-book, wherein following five terms and conditions under the head `Specific Conditions' have been stated to have not been complied with by respondent Nos.2 to 4 - NHAI and respondent No.5 - M/s Modern Road Makers Pvt. Ltd., which is one of the sub-contractors who worked on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 :
"(iv) Rain Water Harvesting including oil and grease trap shall be provided. Water harvesting structures shall be located at every 500 mtrs along the road. Vertical drain type rainwater harvesting structures shall be set up to minimize surface runoff losses of rainwater.[NPJ] Page 1 of 4
(vii) The responses/commitments made during public hearing shall be completed with letter and spirit.
(ix) Green Belt development shall be undertaken as suggested n EMP.
(xii) Sidewalks shall be provided along the bridges
(xiii) The drain shall be at least 1 m away from the toe of the embankment of the road adopting IRC guidelines."
2. Today, learned counsel for the applicants has also filed written submissions in order to assist this Tribunal to appreciate the pleadings and the points involved herein.
3. By our previous order dated 22.04.2024, we had directed respondent No.7 - Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Nagpur, who was being represented by learned counsel Mr. D.M. Gupte, to file the reply-affidavit within two days by way of last opportunity. But today, neither Mr. Gupte nor any other person representing the said respondent has appeared, nor any reply-affidavit has been filed.
4. The compliance of our order dated 22.04.2024 in paragraph No.3 has been admitted to have been done by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4-NHAI as he has received copies of the letters which has been handed over to him.
5. From the side of respondent No.1-MPCB, learned counsel Ms. Manasi Joshi has appeared and states that the calculation of EDC as against respondent No.5 has already been done, against which objections dated 10.04.2023 have been filed by learned counsel Mr. R.B. Mahabal representing respondent No.5. Apart from that, it is also apprised by Mr. Mahabal that against the order passed by MPCB calculating the amount of EDC, which is sought to be levied from respondent No.5, a separate appeal has been filed on 06.05.2022 before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Under Secretary, Environment Department under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31 of [NPJ] Page 2 of 4 the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, which is still pending.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 has argued that till the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority is decided by the said Authority-Environment Department against which an appeal would lie to this Tribunal, then only this Tribunal would have jurisdiction to entertain and hear that appeal. Till then, no EDC can be levied from respondent No.5.
7. From the side of respondent Nos.2 to 4-NHAI, learned counsel Mr. S.S. Ladda has appeared and submits that affidavit-in-reply dated 24.01.2022 has been filed wherein he has given the details of number of trees felled by the NHAI, which is 20,694 and the total number of trees planted in lieu thereof is 2,72,532. He also states that he has filed the permissions which were granted for felling of trees which are annexed from page No.171 onwards of the paper-book, which is in Marathi language. In the permission dated 20.06.2015, the number of trees permitted to be felled is 5106, in permission dated 07.07.2015, the number of such trees is 44, in permission dated 13.07.2015, the number of trees permitted to be felled is 167, in another permission dated 13.07.2015, no specific number of trees is mentioned, in permission dated 06.08.2015, the number of trees permitted to be felled is 1752, in the permission dated 23.07.2015, the number of trees shown is 820 and in the permission dated 24.07.2015, the number of trees permitted to be felled is 397. Thus, the total number of trees permitted to be felled is 8286 as calculated by the learned counsel for the applicants. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, this number of trees is not matching with the figure given by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. In column No.5 of their affidavit, cited above, wherein number of trees felled is shown to be 20,694. The permissions granted in [NPJ] Page 3 of 4 respect of 8286 trees have been annexed with the affidavit while the permissions against remaining trees (20,694 - 8286) have not been annexed therewith, which needs to be explained by him by filing a clear affidavit in this regard.
8. From the side of the applicants, during arguments, it is pointed out that according to the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 - NHAI, the number of trees planted is 2,72,532, which is absolutely wrong figure and the photographs, which are annexed with the said affidavit, are not falling in the specific category of trees and some of the trees do not appear to be of local species while the terms and conditions stipulated in the EC were to the effect that the trees shall be planted of local species.
9. Since this fact, where such number of trees which had been allowed to have been planted, has been carried out by respondent Nos.2 to 4 - NHAI, has to be got verified for which we wanted reply-affidavit to be filed from the side of respondent No.7 - Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF), Maharashtra from whose side, none has appeared today. Therefore, we direct the Registry to write a letter to the Secretary, Revenue and Forests (Forests), State of Maharashtra, apprising him about the non-appearance from the side of respondent No.7 - PCCF with a request to direct the said Authority to appear before this Tribunal on the next date either in person or through VC and ensure that the reply- affidavit is filed from their side in this matter. Copy of this order shall also be served upon him.
10. Put up this matter for next consideration on 27.11.2024.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM August 08, 2024 O.A. No.59/2019(WZ) npj [NPJ] Page 4 of 4