National Green Tribunal
Sachin Tomar vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 6 October, 2023
Item No.02 (Court No. 2)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(Through Physical Hearing with Hybrid VC Option)
Original Application No.369/2022
(I.A No. 279/2022)
Sachin Tomar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondent
Date of hearing: 06.10.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER.
Applicant: None for the applicant.
Respondent: None for respondent No.1-State of Uttar Pradesh.
Mr. A. M. Bangari, District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar-
Respondent no. 2 (through VC).
Mr. Pradeep Misra, Advocate for respondent No.3-
UPPCB (through VC)
Mr. Ankit, R.O. UPPCB (through VC).
Mr. Ninad Laud, Mr. Vivek Singh, and Ms. Rashika
Narain, Advocates for respondent no. 4.
Mr. Lokesh Kumar, General Manager, IPL (respondent
No.4) (through VC).
Application is registered based on a complaint received by Email.
ORDER
1. The grievance in the present application is about air and water pollution caused by M/s Titawi Sugar Mill in village Titawi, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh by discharging chemical waste water and emitting fly ash in violation of environmental norms creating serious health hazards to the local residents.
O. A. No. 369/2022 Sachin Tomar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
-2-
2. Vide order dated 24.05.2022, this Tribunal constituted a Joint Committee comprising of CPCB, State PCB and District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh and directed the same to submit factual and action taken report within two months which period was subsequently extended vide orders dated 26.08.2022 and 14.12.2022 and in compliance thereof Joint Committee submitted its report vide email dated 31.01.2023.
3. Vide order dated 18.09.2023 (i) the State of Uttar Pradesh, through Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh,(ii) District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh (iii) UPPCB and (iv) Project Proponent were impleaded as respondents no.1 to 4 and notices were issued to them requiring them file their response.
4. Pursuant to notice, short affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 4. In its reply respondent no. 4 has submitted that the recommendations which had been made in the show cause dated 23.01.2023 had all been strengthened and implemented by the respondent no. 4 which was also communicated to the Joint Committee and the UPPCB vide letters dated 01.02.2023. In its reply respondent no. 4 has also inter alia mentioned that it has invested amount of Rs. 3.47 Crore in the last two years for strengthening compliance with environmental norms and that respondent no. 4 participated in Vrahad Vraksha Ropan Maha Abhiyan-2023 and planted 5000 trees of various varieties such as Sagoon, Arjun, Amrood, Jamun, Shesham, Kanji and Sahjan.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 has submitted that copy of the original application has not been supplied to respondent No.4 due to which all the averments made in the original application could not be replied to by respondent no. 4.
O. A. No. 369/2022 Sachin Tomar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
-3-
6. Such objection as to non-supply of copy of original application with the notice or during hearing is being raised before this Tribunal in large number of cases. Generally, under the orders of this Bench copies of the original application and documents attached with the same is sent by email but there appears to be default in supplying copies of the same where hard copy of the notice is printed and served on the Project Proponents by the Registry or other agencies including the concerned District Magistrate. Under order dated , issued with approval of Hon'ble the Chair Person of this Tribunal, reports and documents filed before this Tribunal including replies, miscellaneous applications, review applications are uploaded on the website of this Tribunal and the lawyers and Parties are enabled to download the reports and other documents from the website of this Tribunal but the original applications (including original applications based on letter petitions) and interim applications are not being uploaded on the website of this Tribunal. The only reason appears to be to conceal the identity of the applicant for protection from harm from unscrupulous project proponents/ mining mafia but almost in all cases name of the applicant is disclosed in cause title and his identity is disclosed by the Joint Committes constituted by this Tribunal in the reports and can also be ascertained by obtaining certified copies of the original application and possibly bu submitting an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The mandate of principles of natural justice warrants that copies of such applications are supplied to the respondents with notice or at the time of first hearing. There may be no problem in supply of copies of such applications in cases where the applicant appears or is represented by Counsel but problem arises in cases like the present one where the applicant does not appear and is not represented by any Counsel. No doubt, in such cases the respondents would have the option of applying for certifies copies of such applications but the same would not only involve avoidable inconvenience and expenses to the O. A. No. 369/2022 Sachin Tomar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
-4-respondents but would also involve avoidable delay in disposal of cases and increase of administrative work and also work of copying agency. In cases where there is reasonable apprehension of harm to the applicant, requisite measures can be taken for his protection by issuing appropriate directions to the concerned Instrumentalities of State and also blacking out/erasing his identity with substitution by word 'X' in place of his name, parentage and address. In any case, the reason of 'security' of the applicant will not be applicable in cases where the applicant appears and/or is represented by Counsel. Uploading of the original applications, interim applications etc. and documents attached with the same on the website will make complete record of the case available to the lawyers and the parties and will add to transparency and fairness of the adjudication process. We do not find any plausible reason or valid justification for not uploading the original applications, interim applications etc. and documents attached with the same on the website of this Tribunal.
7. Vide order dated 06.09.2023, UPPCB was directed to file copy of the order whereby environmental compensation of Rs.76.2 crores had been imposed on the project proponent. Mr. Pradeep Mishra, learned counsel for UPPCB has submitted that the above said order has been reviewed by UPPCB and the environmental compensation has been reduced to the amount of Rs. 20,10,000/- and response in this regard was filed before this Tribunal on the previous night. On verification, we have found that report has been filed by UPPCB email today i.e dated 06.10.2023 at 11:01 A.M. after commencement of the hearing of the case.
8. By and large, it has become a general practice that the reports/responses are filed by the parties beyond the specified period just one day or a few hours before the scheduled hearing of the case and more often than not it is so done after verifying from the advance cause list that O. A. No. 369/2022 Sachin Tomar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
-5-the case is so listed for hearing as in cases where /reply is filed in compliance with order of this Tribunal. This practice of filing of reply/report just one day or a few hours before the scheduled hearing results in unnecessary adjournments and also denial of opportunity to other parties of representing against the same. The Bench is also deprived of going through the replies/reports filed before the hearing commences. Therefore, this practice needs to be remedied by issuance of appropriate directions that any reply/response filed beyond the period specified in the order will be accepted with an application for placing the same on the record and with an appropriate amount of costs (such as an amount of Rs. 25,000/- or higher as may be considered appropriate).
9. The Registry of this Tribunal is directed to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chair-person of this Tribunal for such further orders regarding these aspects, as may be considered appropriate, on administrative side,.
10. The Regional Officer, UPPCB is directed to verify the compliances made by respondent no. 4 as mentioned in its reply and submit further action taken report within two months by email at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Supported PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.
11. Respondent no. 4 is also directed to file additional reply mentioning in detail the green belt maintained by it, particulars of the land where the plantation of 5,000 trees was carried out, the activities which were carried out under CSR/CER schemes, amount proposed to be utilized during the remaining part of the financial year and the activities on which the same in proposed to be utilized.
12. The Member Secretary, UPPCB is directed to file an affidavit regarding the amount of environmental compensation which has been imposed on the O. A. No. 369/2022 Sachin Tomar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
-6-project proponents throughout the State of U.P., the amount which is yet to be realized, the amount which has been realized and is lying deposited with the UPPCB, the action plan/proposal for utilization of the amount for restoration of environment, mechanism evolved for verifying the development of green belts and verifying disposal of fly-ash by the project proponents in accordance with the EC/consent conditions. It may be added here that this Tribunal has observed in number of case that the project proponents enter into agreements with the third parties for disposal of fly-ash which are reporting compliance by submitting that the fly-ash is being disposed of in low lying areas. Since fly-ash generated by coal based industries contains harmful heavy metals, it is appropriate that the same is not utilized for filling of any agricultural areas and is utilized by cement or brick making industry. These aspects have to be looked into and the monitoring mechanism needs to evolved to ensure proper disposal of fly-ash.
13. Affidavit be filed by the Member Secretary, UPPCB within three months with all requisite details and a copy of the affidavit shall also be uploaded on the website of UPPCB.
14. In the present case the applicant had made allegations regarding discharge of effluents from the respondent no. 4-Indian Potash Limited (Titawi Sugar Complex) into storm water drain and the Joint Committee found the allegations to be partially correct as respondent no. 4- Indian Potash Limited (Titawi Sugar Complex) had by passed the systems installed with possibility of discharge industrial effluent treated/untreated into storm water drain. Mr. A. M. Bangari, District Magistrate , Muzaffarnagar and Mr. Ankit, R.O. UPPCB have appeared before us through VC and we have interacted with them. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar is directed to constitute a Joint Committee of the officers which shall verify that no industrial effluent is discharged by any of the industries operating in O. A. No. 369/2022 Sachin Tomar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
-7-Muzaffarnagar in storm water drain and the UPPCB is directed to monitor the quality of the water reaching the river and appropriate action be taken against the defaulting industries.
15. Joint Action Taken Report shall be submitted by the District Magistrate and R.O. UPPCB, Muzaffarnagar in this regard within three months by email at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Supported PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.
16. List for further consideration on 18.01.2024.
17. A copy of this order be forwarded to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, Member Secretary, UPPCB and Regional Officer, UPPCB Muzaffarnagar by e-mail for compliance.
Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM October 06, 2023 N